*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1 EO12866_Rin2070-AJ57_LRRP Clearance_FRM_draft_2011-04-14.docx 

2 As submitted for review under EO 12866. 

3 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

5 40 CFR Part 745

6 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049; FRL–8823-5] 

7 RIN 2070–AJ57 

8 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 

9 Painting Program 

10 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

11 ACTION: Final rule. 

12 SUMMARY: On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2008 Lead 

13 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that established accreditation, training, 

14 certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons 

15 performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. 

16 EPA has decided not to promulgate dust wipe testing and clearance requirements as proposed. 

17 However, EPA is promulgating several other revisions to the RRP rule, including a provision 

18 allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory 

19 for analysis, minor changes to the training program accreditation application process, standards 

20 for e-learning in accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized 

21 state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions to the training and certification 

22 requirements for renovators. EPA is also promulgating clarifications to the requirements for 

23 vertical containment on exterior renovation projects, the prohibited or restricted work practice 

24 provisions, and the requirements for high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

25 action is EPA's final action on all aspects of the May 6, 2010 proposal. 

26 DATES: This final rule is effective [insert date [60] days after date of publication in the Federal 

27 Register]. 

28 ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) 

29 number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 

30 available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not 

31 publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 

32 disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not 

33 placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 

34 materials are available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available 

35 in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket Center 

36 (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The 

37 EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

38 Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

39 (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. Docket 

40 visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign 

41 the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to 

42 search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the 

43 building and returned upon departure.

44 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Cindy 

45 Wheeler, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and 

46 Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 

47 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0484; e-mail address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov.

48 For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 3 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

49 Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA50 Hotline@epa.gov. 

51 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

52 I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

53 You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform renovations of target 

54 housing or child-occupied facilities for compensation, dust sampling, or dust testing. You may 

55 also be affected by this action if you perform lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, 

56 risk assessments or abatements in target housing or child-occupied facilities or if you operate a 

57 training program for individuals who perform any of these activities. “Target housing” is defined 

58 in section 401 of TSCA as any housing constructed prior to 1978, except housing for the elderly 

59 or persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such 

60 housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under this rule, a child-occupied facility is a building, or a 

61 portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6 years 

62 of age, on at least 2 different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday period), provided 

63 that each day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and 

64 the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. 

65 Potentially-affected entities may include, but are not limited to: 

66 • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single family housing construction, multi67 family housing construction, residential remodelers.

68 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air69 conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish 

70 carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

71 contractors, glass and glazing contractors. 

72 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 4 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

73 residential property managers. 

74 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 

75 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with 

76 kindergarten classrooms. 

77 • Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g., training providers. 

78 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS 

79 code 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 

80 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors 

81 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 

82 This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

83 regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 

84 could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 

85 have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to 

86 certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 

87 entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

88 CONTACT. 

89 II. Background 

90 A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

91 On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, 

92 Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that established accreditation, training, certification, and 

93 recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons performing 

94 renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities (Ref. 1). 

95 Specifically, EPA proposed requirements for dust wipe testing, clearance, allowing a certified 

96 renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory for analysis, minor 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

97 changes to the training program accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in 

98 accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal 

99 renovation programs, and minor revisions to the training and certification requirements for 

100 renovators. EPA has decided not to promulgate dust wipe testing and clearance requirements as 

101 proposed. However, EPA is promulgating several of the other proposed revisions to the RRP 

102 rule, including a provision allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it 

103 to a recognized laboratory for analysis, minor changes to the training program accreditation 

104 application process, standards for e-learning in accredited training programs, minimum 

105 enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions 

106 to the training and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also promulgating 

107 clarifications to the requirements for vertical containment on exterior renovation projects, the 

108 prohibited or restricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high-efficiency 

109 particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's action is EPA's final action on all aspects of the May 6, 

110 2010 proposal. 

111 B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? 

112 These work practice, training, certification and accreditation requirements, and the State, 

113 Territorial and Tribal authorization provisions are being promulgated under the authority of 

114 sections 402(c)(3), 404, and 407 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 

115 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. 

116 C. What are the Specific Provisions of this Action? 

117 1. Clearance and dust wipe testing requirements for renovations. As discussed in this 

118 unit, EPA has decided not to promulgate clearance and dust wipe testing requirements as 

119 proposed in May 2010 for certain renovations covered by the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

120 Painting (RRP) rule (Ref. 2). 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

121 a. Background. In promulgating the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA determined that 

122 renovation, repair, and painting activities, when performed in the presence of lead-based paint, 

123 create lead-based paint hazards. Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

124 directs EPA to revise its regulations governing lead-based paint inspections, risk assessments, and 

125 abatements (the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, or abatement regulations, Ref. 3) to 

126 apply to renovation and remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. Accordingly, 

127 the 2008 RRP rule established accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping 

128 requirements as well as work practice standards for persons performing renovations for 

129 compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. Among other things, the 

130 work practice standards require renovation firms to follow specific requirements for containing 

131 the work area, refrain from using certain high-dust-generating work practices, and follow a 

132 specific cleaning protocol, including a step called “cleaning verification,” after concluding the 

133 paint-disturbing tasks involved in a renovation. 

134 As discussed in the preamble to the 2010 proposal, EPA is particularly concerned about 

135 dust-lead hazards generated by renovations because of the well-documented toxicity of lead, 

136 especially to younger children. Lead is known for its “broad array of deleterious effects on 

137 multiple organ systems via widely diverse mechanisms of action.” (Ref. 4) This array of health 

138 effects includes heme biosynthesis and related functions; neurological development and function; 

139 reproduction and physical development; kidney function; cardiovascular function; and immune 

140 function. There is also some evidence of lead carcinogenicity, primarily from animal studies, 

141 together with limited human evidence of suggestive associations. For a more detailed discussion 

142 of the health effects of lead exposure, refer to information in the 2010 proposal (Ref. 1) and the 

143 2008 RRP final rule (Ref. 2). 

144 One of the more difficult issues in the 2008 RRP rulemaking was the issue of determining 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

145 when a renovation work area has been properly cleaned and is ready for reoccupancy. After a 

146 lead-based paint abatement project, EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Activities Regulations require the 

147 abatement contractor to achieve clearance. This means that the contractor must demonstrate, 

148 through dust wipe testing, that dust lead levels remaining in the abatement work area are below 

149 the clearance levels established in the 2001 rulemaking entitled “Identification of Dangerous 

150 Levels of Lead” under section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (Ref. 5). Dust wipe 

151 samples for clearance purposes must be collected by a certified individual and analyzed by an 

152 entity recognized under the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation Program (NLLAP). 

153 When promulgating the 2008 RRP rule, EPA considered requiring a similar process after 

154 renovations, but for various reasons, did not do so. EPA did not interpret its statutory mandate 

155 under TSCA section 402(c)(3) as simply expanding the scope of the Lead-based Paint Activities 

156 Regulations to also cover renovation activities. Rather, EPA stated, in the final 2008 RRP rule, 

157 its belief that Congress intended for EPA to make revisions to those existing regulations to adapt 

158 them to a different set of activities and a very different regulated community. In establishing the 

159 cleaning element of the work practice requirements for renovations, EPA primarily relied on the 

160 results of two studies, the “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing” 

161 (Ref. 6) and the “Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

162 Activities” (the “Dust Study,” Ref. 7) to determine that the full suite of RRP work practice 

163 requirements, including containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification, was effective at 

164 minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting 

165 activities. 

166 EPA also considered various other factors as well as issues raised by commenters. Among 

167 these were the differences between abatement and renovation, the costs of dust wipe testing and 

168 clearance, the potential delay in obtaining results, and the likelihood that renovation firms would 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

169 become liable for pre-existing dust-lead hazards. Abatements have only one purpose, to 

170 permanently eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards, while renovations are 

171 performed for many reasons that often have nothing to do with lead-based paint. Concerns about 

172 the costs of dust wipe testing and clearance were brought to EPA’s attention during stakeholder 

173 input opportunities provided by EPA before the proposed RRP rule was issued in 2006 and 

174 echoed by commenters on the 2006 proposed RRP rule. If EPA had required dust wipe testing 

175 and clearance after every renovation project, it would have made up a significant portion of the 

176 cost of smaller projects. In addition, dust wipe testing results may not be available for several 

177 days. If EPA had required traditional abatement-style clearance after renovations, the work area 

178 would not be able to be re-occupied while waiting for the laboratory results. Commenters also 

179 noted that requiring clearance after renovation jobs could, in some instances, result in the 

180 renovation firm being held responsible for abating all dust-lead hazards, including such hazards 

181 that may have existed in the area before the renovation commenced. 

182 Other commenters on the 2006 proposed RRP rule thought that renovation work areas 

183 ought to be tested and cleared for re-occupancy in the same way that abatement work areas are 

184 cleared through the clearance process, including dust wipe testing. Many commenters believed 

185 that renovation firms should be required to demonstrate that no dust-lead hazards had been left 

186 behind in the work area. These commenters contended that the only effective way to do this is 

187 through dust wipe testing and clearance. While EPA understood the issues raised by these 

188 commenters, and agreed with some of the points that they made, EPA remained convinced that 

189 the suite of RRP work practices would be practical for renovation firms to implement while 

190 effectively minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. The RRP work 

191 practices are, in essence, requirements to ensure that renovators undertake traditional renovation 

192 activities – e.g., removal or modification of existing surfaces, containment and cleanup of dust 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 9 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

193 and debris, and ensuring the job site is cleaned up – in a lead-safe way. EPA believes the RRP 

194 rule effectively minimizes exposure to hazards generated by renovation activities without 

195 imposing practices and disciplines that are outside the scope of traditional renovation activities. 

196 More information on the comments received and EPA’s decisions can be found in the preamble to 

197 the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 2). 

198 b. 2010 Proposal. Based on additional stakeholder input received after the final rule was 

199 issued, and an August 2009 agreement entered into with several environmental and children's 

200 health advocacy groups in settlement of their lawsuit challenging the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA 

201 agreed to consider whether some of the decisions made in 2008 with regard to dust wipe testing 

202 and clearance should be modified. 

203 Accordingly, on May 6, 2010, EPA proposed to require dust wipe testing after many 

204 renovations covered by the RRP rule (Ref. 1). Under the 2010 proposal, dust wipe testing would 

205 have been required on uncarpeted floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the work area after 

206 the following types of interior renovations: 

207 • Use of a heat gun at temperatures below 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

208 • Removal or replacement of window or door frames. 

 • Scraping 60 ft2 209 or more of painted surfaces. 

 • Removing more than 40 ft2 210 of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures. 

211 After these renovations, the renovation firm would have been required to collect dust wipe 

212 samples and have them analyzed for lead content by an entity recognized under NLLAP. The 

213 renovation firm would then have been required to provide these results to the owners and 

214 occupants of the renovated property. 

215 For another subset of jobs involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive 

216 means or the disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

217 operation, such as power sanders or abrasive blasters, EPA proposed to require the renovation 

218 firm to achieve clearance. This would have involved a demonstration, through dust wipe testing, 

219 that dust-lead levels remaining on uncarpeted floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the 

220 work area were below regulatory clearance levels. These clearance levels would have been 

221 identical to the clearance levels established for the lead-based paint abatement program, which are 

codified at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), i.e., 40 μg/ft2 on floors, 250 μg/ft2 222 on interior windowsills, 

and 400 μg/ft2 223 on window troughs, based on wipe samples. These additional requirements in the 

224 2010 proposal were designed to ensure that lead-based paint hazards generated by renovation 

225 work are adequately cleaned after renovation work is finished and before the work areas are re226 occupied. 

227 c. This final rule. Maintaining the distinction between abatement and renovation activities 

228 has been an important issue throughout the rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP rule. As 

229 discussed in the preamble to the 2008 RRP rule, abatements and renovations are performed by 

230 different contractors for different purposes, although similar activities, such as window 

231 replacements, may be involved. Typically, when an abatement is performed, the housing is either 

232 unoccupied or the occupants are temporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the abatement 

233 has been demonstrated to have been properly completed through the clearance process. Carpet in 

234 the housing is usually removed as part of the abatement because it is difficult to demonstrate that 

235 it is free of lead-based paint hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not been replaced during the 

236 abatement may need to be refinished or sealed in order to achieve clearance. Abatements have 

237 only one purpose--to permanently eliminate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. In 

238 contrast, renovations other than interim controls are performed for reasons unrelated to lead-based 

239 paint or lead-based paint hazards. Renovations may be performed while the property is occupied 

240 or unoccupied, but occupants do not typically relocate pending the completion of the project. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

241 EPA did not design or intend the RRP rule to address cleanup of pre-existing dust-lead 

242 hazards. While the cleaning requirements of the RRP rule will, in some cases, have the ancillary 

243 benefit of removing some pre-existing dust-lead hazards, the cleaning requirements were designed 

244 to effectively clean-up lead-based paint hazards created during renovation activities without 

245 changing the scope of the renovation activity itself. Accordingly, the RRP rule does not require 

246 cleaning of dust or any other possible lead sources in portions of target housing or child-occupied 

247 facilities beyond locations in and around the work area. Nor does the RRP rule require the 

248 replacement of carpets in the area of the renovation or the refinishing or sealing of uncarpeted 

249 floors. The approach in the RRP rule was designed to address the lead-based paint hazards 

250 created during the renovation while not requiring renovation firms to remediate or eliminate 

251 hazards beyond the scope of the work they were hired to do. 

252 In addition, EPA has interpreted practicality in implementation to be an element of the 

253 statutory directive to take into account effectiveness and reliability. As discussed in the preamble 

254 to the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA believes that, given the highly variable nature of the regulated 

255 community, the work practices required by the RRP rule should be simple to understand and easy 

256 to use. EPA is cognizant of the fact that the RRP rule applies to a range of individuals from day 

257 laborers to property maintenance staff to master craftsmen performing a range of activities from 

258 simple drywall repair to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath renovations to 

259 building additions and everything in between. Work practices that are easy and practical to use 

260 are more likely to be followed by all of the persons who perform renovations, and, therefore, 

261 more likely to be reliable and effective in minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards 

262 created by renovation activities. 

263 The 2010 proposal for this rule was EPA’s attempt to explore whether clearance and dust 

264 wipe testing requirements should be added to the RRP rule to provide additional protection for 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

265 some renovations. EPA’s intention was to do this without generally holding renovation firms 

266 responsible for abating pre-existing dust-lead hazards or creating requirements that would impair 

267 the overall reliability and effectiveness of the work practice requirements. 

268 EPA received over 300 comments on its 2010 proposal. Members of the regulated 

269 community and other industry commenters were generally concerned that EPA had upset the 

270 balance it had struck in the 2008 RRP rule, arguing that a dust wipe testing or clearance 

271 requirement would have the effect of holding renovation firms responsible for pre-existing 

272 hazards, whether directly by regulation, in the case of the proposed clearance requirements, or 

273 indirectly by requiring firms to provide information on post-renovation dust lead levels to the 

274 property owner and occupant. While there was little support for dust wipe testing alone, 

275 commenters that supported the 2010 proposal generally thought that a clearance requirement 

276 should be imposed and expanded to most, if not all, renovations. 

277 After carefully weighing the issues at stake and considering the concerns raised by 

278 commenters, and as explained in greater detail below, EPA has concluded that, on balance, the 

279 information before the Agency does not support imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance 

280 requirement on renovations. In particular, EPA is convinced that the work practices established 

281 in the 2008 RRP rule are reliable, effective, and safe, and that imposing a dust wipe testing or 

282 clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

283 Almost all of the commenters were opposed to the proposed provisions requiring only dust 

284 wipe testing after certain renovations. Members of the regulated community and other industry 

285 commenters argued that a dust wipe testing requirement would have the effect of holding 

286 renovation firms responsible for pre-existing hazards, albeit indirectly, by requiring firms to 

287 provide information on post-renovation dust lead levels to the property owner and occupant. This 

288 requirement would also have the effect of adding an element that is not generally considered a 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

289 renovation activity, i.e., taking samples for laboratory analysis, and indeed, would have to be 

290 performed by a third party or only after a renovator received training in a separate and distinct 

291 discipline—either as a dust wipe sample technician or a lead-based paint inspector. In addition, 

292 many argued that the Dust Study generally shows that the RRP work practices are effective at 

293 minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations, so additional dust 

294 wipe testing or clearance requirements are unnecessary. These commenters noted that this is 

295 particularly true for the renovations for which EPA proposed to require only dust wipe testing, 

296 because those renovations were specifically tested in the Dust Study. In addition, commenters 

297 suggested that the categories of jobs for which dust wipe testing or clearance would be required 

298 were arbitrary and not based on sufficient evidence. 

299 Some commenters, including several states, also questioned the utility and value of dust 

300 wipe testing in the absence of a clearance requirement. Some were concerned that property 

301 owners and occupants would not understand the significance of the results of dust wipe samples 

302 that exceed the clearance standards or what steps they should take to protect themselves and their 

303 families. One argued that, in the absence of standards and required remedial actions, dust wipe 

304 testing would add expense and time to a renovation project without providing a concrete increase 

305 in protection for occupants. On the other hand, other commenters contended that the feedback 

306 provided by numerical dust wipe testing results would result in improved cleaning performance 

307 on the part of renovation firms. Some cited anecdotal evidence of poor contractor performance in 

308 other programs, such as the abatement program, in support of a contention that the RRP rule work 

309 practices would not be as effective at minimizing dust-lead hazards as they were in the Dust 

310 Study. 

311 Additionally, after considering previous interpretations of the statutory requirements and 

312 the comments received on this specific issue, EPA is not convinced that dust wipe testing in the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

313 absence of a clearance requirement would be a safe, reliable and effective work practice within 

314 the meaning of TSCA § 402. As commenters noted, provision of dust wipe testing results in the 

315 absence of a clearance requirement does not by itself reduce the amount of dust generated during 

316 or left behind following a renovation. Furthermore, dust wipe testing results alone are not part of 

317 the information that must be provided at the pre-renovation stage under Section 406(b) of TSCA, 

318 and providing this type of information is not typically considered a renovation work practice. 

319 Again, the dust wipe testing would either have to be done by a third party or by a renovator who 

320 has taken a course and been trained in a completely different discipline. 

321 EPA believes these commenters raise valid considerations. In particular, EPA agrees that 

322 the Dust Study demonstrates that with respect to these very activities, the suite of RRP work 

323 practices reliably addressed the hazards created by the renovation. In addition, although EPA 

324 attempted in its 2010 proposal to distinguish renovation activities that it thought warranted the 

325 addition of a dust wipe testing requirement from those that did not (and from those that warranted 

326 imposition of a clearance requirement), EPA acknowledges that its 2010 proposal lacked a strong 

327 basis for drawing these lines – a point made by many commenters. While some commenters 

328 urged the point that dust wipe testing would encourage better cleanup, and provided anecdotal 

329 support for that view, EPA has no record basis to judge the likelihood or frequency of this 

330 potential impact. This logic could potentially lead to requiring dust wipe testing for all jobs – a 

331 significant change in the existing rule that EPA is not prepared to make without better supporting 

332 evidence. Accordingly, upon the information before it, the Agency does not believe that a dust 

333 testing requirement alone is warranted. EPA notes that homeowners can arrange to have dust 

334 wipe testing done as part of a renovation (or at any time) if they would like information about 

335 dust-lead levels in their homes. 

336 EPA also proposed to require that renovation firms achieve clearance for a subset of jobs 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

337 involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint 

338 using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation, such as power sanders or 

339 abrasive blasters. Nonetheless, EPA remained concerned about promulgating a requirement that 

340 could make renovation firms responsible for pre-existing conditions and fundamentally change 

341 the scope of the renovation activity itself. Therefore, to avoid making renovation firms replace 

342 carpets or refinish floors when they were not hired to do so, EPA proposed to allow a renovation 

343 firm to stop after two failed dust wipe tests on a particular surface if the firm was not hired to 

344 refinish or replace that surface. 

345 EPA was particularly concerned about these types of jobs because it had evidence that the 

346 work practices were not effective when machines designed to remove paint through high speed 

347 operation were operated without HEPA shrouds and created large quantities of dust. EPA was 

348 concerned that even if such machines were equipped with HEPA shrouds, the RRP work practices 

349 may not be effective at minimizing exposure to lead hazards created by the renovation. 

350 Additionally, EPA stated its belief that dust created by the demolition or removal of plaster was 

351 similarly difficult to clean and therefore the RRP work practices might not be effective at 

352 minimizing exposure to lead hazards created by the renovation. 

353 With respect to the proposed clearance requirements, commenters generally fell into two 

354 camps. Commenters who were in “favor” of the 2010 proposal nonetheless generally argued that 

355 the proposed clearance requirements should be expanded to cover most if not all renovation 

356 activities because clearance is the only method to ensure that no lead hazards remain upon the 

357 completion of a renovation job. Commenters who opposed any type of clearance requirement 

358 argued again that it erased the distinction between renovations and abatements and made 

359 renovation firms responsible for pre-existing conditions. These commenters also questioned the 

360 relevance of the studies EPA cited in support of its 2010 proposal to require clearance after 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

361 renovations involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the 

362 disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation. The 

363 cited studies include EPA’s Environmental Field Sampling Study (EFSS, Ref. 9) and studies 

364 examining the effectiveness of HEPA exhaust control on power tools (Ref. 8). Many of the 

365 HEPA exhaust control studies addressed dusts not typically created during renovations regulated 

366 by the RRP rule, such as crystalline silica dust resulting from the grinding of concrete. Others 

367 addressed surfaces and surface coatings not typically encountered during renovations covered by 

368 the RRP rule; one involved paint removal from automobiles. Notwithstanding EPA’s 2010 

369 proposal and requests for comment, EPA did not receive any additional information or data with 

370 respect to the dust or hazards created by these activities. Finally, on both sides of the issue, 

371 commenters did not favor the proposed provision allowing renovation firms to stop after two 

372 failed dust wipe tests, and, although some alternative suggestions were offered, none effectively 

373 addressed the competing considerations of occupant protection and not expanding the scope of the 

374 renovation work. 

375 EPA recognizes that imposing a clearance requirement would be a departure from the 

376 balance struck in the RRP rule with respect to the distinction between abatement and renovations. 

377 Accordingly, in EPA’s judgment, the Agency should be in a position to conclude with a fair 

378 amount of certainty that doing so was necessary in light of its obligation to promulgate work 

379 practices that take into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. Here, EPA acknowledges 

380 that it does not have data to support its concern that dust created by destructive demolition of 

381 plaster may be similar in nature to dust generated by machines designed to remove paint through 

382 high speed operation, and thus would have the potential to overwhelm the RRP cleaning protocol. 

383 EPA also recognizes that the data on the efficiency of HEPA is only suggestive that there might 

384 be an issue concerning these practices. Again, the studies EPA reviewed suggested that HEPA 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

385 exhaust control could reduce the airborne dust levels by 90-95%. As commenters pointed out, it 

386 is not clear the results of these studies are applicable to the home renovation setting, given the 

387 differences between the surfaces and paints in residential settings and the surfaces and paints 

388 involved in the studies. Even if the results were applicable, there is no direct evidence that the 

389 RRP lead safe work practices could not reliably address the dust hazards created by the use of 

390 such power tools. Having received no additional information in this regard, EPA has determined 

391 that, among other things, the available information does not support a clearance requirement. 

392 Nevertheless, as discussed further in Unit II.C.7. of this preamble, EPA is adding a requirement 

393 that power tools be operated so that no visible dust or release of air occurs outside of the shroud 

394 or containment system. This requirement will work to mitigate the concerns EPA had with 

395 respect to the efficiency of power tool dust collection systems and the possibility that such tools 

396 might overwhelm the containment and specialized cleaning protocols of the RRP work practices. 

397 Moreover, upon further reflection, EPA is concerned about the potential ineffectiveness of 

398 its effort to ensure that the proposed clearance requirement would not typically result in holding 

399 renovation firms from being held responsible for abating pre-existing dust-lead hazards by 

400 including a provision allowing firms to stop after two failed clearance tests. The practical effect 

401 of such a provision is that the proposed clearance requirement would, in fact, often result in a dust 

402 wipe testing requirement. As such, it raises many of the same issues and concerns that ultimately 

403 persuaded EPA not to promulgate just dust wipe testing requirements. Similarly, a clearance 

404 requirement that does not require renovation firms to achieve clearance would not provide the 

405 certainty regarding dust-lead hazards that is the defining characteristic of a clearance requirement. 

406 Furthermore, as stated above, EPA does not believe the record before it strongly supports 

407 the line-drawing in its 2010 proposal. In revising the abatement regulations to apply to 

408 renovations, EPA has sought to keep the renovation requirements relatively simple and easy to 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

409 apply, while attaining the overall objective of minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards generated 

410 by renovation activities. EPA is concerned that the proposed three-tier system would add a level 

411 of complexity to the rule that is undesirable. While EPA could potentially draw different lines in 

412 this final rule, or promulgate a requirement that all jobs achieve clearance, EPA does not believe 

413 it has a strong basis to do so. 

414 The combination of these factors has convinced EPA that imposing a clearance 

415 requirement is unwarranted. The best evidence that EPA has of the effectiveness of the work 

416 practice standards is the Dust Study, and it demonstrates that overall the full suite of RRP work 

417 practices is effective at minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. 

418 Without more, EPA is unable to conclude that the RRP work practice promulgated in 2008 should 

419 be significantly altered. 

420 Additionally, a variety of commenters, including industry representatives and some states, 

421 suggested that EPA had issued its 2010 proposal to require dust wipe testing and clearance too 

422 soon after promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule. At the time that the 2010 proposal was issued, full 

423 implementation of the 2008 RRP rule had only just begun. Commenters contended that 

424 renovation firms were still in the process of working through how to achieve compliance with the 

425 rule on a daily basis and that EPA should wait to add new requirements until firms were generally 

426 comfortable with the requirements promulgated in 2008. Commenters also argued that EPA 

427 should not make a determination that additional requirements are needed without first carefully 

428 assessing the status and impact of the existing RRP rule when fully implemented. EPA agrees 

429 with the general principle expressed by these commenters—that it is premature to impose 

430 significant additional work practice requirements for renovations already covered by the RRP 

431 rule, particularly given the information before the Agency. EPA also agrees that many renovation 

432 firms are still determining what the RRP rule requires from them on renovation projects. EPA 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

433 also acknowledges that there are practical implementation issues with promulgating a significant 

434 change so soon after thousands of renovators have become certified renovators, and have taken 

435 the required training, which did not include information on the proposed dust wipe testing or 

436 clearance requirements. 

437 Some commenters suggested that EPA concentrate on RRP education and outreach at this 

438 time, rather than on additional requirements. EPA agrees that outreach and education on lead 

439 poisoning in general, and the link between renovations and increased blood lead levels in 

440 particular, continues to be important. As part of the RRP program’s Lead-Safe Certified media 

441 campaign, EPA developed and made available to the public outreach materials aimed at both 

442 contractors and consumers. The materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) 

443 advertisement aimed at contractors, banners for web sites, sample articles for magazines, 

444 newsletters or other publications to help inform contractors about the rule, post cards and buck 

445 slips to stuff into mailers, as well as an informational brochure about the rule for building 

446 managers. EPA has also developed fact sheets about the RRP rule that hardware or paint supply 

447 stores can hand out to their customers to inform them of the regulatory requirements. All of this 

448 information is available to the public on EPA’s web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press449 materials.htm. 

450 The Agency has also developed outreach materials for consumers in order to build 

451 demand for lead-safe certified firms among the public. The consumer outreach materials include 

452 consumer print advertisements, PSA radio advertisements in English and Spanish, and a fact sheet 

453 about the RRP rule that contractors can provide to consumers to inform them about the 

454 advantages of hiring lead-safe renovation firms. The consumer outreach materials are also 

455 downloadable from EPA’s web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-consumers.htm. 

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

Page 20 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

457 parents and pregnant women who live in homes built before 1978, the Coalition to End Childhood 

458 Lead Poisoning, EPA and HUD joined the Ad Council in April 2010 to launch a national 

459 multimedia PSA campaign. As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most common 

460 pathways for lead poisoning are deteriorating lead-based paint (on older windows, doors and trim, 

461 or walls) or improperly-performed renovation, repair and painting activities that cause paint to 

462 chip, peel, or flake. 

463 EPA will continue to evaluate and consider additional outreach and educational 

464 opportunities to improve property owner and occupant understanding of dust-lead hazards created 

465 by renovations. EPA also will continue to monitor implementation of the RRP rule. If future 

466 information, studies, or data indicate that the existing RRP rule work practices are not reliable, 

467 safe, and effective, EPA will consider whether additional requirements should be proposed. 

468 2. Elimination of provision allowing clearance in lieu of cleaning verification. In the 

469 2010 proposal, EPA proposed to eliminate the existing provision that allows renovation firms to 

470 skip the cleaning verification part of the mandatory cleaning protocol if another Federal, State, or 

471 local law or regulation, or the contract between the renovation firm and the property owner, 

472 requires the renovation firm to use qualified entities to perform dust wipe testing and requires the 

473 renovation firm to achieve clearance. The rationale for eliminating this provision was based on 

474 the fact that, as discussed in the preamble to the 2010 proposal and the preamble to the 2008 RRP 

475 final rule, cleaning verification is not a direct substitute for dust wipe testing and clearance. 

476 Rather, the Dust Study shows that cleaning verification is an integral part of the whole suite of 

477 RRP work practices which, when observed as a whole, is effective at minimizing exposure to 

478 dust-lead hazards generated by renovations. As such, cleaning verification cannot legitimately be 

479 severed from the rest of the RRP work practices. 

480 EPA received only a handful of comments on this aspect of the 2010 proposal. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

481 Commenters thought that removing this provision from the RRP rule would make the rule 

482 inconsistent with the HUD regulations or State or local laws. Some believed that requiring both 

483 cleaning verification and clearance was unnecessarily burdensome, and pointed out that persons 

484 trained in lead-safe work practices had been achieving clearance without cleaning verification for 

485 a number of years now. EPA does not agree that removing this provision is inconsistent with the 

486 HUD regulations. The Dust Study demonstrates that cleaning verification is an important final 

487 fine cleaning step that also provides some feedback about the cleanliness of the surface to the 

488 renovator. In fact, the Dust Study showed that, in a significant number of cases, the cleaning 

489 verification step was necessary in order to remove the dust-lead hazards created by the 

490 renovation. It is likely that completing the entire RRP cleaning protocol, including cleaning 

491 verification, increases the probability that clearance, where required, will be achieved on the first 

492 attempt. Thus, requiring the performance of the entire RRP rule cleaning protocol, including 

493 cleaning verification, is hardly inconsistent with the HUD regulations. In addition, EPA believes 

494 that the cleaning verification process, in almost all cases, is minimally burdensome. EPA’s 

495 “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing” (Ref. 6) showed that 

496 cleaning verification should take approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth 

497 may be used for up to 40 square feet of uncarpeted floor, countertop, or windowsill space. The 

498 material requirements for cleaning verification are very inexpensive. EPA estimated, as part of 

499 the 2008 final RRP rule analyses, that the material cost for each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that 

500 handles are $13.60 apiece (Ref. 10). Therefore, as proposed, EPA is removing the provision that 

501 allows the cleaning verification step to be skipped if the renovation firm must also achieve 

502 clearance. 

503 3. Paint chip sample collection. In May, 2010, EPA proposed to give certified renovators 

504 another option for determining whether lead-based paint is present on components to be affected 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 22 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

505 by a renovation. This option would allow certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from 

506 components to be affected by a renovation instead of using test kits to test the paint on the 

507 components. The samples would be required to be sent to an entity recognized under the NLLAP 

508 for analysis. In issuing this 2010 proposal, EPA reasoned that it would be easy to teach certified 

509 renovators to collect paint chip samples in the renovator course and this would provide maximum 

510 flexibility for certified renovators and renovation firms. 

511 EPA received a number of comments on this part of its 2010 proposal. Some commenters 

512 supported this option because they felt that it is easy to properly collect a paint chip sample, and 

513 they agreed that this would provide additional needed flexibility for certified renovators and 

514 renovation firms. One commenter stated that, as a homeowner, he had been instructed by an 

515 NLLAP laboratory over the telephone on how to properly collect a paint chip sample and forward 

516 it to the laboratory for analysis. This experience led him to believe that it would be feasible to 

517 include in the renovator course instruction on how to collect a paint chip sample and forward it 

518 for analysis. Other commenters did not support this aspect of the 2010 proposal because they 

519 believe that only certified inspectors or risk assessors should be permitted to collect paint chip 

520 samples or make determinations about the presence or absence of lead-based paint. Several noted 

521 that this would conflict with State laws that prohibit anyone other than a certified inspector or risk 

522 assessor from sampling for lead-based paint. Some commenters expressed concern about the 

523 length of the renovator course, and the ability to add the additional information on paint chip 

524 collection, including information on chain-of-custody issues and laboratory submission 

525 procedures, without lengthening the course beyond 8 hours. Others noted that renovators are 

526 already being taught many of the necessary skills during instruction on how to properly use test 

527 kits. 

528 Because renovator training courses are already required to include training in how and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

529 where to use test kits, and the associated recordkeeping requirements, EPA agrees with those 

530 commenters who believed that it would take very little additional time to also provide renovators 

531 with specific training in how to collect a chip sample and submit it for analysis. The selection of 

532 locations to test and the recordkeeping requirements would be identical whether test kits or paint 

533 chip sampling is used, except that the laboratory report would also have to be maintained along 

534 with the records associated with the renovation. EPA also agrees with those commenters who 

535 thought that this option would provide additional important flexibility. EPA is promulgating the 

536 proposed option allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from painted 

537 components that will be disturbed by a renovation and submit those samples to an NLLAP538 recognized entity for analysis. EPA will modify the model certified renovator training course to 

539 add the necessary information on sample collection, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission 

540 procedures. One commenter wondered how renovators who have already taken the training to 

541 become certified would learn about this option and how to use it. EPA will post the information 

542 developed for the renovator training course on its website. EPA may also e-mail this information 

543 to certified renovation firms that provided an e-mail address on their certification applications. 

544 As pointed out by several commenters, paint chip sample collection, by itself, is a relatively 

545 simple thing to learn and EPA believes that certified renovators who have already been trained in 

546 how to properly use a test kit will be able to learn how to properly collect a paint chip sample and 

547 submit it to an NLLAP-recognized entity from the material EPA posts on its website. 

548 At least one commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to modify the 

549 recordkeeping requirements to accommodate this option and include information specific to paint 

550 chip sample collection, such as component and location tested, identity of the NLLAP entity 

551 analyzing the samples, and the sample results. Accordingly, EPA is modifying 40 CFR 

552 745.86(b)(1) to add a new subsection (iii) that requires records pertaining to paint chip sample 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

553 collection and analysis, including a description of the components that were sampled, and the 

554 locations sampled, the name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing the 

555 analysis, and the results for each sample. EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include 

556 a certification by the certified renovator that, if paint chip samples were collected, that the 

557 samples were collected from the components in the locations specified, that the samples were 

558 submitted for analysis to the identified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the sample results 

559 were as specified. 

560 This option does not make certified renovator the equivalent of a certified lead-based paint 

561 inspector. Certified renovators must still test each affected component, they are not permitted to 

562 exclude components based on similar painting histories or perform random paint sampling in 

563 multi-unit buildings. Just as with the current provisions for test kit use, in those states that do not 

564 permit persons other than certified inspectors or risk assessors to sample or test for lead-based 

565 paint, certified renovators will not be able to exercise this option. 

566 4. Training provider accreditation. In May 2010, EPA proposed a number of minor 

567 changes to the training provider accreditation provisions. EPA received very little public 

568 comment on these proposed amendments, and EPA is promulgating these amendments as 

569 proposed. 

570 a. Documentation of personnel qualifications. The first of these minor amendments 

571 involves submission of documentation of training program manager and principal instructor 

572 qualifications along with training provider applications for accreditation. Training providers who 

573 wish to provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities training for 

574 Federal certification purposes must apply for and receive accreditation from EPA. To become 

575 accredited, a provider must employ a training program manager as well as principal instructor(s) 

576 who meet certain education, training and work experience requirements. The training provider 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

577 must indicate on its application for accreditation that the training program manager and principal 

578 instructor(s) meet these requirements; however, the 2008 RRP rule did not require documentation 

579 (e.g., resumes) regarding the qualifications of these individuals to be submitted to EPA. The 

580 Agency believes it is important to review this information when determining whether to approve a 

581 training provider application. When EPA reviews applications for accreditation, it is common for 

582 the Agency to request this documentation from training providers in order to verify that the 

583 training program manager and principal instructor(s) have the proper qualifications. Requesting 

584 this information takes time and can delay the review of an application. Therefore, the Agency 

585 will now require training providers to submit documentation regarding the qualifications of the 

586 education, training and work experience of training managers and principal instructors with their 

587 applications for accreditation. Only one commenter commented on this provision, expressing 

588 general support for the change. 

589 b. Submission of training course materials. EPA is also promulgating other proposed 

590 changes to the required materials that must be submitted along with an accreditation application. 

591 EPA received only one comment expressing general support for this proposed change. 

592 Specifically, to become accredited, a training provider must submit a copy of its training course 

593 materials with its application for accreditation for review by the Agency. If a training provider 

594 chooses to use the model course developed by EPA or a course approved by an authorized State 

595 or Indian Tribe, then the provider is not currently required to submit the course materials with its 

596 application. Instead, the training provider indicates on its application that it will use the EPA 

597 model course or a course approved by an authorized State or Indian Tribe. Authorized States and 

598 Indian Tribes can have renovation or abatement programs that are significantly different from the 

599 EPA-administered program which would be reflected in their approved course materials. In these 

600 instances, a training course approved by the State or Indian Tribe may not be sufficient for the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

601 purposes of training someone on the requirements of the federal program. 

602 Accordingly, the Agency proposed to require training providers who apply to EPA for 

603 accreditation and wish to use a course approved by an authorized State or Indian Tribe to submit 

604 the course materials for EPA review. EPA reasoned that this will give the Agency the 

605 opportunity to identify and address any significant differences between the requirements of EPA 

606 and the authorized program that may appear in the course so the Agency can ensure that EPA607 accredited training providers are using appropriate course materials. 

608 EPA is promulgating this provision as proposed. This provision only applies to those 

609 training providers who wish to use a training course approved by an authorized State or Indian 

610 Tribe that is different from the EPA model training course. Training providers wishing to use the 

611 EPA model courses need not submit those materials with their applications. 

612 c. Role of principal instructor. EPA is promulgating a proposed minor amendment 

613 involving a clarification of the role of principal instructors in teaching courses. The regulation, at 

614 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3), states that principal instructors are responsible for the organization of their 

615 courses and oversight of the teaching of all course material. The regulations also define 

616 “principal instructor” as “the individual who has the primary responsibility for organizing and 

617 teaching a particular course.” Nonetheless, the rule also allows training program managers to 

618 designate experts in a particular field (e.g., doctors or lawyers) as guest instructors, on an as 

619 needed basis, to teach discrete portions of the course. EPA interprets these provisions to require a 

620 principal instructor to be present and primarily responsible for teaching the course, although guest 

621 instructors may be used to teach some portion(s) of the course. Principal instructors are also 

622 responsible for the quality of the instruction delivered by the guest instructors. To ensure that the 

623 regulation is clear on this point, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3) to state that 

624 principal instructor(s) are primarily responsible for teaching the course materials and must be 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

625 present to provide instruction (or oversight of portions of the course taught by guest instructors) 

626 for the course for which he has been designated the principal instructor. EPA received two 

627 comments on this provision, both supported the change, and one specifically stated a belief that 

628 having principal instructors present while guest lecturers teach would improve the content of 

629 many courses. EPA agrees with these commenters. 

630 d. Application amendments. EPA is promulgating as proposed another minor amendment 

631 involving a specific provision requiring training providers to amend their accreditation application 

632 whenever there is a change to the information presented in their most recent accreditation or re633 accreditation application. The RRP rule includes requirements for amending the certification of a 

634 renovation firm. Firms must submit an amendment within 90 days of the date that a change 

635 occurs to information in its most recent application for certification or re-certification. Examples 

636 of amendments include a change in the firm’s name without transfer of ownership, or a change of 

637 address or other contact information. To amend its certification, a firm must submit an 

638 application, noting on the form that it was submitted as an amendment. The firm must complete 

639 the sections of the application pertaining to the new information, and sign and date the form. 

640 EPA has interpreted the training provider accreditation regulations to require accredited training 

641 providers to submit amended applications whenever there is a change to the information provided 

642 in the training provider’s most recent application for accreditation or re-accreditation, including 

643 information regarding the training manager and any principal instructor(s) teaching courses 

644 offered by the training provider. However, the existing regulations do not specify a time limit for 

645 submitting an amendment, so EPA proposed to require training providers to submit amendments 

646 within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information in each provider’s most recent 

647 application. As proposed, if the training provider does not amend its most recent accreditation 

648 application within the 90-day time period, it must stop providing training until the accreditation 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

649 application is amended. EPA also proposed to approve or disapprove amendments for a new 

650 training manager, any new or additional principal instructors, or any new permanent training 

651 location within 30 days of the date EPA receives the amendment. This 30-day time period will 

652 give EPA time to check the qualifications of the training manager(s) or principal instructor(s) 

653 before the training manager begins managing or the principal instructor begins teaching a course. 

654 This 30-day time period also gives EPA time to verify the suitability of a new permanent training 

655 location by visiting the location. As proposed, the training provider would not be permitted to 

656 provide training under the new training manager or offer courses taught by any new principal 

657 instructor(s) or at the new training location until EPA either approves the amendment or 30 days 

658 has passed. EPA also proposed to clarify that no fee will be charged for accreditation application 

659 or certification amendments. EPA received no comments on this proposed amendment. 

660 e. Hands-on training requirements. Another minor amendment involves the topics for 

661 which hands-on training is required in the renovator and dust sampling technician courses. 40 

662 CFR 745.225 includes requirements and procedures that training programs must follow to become 

663 accredited in order to provide instruction in lead-based paint courses. Minimum requirements for 

664 training curricula are found in this section, which lists course topics that must be included in the 

665 different training courses with an indication of the topics that require hands-on instruction. 

666 However, EPA inadvertently omitted indicating which course topics required hands-on training 

667 for the renovator and dust sampling technician disciplines. Accordingly, EPA proposed to 

668 identify in 40 CFR 745.225(d) which topics in the renovator and dust sampling technician courses 

669 require hands-on training. In further clarification, EPA also proposed to add a sentence to 40 

670 CFR 745.225(e)(2) stating that refresher courses for all disciplines except project designer must 

671 include a hands-on component. 

672 EPA received several comments on this aspect of the 2010 proposal. Two commenters 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

673 supported the proposed topics for hands-on training for renovators and dust sampling technicians. 

674 Another commenter wondered why report preparation would be a required hands-on topic for dust 

675 sampling technicians when it has never been a hands-on topic for the other disciplines that must 

676 prepare reports. While it is true that hands-on training in report preparation is not required for 

677 most lead training disciplines, it is required for the inspector discipline. Thus, certified inspectors 

678 and certified risk assessors, who must successfully complete both the inspector course and the risk 

679 assessor course, receive hands-on training in report preparation. EPA believes that report 

680 preparation for dust sampling technicians is likewise important enough to warrant hands-on 

681 training in how to do it properly. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the required hands-on training 

682 topics as proposed. Renovator trainees must receive hands-on training in using test kits, 

683 renovation methods that minimize creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards, containment and 

684 cleanup methods, and cleaning verification. Dust sampling technician trainees must receive 

685 hands-on training in dust sampling methodologies and report preparation. 

686 EPA received two comments specifically on the proposed addition of a statement that all 

687 refresher training courses, with the exception of the project designer refresher course, must 

688 include hands-on training. One commenter was an environmental advocacy group, the other an 

689 industry trade association. Neither commenter supported this aspect of the 2010 proposal; they 

690 thought that requiring hands-on training for renovator refresher courses would limit the 

691 availability of refresher training and increase costs unnecessarily. Both commenters thought that 

692 enough information could probably be conveyed in a distance learning or e-learning setting to 

693 warrant dispensing with the hands-on requirement for renovator courses. The environmental 

694 advocacy group pointed out that EPA’s current model refresher training course for renovators 

695 contains two required hands-on skill sets—test kit usage and cleaning verification. This 

696 commenter felt that this was appropriate, given that previously-trained individuals are still taking 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

697 advantage of the “grandfathering” provision that allows them to successfully complete an 

698 accredited renovator refresher course to become certified renovators. Those individuals would 

699 not have had previous training in those two skills, so hands-on training would be necessary. 

700 However, once the grandfathering provision is no longer available, as discussed later in this 

701 section of the preamble, all certified renovators would have had hands-on training in these skills. 

702 EPA agrees with this commenter that, for now, renovator refresher courses must include hands-on 

703 training in test kit use and in cleaning verification. Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed 

704 amendment to 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) that specifically states that hands-on training is required for 

705 all refresher courses except project designer. EPA plans to re-evaluate the renovator refresher 

706 course after the grandfathering provision sunsets, but before the currently-certified renovators are 

707 due for refresher training. At that time, EPA will consider whether hands-on training is still 

708 necessary and appropriate for renovator refresher training. 

709 f. E-learning. As stated in the 2010 proposal, web-based training and other types of 

710 alternative training delivery are permitted under both the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations 

711 and the RRP rule. An EPA model on-line renovator course that may be used to deliver the 

712 classroom portion of the renovator course is available. While such alternative training delivery 

713 options cannot be used to deliver required hands-on training, EPA encourages training providers 

714 to make use of such options where appropriate to increase access to training and make it more 

715 affordable. Web-based training courses are considered separate courses and a separate 

716 application fee is required for each. 

717 EPA’s model electronic training course contains certain basic administration and delivery 

718 requirements. These include assigning a unique identifier to each student, to allow the training 

719 provider to track student course progress and completion. In addition, there are knowledge 

720 checks for each chapter, which must be completed before the student can go on to the next 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

721 chapter, and a final test for the electronic learning portion which consists of at least 20 questions. 

722 Finally, students must be able to save or print an uneditable copy of a record showing completion 

723 of the electronic learning portion of the course. In May 2010, EPA proposed to incorporate these 

724 requirements into 40 CFR 745.225 to ensure that all training providers wishing to use electronic 

725 learning for the classroom portions of lead-based paint courses are aware of these requirements 

726 and plan their course development accordingly. EPA requested comment on a variety of topics, 

727 including the number of questions in the course test and the score required to pass. 

728 EPA received several comments on this aspect of the 2010 proposal. Some commenters 

729 were concerned with verifying the identity of persons logging into e-learning courses. Several 

730 noted that, because it is impossible to verify with certainty the identity of persons completing 

731 online training, an in-person final course test is necessary to ensure that the trainee is adequately 

732 trained. In this final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6) to explicitly require e-learning 

733 training providers to assign a unique identifier to each student in order to track the student’s 

734 progress through the course. EPA believes that this requirement, along with the existing 

735 requirement that the trainee participate in the hands-on training and take the final course test in 

736 person, will provide reasonable assurance that the same person has completed all of the portions 

737 of the course. In response to these commenters, EPA is modifying the regulations to specifically 

738 state that e-learning or other alternative delivery methods cannot be used for the hands-on 

739 training, the final course test, or the proficiency test, if one is given. 

740 Commenters also expressed concern that the EPA model online course could be 

741 completed in as little as one hour, which could mean that a person could become a certified 

742 renovator with only 3 hours of training. EPA disagrees with these commenters. The current 

743 model course posted on the EPA website is not a functioning course and does not contain the 

744 background learning management system (LMS) which tracks the student’s progress and requires 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

745 satisfactory completion of the knowledge checks and the final test. Therefore, the time it takes to 

746 page through the model course is not representative of the time it would take to successfully 

747 complete an accredited e-learning course. Assuming that 2 training hours are spent on hands-on 

748 training, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(vi) requires a minimum of six 50 minute training hours or 5 hours 

749 of classroom time for renovators. This requirement applies equally to traditional classroom 

750 settings as well as to e-learning courses course offered for accreditation. While EPA realizes that 

751 renovator trainees will not all proceed through an e-learning course at the same pace, an e752 learning course offered for accreditation must be generally designed so that an average trainee 

753 takes approximately 5 hours to proceed through the course, including all of the knowledge checks 

754 and the course test. 

755 One commenter thought that EPA’s proposed requirement of an 80% minimum passing 

756 score on the course test for the online course was too restrictive. Another commenter disagreed, 

757 reasoning that an 80% minimum passing score was reasonable but that a 100% passing score 

758 would be too restrictive, because it would likely results in students being penalized for poorly759 worded questions or alternate interpretations, regardless of the state of the student’s knowledge. 

760 This commenter thought that it was appropriate to have a higher passing score requirement for the 

761 e-learning portion of a training course, because the student would have an opportunity to review 

762 the material and retake the test. EPA agrees with the second commenter. The 80% minimum 

763 passing score is intended to demonstrate mastery of the subject and lower scores do not achieve 

764 this goal. If students do not pass the test, they must review the material and try again. 

765 One commenter suggested that EPA consider separately accrediting entities that provide 

766 online training and entities that provide hands-on training. The commenter argued that 

767 developing an online course is a capital-intensive project that requires a large number of trainees 

768 to recover the costs, so relatively few entities are likely to undertake online course development. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

769 In contrast, the commenter stated that the delivery of hands-on training must be more local and 

770 mobile, it requires a smaller capital investment, and each entity may have relatively few trainees. 

771 EPA recognizes that this may be the case, at least for now, while EPA is administering the RRP 

772 program in most States. However, this may change as more States become authorized and impose 

773 requirements for training that may differ from the EPA requirements. In any event, as the 

774 commenter notes, EPA has developed a streamlined process to allow accredited training providers 

775 to add an e-learning component to their accreditation by using an already developed and 

776 accredited online course. This allows accredited training providers to offer online training 

777 without having to make a large capital outlay to develop a course. EPA continues to believe that 

778 the training provider who issues the final course completion certificate to a trainee, thus 

779 conferring certified renovator status on the trainee, must be responsible for ensuring that the 

780 student has completed all of the required training. EPA does not offer partial accreditations, or 

781 accreditation for a portion of a course. 

782 On a related topic, this commenter thought that it would be burdensome to require the 

783 hands-on training provider to maintain records of the specific times each student logged in to the 

784 online portion of the course, each student’s progress, and completion data. The commenter 

785 believed that, in the case where the online provider and the hands-on provider are separate 

786 entities, working under a contractual agreement to present an entire training course, it would be 

787 relatively easy for the online provider to maintain the records. In contrast, the commenter thought 

788 that it would be much more burdensome for EPA to require that the hands-on provider download 

789 or otherwise take possession of these records. EPA disagrees with this commenter, because EPA 

790 believes that the amount of data associated with this particular requirement for each trainee is not 

791 substantial. However, if a particular accredited training provider felt otherwise, the provider 

792 could contract with the provider of the online training to store the records. Although the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

793 accredited training provider would remain ultimately responsible for being able to produce those 

794 records, as long as the training provider is able to produce them in response to a request from 

795 EPA, EPA would consider the training provider in compliance with the recordkeeping 

796 requirements. 

797 One commenter provided a number of specific comments on EPA’s proposed 

798 requirements for e-learning courses. First, the commenter thought that the requirement for 

799 knowledge checks for each module of the course was too inflexible, and that it could be difficult 

800 to determine what a module is for purposes of knowledge checks. The commenter suggested that 

801 EPA instead require periodic knowledge checks. EPA agrees with this comment and is 

802 promulgating a requirement for periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the number and content 

803 of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’s model course. This would be 16-24 knowledge 

804 checks over the entire course. This commenter also thought that the requirement that a student be 

805 able to generate an uneditable copy of an e-learning course completion certificate too stringent. 

806 The commenter pointed out that almost anyone reasonably familiar with computers could alter a 

807 secure PDF, image, or word processing file through the print function. EPA will add language to 

808 the proposed provision at 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(E) to clarify that EPA merely meant that the 

809 certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and easy editing by students. A secure PDF file 

810 would comply with these requirements. Allowing students to generate and print the course 

811 completion certificate provides them with reasonable certainty that they have completed the e812 learning portion of the course before attempting the hands-on portion. EPA recommends that 

813 accredited training providers verify through other means, such as the e-learning progress records, 

814 that each student who completes the hands-on training has also completed the online portion of 

815 the course before training providers issue the final course completion certificate. 

816 g. Combined refresher courses. In the 2010 proposal, EPA requested comment on 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 35 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

817 whether training providers should be allowed to provide a combined Abatement 

818 Worker/Renovator refresher course or a combined Abatement Supervisor/Renovator refresher 

819 course or both. After the 2008 RRP rule was promulgated, EPA received input from the regulated 

820 community and others indicating that many abatement contractors are likely to also become 

821 certified renovation firms. If this is the case, it would be advantageous for such firms to be able 

822 to send their employees to combined refreshers so that the employees would more readily be able 

823 to keep up their dual certifications. EPA requested comment on the likelihood that this will be the 

824 case, and, if combined refreshers are desirable, whether the different certification time periods for 

825 individual abatement certification (3 years) and individual renovator certification (5 years) should 

826 be harmonized and, if so, how. EPA received two comments on this topic; both commenters 

827 supported the idea of combined refresher courses and thought they would provide increased 

828 flexibility for industry. One commenter thought that the certification time periods should be 

829 harmonized to 3 years for all disciplines because the commenter believed that 5 years was too 

830 long to go without a refresher. The other commenter did not think that harmonization was 

831 necessary, because the abatement worker or supervisor would just take the combined refresher 

832 every three years to meet the shorter certification periods in the Lead-based Paint Activities Rule. 

833 EPA agrees with these commenters that combined refresher courses may be beneficial. While the 

834 current regulations permit training providers to offer refresher courses sequentially, e.g., a 4-hour 

835 renovator course on the afternoon of one day, followed by an 8-hour worker course the next day, 

836 taking the courses sequentially would result in some duplication of training topics for persons 

837 certified as both renovators and abatement workers. On the other hand, EPA is not certain that 

838 appropriate refresher topics for both disciplines could be covered in a single 8-hour day. EPA 

839 plans to evaluate the content of its supervisor, worker, and renovator refresher courses to 

840 determine what an appropriate combined course length might be. Depending on the results of this 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 36 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

841 evaluation, EPA will consider amending these regulations to establish course length requirements 

842 for combined refresher courses. 

843 h. Recordkeeping. Another amendment proposed in May 2010 involves recordkeeping 

844 requirements for training providers. Previously, training providers were required to keep training 

845 records for 3 years and 6 months. This length of time was chosen because of the length of 

846 individual certification periods for lead-based paint activities, which can be as long as 3 years and 

847 6 months including interim certification. However, the renovator and dust sampling technician 

848 certification periods are 5 years, with no interim certification. Therefore, in order to ensure that 

849 the training records from the previous training course are available for certified renovators and 

850 dust sampling technicians taking refresher courses, EPA proposed to increase the recordkeeping 

851 period applicable to these disciplines to 5 years. EPA received two comments on this aspect of 

852 the 2010 proposal, both commenters thought that the recordkeeping requirements for all 

853 disciplines should be increased to 5 years. These commenters thought it would be less confusing 

854 for training providers if there was one period applicable to all. One commenter pointed out that 

855 EPA had extended the certification period for renovators trained before April 22, 2010 to July 1, 

856 2015, so the training records for those trainees ought to be kept for as long as their certification 

857 lasts. This commenter suggested that EPA require training records to be kept for 5 years or until 

858 the expiration of certification resulting from the training, whichever is longer. While EPA agrees 

859 that it may be easier for training providers to keep records for the same length of time regardless 

860 of the discipline, EPA does not believe that it is necessary make this a requirement. Training 

861 providers who prefer to have one single recordkeeping process can always choose to maintain 

862 their records for 5 years across the board. Therefore, EPA is promulgating the increased 

863 recordkeeping requirement for providers of accredited renovator and dust sampling technician 

864 training as proposed. EPA also agrees with the commenter who suggested that there be a longer 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 37 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

865 recordkeeping requirement for renovator training courses offered before April 22, 2010. 

866 Accordingly, EPA is also promulgating a requirement that records for renovator training courses 

867 completed before April 22, 2010 must be kept until July 1, 2015. 

868 i. Trainee photographs. EPA also proposed certain minimum standards for the trainee 

869 photographs that must appear on renovator and dust sampling technician course completion 

870 certificates. Accredited training programs are required to issue a course completion certificate for 

871 each person who passes a training course. A variety of information is required to be on the 

872 certificate including the name of the course, the name and address of the student, and contact 

873 information for the training program. Course certificates for renovators or dust sampling 

874 technicians must include a photograph of the student, but the regulation does not include size 

875 requirements or other specifications for the photograph. Since publishing the 2008 RRP rule, the 

876 Agency has been asked if there is a minimum size for the photograph. EPA believes that it would 

877 be beneficial to have minimum standards for the photograph in order to ensure that the person in 

878 the photograph is recognizable. EPA proposed to require that the photographs on course 

879 completion certificates be an accurate and recognizable image of the trainee and at least one 

880 square inch in size. EPA also requested comments on whether the image quality requirements 

881 should be more specific, e.g., more quantitative. EPA received several comments on this 

882 provision. Commenters generally supported the proposed requirements, but did not favor 

883 additional requirements, such as quantitative requirements for image quality, as they were 

884 concerned about the burden associated with such additional requirements. EPA agrees with these 

885 commenters that the proposed requirements are sufficient. Therefore, EPA is promulgating the 

886 image quality requirements as proposed. 

887 j. Clarifying changes to 40 CFR 745.225. Finally, as stated previously, 40 CFR 745.225 

888 includes requirements and procedures that training programs must follow to become accredited in 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 38 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

889 order to provide instruction in renovator, dust sampling technician, and lead-based paint activities 

890 courses. The final 2008 RRP rule amended Section 745.225 to cover persons who provide or 

891 wish to provide renovator or dust sampling technician training for the purposes of the RRP rule. 

892 There are some instances where the regulations do not specifically mention the renovator or dust 

893 sampling technician courses even though the regulations apply to those courses. For example, 40 

894 CFR 745.225(c)(14) explains the requirements which a training provider must follow when 

895 submitting notification to EPA after the completion of a training. However, the conforming 

896 changes, i.e., to replace “lead-based paint activities courses” with “renovator, dust sampling 

897 technician, and lead-based paint activities courses,” were not made to every subparagraph even 

898 though all the requirements of that section apply to those courses. Consequently, EPA proposed 

899 to clarify that the requirements in 40 CFR 745.225 apply to renovator and dust sampling 

900 technician courses in addition to lead-based paint activities courses. EPA received one comment 

901 offering general support for these proposed revisions. EPA is promulgating these revisions as 

902 proposed. 

903 5. State and Tribal Program Authorization. Under the RRP rule, interested States, 

904 Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for, and receive authorization to administer and enforce 

905 all of the elements of the RRP program. In May 2010, EPA proposed several changes to the State 

906 and Tribal program authorization regulations. The first was a clarification that State and Tribal 

907 programs do not need to include requirements for the accreditation of dust sampling technicians if 

908 they require dust sampling to be performed only by a certified inspector or risk assessor. EPA 

909 received only one comment relating to this proposed revision, and that commenter thought that 

910 EPA should require States and Tribes to allow dust sampling technicians to collect samples. 

911 However, EPA does not have the authority to prohibit States and Tribes from having a more 

912 stringent program than the EPA’s, e.g., requiring more training for persons collecting dust wipe 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 39 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

913 samples than EPA requires. It would not make sense for EPA to require States and Tribes to 

914 establish the dust sampling technician discipline if those trainees would not be allowed to perform 

915 any duties under State or Tribal law. Therefore, EPA is promulgating this change to the text of 

916 the regulation as proposed. 

917 Along these same lines, EPA proposed to add a provision requiring State or Tribal 

918 programs to have procedures and requirements for on-the-job training of renovation workers who 

919 do not receive accredited training. EPA neglected to include such a provision in the 2008 RRP 

920 Rule. As with the dust sampling technician discipline, State and Tribal programs are only 

921 required to have these provisions if they permit on-the-job training for renovation workers. If, for 

922 example, a State or Tribal program only allows certified renovators to perform renovation 

923 activities within a regulated renovation work area, then no provisions for on-the-job training 

924 would be required for that State or Tribal program. EPA received one comment generally 

925 supporting this change. EPA is promulgating this revision as proposed. 

926 EPA also proposed to amend the State and Tribal program requirements to clarify that 

927 both individuals and firms must receive certification. Only one comment was received on this 

928 topic, pointing out that EPA’s proposed regulatory text at 40 CFR 745.326(e)(1) did not 

929 accomplish that objective. EPA agrees with this commenter, and has revised the regulatory text 

930 throughout this section accordingly to ensure that EPA’s requirements are clear. EPA requires 

931 both renovators and renovation firms to be certified. A renovator becomes certified by 

932 successfully completing an accredited renovator training class. A renovation firm becomes 

933 certified by submitting an application to EPA, attesting that it and its employees will follow the 

934 work practice standards at 40 CFR § 745.85 for conducting renovations, and paying a 

935 certification fee. EPA believes that, in order for a State or Tribal program to be at least as 

936 protective as EPA’s program, the State or Tribal program must, at a minimum, require formal 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 40 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

937 certification for renovation firms. States and Tribes may, but are not required to, formally certify 

938 renovators. The certified renovation firm is responsible not only for the behavior of its certified 

939 renovators but also for the other workers that have been trained by the certified renovators. Thus, 

940 the renovation firm is ultimately responsible for the proper performance of the renovation. 

941 Requiring formal certification for renovation firms facilitates compliance monitoring and 

942 enforcement for EPA as well as for State and Tribal programs. A program that only required 

943 formal certification for individual renovators and not firms would not be as protective. 

944 In addition, as pointed out by several State commenters, EPA inadvertently included the 

945 wrong provisions in the proposed regulatory text for revising authorized State and Tribal 

946 programs to conform to revisions to the 2008 RRP rule. The existing provisions at 40 CFR 

947 745.326(f) give authorized State and Tribal programs two years from the effective date of any 

948 EPA revisions to the 2008 RRP rule to demonstrate that the State or Tribal program meets the 

949 requirements of the revised 2008 RRP rule. This two year period is also afforded to States and 

950 Tribes that submit applications for authorization before the effective date of any EPA revisions. 

951 EPA did not intend to make any changes to this provision and States and Tribes still have two 

952 years to make changes to their programs necessitated by revisions to the federal RRP program. 

953 Finally, EPA proposed to require that, in order to be authorized for any of the lead-based 

954 paint programs, State or Tribal programs demonstrate that: (1) the State or Tribe is able to sue to 

955 obtain penalties, (2) civil and criminal penalties of at least $10,000 are assessable for each 

956 instance of violation, (3) if violations are continuous, the penalties are assessable up to the 

957 maximum amount for each day of violation, and (4) the burden of proof and degree of knowledge 

958 or intent of the respondent is no greater than it is for EPA under TSCA. EPA also requested 

959 comment on what criteria States or Tribes should consider in assessing penalties and whether the 

960 $10,000 minimum penalty authority level should be periodically adjusted for inflation. As 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 41 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

961 discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, in choosing the proposed minimum penalty 

962 authority of $10,000 per violation per day, EPA looked to other programs that States and Tribes 

963 may be authorized to administer. Some of these programs have minimum penalty authority 

964 requirements for State and Tribal programs and some do not. For example, under the Clean Air 

965 Act (CAA) implementing regulations at 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3) and the Resource Conservation and 

966 Recovery Act (RCRA) implementing regulations at 40 CFR 271.16(a)(3), State programs must 

967 have the authority to assess civil and criminal fines of at least $10,000 per day per violation. 

968 Other programs have established lower minimum penalty authority requirements. The 

969 implementing regulations for the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require State programs to 

970 have the authority to impose a penalty of at least $1,000 per day per violation on public water 

971 systems serving a population of more than 10,000 individuals. Some EPA programs have set no 

972 minimum penalty authority requirements for States and Tribes; these programs include the 

973 Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act program and the State pesticide applicator 

974 certification program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 

975 EPA received a number of comments on this provision. Six State commenters opposed 

976 the proposed provisions. Several argued that their legislatures had already created the authority to 

977 establish an RRP program, but the maximum penalty amount was less than $10,000. Five States 

978 described their existing penalty authorities--one already has a minimum penalty authority of 

979 $10,000, one has $5,000, and the other three have $1,000. These States did not believe that they 

980 would be able to increase the maximum penalty authority, because it was comparable to other 

981 programs administered by the State, or that it would take several years to get an increase through 

982 the legislature, during which time EPA would have to administer the program in their 

983 jurisdictions. At least two already-authorized State RRP programs pointed out that they had been 

984 authorized with maximum penalty authorities of less than $10,000. One of these States also noted 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 42 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

985 that it had been effectively enforcing the Lead-based Paint Activities Program and the Pre986 Renovation Education Program for years now, and the State did not believe that an increase in its 

987 maximum penalty authority would improve the effectiveness of its programs in any way. Another 

988 State commented that it has penalty authority of $10,000, but that limit is for each enforcement 

989 case, not per violation per day. Some of the State commenters also noted that most enforcement 

990 actions in an RRP program would be against very small companies or individuals, and penalties 

991 of less than $10,000 per violation per day would still be very effective deterrents for such entities. 

992 Two environmental advocacy groups supported EPA’s proposed minimum penalty 

993 authority of $10,000, arguing that substantial penalties are necessary to get the attention of the 

994 regulated community and meaningful enforcement is critical to the rule’s success at protecting 

995 individuals from exposures to dangerous levels of lead. 

996 EPA agrees with these commenters on the importance of an effective enforcement 

997 program. Strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and Tribal 

998 programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child occupied 

999 facilities undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting. However, EPA also agrees 

1000 with those States that argued that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint 

1001 programs would be against very small entities. Although small entities also violate the CAA and 

1002 RCRA, it is likely that the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of 

1003 smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty 

1004 authorities. Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal 

1005 programs of $5,000. Because it is especially important to deter multiple violations and continuing 

1006 violations, this final rule retains the “per violation, per day” requirement. 

1007 In response to the related requests for comment, State commenters did not favor adding a 

1008 mechanism for adjusting these minimum penalty authorities for inflation. One environmental 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 43 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1009 advocacy group supported the idea, but thought that it should not be a barrier to State and Tribal 

1010 program authorization. EPA agrees with these commenters and no mechanism for adjusting these 

1011 minimums for inflation is included in this final rule. 

1012 Commenters suggested a number of factors that should be considered by States and Tribes 

1013 when imposing penalties for violations of their authorized programs. Several favored 

1014 enforcement history and risk, but not to the extent of treating first-time offenders too lightly. A 

1015 handful of commenters argued that size of business, and ability to stay in business should not be 

1016 considered, because small companies can cause as much harm as large companies. EPA believes 

1017 that States and Tribes may legitimately consider any of the factors that EPA typically considers, 

1018 such as nature, circumstances, and extent of the violation, the culpability of the violator, history of 

1019 prior violations, ability to pay or continue in business, voluntary disclosure, and attitude of the 

1020 violator. However, EPA will not require States and Tribes to consider any of these factors. 

1021 Finally, EPA received no comments on the proposed addition of an explicit requirement 

1022 that States and Tribes have the ability to sue violators to collect penalties and that the burden of 

1023 proof for enforcement be no more rigorous than the EPA standard under TSCA. EPA believes 

1024 that these two elements are important elements of an effective enforcement program. Therefore, 

1025 EPA is promulgating these additional requirements as proposed. 

1026 6. Vertical containment. EPA’s 2010 proposal included more specific language on 

1027 vertical containment requirements for exterior projects. As proposed, the rule would specifically 

1028 state that vertical containment is required for exterior renovation projects that are covered by the 

1029 rule and that affect painted surfaces within 10 feet of the property line. In such cases, vertical 

1030 containment is necessary to ensure that adjacent buildings or properties are not contaminated by 

1031 leaded dust or debris generated by the renovation. EPA’s Dust Study demonstrates that leaded 

1032 dust and debris from exterior renovations can be found 10 feet away from activities disturbing 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 44 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1033 leaded paint, even if no prohibited or restricted practices are used. For example, in an experiment 

1034 involving the dry scraping of paint from a single story garage, significant dust-lead levels were 

1035 detected on collection trays at distances from 9 to 11 feet from the scraping activity (Ref. 7, page 

6-25). These levels ranged from 7,500 μg/ft2 to more than 16,500 μg/ft2 1036 . The RRP rule, at 40 

1037 CFR 745.85(a)(2), requires renovation firms to isolate the work area so that no dust or debris 

1038 leaves the work area while the renovation is being performed. The rule further states, at 40 CFR 

1039 745.85(a)(2)(ii)(D), that, in certain situations, the renovation firm must take extra precautions in 

1040 containing the work area to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation does not migrate to 

1041 adjacent properties. EPA knows of no work practice other than some system of vertical 

1042 containment that would effectively prevent the migration of dust and debris from renovations 

1043 performed within 10 feet of the property line to adjacent properties. 

1044 EPA also proposed to clarify, in the regulatory text itself, that windy conditions may also 

1045 necessitate the use of vertical containment to prevent contamination of other buildings, other 

1046 areas of the property, or adjacent buildings or properties. Specific mention of windy conditions 

1047 was made in the preamble to the final 2008 RRP rule, although it was not included in the 

1048 regulatory text. Nevertheless, EPA expects atmospheric conditions to be one of several factors 

1049 that renovation firms consider when designing containment systems. Other factors would include 

1050 the height of the building and the paint disturbance and the type of renovation activity planned. 

1051 EPA believes that specifically including windy conditions as a factor to consider when designing 

1052 an effective containment system will serve as an important reminder for renovation firms. 

1053 Including the mention of windy conditions in the regulatory text does not mean that vertical 

1054 containment is required for any particular renovations. The 2010 proposal also included a 

1055 definition of the term “containment” in order to clarify what is meant by the term. The proposed 

1056 definition was based on the definition of “Worksite preparation level” from the Department of 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 45 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1057 Housing and Urban Development’s “Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based 

1058 Paint Hazards in Housing” (HUD Guidelines, Ref. 11). The proposed definition included 

1059 additional information on what constitutes vertical containment. 

1060 Some commenters supported the proposed revisions to the vertical containment 

1061 requirements. One thought that contamination of neighboring properties is a common and serious 

1062 problem. Other commenters did not support the proposed revisions. These commenters thought 

1063 that the proposed revisions were too inflexible and unnecessary. EPA disagrees with these 

1064 commenters. As discussed, the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior renovations 

1065 travels at least 10 feet from the activity. The RRP rule requires the ground to be covered with 

1066 plastic sheeting or other impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the surfaces being 

1067 renovated or a sufficient distance to collect falling paint debris, whichever is greater, unless 

1068 prevented by the property line. In the absence of some system of vertical containment, EPA 

1069 knows of no work practice that would effectively ensure that adjacent properties are not 

1070 contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint within 10 feet of the property line. However, 

1071 the vertical containment requirement is intended to provide flexibility for certified renovators to 

1072 design effective containment systems based on the renovation activity and the work site. Vertical 

1073 containment systems can span a range from simple barriers to more extensive scaffolding, 

1074 depending on the size of the job and other relevant factors. Complex vertical containment 

1075 systems with extensive scaffolding are often not necessary to effectively contain the dust 

1076 generated by a renovation. 

1077 One commenter thought that it should be sufficient to require the renovation firm to 

1078 inform the neighbors to keep their windows and doors closed while the renovation is ongoing. 

1079 While this might prevent leaded dust from drifting into the interiors of adjacent buildings, it does 

1080 not address contamination of the neighboring porches, balconies, or yards. This does not meet the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 46 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1081 standard already present in the RRP rule, that dust and debris not be permitted to leave the work 

1082 area while the renovation is ongoing. EPA is also concerned about the ability of renovation firms 

1083 to affect the behavior of neighbors whose homes are not being renovated. 

1084 Several commenters expressed concern about the safety of workers and vertical 

1085 containment. One argued that OSHA has said that vertical containment is not required in 

1086 situations where worker safety would be compromised, such as in windy conditions. EPA agrees 

1087 that erecting extensive scaffolding to support a large vertical containment system in some windy 

1088 conditions may be unsafe for workers. If such a vertical containment system would be necessary 

1089 to ensure containment of the dust generated by a particular renovation, EPA knows of no 

1090 alternative but to reschedule the renovation for a more clement day. The HUD Guidelines state 

1091 that exterior renovation work should not be conducted when the wind speed is greater than 20 

1092 miles per hour (Ref. 11). The Guidelines also state that work must cease and cleanup be 

1093 completed before rain begins. EPA has not imposed these specific requirements, but renovation 

1094 firms should consider this guidance when deciding how to proceed. 

1095 Other commenters were concerned about the additional costs that the revisions to the 

1096 vertical containment provisions would impose on renovations. EPA agrees that it is more 

1097 expensive to conduct exterior renovations with vertical containment than without. In EPA’s 

1098 economic analysis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA addressed those situations where the renovation 

1099 firm must take extra precautions to effectively contain dust and debris, including work areas in 

1100 close proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a property line, and windy conditions. 

1101 The 2008 economic analysis specifically notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of 

1102 vertical containment to prevent paint dust and debris from contaminating the ground or any object 

1103 beyond the work area. To account for these situations, EPA estimated that approximately 2% of 

1104 exterior jobs would use exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 47 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1105 varies from $330 per wall to $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the job. Thus, EPA has 

1106 already accounted for the additional costs incurred for using vertical containment systems on 

1107 renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line. 

1108 Because EPA does not know of any effective alternatives to the vertical containment 

1109 requirement for exterior renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line, and because 

1110 EPA believes that the additional guidance provided by the addition of the “windy conditions” 

1111 example to the regulatory text will be helpful to renovation firms, EPA is promulgating these 

1112 revisions as proposed. 

1113 In addition, since promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule, EPA has received several inquiries 

1114 from the regulated community on the rule’s containment provisions. In particular, EPA has been 

1115 asked to address the problem of obstacles that prevent renovation firms from using 6 feet of 

1116 plastic sheeting or other impermeable material on interior floors or 10 feet of material on the 

1117 ground. EPA believes that the proper use of vertical containment measures may be a more 

1118 effective method for containing the work area than use of traditional floor or ground containment 

1119 alone, especially where obstacles prevent or make it impractical to install floor or ground 

1120 containment to the extent required by the RRP rule. Therefore, EPA is amending the containment 

1121 provisions for both interior and exterior renovations to permit renovation firms to erect vertical 

1122 containment at a distance of less than 6 feet from the work surface, for interiors, provided that the 

1123 vertical containment is floor to ceiling, or less than 10 feet for exteriors, and not also require them 

1124 to comply with the minimum floor or ground containment requirements of the RRP rule. For 

1125 example, a renovation firm erects an exterior vertical containment system consisting of a rigid 

1126 box-like framework wrapped in impermeable plastic sheeting and anchored to the ground and 

1127 home. If this containment system is erected 5 feet from the side of the home, and placed on top of 

1128 ground containment, such containment should effectively limit the travel of dust and debris to the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 48 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1129 interior of the enclosure. Under the amended containment provisions, the renovation firm would 

1130 not be required to extend plastic sheeting or other impermeable material 5 feet beyond the vertical 

1131 containment system. 

1132 This amendment will affect interior renovations similarly. However, to qualify for 

1133 reduced floor containment requirements, vertical containment systems for interior renovations 

1134 must consist of impermeable barriers that extend from the floor to the ceiling and are tightly 

1135 sealed at joints with the floor, ceiling and walls (e.g. through the use of tape, foam or other means 

1136 which create tight seals), thus effectively creating a separate enclosure. This type of vertical 

1137 containment acts as the functional equivalent of a wall for purposes of defining the work area and, 

1138 if the vertical containment meets these criteria, the floor containment measures may stop at the 

1139 edge of the vertical barrier. However, unlike permanent walls, vertical containment barriers are 

1140 subject to all containment cleaning requirements including misting, inward folding, sealing, and 

1141 proper disposal following the renovation. A firm must also thoroughly clean an additional two 

1142 feet beyond the vertically-contained work area. Finally, during ingress or egress from the vertical 

1143 enclosure, a firm must take precaution to ensure that dust and debris on personnel, tools, and other 

1144 items do not escape the work area. 

1145 Upon further consideration of the proposed definition of containment, particularly in light 

1146 of the comments received on the proposed vertical containment requirements, EPA has 

1147 determined that a broader definition of containment is unnecessary, and may even be confusing, 

1148 but a definition of vertical containment would help to clarify the vertical containment 

1149 requirements. Accordingly, EPA is promulgating a definition of “vertical containment” that is 

1150 similar to the last sentence of the proposed definition of “containment.” Vertical containment is 

1151 defined as a vertical barrier consisting of plastic sheeting or other impermeable material over 

1152 scaffolding or a wood or metal frame, or an equivalent system. The definition further states that 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 49 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1153 vertical containment is required for some exterior renovations but it may be used on any 

1154 renovation. 

1155 7. Prohibited or restricted practices. In May 2010, EPA proposed to make a number of 

1156 minor revisions to clarify the prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in 40 CFR 

1157 745.85(a)(3). The first was a clarification that these prohibitions and restrictions, e.g., the 

1158 prohibition on open flame burning or torching, apply to all painted surfaces, not just surfaces 

1159 where the presence of lead-based paint has been confirmed. The term “lead-based paint” was 

1160 incorrectly and inadvertently used in this subsection, making it inconsistent with the rest of the 

1161 RRP rule, which applies in the presence of known lead-based paint as well as paint that has not 

1162 been tested for lead content. Accordingly, EPA proposed to replace the term “lead-based paint” 

1163 with “painted surfaces” in this subsection. Of course, if the painted surface has been tested and 

1164 found to be free of lead-based paint, the prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in the final 

1165 RRP rule do not apply. Commenters generally supported this revision, although two commenters 

1166 noted that EPA uses the term “painted surfaces” throughout the RRP rule and it is unclear 

1167 whether this refers just to paint or to other surface coatings as well. These commenters noted that 

1168 the definition of “lead-based paint” includes paint and other surface coatings but there is no 

1169 definition of the term “painted surfaces.” These commenters observed that other surface coatings, 

1170 such as varnish, can contain significant amounts of lead. The commenters suggested that EPA 

1171 address this issue throughout the RRP rule. EPA agrees with these commenters. In using the 

1172 term “painted surfaces,” EPA has always meant component surfaces that are covered in whole or 

1173 in part with a coating that could be lead-based paint. The term was designed to encompass 

1174 situations where the surface is covered with lead-based paint as defined by the regulation as well 

1175 as situations where the lead content of the surface coating had not been determined. EPA never 

1176 intended to exclude varnishes or other surface coatings from the coverage of the RRP rule. In 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 50 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1177 fact, the applicability section of the RRP rule, 40 CFR 745.82, limits the exclusions for testing to 

1178 those situations where the components to be disturbed by a renovation have been demonstrated to 

1179 be free of paint and other surface coatings that contain lead at levels equal to or exceeding the 

1180 regulatory threshold. Therefore, EPA is promulgating this revision as proposed and EPA is also 

1181 adding a clarifying definition of “painted surface” to 40 CFR 745.83. This definition states that 

1182 painted surface means a component surface covered in whole or in part with paint or other surface 

1183 coatings. 

1184 In addition, EPA proposed to clarify that the restriction in this section on the use of 

1185 machines that remove paint through high speed operation applies anywhere painted surfaces are 

1186 being disturbed by such machines, the restriction is not limited to situations where all of the paint 

1187 is removed by such machines. EPA received no comments specifically on this proposed revision, 

1188 although the comments on the general issue of paint including other surface coatings are also 

1189 applicable here. EPA is promulgating this revision as proposed, with the addition of the phrase 

1190 “or other surface coatings” after the term “paint,” because EPA never intended to create a 

1191 loophole that would allow someone to remove some or most of the paint or other surface coating 

1192 from a component without complying with the restriction. 

1193 Finally, EPA proposed to clarify what was meant by HEPA exhaust control. In order to 

1194 better express what is required when machines designed to remove paint through high speed 

1195 operation are used, EPA consulted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 

1196 Technical Manual (Ref. 12). The use of shrouded tools to remove lead-based paint is discussed in 

1197 Chapter 3 of Section V, entitled “Controlling Lead Exposures in the Construction Industry: 

1198 Engineering and Work Practice Controls.” Using language from this reference, EPA proposed to 

1199 amend 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii) to read, “The use of machines designed to remove paint through 

1200 high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 51 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1201 sandblasting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines are used shrouded and 

1202 equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the point of generation.” 

1203 EPA received several comments on this topic. The commenters generally supported the change, 

1204 but two thought that there should be a performance standard included in the provision, a visible 

1205 standard that warns the workers that the shroud or containment system is not working properly. 

1206 EPA agrees with these commenters. Another commenter thought that the term “shrouded” in the 

1207 proposed revision would make the RRP rule more stringent than the requirements applicable to 

1208 abatement contractors. After consulting the abatement chapter of the HUD Guidelines, EPA has 

1209 determined that the proposed language could potentially be read to exclude one of the two types 

1210 of sanders described by HUD as appropriate for abatement work because they provide HEPA 

1211 exhaust control. Accordingly, EPA is promulgating the revision as proposed, except that the 

1212 regulatory language will read “. . . unless such machines have shrouds or containment systems 

1213 and are equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the point of 

1214 generation. Machines must be operated so that no visible dust or release of air occurs outside the 

1215 shroud or containment system.” 

1216 8. HEPA vacuums. In May 2010, EPA proposed to clarify that vacuums qualifying as 

1217 HEPA vacuums for the purposes of this rule must be operated and maintained in accordance with 

1218 the manufacturer’s instructions in order to continue to qualify as HEPA vacuums. This includes 

1219 following the manufacturer’s filter change interval recommendations. EPA also proposed to 

1220 clarify that the standard for HEPA filters, that they be capable of capturing particles of 0.3 

1221 microns with 99.97% efficiency, means that the filters must have a Minimum Efficiency 

1222 Reporting Value (MERV) of 17 or greater. At the time, EPA also recommended that renovation 

1223 firms have information from the manufacturer that the particular model of vacuum that the 

1224 renovation firm intends to use, or the vacuum’s HEPA filter, has been tested in accordance with 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 52 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1225 an applicable test method, such as ASTM F1471-09, “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 

1226 Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System,” and has been determined to 

1227 meet this standard (Ref. 13). 

1228 EPA received a number of comments on these proposed revisions. Commenters 

1229 specifically addressing the requirement that vacuums be operated in accordance with the 

1230 manufacturer’s instructions, including filter change interval recommendations, were in general 

1231 agreement with the requirement. Other commenters expressed a general concern that these 

1232 revisions would prohibit the use of consumer-grade HEPA vacuums that renovation firms had 

1233 recently purchased to comply with the RRP rule. Some argued that the proposed language 

1234 regarding the MERV was too stringent, given industry practice for high-efficiency vacuums. One 

1235 commenter cited research they had done on the efficiency of HEPA vacuums to argue that the 

1236 HEPA vacuums used in EPA’s Dust Study would not have met the MERV standard proposed by 

1237 EPA. However, the commenter did not provide sufficient information to support this assertion. 

1238 Several commenters echoed comments EPA received during the rulemaking process for the 2008 

1239 RRP rule, arguing that HEPA vacuums are too expensive and are not necessary. Other 

1240 commenters believed that additional requirements should be added, such as a requirement to field 

1241 test the efficiency of the vacuums on a regular basis or after filter changes. 

1242 EPA continues to believe that HEPA vacuums are a necessary part of the required RRP 

1243 work practices. In addition, the OSHA Lead in Construction standard requires the use of HEPA 

1244 vacuums whenever vacuums are used. However, EPA also understands the concerns of those 

1245 commenters who had already purchased HEPA vacuums for purposes of the RRP rule as well as 

1246 those others who thought that the proposed MERV value of 17 would be too stringent. In 

1247 balancing these concerns, EPA has decided to promulgate the requirement that HEPA vacuums be 

1248 operated in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions, but not the requirement that compliant 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 53 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1249 vacuums be rated at a MERV value of 17 or higher. 

1250 In addition, in response to EPA’s recommendation that renovation firms obtain 

1251 information from the manufacturer that the efficiency of their particular model of HEPA vacuum 

1252 or HEPA filter has been tested in accordance with an applicable test method, some commenters 

1253 noted that this information may not be readily available to renovation firms. These commenters 

1254 suggested that EPA maintain a list of HEPA vacuums that have been tested and found to meet the 

1255 HEPA vacuum requirements. EPA will consider developing and maintaining such a list. 

1256 9. On-the-job training. EPA’s 2010 proposal included a clarification regarding the 

1257 required elements of on-the-job training provided by renovators. Specifically, EPA proposed to 

1258 clarify that the RRP rule requires certified renovators to train other renovation workers in only the 

1259 work practices required by the RRP rule that the workers will be using in performing their 

1260 assigned tasks. As discussed in the 2010 proposal, EPA did not intend to require training in any 

1261 other subjects, such as how to paint or how to connect pipes. EPA is promulgating the 

1262 clarification as proposed and amending 40 CFR 745.90(b)(2) and (b)(4) to refer specifically to the 

1263 work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85(a). Two comments were received on this proposed 

1264 clarification, both commenters expressed support for the change. 

1265 10. Grandfathering. Under the final 2008 RRP rule, individuals who successfully 

1266 completed an accredited abatement worker or supervisor course, and individuals who successfully 

1267 completed the HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD model renovation training courses may take an 

1268 accredited refresher renovation training course in lieu of the initial renovation training to become 

1269 a certified renovator. In addition, individuals who have successfully completed an accredited 

1270 lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently certified in the discipline, 

1271 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training to 

1272 become a certified dust sampling technician. As discussed in the 2010 proposal, EPA 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 54 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1273 inadvertently failed to include in the 2008 RRP rule a time limit for taking the refresher in lieu of 

1274 the initial course. Many of the commenters who addressed the issue of grandfathering in the 2008 

1275 RRP rulemaking contended that there should be restrictions based on how much time elapsed 

1276 since the training was taken. In addition, under the lead-based paint activities regulations at 40 

1277 CFR 745.226, EPA allowed a similar grandfathering provision but only for a limited time. 

1278 Accordingly, EPA proposed to set a limit on when an individual can take advantage of the 

1279 grandfathering provision under the RRP rule. The preamble to the 2010 proposal stated that the 

1280 limit would be July 31, 2011, such that renovators and dust sampling technicians who take the 

1281 appropriate prerequisite course before that date would be permitted to take an accredited refresher 

1282 training course in lieu of the initial training. EPA received 3 comments on this provision. One 

1283 commenter helpfully pointed out that, while the preamble said that the limit would be July 31, 

1284 2011, the proposed regulatory text said that it would be April 22, 2011. The three commenters 

1285 supported the limit of July 31, 2011, one noting that EPA should not continue to encourage 

1286 renovators to take lead-safe work practices courses that do not meet the requirements for certified 

1287 renovator training. EPA generally agrees with these commenters and is promulgating a provision 

1288 that allows renovators and dust sampling technicians who take the appropriate prerequisite course 

1289 before the effective date of this rule to take an accredited refresher training course in lieu of the 

1290 initial training. 

1291 EPA also proposed a clarification regarding the grandfathering provision as it applies to 

1292 the dust sampling technician discipline. Individuals who successfully complete an accredited 

1293 lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently certified in the discipline, 

1294 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training 

1295 before April 22, 2011 to become a certified dust sampling technician. Inspectors and risk 

1296 assessors who are certified by EPA or an authorized state program are qualified to perform dust 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 55 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1297 sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, or abatements as well as for other 

1298 purposes, such as post-renovation dust sampling. Therefore, it would be unnecessary for a 

1299 certified inspector or risk assessor to seek certification as a dust sampling technician. The 2008 

1300 RRP rule explains who is eligible to take the refresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of 

1301 the initial training. However, the regulations as promulgated did not explicitly say that a certified 

1302 inspector or risk assessor may perform dust sampling. In order to clarify the intent of the 

1303 regulation, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 745.90(a)(3) to specifically state that a certified 

1304 inspector or risk assessor may act as a dust sampling technician. EPA is promulgating this 

1305 provision as proposed. One comment was received on this topic expressing general support for 

1306 the amendment. 

1307 III. References 

1308 As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for this rulemaking 

1309 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The following is a listing of the documents 

1310 that are specifically referenced in this final rule. The docket includes these documents and other 

1311 information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents 

1312 that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the 

1313 docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical contact 

1314 listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1315 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing 

1316 Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

1317 Register (75 FR 25038, May 6, 2010) (FRL–8823–5). 

1318 2. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 

1319 (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). 

1320 3. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities; Final Rule. Federal 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 56 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1321 Register (61 FR 45778), August 29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). 

1322 4. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (October 2006). 

1323 5. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. Federal Register

1324 (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL–6763–5). 

1325 6. EPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing (September 

1326 2005). 

1327 7. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair, And Painting 

1328 Activities. (November 13, 2007). 

1329 8. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. (2009). 

1330 9. EPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase I, 

1331 Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 1997). 

1332 10. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). “Economic Analysis for the 

1333 TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child1334 Occupied Facilities” (March 2008). 

1335 11. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Guidelines for the 

1336 Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (June 1995). 

1337 12. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 

1338 Technical Manual TED 01-00-015 [TED 1-0.15A]. Revised June 24, 2008. 

1339 13. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High1340 Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System (F1471-09). 

1341 14. EPA. OPPT. “Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits Associated with the

1342 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program 

1343 Final Rule” (July 2011). 

1344 15. EPA. OPPT. “Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 57 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1345 Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied 

1346 Facilities” (April 2010). 

1347 16. EPA. Final Clearance Rule ICR Addendum for the rulemaking entitled Lead; 

1348 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

1349 Program; Final Rule. (July 2011). 

1350 17. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Lead-based Paint 

1351 Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. (March 3, 2000). 

1352 18. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

1353 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL-8355-7). 

1354 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

1355 A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

1356 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, 

1357 October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted 

1358 this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 

1359 12866 and 13563, entitled Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January 

1360 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented 

1361 in the docket for this action. 

1362 In addition, EPA prepared a document discussing the potential costs and benefits 

1363 associated with this final rule. This document, entitled “Discussion of Potential Costs and 

1364 Benefits Associated with the Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, 

1365 Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule” (Ref. 14), is available in the docket for this action and 

1366 is briefly summarized here. 

1367 For the most part, the amendments to the RRP rule contained in this final rule impose only 

1368 minimal incremental costs. For example, the requirement for training course providers to submit 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 58 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1369 copies of personnel qualifications along with their applications will result in providers making 

1370 copies of and submitting with their application 2-4 additional pieces of paper that they are already 

1371 required to have in their possession before submitting the application. The requirement to submit 

1372 copies of State training course materials, if used, could add significantly to the size of the training 

1373 provider’s application. However, EPA believes that it will be a rare occurrence for training 

1374 providers to use State-approved training course materials, when EPA model training course 

1375 materials are readily available. Likewise, the provision allowing certified renovators to collect 

1376 paint chip samples in lieu of using test kits adds no additional costs, because certified renovators 

1377 are not required to take this step in addition to existing activities – it is an added option from 

1378 which they may choose. Similarly, the minimum enforcement provisions and other requirements 

1379 for State and Tribal programs imposes no costs because States and Tribes are not required to have 

1380 authorized programs, nor are they required to revise their programs to incorporate EPA revisions. 

1381 While EPA is requiring specific recordkeeping for training providers who wish to provide e1382 learning courses, e-learning courses are not required from any training provider. In addition, EPA 

1383 believes that the recordkeeping requirements for e-learning courses are comparable to, and no 

1384 more burdensome than, the ordinary recordkeeping already required for courses provided in 

1385 traditional formats. 

1386 Many of the amendments are merely clarifications of existing regulatory language and 

1387 implementation of policy and impose no additional costs. Examples of these amendments include 

1388 the clarifications on the role of the principal instructor in an accredited training program, the 

1389 requirement that the trainee photograph on a course completion certificate be an accurate 

1390 representation of the trainee and no smaller than one square inch, and the clarification that 

1391 certified renovators are only required to provide on-the-job training in the RRP work practices to 

1392 other renovation workers. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 59 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1393 With respect to the vertical containment requirements of this final rule, EPA has already 

1394 accounted for the costs of those requirements. In EPA’s economic analysis for the 2008 RRP 

1395 rule, EPA addressed those situations where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to 

1396 effectively contain dust and debris, including work areas in close proximity to other buildings, 

1397 work areas that abut a property line, and windy conditions. The 2008 economic analysis 

1398 specifically notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of vertical containment to 

1399 prevent paint dust and debris from contaminating the ground or any object beyond the work area. 

1400 To account for these situations, EPA estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use 

1401 exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall 

1402 to $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the job. Thus, EPA has already accounted for the 

1403 additional costs incurred for using vertical containment systems on renovations performed within 

1404 10 feet of the property line. 

1405 Some of the amendments are likely to result in some additional costs for the regulated 

1406 community, but EPA is unable to estimate what those costs might be. For example, removal of 

1407 the provision allowing renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification step when performing 

1408 clean-up if the firm is also required to achieve clearance could result in some minimal additional 

1409 cost for those renovations. As previously discussed, EPA’s “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth 

1410 Field Study in Residential Housing” (Ref. 6) showed that cleaning verification should take 

1411 approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth may be used for up to 40 square 

1412 feet of uncarpeted floor, countertop, or windowsill space. EPA estimated, as part of the final 

1413 2008 RRP rule analyses, that the material cost for each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that handles 

1414 are $13.60 apiece (Ref. 10). EPA assumed that these handles can be used for approximately 

1415 1,000 events. On the other hand, the Dust Study demonstrates that the wet disposable cleaning 

1416 cloth method is very effective at cleaning up dust. It is likely that completing the entire RRP 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 60 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1417 cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, will increase the probability that clearance, 

1418 where required by HUD or another entity, will be achieved on the first attempt, thus eliminating 

1419 the burden of additional clearance attempts. 

1420 This final rule extends the recordkeeping requirement for providers of certified renovator 

1421 and certified dust sampling technician training from 3 years and 6 months to 5 years in general 

1422 and slightly more than 5 years for training providers who offered accredited courses in these 

1423 disciplines before April 22, 2010. The recordkeeping extension does not affect recordkeeping 

1424 requirements associated with obtaining and maintaining accreditation. This extension only affects 

1425 those records pertaining to training courses, specifically notifications. Pro-rating the 

1426 recordkeeping cost estimates from EPA’s economic analysis for the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping 

1427 Final Rule, also published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2010 (Ref. 15), shows that the 

1428 recordkeeping burden for courses provided during the first year the rule was effective increases 

1429 from $43.68 to $61.88 per training provider. For courses provided in subsequent years, the 

1430 recordkeeping burden per training provider increases from $4.80 to $6.80. These estimates are 

1431 for the entire 5 years that the records would have to be kept. 

1432 EPA has estimated the number of individuals residing in target housing units or attending 

1433 COFs where renovation events are performed. The proposed rule will benefit 809,000 children 

1434 under the age of 6 and 7,547,000 individuals age 6 and older (including 96,000 pregnant women) 

1435 per year by minimizing their exposure to lead dust generated by renovations. 

1436 B. Paperwork Burdens 

1437 The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for 

1438 approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

1439 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) 

1440 document to amend an existing ICR that is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0155 (EPA 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 61 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1441 ICR No. 1715). The ICR amendment, entitled “ICR Addendum for Final Rule entitled “Lead; 

1442 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

1443 Program; Final Rule (RIN 2070–AJ57)” and identified under EPA ICR No. 2381.02, has been 

1444 placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 16). 

1445 This regulatory action contains only two amendments to the approved existing information 

1446 collection: Amendments to the requirement for the training provider to submit documentation of 

1447 training manager and principal instructor qualifications; and a requirement for providers of 

1448 renovator and dust sampling technician training to maintain training records for these courses for 

1449 5 years, rather than 3 years and 6 months. These requirements add only negligible paperwork 

1450 burden hours to the existing burden estimate. 

1451 EPA previously estimated for the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 10) and the final Opt-out rule 

1452 (Ref. 15) that 170 training providers would be accredited to provide renovator training. These 

1453 training providers will now have to submit an additional 2-4 photocopies along with their 

1454 applications for accreditation. EPA estimates that each photocopy costs $0.09 to generate, for a 

1455 maximum of $0.36 additional cost for training providers with one training manager and one 

1456 principal instructor. Each of these 170 training providers is also required to provide training 

1457 course notifications under the existing RRP rule. These notifications will now have to be kept for 

1458 5 years instead of 3 years and 6 months. EPA has also estimated that each of these training 

1459 providers would offer on average a total of 86 renovator or dust sampling technician courses in 

1460 the first year, and 20 per year thereafter. This would require a total of 182 single-page 

1461 notifications in the first year, and 42 each year thereafter. 

1462 Under PRA, burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and means the total time, effort, or 

1463 financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide 

1464 information to or for a Federal agency. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 62 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1465 not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

1466 control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations codified in 40 CFR chapter I, 

1467 after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either 

1468 by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related 

1469 collection instrument or form, as applicable. 

1470 C. Small Entity Impacts 

1471 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

1472 the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant adverse economic 

1473 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 

1474 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

1475 final rule on small entities, small entity is defined in accordance with RFA section 601 as: 

1476 1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

1477 at 13 CFR 121.201. 

1478 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

1479 district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

1480 3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 

1481 and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

1482 The small entities directly regulated by this final rule are providers of lead-based paint 

1483 related training, renovation firms, individuals who perform renovations, and any small 

1484 governmental jurisdictions or not-for-profit enterprises that provide lead-based paint training or 

1485 renovation services. As discussed previously, EPA has decided not to promulgate the clearance 

1486 and clearance testing requirements, and is instead promulgating minor amendments to the 

1487 requirements for lead-based paint training providers and renovation firms that will have only 

1488 negligible adverse impacts on any small entities. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 63 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1489 In addition, RFA states that agencies “may consider a series of closely related rules as one 

1490 rule for the purposes of [an IRFA]” in order to avoid “duplicative action.” 5 U.S.C. § 605(c). 

1491 This rulemaking is closely related to the 2008 RRP rule. Indeed, the proposed rule addressed one 

1492 of the major issues in the 2008 rulemaking and some of the provisions finalized in the 2008 RRP 

1493 rule. Accordingly, EPA was not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis for this 

1494 rulemaking. Nonetheless, EPA exercised its discretion to complete an Initial Regulatory 

1495 Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the 2010 proposal (see 75 FR 25038). The IRFA considered the 

1496 potential adverse economic impacts of the 2010 proposed rule on affected small entities, primarily 

1497 those related to the proposed clearance and clearance testing requirements. The proposed 

1498 provisions analyzed for purposes of the IRFA are not part of this final rule. 

1499 Moreover, as discussed in the 2010 proposed rule in more detail, the Small Business 

1500 Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel that was conducted in connection with the 2006 RRP proposal 

1501 is equally applicable to this closely related amendment to the 2008 RRP rule. The SBAR Panel 

1502 discussed all major aspects of the 2006 proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities, 

1503 including issues related to ensuring that proper cleanup occurs after renovation activities. As a 

1504 part of the panel process, EPA “collect[ed] advice and recommendations” from several Small 

1505 Entity Representatives (SERs) on the 2006 proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling 

1506 activities. 5 U.S.C. § 609(b). The SBAR Panel report, entitled Report of the Small Business 

1507 Advocacy Review Panel on The Lead-base Painting; Certification and Training; Renovation and 

1508 Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000), expressly addressed containment and dust clearance 

1509 testing requirements. Thus, the primary issues considered in this rulemaking are wholly within 

1510 the scope of the issues EPA considered as part of the 2008 RRP rule and were within the scope of 

1511 the issues considered by the SBAR Panel. Reconvening the RRP Panel for the 2010 proposed 

1512 rule would be procedurally duplicative and unnecessary. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 64 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1513 D. Unfunded Mandates 

1514 This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 

1515 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

1516 any one year. This rule includes only minor amendments to the requirements for providers of 

1517 lead-based paint training and for renovation firms. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

1518 requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 

1519 U.S.C. 1531-1538). 

1520 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 

1521 contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

1522 governments. Small governments are only regulated by this action to the extent that they engage 

1523 in providing lead-based paint training or renovation services. 

1524 E. Federalism 

1525 Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 

1526 EPA has determined that this final rule does not have “federalism implications,” because it will 

1527 not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 

1528 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 

1529 levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

1530 not apply to this final rule. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, 

1531 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the Agency and State and 

1532 local governments, EPA consulted with representatives of State and local governments during the 

1533 rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP rule. These consultations are as described in the preamble 

1534 to the 2006 RRP proposed rule (Ref. 18). 

1535 F. Indian Tribal Government Implications 

1536 As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 65 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1537 Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), EPA has determined that this final 

1538 rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal 

1539 governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, or on 

1540 the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, 

1541 as specified in the Executive Order. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final 

1542 rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule, EPA consulted with 

1543 Tribal officials and others by discussing potential renovation regulatory options at several 

1544 national lead program meetings hosted by EPA and other interested Federal agencies. 

1545 G. Protection of Children 

1546 Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

1547 and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) does not apply to this final rule because it is not 

1548 an ”economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866. While the 

1549 environmental health or safety risk addressed by the 2008 RRP rule does have a disproportionate 

1550 effect on children, this final rule makes only minor changes in the administrative requirements for 

1551 accredited training providers and includes minor amendments to the requirements for renovation 

1552 firms. 

1553 EPA has evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of renovation, repair, and 

1554 painting projects on children. Various aspects of this evaluation are discussed in the preamble to 

1555 the 2006 proposed RRP rule (Ref. 18). The primary purpose of the final 2008 RRP rule is to 

1556 minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, and painting 

1557 activities in housing where children under age 6 reside and in housing or other buildings 

1558 frequented by children under age 6. In the absence of the final 2008 RRP rule, adequate work 

1559 practices are not likely to be employed during renovation, repair, and painting activities. EPA’s 

1560 analysis indicates that there will be approximately 1.4 million children under age 6 affected by the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 66 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1561 RRP rule. These children are projected to receive considerable benefits due to the RRP rule. In 

1562 addition, older children will also benefit from the protections afforded by the RRP rule. 

1563 H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

1564 This final rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, 

1565 entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

1566 Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the 

1567 supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

1568 I. Technical Standards 

1569 This regulatory action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency 

1570 consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National 

1571 Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. Section 

1572 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities 

1573 unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

1574 consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 

1575 procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards 

1576 bodies. NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency 

1577 decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

1578 J. Environmental Justice 

1579 Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

1580 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

1581 Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to 

1582 the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their 

1583 mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 

1584 health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 67 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1585 and low-income populations in the United States. 

1586 While EPA has not assessed the potential impact of this final rule on minority and low1587 income populations, EPA did assess the potential impact of the final 2008 RRP rule as a whole. 

1588 As a result of the final 2008 RRP rule assessment, contained in the economic analysis for the final 

1589 2008 RRP rule, EPA has determined that the RRP rule will not have disproportionately high and 

1590 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

1591 increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any 

1592 disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 

1593 including any minority or low-income population (Ref. 10). 

1594 V. Congressional Review Act 

1595 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before a rule 

1596 may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the 

1597 Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing 

1598 this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, 

1599 and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 

1600 Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

1601 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

1602 Environmental protection, Child-occupied facility, Housing renovation, 

1603 Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

1604 Dated: ________________ 

1605 ____________________________________ 

1606 Administrator. 

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

Page 68 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1608 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: 

1609 PART 745--[AMENDED] 

1610 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 

1611 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

1612 2. In § 745.82, add a new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows. 

1613 § 745.82 Applicability. 

1614 (a) * * * 

1615 (3) Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in which a certified 

1616 renovator has collected a paint chip sample from each painted component affected by the 

1617 renovation and a laboratory recognized by EPA pursuant to section 405(b) of TSCA as being 

1618 capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in paint chip samples has determined that the 

1619 samples are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 

1620 mg/cm2 or 0.5% by weight. If the components make up an integrated whole, such as the 

1621 individual stair treads and risers of a single staircase, the renovator is required to test only one of 

1622 the individual components, unless the individual components appear to have been repainted or 

1623 refinished separately. 

1624 * * * * * 

1625 3. In § 745.83, add the definition “Containment” and the definition “Painted surface” in 

1626 alphabetical order to read as follows: 

1627 § 745.83 Definitions. 

1628 * * * * * 

1629 Painted surface means a component surface covered in whole or in part with paint or other 

1630 surface coatings. 

1631 * * * 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 69 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1632 Vertical containment means a vertical barrier consisting of plastic sheeting or other 

1633 impermeable material over scaffolding or a wood or metal frame, or an equivalent system. 

1634 Vertical containment is required for some exterior renovations but it may be used on any 

1635 renovation. 

1636 * * * * * 

1637 4. Section 745.85 is amended as follows: 

1638 a. Revise paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(D); 

1639 b. Revise paragraph (a)(3); 

1640 c. Remove paragraph (c); 

1641 The revisions read as follows: 

1642 § 745.85 Work practice standards. 

1643 (a) * * * 

1644 (2) * * * 

1645 (i) * * * 

1646 (D) Cover the floor surface, including installed carpet, with taped-down plastic sheeting or 

1647 other impermeable material in the work area 6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing 

1648 renovation or a sufficient distance to contain the dust, whichever is greater. Floor containment 

1649 measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier when using a vertical containment system 

1650 consisting of impermeable barriers that extend from the floor to the ceiling and are tightly sealed 

1651 at joints with the floor, ceiling and walls. 

1652 (ii) * * * 

1653 (C) Cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material 

1654 extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance 

1655 to collect falling paint debris, whichever is greater, unless the property line prevents 10 feet of 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 70 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1656 such ground covering. Ground containment measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier 

1657 when using a vertical containment system. 

1658 (D) If the renovation will affect surfaces within 10 feet of the property line, the renovation 

1659 firm must erect vertical containment to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation does not 

1660 contaminate adjacent buildings or migrate to adjacent properties. Vertical containment may also 

1661 be necessary in other situations, such as in windy conditions, in order to prevent contamination of 

1662 other buildings, other areas of the property, or adjacent buildings or properties. 

1663 (3) Prohibited and restricted practices. The work practices listed below are prohibited or 

1664 restricted during a renovation as follows: 

1665 (i) Open-flame burning or torching of painted surfaces is prohibited. 

1666 (ii) The use of machines designed to remove paint or other surface coatings through high 

1667 speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 

1668 sandblasting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines have shrouds or containment 

1669 systems and are equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the point 

1670 of generation. 

1671 (iii) Operating a heat gun on painted surfaces is permitted only at temperatures below 

1672 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

1673 * * * * * 

1674 5. In § 745.86, delete paragraph (d). 

1675 6. Section 745.90 is amended as follows: 

1676 a. By revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3). 

1677 b. By revising paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(8). 

1678 § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification. 

1679 (a) * * * 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 71 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1680 (2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited abatement worker or 

1681 supervisor course, or individuals who successfully completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD model 

1682 renovation training course before [insert date [60] days after date of publication in the Federal 

1683 Register] may take an accredited refresher renovator training course in lieu of the initial 

1684 renovator training course to become a certified renovator. 

1685 (3) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-based paint inspector 

1686 or risk assessor course [insert date [60] days after date of publication in the Federal Register] 

1687 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training to 

1688 become a certified dust sampling technician. Individuals who are currently certified as lead-based 

1689 paint inspectors or risk assessors may act as certified dust sampling technicians without further 

1690 training. 

1691 * * * * * 

1692 (b) * * * 

1693 (2) Must provide training to workers on the work practices required by § 745.85(a) that 

1694 they will be using in performing their assigned tasks. 

1695 * * * * * 

1696 (4) Must regularly direct work being performed by other individuals to ensure that the 

1697 work practices required by § 745.85(a) are being followed, including maintaining the integrity of 

1698 the containment barriers and ensuring that dust or debris does not spread beyond the work area. 

1699 * * * * * 

1700 (8) Must prepare the records required by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and (6). 

1701 * * * * * 

1702 7. In § 745.92, add paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

1703 § 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling technician training and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 72 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1704 the certification of renovation firms. 

1705 * * * * * 

1706 (b) * * * 

1707 (3) Accreditation or certification amendments. No fee will be charged for accreditation or 

1708 certification amendments. 

1709 * * * * * 

1710 8. Revise § 745.225 to read as follows: 

1711 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child occupied facilities. 

1712 (a) Scope. (1) A training program may seek accreditation to offer courses in any of the 

1713 following disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, 

1714 renovator, and dust sampling technician. A training program may also seek accreditation to offer 

1715 refresher courses for each of the above listed disciplines. 

1716 (2) Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their lead-based paint 

1717 activities courses or refresher courses pursuant to this section on or after August 31, 1998. 

1718 Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their renovator or dust sampling 

1719 technician courses or refresher courses pursuant to this section on or after April 22, 2009. 

1720 (3) A training program must not provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA- accredited lead1721 based paint activities courses without applying for and receiving accreditation from EPA as 

1722 required under paragraph (b) of this section on or after March 1, 1999. A training program must 

1723 not provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA-accredited renovator or dust sampling technician 

1724 courses without applying for and receiving accreditation from EPA as required under paragraph 

1725 (b) of this section on or after June 23, 2008. 

1726 (b) Application process. The following are procedures a training program must follow to 

1727 receive EPA accreditation to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 73 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1728 sampling technician courses: 

1729 (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit a written application to EPA 

1730 containing the following information: 

1731 (i) The training program’s name, address, and telephone number. 

1732 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation. For the purposes of this 

1733 section, courses taught in different languages and electronic learning courses are considered 

1734 different courses, and each must independently meet the accreditation requirements. 

1735 (iii) The name and documentation of the qualifications of the training program manager. 

1736 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of qualifications of any principal instructor(s). 

1737 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the training 

1738 program meets the requirements established in paragraph (c) of this section. If a training program 

1739 uses EPA-recommended model training materials, or training materials approved by a State or 

1740 Indian Tribe that has been authorized by EPA under subpart Q of this part, the training program 

1741 manager shall include a statement certifying that, as well. 

1742 (vi) If a training program does not use EPA-recommended model training materials, its 

1743 application for accreditation shall also include: (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals, 

1744 or other materials to be used for each course. 

1745 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 

1746 (C) When applying for accreditation of a course in a language other than 

1747 English, a signed statement from a qualified, independent translator that they had compared the 

1748 course to the English language version and found the translation to be accurate. 

1749 (vii) All training programs shall include in their application for accreditation the 

1750 following: 

1751 (A) A description of the facilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands-on 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 74 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1752 training. 

1753 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 

1754 (C) A description of the activities and procedures that will be used for conducting the 

1755 assessment of hands-on skills for each course. 

1756 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

1757 (2) If a training program meets the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section, then EPA 

1758 shall approve the application for accreditation no more than 180 days after receiving a complete 

1759 application from the training program. In the case of approval, a certificate of accreditation shall 

1760 be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a letter describing the reasons for disapproval 

1761 shall be sent to the applicant. Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its discretion, work with the 

1762 applicant to address inadequacies in the application for accreditation. EPA may also request 

1763 additional materials retained by the training program under paragraph (i) of this section. If a 

1764 training program’s application is disapproved, the program may reapply for accreditation at any 

1765 time. 

1766 (3) A training program may apply for accreditation to offer courses or refresher courses in 

1767 as many disciplines as it chooses. A training program may seek accreditation for additional 

1768 courses at any time as long as the program can demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this 

1769 section. 

1770 (4) A training program applying for accreditation must submit the appropriate fees in 

1771 accordance with § 745.238. 

1772 (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. For a training program to 

1773 obtain accreditation from EPA to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or 

1774 dust sampling technician courses, the program must meet the following requirements: 

1775 (1) The training program shall employ a training manager who has: 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 75 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1776 (i) At least 2 years of experience, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; or 

1777 (ii) A bachelor’s or graduate degree in building construction technology, engineering, 

1778 industrial hygiene, safety, public health, education, business administration or program 

1779 management or a related field; or 

1780 (iii) Two years of experience in managing a training program specializing in 

1781 environmental hazards; and 

1782 (iv) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in the construction industry 

1783 including: Lead or asbestos abatement, painting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, occupational 

1784 safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 

1785 (2) The training manager shall designate a qualified principal instructor for each course 

1786 who has: 

1787 (i) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; and 

1788 (ii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized 

1789 State or Tribal-accredited lead-specific training; and 

1790 (iii) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in lead or asbestos abatement, 

1791 painting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, occupational safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 

1792 (3) The principal instructor shall be responsible for the organization of the course, course 

1793 delivery, and oversight of the teaching of all course material. The training manager may designate 

1794 guest instructors as needed for a portion of the course to provide instruction specific to the lecture, 

1795 hands-on activities, or work practice components of a course. However, the principal instructor is 

1796 primarily responsible for teaching the course materials and must be present to provide instruction 

1797 (or oversight of portions of the course taught by guest instructors) for the course for which he has 

1798 been designated the principal instructor. 

1799 (4) The following documents shall be recognized by EPA as evidence that training 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 76 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1800 managers and principal instructors have the education, work experience, training requirements or 

1801 demonstrated experience, specifically listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. This 

1802 documentation must be submitted with the accreditation application and retained by the training 

1803 program as required by the recordkeeping requirements contained in paragraph (i) of this section. 

1804 Those documents include the following: 

1805 (i) Official academic transcripts or diploma as evidence of meeting the education 

1806 requirements. 

1807 (ii) Resumes, letters of reference, or documentation of work experience, as evidence of 

1808 meeting the work experience requirements. 

1809 (iii) Certificates from train-the-trainer courses and lead-specific training courses, as 

1810 evidence of meeting the training requirements. 

1811 (5) The training program shall ensure the availability of, and provide adequate facilities 

1812 for, the delivery of the lecture, course test, hands-on training, and assessment activities. This 

1813 includes providing training equipment that reflects current work practices and maintaining or 

1814 updating the equipment and facilities as needed. 

1815 (6) To become accredited in the following disciplines, the training program shall provide 

1816 training courses that meet the following training requirements: 

1817 (i) The inspector course shall last a minimum of 24 training hours, with a minimum of 8 

1818 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 

1819 inspector course are contained in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

1820 (ii) The risk assessor course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a minimum of 

1821 4 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 

1822 risk assessor course are contained in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

1823 (iii) The supervisor course shall last a minimum of 32 training hours, with a minimum of 8 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 77 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1824 hours devoted to hands-on activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the supervisor 

1825 course are contained in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

1826 (iv) The project designer course shall last a minimum of 8 training hours. The minimum 

1827 curriculum requirements for the project designer course are contained in paragraph (d)(4) of this 

1828 section. 

1829 (v) The abatement worker course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a 

1830 minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum 

1831 requirements for the abatement worker course are contained in paragraph (d)(5) of this section. 

1832 (vi) The renovator course must last a minimum of 8 training hours, with a minimum of 2 

1833 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 

1834 renovator course are contained in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 

1835 (vii) The dust sampling technician course must last a minimum of 8 training hours, with a 

1836 minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum 

1837 requirements for the dust sampling technician course are contained in paragraph (d)(7) of this 

1838 section. 

1839 (viii) Electronic learning and other alternative course delivery methods are permitted for 

1840 the classroom portion of renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities 

1841 courses but not the hands-on portion of these courses, or for final course tests or proficiency tests 

1842 described in paragraph (c)(7) of this section. Electronic learning courses must comply with the 

1843 following requirements: 

1844 (A) A unique identifier must be assigned to each student for them to use to launch and re1845 launch the course. 

1846 (B) The training provider must track each student’s course log-ins, launches, progress, and 

1847 completion, and maintain these records in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 78 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1848 (C) The course must include periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the number and 

1849 content of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’s model course, but at least 16 over the entire 

1850 course. The knowledge checks must be successfully completed before the student can go on to 

1851 the next module. 

1852 (D) There must be a test of at least 20 questions at the end of the electronic learning 

1853 portion of the course, of which 80% must be answered correctly by the student for successful 

1854 completion of the electronic learning portion of the course. 

1855 (E) Each student must be able to save or print a copy of an electronic learning course 

1856 completion certificate. The electronic certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and easy 

1857 editing by students. 

1858 (7) For each course offered, the training program shall conduct either a course test at the 

1859 completion of the course, and if applicable, a hands-on skills assessment, or in the alternative, a 

1860 proficiency test for that discipline. Each individual must successfully complete the hands-on 

1861 skills assessment and receive a passing score on the course test to pass any course, or successfully 

1862 complete a proficiency test. 

1863 (i) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity of the 

1864 hands-on skills assessment or proficiency test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees’ 

1865 performance of the work practices and procedures associated with the course topics contained in 

1866 paragraph (d) of this section. 

1867 (ii) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity of the 

1868 course test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees’ knowledge and retention of the 

1869 course topics. 

1870 (iii) The course test shall be developed in accordance with the test blueprint submitted 

1871 with the training accreditation application. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 79 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1872 (8) The training program shall issue unique course completion certificates to each 

1873 individual who passes the training course. The course completion certificate shall include: 

1874 (i) The name, a unique identification number, and address of the individual. 

1875 (ii) The name of the particular course that the individual completed. 

1876 (iii) Dates of course completion/test passage. 

1877 (iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, project designer, supervisor, or abatement worker 

1878 course completion certificates, the expiration date of interim certification, which is 6 months from 

1879 the date of course completion. 

1880 (v) The name, address, and telephone number of the training program. 

1881 (vi) The language in which the course was taught. 

1882 (vii) For renovator and dust sampling technician course completion certificates, a 

1883 photograph of the individual. The photograph must be an accurate and recognizable image of the 

1884 individual. As reproduced on the certificate, the photograph must not be smaller than 1 square 

1885 inch. 

1886 (9) The training manager shall develop and implement a quality control plan. The plan 

1887 shall be used to maintain and improve the quality of the training program over time. This plan 

1888 shall contain at least the following elements: 

1889 (i) Procedures for periodic revision of training materials and the course test to reflect 

1890 innovations in the field. 

1891 (ii) Procedures for the training manager’s annual review of principal instructor 

1892 competency. 

1893 (10) Courses offered by the training program must teach the work practice standards 

1894 contained in § 745.85 or § 745.227, as applicable, in such a manner that trainees are provided 

1895 with the knowledge needed to perform the renovations or lead-based paint activities they will be 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 80 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1896 responsible for conducting. 

1897 (11) The training manager shall be responsible for ensuring that the training program 

1898 complies at all times with all of the requirements in this section. 

1899 (12) The training manager shall allow EPA to audit the training program to verify the 

1900 contents of the application for accreditation as described in paragraph (b) of this section. 

1901 (13) The training manager must provide notification of renovator, dust sampling 

1902 technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered. 

1903 (i) The training manager must provide EPA with notification of all renovator, dust 

1904 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered. The original notification must 

1905 be received by EPA at least 7 business days prior to the start date of any renovator, dust sampling 

1906 technician, or lead-based paint activities course. 

1907 (ii) The training manager must provide EPA updated notification when renovator, dust 

1908 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses will begin on a date other than the start 

1909 date specified in the original notification, as follows: 

1910 (A) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 

1911 beginning prior to the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be received by 

1912 EPA at least 7 business days before the new start date. 

1913 (B) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 

1914 beginning after the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be received by EPA 

1915 at least 2 business days before the start date provided to EPA. 

1916 (iii) The training manager must update EPA of any change in location of renovator, dust 

1917 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses at least 7 business days prior to the 

1918 start date provided to EPA. 

1919 (iv) The training manager must update EPA regarding any course cancellations, or any 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 81 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1920 other change to the original notification. Updated notifications must be received by EPA at least 2 

1921 business days prior to the start date provided to EPA. 

1922 (v) Each notification, including updates, must include the following: 

1923 (A) Notification type (original, update, cancellation). 

1924 (B) Training program name, EPA accreditation number, address, and telephone number. 

1925 (C) Course discipline, type (initial/refresher), and the language in which instruction will 

1926 be given. 

1927 (D) Date(s) and time(s) of training. 

1928 (E) Training location(s) telephone number, and address. 

1929 (F) Principal instructor’s name. 

1930 (G) Training manager’s name and signature. 

1931 (vi) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: Written 

1932 notification, or electronically using the Agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 

1933 notification of lead-based paint activities course schedules can be accomplished by using either 

1934 the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training Notification” or a similar form containing the 

1935 information required in paragraph (c)(13)(v) of this section. All written notifications must be 

1936 delivered by U.S. Postal Service, fax, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery (persons 

1937 submitting notification by U.S. Postal Service are reminded that they should allow 3 additional 

1938 business days for delivery in order to ensure that EPA receives the notification by the required 

1939 date). Instructions and sample forms can be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800– 424–

1940 LEAD(5323), or on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/lead. 

1941 (vii) Renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses must not 

1942 begin on a date, or at a location other than that specified in the original notification unless an 

1943 updated notification identifying a new start date or location is submitted, in which case the course 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 82 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1944 must begin on the new start date and/or location specified in the updated notification. 

1945 (viii) No training program shall provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 

1946 paint activities courses without first notifying EPA of such activities in accordance with the 

1947 requirements of this paragraph. 

1948 (14) The training manager must provide notification following completion of renovator, 

1949 dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses. 

1950 (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of any lead1951 based paint activities course. This notice must be received by EPA no later than 10 business days 

1952 following course completion. 

1953 (ii) The notification must include the following: 

1954 (A) Training program name, EPA accreditation number, address, and telephone number. 

1955 (B) Course discipline and type (initial/refresher). 

1956 (C) Date(s) of training. 

1957 (D) The following information for each student who took the course: 

1958 (1) Name. 

1959 (2) Address. 

1960 (3) Date of birth. 

1961 (4) Course completion certificate number. 

1962 (5) Course test score. 

1963 (6) For renovator or dust sampling technician courses, a digital photograph of the student. 

1964 (E) Training manager’s name and signature. 

1965 (iii) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: Written 

1966 notification, or electronically using the Agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 

1967 notification following renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities training 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 83 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1968 courses can be accomplished by using either the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training 

1969 Course Follow-up” or a similar form containing the information required in paragraph (c)(14)(ii) 

1970 of this section. All written notifications must be delivered by U.S. Postal Service, fax, 

1971 commercial delivery service, or hand delivery (persons submitting notification by U.S. Postal 

1972 Service are reminded that they should allow 3 additional business days for delivery in order to 

1973 ensure that EPA receives the notification by the required date). Instructions and sample forms 

1974 can be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800–424–LEAD (5323), or on the Internet at 

1975 http://www.epa.gov/lead. 

1976 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. To become accredited to offer lead-based 

1977 paint courses in the specific disciplines listed below, training programs must ensure that their 

1978 courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 

1979 (1) Inspector. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv), (v), (vi), and 

1980 (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

1981 (i) Role and responsibilities of an inspector. 

1982 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

1983 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance that 

1984 pertains to lead-based paint and lead- based paint activities. 

1985 (iv) Lead-based paint inspection methods, including selection of rooms and components 

1986 for sampling or testing. 

1987 (v) Paint, dust, and soil sampling methodologies. 

1988 (vi) Clearance standards and testing, including random sampling. 

1989 (vii) Preparation of the final inspection report. 

1990 (viii) Recordkeeping. 

1991 (2) Risk assessor. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (vi), and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 84 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

1992 (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

1993 (i) Role and responsibilities of a risk assessor. 

1994 (ii) Collection of background information to perform a risk assessment. 

1995 (iii) Sources of environmental lead contamination such as paint, surface dust and soil, 

1996 water, air, packaging, and food. 

1997 (iv) Visual inspection for the purposes of identifying potential sources of lead-based paint 

1998 hazards. 

1999 (v) Lead hazard screen protocol. 

2000 (vi) Sampling for other sources of lead exposure. 

2001 (vii) Interpretation of lead-based paint and other lead sampling results, including all 

2002 applicable State or Federal guidance or regulations pertaining to lead-based paint hazards. 

2003 (viii) Development of hazard control options, the role of interim controls, and operations 

2004 and maintenance activities to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 

2005 (ix) Preparation of a final risk assessment report. 

2006 (3) Supervisor. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(3)(v), (vii), (viii), (ix), 

2007 and (x) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2008 (i) Role and responsibilities of a supervisor. 

2009 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

2010 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance that 

2011 pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 

2012 (iv) Liability and insurance issues relating to lead-based paint abatement. 

2013 (v) Risk assessment and inspection report interpretation. 

2014 (vi) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan and abatement 

2015 report. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 85 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2016 (vii) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control. 

2017 (viii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 

2018 including restricted practices. 

2019 (ix) Interior dust abatement/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard control and reduction 

2020 methods. 

2021 (x) Soil and exterior dust abatement or lead-based paint hazard control and reduction 

2022 methods. 

2023 (xi) Clearance standards and testing. 

2024 (xii) Cleanup and waste disposal. 

2025 (xiii) Recordkeeping. 

2026 (4) Project designer. (i) Role and responsibilities of a project designer. 

2027 (ii) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan for large-scale 

2028 abatement projects. 

2029 (iii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, including 

2030 restricted practices for large-scale abatement projects. 

2031 (iv) Interior dust abatement/cleanup or lead hazard control and reduction methods for 

2032 large-scale abatement projects. 

2033 (v) Clearance standards and testing for large scale abatement projects. 

2034 (vi) Integration of lead-based paint abatement methods with modernization and 

2035 rehabilitation projects for large scale abatement projects. 

2036 (5) Abatement worker. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(5)(iv), (v), 

2037 (vi), and (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2038 (i) Role and responsibilities of an abatement worker. 

2039 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 86 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2040 (iii) Background information on Federal, State and local regulations and guidance that 

2041 pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 

2042 (iv) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control. 

2043 (v) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, including 

2044 restricted practices. 

2045 (vi) Interior dust abatement methods/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard reduction. 

2046 (vii) Soil and exterior dust abatement methods or lead-based paint hazard reduction. 

2047 (6) Renovator. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv), (vi), (vii), and 

2048 (viii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2049 (i) Role and responsibility of a renovator. 

2050 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

2051 (iii) Background information on EPA, HUD, OSHA, and other Federal, State, and local 

2052 regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 

2053 (iv) Procedures for using acceptable test kits to determine whether paint is lead-based 

2054 paint. 

2055 (v) Procedures for collecting a paint chip sample and sending it to a laboratory recognized 

2056 by EPA under section 405(b) of TSCA. 

2057 (vi) Renovation methods to minimize the creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards. 

2058 (vii) Interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods. 

2059 (viii) Methods to ensure that the renovation has been properly completed, including 

2060 cleaning verification and clearance testing. 

2061 (ix) Waste handling and disposal. 

2062 (x) Providing on-the-job training to other workers. 

2063 (xi) Record preparation. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 87 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2064 (7) Dust sampling technician. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv) 

2065 and (vi) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2066 (i) Role and responsibility of a dust sampling technician. 

2067 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

2068 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance that 

2069 pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 

2070 (iv) Dust sampling methodologies. 

2071 (v) Clearance standards and testing. 

2072 (vi) Report preparation. 

2073 (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training programs. A training program 

2074 may seek accreditation to offer refresher training courses in any of the following disciplines: 

2075 Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, and dust 

2076 sampling technician. To obtain EPA accreditation to offer refresher training, a training program 

2077 must meet the following minimum requirements: 

2078 (1) Each refresher course shall review the curriculum topics of the full-length courses 

2079 listed under paragraph (d) of this section, as appropriate. In addition, to become accredited to 

2080 offer refresher training courses, training programs shall ensure that their courses of study include, 

2081 at a minimum, the following: 

2082 (i) An overview of current safety practices relating to lead-based paint in general, as well 

2083 as specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

2084 (ii) Current laws and regulations relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as specific 

2085 information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

2086 (iii) Current technologies relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as specific 

2087 information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 88 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2088 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must 

2089 last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher courses for project designer, renovator, and dust 

2090 sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all 

2091 disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on component. 

2092 (3) For each course offered, the training program shall conduct a hands-on assessment (for 

2093 all courses except project designer), and at the completion of the course, a course test. 

2094 (4) A training program may apply for accreditation of a refresher course concurrently with 

2095 its application for accreditation of the corresponding training course as described in paragraph (b) 

2096 of this section. If so, EPA shall use the approval procedure described in paragraph (b) of this 

2097 section. In addition, the minimum requirements contained in paragraphs (c) (except for the 

2098 requirements in paragraph (c)(6)), and (e)(1), (e)(2) and (e)(3) of this section shall also apply. 

2099 (5) A training program seeking accreditation to offer refresher training courses only shall 

2100 submit a written application to EPA containing the following information: 

2101 (i) The refresher training program’s name, address, and telephone number. 

2102 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation. 

2103 (iii) The name and documentation of the qualifications of the training program manager. 

2104 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of the qualifications of the principal instructor(s). 

2105 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the refresher 

2106 training program meets the minimum requirements established in paragraph (c) of this section, 

2107 except for the requirements in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. If a training program uses EPA2108 developed model training materials, or training materials approved by a State or Indian Tribe that 

2109 has been authorized by EPA under § 745.324 to develop its refresher training course materials, 

2110 the training manager shall include a statement certifying that, as well. 

2111 (vi) If the refresher training course materials are not based on EPA-developed model 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 89 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2112 training materials, the training program’s application for accreditation shall include: 

2113 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals to be used for each course. 

2114 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 

2115 (vii) All refresher training programs shall include in their application for accreditation the 

2116 following: 

2117 (A) A description of the facilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands-on 

2118 training. 

2119 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 

2120 (C) A description of the activities and procedures that will be used for conducting the 

2121 assessment of hands-on skills for each course (if applicable). 

2122 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

2123 (viii) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5), and (c)(7) through (c)(14) of 

2124 this section apply to refresher training providers. 

2125 (ix) If a refresher training program meets the requirements listed in this paragraph, then 

2126 EPA shall approve the application for accreditation no more than 180 days after receiving a 

2127 complete application from the refresher training program. In the case of approval, a certificate of 

2128 accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a letter describing the 

2129 reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the applicant. Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its 

2130 discretion, work with the applicant to address inadequacies in the application for accreditation. 

2131 EPA may also request additional materials retained by the refresher training program under 

2132 paragraph (i) of this section. If a refresher training program’s application is disapproved, the 

2133 program may reapply for accreditation at any time. 

2134 (f) Re-accreditation of training programs. (1) Unless re-accredited, a training program’s 

2135 accreditation, including refresher training accreditation, shall expire 4 years after the date of 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 90 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2136 issuance. If a training program meets the requirements of this section, the training program shall 

2137 be reaccredited. 

2138 (2) A training program seeking reaccreditation shall submit an application to EPA no later 

2139 than 180 days before its accreditation expires. If a training program does not submit its 

2140 application for re-accreditation by that date, EPA cannot guarantee that the program will be re2141 accredited before the end of the accreditation period. 

2142 (3) The training program’s application for re-accreditation shall contain: 

2143 (i) The training program’s name, address, and telephone number. 

2144 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for re- accreditation. 

2145 (iii) The name and qualifications of the training program manager. 

2146 (iv) The name(s) and qualifications of the principal instructor(s). 

2147 (v) A description of any changes to the training facility, equipment or course materials 

2148 since its last application was approved that adversely affects the students’ ability to learn. 

2149 (vi) A statement signed by the program manager stating: 

2150 (A) That the training program complies at all times with all requirements in paragraphs (c) 

2151 and (e) of this section, as applicable; and 

2152 (B) The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of paragraph (i) of this section shall be 

2153 followed. 

2154 (vii) A payment of appropriate fees in accordance with § 745.238. 

2155 (4) Upon request, the training program shall allow EPA to audit the training program to 

2156 verify the contents of the application for re- accreditation as described in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

2157 section. 

2158 (g) Suspension, revocation, and modification of accredited training programs. (1) EPA 

2159 may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, suspend, revoke, or modify training program 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 91 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2160 accreditation, including refresher training accreditation, if a training program, training manager, 

2161 or other person with supervisory authority over the training program has: 

2162 (i) Misrepresented the contents of a training course to EPA and/or the student population. 

2163 (ii) Failed to submit required information or notifications in a timely manner. 

2164 (iii) Failed to maintain required records. 

2165 (iv) Falsified accreditation records, instructor qualifications, or other accreditation-related 

2166 information or documentation. 

2167 (v) Failed to comply with the training standards and requirements in this section. 

2168 (vi) Failed to comply with Federal, State, or local lead-based paint statutes or regulations. 

2169 (vii) Made false or misleading statements to EPA in its application for accreditation or re2170 accreditation which EPA relied upon in approving the application. 

2171 (2) In addition to an administrative or judicial finding of violation, execution of a consent 

2172 agreement in settlement of an enforcement action constitutes, for purposes of this section, 

2173 evidence of a failure to comply with relevant statutes or regulations. 

2174 (h) Procedures for suspension, revocation or modification of training program 

2175 accreditation. (1) Prior to taking action to suspend, revoke, or modify the accreditation of a 

2176 training program, EPA shall notify the affected entity in writing of the following: 

2177 (i) The legal and factual basis for the suspension, revocation, or modification. 

2178 (ii) The anticipated commencement date and duration of the suspension, revocation, or 

2179 modification. 

2180 (iii) Actions, if any, which the affected entity may take to avoid suspension, revocation, or 

2181 modification, or to receive accreditation in the future. 

2182 (iv) The opportunity and method for requesting a hearing prior to final EPA action to 

2183 suspend, revoke or modify accreditation. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 92 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2184 (v) Any additional information, as appropriate, which EPA may provide. 

2185 (2) If a hearing is requested by the accredited training program, EPA shall: 

2186 (i) Provide the affected entity an opportunity to offer written statements in response to 

2187 EPA’s assertions of the legal and factual basis for its proposed action, and any other explanations, 

2188 comments, and arguments it deems relevant to the proposed action. 

2189 (ii) Provide the affected entity such other procedural opportunities as EPA may deem 

2190 appropriate to ensure a fair and impartial hearing. 

2191 (iii) Appoint an official of EPA as Presiding Officer to conduct the hearing. No person 

2192 shall serve as Presiding Officer if he or she has had any prior connection with the specific matter. 

2193 (3) The Presiding Officer appointed pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section shall: 

2194 (i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing within 90 days of the request for a 

2195 hearing. 

2196 (ii) Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment, and argument submitted. 

2197 (iii) Notify the affected entity in writing within 90 days of completion of the hearing of his 

2198 or her decision and order. Such an order is a final agency action which may be subject to judicial 

2199 review. 

2200 (4) If EPA determines that the public health, interest, or welfare warrants immediate 

2201 action to suspend the accreditation of any training program prior to the opportunity for a hearing, 

2202 it shall: 

2203 (i) Notify the affected entity of its intent to immediately suspend training program 

2204 accreditation for the reasons listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. If a suspension, revocation, 

2205 or modification notice has not previously been issued pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of this section, 

2206 it shall be issued at the same time the emergency suspension notice is issued. 

2207 (ii) Notify the affected entity in writing of the grounds for the immediate suspension and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 93 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2208 why it is necessary to suspend the entity’s accreditation before an opportunity for a suspension, 

2209 revocation or modification hearing. 

2210 (iii) Notify the affected entity of the anticipated commencement date and duration of the 

2211 immediate suspension. 

2212 (iv) Notify the affected entity of its right to request a hearing on the immediate suspension 

2213 within 15 days of the suspension taking place and the procedures for the conduct of such a 

2214 hearing. 

2215 (5) Any notice, decision, or order issued by EPA under this section, any transcripts or 

2216 other verbatim record of oral testimony, and any documents filed by an accredited training 

2217 program in a hearing under this section shall be available to the public, except as otherwise 

2218 provided by section 14 of TSCA or by 40 CFR part 2. Any such hearing at which oral testimony 

2219 is presented shall be open to the public, except that the Presiding Officer may exclude the public 

2220 to the extent necessary to allow presentation of information which may be entitled to confidential 

2221 treatment under section 14 of TSCA or 40 CFR part 2. 

2222 (6) The public shall be notified of the suspension, revocation, modification or 

2223 reinstatement of a training program’s accreditation through appropriate mechanisms. 

2224 (7) EPA shall maintain a list of parties whose accreditation has been suspended, revoked, 

2225 modified or reinstated. 

2226 (i) Training program recordkeeping requirements. (1) Accredited training programs shall 

2227 maintain, and make available to EPA, upon request, the following records: 

2228 (i) All documents specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section that demonstrate the 

2229 qualifications listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section of the training manager and 

2230 principal instructors. 

2231 (ii) Current curriculum/course materials and documents reflecting any changes made to 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 94 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2232 these materials. 

2233 (iii) The course test blueprint. 

2234 (iv) Information regarding how the hands-on assessment is conducted including, but not 

2235 limited to: 

2236 (A) Who conducts the assessment. 

2237 (B) How the skills are graded. 

2238 (C) What facilities are used. 

2239 (D) The pass/fail rate. 

2240 (v) The quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

2241 (vi) Results of the students’ hands-on skills assessments and course tests, and a record of 

2242 each student’s course completion certificate. 

2243 (vii) Any other material not listed above in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(vi) of this 

2244 section that was submitted to EPA as part of the program’s application for accreditation. 

2245 (viii) For renovator refresher and dust sampling technician refresher courses, a copy of 

2246 each trainee’s prior course completion certificate showing that each trainee was eligible to take 

2247 the refresher course. 

2248 (ix) For course modules delivered in an electronic format, a record of each student’s log2249 ins, launches, progress, and completion, and a copy of the electronic learning completion 

2250 certificate for each student. 

2251 (2) The training program must retain records pertaining to renovator, dust sampling 

2252 technician and lead-based paint activities courses at the address specified on the training program 

2253 accreditation application (or as modified in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this section) for 

2254 the following minimum periods: 

2255 (i) Records pertaining to lead-based paint activities courses must be retained for a 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 95 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2256 minimum of 3 years and 6 months. 

2257 (ii) Records pertaining to renovator or dust sampling technician courses offered before 

2258 April 22, 2010 must be retained until July 1, 2015. 

2259 (ii) Records pertaining to renovator or dust sampling technician courses offered on or after 

2260 April 22, 2010 must be retained for a minimum of 5 years. 

2261 (3) The training program shall notify EPA in writing within 30 days of changing the 

2262 address specified on its training program accreditation application or transferring the records from 

2263 that address. 

2264 (j) Amendment of accreditation. (1) A training program must amend its accreditation 

2265 within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information included in the program’s most recent 

2266 application. If the training program fails to amend its accreditation within 90 days of the date the 

2267 change occurs, the program may not provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 

2268 paint activities training until its accreditation is amended. 

2269 (2) To amend an accreditation, a training program must submit a completed 

2270 “Accreditation Application for Training Providers,” signed by an authorized agent of the training 

2271 provider, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and indicating the information 

2272 that has changed. 

2273 (3) If the amendment includes a new training program manager, any new or additional 

2274 principal instructor(s), or any new permanent training location(s), the training provider is not 

2275 permitted to provide training under the new training manager or offer courses taught by any new 

2276 principal instructor(s) or at the new training location(s) until EPA either approves the amendment 

2277 or 30 days have elapsed, whichever occurs earlier. 

2278 9. In § 745.238, add paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: 

2279 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based paint activities. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 96 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2280 * * * * * 

2281 (c) * * * 

2282 (5) No fee will be charged for accreditation amendments. 

2283 * * * * * 

2284 10. In § 745.326, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (d), (e)(1), and (e)(3): 

2285 § 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements. 

2286 (a) * * * 

2287 (2) * * * 

2288 (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling 

2289 technician training programs. (Note: a State and Tribal program is not required to include 

2290 procedures and requirements for the dust sampling technician training discipline if the State or 

2291 Tribal program requires dust sampling to be performed by a certified lead-based paint inspector or 

2292 risk assessor.) 

2293 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredited initial and refresher training for renovators 

2294 and dust sampling technicians and on-the-job training for other individuals who perform 

2295 renovations. 

2296 * * * * * 

2297 (d) Certification of individuals and/or renovation firms. To be considered at least as 

2298 protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must: 

2299 (1) Establish procedures and requirements that ensure that individuals who perform or 

2300 direct renovations are properly trained. These procedures and requirements must include: 

2301 (i) A requirement that renovations be performed and directed by at least one individual 

2302 who has been trained by an accredited training program. 

2303 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredited refresher training for these individuals. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 97 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2304 (iii) Procedures and requirements for individuals who have received accredited training to 

2305 provide on-the-job training for those individuals who perform renovations but do not receive 

2306 accredited training. (Note: a State and Tribal program is not required to include procedures and 

2307 requirements for on-the-job training for renovation workers if the State or Tribal program requires 

2308 accredited initial and refresher training for all persons who perform renovations) 

2309 (2) Establish procedures and requirements for the formal certification and re-certification 

2310 of renovation firms. 

2311 (3) Establish procedures for the suspension, revocation, or modification of certifications. 

2312 (e) * * * 

2313 (1) Renovations must be conducted only by certified renovation firms, using trained 

2314 individuals. 

2315 * * * * * 

2316 (3) Certified individuals and/or renovation firms must retain appropriate records. 

2317 11. In § 745.327, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(2) to read as follows: 

2318 § 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement programs. 

2319 * * * * * 

2320 (b) * * * 

2321 (1) Lead-based paint activities or renovation requirements. State or Tribal lead-based 

2322 paint compliance and enforcement programs will be considered adequate if the State or Indian 

2323 Tribe demonstrates, in its application at § 745.324(b)(2), that it has established a lead-based paint 

2324 program that contains all of the elements specified in § 745.325 or § 745.326, or both, as 

2325 applicable. 

2326 (2) Authority to enter. State or Tribal officials must be able to enter, through consent, 

2327 warrant, or other authority, premises or facilities where lead-based paint violations may occur for 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 98 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2328 purposes of conducting inspections. 

2329 (i) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter premises or facilities where those engaged 

2330 in training for lead-based paint activities or renovations conduct business. 

2331 (ii) For the purposes of enforcing a renovation program, State or Tribal officials must be 

2332 able to enter a firm’s place of business or work site. 

2333 (iii) State or Tribal officials must have authority to take samples and review records as 

2334 part of the lead-based paint inspection process. 

2335 (3) Flexible remedies. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement 

2336 program must provide for a diverse and flexible array of enforcement statutory and regulatory 

2337 authorities and remedies. At a minimum, these authorities and remedies, which must also be 

2338 reflected in an enforcement response policy, must include the following: 

2339 (i) The authority to issue warning letters, Notices of Noncompliance, Notices of Violation, 

2340 or the equivalent; 

2341 (ii) The authority to assess administrative or civil fines, including a maximum penalty 

2342 authority for any violation in an amount no less than $5,000 per violation per day; 

2343 (iii) The authority to assess the maximum penalties or fines for each instance of violation 

2344 and, if the violation is continuous, the authority to assess penalties or fines up to the maximum 

2345 amount for each day of violation, with all penalties assessed or collected being appropriate for the 

2346 violation after consideration of factors as the State or Tribe determine to be relevant, including the 

2347 size or viability of the business, enforcement history, risks to human health or the environment 

2348 posed by the violation, and other similar factors; 

2349 (iv) The authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 

2350 competent jurisdiction to recover penalties; 

2351 (v) The authority to suspend, revoke, or modify the accreditation of any training provider 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 99 of 99 [RIN 2070-AJ57]

2352 or the certification of any individual or firm; 

2353 (vi) The authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 

2354 competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program 

2355 requirement, without the necessity of a prior suspension or revocation of a trainer’s accreditation 

2356 or a firm’s or individual’s certification; 

2357 (vii) The authority to apply criminal sanctions, including recovering fines; and 

2358 (viii) The authority to enforce its authorized program using a burden of proof standard, 

2359 including the degree of knowledge or intent of the respondent that is no greater than it is for EPA 

2360 under TSCA. 

2361 * * * * * 

2362 (c) * * * 

2363 (2) Compliance assistance. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 

2364 enforcement program must provide compliance assistance to the public and the regulated 

2365 community to facilitate awareness and understanding of and compliance with State or Tribal 

2366 requirements governing the conduct of lead-based paint activities or renovations. The type and 

2367 nature of this assistance can be defined by the State or Indian Tribe to achieve this goal. 

2368 * * * * *