*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] EO12866_Rin2070-AJ57_LRRP Clearance_FRM_draft_2011-04-14.docx 1 As submitted for review under EO 12866. 2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 3

ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TECTION AGENCY 4 40 CFR Part 745 5 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049; FRL–8823-5] 6 RIN 2070–AJ57 7 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requi rements for the Renovation, Repair, and 8 Painting Program 9 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 10 ACTION: Final rule

. 11 SUMMARY: On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2008 Lead 12 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that established accreditation, training, 13 certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons 14 performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-o ccupied facilities. 15 EPA has decided not to promulga te dust wipe testing and clearance requirements as proposed. 16 However, EPA is promulgating several other re visions to the RRP ru le, including a provision 17 allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint ch ip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory 18 for analysis, minor changes to the training progr am accreditation application process, standards 19 for e-learning in accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized 20 state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions to the trai ning and certification 21 requirements for renovators. EPA is also promul gating clarifications to the requirements for 22 vertical containment on exterior renovation projects, the prohibited or restricted work practice 23 provisions, and the requirements for high-efficien cy particulate air (HEP A) vacuums. Today's 24*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] action is EPA's final action on all asp ects of the May 6, 2010 proposal. 25 DATES: This final rule is effective [ insert date [60] days after date of publication in the Federal 26 Register ]. 27 ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) 28 number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 29 available at http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, some information is not 30 publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business In formation (CBI) or other information whose 31 disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, suchas copyrighted material, is not 32 placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 33 materials are available inthe electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only available 34 in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center 35 (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 C onstitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 36 EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 37 Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC P ublic Reading Room is 38 (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for th e OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. Docket 39 visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign 40 the EPA visitor log. All visito r bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to 41 search. Visitors will be provi ded an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the 42 building and returned upon departure. 43 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact : Cindy 44 Wheeler, National Program Chem icals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and 45 Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 46 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0484; e-mail address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 47 For general information contact : The TSCA-Hotline , ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton 48*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 3 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA49 Hotline@epa.gov

. 50 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 51 I. Does this Action Apply to Me? 52 You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform re novations of target 53 housing or child-occupied facilities for compensation, dust sampling, or du st testing. You may 54 also be affected by this action if you perform lead -based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, 55 risk assessments or abatements in target housing or child-occupied facili ties or if you operate a 56 training program for individuals who perform any of these activities . “Target housing” is defined 57 in section 401 of TSCA as any housing constructed prior to 19 78, except housing for the elderly 58 or persons with disabilities (unless any child under ag e 6 resides or is expect ed to reside in such 59 housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under this ru le, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a 60 portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6 years 61 of age, on at least 2 different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday period), provided 62 that each day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits la st at least 6 hours, and 63 the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. 64 Potentially-affected entities may include, but are not limited to: 65 • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g. , single family housing construction, multi66 family housing construction, residential remodelers. 67 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g. , plumbing, heating, and air68 conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, el ectrical contractors, finish 69 carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contract ors, tile and terrazzo 70 contractors, glass a nd glazing contractors. 71 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g. , lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 72*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 4 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] residential property managers. 73 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 74 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g. , elementary schools with 75 kindergarten classrooms. 76 • Other technical and trad e schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g. , training providers. 77 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS 78 code 541350), e.g. , dust sampling technicians. 79 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g. , firms and supervisors 80 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 81 This listing is not intended to be exhaustiv e, but rather provides a guide for readers 82 regarding entities likely to be aff ected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 83 could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 84 have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to 85 certain entities. If you have any que stions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 86 entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 87 CONTACT

. 88 II. Background 89
A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 90 On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, 91 Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that es tablished accreditation, trai ning, certification, and 92 recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards fo r persons performing 93 renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-o ccupied facilities (Ref. 1). 94 Specifically, EPA proposed requirements for dust wi pe testing, clearance, allowing a certified 95 renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recogni zed laboratory for analysis, minor 96*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] changes to the training program accreditation app lication process, standards for e-learning in 97 accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal 98 renovation programs, and minor revisions to th e training and certificat ion requirements for 99 renovators. EPA has decided not to promulgate dust wipe testi ng and clearance requirements as 100 proposed. However, EPA is promulgating severa l of the other proposed revisions to the RRP 101 rule, including a provision allowi ng a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it 102 to a recognized laboratory for analysis, minor changes to th e training program accreditation 103 application process, standard s for e-learning in accredite d training programs, minimum 104 enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions 105 to the training and certification requirement s for renovators. EPA is also promulgating 106 clarifications to the requirements for vertical containment on ex terior renovation projects, the 107 prohibited or restricted work practice provisions, and the requ irements for high-efficiency 108 particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's action is EPA's final action on all aspects of the May 6, 109 2010 proposal. 110
B. What is the Agency's Author ity for Taking this Action? 111 These work practice, training, certification and accr editation requirements, and the State, 112 Territorial and Tribal authori zation provisions are being promul gated under the authority of 113 sections 402(c)(3), 404, and 407 of the Toxic Substances Co ntrol Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 114 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. 115
C. What are the Specific Provisions of this Action? 116
1. Clearance and dust wipe testing requirements for renovations. As discussed in this 117 unit, EPA has decided not to promulgate cl earance and dust wipe te sting requirements as 118 proposed in May 2010 for certain renovations co vered by the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and 119 Painting (RRP) rule (Ref. 2). 120*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] a. Background . In promulgating the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA determined that 121 renovation, repair, and painting activities, when perf ormed in the presence of lead-based paint, 122 create lead-based paint hazards. Section 402(c)( 3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 123 directs EPA to revise its regulations governing lead-based paint in spections, risk assessments, and 124 abatements (the Lead-based Paint Activities Regul ations, or abatement regulations, Ref. 3) to 125 apply to renovation and remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. Accordingly, 126 the 2008 RRP rule establishe d accreditation, training, certif ication, and recordkeeping 127 requirements as well as work practice standards for persons performing renovations for 128 compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-o ccupied facilities. Among other things, the 129 work practice standards require renovation firms to follow specifi c requirements for containing 130 the work area, refrain from using certain hi gh-dust-generating work practices, and follow a 131 specific cleaning protocol, includi ng a step called “cleaning veri fication,” after concluding the 132 paint-disturbing tasks invo lved in a renovation. 133 As discussed in the preamble to the 2010 pr oposal, EPA is particularly concerned about 134 dust-lead hazards generated by renovations because of the well-documented toxicity of lead, 135 especially to younger children. Lead is known fo r its “broad array of deleterious effects on 136 multiple organ systems via widely diverse mechanisms of action.” (Ref. 4) This array of health 137 effects includes heme biosynthesis and related functions; neurological development and function; 138 reproduction and physical development; kidney f unction; cardiovascular function; and immune 139 function. There is also some evidence of lead carcinogenicity, primarily from animal studies, 140 together with limited human evidence of suggestive associations. For a more detailed discussion 141 of the health effects of lead e xposure, refer to information in the 2010 proposal (Ref. 1) and the 142 2008 RRP final rule (Ref. 2). 143 One of the more difficult issues in the 2008 RRP rulemaking was the issue of determining 144*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] when a renovation work area has been properly cl eaned and is ready for reoccupancy. After a 145 lead-based paint abatement project, EPA’s Lead-B ased Paint Activities Regulations require the 146 abatement contractor to achieve clearance. This means that the contractor must demonstrate, 147 through dust wipe testing, that dust lead levels remaining in the abatement work area are below 148 the clearance levels es tablished in the 2001 rule making entitled “Identification of Dangerous 149 Levels of Lead” under section 403 of the Toxic Su bstances Control Act (Ref. 5). Dust wipe 150 samples for clearance purposes must be collect ed by a certified individu al and analyzed by an 151 entity recognized under the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP). 152 When promulgating the 2008 RRP rule, EPA cons idered requiring a similar process after 153 renovations, but for various reasons, did not do so. EPA did not interpret its statutory mandate 154 under TSCA section 402(c)(3) as simply expanding the scope of the Lead-based Paint Activities 155 Regulations to also cover renova tion activities. Rather, EPA st ated, in the final 2008 RRP rule, 156 its belief that Congress intended for EPA to make revisions to those existi ng regulations to adapt 157 them to a different set of activit ies and a very different regulated community. In establishing the 158 cleaning element of the work practice requirement s for renovations, EPA primarily relied on the 159 results of two studies, the “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Fiel d Study in Residential Housing” 160 (Ref. 6) and the “Characterization of Dust Lead Levels afte r Renovation, Repair, and Painting 161 Activities” (the “Dust Study,” Ref. 7) to dete rmine that the full suite of RRP work practice 162 requirements, including containment, cleani ng, and cleaning verification, was effective at 163 minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazar ds created by renovation, repair, and painting 164 activities. 165 EPA also considered various other factors as well as issues raised by commenters. Among 166 these were the differences between abatement and renovation, the costs of dust wipe testing and 167 clearance, the potential delay in obtaining re sults, and the likelihood that renovation firms would 168*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] become liable for pre-existing dust-lead hazards. Abatements have only one purpose, to 169 permanently eliminate lead-based paint or l ead-based paint hazards, while renovations are 170 performed for many reasons that often have nothing to do with lead-based paint. Concerns about 171 the costs of dust wipe testing and clearance we re brought to EPA’s atte ntion during stakeholder 172 input opportunities provided by EPA before th e proposed RRP rule was issued in 2006 and 173 echoed by commenters on the 2006 proposed RRP rule . If EPA had required dust wipe testing 174 and clearance after every renovation project, it would have made up a significant portion of the 175 cost of smaller projects. In addition, dust wipe testing results may not be available for several 176 days. If EPA had required tradit ional abatement-style clearance after renovations, the work area 177 would not be able to be re-occ upied while waiting for the laboratory results. Commenters also 178 noted that requiring clearance af ter renovation jobs could, in so me instances, result in the 179 renovation firm being held responsible for abatin g all dust-lead hazards, including such hazards 180 that may have existed in the area before the renovation commenced. 181 Other commenters on the 2006 proposed RRP ru le thought that renov ation work areas 182 ought to be tested and cleared fo r re-occupancy in the same way that abatement work areas are 183 cleared through the cl earance process, including dust wipe testing. Many commenters believed 184 that renovation firms should be required to demons trate that no dust-lead hazards had been left 185 behind in the work area. These commenters cont ended that the only effective way to do this is 186 through dust wipe testing and clearance. Wh ile EPA understood the i ssues raised by these 187 commenters, and agreed with some of the points that they made, EPA remained convinced that 188 the suite of RRP work practices would be practical for renovation firms to implement while 189 effectively minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. The RRP work 190 practices are, in essence, requirements to en sure that renovators undertake traditional renovation 191 activities – e.g., removal or modification of ex isting surfaces, containment and cleanup of dust 192*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 9 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] and debris, and ensuring the job s ite is cleaned up – in a lead -safe way. EPA believes the RRP 193 rule effectively minimizes exposure to hazards generated by renovation activities without 194 imposing practices and disciplines that are outside the scope of traditional renovation activities. 195 More information on the comments received and EP A’s decisions can be found in the preamble to 196 the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 2). 197 b. 2010 Proposal. Based on additional stakeholder input received after the final rule was 198 issued, and an August 2009 agreement entered into with several environmental and children's 199 health advocacy groups in settlement of their lawsuit challenging the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA 200 agreed to consider whether some of the decision s made in 2008 with regard to dust wipe testing 201 and clearance should be modified. 202 Accordingly, on May 6, 2010, EPA proposed to require dust wipe testing after many 203 renovations covered by the RRP rule (Ref. 1). Under the 2010 proposal, dust wipe testing would 204 have been required on uncarpeted floors, windowsill s, and window troughs in the work area after 205 the following types of interior renovations: 206 • Use of a heat gun at temperat ures below 1100 degr ees Fahrenheit. 207 • Removal or replacement of window or door frames. 208 • Scraping 60 ft 2 or more of painted surfaces. 209 • Removing more than 40 ft 2 of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures. 210 After these renovations, the renovation firm would have been required to collect dust wipe 211 samples and have them analyzed for lead cont ent by an entity recogni zed under NLLAP. The 212 renovation firm would then have been required to provide these results to the owners and 213 occupants of the renovated property. 214 For another subset of jobs involving demo lition or removal of plaster through destructive 215 means or the disturbance of paint using machin es designed to remove paint through high-speed 216*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] operation, such as power sanders or abrasive blasters, EPA proposed to require the renovation 217 firm to achieve clearance. This would have involved a demonstration, through dust wipe testing, 218 that dust-lead levels remaining on uncarpeted floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the 219 work area were below regulatory clearance levels . These clearance levels would have been 220 identical to the clearance levels established for the lead-based paint abatement program, which are 221 codified at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), i.e. , 40 μ g/ft 2 on floors, 250 μ g/ft 2 on interior windowsills, 222 and 400 μ g/ft 2 on window troughs, based on wipe samples. These additional requirements in the 223 2010 proposal were designed to ensure that le ad-based paint hazards generated by renovation 224 work are adequately cleaned afte r renovation work is finished and before the work areas are re225 occupied. 226

c. This final rule. Maintaining the distinc tion between abatement and renovation activities 227 has been an important issue th roughout the rulemaking process fo r the 2008 RRP rule. As 228 discussed in the preamble to the 2008 RRP ru le, abatements and renovations are performed by 229 different contractors for diffe rent purposes, although similar activities, su ch as window 230 replacements, may be involved. Typically, when anabatement is performed, the housing is either 231 unoccupied or the occupants are temporarily re located to lead-safe housing until the abatement 232 has been demonstrated to have been properly completed through the clearance pr ocess. Carpet in 233 the housing is usually removed as part of the abat ement because it is difficult to demonstrate that 234 it is free of lead-based paint hazards. Uncarpete d floors that have not been replaced during the 235 abatement may need to be refinished or sealed inorder to achieve clearance. Abatements have 236 only one purpose--to permanently eliminate lead-bas ed paint and lead-based paint hazards. In 237 contrast, renovations other than in terim controls are performed for reasons unrelated to lead-based 238 paint or lead-based paint hazards. Renovations may be performed while the property is occupied 239 or unoccupied, but occupants do not typically relo cate pending the completi on of the project. 240*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] EPA did not design or intend the RRP rule to address cleanup of pre-existing dust-lead 241 hazards. While the cleaning requirements of the RRP rule will, in some cases, have the ancillary 242 benefit of removing some pre-ex isting dust-lead hazards, the cleaning requirements were designed 243 to effectively clean-up lead-bas ed paint hazards created duri ng renovation activities without 244 changing the scope of the renovatio n activity itself. Accordingl y, the RRP rule does not require 245 cleaning of dust or any other possi ble lead sources in portions of target housing or child-occupied 246 facilities beyond locations in and around the work area. Nor does the RRP rule require the 247 replacement of carpets in the ar ea of the renovation or the refini shing or sealing of uncarpeted 248 floors. The approach in the RRP rule was desi gned to address the lead-based paint hazards 249 created during the renovation whil e not requiring renovation firm s to remediate or eliminate 250 hazards beyond the scope of the work they were hired to do. 251 In addition, EPA has interprete d practicality in implementation to be an element of the 252 statutory directive to take into account effectiv eness and reliability. As discussed in the preamble 253 to the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA believes that, give n the highly variable nature of the regulated 254 community, the work practices required by the RRP rule should be simple to understand and easy 255 to use. EPA is cognizant of the fact that the RRP rule applies to a range of individuals from day 256 laborers to property maintenance staff to master craftsmen performing a range of activities from 257 simple drywall repair to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath renovations to 258 building additions and everything inbetween. Work practices that are easy and practical to use 259 are more likely to be followed by all of the persons who perform renovations, and, therefore, 260 more likely to be reliable and effective in minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards 261 created by renovation activi ties. 262 The 2010 proposal for this rule was EPA’s atte mpt to explore whether clearance and dust 263 wipe testing requirements should be added to th e RRP rule to provide additional protection for 264*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] some renovations. EPA’s intention was to do this without generallyholding renovation firms 265 responsible for abating pre-existi ng dust-lead hazards or creating requirements that would impair 266 the overall reliability and effectiveness of the work practice requirements. 267 EPA received over 300 comments on its 2010 proposal. Members of the regulated 268 community and other industry commenters were generally concerned th at EPA had upset the 269 balance it had struck in the 2008 RRP rule, argu ing that a dust wipe testing or clearance 270 requirement would have the effect of holding renovation firms responsible for pre-existing 271 hazards, whether directly by regulation, in the cas e of the proposed clearance requirements, or 272 indirectly by requiring firms to provide inform ation on post-renovation dust lead levels to the 273 property owner and occupant. While there wa s little support for dust wipe testing alone, 274 commenters that supported the 2010 proposal gene rally thought that a clearance requirement 275 should be imposed and expanded to most, if not all, renovations. 276 After carefully weighing the issues at st ake and considering the concerns raised by 277 commenters, and as explained in greater detail below, EPA has concluded that, on balance, the 278 information before the Agency does not support imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance 279 requirement on renovations. In particular, EPA is convinced that the work practices established 280 in the 2008 RRP rule are reliable, effective, and safe, and that imposing a dust wipe testing or 281 clearance requirement is unwarranted. 282 Almost all of the commenters were opposed to the proposed provisi ons requiring only dust 283 wipe testing after certain renovations. Members of the regulated community and other industry 284 commenters argued that a dust wi pe testing requirement would have the effect of holding 285 renovation firms responsible for pre-existing hazard s, albeit indirectly, by requiring firms to 286 provide information on post-renovati on dust lead levels to the prope rty owner and occupant. This 287 requirement would also have the effect of adding an element that is not generally considered a 288*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] renovation activity, i.e. , taking samples for laboratory analys is, and indeed, would have to be 289 performed by a third party or only after a renovato r received training in a separate and distinct 290 discipline—either as a dust wipe sample technician or a lead-based paint inspector. In addition, 291 many argued that the Dust Study generally shows th at the RRP work practi ces are effective at 292 minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazard s created by renovations, so additional dust 293 wipe testing or clearance requi rements are unnecessary. These co mmenters noted that this is 294 particularly true for the renovations for which EPA proposed to require only dust wipe testing, 295 because those renovations were sp ecifically tested in the DustStudy. In addition, commenters 296 suggested that the categories of jobs for which du st wipe testing or clearance would be required 297 were arbitrary and not based on sufficient evidence. 298 Some commenters, including several states, also questioned the utility and value of dust 299 wipe testing in the absence of a clearance requ irement. Some were concerned that property 300 owners and occupants would not understand the significance of th e results of dust wipe samples 301 that exceed the clearance standards or what steps they should take to protect themselves and their 302 families. One argued that, in the absence of st andards and required remedial actions, dust wipe 303 testing would add expense and time to a renovati on project without providi ng a concrete increase 304 in protection for occupants. On the other hand, other commenters contended that the feedback 305 provided by numerical dust wipe testing results would result in improved cleaning performance 306 on the part of renovation firms. Some cited anec dotal evidence of poor contractor performance in 307 other programs, such as the abatement program, in support of a contention that the RRP rule work 308 practices would not be as effective at minimizi ng dust-lead hazards as they were in the Dust 309 Study. 310 Additionally, after considering previous interpretations of the statutory requirements and 311 the comments received on this specific issue, EP A is not convinced that dust wipe testing in the 312*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] absence of a clearance requirement would be a sa fe, reliable and effective work practice within 313 the meaning of TSCA § 402. As commenters noted, provision of dust wipe testing results in the 314 absence of a clearance requirement does not by itself reduce the amount of dust generated during 315 or left behind following a renovation. Furthermore, dust wipe testing results alone are not part of 316 the information that must be provided at th e pre-renovation stage under Section 406(b) of TSCA, 317 and providing this type of information is not ty pically considered a renov ation work practice. 318 Again, the dust wipe testing would either have to be done by a third party or by a renovator who 319 has taken a course and been trained in a completely different discipline. 320 EPA believes these commenters raise valid consid erations. In particular, EPA agrees that 321 the Dust Study demonstrates that with respect to these very activities, the suite of RRP work 322 practices reliably addressed th e hazards created by the renovation. In addition, although EPA 323 attempted in its 2010 proposal to distinguish re novation activities that it thought warranted the 324 addition of a dust wipe testing requirement from those that did not (and from those that warranted 325 imposition of a clearance requirement), EPA ac knowledges that its 2010 pr oposal lacked a strong 326 basis for drawing these lines – a point made by many commenters. While some commenters 327 urged the point that dust wipe testing would encourage bette r cleanup, and provided anecdotal 328 support for that view, EPA has no record basis to judge the likelihood orfrequency of this 329 potential impact. This logic coul d potentially lead to requiring dus t wipe testing for all jobs – a 330 significant change in the existing rule that EPA is not prepared to make without better supporting 331 evidence. Accordingly, upon the information before it, the Agency does not believe that a dust 332 testing requirement alone is warranted. EPA not es that homeowners can arrange to have dust 333 wipe testing done as part of a renovation (or at any time) if they would like information about 334 dust-lead levels in their homes. 335 EPA also proposed to require that renovation firms achieve clearance for a subset of jobs 336*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint 337 using machines designed to remove paint throug h high-speed operation, such as power sanders or 338 abrasive blasters. Nonetheless, EPA remained concerned about promulgating a requirement that 339 could make renovation firms responsible for pre- existing conditions and fundamentally change 340 the scope of the renovati on activity itself. Therefore, to avoid making renovation firms replace 341 carpets or refinish floors when they were not hired to do so, EPA proposed to allow a renovation 342 firm to stop after two failed dust wipe tests on a particular surface if the firm was not hired to 343 refinish or replace that surface. 344 EPA was particularly concerned about these type s of jobs because it had evidence that the 345 work practices were not effective when machin es designed to remove paint through high speed 346 operation were operated without HEPA shrouds a nd created large quantities of dust. EPA was 347 concerned that even if such machines were equi pped with HEPA shrouds, the RRP work practices 348 may not be effective at minimizing exposure to lead hazards created by the renovation. 349 Additionally, EPA stated its belief that dust created by the demolition or removal of plaster was 350 similarly difficult to clean and therefore the RRP work practices might not be effective at 351 minimizing exposure to lead hazards created by the renovation. 352 With respect to the proposed clearance requi rements, commenters generally fell into two 353 camps. Commenters who were in “favor” of th e 2010 proposal nonetheless generally argued that 354 the proposed clearance requirements should be e xpanded to cover most if not all renovation 355 activities because clearance is th e only method to ensure that no lead hazards remain upon the 356 completion of a renovation job. Commenters who opposed any type of clearance requirement 357 argued again that it erased th e distinction between renovation s and abatements and made 358 renovation firms responsible for pre-existing cond itions. These commenters also questioned the 359 relevance of the studies EPA c ited in support of its 2010 propos al to require clearance after 360*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] renovations involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the 361 disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation. The 362 cited studies include EPA’s Environmental Fi eld Sampling Study (EFSS, Ref. 9) and studies 363 examining the effectiveness of HEPA exhaust control on power tools (R ef. 8). Many of the 364 HEPA exhaust control studies addressed dusts no t typically created during renovations regulated 365 by the RRP rule, such as crystall ine silica dust resulting from the grinding of concrete. Others 366 addressed surfaces and surface coatings not typi cally encountered during renovations covered by 367 the RRP rule; one involved paint removal fr om automobiles. Notwithstanding EPA’s 2010 368 proposal and requests for comment, EPA did not r eceive any additional info rmation or data with 369 respect to the dust or hazards cr eated by these activities. Fina lly, on both sides of the issue, 370 commenters did not favor the pr oposed provision allowing renovation firms to stop after two 371 failed dust wipe tests, and, although some altern ative suggestions were offered, none effectively 372 addressed the competing considerations of occupant protection and not expanding the scope of the 373 renovation work. 374 EPA recognizes that imposing a clearance re quirement would be a departure from the 375 balance struck in the RRP rule with respect to the distinction between abatement and renovations. 376 Accordingly, in EPA’s judgment, the Agency s hould be in a position to conclude with a fair 377 amount of certainty that doing so was necessary in light of its obligation to promulgate work 378 practices that take into accountreliability, effectiveness, and safety. Here, EPA acknowledges 379 that it does not have data to support its concern that dust created by destructive demolition of 380 plaster may be similar in nature to dust gene rated by machines designed to remove paint through 381 high speed operation, and thus would have the pote ntial to overwhelm the RRP cleaning protocol. 382 EPA also recognizes that the data on the efficien cy of HEPA is only sugg estive that there might 383 be an issue concerning these pr actices. Again, the studies EPA reviewed suggested that HEPA 384*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] exhaust control could reduce the airborne dust leve ls by 90-95%. As commenters pointed out, it 385 is not clear the results of these studies are ap plicable to the home renovation setting, given the 386 differences between the surfaces an d paints in residential setti ngs and the surfaces and paints 387 involved in the studies. Even if the results were applicable, there is no direct evidence that the 388 RRP lead safe work practices could not reliably address the dust hazard s created by the use of 389 such power tools. Having received no additiona l information in this regard, EPA has determined 390 that, among other things, the available information does not support a clearance requirement. 391 Nevertheless, as discussed further in Unit II.C.7. of this preamble, EPA is adding a requirement 392 that power tools be operated so th at no visible dust or release of air occurs outside of the shroud 393 or containment system. This requirement will work to mitigate the concerns EPA had with 394 respect to the efficiency of power tool dust collection systems and the possibility that such tools 395 might overwhelm the containment and specialized clean ing protocols of the RRP work practices. 396 Moreover, upon further reflection, EPA is con cerned about the potential ineffectiveness of 397 its effort to ensure that the proposed clearance requirement woul d not typically result in holding 398 renovation firms from being held responsible for abating pre-existing dust-lead hazards by 399 including a provision allowing firms to stop after two failed clearance tests. The practical effect 400 of such a provision is that the proposed clearance requirement would, in fact , often result in a dust 401 wipe testing requirement. As such, it raises many of the same issues and concerns that ultimately 402 persuaded EPA not to promulgate just dust wipe testing requirements. Similarly, a clearance 403 requirement that does not require renovation firm s to achieve clearance would not provide the 404 certainty regarding dust-lead hazards that is the defi ning characteristic of a cl earance requirement. 405 Furthermore, as stated above, EPA does not believe the record before it strongly supports 406 the line-drawing in its 2010 proposal. In revi sing the abatement regulations to apply to 407 renovations, EPA has sought to keep the renovati on requirements relatively simple and easy to 408*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] apply, while attaining th e overall objective of minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards generated 409 by renovation activities. EPA is concerned that the proposed three-tier sy stem would add a level 410 of complexity to the rule that is undesirable. While EPA could pot entially draw different lines in 411 this final rule, or promulgate a requirement that all jobs achieve clearance, EPA does not believe 412 it has a strong basis to do so. 413 The combination of these factors has c onvinced EPA that imposing a clearance 414 requirement is unwarranted. The best evidence th at EPA has of the effectiveness of the work 415 practice standards is the Dust Study, and it demonstr ates that overall the full suite of RRP work 416 practices is effective at minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. 417 Without more, EPA is unable to conclude that the RRP work practice pr omulgated in 2008 should 418 be significantly altered. 419 Additionally, a variety of commenters, includ ing industry representati ves and some states, 420 suggested that EPA had issued it s 2010 proposal to require dust wipe testing and clearance too 421 soon after promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule. At th e time that the 2010 proposal was issued, full 422 implementation of the 2008 RRP rule had onl y just begun. Commenters contended that 423 renovation firms were still in the process of work ing through how to achieve compliance with the 424 rule on a daily basis and that EP A should wait to add new requirem ents until firms were generally 425 comfortable with the requirements promulgated in 2008. Commenters also argued that EPA 426 should not make a determination that additional requirements are needed without first carefully 427 assessing the status and impact of the existing RRP rule when fully implemented. EPA agrees 428 with the general principle expressed by thes e commenters—that it is premature to impose 429 significant additional work practice requirement s for renovations already covered by the RRP 430 rule, particularly given the information before the Agency. EPA also agrees that many renovation 431 firms are still determining what the RRP rule requires from them on renovation projects. EPA 432*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] also acknowledges that there are practical implementation issues with promulgating a significant 433 change so soon after thousands of renovators have become certified renovators, and have taken 434 the required training, which did not include information on the pr oposed dust wipe testing or 435 clearance requirements. 436 Some commenters suggested th at EPA concentrate on RRP edu cation and outreach at this 437 time, rather than on additional requirements. EPA agrees that outreach and education on lead 438 poisoning in general, and the li nk between renovations and incr eased blood lead levels in 439 particular, continues to be important. As part of the RRP program’s Lead-Safe Certified media 440 campaign, EPA developed and made available to the public outreach materials aimed at both 441 contractors and consumers. The materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) 442 advertisement aimed at contractors, banners fo r web sites, sample articles for magazines, 443 newsletters or other publications to help inform contractors a bout the rule, post cards and buck 444 slips to stuff into mailers, as well as an info rmational brochure about the rule for building 445 managers. EPA has also developed fact sheets aboutthe RRP rule that hardware or paint supply 446 stores can hand out to their customers to inform th em of the regulatory requirements. All of this 447 information is available to the public on EPA’s web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press448 materials.htm

. 449 The Agency has also developed outreach materials for consumers in order to build 450 demand for lead-safe certified fi rms among the public. The consumer outreach materials include 451 consumer print advertisements, PS A radio advertisements in English and Spanish, and a fact sheet 452 about the RRP rule that contractors can provi de to consumers to inform them about the 453 advantages of hiring lead-safe renovation firms. The consumer outreach materials are also 454 downloadable from EPA’s web site at http://epa.gov/lead/ pubs/lscp-consumers.htm

. 455 Finally, in an effort to raise awareness of the consequences of lead poisoning among 456*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] parents and pregnant women who live in homes built before 1978, the Coalition to End Childhood 457 Lead Poisoning, EPA and HUD joined the AdCouncil in April 2010 to launch a national 458 multimedia PSA campaign. As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most common 459 pathways for lead poisoning are deteriorating le ad-based paint (on older windows, doors and trim, 460 or walls) or improperly-performe d renovation, repair and painting act ivities that cause paint to 461 chip, peel, or flake. 462 EPA will continue to evaluate and consider additional outreach and educational 463 opportunities to improve property owner and occupant understanding of dust-lead hazards created 464 by renovations. EPA also will continue to monito r implementation of the RRP rule. If future 465 information, studies, or data indicate that the ex isting RRP rule work practices are not reliable, 466 safe, and effective, EPA will consider whether additional requirements should be proposed. 467
2. Elimination of provision allowing cl earance in lieu of cleaning verification. In the 468 2010 proposal, EPA proposed to eliminate the exis ting provision that allows renovation firms to 469 skip the cleaning verification part of the mandatory cleaning protocol if another Federal, State, or 470 local law or regulation, or the contract between the renovation firm and the property owner, 471 requires the renovation firm to use qualified entities to perform dust wipe testing and requires the 472 renovation firm to achieve clearance. The rati onale for eliminating this provision was based on 473 the fact that, as discussed in the preamble to the 2010 proposal and th e preamble to the 2008 RRP 474 final rule, cleaning verification is not a direct su bstitute for dust wipe testing and clearance. 475 Rather, the Dust Study shows that cleaning verification is an integr al part of the whole suite of 476 RRP work practices which, when observed as a w hole, is effective at minimizing exposure to 477 dust-lead hazards generated by renovations. As such, cleaning verification cannot legitimately be 478 severed from the rest of the RRP work practices. 479 EPA received only a handful of comments on this aspect of the 2010 proposal. 480*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Commenters thought that removing this provisi on from the RRP rule would make the rule 481 inconsistent with the HUD regulations or State or local laws. Some be lieved that requiring both 482 cleaning verification and clearance was unnecessarily burdensome, and pointed out that persons 483 trained in lead-safe work practices had been achieving clearance without cleaning verification for 484 a number of years now. EPA does not agree that re moving this provision is inconsistent with the 485 HUD regulations. The Dust Study demonstrates thatcleaning verification is an important final 486 fine cleaning step that also pr ovides some feedback about the cl eanliness of the surface to the 487 renovator. In fact, the Dust Study showed that , in a significant number of cases, the cleaning 488 verification step was necessary in order to remove the dust-lead hazards created by the 489 renovation. It is likely that completing the entire RRP clean ing protocol, including cleaning 490 verification, increases the probabili ty that clearance, where requi red, will be achieved on the first 491 attempt. Thus, requiring the performance of the entire RRP rule cleaning protocol, including 492 cleaning verification, is hardly inconsistent with the HUD regulat ions. In addition, EPA believes 493 that the cleaning verification pr ocess, in almost all cases, is minimally burdensome. EPA’s 494 “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cl oth Field Study in Residential H ousing” (Ref. 6) showed that 495 cleaning verification should take approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth 496 may be used for up to 40 square feet of uncar peted floor, countertop, or windowsill space. The 497 material requirements for cleaning verification are very inexpensive. EPA estimated, as part of 498 the 2008 final RRP rule analyses, that the material cost for each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that 499 handles are $13.60 apiece (Ref. 10). Therefore, as proposed, EPA is removing the provision that 500 allows the cleaning verification st ep to be skipped if the renov ation firm must also achieve 501 clearance. 502
3. Paint chip sample collection. In May, 2010, EPA proposed to give certified renovators 503 another option for determining whether lead-based paint is present on components to be affected 504*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 22 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] by a renovation. This option would allow certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from 505 components to be affected by a renovation instead of using test kits to test the paint on the 506 components. The samples would be required to be sent to an entity r ecognized under the NLLAP 507 for analysis. In issuing this 2010 proposal, EPA reasoned that it would be easy to teach certified 508 renovators to collect paint chip samples in the renovator course and this would provide maximum 509 flexibility for certif ied renovators and re novation firms. 510 EPA received a number of comments on this part of its 2010 proposal. Some commenters 511 supported this option because they felt that it is easy to properly collect a paint chip sample, and 512 they agreed that this would pr ovide additional needed flexibili ty for certified renovators and 513 renovation firms. One commenter stated that, as a homeowner, he had be en instructed by an 514 NLLAP laboratory over the telepho ne on how to properly collect a paint chip sample and forward 515 it to the laboratory for analysis. This experience led him to believe that it would be feasible to 516 include in the renovator course in struction on how to collect a pa int chip sample and forward it 517 for analysis. Other commenters did not support this aspect of the 2010 proposal because they 518 believe that only certified inspectors or risk assessors should be permitted to collect paint chip 519 samples or make determinations about the presence or absence of lead-based paint. Several noted 520 that this would conflict w ith State laws that prohib it anyone other than a certi fied inspector or risk 521 assessor from sampling for lead-based paint. Some commenters expres sed concern about the 522 length of the renovator course, and the ability to add the additi onal information on paint chip 523 collection, including information on chain-of -custody issues and laboratory submission 524 procedures, without lengthening the course beyo nd 8 hours. Others notedthat renovators are 525 already being taught many of the necessary skills during instruction on how to properly use test 526 kits. 527 Because renovator training courses are alrea dy required to include training in how and 528*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] where to use test kits, and the associated reco rdkeeping requirements, EPA agrees with those 529 commenters who believed that it woul d take very little additional ti me to also provide renovators 530 with specific training in how to collect a chip sample and submit it for analysis. The selection of 531 locations to test and the recordk eeping requirements would be identi cal whether test kits or paint 532 chip sampling is used, except that the laboratory report would also have to be maintained along 533 with the records associated with the renovation. EPA also agrees with those commenters who 534 thought that this option would pr ovide additional important flexibility. EPA is promulgating the 535 proposed option allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from painted 536 components that will be disturbed by a renovation and submit those samples to an NLLAP537 recognized entity for analysis. EPA will modify th e model certified renovator training course to 538 add the necessary information on sample collec tion, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission 539 procedures. One commenter wondered how renovato rs who have already taken the training to 540 become certified would learn about this option and how to use it. EPA will post the information 541 developed for the renovator traini ng course on its website. EPA may also e-mail this information 542 to certified renovation firms that provided an e- mail address on their certification applications. 543 As pointed out by several commenters, paint chip sample collection, by its elf, is a relatively 544 simple thing to learn and EPA believes that certif ied renovators who have al ready been trained in 545 how to properly use a test kit will be able to learn how to properly collect a paint chip sample and 546 submit it to an NLLAP-recognized entity from the material EPA posts on its website. 547 At least one commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to modify the 548 recordkeeping requirements to accommodate this op tion and include information specific to paint 549 chip sample collection, such as component and location tested, identityof the NLLAP entity 550 analyzing the samples, and the sample resu lts. Accordingly, EPA is modifying 40 CFR 551 745.86(b)(1) to add a new subsection (iii) that requires records pert aining to paint chip sample 552*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] collection and analysis, including a description of the components that were sampled, and the 553 locations sampled, the name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing the 554 analysis, and the results for each sample. EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include 555 a certification by the certified renovator that, if paint chip samples we re collected, that the 556 samples were collected from the components in the locations specified, that the samples were 557 submitted for analysis to the id entified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the sample results 558 were as specified. 559 This option does not make certified renovator th e equivalent of a certif ied lead-based paint 560 inspector. Certified renovators must still test each affected component, they are not permitted to 561 exclude components based on similar painting hi stories or perform random paint sampling in 562 multi-unit buildings. Just as with the current provisi ons for test kit use, in those states that do not 563 permit persons other than certified inspectors or ri sk assessors to sample or test for lead-based 564 paint, certified renovators w ill not be able to exercise this option. 565
4. Training provider accreditation. In May 2010, EPA proposed a number of minor 566 changes to the training provider accreditation provisions. EPA received very little public 567 comment on these proposed amendments, and EP A is promulgating these amendments as 568 proposed. 569

a. Documentation of personnel qualifications . The first of these minor amendments 570 involves submission of documentation of traini ng program manager and principal instructor 571 qualifications along with training provider applications for accre ditation. Training providers who 572 wish to provide renovator, dust sampling technici an, or lead-based paint activities training for 573 Federal certification purposes must apply for and receive accreditation fr om EPA. To become 574 accredited, a provider must employ a training program manager as well as principal instructor(s) 575 who meet certain education, training and work e xperience requirements. The training provider 576*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] must indicate on its application for accreditation that the traini ng program manager and principal 577 instructor(s) meet these requirements; however, the 2008 RRP rule did not require documentation 578 ( e.g. , resumes) regarding the qualifications of these individuals to be submitted to EPA. The 579 Agency believes it is important to review this information when determining whether to approve a 580 training provider application. When EPA review s applications for accred itation, it is common for 581 the Agency to request this documentation from tr aining providers in order to verify that the 582 training program manager and principal instructo r(s) have the proper qualifications. Requesting 583 this information takes time and can delay the revi ew of an application. Therefore, the Agency 584 will now require training providers to submit doc umentation regarding the qualifications of the 585 education, training and work experience of training managers and principal instructors with their 586 applications for accreditation. Only one commenter commented on this provision, expressing 587 general support for the change. 588 b. Submission of training course materials. EPA is also promulgating other proposed 589 changes to the required materials that must be submitted along with an a ccreditation application. 590 EPA received only one comment expressing gene ral support for this proposed change. 591 Specifically, to become accredited, a training provid er must submit a copy of its training course 592 materials with its application for accreditation fo r review by the Agency. If a training provider 593 chooses to use the model course developed by EP A or a course approved by an authorized State 594 or Indian Tribe, then the provider is not currentl y required to submit the course materials with its 595 application. Instead, the training provider indicates on its applic ation that it will use the EPA 596 model course or a course approved by an authorized State or Indian Tribe. Authorized States and 597 Indian Tribes can have renovation or abatement pr ograms that are significantly different from the 598 EPA-administered program which w ould be reflected in their approve d course materials. In these 599 instances, a training course approv ed by the State or Indian Tribe may not be sufficient for the 600*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] purposes of training someone on the requi rements of the federal program. 601 Accordingly, the Agency proposed to require training providers who apply to EPA for 602 accreditation and wish to use a course approved by anauthorized State or Indian Tribe to submit 603 the course materials for EPA review. EPA r easoned that this will give the Agency the 604 opportunity to identify and addre ss any significant differences be tween the requirements of EPA 605 and the authorized program that may appear in the course so the Agency can ensure that EPA606 accredited training providers are using appropriate course materials. 607 EPA is promulgating this provision as propos ed. This provision only applies to those 608 training providers who wish to us e a training course approved by anauthorized State or Indian 609 Tribe that is different from th e EPA model training course. Trai ning providers wishing to use the 610 EPA model courses need not submit thos e materials with their applications. 611

c. Role of principal instructor . EPA is promulgating a proposed minor amendment 612 involving a clarification of the role of principal instructors in teaching courses. The regulation, at 613 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3), states that pr incipal instructors are responsible for the organization of their 614 courses and oversight of the te aching of all course material. The regulations also define 615 “principal instructor” as “the individual who has the primary responsibility for organizing and 616 teaching a particular course.” Nonetheless, the rule also allows training program managers to 617 designate experts in a particular field (e.g., doctors or lawyers) as guest instructors, on an as 618 needed basis, to teach discrete portions of the c ourse. EPA interprets these provisions to require a 619 principal instructor to be present and primarily responsible for teaching the course, although guest 620 instructors may be used to teac h some portion(s) of the course. Principal instructors are also 621 responsible for the quality of the instruction delivere d by the guest instructors. To ensure that the 622 regulation is clear on this point, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3) to state that 623 principal instructor(s) are primarily responsible for teaching the course materials and must be 624*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] present to provide instruction (o r oversight of portions of the c ourse taught by guest instructors) 625 for the course for which he has been designate d the principal instruct or. EPA received two 626 comments on this provision, both su pported the change, and one speci fically stated a belief that 627 having principal instructors pres ent while guest lecturers teach would improve the content of 628 many courses. EPA agrees with these commenters. 629 d. Application amendments . EPA is promulgating as proposed another minor amendment 630 involving a specific provision requi ring training providers to ame nd their accreditation application 631 whenever there is a change to the information pr esented in their most re cent accreditation or re632 accreditation application. The RRP rule includes requirements for am ending the certification of a 633 renovation firm. Firms must submit an amendment within 90 days of the date that a change 634 occurs to information in its most recent applicat ion for certification or re -certification. Examples 635 of amendments include a change in the firm’s name without transfer of ownership, or a change of 636 address or other contact information. To am end its certification, a firm must submit an 637 application, noting on the form that it was submitte d as an amendment. The firm must complete 638 the sections of the application pertaining to the new informati on, and sign and date the form. 639 EPA has interpreted the training provider accreditation regulations to requ ire accredited training 640 providers to submit amended applications whenever there is a change to the information provided 641 in the training provider’s most recent application for accreditation or re-accreditation, including 642 information regarding the training manager and any principal instruct or(s) teaching courses 643 offered by the training provider. However, the ex isting regulations do not sp ecify a time limit for 644 submitting an amendment, so EPA proposed to re quire training providers to submit amendments 645 within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information in each provider’s most recent 646 application. As proposed, if th e training provider does not amend its most recent accreditation 647 application within the 90-day time period, it mu st stop providing traini ng until the accreditation 648*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] application is amended. EPA also proposed to approve or disapprove amendments for a new 649 training manager, any new or additional princi pal instructors, or any new permanent training 650 location within 30 days of the date EPA receives the amendment. This 30-day time period will 651 give EPA time to check the qualifications of th e training manager(s) or principal instructor(s) 652 before the training manager begins managing or the principal instructor begi ns teaching a course. 653 This 30-day time period also gives EPA time to veri fy the suitability of a new permanent training 654 location by visiting the location. As proposed, th e training provider would not be permitted to 655 provide training under the new tr aining manager or offer course s taught by any new principal 656 instructor(s) or at the new trai ning location until EPA either a pproves the amendment or 30 days 657 has passed. EPA also proposed to clarify that no fee will be charged fo r accreditation application 658 or certification amendments. EPA received no comments on this proposed amendment. 659

e. Hands-on training requirements. Another minor amendment involves the topics for 660 which hands-on training is requir ed in the renovator and dust sampling technician courses. 40 661 CFR 745.225 includes requirements and procedures th at training programs must follow to become 662 accredited in order to provide instruction in lead -based paint courses. Minimum requirements for 663 training curricula are found in this section, which lists c ourse topics that mustbe included in the 664 different training courses with an indication of the topics that require hands-on instruction. 665 However, EPA inadvertently omitted indicating wh ich course topics required hands-on training 666 for the renovator and dust sampling technician disciplines. Accordingly, EPA proposed to 667 identify in 40 CFR 745.225(d) whic h topics in the renovator and dus t sampling technician courses 668 require hands-on training. In further clarification, EPA also pr oposed to add a sentence to 40 669 CFR 745.225(e)(2) stating that refr esher courses for all disciplines except project designer must 670 include a hands-on component. 671 EPA received several comments on this as pect of the 2010 proposal. Two commenters 672*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] supported the proposed topics for hands-on training for renovators and dust sampling technicians. 673 Another commenter wondered why report preparati on would be a required hands-on topic for dust 674 sampling technicians when it has never been a hands -on topic for the other disciplines that must 675 prepare reports. While it is true that hands-on training in report prepara tion is not required for 676 most lead training disciplines, it is required for the inspector disciplin e. Thus, certified inspectors 677 and certified risk assessors, who must successfully complete both the inspector course and the risk 678 assessor course, receive hands-on training in report preparatio n. EPA believes that report 679 preparation for dust sampling technicians is likewise important enough to warrant hands-on 680 training in how to do it properly. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the required hands-on training 681 topics as proposed. Renovator trainees must receive hands-on training in using test kits, 682 renovation methods that minimize creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards, containment and 683 cleanup methods, and cleaning verification. Dust sampling technician trainees must receive 684 hands-on training in dust sampling me thodologies and report preparation. 685 EPA received two comments sp ecifically on the proposed add ition of a statement that all 686 refresher training courses, with the exception of the project designer re fresher course, must 687 include hands-on training. One commenter was an environmental advocacy group, the other an 688 industry trade associatio n. Neither commenter supported this aspect of the 2010 proposal; they 689 thought that requiring hands-on training for renovator refresher courses would limit the 690 availability of refresher traini ng and increase costs unnecessarily. Both commenters thought that 691 enough information could probably be conveyed in a distance learning or e-learning setting to 692 warrant dispensing with the hands-on requirementfor renovator courses. The environmental 693 advocacy group pointed out that EPA’s current m odel refresher training course for renovators 694 contains two required hands-on skill sets—tes t kit usage and cleaning verification. This 695 commenter felt that this was appropr iate, given that previously-train ed individuals ar e still taking 696*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] advantage of the “grandfathering” provision that allows them to successfully complete an 697 accredited renovator refresher course to become cer tified renovators. Those individuals would 698 not have had previous training in those two skills, so hands- on training would be necessary. 699 However, once the grandfathering provision is no longer available, as di scussed later in this 700 section of the preamble, all cert ified renovators would have had hands-on training in these skills. 701 EPA agrees with this commenter that, for now, renovator refresher courses must include hands-on 702 training in test kit use and in cleaning verification. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed 703 amendment to 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) that specifically states that hands-on tr aining is required for 704 all refresher courses except proj ect designer. EPA plans to re -evaluate the renovator refresher 705 course after the grandfathering pr ovision sunsets, but before the currently-certifie d renovators are 706 due for refresher training. At that time, EPA will consider whether hands-on training is still 707 necessary and appropriate for renovato r refresher training. 708 f. E-learning. As stated in the 2010 proposal, we b-based training and other types of 709 alternative training deliv ery are permitted under both the Lead -based Paint Activities Regulations 710 and the RRP rule. An EPA model on-line renovat or course that may be used to deliver the 711 classroom portion of the renovator course is available. While su ch alternative training delivery 712 options cannot be used to deliver required hands-on training, EPA encour ages training providers 713 to make use of such options where appropriate to increase access to training and make it more 714 affordable. Web-based training courses are c onsidered separate courses and a separate 715 application fee is required for each. 716 EPA’s model electronic traini ng course contains certain ba sic administration and delivery 717 requirements. These include assigning a unique identifier to each student, to allow the training 718 provider to track student course progress and completion. In addition, there are knowledge 719 checks for each chapter, which must be comple ted before the student can go on to the next 720*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] chapter, and a final test for the electronic learning portion which cons ists of at least 20 questions. 721 Finally, students must be able to save or print an uneditable copy of a record showing completion 722 of the electronic learning portion of the course. In May 2010, EP A proposed to incorporate these 723 requirements into 40 CFR 745.225 to ensure that a ll training providers wish ing to use electronic 724 learning for the classroom portions of lead-based paint courses are aware of these requirements 725 and plan their course development accordingly. EPA requested comment on a variety of topics, 726 including the number of questions in the course test and the score required to pass. 727 EPA received several comments on this aspe ct of the 2010 proposal. Some commenters 728 were concerned with verifying the identity of pe rsons logging into e-learning courses. Several 729 noted that, because it is impossible to verify w ith certainty the identity of persons completing 730 online training, an in-person final co urse test is necessary to ensure that the trainee is adequately 731 trained. In this final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6) to explicitly require e-learning 732 training providers to assign a unique identifier to each student in order to track the student’s 733 progress through the course. EPA believes thatthis requirement, along with the existing 734 requirement that the trainee participate in the hand s-on training and take th e final course test in 735 person, will provide reasonable a ssurance that the same person has completed all of the portions 736 of the course. In response to these commenters , EPA is modifying the regulations to specifically 737 state that e-learning or other alternative delivery methods cannot be used for the hands-on 738 training, the final course te st, or the proficiency te st, if one is given. 739 Commenters also expressed concern thatthe EPA model online course could be 740 completed in as little as one hour, which coul d mean that a person could become a certified 741 renovator with only 3 hours of training. EPA di sagrees with these commenters. The current 742 model course posted on the EPA website is not a functioning course and does not contain the 743 background learning management system (LMS) whic h tracks the student’ s progress and requires 744*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] satisfactory completion of the knowledge checks and th e final test. Therefore, the time it takes to 745 page through the model course is not representative of the time it would take to successfully 746 complete an accredited e-learning course. Assuming that 2 training hours are spent on hands-on 747 training, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(vi) re quires a minimum of six 50 mi nute training hours or 5 hours 748 of classroom time for renovators. This requirem ent applies equally to traditional classroom 749 settings as well as to e-learning courses course offered for accreditation. While EPA realizes that 750 renovator trainees will not all proceed through ane-learning course at the same pace, an e751 learning course offered for accreditation must be generally designed so th at an average trainee 752 takes approximately 5 hours to proceed through th e course, including all of the knowledge checks 753 and the course test. 754 One commenter thought that EPA’s proposed requirement of an 80% minimum passing 755 score on the course test for the online course wa s too restrictive. Another commenter disagreed, 756 reasoning that an 80% minimum passing score wa s reasonable but that a 100% passing score 757 would be too restrictive, becau se it would likely results in students being penalized for poorly758 worded questions or alternate interpretations, regardless of the st ate of the student ’s knowledge. 759 This commenter thought that it was appropriate to have a higher pa ssing score requirement for the 760 e-learning portion of a training course, because th e student would have an opportunity to review 761 the material and retake the test. EPA agrees with the second commenter. The 80% minimum 762 passing score is intended to demonstrate mastery of the subject and lowe r scores do not achieve 763 this goal. If students do not pa ss the test, they must review th e material and try again. 764 One commenter suggested that EPA consider se parately accrediting entities that provide 765 online training and entities that provide hands-on training. The commenter argued that 766 developing an online course is a capital-intensive project that requ ires a large number of trainees 767 to recover the costs, so relatively few entities ar e likely to undertake onlin e course development. 768*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] In contrast, the commenter stated that the delive ry of hands-on training must be more local and 769 mobile, it requires a smaller capital investment, and each entity may have relatively few trainees. 770 EPA recognizes that this may be the case, at least for now, while EPA is administering the RRP 771 program in most States. However, this may change as more States become authorized and impose 772 requirements for training that may differ from the EPA requirements. In any event, as the 773 commenter notes, EPA has developed a streamlined process to allow accredi ted training providers 774 to add an e-learning component to their accredit ation by using an already developed and 775 accredited online course. This allows accredited training providers to offer online training 776 without having to make a large capital outlay to de velop a course. EPA con tinues to believe that 777 the training provider who issues the final course completion certificate to a trainee, thus 778 conferring certified renovator stat us on the trainee, must be re sponsible for ensuring that the 779 student has completed all of the required traini ng. EPA does not offer partial accreditations, or 780 accreditation for a portion of a course. 781 On a related topic, this commenter thought that it would be burdensome to require the 782 hands-on training provider to maintain records of the specific times each student logged in to the 783 online portion of the course, ea ch student’s progress, and completion data. The commenter 784 believed that, in the case where the online provi der and the hands-on provider are separate 785 entities, working under a contractual agreement to present an entire trai ning course, it would be 786 relatively easy for the online provi der to maintain the re cords. In contrast, the commenter thought 787 that it would be much more burdensome for EPA to require that the hands-on provider download 788 or otherwise take possession of these records. EPA disagrees with this commenter, because EPA 789 believes that the amount of data associated with th is particular requirement for each trainee is not 790 substantial. However, if a particular accredited training provi der felt otherwise, the provider 791 could contract with the provide r of the online training to st ore the records. Although the 792*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] accredited training provider would remain ultimately responsible for being able to produce those 793 records, as long as the training provider is able to produce them in response to a request from 794 EPA, EPA would consider th e training provider in compliance with the recordkeeping 795 requirements. 796 One commenter provided a number of specific comments on EPA’s proposed 797 requirements for e-learning course s. First, the commenter tho ught that the requirement for 798 knowledge checks for each module of the course was too inflexible, and that it could be difficult 799 to determine what a module is for purposes of knowledge checks. The commenter suggested that 800 EPA instead require periodic knowledge checks. EPA agrees with this comment and is 801 promulgating a requirement for periodic knowledg e checks equivalent to the number and content 802 of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’s mo del course. This would be 16-24 knowledge 803 checks over the entire course. Th is commenter also thought that th e requirement that a student be 804 able to generate an uneditable c opy of an e-learning cour se completion certifi cate too stringent. 805 The commenter pointed out that almost anyone r easonably familiar with computers could alter a 806 secure PDF, image, or word processing file through the print function. EPA will add language to 807 the proposed provision at 40 CFR 745.225( c)(6)(viii)(E) to clarify that EPA merely meant that the 808 certificate must not be susceptibl e to immediate and easy editing by students. A secure PDF file 809 would comply with these requirements. Allowi ng students to generate and print the course 810 completion certificate provides them with reasonab le certainty that they have completed the e811 learning portion of the course before attempti ng the hands-on portion. EPA recommends that 812 accredited training providers verify through other m eans, such as the e-learning progress records, 813 that each student who completes the hands-on tr aining has also completed the online portion of 814 the course before training providers issue th e final course completi on certificate. 815
g. Combined refresher courses. In the 2010 proposal, EPA requested comment on 816*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 35 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] whether training providers should be allo wed to provide a combined Abatement 817 Worker/Renovator refresher course or a combin ed Abatement Supervisor/Renovator refresher 818 course or both. After the 2008 RRP rule was pr omulgated, EPA received input from the regulated 819 community and others indicating that many abatem ent contractors are likely to also become 820 certified renovation firms. If this is the case, it would be advantageous for such firms to be able 821 to send their employees to combined refreshers so that the employees would more readily be able 822 to keep up their dual cer tifications. EPA requested comment on the likelihood that this will be the 823 case, and, if combined refreshers are desirable, whether the different certi fication time periods for 824 individual abatement certification (3 years) and indivi dual renovator certification (5 years) should 825 be harmonized and, if so, how. EPA received two comments on this topic; both commenters 826 supported the idea of combined refresher cour ses and thought they would provide increased 827 flexibility for industry. One co mmenter thought that the certific ation time periods should be 828 harmonized to 3 years for all disciplines because the commenter believed that 5 years was too 829 long to go without a refresher. The other co mmenter did not think that harmonization was 830 necessary, because the abatement worker or superv isor would just take the combined refresher 831 every three years to meet the shorter certification periods in the Lead-based Paint Activities Rule. 832 EPA agrees with these commenters that combined refresher courses may be beneficial. While the 833 current regulations permit training providers to offer refresher courses sequentially, e.g. , a 4-hour 834 renovator course on the afternoon of one day, followed by an 8-hour worker course the next day, 835 taking the courses sequentially w ould result in some duplication of training topics for persons 836 certified as both renovators and ab atement workers. On the othe r hand, EPA is not certain that 837 appropriate refresher topics for both disciplines could be covere d in a single 8-hour day. EPA 838 plans to evaluate the content of its supervisor, worker, and renovator refresher courses to 839 determine what an appropriate combined course length might be. Depending on the results of this 840*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 36 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] evaluation, EPA will consider amending these regulat ions to establish course length requirements 841 for combined refresher courses. 842 h. Recordkeeping. Another amendment proposed in May 2010 involves recordkeeping 843 requirements for training providers . Previously, training providers were required to keep training 844 records for 3 years and 6 months. This length of time was chosen because of the length of 845 individual certification pe riods for lead-based paint activities, which can be as long as 3 years and 846 6 months including interim certifi cation. However, the renovator and dust sampling technician 847 certification periods are 5 y ears, with no interim certification. Th erefore, in order to ensure that 848 the training records from the prev ious training course are availabl e for certified renovators and 849 dust sampling technicians taking refresher courses, EPA proposed to increase the recordkeeping 850 period applicable to these disciplines to 5 years. EPA received two commen ts on this aspect of 851 the 2010 proposal, both commenters thought thatthe recordkeeping requirements for all 852 disciplines should be increased to 5 years. Th ese commenters thought it would be less confusing 853 for training providers if there wa s one period applicable to all. One commenter pointed out that 854 EPA had extended the certification period for renovators trained before April 22, 2010 to July 1, 855 2015, so the training records for those trainees ought to be kept for as long as their certification 856 lasts. This commenter suggested that EPA require training records to be kept for 5 years or until 857 the expiration of certification re sulting from the training, whicheve r is longer. While EPA agrees 858 that it may be easier for training providers to k eep records for the same length of time regardless 859 of the discipline, EPA does not be lieve that it is necessary make this a requirement. Training 860 providers who prefer to have one single recor dkeeping process can always choose to maintain 861 their records for 5 years across the board. Th erefore, EPA is promulgating the increased 862 recordkeeping requirement for providers of accredited renovator and dus t sampling technician 863 training as proposed. EPA also agrees with the commenter who suggested that there be a longer 864*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 37 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] recordkeeping requirement for renovator trai ning courses offered before April 22, 2010. 865 Accordingly, EPA is also promulgating a requirem ent that records for re novator training courses 866 completed before April 22, 2010 must be kept until July 1, 2015. 867 i. Trainee photographs. EPA also proposed certain mi nimum standards for the trainee 868 photographs that must appear on renovator and dust sampling technician course completion 869 certificates. Accredited training programs are required to issue a course completion certificate for 870 each person who passes a training course. A vari ety of information is required to be on the 871 certificate including the name of the course, the name and address of the student, and contact 872 information for the training program. Course certificates for renovators or dust sampling 873 technicians must include a photogr aph of the student, but the re gulation does not include size 874 requirements or other specifications for the phot ograph. Since publishing the 2008 RRP rule, the 875 Agency has been asked if there is a minimum si ze for the photograph. EPA believes that it would 876 be beneficial to have minimum standards for the photograph in order to ensure that the person in 877 the photograph is recognizable. EPA proposed to require that the photographs on course 878 completion certificates be an accurate and recogn izable image of the trainee and at least one 879 square inch in size. EPA also requested comm ents on whether the image quality requirements 880 should be more specific, e.g. , more quantitative. EPA received several comments on this 881 provision. Commenters genera lly supported the proposed requi rements, but did not favor 882 additional requirements, such as quantitative requirements fo r image quality, as they were 883 concerned about the burden associ ated with such additional require ments. EPA agrees with these 884 commenters that the proposed requirements are su fficient. Therefore, EPA is promulgating the 885 image quality requirements as proposed. 886 j. Clarifying changes to 40 CFR 745.225. Finally, as stated previously, 40 CFR 745.225 887 includes requirements and procedures that traini ng programs must follow to become accredited in 888*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 38 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] order to provide instruction in renovator, dust sa mpling technician, and lead-based paint activities 889 courses. The final 2008 RRP rule amended Se ction 745.225 to cover persons who provide or 890 wish to provide renovator or dus t sampling technician training for the purposes of the RRP rule. 891 There are some instances where the regulations do not specifically mention the renovator or dust 892 sampling technician courses even though the regulations apply to those courses. For example, 40 893 CFR 745.225(c)(14) explains the requirements which a traini ng provider must follow when 894 submitting notification to EPA after the comple tion of a training. However, the conforming 895 changes, i.e. , to replace “lead-based paint activities courses” with “renovator, dust sampling 896 technician, and lead-based paint activities courses,” were not made to every subparagraph even 897 though all the requirements of that section apply to those courses. Consequently, EPA proposed 898 to clarify that the requirements in 40 CF R 745.225 apply to renovator and dust sampling 899 technician courses in addition to lead-based pa int activities courses. EPA received one comment 900 offering general support for these proposed revi sions. EPA is promulgating these revisions as 901 proposed. 902
5 . State and Tribal Program Authorization. Under the RRP rule, interested States, 903 Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for, and receive authorization to administer and enforce 904 all of the elements of the RRP program. In May 2010, EPA proposed severa l changes to the State 905 and Tribal program authorization regulations. The first was a clar ification that State and Tribal 906 programs do not need to include requirements for the accreditation of dust sampling technicians if 907 they require dust sampling to be performed only by a certified inspector or risk assessor. EPA 908 received only one comment relating to this propo sed revision, and that commenter thought that 909 EPA should require States and Tribes to allow dust sampling technicians to collect samples. 910 However, EPA does not have the authority to pr ohibit States and Tribes from having a more 911 stringent program than the EPA’s, e.g. , requiring more training for persons collecting dust wipe 912*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 39 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] samples than EPA requires. It would not make sense for EPA to require States and Tribes to 913 establish the dust sampling technician discipline if those trainees would not be allowed to perform 914 any duties under State or Tribal law. Therefore, EPA is promulgati ng this change to the text of 915 the regulation as proposed. 916 Along these same lines, EPA proposed to a dd a provision requiri ng State or Tribal 917 programs to have procedures and requirements for on-the-job training of renovation workers who 918 do not receive accredited training. EPA neglected to include such a provision in the 2008 RRP 919 Rule. As with the dust sampling technician discipline, State and Tr ibal programs are only 920 required to have these provisions if they permit on- the-job training for renovation workers. If, for 921 example, a State or Tribal program only allo ws certified renovators to perform renovation 922 activities within a regulated re novation work area, then no pr ovisions for on-the-job training 923 would be required for that State or Tribal program. EPA received one comment generally 924 supporting this change. EPA is promulgati ng this revision as proposed. 925 EPA also proposed to amend the State and Tr ibal program requirements to clarify that 926 both individuals and firm s must receive certification. Only one comment was received on this 927 topic, pointing out that EPA’s proposed regul atory text at 40 CFR 745.326(e)(1) did not 928 accomplish that objective. EPA agrees with this commenter, and has revised the regulatory text 929 throughout this section accordingly to ensure th at EPA’s requirements are clear. EPA requires 930 both renovators and renovation firms to be certified. A renovator becomes certified by 931 successfully completing an accredited renovator training class. A renovation firm becomes 932 certified by submitting an application to EPA, atte sting that it and its employees will follow the 933 work practice standards at 40 CFR § 745.85 for conducting renovations, and paying a 934 certification fee. EPA believes that, in order for a State or Tribal program to be at least as 935 protective as EPA’s program, the State or Tribal program must, at a mi nimum, require formal 936*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 40 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] certification for renovation firms. States and Tribes may, but are not requiredto, formally certify 937 renovators. The certified renovationfirm is responsible not only fo r the behavior of its certified 938 renovators but also for the other workers that have been trained by the certified renovators. Thus, 939 the renovation firm is ultimately responsible for the proper performance of the renovation. 940 Requiring formal certification for renovation firms facilitates compliance monitoring and 941 enforcement for EPA as well as for State and Trib al programs. A program that only required 942 formal certification for individual renovators an d not firms would not be as protective. 943 In addition, as pointed out by several Stat e commenters, EPA inadvertently included the 944 wrong provisions in the proposed regulatory text for revising authorized State and Tribal 945 programs to conform to revisions to the 2008 RR P rule. The existing provisions at 40 CFR 946 745.326(f) give authorized State an d Tribal programs two years from the effective date of any 947 EPA revisions to the 2008 RRP rule to demonstrat e that the State or Tribal program meets the 948 requirements of the revised 2008 RRP rule. This tw o year period is also a fforded to States and 949 Tribes that submit applications fo r authorization before the effec tive date of any EPA revisions. 950 EPA did not intend to make any changes to this provision and States and Tribes still have two 951 years to make changes to their programs necess itated by revisions to the federal RRP program. 952 Finally, EPA proposed to require that, in order to be authorized for any of the lead-based 953 paint programs, State or Tribal pr ograms demonstrate that: (1) the Stat e or Tribe is able to sue to 954 obtain penalties, (2) civil and criminal pena lties of at least $10,000 are assessable for each 955 instance of violation, (3 ) if violations are co ntinuous, the penalties are assessable up to the 956 maximum amount for each day of violation, and (4 ) the burden of proof and degree of knowledge 957 or intent of the respondent is no greater than it is for EPA und er TSCA. EPA also requested 958 comment on what criteria States or Tribes should consider in assessing pe nalties and whether the 959 $10,000 minimum penalty authority level should be periodically adjusted for inflation. As 960*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 41 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, in choosing the proposed minimum penalty 961 authority of $10,000 per violation per day, EPA looke d to other programs that States and Tribes 962 may be authorized to administer. Some of these programs have minimum penalty authority 963 requirements for State and Tribal programs and some do not. For example, under the Clean Air 964 Act (CAA) implementing regulations at 40 CF R 70.11(a)(3) and the Resource Conservation and 965 Recovery Act (RCRA) implementing regulations at 40 CFR 271.16(a)(3), State programs must 966 have the authority to assess civil and criminal fines of at least $10,000 per day per violation. 967 Other programs have established lower mini mum penalty authority requirements. The 968 implementing regulations for the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require State programs to 969 have the authority to impose a penalty of at least $1,000 per day per violation on public water 970 systems serving a population of more than 10,000 individuals. Some EPA programs have set no 971 minimum penalty authority requirements for St ates and Tribes; these programs include the 972 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act progr am and the State pesticide applicator 973 certification program under the Fe deral Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 974 EPA received a number of comments on this provision. Six State commenters opposed 975 the proposed provisions. Several ar gued that their legislatures had already created the authority to 976 establish an RRP program, but the maximum pe nalty amount was less than $10,000. Five States 977 described their existing penalty authorities--one alre ady has a minimum penalty authority of 978 $10,000, one has $5,000, and the other three have $1,000. These States did not believe that they 979 would be able to increase the maximum penalty authority, because it was comparable to other 980 programs administered by the State, or that it wo uld take several years to get an increase through 981 the legislature, during which time EPA would have to administer the program in their 982 jurisdictions. At least two alre ady-authorized State RRP programs pointed out that they had been 983 authorized with maximum penalty authorities of less than $10,000. On e of these States also noted 984*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 42 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] that it had been effectively enforcing the L ead-based Paint Activities Program and the Pre985 Renovation Education Program for years now, and the State did not believe th at an increase in its 986 maximum penalty authority would improve the eff ectiveness of its programs in any way. Another 987 State commented that it has penalty authority of $10,000, but that limit is for each enforcement 988 case, not per violation per day. Some of the St ate commenters also noted that most enforcement 989 actions in an RRP program would be against verysmall companies or i ndividuals, and penalties 990 of less than $10,000 per violation per da y would still be very effective deterrents for suchentities. 991 Two environmental advocacy groups supported EPA’s proposed minimum penalty 992 authority of $10,000, arguing that substantial penalt ies are necessary to get the attention of the 993 regulated community and meaningful enforcement is critical to the rule’s success at protecting 994 individuals from exposures to dangerous levels of lead. 995 EPA agrees with these commenters on the importance of an effective enforcement 996 program. Strong enforcement of the lead-based pa int regulations by authorized State and Tribal 997 programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child occupied 998 facilities undergoing lead abatem ent, renovation, repair or painting. However, EPA also agrees 999 with those States that argued that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint 1000 programs would be against very small entities. Although small entities al so violate the CAA and 1001 RCRA, it is likely that the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of 1002 smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA ha s established minimum penalty 1003 authorities. Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal 1004 programs of $5,000. Because it is especially importa nt to deter multiple violations and continuing 1005 violations, this final rule retains the “p er violation, per day” requirement. 1006 In response to the related requests for comment , State commenters did not favor adding a 1007 mechanism for adjusting these minimum penalty authorities for inflation. One environmental 1008*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 43 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] advocacy group supported the idea, but thought that it should not be a barrie r to State and Tribal 1009 program authorization. EPA agrees with these commenters and no mechan ism for adjusting these 1010 minimums for inflation is included in this final rule. 1011 Commenters suggested a number of factors that should be cons idered by States and Tribes 1012 when imposing penalties for violations of th eir authorized programs. Several favored 1013 enforcement history and risk, but no t to the extent of treating firs t-time offenders too lightly. A 1014 handful of commenters argued that size of business, and ability to stay in business should not be 1015 considered, because small companies can cause as much harm as large companies. EPA believes 1016 that States and Tribes may legitimately consider any of the factors that EPA typically considers, 1017 such as nature, circumstances, and extent of the vi olation, the culpab ility of the violator, history of 1018 prior violations, ability to pay or continue in business, voluntary disclosure, and attitude of the 1019 violator. However, EPA will not require States and Tribes to consider any of these factors. 1020 Finally, EPA received no comments on the propo sed addition of an explicit requirement 1021 that States and Tribes have the ability to sue vi olators to collect penaltie s and that the burden of 1022 proof for enforcement be no more rigorous th an the EPA standard under TSCA. EPA believes 1023 that these two elements are important elements of an effective enforcement program. Therefore, 1024 EPA is promulgating these additiona l requirements as proposed. 1025
6 . Vertical containment. EPA’s 2010 proposal included more specific language on 1026 vertical containment requirements for exterior pr ojects. As proposed, the rule would specifically 1027 state that vertical containment is required for ex terior renovation projects that are covered by the 1028 rule and that affect painted surf aces within 10 feet of the propertyline. In such cases, vertical 1029 containment is necessary to ensure that adjacent buildings or properties are not contaminated by 1030 leaded dust or debris generate d by the renovation. EPA’s Dust Study demonstrates that leaded 1031 dust and debris from exterior renovations can be found 10 feet away from activities disturbing 1032*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 44 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] leaded paint, even if no prohibited or restricted practices are used. For example, in an experiment 1033 involving the dry scraping of paint from a single st ory garage, significant dust-lead levels were 1034 detected on collection trays at di stances from 9 to 11 feet from the scraping activity (Ref. 7, page 1035 6-25). These levels ranged from 7,500 μ g/ft 2 to more than 16,500 μ g/ft 2 . The RRP rule, at 40 1036 CFR 745.85(a)(2), requires renovation firms to isol ate the work area so that no dust or debris 1037 leaves the work area while the renovation is bein g performed. The rule further states, at 40 CFR 1038 745.85(a)(2)(ii)(D), that, in certain situations, the renovation firm must take extra precautions in 1039 containing the work area to ensure that dust and debris from the renovat ion does not migrate to 1040 adjacent properties. EPA knows of no work prac tice other than some system of vertical 1041 containment that would effectively prevent the migration of dust and debris from renovations 1042 performed within 10 feet of the prop erty line to adjacent properties. 1043 EPA also proposed to clarify, in the regulator y text itself, that windy conditions may also 1044 necessitate the use of vertical containment to prevent contamin ation of other buildings, other 1045 areas of the property, or adjacent buildings or pr operties. Specific mention of windy conditions 1046 was made in the preamble to the final 2008 RRP rule, although it was not included in the 1047 regulatory text. Nevertheless, EP A expects atmospheric conditions to be one of several factors 1048 that renovation firms consider when designing cont ainment systems. Other factors would include 1049 the height of the building and the paint disturbance and the type of re novation activity planned. 1050 EPA believes that specifically including windy cond itions as a factor to consider when designing 1051 an effective containment system will serve as an important reminder for renovation firms. 1052 Including the mention of windy conditions in the regulatory text does not mean that vertical 1053 containment is required for any particular renovations. The 2010 proposal also included a 1054 definition of the term “containment” in order to clarify what is meant by the term. The proposed 1055 definition was based on the definition of “Worksite preparation level” from the Department of 1056*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 45 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Housing and Urban Development’s “Guidelines fo r the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 1057 Paint Hazards in Housing” (HUD Guidelines, Ref. 11). The proposed definition included 1058 additional information on what const itutes vertical containment. 1059 Some commenters supported th e proposed revisions to the vertical containment 1060 requirements. One thought that contamination of neighboring properties is a common and serious 1061 problem. Other commenters di d not support the proposed revisi ons. These commenters thought 1062 that the proposed revisions were too inflexib le and unnecessary. EPA disagrees with these 1063 commenters. As discussed, the Dust Study shows that dust and de bris from exterior renovations 1064 travels at least 10 feet from the activity. The RRP rule requires the ground to be covered with 1065 plastic sheeting or other impermeable materi al extending 10 feet be yond the surfaces being 1066 renovated or a sufficient distance to collect fall ing paint debris, whichever is greater, unless 1067 prevented by the property line. In the absence of some system of vertical containment, EPA 1068 knows of no work practice that would effectiv ely ensure that adjacent properties are not 1069 contaminated when work disturbs lead-based pain t within 10 feet of the property line. However, 1070 the vertical containment requirement is intended to provide flexibility for certified renovators to 1071 design effective containment systems based on the renovation activity and the work site. Vertical 1072 containment systems can span a range from simp le barriers to more extensive scaffolding, 1073 depending on the size of the job and other relevant factors. Complex vertical containment 1074 systems with extensive scaffolding are often not necessary to effectively contain the dust 1075 generated by a renovation. 1076 One commenter thought that it s hould be sufficient to require the renovation firm to 1077 inform the neighbors to keep their windows and doors closed while th e renovation is ongoing. 1078 While this might prevent leaded du st from drifting into the interiors of adjacent buildings, it does 1079 not address contamination of the ne ighboring porches, balconies, or yards. This does not meet the 1080*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 46 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] standard already present in the RRP rule, that dust and debris not be permitted to leave the work 1081 area while the renovation is ongoing. EPA is also concerned about the abili ty of renovation firms 1082 to affect the behavior of neighbors whose homes are not being renovated. 1083 Several commenters expressed concern aboutthe safety of workers and vertical 1084 containment. One argued that OSHA has said th at vertical containment is not required in 1085 situations where worker safety would be compro mised, such as in windy conditions. EPA agrees 1086 that erecting extensive scaffolding to support a large vertical containment system in some windy 1087 conditions may be unsafe for workers. If such a vertical containment system would be necessary 1088 to ensure containment of the dust generated by a particular renovation, EPA knows of no 1089 alternative but to reschedule the renovation fo r a more clement day. The HUD Guidelines state 1090 that exterior renovation work s hould not be conducted when the wind speed is greater than 20 1091 miles per hour (Ref. 11). The Guidelines also state that work must cease and cleanup be 1092 completed before rain begins. EPA has not im posed these specific requirements, but renovation 1093 firms should consider this guidance when deciding how to proceed. 1094 Other commenters were concerned about the ad ditional costs that the revisions to the 1095 vertical containment provisions would impose onrenovations. EPA agrees that it is more 1096 expensive to conduct exterior re novations with vertical containm ent than without. In EPA’s 1097 economic analysis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA a ddressed those situations where the renovation 1098 firm must take extra precautions to effectivel y contain dust and debris, including work areas in 1099 close proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a property lin e, and windy conditions. 1100 The 2008 economic analysis specifica lly notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of 1101 vertical containment to prevent paint dust and de bris from contaminating the ground or any object 1102 beyond the work area. To account for these situations, EPA estimated that approximately 2% of 1103 exterior jobs would use exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment 1104*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 47 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] varies from $330 per wall to $1,640 per wall, depe nding on the size of the job. Thus, EPA has 1105 already accounted for the additional costs incurre d for using vertical containment systems on 1106 renovations performed within 10 feetof the property line. 1107 Because EPA does not know of any effective a lternatives to the vertical containment 1108 requirement for exterior renovations performed wi thin 10 feet of the property line, and because 1109 EPA believes that the additional guidance prov ided by the addition of the “windy conditions” 1110 example to the regulatory text will be helpful to renovation firms, EPA is promulgating these 1111 revisions as proposed. 1112 In addition, since promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule, EPA has received several inquiries 1113 from the regulated community on the rule’s contai nment provisions. In pa rticular, EPA has been 1114 asked to address the problem of obstacles that prevent renovation firms from using 6 feet of 1115 plastic sheeting or other impermeable material on interior floors or 10 feet of material on the 1116 ground. EPA believes that the proper use of ve rtical containment measures may be a more 1117 effective method for containing the work area than use of traditional floor or ground containment 1118 alone, especially where obstacles prevent or make it impractical to install floor or ground 1119 containment to the extent required by the RRP ru le. Therefore, EPA is amending the containment 1120 provisions for both interior and exterior renovations to permit re novation firms to erect vertical 1121 containment at a distance of less than 6 feet from the work surface, for interiors, provided that the 1122 vertical containment is floor to ce iling, or less than 10 feet for exte riors, and not al so require them 1123 to comply with the minimum fl oor or ground containment requirements of the RRP rule. For 1124 example, a renovation firm erects an exterior ver tical containment system consisting of a rigid 1125 box-like framework wrapped in impermeable plas tic sheeting and anchored to the ground and 1126 home. If this containment system is erected 5 feetfrom the side of the home, and placed on top of 1127 ground containment, such containment should effectiv ely limit the travel of dust and debris to the 1128*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 48 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] interior of the enclosure. Under the amended containment provisions, the renovation firm would 1129 not be required to extend plastic sheeting or other impermeable material 5 feet beyond the vertical 1130 containment system. 1131 This amendment will affect interior renovati ons similarly. However, to qualify for 1132 reduced floor containment requirements, vertical containment systems fo r interior renovations 1133 must consist of impermeable barriers that exte nd from the floor to the ceiling and are tightly 1134 sealed at joints with th e floor, ceiling and walls ( e.g. through the use of tape, foam or other means 1135 which create tight seals), thus effectively creating a separate en closure. This type of vertical 1136 containment acts as the functional equivalent of a wall for purposes of defining the work area and, 1137 if the vertical containment meets these criteria , the floor containment me asures may stop at the 1138 edge of the vertical barrier. However, unlike permanent walls, vertical containment barriers are 1139 subject to all containment cleaning requirement s including misting, inward folding, sealing, and 1140 proper disposal following the renovation. A firm must also thoroughly clean an additional two 1141 feet beyond the vertically-contained work area. Finally, during ingre ss or egress from the vertical 1142 enclosure, a firm must take precaution to ensure that dust and debris on personnel, tools, and other 1143 items do not escape the work area. 1144 Upon further consideration of the proposed defi nition of containment, particularly in light 1145 of the comments received on the proposed ve rtical containment re quirements, EPA has 1146 determined that a broader defini tion of containment is unnecessary, and may even be confusing, 1147 but a definition of vertical containment woul d help to clarify the vertical containment 1148 requirements. Accordingly, EPA is promulgating a definition of “vertical containment” that is 1149 similar to the last sentence of th e proposed definition of “containm ent.” Vertical containment is 1150 defined as a vertical barrier c onsisting of plastic sheeting or other impermeable material over 1151 scaffolding or a wood or metal frame, or an equiva lent system. The defini tion further states that 1152*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 49 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] vertical containment is required for some ex terior renovations but it may be used on any 1153 renovation. 1154
7. Prohibited or restricted practices

. In May 2010, EPA proposed to make a number of 1155 minor revisions to clarify the prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in 40 CFR 1156 745.85(a)(3). The first was a clarification that these prohibitions and restrictions, e.g. , the 1157 prohibition on open flame burning or torching, apply to all painte d surfaces, not just surfaces 1158 where the presence of lead-based paint has been confirmed. The term “lead-based paint” was 1159 incorrectly and inadvertently used in this subsection, making it inc onsistent with the rest of the 1160 RRP rule, which applies in the pr esence of known lead-bas ed paint as well as paint that has not 1161 been tested for lead content. Accordingly, EPA proposed to replace the te rm “lead-based paint” 1162 with “painted surfaces” in this s ubsection. Of course, if the painted surface has been tested and 1163 found to be free of lead-based paint, the prohibitions and restricti ons on work practices in the final 1164 RRP rule do not apply. Commenters generally supported this revision, although two commenters 1165 noted that EPA uses the term “painted surf aces” throughout the RRP rule and it is unclear 1166 whether this refers just to paint or to other surface coatings as well. These commenters noted that 1167 the definition of “lead-based pa int” includes paint and other surface coatings but there is no 1168 definition of the term “painted surfaces.” Thes e commenters observed that other surface coatings, 1169 such as varnish, can contain significant amounts of lead. The commenters suggested that EPA 1170 address this issue throughout the RRP rule. EPA agrees with th ese commenters. In using the 1171 term “painted surfaces,” EPA has always meant co mponent surfaces that are covered in whole or 1172 in part with a coating that could be lead-bas ed paint. The term was designed to encompass 1173 situations where the surface is covered with lead-b ased paint as defined by the regulation as well 1174 as situations where the lead c ontent of the surface co ating had not been determined. EPA never 1175 intended to exclude varnishes or other surface coatings from the coverage of the RRP rule. In 1176*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 50 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] fact, the applicability s ection of the RRP rule, 40 CFR 745.82, lim its the exclusions for testing to 1177 those situations where the components to be dist urbed by a renovation have been demonstrated to 1178 be free of paint and other surface coatings that co ntain lead at levels equal to or exceeding the 1179 regulatory threshold. Therefore, EPA is promulga ting this revision as pr oposed and EPA is also 1180 adding a clarifying definition of “painted surface ” to 40 CFR 745.83. This definition states that 1181 painted surface means a component surface covered in whole or in part with paint or other surface 1182 coatings. 1183 In addition, EPA proposed to cl arify that the restriction inthis section on the use of 1184 machines that remove paint through high speed op eration applies anywhere painted surfaces are 1185 being disturbed by such machines, the restriction is not limited to situations where all of the paint 1186 is removed by such machines. EPA received no comments specifically on this proposed revision, 1187 although the comments on the general issue of paint including other surfac e coatings are also 1188 applicable here. EPA is promulgating this revi sion as proposed, with the addition of the phrase 1189 “or other surface coatings” after the term “paint,” because EPA never intended to create a 1190 loophole that would allow someone to remove some or most of the paint or other surface coating 1191 from a component without complyi ng with the restriction. 1192 Finally, EPA proposed to clarify what was mean t by HEPA exhaust control. In order to 1193 better express what is require d when machines designed to remove paint through high speed 1194 operation are used, EPA consulted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 1195 Technical Manual (Ref. 12). The us e of shrouded tools to remove l ead-based paint is discussed in 1196 Chapter 3 of Section V, entitled “Controlling Lead Exposures in the Construction Industry: 1197 Engineering and Work Practice Controls.” Usin g language from this reference, EPA proposed to 1198 amend 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii) to read, “The use of machines designed to remove paint through 1199 high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, po wer planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 1200*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 51 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] sandblasting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines are used shrouded and 1201 equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the point of generation.” 1202 EPA received several comments on this topic. The commenters generally supported the change, 1203 but two thought that there should be a performan ce standard included in the provision, a visible 1204 standard that warns the workers that the shroud or containment system is not working properly. 1205 EPA agrees with these commenters. Another comme nter thought that the term “shrouded” in the 1206 proposed revision would make the RRP rule more stringent than the requirements applicable to 1207 abatement contractors. After consulting the ab atement chapter of the HUD Guidelines, EPA has 1208 determined that the proposed language could potentially be read to exclude one of the two types 1209 of sanders described by HUD as appropriate for abatement work because they provide HEPA 1210 exhaust control. Accordingly, EPA is promul gating the revision as proposed, except that the 1211 regulatory language will read “. . . unless such machines have shrouds or containment systems 1212 and are equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the point of 1213 generation. Machines must be operated so that no visible dust or release of air occurs outside the 1214 shroud or containment system.” 1215
8 . HEPA vacuums . In May 2010, EPA proposed to cl arify that vacuums qualifying as 1216 HEPA vacuums for the purposes of this rule must be operated and maintained in accordance with 1217 the manufacturer’s instructions in order to contin ue to qualify as HEPA vacuums. This includes 1218 following the manufacturer’s filter change inte rval recommendations. EPA also proposed to 1219 clarify that the standard for HE PA filters, that they be capable of capturing particles of 0.3 1220 microns with 99.97% efficiency, means that th e filters must have a Minimum Efficiency 1221 Reporting Value (MERV) of 17 or greater. At the time, EPA also recommended that renovation 1222 firms have information from the manufacturer th at the particular mode l of vacuum that the 1223 renovation firm intends to use, or the vacuum’s HEPA filter, has been tested in accordance with 1224*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 52 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] an applicable test method, such as ASTM F1471-09, “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 1225 Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System,” and has been determined to 1226 meet this standard (Ref. 13). 1227 EPA received a number of comments on th ese proposed revisions. Commenters 1228 specifically addressing the requirement that vacuums be operated in accordance with the 1229 manufacturer’s instructions, including filter chan ge interval recommendations, were in general 1230 agreement with the requirement. Other commenters expressed a general concern that these 1231 revisions would prohibit the us e of consumer-grade HEPA vacuums that renovation firms had 1232 recently purchased to comply with the RRP ru le. Some argued that the proposed language 1233 regarding the MERV was too stringe nt, given industry practice for high-efficiency vacuums. One 1234 commenter cited research they had done on the e fficiency of HEPA vacuums to argue that the 1235 HEPA vacuums used in EPA’s Dust Study would not have met the MERV standard proposed by 1236 EPA. However, the commenter di d not provide sufficient information to support this assertion. 1237 Several commenters echoed comments EPA rece ived during the rulemaking process for the 2008 1238 RRP rule, arguing that HEPA vacuums are t oo expensive and are not necessary. Other 1239 commenters believed that additiona l requirements should be added, such as a requirement to field 1240 test the efficiency of the vacuums on a re gular basis or after filter changes. 1241 EPA continues to believe that HEPA vacuum s are a necessary part of the required RRP 1242 work practices. In addition, the OSHA Lead in C onstruction standard requ ires the use of HEPA 1243 vacuums whenever vacuums are used. However, EPA also understands the concerns of those 1244 commenters who had already purchased HEPA vac uums for purposes of the RRP rule as well as 1245 those others who thought that th e proposed MERV value of 17 w ould be too stringent. In 1246 balancing these concerns, EPA has decided to promulgate the requi rement that HEPA vacuums be 1247 operated in accordance with manufac turer’s instructions, but not th e requirement that compliant 1248*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 53 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] vacuums be rated at a MERV value of 17 or higher. 1249 In addition, in response to EPA’s reco mmendation that renovation firms obtain 1250 information from the manufacturer that the efficien cy of their particular model of HEPA vacuum 1251 or HEPA filter has been tested in accordance with an applicab le test method, some commenters 1252 noted that this information may not be readily available to renovation fi rms. These commenters 1253 suggested that EPA maintain a lis t of HEPA vacuums that have been tested and found to meet the 1254 HEPA vacuum requirements. EPA will consider de veloping and maintaining such a list. 1255
9 . On-the-job training . EPA’s 2010 proposal included a clarification regarding the 1256 required elements of on-the-job training provide d by renovators. Specifically, EPA proposed to 1257 clarify that the RRP rule require s certified renovators to train other renovati on workers in only the 1258 work practices required by the RRP rule that the workers will be using in performing their 1259 assigned tasks. As discussed in the 2010 proposal , EPA did not intend to require training in any 1260 other subjects, such as how to paint or how to connect pipes. EPA is promulgating the 1261 clarification as proposed and am ending 40 CFR 745.90(b)(2) and (b)(4) to refer specifically to the 1262 work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85(a). Two comments were recei ved on this proposed 1263 clarification, both commenters expre ssed support for the change. 1264
10 . Grandfathering . Under the final 2008 RRP rule, individuals who successfully 1265 completed an accredited abatement worker or superv isor course, and individuals who successfully 1266 completed the HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD model renovation training courses may take an 1267 accredited refresher renovation training course in lie u of the initial renovation training to become 1268 a certified renovator. In addition, individuals w ho have successfully completed an accredited 1269 lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently certified in the discipline, 1270 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling techni cian course in lieu of the initial training to 1271 become a certified dust sampling technician. As discussed in the 2010 proposal, EPA 1272*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 54 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] inadvertently failed to include in the 2008 RRP rule a time limit for taking the refresher in lieu of 1273 the initial course. Many of the commenters who addressed th e issue of grandfathering in the 2008 1274 RRP rulemaking contended that there should be restrictions based on how much time elapsed 1275 since the training was taken. In addition, under th e lead-based paint activ ities regulations at 40 1276 CFR 745.226, EPA allowed a similar grandfatheri ng provision but only for a limited time. 1277 Accordingly, EPA proposed to set a limit on whenan individual can ta ke advantage of the 1278 grandfathering provision under the RRP rule. Th e preamble to the 2010 proposal stated that the 1279 limit would be July 31, 2011, such that renovator s and dust sampling technicians who take the 1280 appropriate prerequisite course before that date would be permitted to take an accredited refresher 1281 training course in lieu of the initial training. EPA received 3 comments on this provision. One 1282 commenter helpfully pointed out that, while the preamble said that the limit would be July 31, 1283 2011, the proposed regulatory text said that it would be April 22, 2011. The three commenters 1284 supported the limit of July 31, 2011, one noting th at EPA should not continue to encourage 1285 renovators to take lead-safe work practices courses that do not m eet the requirements for certified 1286 renovator training. EPA generally agrees with th ese commenters and is promulgating a provision 1287 that allows renovators and dust sampling technician s who take the appropriat e prerequisite course 1288 before the effective date of this rule to take an accredited refresher training course in lieu of the 1289 initial training. 1290 EPA also proposed a clarification regarding the grandfatheri ng provision as it applies to 1291 the dust sampling technician discipline. Indivi duals who successfully complete an accredited 1292 lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently certified in the discipline, 1293 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling tec hnician course in lieu of the initial training 1294 before April 22, 2011 to become a certified dustsampling technician. Inspectors and risk 1295 assessors who are certified by EPA or an authorized state program are qualified to perform dust 1296*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 55 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, or abatements as well as for other 1297 purposes, such as post-renovation dust sampling. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for a 1298 certified inspector or risk assessor to seek certification as a dust samp ling technician. The 2008 1299 RRP rule explains who is eligible to take the refresher dust sampli ng technician course in lieu of 1300 the initial training. However, the regulations as promulgated did not explicitly say that a certified 1301 inspector or risk assessor may perform dust sampling. In order to clarify the intent of the 1302 regulation, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 745.90(a )(3) to specifically st ate that a certified 1303 inspector or risk assessor may act as a dust sampling technician. EPA is promulgating this 1304 provision as proposed. On e comment was received on this t opic expressing general support for 1305 the amendment. 1306
III. References 1307 As indicated under ADDRESSES , a docket has been established for this rulemaking 1308 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. Th e following is a listing of the documents 1309 that are specifically referenced in this final ru le. The docket includes these documents and other 1310 information considered by EPA, including documen ts that are referenced within the documents 1311 that are included in the docket, ev en if the referenced document is not physically located in the 1312 docket. For assistance in locating these other do cuments, please consul t the technical contact 1313 listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. 1314 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E PA). Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing 1315 Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 1316 Register (75 FR 25038, May 6, 2010) (FRL–8823–5). 1317 2. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 1318 (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). 1319 3. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities; Final Rule. Federal 1320*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 56 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Register(61 FR 45778), August 29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). 1321 4. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (October 2006). 1322 5. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal Register 1323 (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL–6763–5). 1324 6. EPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residentia l Housing (September 1325 2005). 1326 7. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair, And Painting 1327 Activities. (November 13, 2007). 1328 8. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. (2009). 1329 9. EPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeli ng Activities: Phase I, 1330 Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 1997). 1331 10. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and T oxics (OPPT). “Economic Analysis for the 1332 TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child1333 Occupied Facilities” (March 2008). 1334 11. U.S. Department of Housing and Ur ban Development (HUD). Guidelines for the 1335 Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995). 1336 12. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupationa l Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 1337 Technical Manual TED 01-00-015 [TED 1-0.15A]. Revised June 24, 2008. 1338 13. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High1339 Efficiency Particulate Ai r-Filter System (F1471-09). 1340 14. EPA. OPPT. “Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits Associated with the 1341 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements fo r the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 1342 Final Rule” (July 2011). 1343 15. EPA. OPPT. “Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 1344*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 57 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied 1345 Facilities” (April 2010). 1346 16. EPA. Final Clearance Rule ICR Addendum for the rulemaking entitled Lead; 1347 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirement s for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 1348 Program; Final Rule. (July 2011). 1349 17. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advo cacy Review Panel on the Lead-based Paint 1350 Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. (March 3, 2000). 1351 18. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 1352 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL-8355-7). 1353 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 1354
A. Regulatory Planning and Review 1355 Under Executive Or der 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 1356 October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted 1357 this action to the Office of Management and Bu dget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 1358 12866 and 13563, entitled Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January 1359 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented 1360 in the docket for this action. 1361 In addition, EPA prepared a document disc ussing the potential costs and benefits 1362 associated with this final rule. This document, entitled “Discussion of Potential Costs and 1363 Benefits Associated with the Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, 1364 Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule” (Ref. 14), is available in the docket for this action and 1365 is briefly summarized here. 1366 For the most part, the amendments to the RRP rule contained in this final rule impose only 1367 minimal incremental costs. For example, the re quirement for training cour se providers to submit 1368*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 58 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] copies of personnel qualifications along with thei r applications will result in providers making 1369 copies of and submitting with their application 2-4 additional pieces of paper that they are already 1370 required to have in their possession before subm itting the application. The requirement to submit 1371 copies of State training course materials, if used, could add signifi cantly to the size of the training 1372 provider’s application. However, EPA believes that it will be a rare occurrence for training 1373 providers to use State-approved training course materials, wh en EPA model training course 1374 materials are readily available. Likewise, the provision allowing certified renovators to collect 1375 paint chip samples in lieu of using test kits adds no additional costs, because certified renovators 1376 are not required to take this step in addition to existing activities – it is an added option from 1377 which they may choose. Similarly, the minimu m enforcement provisions and other requirements 1378 for State and Tribal programs imposes no costs becau se States and Tribes ar e not required to have 1379 authorized programs, nor are they required to revi se their programs to incorporate EPA revisions. 1380 While EPA is requiring specific recordkeeping fo r training providers who wish to provide e1381 learning courses, e-learning course s are not required from any trai ning provider. In addition, EPA 1382 believes that the recordkeeping requirements fo r e-learning courses are comparable to, and no 1383 more burdensome than, the ordinary recordkeep ing already required for courses provided in 1384 traditional formats. 1385 Many of the amendments are merely clarif ications of existing regulatory language and 1386 implementation of policy and impose no additional co sts. Examples of these amendments include 1387 the clarifications on the role of the principal in structor in an accredite d training program, the 1388 requirement that the trainee photograph on a c ourse completion certificate be an accurate 1389 representation of the trainee and no smaller than one square in ch, and the clarification that 1390 certified renovators are only requ ired to provide on-the-job traini ng in the RRP work practices to 1391 other renovation workers. 1392*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 59 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] With respect to the vertical containment requirements of th is final rule, EPA has already 1393 accounted for the costs of those requirements. In EPA’s economic analysis for the 2008 RRP 1394 rule, EPA addressed those situations where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to 1395 effectively contain dust and debr is, including work areas in clos e proximity to other buildings, 1396 work areas that abut a property line, and windy conditions. The 2008 economic analysis 1397 specifically notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of vertical containment to 1398 prevent paint dust and debris from contaminati ng the ground or any object beyond the work area. 1399 To account for these situations, EP A estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use 1400 exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall 1401 to $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the j ob. Thus, EPA has already accounted for the 1402 additional costs incurred for using vertical cont ainment systems on renovations performed within 1403 10 feet of the property line. 1404 Some of the amendments are likely to result in some additional costs for the regulated 1405 community, but EPA is unable to estimate what those costs might be. For example, removal of 1406 the provision allowing renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification step when performing 1407 clean-up if the firm is also required to achieve clearance could result in some minimal additional 1408 cost for those renovations. As previously disc ussed, EPA’s “Electrostat ic Cloth and Wet Cloth 1409 Field Study in Residential Housi ng” (Ref. 6) showed that clea ning verification should take 1410 approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth may be used for up to 40 square 1411 feet of uncarpeted floor, counter top, or windowsill space. EPA es timated, as part of the final 1412 2008 RRP rule analyses, that the material cost fo r each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that handles 1413 are $13.60 apiece (Ref. 10). EPA assumed that th ese handles can be used for approximately 1414 1,000 events. On the other hand, the Dust Study de monstrates that the we t disposable cleaning 1415 cloth method is very effective at cleaning up dust. It is likely that completing the entire RRP 1416*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 60 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, will increase the probability that clearance, 1417 where required by HUD or another entity, will be achieved on the fi rst attempt, thus eliminating 1418 the burden of additional clearance attempts. 1419 This final rule extends the recordkeeping re quirement for providers of certified renovator 1420 and certified dust sampling technici an training from 3 years and 6 m onths to 5 years in general 1421 and slightly more than 5 years for training pr oviders who offered accredited courses in these 1422 disciplines before April 22, 2010. The recordkeep ing extension does not affect recordkeeping 1423 requirements associated with obtaining and mainta ining accreditation. This extension only affects 1424 those records pertaining to tr aining courses, specifically notifications. Pro-rating the 1425 recordkeeping cost estimates from EPA’s economi c analysis for the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping 1426 Final Rule, also published in the Federal Regi ster on May 6, 2010 (Ref. 15), shows that the 1427 recordkeeping burden for courses provided during the first year th e rule was effective increases 1428 from $43.68 to $61.88 per training provider. For c ourses provided in subsequent years, the 1429 recordkeeping burden per training provider incr eases from $4.80 to $6.80. These estimates are 1430 for the entire 5 years that the r ecords would have to be kept. 1431 EPA has estimated the number of individuals residing in target housi ng units or attending 1432 COFs where renovation events are performed. The proposed rule wi ll benefit 809,000 children 1433 under the age of 6 and 7,547,000 indi viduals age 6 and older (inc luding 96,000 pregnant women) 1434 per year by minimizing their exposure to lead dust generated by renovations. 1435
B. Paperwork Burdens 1436 The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for 1437 approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 1438 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) 1439 document to amend an existing ICR that is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0155 (EPA 1440*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 61 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] ICR No. 1715). The ICR amendment, entitled “ICR Addendum for Final Rule entitled “Lead; 1441 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirement s for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 1442 Program; Final Rule (RIN 2070–AJ57)” and identified under EPA I CR No. 2381.02, has been 1443 placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 16). 1444 This regulatory action contai ns only two amendments to th e approved existing information 1445 collection: Amendments to the requirement fo r the training provider to submit documentation of 1446 training manager and principal instructor qualif ications; and a requirement for providers of 1447 renovator and dust sampling technician training to maintain training records for these courses for 1448 5 years, rather than 3 years and 6 months. These requirements add only negligible paperwork 1449 burden hours to the existing burden estimate. 1450 EPA previously estimated for the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 10) and the final Opt-out rule 1451 (Ref. 15) that 170 training provide rs would be accredited to provi de renovator training. These 1452 training providers will now have to submit an additional 2-4 photocopies along with their 1453 applications for accreditation. EPA estimates th at each photocopy costs $0.09 to generate, for a 1454 maximum of $0.36 additional cost for training pr oviders with one trai ning manager and one 1455 principal instructor. Each of these 170 training providers is also required to provide training 1456 course notifications under the existing RRP rule. These notifications will now have to be kept for 1457 5 years instead of 3 years and 6 months. EPA has also estimated that each of these training 1458 providers would offer on average a total of 86 re novator or dust sampling technician courses in 1459 the first year, and 20 per year thereafter. This would requ ire a total of 182 single-page 1460 notifications in the first year, and 42 each year thereafter. 1461 Under PRA, burden is define d at 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and means the total time, effort, or 1462 financial resources expended by persons to gene rate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide 1463 information to or for a Federal agency. An ag ency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 1464*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 62 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] not required to respond to a co llection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 1465 control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’ s regulations codified in 40 CFR chapter I, 1466 after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either 1467 by publication in the Federal Register or by othe r appropriate means, such as on the related 1468 collection instrument or form, as applicable. 1469
C. Small Entity Impacts 1470 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regul atory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq ., 1471 the Agency hereby certifies that this final ru le will not have a signi ficant adverse economic 1472 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 1473 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this 1474 final rule on small entities, small entity is defined in accordance with RFA section 601 as: 1475 1. A small business as defined by the Sma ll Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 1476
at 13 CFR 121.201. 1477 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a c ity, county, town, school 1478 district, or special di strict with a populat ion of less than 50,000. 1479 3. A small organization that is any not-for-p rofit enterprise which is independently owned 1480 and operated and is not do minant in its field. 1481 The small entities directly regulated by this fi nal rule are providers of lead-based paint 1482 related training, renovation firms, individua ls who perform renovations, and any small 1483 governmental jurisdictions or not-f or-profit enterprises that provide lead-based paint training or 1484 renovation services. As discussed previously, EPA has decided not to promulgate the clearance 1485 and clearance testing requirements, and is in stead promulgating minor amendments to the 1486 requirements for lead-based paint training prov iders and renovation firms that will have only 1487 negligible adverse impacts on any small entities. 1488*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 63 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] In addition, RFA states that agencies “may cons ider a series of closel y related rules as one 1489 rule for the purposes of [an IRFA]” in order to avoid “duplicative acti on.” 5 U.S.C. § 605(c). 1490 This rulemaking is closely related to the 2008 RRP rule. Indeed, the propos ed rule addressed one 1491 of the major issues in the 2008 rulemaking and so me of the provisions finalized in the 2008 RRP 1492 rule. Accordingly, EPA was not required to comple te a regulatory flexibility analysis for this 1493 rulemaking. Nonetheless, EPA exercised its di scretion to complete an Initial Regulatory 1494 Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the 2010 proposal (see 75 FR 25038). The IRFA considered the 1495 potential adverse economic impacts of the 2010 propos ed rule on affected sm all entities, primarily 1496 those related to the proposed clearance and cl earance testing requirements. The proposed 1497 provisions analyzed for purposes of the IRFAare not part of this final rule. 1498 Moreover, as discussed in the 2010 proposed rule in more detail, the Small Business 1499 Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel that was condu cted in connection with the 2006 RRP proposal 1500 is equally applicable to this closely related amendment to the 2008 RRP rule. The SBAR Panel 1501 discussed all major aspects of the 2006 proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities, 1502 including issues related to ensuring that proper cleanup occurs after renovation activities. As a 1503 part of the panel process, EPA “collect[ed] advice and recommendations” from several Small 1504 Entity Representatives (SERs) on the 2006 pr oposal to regulate renovation and remodeling 1505 activities. 5 U.S.C. § 609(b). The SBAR Panel report, entitled Report of the Small Business 1506 Advocacy Review Panel on The Lead-base Painti ng; Certification and Training; Renovation and 1507 Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000), expressly addresse d containment and dust clearance 1508 testing requirements. Thus, the primary issues considered in th is rulemaking are wholly within 1509 the scope of the issues EPA considered as part of the 2008 RRP rule and were within the scope of 1510 the issues considered by the SBAR Panel. Reconvening the RRP Panel for the 2010 proposed 1511 rule would be procedurally duplicative and unnecessary. 1512*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 64 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] D. Unfunded Mandates 1513 This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 1514 million or more for State, local, and tribal government s, in the aggregate, or the private sector in 1515 any one year. This rule includes only minor am endments to the requirements for providers of 1516 lead-based paint training and fo r renovation firms. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 1517 requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 1518 U.S.C. 1531-1538). 1519 This rule is also not subject to the re quirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 1520 contains no regulatory require ments that might significantlyor uniquely affect small 1521 governments. Small governments are only regulated by this action to the exte nt that they engage 1522 in providing lead-based paint tr aining or renovation services. 1523
E. Federalism 1524 Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 1525 EPA has determined that this final rule does no t have “federalism implications,” because it will 1526 not have substantial direct effects on the St ates, on the relationship between the national 1527 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 1528 levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 1529 not apply to this final rule. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, 1530 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the Agency and State and 1531 local governments, EPA consulted with representatives of State and local governments during the 1532 rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP rule. These c onsultations are as described in the preamble 1533 to the 2006 RRP proposed rule (Ref. 18). 1534
F. Indian Tribal Government Implications 1535 As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 1536*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 65 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), EPA has determined that this final 1537 rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 1538 governments, on the relationship between the Fede ral Government and the Indian Tribes, or on 1539 the distribution of power and re sponsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 1540 as specified in the Executive Order. Thus, Ex ecutive Order 13175 does not apply to this final 1541 rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this fi nal rule, EPA consulted with 1542 Tribal officials and others by discussing potential renovation regulatory options at several 1543 national lead program meetings hosted by EP A and other interested Federal agencies. 1544
G. Protection of Children 1545 Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 1546 and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) does not apply to this final rule because it is not 1547 an ”economically significant regul atory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866. While the 1548 environmental health or safety risk addresse d by the 2008 RRP rule does have a disproportionate 1549 effect on children, this final rule makes only minor changes in the administrative requirements for 1550 accredited training providers and includes minor amendments to the requirements for renovation 1551 firms. 1552 EPA has evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of renovation, repair, and 1553 painting projects on children. Various aspects of th is evaluation are discu ssed in the preamble to 1554 the 2006 proposed RRP rule (Ref. 18). The prim ary purpose of the final 2008 RRP rule is to 1555 minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazard s created during renovati on, repair, and painting 1556 activities in housing where chil dren under age 6 reside and in housing or other buildings 1557 frequented by children under age 6. In the ab sence of the final 2008 RRP rule, adequate work 1558 practices are not likely to be employed during renovation, repair, and painting activ ities. EPA’s 1559 analysis indicates that there will be approximately 1.4 million children under age 6 affected by the 1560*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 66 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] RRP rule. These children are projected to receive considerable benefits due to the RRP rule. In 1561 addition, older children will also benefit from the protections afforded by the RRP rule. 1562
H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 1563 This final rule is not a “significant energy ac tion” as defined in Executive Order 13211, 1564 entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that Signific antly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 1565
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the 1566 supply, distribution, or use of energy. 1567
I. Technical Standards 1568 This regulatory action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency 1569 consideration of voluntary cons ensus standards pursuant to s ection 12(d) of the National 1570 Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. Section 1571 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary co nsensus standards in its regulatory activities 1572 unless to do so would be inconsistent with appl icable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 1573 consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materi als specifications, te st methods, sampling 1574 procedures, business practices) that are devel oped or adopted by voluntar y consensus standards 1575 bodies. NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 1576 decides not to use available and appli cable voluntary consensus standards. 1577
J. Environmental Justice 1578 Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 1579 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 1580 Federal executive policy on environm ental justice. Its main provisi on directs Federal agencies, to 1581 the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 1582 mission by identifying and addressing, as appropri ate, disproportionately high and adverse human 1583 health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minor ity populations 1584*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 67 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] and low-income populations in the United States. 1585 While EPA has not assessed the potential imp act of this final rule on minority and low1586 income populations, EPA did assess the potential impact of the fina l 2008 RRP rule as a whole. 1587 As a result of the final 2008 RRP rule assessment, contained in the economic analysis for the final 1588 2008 RRP rule, EPA has determined that the RRP rule will not have disproportionately high and 1589 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 1590 increases the level of environm ental protection for all affected populations without having any 1591 disproportionately high and adve rse human health or environm ental effects on any population, 1592 including any minority or lo w-income population (Ref. 10). 1593 V. Congressional Review Act 1594 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., generally provides that before a rule 1595 may take effect, the agency prom ulgating the rule must submit a ru le report to each House of the 1596 Congress and the Comptroller General of the Unit ed States. EPA will submit a report containing 1597 this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, 1598 and the Comptroller General of the United Stat es prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 1599 Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 1600 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 1601 Environmental protection, Child-occ upied facility, Housing renovation, 1602 Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 1603 Dated: ________________ 1604

____________________________________ 1605 Administrator. 1606

1607*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 68 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: 1608 PART 745--[AMENDED] 1609 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 1610 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 1611 2. In § 745.82, add a new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows. 1612 § 745.82 Applicability. 1613 (a) * * * 1614 (3) Renovations in target hous ing or child-occupied facili ties in which a certified 1615 renovator has collected a paint chip sample from each painted component affected by the 1616 renovation and a laboratory recogn ized by EPA pursuant to sec tion 405(b) of TSCA as being 1617 capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in paint chip samples has determined that the 1618 samples are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 1619 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. If the components make up an integrated whole, such as the 1620 individual stair treads and risers of a single staircase, the reno vator is required to test only one of 1621 the individual components, unless the individual components appear to have been repainted or 1622 refinished separately. 1623
* * * * * 1624 3. In § 745.83, add the definition “Containment ” and the definition “Painted surface” in 1625 alphabetical order to read as follows: 1626 § 745.83 Definitions. 1627
* * * * * 1628 Painted surface means a component surface covered in whole or in part with paint or other 1629 surface coatings. 1630
* * * 1631*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 69 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Vertical containment means a vertical barrier consis ting of plastic sheeting or other 1632 impermeable material over scaffolding or a wood or metal frame, or an equivalent system. 1633 Vertical containment is required for some ex terior renovations but it may be used on any 1634 renovation. 1635
* * * * * 1636 4. Section 745.85 is amended as follows: 1637 a. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D); 1638 b. Revise paragraph (a)(3); 1639 c. Remove paragraph (c); 1640 The revisions read as follows: 1641 § 745.85 Work practice standards. 1642 (a) * * * 1643 (2) * * * 1644 (i) * * * 1645 (D) Cover the floor surface, including insta lled carpet, with taped- down plastic sheeting or 1646 other impermeable material in the work area 6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing 1647 renovation or a sufficient distance to contain the dust, whichever is greater. Floor containment 1648 measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier when usi ng a vertical containment system 1649 consisting of impermeable barriers that extend from the floor to the ceiling and are tightly sealed 1650 at joints with the floor, ceiling and walls. 1651 (ii) * * * 1652 (C) Cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material 1653 extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfac es undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance 1654 to collect falling paint debris, whichever is greater, unless the property lin e prevents 10 feet of 1655*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 70 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] such ground covering. Ground containment measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier 1656 when using a vertical containment system. 1657 (D) If the renovation will affect surfaces within 10 feet of the property line, the renovation 1658 firm must erect vertical containment to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation does not 1659 contaminate adjacent buildings or migrate to adja cent properties. Vertical containment may also 1660 be necessary in other situations, such as in wi ndy conditions, in order to prevent contamination of 1661 other buildings, other areas of the property, or adjacent buildings or properties. 1662 (3) Prohibited and restricted practices. The work practices listed below are prohibited or 1663 restricted during a renovation as follows: 1664 (i) Open-flame burning or torching of painted surfaces is prohibited. 1665 (ii) The use of machines designed to rem ove paint or other surface coatings through high 1666 speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 1667 sandblasting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unle ss such machines have shrouds or containment 1668 systems and are equipped with a HE PA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the point 1669 of generation. 1670 (iii) Operating a heat gun on painted surfaces is permitted only at temperatures below 1671 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. 1672
* * * * * 1673 5. In § 745.86, delete paragraph (d). 1674 6. Section 745.90 is amended as follows: 1675 a. By revising paragr aphs (a)(2) and (a)(3). 1676 b. By revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(8). 1677 § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification. 1678 (a) * * * 1679*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 71 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited abatement worker or 1680 supervisor course, or individuals who successful ly completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD model 1681 renovation training course before [ insert date [60] days afte r date of publication in the Federal 1682 Register ] may take an accredited refr esher renovator training cour se in lieu of the initial 1683 renovator training course to b ecome a certified renovator. 1684 (3) Individuals who have successfully comple ted an accredited lead-b ased paint inspector 1685 or risk assessor course [ insert date [60] days after date of publication in the Federal Register ] 1686 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling techni cian course in lieu of the initial training to 1687 become a certified dust sampling technician. Indivi duals who are currently ce rtified as lead-based 1688 paint inspectors or risk assessors may act as certified dust sampling technicians without further 1689 training. 1690
* * * * * 1691 (b) * * * 1692 (2) Must provide training to workers on th e work practices requir ed by § 745.85(a) that 1693 they will be using in perf orming their assigned tasks. 1694
* * * * * 1695 (4) Must regularly direct wo rk being performed by other i ndividuals to ensure that the 1696 work practices required by § 745.85( a) are being followed, including maintaining the integrity of 1697 the containment barriers and ensuring that dust or debris does not spread beyond the work area. 1698
* * * * * 1699 (8) Must prepare the records re quired by § 745.86(b)(1 )(ii) and (6). 1700
* * * * * 1701 7. In § 745.92, add paragraph (b)( 3) to read as follows: 1702 § 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling technician training and 1703*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 72 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] the certification of renovation firms. 1704
* * * * * 1705 (b) * * * 1706 (3) Accreditation or certification amendments. No fee will be charged for accreditation or 1707 certification amendments. 1708
* * * * * 1709 8. Revise § 745.225 to read as follows: 1710 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: targ et housing and child occupied facilities. 1711 (a) Scope. (1) A training program may seek accreditation to offe r courses in any of the 1712 following disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, proj ect designer, abatement worker, 1713 renovator, and dust sampling technician. A training program may also seek accreditation to offer 1714 refresher courses for each of the above listed disciplines. 1715 (2) Training programs may first apply to EP A for accreditation of their lead-based paint 1716 activities courses or refresher courses pursuant to this se ction on or after August 31, 1998. 1717 Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their renovator or dust sampling 1718 technician courses or refreshe r courses pursuant to this se ction on or after April 22, 2009. 1719 (3) A training program must not provide, o ffer, or claim to provide EPA- accredited lead1720 based paint activities courses without applyi ng for and receiving accreditation from EPA as 1721 required under paragraph (b) of this section on or after March 1, 1999. A training program must 1722 not provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA-accredited renovato r or dust sampling technician 1723 courses without applying for and receiving ac creditation from EPA as required under paragraph 1724 (b) of this section on or after June 23, 2008. 1725 (b) Application process. The following are procedures a tr aining program must follow to 1726 receive EPA accreditation to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust 1727*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 73 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] sampling technician courses: 1728 (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit a written application to EPA 1729 containing the following information: 1730 (i) The training program’s name , address, and telephone number. 1731 (ii) A list of courses for which it is appl ying for accreditation. For the purposes of this 1732 section, courses taught in diffe rent languages and electronic l earning courses are considered 1733 different courses, and each must independe ntly meet the accreditation requirements. 1734 (iii) The name and documentation of the quali fications of the trai ning program manager. 1735 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of qualif ications of any prin cipal instructor(s). 1736 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the training 1737 program meets the requirements es tablished in paragraph (c) of th is section. If a training program 1738 uses EPA-recommended model training materials, or training materials approved by a State or 1739 Indian Tribe that has been authorized by EPA unde r subpart Q of this part , the training program 1740 manager shall include a statem ent certifying that, as well. 1741 (vi) If a training program does not use EP A-recommended model tr aining materials, its 1742 application for accreditation shall also include: (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals, 1743 or other materials to be used for each course. 1744 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 1745 (C) When applying for accreditation of a course in a language other than 1746 English, a signed statement from a qualified, indepe ndent translator that they had compared the 1747 course to the English language version and found the translation to be accurate. 1748 (vii) All training programs shall include in their application for accreditation the 1749 following: 1750 (A) A description of the f acilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands-on 1751*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 74 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] training. 1752 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 1753 (C) A description of the ac tivities and procedures that will be used for conducting the 1754 assessment of hands-on skills for each course. 1755 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as desc ribed in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 1756 (2) If a training program meets the requirement s in paragraph (c) of this section, then EPA 1757 shall approve the application for accreditation no mo re than 180 days after receiving a complete 1758 application from the training program. In the case of approval, a certific ate of accreditation shall 1759 be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a letter describing the reasons for disapproval 1760 shall be sent to the applicant. Prior to disa pproval, EPA may, at its di scretion, work with the 1761 applicant to address inadequacies in the a pplication for accreditation. EPA may also request 1762 additional materials retained by the training progr am under paragraph (i) of this section. If a 1763 training program’s application is disapproved, the program may r eapply for accreditation at any 1764 time. 1765 (3) A training program may apply for accreditation to offer courses or refresher courses in 1766 as many disciplines as it chooses. A training program may seek accreditation for additional 1767 courses at any time as long as the program can dem onstrate that it meets the requirements of this 1768 section. 1769 (4) A training program applying for accreditation must submit the appropriate fees in 1770 accordance with § 745.238. 1771 (c) Requirements for the accredita tion of training programs. For a training program to 1772 obtain accreditation from EPA to of fer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or 1773 dust sampling technician courses, the progr am must meet the following requirements: 1774 (1) The training program shall empl oy a training manager who has: 1775*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 75 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (i) At least 2 years of experi ence, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; or 1776 (ii) A bachelor’s or graduate degree inbuilding construction technology, engineering, 1777 industrial hygiene, safety, pub lic health, education, busine ss administration or program 1778 management or a related field; or 1779 (iii) Two years of experience in mana ging a training program specializing in 1780 environmental hazards; and 1781 (iv) Demonstrated experience, educati on, or training in the construction industry 1782 including: Lead or asbestos abatement, pa inting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, occupational 1783 safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 1784 (2) The training manager shall designate a qua lified principal instructor for each course 1785 who has: 1786 (i) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; and 1787 (ii) Successfully completed at least 16 hour s of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized 1788 State or Tribal-accredited l ead-specific training; and 1789 (iii) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in lead or asbestos abatement, 1790 painting, carpentry, renovation, remo deling, occupational safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 1791 (3) The principal instructor sh all be responsible for the organization of the course, course 1792 delivery, and oversight of the teaching of all cour se material. The training manager may designate 1793 guest instructors as needed for a portion of the course to provide in struction specific to the lecture, 1794 hands-on activities, or work practic e components of a course. Howeve r, the principal instructor is 1795 primarily responsible for teaching the course materi als and must be present to provide instruction 1796 (or oversight of portions of the course taught by gue st instructors) for the course for which he has 1797 been designated the principal instructor. 1798 (4) The following documents shall be r ecognized by EPA as evidence that training 1799*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 76 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] managers and principal instructors have the educ ation, work experience, training requirements or 1800 demonstrated experience, specifica lly listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. This 1801 documentation must be submitted with the accredi tation application and retained by the training 1802 program as required by the recordke eping requirements contained in paragraph (i) of this section. 1803 Those documents include the following: 1804 (i) Official academic transcripts or di ploma as evidence of meeting the education 1805 requirements. 1806 (ii) Resumes, letters of reference, or documentation of work experience, as evidence of 1807 meeting the work experience requirements. 1808 (iii) Certificates from train-the-trainer c ourses and lead-specific training courses, as 1809 evidence of meeting the training requirements. 1810 (5) The training program shall ensure the availability of, and provide adequate facilities 1811 for, the delivery of the lecture, course test, hands-on training, and assessment activities. This 1812 includes providing training equipment that reflec ts current work practices and maintaining or 1813 updating the equipment and facilities as needed. 1814 (6) To become accredited in the following di sciplines, the training program shall provide 1815 training courses that meet the following training requirements: 1816 (i) The inspector course shall last a minimum of 24 training hours, with a minimum of 8 1817 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 1818 inspector course are contained in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 1819 (ii) The risk assessor course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a minimum of 1820 4 hours devoted to hands-on trai ning activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 1821 risk assessor course are contained inparagraph (d)(2) of this section. 1822 (iii) The supervisor course shall last a mini mum of 32 training hours, with a minimum of 8 1823*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 77 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] hours devoted to hands-on activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the supervisor 1824 course are contained in paragr aph (d)(3) of this section. 1825 (iv) The project designer course shall last a minimum of 8 trai ning hours. The minimum 1826 curriculum requirements for the project designer cour se are contained in paragraph (d)(4) of this 1827 section. 1828 (v) The abatement worker course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a 1829 minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on trai ning activities. The minimum curriculum 1830 requirements for the abatement worker course are contained in paragraph (d )(5) of this section. 1831 (vi) The renovator course must last a mini mum of 8 training hours, with a minimum of 2 1832 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 1833 renovator course are contained in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 1834 (vii) The dust sampling technician course mu st last a minimum of 8 training hours, with a 1835 minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on trai ning activities. The minimum curriculum 1836 requirements for the dust sampling technician cour se are contained in paragraph (d)(7) of this 1837 section. 1838 (viii) Electronic learning and other alternative course deli very methods are permitted for 1839 the classroom portion of renovator, dust sampli ng technician, or lead-b ased paint activities 1840 courses but not the hands-on portion of these courses, or for final co urse tests or proficiency tests 1841 described in paragraph (c)(7) of this section. El ectronic learning courses must comply with the 1842 following requirements: 1843 (A) A unique identifier must be assigned to each student for them to use to launch and re1844 launch the course. 1845 (B) The training provider must track each student’s course log-ins, launches, progress, and 1846 completion, and maintain these records in accord ance with paragraph (i ) of this section. 1847*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 78 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (C) The course must include periodic know ledge checks equivalent to the number and 1848 content of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’ s model course, but at least 16 over the entire 1849 course. The knowledge checks must be successfully completed before the student can go on to 1850 the next module. 1851 (D) There must be a test of at least 20 que stions at the end of the electronic learning 1852 portion of the course, of which 80% must be answered correctlyby the student for successful 1853 completion of the electronic le arning portion of the course. 1854 (E) Each student must be able to save or print a copy of an elec tronic learning course 1855 completion certificate. The electr onic certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and easy 1856 editing by students. 1857 (7) For each course offered, the training progr am shall conduct either a course test at the 1858 completion of the course, and if ap plicable, a hands-on ski lls assessment, or in the alternative, a 1859 proficiency test for that discipline. Each i ndividual must successfully complete the hands-on 1860 skills assessment and receive a passing score on the c ourse test to pass any course, or successfully 1861 complete a proficiency test. 1862 (i) The training manager is re sponsible for maintaining the va lidity and integrity of the 1863 hands-on skills assessment or proficiency test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees’ 1864 performance of the work practices and procedures associated with the course topics contained in 1865 paragraph (d) of this section. 1866 (ii) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity of the 1867 course test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees ’ knowledge and re tention of the 1868 course topics. 1869 (iii) The course test shall be developed in accordance with the test blueprint submitted 1870 with the training accre ditation application. 1871*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 79 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (8) The training program shall issue unique course completion certificates to each 1872 individual who passes the training course. The co urse completion certificate shall include: 1873 (i) The name, a unique identification nu mber, and address of the individual. 1874 (ii) The name of the particular c ourse that the individual completed. 1875 (iii) Dates of course completion/test passage. 1876 (iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, proj ect designer, supervisor, or abatement worker 1877 course completion certificates, the expiration date of interim certifi cation, which is 6 months from 1878 the date of course completion. 1879 (v) The name, address, and telephon e number of the training program. 1880 (vi) The language in which the course was taught. 1881 (vii) For renovator and dust sampling tec hnician course completion certificates, a 1882 photograph of the individual. The photograph must be an accurate and recognizable image of the 1883 individual. As reproduced on the certificate, the photograph must not be smaller than 1 square 1884 inch. 1885 (9) The training manager shall develop and implement a quality control plan. The plan 1886 shall be used to maintain and improve the qualit y of the training program over time. This plan 1887 shall contain at least the following elements: 1888 (i) Procedures for periodic revision of trai ning materials and the course test to reflect 1889 innovations in the field. 1890 (ii) Procedures for the training manager’s annual review of principal instructor 1891 competency. 1892 (10) Courses offered by the training program must teach the work practice standards 1893 contained in § 745.85 or § 745.227, as applicable, insuch a manner that trainees are provided 1894 with the knowledge needed to perform the renovati ons or lead-based paint activities they will be 1895*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 80 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] responsible for conducting. 1896 (11) The training manager shall be respons ible for ensuring that the training program 1897 complies at all times with all of the requirements in this section. 1898 (12) The training manager shall allow EPA to audit the training program to verify the 1899 contents of the application for accreditation as described in paragraph (b) of this section. 1900 (13) The training manager must provide notification of re novator, dust sampling 1901 technician, or lead-based pa int activities courses offered. 1902 (i) The training manager mu st provide EPA with notific ation of all renovator, dust 1903 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered. The original notification must 1904 be received by EPA at least 7 bus iness days prior to th e start date of any renovator, dust sampling 1905 technician, or lead-based paint activities course. 1906 (ii) The training manager must provide EPA updated notification when renovator, dust 1907 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses will begin on a date other than the start 1908 date specified in the origin al notification, as follows: 1909 (A) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 1910 beginning prior to the start date provided to EP A, an updated notification must be received by 1911 EPA at least 7 business days before the new start date. 1912 (B) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 1913 beginning after the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be received by EPA 1914 at least 2 business days before th e start date provided to EPA. 1915 (iii) The training manager must update EPA of any change in location of renovator, dust 1916 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activitie s courses at least 7 busin ess days prior to the 1917 start date provided to EPA. 1918 (iv) The training manager must update EPA regarding any course cancellations, or any 1919*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 81 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] other change to the original notification. Updated notifications must be received by EPA at least 2 1920 business days prior to the start date provided to EPA. 1921 (v) Each notification, including update s, must include the following: 1922 (A) Notification type (ori ginal, update, cancellation). 1923 (B) Training program name, EPA accreditat ion number, address, and telephone number. 1924 (C) Course discipline, type (initial/refresh er), and the language in which instruction will 1925 be given. 1926 (D) Date(s) and tim e(s) of training. 1927 (E) Training location(s) te lephone number, and address. 1928 (F) Principal instructor’s name. 1929 (G) Training manager’s name and signature. 1930 (vi) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: Written 1931 notification, or electronically using the Ag ency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 1932 notification of lead-based paint activities course schedules ca n be accomplished by using either 1933 the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training Notification” or a similar form containing the 1934 information required in paragraph (c)(13)(v) of th is section. All written notifications must be 1935 delivered by U.S. Postal Service, fax, commerc ial delivery service, or hand delivery (persons 1936 submitting notification by U.S. Postal Service ar e reminded that they should allow 3 additional 1937 business days for delivery in order to ensure that EPA receives the not ification by the required 1938 date). Instructions and sample forms can be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800– 424– 1939 LEAD(5323), or on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/lead. 1940 (vii) Renovator, dust sampling t echnician, or lead-based pain t activities courses must not 1941 begin on a date, or at a location other than that specified in the original notification unless an 1942 updated notification identifying a ne w start date or location is submitted, in which case the course 1943*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 82 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] must begin on the new start date and/or location specified in the updated notification. 1944 (viii) No training program shall provide renov ator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 1945 paint activities courses without first notifying EP A of such activities in accordance with the 1946 requirements of this paragraph. 1947 (14) The training manager must provide not ification following completion of renovator, 1948 dust sampling technician, or lead-b ased paint activities courses. 1949 (i) The training manager mustprovide EPA notification after the completion of any lead1950 based paint activities course. This notice must be received by EPA no later than 10 business days 1951 following course completion. 1952 (ii) The notification must include the following: 1953 (A) Training program name, EPA accreditat ion number, address, and telephone number. 1954 (B) Course discipline and type (initial/refresher). 1955 (C) Date(s) of training. 1956 (D) The following information fo r each student who took the course: 1957 ( 1 ) Name. 1958 ( 2 ) Address. 1959 ( 3 ) Date of birth. 1960 ( 4 ) Course completion certificate number. 1961 ( 5 ) Course test score. 1962 ( 6) For renovator or dust sampling technician courses, a digital photograph of the student. 1963 (E) Training manager’s name and signature. 1964 (iii) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: Written 1965 notification, or electron ically using the Agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 1966 notification following renovator, dus t sampling technician, or lead-b ased paint activities training 1967*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 83 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] courses can be accomplished by using either the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training 1968 Course Follow-up” or a similar fo rm containing the information re quired in paragraph (c)(14)(ii) 1969 of this section. All written notifications must be delivered by U.S. Postal Service, fax, 1970 commercial delivery service, or hand delivery (p ersons submitting notification by U.S. Postal 1971 Service are reminded that they should allow 3 ad ditional business days for delivery in order to 1972 ensure that EPA receives the notif ication by the required date). Instructions and sample forms 1973 can be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800–424–LEAD (5323), or on the Internet at 1974 http://www.epa.gov/lead. 1975 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. To become accredited to offer lead-based 1976 paint courses in the specific disciplines listed below, training programs must ensure that their 1977 courses of study include, at a mini mum, the following course topics. 1978 (1) Inspector. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv), (v), (vi), and 1979 (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 1980 (i) Role and responsibilities of an inspector. 1981 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 1982 (iii) Background information on Federal, Stat e, and local regulations and guidance that 1983 pertains to lead-based paint and lead- based paint activities. 1984 (iv) Lead-based paint inspection methods, including selection of rooms and components 1985 for sampling or testing. 1986 (v) Paint, dust, and so il sampling methodologies. 1987 (vi) Clearance standards and te sting, including random sampling. 1988 (vii) Preparation of the final inspection report. 1989 (viii) Recordkeeping. 1990 (2) Risk assessor. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (vi), and 1991*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 84 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 1992 (i) Role and responsibilit ies of a risk assessor. 1993 (ii) Collection of background information to perform a risk assessment. 1994 (iii) Sources of environmental lead contamin ation such as paint, surface dust and soil, 1995 water, air, packaging, and food. 1996 (iv) Visual inspection for th e purposes of identifying potential sources of lead-based paint 1997 hazards. 1998 (v) Lead hazard screen protocol. 1999 (vi) Sampling for other sources of lead exposure. 2000 (vii) Interpretation of lead-based paint and other lead sampling results, including all 2001 applicable State or Federal guidance or regulations pertaining to lead-based paint hazards. 2002 (viii) Development of hazard control options, the role of interim controls, and operations 2003 and maintenance activities to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 2004 (ix) Preparation of a fina l risk assessment report. 2005 (3) Supervisor. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(3)(v), (vii), (viii), (ix), 2006 and (x) of this section must be includ ed in the hands-on portion of the course. 2007 (i) Role and responsibil ities of a supervisor. 2008 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2009 (iii) Background information on Federal, Stat e, and local regulations and guidance that 2010 pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 2011 (iv) Liability and insurance issues re lating to lead-based paint abatement. 2012 (v) Risk assessment and inspection report interpretation. 2013 (vi) Development and implementation of anoccupant protection plan and abatement 2014 report. 2015*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 85 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (vii) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control. 2016 (viii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based pa int hazard reduction methods, 2017 including restricted practices. 2018 (ix) Interior dust abatemen t/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard control and reduction 2019 methods. 2020 (x) Soil and exterior dust abatement or l ead-based paint hazard control and reduction 2021 methods. 2022 (xi) Clearance standards and testing. 2023 (xii) Cleanup and waste disposal. 2024 (xiii) Recordkeeping. 2025 (4) Project designer. (i) Role and responsibilitie s of a project designer. 2026 (ii) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan for large-scale 2027 abatement projects. 2028 (iii) Lead-based paint abat ement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, including 2029 restricted practices for larg e-scale abatement projects. 2030 (iv) Interior dust abatemen t/cleanup or lead hazard control and reduction methods for 2031 large-scale abatement projects. 2032 (v) Clearance standards and testing for large scale abatement projects. 2033 (vi) Integration of lead -based paint abatement met hods with modernization and 2034 rehabilitation projects for large scale abatement projects. 2035 (5) Abatement worker. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(5)(iv), (v), 2036 (vi), and (vii) of this section must be in cluded in the hands-on portion of the course. 2037 (i) Role and responsibilities of an abatement worker. 2038 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2039*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 86 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (iii) Background information on Federal, Stat e and local regulations and guidance that 2040 pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 2041 (iv) Lead-based paint ha zard recognition and control. 2042 (v) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint h azard reduction methods, including 2043 restricted practices. 2044 (vi) Interior dust abatement methods/cle anup or lead-based pa int hazard reduction. 2045 (vii) Soil and exterior dust abatement methods or lead-b ased paint hazard reduction. 2046 (6) Renovator. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv), (vi), (vii), and 2047 (viii) of this section must be includ ed in the hands-on portion of the course. 2048 (i) Role and responsib ility of a renovator. 2049 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2050 (iii) Background information on EPA, HUD, OS HA, and other Federal, State, and local 2051 regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 2052 (iv) Procedures for using acceptable test kits to determine whether paint is lead-based 2053 paint. 2054 (v) Procedures for collecting a paint chip sample and sending it to a laborato ry recognized 2055 by EPA under section 405(b) of TSCA. 2056 (vi) Renovation methods to minimize the creat ion of dust and lead-based paint hazards. 2057 (vii) Interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods. 2058 (viii) Methods to ensure that the reno vation has been properly completed, including 2059 cleaning verification and clearance testing. 2060 (ix) Waste handling and disposal. 2061 (x) Providing on-the-job tr aining to other workers. 2062 (xi) Record preparation. 2063*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 87 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (7) Dust sampling technician. Instruction in the topics desc ribed in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv) 2064 and (vi) of this section must be include d in the hands-on portion of the course. 2065 (i) Role and responsibility of a dust sampling technician. 2066 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2067 (iii) Background information on Federal, Stat e, and local regulations and guidance that 2068 pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 2069 (iv) Dust samp ling methodologies. 2070 (v) Clearance standards and testing. 2071 (vi) Report preparation. 2072 (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training programs. A training program 2073 may seek accreditation to offer refresher traini ng courses in any of the following disciplines: 2074 Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, and dust 2075 sampling technician. To obtain EPA accreditation to offer refresher training, a training program 2076 must meet the followingminimum requirements: 2077 (1) Each refresher course sh all review the curriculum topics of the full-length courses 2078 listed under paragraph (d) of this section, as a ppropriate. In addition, to become accredited to 2079 offer refresher training courses, training programs shall ensure that their courses of study include, 2080 at a minimum, the following: 2081 (i) An overview of current safe ty practices relating to lead-based paint in general, as well 2082 as specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 2083 (ii) Current laws and regulations relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as specific 2084 information pertaining to th e appropriate discipline. 2085 (iii) Current technologies relating to lead-based paint in ge neral, as well as specific 2086 information pertaining to th e appropriate discipline. 2087*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 88 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk a ssessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must 2088 last a minimum of 8 training hour s. Refresher courses for projectdesigner, renovator, and dust 2089 sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all 2090 disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on component. 2091 (3) For each course offered, the training pr ogram shall conduct a hands-on assessment (for 2092 all courses except project designer), and at th e completion of the course, a course test. 2093 (4) A training program may apply for accreditation of a refresher course concurrently with 2094 its application for accreditation of the corresponding training course as described in paragraph (b) 2095 of this section. If so, EPA sh all use the approval procedure desc ribed in paragraph (b) of this 2096 section. In addition, the minimum requirements contained in paragraphs (c) (except for the 2097 requirements in paragraph (c)(6)), and (e)(1), (e)(2 ) and (e)(3) of this sec tion shall also apply. 2098 (5) A training program seeking accreditation to offer refresher trai ning courses only shall 2099 submit a written application to EPA containing the following information: 2100 (i) The refresher training program’s name, address, and telephone number. 2101 (ii) A list of courses for wh ich it is applying for accreditation. 2102 (iii) The name and documentation of the quali fications of the trai ning program manager. 2103 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of the qua lifications of the prin cipal instructor(s). 2104 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the refresher 2105 training program meets the minimum requirements es tablished in paragraph (c) of this section, 2106 except for the requirements in para graph (c)(6) of this section. If a training program uses EPA2107 developed model training materials, or training materials approved by a State or Indian Tribe that 2108 has been authorized by EPA under § 745.324 to devel op its refresher traini ng course materials, 2109 the training manager shall include a statement certifying that, as well. 2110 (vi) If the refresher trai ning course materials are not based on EPA-developed model 2111*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 89 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] training materials, the training program’s application for accreditation shall include: 2112 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals to be used for each course. 2113 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 2114 (vii) All refresher training programs shall in clude in their application for accreditation the 2115 following: 2116 (A) A description of the f acilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands-on 2117 training. 2118 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 2119 (C) A description of the ac tivities and procedures that will be used for conducting the 2120 assessment of hands-on skills for each course (if applicable). 2121 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as desc ribed in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 2122 (viii) The requirements in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (c)(5), and (c )(7) through (c)(14) of 2123 this section apply to refre sher training providers. 2124 (ix) If a refresher training program meets the requirements li sted in this paragraph, then 2125 EPA shall approve the application for accreditation no more th an 180 days after receiving a 2126 complete application from the refr esher training program. In the cas e of approval, a certificate of 2127 accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a letter describing the 2128 reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the appl icant. Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its 2129 discretion, work with the applicant to address inadequacies in the application for accreditation. 2130 EPA may also request additional materials re tained by the refresher training program under 2131 paragraph (i) of this section. If a refresher tr aining program’s application is disapproved, the 2132 program may reapply for acc reditation at any time. 2133 (f) Re-accreditation of training programs. (1) Unless re-accredited, a training program’s 2134 accreditation, including refresher training accreditation, shall expire 4 years after the date of 2135*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 90 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] issuance. If a training program meets the requirements of this section, the training program shall 2136 be reaccredited. 2137 (2) A training program seeking reaccreditati on shall submit an application to EPA no later 2138 than 180 days before its accreditation expires. If a training program does not submit its 2139 application for re-accreditation by that date, EP A cannot guarantee that the program will be re2140 accredited before the end of the accreditation period. 2141 (3) The training program’s applicatio n for re-accreditation shall contain: 2142 (i) The training program’s name , address, and telephone number. 2143 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for re- accreditation. 2144 (iii) The name and qualifications of the training program manager. 2145 (iv) The name(s) and qualifications of the principa l instructor(s). 2146 (v) A description of any changes to the trai ning facility, equipment or course materials 2147 since its last application was approved that adversely affects the students’ ability to learn. 2148 (vi) A statement signed by the program manager stating: 2149 (A) That the training program complies at all times with all requirements in paragraphs (c) 2150 and (e) of this secti on, as applicable; and 2151 (B) The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of paragraph (i) of this section shall be 2152 followed. 2153 (vii) A payment of appropriate fees in accordance with § 745.238. 2154 (4) Upon request, the training program shall allow EPA to audit th e training program to 2155 verify the contents of the applic ation for re- accreditation as descri bed in paragraph (f)(3) of this 2156 section. 2157 (g) Suspension, revocation, and modification of accredited training programs. (1) EPA 2158 may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, suspend, revoke, or modify training program 2159*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 91 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] accreditation, including refresher tr aining accreditation, if a training program, training manager, 2160 or other person with supervisory auth ority over the training program has: 2161 (i) Misrepresented the conten ts of a training course to EP A and/or the student population. 2162 (ii) Failed to submit required informati on or notifications in a timely manner. 2163 (iii) Failed to maintain required records. 2164 (iv) Falsified accreditation reco rds, instructor qualifications , or other accreditation-related 2165 information or documentation. 2166 (v) Failed to comply with the training standards and requirement s in this section. 2167 (vi) Failed to comply with Federal, State, orlocal lead-based paint statutes or regulations. 2168 (vii) Made false or misleading statements to EPA in its application for accreditation or re2169 accreditation which EPA relied upon in approving the application. 2170 (2) In addition to an administrative or judicial finding of vi olation, execution of a consent 2171 agreement in settlement of an enforcement ac tion constitutes, for purposes of this section, 2172 evidence of a failure to comply withrelevant statutes or regulations. 2173 (h) Procedures for suspension, revocation or modification of training program 2174
accreditation. (1) Prior to taking action to suspend, re voke, or modify the accreditation of a 2175 training program, EPA shall notify the affected entity in writing of the following: 2176 (i) The legal and factual basis for th e suspension, revocation, or modification. 2177 (ii) The anticipated commencement date and duration of the su spension, revocation, or 2178 modification. 2179 (iii) Actions, if any, which the affected entitymay take to avoid su spension, revocation, or 2180 modification, or to receive accreditation in the future. 2181 (iv) The opportunity and method for request ing a hearing prior to final EPA action to 2182 suspend, revoke or modify accreditation. 2183*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 92 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (v) Any additional information, as appropriate, which EPA may provide. 2184 (2) If a hearing is requested by the accredited training program, EPA shall: 2185 (i) Provide the affected entity an opportunityto offer written statements in response to 2186 EPA’s assertions of the legal and factual basis for its proposed action, and any other explanations, 2187 comments, and arguments it deems relevant to the proposed action. 2188 (ii) Provide the affected entity such other procedural opportunities as EPA may deem 2189 appropriate to ensure a fa ir and impartial hearing. 2190 (iii) Appoint an official of EPA as Presid ing Officer to conduct the hearing. No person 2191 shall serve as Presiding Officer if he or she has had any prior conn ection with the specific matter. 2192 (3) The Presiding Officer appointed pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section shall: 2193 (i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing within 90 days of the request for a 2194 hearing. 2195 (ii) Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment, and argument submitted. 2196 (iii) Notify the affected entity in writing with in 90 days of completion of the hearing of his 2197 or her decision and order. Such an order is a fi nal agency action which may be subject to judicial 2198 review. 2199 (4) If EPA determines that the public health, interest, or welfare warrants immediate 2200 action to suspend the accreditati on of any training program prior to the opportunityfor a hearing, 2201 it shall: 2202 (i) Notify the affected entity of its inte nt to immediately suspend training program 2203 accreditation for the reasons listed inparagraph (g)(1) of this secti on. If a suspension, revocation, 2204 or modification notice has not previ ously been issued pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section, 2205 it shall be issued at the same time th e emergency suspension notice is issued. 2206 (ii) Notify the affected entity in writing of the grounds for the immediate suspension and 2207*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 93 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] why it is necessary to suspend the entity’s acc reditation before an opportunity for a suspension, 2208 revocation or modification hearing. 2209 (iii) Notify the affected entity of the antic ipated commencement da te and duration of the 2210 immediate suspension. 2211 (iv) Notify the affected entity of its right to request a hearing on the immediate suspension 2212 within 15 days of the suspension taking place an d the procedures for the conduct of such a 2213 hearing. 2214 (5) Any notice, decision, or order issued by EPA under this section, any transcripts or 2215 other verbatim record of oral testimony, and any documents filed by an accredited training 2216 program in a hearing under this section shall be available to the public, except as otherwise 2217 provided by section 14 of TSCA or by 40 CFR part 2. Any such hearing at which oral testimony 2218 is presented shall be open to th e public, except that the Presiding Officer may exclude the public 2219 to the extent necessary to allow presentation of information which may be entitled to confidential 2220 treatment under section 14 of TSCA or 40 CFR part 2. 2221 (6) The public shall be notified of the suspension, revocati on, modification or 2222 reinstatement of a training program’s accreditation through appropriate mechanisms. 2223 (7) EPA shall maintain a list of parties whose accreditation has been suspended, revoked, 2224 modified or reinstated. 2225 (i) Training program recordkeeping requirements. (1) Accredited training programs shall 2226 maintain, and make available to EP A, upon request, the following records: 2227 (i) All documents specified in paragraph (c )(4) of this section that demonstrate the 2228 qualifications listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c )(2) of this section of the training manager and 2229 principal instructors. 2230 (ii) Current curriculum/course materials and documents reflecting any changes made to 2231*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 94 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] these materials. 2232 (iii) The course test blueprint. 2233 (iv) Information regarding how the hands -on assessment is conducted including, but not 2234 limited to: 2235 (A) Who conducts the assessment. 2236 (B) How the skills are graded. 2237 (C) What facilities are used. 2238 (D) The pass/fail rate. 2239 (v) The quality control plan as describe d in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 2240 (vi) Results of the students’ hands-on skills assessments and c ourse tests, and a record of 2241 each student’s course completion certificate. 2242 (vii) Any other material not listed above in paragraphs (i)(1 )(i) through (i)(1)(vi) of this 2243 section that was submitted to EPA as part of the program’s application for accreditation. 2244 (viii) For renovator refresher and dust samp ling technician refresher courses, a copy of 2245 each trainee’s prior course completion certificate s howing that each trainee was eligible to take 2246 the refresher course. 2247 (ix) For course modules delivered in an elec tronic format, a recordof each student’s log2248 ins, launches, progress, and completion, and a copy of the electron ic learning completion 2249 certificate for each student. 2250 (2) The training program must retain reco rds pertaining to ren ovator, dust sampling 2251 technician and lead-based paint activities course s at the address specified on the training program 2252 accreditation application (or as modified in accord ance with paragraph (i)(3) of this section) for 2253 the following minimum periods: 2254 (i) Records pertaining to lead-based paint activities courses must be retained for a 2255*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 95 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] minimum of 3 years and 6 months. 2256 (ii) Records pertaining to renovator or dust sampling technician courses offered before 2257 April 22, 2010 must be retained until July 1, 2015. 2258 (ii) Records pertaining to re novator or dust sampling technician courses offered on or after 2259 April 22, 2010 must be retained for a minimum of 5 years. 2260 (3) The training program shall notify EPA in writing within 30 days of changing the 2261 address specified on its training program accreditati on application or transferring the records from 2262 that address. 2263 (j) Amendment of accreditation. (1) A training program must amend its accreditation 2264 within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information included in the program’s most recent 2265 application. If the training program fails to amend its accreditation within 90 days of the date the 2266 change occurs, the program may not provide reno vator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 2267 paint activities training until its accreditation is amended. 2268 (2) To amend an accreditation, a training program must submit a completed 2269 “Accreditation Application for Training Providers,” signed by an authorized agent of the training 2270 provider, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and indicating the information 2271 that has changed. 2272 (3) If the amendment includes a new traini ng program manager, any new or additional 2273 principal instructor(s), or any new permanent training location(s), the training provider is not 2274 permitted to provide training under the new training manager or offer courses taught by any new 2275 principal instructor(s) or at th e new training location(s) until EP A either approves the amendment 2276 or 30 days have elapsed, whichever occurs earlier. 2277 9. In § 745.238, add paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: 2278 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based paint activities. 2279*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 96 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] * * * * * 2280 (c) * * * 2281 (5) No fee will be charged for accreditation amendments. 2282
* * * * * 2283 10. In § 745.326, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) , (a)(2)(ii), (d), (e)(1), and (e)(3): 2284 § 745.326 Renovation: State and Tr ibal program requirements. 2285 (a) * * * 2286 (2) * * * 2287 (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling 2288 technician training programs. ( Note: a State and Tribal program is not required to include 2289 procedures and requirements for the dust sampling technician training disc ipline if the State or 2290 Tribal program requires dust sampling to be performed by a certified lead-based paint inspector or 2291 risk assessor.) 2292 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredite d initial and refresher training for renovators 2293 and dust sampling technicians and on-the-job training for ot her individuals who perform 2294 renovations. 2295
* * * * * 2296 (d) Certification of individual s and/or renovation firms. To be considered at least as 2297 protective as the Federal program, th e State or Tribal program must: 2298 (1) Establish procedures and requirements th at ensure that individuals who perform or 2299 direct renovations are properly trained. These procedures and requirements must include: 2300 (i) A requirement that renovations be performed and directed by at least one individual 2301 who has been trained by an accredited training program. 2302 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accred ited refresher training for these individuals. 2303*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 97 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (iii) Procedures and requirements for indivi duals who have received accredited training to 2304 provide on-the-job training for those individuals who perform renovations but do not receive 2305 accredited training. ( Note: a State and Tribal program is not required to include procedures and 2306 requirements for on-the-job training for renovation wo rkers if the State or Tribal program requires 2307 accredited initial and refresher training for all persons who perform renovations) 2308 (2) Establish procedures and requirements fo r the formal certification and re-certification 2309 of renovation firms. 2310 (3) Establish procedures for the suspension, revocation, or modificati on of certifications. 2311 (e) * * * 2312 (1) Renovations must be conducted only by certified renovation firms, using trained 2313 individuals. 2314
* * * * * 2315 (3) Certified individuals and/or renovation firms must re tain appropriate records. 2316 11. In § 745.327, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2 ), (b)(3), and (c)(2) to read as follows: 2317 § 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement programs. 2318
* * * * * 2319 (b) * * * 2320 (1) Lead-based paint activities or renovation requirements. State or Tribal lead-based 2321 paint compliance and enforcement programs will be considered adequate if the State or Indian 2322 Tribe demonstrates, in its applic ation at § 745.324(b)(2), that it ha s established a l ead-based paint 2323 program that contains all of the elements specified in § 745.325 or § 745.326, or both, as 2324 applicable. 2325 (2) Authority to enter. State or Tribal officials must be able to enter, through consent, 2326 warrant, or other authority, premises or facilities where lead-based paint violations may occur for 2327*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 98 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] purposes of conducting inspections. 2328 (i) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter premises or fac ilities where those engaged 2329 in training for lead-based paint activiti es or renovations conduct business. 2330 (ii) For the purposes of enforcing a renovation program, State or Trib al officials must be 2331 able to enter a firm’s place of business or work site. 2332 (iii) State or Tribal officials must have authority to take samples and review records as 2333 part of the lead-based paint inspection process. 2334 (3) Flexible remedies. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement 2335 program must provide for a diverse and flexible array of enforcement statutory and regulatory 2336 authorities and remedies. At a minimum, these authorities and remedies, which must also be 2337 reflected in an enforcement response policy, must include the following: 2338 (i) The authority to issue warning letters, Notices of N oncompliance, Notices of Violation, 2339 or the equivalent; 2340 (ii) The authority to assess administrative or civil fines, includ ing a maximum penalty 2341 authority for any violation in an amountno less than $5,000 per violation per day; 2342 (iii) The authority to assess the maximum pena lties or fines for each instance of violation 2343 and, if the violation is continuous , the authority to assess penalt ies or fines up to the maximum 2344 amount for each day of violation, with all penaltie s assessed or collected being appropriate for the 2345 violation after consideration of f actors as the State or Tribe determ ine to be relevant, including the 2346 size or viability of the business, enforcement hi story, risks to human health or the environment 2347 posed by the violation, and other similar factors; 2348 (iv) The authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 2349 competent jurisdiction to recover penalties; 2350 (v) The authority to suspend, revoke, or modi fy the accreditation of any training provider 2351*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 99 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] or the certification of any individual or firm; 2352 (vi) The authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 2353 competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threaten ed or continuing viol ation of any program 2354 requirement, without the necessity of a prior suspension or revocation of a trainer’s accreditation 2355 or a firm’s or individual’s certification; 2356 (vii) The authority to apply criminal sanctions, including r ecovering fines; and 2357 (viii) The authority to enforce its authori zed program using a burden of proof standard, 2358 including the degree of knowledge or intent of the respondent that is no greater than it is for EPA 2359 under TSCA. 2360
* * * * * 2361 (c) * * * 2362 (2) Compliance assistance. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 2363 enforcement program must provide compliance assistance to the public and the regulated 2364 community to facilitate awareness and understand ing of and compliance with State or Tribal 2365 requirements governing the conduct of lead-based pa int activities or renova tions. The type and 2366 nature of this assistance can be defined by the State or Indian Tribe to achieve this goal. 2367
* * * * * 2368