*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] EO12866_Rin2070-AJ57_LRRP Clearance_FRM_Redlined-v04-14_2011-07-15.docx 1 As revised to address comments received during the review under EO 12866. 2
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 3

ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TECTION AGENCY 4 40 CFR Part 745 5 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049; FRL– 8823
- 5 8881-8 ] 6 RIN 2070–AJ57 7 Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requi rements for the Renovation, Repair, and 8 Painting Program 9 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 10 ACTION: Final rule

. 11 SUMMARY: On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2008 As part of a 12 settlement of litigation over certain post -renovation cleaning requirements of the 2008 Lead 13 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule, the EPA agreed to propose a number of 14 revisions to the 2008 RRP rule that established accreditation, training, ce rtification, and 15 recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards fo r persons performing 16 renovations for compensation in most pre- 1978 housing and child-occupied facilities

. and to 17 subsequently take final action on the propos ed rule by July 15, 2011. The proposed rule 18 published on May 6, 2010. EPA has decided not to promulgate dust wipe testing and clearance 19 requirements as proposed. However, EPA is pr omulgating several other revisions to the RRP 20 rule, including a provision allowi ng a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send 21 it to a recognized laboratory for analysis in lieu of using a lead test kit , minor changes to the 22 training program accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in accredited training 23 programs, minimum enforcement provisions for aut horized state and tribal renovation programs, 24*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] and minor revisions to the trai ning and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also 25 promulgating clarifications to the requirements for vertical containment on exterior renovation 26 projects, the prohibited or rest ricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high27 efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's action is EPA's final action on all aspects of 28 the May 6, 2010 proposal. 29 DATES: This final rule is effective [ insert date [60] days after date of publication in the 30 Federal Register ]. 31 ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket identification (ID) 32 number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049. All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index 33 available at http://www.regulations.gov . Although listed in the index, some information is not 34 publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business In formation (CBI) or other information whose 35 disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, suchas copyrighted material, is not 36 placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket 37 materials are available inthe electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov , or, if only 38 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. Th e OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 39 Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA WestBldg., 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 40 DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 41 through Friday, excluding legal ho lidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 42 Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566–0280. 43 Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may reachthe above telephone numbers through TTY by 44 calling the toll-free Federal Re lay Service at 1-800-877-8339. Docket visitors are required to 45 show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. 46 All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray m achine and subject to search. Visitors will be 47*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 3 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon 48 departure. 49 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact : Cindy 50 Wheeler, National Program Chem icals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and 51 Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 52 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0484; e-mail address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov. 53 For general information contact : The TSCA-Hotline , ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton 54 Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA

55 Hotline@epa.gov TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov . Hearing- or speech-imp aired persons may reach the 56 above telephone number through TTY by calling th e toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800- 57
877-8339

. 58 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 59 I. Does this Action Apply to Me? 60 You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform re novations of target 61 housing or child-occupied facilities for compensa tion, dust sampling, or du st testing. You may 62 also be affected by this action if you perform lead -based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, 63 risk assessments or abatements in target housing or child-occupied facili ties or if you operate a 64 training program for individuals who perform any of these ac tivities. “Target housing” is 65 defined in section 401 of TSCA as any housing constructed pr ior to 1978, except housing for the 66 elderly or persons with disabilitie s (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside 67 in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Unde r this rule, a child-occupied facility is a 68 building, or a portion of a building, constructed pr ior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, 69 under 6 years of age, on at least 2 different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday 70*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 4 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] period), provided that each day's visit lasts at le ast 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at 71 least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. 72 Potentially-affected entities may include, but are not limited to: 73 • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g. , single family housing construction, 74 multi-family housing constructi on, residential remodelers. 75 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g. , plumbing, heating, and air76 conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, el ectrical contractors, finish 77 carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contract ors, tile and terrazzo 78 contractors, glass a nd glazing contractors. 79 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g. , lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 80 residential property managers. 81 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 82 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g. , elementary schools with 83 kindergarten classrooms. 84 • Other technical and trad e schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g. , training providers. 85 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS 86 code 541350), e.g. , dust sampling technicians. 87 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g. , firms and supervisors 88 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 89 This listing is not intended to be exhaustiv e, but rather provides a guide for readers 90 regarding entities likely to be aff ected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit 91 could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes 92 have been provided to assist you and others in determining whet her this action might apply to 93*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] certain entities. If you have any que stions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 94 entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 95 CONTACT

. 96 II. Background 97
A

. What Action is the Agency Taking? 98 On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2008 Lead Renovation, 99 Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that established accreditation, training, certification, 100 and recordkeeping requirements as well as wo rk practice standards for persons performing 101 renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-o ccupied facilities (Ref. 1). 102 Specifically, EPA proposed requirements for dust wi pe testing, clearance, allowing a certified 103 renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recogni zed laboratory for analysis, minor 104 changes to the training program accreditation app lication process, standards for e-learning in 105 accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal 106 renovation programs, and minor revisions to th e training and certificat ion requirements for 107 renovators. EPA has decided not to promulgate dust wipe testi ng and clearance requirements as 108 proposed. However, EPA is promulgating severa l of the other proposed revisions to the RRP 109 rule, including a provision allowi ng a certified renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send 110 it to a recognized laboratory for analysis in lieu of using a lead test kit , minor changes to the 111 training program accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in accredited training 112 programs, minimum enforcement provisions for aut horized state and tribal renovation programs, 113 and minor revisions to the trai ning and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also 114 promulgating clarifications to the requirements for vertical containment on exterior renovation 115 projects, the prohibited or rest ricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high- 116*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's action is EPA's final action on all aspects of 117 the May 6, 2010 proposal. 118
B

. What is the Agency's Author ity for Taking this Action? 119 These work practice, training, certification and accr editation requirements, and the State, 120 Territorial and Tribal authori zation provisions are being promul gated under the authority of 121 sections 402(c)(3), 404, and 407 of the Toxic Substances Co ntrol Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 122 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. 123
C

. What are the Specific Provisions of this Action? 124
1. Clearance and dust wipe testing requirements for renovations. As discussed in this 125 unit, EPA has decided not to promulgate cl earance and dust wipe te sting requirements as 126 proposed in May 2010 for certain renovations co vered by the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and 127 Painting (RRP) rule (Ref. 2). 128

a. Background . In promulgating the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA determined that 129 renovation, repair, and painting activities, when perf ormed in the presence of lead-based paint, 130 create lead-based paint hazar ds. Section 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA ) 131 directs EPA to revise its regul ations governing lead-based pain t inspections, risk assessments, 132 and abatements (the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, or abatement regulations, Ref. 3) 133 to apply to renovation and rem odeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. 134 Accordingly, the 2008 RRP rule establishe d accreditation, training, certification, and 135 recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards fo r persons performing 136 renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child -occupied facilities. Among 137 other things, the work practice standards requir e renovation firms to follow specific requirements 138 for containing the work area, refr ain from using certain high-dus t-generating work practices, and 139*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] follow a specific cleaning protocol, including a step called “cleaning verification,” after 140 concluding the paint-disturbing ta sks involved in a renovation. 141 As discussed in the preamble to the 2010 pr oposal, EPA is particularly concerned about 142 dust-lead hazards generated by renovations because of the well-documented toxicity of lead, 143 especially to younger children. Lead is known for its “broad a rray of deleterious effects on 144 multiple organ systems via widely dive rse mechanisms of action.” (Ref. 4 ) This array of health 145 effects includes heme biosynthesis and related functions; neurological development and function; 146 reproduction and physical development; kidney f unction; cardiovascular function; and immune 147 function . There is also some evidence of lead ca rcinogenicity, primarily from animal studies, 148 together with limited human evidence of suggestive associations. For a more detailed discussion 149 of the health effects of lead e xposure, refer to information in the 2010 proposal (Ref. 1) and the 150 2008 RRP final rule (Ref. 2). 151 One of the more difficult issues in the 2008 RRP rulemaking was the issue of 152 determining when a renovation work area ha s been properly cleaned and is ready for 153 reoccupancy. After a lead-based paint abatem ent project, EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Activities 154 Regulations require the abatemen t contractor to achieve cleara nce. This means that the 155 contractor must demonstrate, th rough dust wipe testing, that dust lead levels remaining in the 156 abatement work area are below the clearance le vels established in the 2001 rulemaking entitled 157 “Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead” unde r section 403 of the T oxic Substances Control 158 Act (Ref. 5 4 ). Dust wipe samples for clearance purposes must be collected by a certified 159 individual and analyzed by an entity r ecognized under the National Lead Laboratory 160 Accreditation Program (NLLAP). 161 When promulgating the 2008 RRP rule, EPA cons idered requiring a similar process after 162*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] renovations, but for various reasons, did not do so. EPA did not interpret its statutory mandate 163 under TSCA section 402(c)(3) as simply expanding the scope of the Lead-based Paint Activities 164 Regulations to also cover renova tion activities. Rather, EPA st ated, in the final 2008 RRP rule, 165 its belief that Congress intended for EPA to make revisions to those existi ng regulations to adapt 166 them to a different set of activit ies and a very different regulated community. In establishing the 167 cleaning element of the work practice requirement s for renovations, EPA primarily relied on the 168 results of two studies, the “Electrostatic Cl oth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential 169 Housing” (Ref. 6 5 ) and the “Characterization of Dust L ead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and 170 Painting Activities” (the “Dust Study,” Ref. 7 6 ) to determine that the full suite of RRP work 171 practice requirements, including containment, cl eaning, and cleaning veri fication, was effective 172 at minimizing exposure to lead-based paint ha zards created by renovati on, repair, and painting 173 activities. 174 EPA also considered various other factors as well as issues raised by commenters. 175 Among these were the differences between abat ement and renovation, the costs of dust wipe 176 testing and clearance, the potential delay in ob taining results, and the likelihood that renovation 177 firms would become liable for pre-existing dust -lead hazards. Abatements have only one 178 purpose, to permanently eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards, while 179 renovations are performed for many r easons that often have nothing to do with lead-based paint. 180 Concerns about the costs of dust wipe testing and clearance were brought to EPA’s attention 181 during stakeholder input opportunities provided by EPA before the proposed RRP rule was 182 issued in 2006 and echoed by commenters on the 2006 proposed RRP rule. If EPA had required 183 dust wipe testing and clearance after every renovation project, it would have made up a 184 significant portion of the cost of smaller projects . In addition, dust wipe testing results may not 185*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 9 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] be available for several days. If EPA had re quired traditional abatement-style clearance after 186 renovations, the work area would not be able to be re-occupied while waiting for the laboratory 187 results. Commenters also noted that requiring clearance after renovation jobs could, in some 188 instances, result in the renovation firm being held responsible for abating all dust-lead hazards, 189 including such hazards that may have existed in the area before the renovation commenced. 190 Other commenters on the 2006 proposed RRP ru le thought that renov ation work areas 191 ought to be tested and cleared fo r re-occupancy in the same way that abatement work areas are 192 cleared through the cl earance process, including dust wipe testing. Many commenters believed 193 that renovation firms should be required to demons trate that no dust-lead hazards had been left 194 behind in the work area. These commenters cont ended that the only effective way to do this is 195 through dust wipe testing and clearance. Wh ile EPA understood the i ssues raised by these 196 commenters, and agreed with some of the points that they made, EPA remained convinced that 197 the suite of RRP work practices would be practical for renovation firms to implement while 198 effectively minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. The RRP work 199 practices are, in essence, requirements to en sure that renovators undertake traditional renovation 200 activities – e.g., removal or modification of ex isting surfaces, containment and cleanup of dust 201 and debris, and ensuring the job s ite is cleaned up – in a lead -safe way. EPA believes the RRP 202 rule effectively minimizes exposure to hazards generated by renovation activities without 203 imposing practices and disciplines that are outside the scope of traditional renovation activities. 204 More information on the comments received and EPA’s decisions can be found in the preamble 205 to the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 2). 206 b. 2010 Proposal. Based on additional stakeholder input received after the final rule was 207 issued, and an August 2009 agreement entered into with several environmental and children's 208*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] health advocacy groups in settlement of their lawsuit challenging the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA 209 agreed to consider whether some of the decision s made in 2008 with regard to dust wipe testing 210 and clearance should be modified. 211 Accordingly, on May 6, 2010, EPA proposed to require dust wipe testing after many 212 renovations covered by the RRP rule (Ref. 1). Under the 2010 proposal, dust wipe testing would 213 have been required on uncarpeted floors, windows ills, and window troughs in the work area after 214 the following types of interior renovations: 215 • Use of a heat gun at temperat ures below 1100 degr ees Fahrenheit. 216 • Removal or replacement of window or door frames. 217 • Scraping 60 ft 2 or more of painted surfaces. 218 • Removing more than 40 ft 2 of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures. 219 After these renovations, the renovation firm would have been required to collect dust wipe 220 samples and have them analyzed for lead cont ent by an entity recogni zed under NLLAP. The 221 renovation firm would then have been required to provide these results to the owners and 222 occupants of the renovated property. 223 For another subset of jobs involving demo lition or removal of plaster through destructive 224 means or the disturbance of paint using machin es designed to remove paint through high-speed 225 operation, such as power sanders or abrasive blasters, EPA proposed to require the renovation 226 firm to achieve clearance. This would have involved a demonstration, through dust wipe testing, 227 that dust-lead levels remaining on uncarpeted floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the 228 work area were below regulatory clearance levels . These clearance levels would have been 229 identical to the clearance levels established fo r the lead-based paint abatement program, which 230 are codified at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), i.e. , 40 μ g/ft 2 on floors, 250 μ g/ft 2 on interior 231*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] windowsills, and 400 μ g/ft 2 on window troughs, based on wipe samples. These additional 232 requirements in the 2010 proposal were designed to ensure that lead-based paint hazards 233 generated by renovation work are adequately cleaned after renovation wo rk is finished and 234 before the work areas are re-occupied. 235

c. This final rule. Maintaining the distinction be tween abatement and renovation 236 activities has been an important issue throughout the rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP rule. 237 As discussed in the preamble to the 2008 RRP ru le, abatements and renovations are performed 238 by different contractors for di fferent purposes, although similar activities, such as window 239 replacements, may be involved. Typically, when an abatement is performed, the housing is 240 either unoccupied or the occupants are tempor arily relocated to l ead-safe housing until the 241 abatement has been demonstrated to have b een properly completed through the clearance 242 process. Carpet in the housing is usually removed as part of th e abatement because it is difficult 243 to demonstrate that it is free of lead-based paint hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not been 244 replaced during the abatement may need to be refini shed or sealed in order to achieve clearance. 245 Abatements have only one purpose--to permanentlyeliminate lead-based paint and lead-based 246 paint hazards. In contrast, renovations other th an interim controls ar e performed for reasons 247 unrelated to lead-based paint or lead-based pa int hazards. Renovations may be performed while 248 the property is occupied or unoccupied, but o ccupants do not typically relocate pending the 249 completion of the project. 250 EPA did not design or intend the RRP rule to address cleanup of pre-existing dust-lead 251 hazards. While the cleaning requirements of the RRP rule will, in some cases, have the ancillary 252 benefit of removing some pre-existing dust-l ead hazards, the cleaning requirements were 253 designed to effectively clean-up lead-based pa int hazards created duri ng renovation activities 254*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] without changing the scope of the renovation activity itself. Accordingly, the RRP rule does not 255 require cleaning of dust or any other possible lead sources in porti ons of target housing or child256 occupied facilities beyond locations in and around the work area. Nor does the RRP rule require 257 the replacement of carpets in the area of th e renovation or the refi nishing or sealing of 258 uncarpeted floors. The approach in the RRP rule was designed to addres s the lead-based paint 259 hazards created during the renovation while not requiring renovation firms to remediate or 260 eliminate hazards beyond the scope of the work they were hired to do. 261 In addition, EPA has interprete d practicality in implementation to be an element of the 262 statutory directive to take into account effectiv eness and reliability. As discussed in the preamble 263 to the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA believes that, give n the highly variable nature of the regulated 264 community, the work practices required by the RRP rule should be simple to understand and 265 easy to use. EPA is cognizant of the fact that th e RRP rule applies to a range of individuals from 266 day laborers to property maintenance staff to mast er craftsmen performing a range of activities 267 from simple drywall repair to window replacemen t to complete kitchen and bath renovations to 268 building additions and everything inbetween. Work practices that are easy and practical to use 269 are more likely to be followed by all of the persons who perform renovations, and, therefore, 270 more likely to be reliable and effective in minimizing exposure to lead-based paint hazards 271 created by renovation activi ties. 272 The 2010 proposal for this rule was EPA’s atte mpt to explore whether clearance and dust 273 wipe testing requirements should be added to th e RRP rule to provide additional protection for 274 some renovations. EPA’s intention was to do this without generallyholding renovation firms 275 responsible for abating pre-existi ng dust-lead hazards or creating requirements that would impair 276 the overall reliability and effectiveness of the work practice requirements. 277*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] EPA received over 300 comments on its 2010 proposal. Members of the regulated 278 community and other industry commenters were generally concerned th at EPA had upset the 279 balance it had struck in the 2008 RRP rule, argu ing that a dust wipe testing or clearance 280 requirement would have the effect of holding renovation firms responsible for pre-existing 281 hazards, whether directly by regulation, in the cas e of the proposed clearance requirements, or 282 indirectly by requiring firms to provide inform ation on post-renovation dust lead levels to the 283 property owner and occupant. While there wa s little support for dust wipe testing alone, 284 commenters that supported the 2010 proposal gene rally thought that a clearance requirement 285 should be imposed and expanded to most, if not all, renovations. 286 After carefully weighing the issues at st ake and considering the concerns raised by 287 commenters, and as explained in greater detail below, EPA has concluded that, on balance, the 288 information before the Agency does not support imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance 289 requirement on renovations. In particular, EPA is convinced that the work practices established 290 in the 2008 RRP rule are reliable, effective, and safe, and that imposing a dust wipe testing or 291 clearance requirement is unwarranted. 292 Almost all of the commenters were opposed to the proposed provi sions requiring only 293 dust wipe testing after certain renovations. Members of the regulated community and other 294 industry commenters argued that a dust wipe testing requirement would have the effect of 295 holding renovation firms responsible for pre-existing hazards, al beit indirectly, by requiring 296 firms to provide information on post-renovation dust lead levels to the property owner and 297 occupant. This requirement would also have the e ffect of adding an element that is not generally 298 considered a renovation activity, i.e. , taking samples for laboratory analysis, and indeed, would 299 have to be performed by a third party or only af ter a renovator received tr aining in a separate and 300*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] distinct discipline—either as a dust wipe sample t echnician or a lead-based paint inspector. In 301 addition, many argued that the Du st Study generally shows that the RRP work practices are 302 effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations, so 303 additional dust wipe testing or clearance requir ements are unnecessary. These commenters noted 304 that this is particularly true for the renovations for which EPA pr oposed to require only dust wipe 305 testing, because those renovations were specifica lly tested in the Dust Study. In addition, 306 commenters suggested that the cat egories of jobs for which dust wipe testing or clearance would 307 be required were arbitrary and not based on sufficient evidence. 308 Some commenters, including several states, also questioned the utility and value of dust 309 wipe testing in the absence of a clearance requ irement. Some were concerned that property 310 owners and occupants would not understand the significance of th e results of dust wipe samples 311 that exceed the clearance standards or what steps they should take to protect themselves and their 312 families. One argued that, in the absence of st andards and required remedial actions, dust wipe 313 testing would add expense and time to a renovati on project without providi ng a concrete increase 314 in protection for occupants. On the other hand, other commenters contended that the feedback 315 provided by numerical dust wipe testing results would result inimproved cleaning performance 316 on the part of renovation firms. Some cited an ecdotal evidence of poor contractor performance 317 in other programs, such as the abatement program , in support of a contention that the RRP rule 318 work practices would not be as effective at mi nimizing dust-lead hazards as they were in the 319 Dust Study. 320 Additionally, after considering previous interpretations of the statutory requirements and 321 the comments received on this specific issue, EP A is not convinced that dust wipe testing in the 322 absence of a clearance requirement would be a sa fe, reliable and effective work practice within 323*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] the meaning of TSCA § Section402. As commenters noted, provision of dust wipe testing 324 results in the absence of a clearance require ment does not by itself reduce the amount of dust 325 generated during or left behind following a renovation. Furthermore, dust wipe testing results 326 alone are not part of the information that mu st be provided at the pre-renovation stage under 327 Section 406(b) of TSCA, and provi ding this type of information is not typically considered a 328 renovation work practice. Again, the dust wipe testing would eith er have to be done by a third 329 party or by a renovator who has taken a course and been trained in a completely different 330 discipline. 331 EPA believes these commenters raise valid consid erations. In particular, EPA agrees that 332 the Dust Study demonstrates that with respect to these very activities, the suite of RRP work 333 practices reliably addressed th e hazards created by the renovation. In addition, although EPA 334 attempted in its 2010 proposal to distinguish re novation activities that it thought warranted the 335 addition of a dust wipe testing requirement fr om those that did not (and from those that 336 warranted imposition of a clearance requireme nt), EPA acknowledges that its 2010 proposal 337 lacked a strong basis for drawi ng these lines – a point made by many commenters. While some 338 commenters urged the point that dust wipe tes ting would encourage better cleanup, and provided 339 anecdotal support for that view, EPA has no record basis to judge the likelihood or frequency of 340 this potential impact. This logic could potentially lead to requiring dust wi pe testing for all jobs 341 – a significant change in the existing rule thatEPA is not prepared to make without better 342 supporting evidence. Accordingly, upon the inform ation before it, the Agency does not believe 343 that a dust testing requirement alone is warrant ed. EPA notes that homeowners can arrange to 344 have dust wipe testing done as part of a renovation (or at any time ) if they would like 345 information about dust-lead levels in their homes. EPA also notes that property owners can 346*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] contractually elect clearance tes ting at the completion of a proj ect. EPA’s website has a page 347 homeowners can use to locate certified lead inspection and abatement professionals and 348 accredited training provide rs in their state (http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/locate.htm ). 349 EPA also proposed to require that renovation firms achieve clearance for a subset of jobs 350 involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint 351 using machines designed to remove paint thr ough high-speed operation, such as power sanders 352 or abrasive blasters. Nonetheless, EPA rema ined concerned about promulgating a requirement 353 that could make renovation firms responsible for pre-existing conditi ons and fundamentally 354 change the scope of the renovation activity itself . Therefore, to avoid making renovation firms 355 replace carpets or refinish floor s when they were not hired to do so, EPA proposed to allow a 356 renovation firm to stop after two failed dust wipe tests on a particular surface if the firm was not 357 hired to refinish or replace that surface. 358 EPA was particularly concerned about these type s of jobs because it had evidence that the 359 work practices were not effective when machin es designed to remove paint through high speed 360 operation were operated without HEPA shrouds a nd created large quantities of dust. EPA was 361 concerned that even if such machines were equipped with HEPA shrouds, the RRP work 362 practices may not be effective at minimizing e xposure to lead hazards created by the renovation. 363 Additionally, EPA stated its belief that dust created by the demolition or removal of plaster was 364 similarly difficult to clean and therefore the RRP work practices might not be effective at 365 minimizing exposure to lead hazards created by the renovation. 366 With respect to the proposed clearance requi rements, commenters generally fell into two 367 camps. Commenters who were in “favor” of th e 2010 proposal nonetheless generally argued that 368 the proposed clearance requirements should be e xpanded to cover most if not all renovation 369*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] activities because clearance is th e only method to ensure that no lead hazards remain upon the 370 completion of a renovation job. Commenters who opposed any type of clearance requirement 371 argued again that it erased th e distinction between renovation s and abatements and made 372 renovation firms responsible for pre-existing cond itions. These commenters also questioned the 373 relevance of the studies EPA c ited in support of its 2010 propos al to require clearance after 374 renovations involving demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the 375 disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation. 376 The cited studies include EPA’s Environmental Field Sampling Study (EFSS, Ref. 9 7 ) and 377 studies examining the effectiveness of HEPA ex haust control on power t ools (Ref. 8). Many of 378 the HEPA exhaust control studies addressed dus ts not typically created during renovations 379 regulated by the RRP rule, such as crystalline si lica dust resulting from the grinding of concrete. 380 Others addressed surfaces and surface coatings not typically encountered during renovations 381 covered by the RRP rule; one invo lved paint removal from automobiles. Notwithstanding EPA’s 382 2010 proposal and requests for comment, EPA did notreceive any additional information or data 383 with respect to the dust or hazards created by these activities. Finally, on bo th sides of the issue, 384 commenters did not favor the pr oposed provision allowing renova tion firms to stop after two 385 failed dust wipe tests, and, although some altern ative suggestions were offered, none effectively 386 addressed the competing considerations of occ upant protection and not expanding the scope of 387 the renovation work. 388 EPA recognizes that imposing a clearance re quirement would be a departure from the 389 balance struck in the RRP rule with respectto the distinction between abatement and 390 renovations. Accordingly, in EPA’s judgment, th e Agency should be in a position to conclude 391 with a fair amount of certainty that doing so was necessary in light of its obligation to 392*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] promulgate work practices that take into accoun t reliability, effectivene ss, and safety. Here, 393 EPA acknowledges that it does not have data to support its concern that dust created by 394 destructive demolition of plaster may be similar in nature to dust generated by machines 395 designed to remove paint through high speed oper ation, and thus would ha ve the potential to 396 overwhelm the RRP cleaning protocol. EPA also recognizes that the data on the efficiency of 397 HEPA is only suggestive that there might be anissue concerning these practices. Again, the 398 studies EPA reviewed suggested th at HEPA exhaust control could reduce the airborne dust levels 399 by 90-95%. As commenters pointed out, it is not clear the results of these studies are applicable 400 to the home renovation setting, given the differe nces between the surf aces and paints in 401 residential settings and the surfaces and paints involved in the studies. Even if the results were 402 applicable, there is no direct evidence that the RRP lead safe work practices could not reliably 403 address the dust hazards created by the use of such power tools. Having received no additional 404 information in this regard, EPA has determ ined that, among other things, the available 405 information does not support a clea rance requirement. Nevertheless, as discussed further in Unit 406 II.C.7. of this preamble, EPA is adding a require ment that power tools be operated so that no 407 visible dust or release of air occurs outside of the shroud or containment system. This 408 requirement will work to mitigate the concerns EP A had with respect to the efficiency of power 409 tool dust collection systems and the possibility th at such tools might overwhelm the containment 410 and specialized cleaning protocols of the RRP work practices. 411 Moreover, upon further reflection, EPA is concerned about the potential ineffectivene ss 412 of its In aneffort to ensure that the proposed clearance requirement would not typically result 413 in holding renovation firms from being held responsible for abating pre-existing dust-lead 414 hazards by including , EPA included a provision allowing to allowfirms to stop the clearance 415*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] procedure after two failed clearance tests

. The on a particular surf ace unless they had also 416 contracted to refinish the surface. Upon furthe r reflection, EPA is concerned about the potential 417 ineffectiveness of this effort, because it would likely still result in some renovation firms having 418 to clean up pre-existing dust-lead hazards. At the same time, the proposed provision would not 419 result in the certainty regarding elimination of du st-lead hazards that is th e defining characteristic 420 of a clearance requireme nt. In addition, the practical effect of sucha provision is that the 421 proposed clearance requirement would, in fact, of ten result in a dust wipe testing requirement. 422 As such, it raises many of the same issues and concerns that ultimately persuaded EPA not to 423 promulgate just dust wipe testing requirements. Similarly, a clearance re quirement that does not 424 require renovation firms to achieve clearance would not provide the ce rtainty regarding dust

- lead 425 hazards that is the defining characte ristic of a clearance requirement. 426 Furthermore, as stated above, EPA does not believe the record before it strongly supports 427 the line-drawing in its 2010 proposal , which would have resulted in a clearance requirement for 428 some renovations, a dust wipe testing requirement for others, and no testing for the rest of the 429 renovations covered by the RRP rule. 430 . In revising the abatement regulations to apply to renovations, EPA has sought to keep 431 the renovation requirements relatively simple and easy to apply, while attaining the overall 432 objective of minimizing exposure to dust-lead ha zards generated by renovation activities. EPA 433 is concerned that the proposed th ree-tier system w ould add a level of complexity to the rule that 434 is undesirable. While EPA could potentially draw di fferent lines in this fi nal rule, or promulgate 435 a requirement that all jobs achieve clearance, EPA does not believe it has a strong basis to do so. 436 The combination of these factors has c onvinced EPA that imposing a clearance 437 requirement is unwarranted. The best evidence th at EPA has of the effectiveness of the work 438*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] practice standards is the Dust Study, and it demonstr ates that overall the full suite of RRP work 439 practices is effective at minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. 440 Without more, EPA is unable to conclude th at the RRP work pract ice promulgated in 2008 441 should be significantly altered. 442 Additionally, a variety of commenters, in cluding industry representatives and some 443 states, suggested that EPA had issued its 2010 propos al to require dust wipe testing and clearance 444 too soon after promulgation of the 2008 RRP ru le. At the time that the 2010 proposal was 445 issued, full implementation of the 2008 RRP rule had only just begun. Commenters contended 446 that renovation firms were still in the process of working through how to achieve compliance 447 with the rule on a daily basis and that EPA should wait to add new requirements until firms were 448 generally comfortable w ith the requirements promulgated in2008. Commenters also argued that 449 EPA should not make a determination that addi tional requirements are needed without first 450 carefully assessing the status and impact of the existing RRP rule when fully implemented. EPA 451 agrees with the general principle expressed by th ese commenters—that it is premature to impose 452 significant additional work practice requirement s for renovations already covered by the RRP 453 rule, particularly given the information befo re the Agency. EPA also agrees that many 454 renovation firms are still determining what th e RRP rule requires from them on renovation 455 projects. EPA also acknowledges that ther e are practical implementation issues with 456 promulgating a significant change so soon after thousands of renovators have become certified 457 renovators, and have taken the required traini ng, which did not include information on the 458 proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements. 459 Some commenters suggested th at EPA concentrate on RRP edu cation and outreach at this 460 time, rather than on additional requirements. EPA agrees that outreach and education on lead 461*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] poisoning in general, and the li nk between renovations and incr eased blood lead levels in 462 particular, continues to be important. As part of the RRP program’s Lead-Safe Certified media 463 campaign, EPA developed and made available to the public outreach materials aimed at both 464 contractors and consumers. The materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) 465 advertisement aimed at contractors, banners fo r web sites, sample articles for magazines, 466 newsletters or other publications to help inform contractors a bout the rule, post cards and buck 467 slips to stuff into mailers, as well as an info rmational brochure about the rule for building 468 managers. EPA has also developed fact sheets aboutthe RRP rule that hardware or paint supply 469 stores can hand out to their customers to inform th em of the regulatory requirements. All of this 470 information is available to the public on EPA’s web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press471
materials.htm

. 472 The Agency has also developed outreach materials for consumers in order to build 473 demand for lead-safe certified fi rms among the public. The consumer outreach materials include 474 consumer print advertisements, PSA radio advertisements in English and Spanish, and a fact 475 sheet about the RRP rule that contractors can provide to consumers to inform them about the 476 advantages of hiring lead-safe renovation firms. The consumer outreach materials are also 477 downloadable from EPA’s web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pub s/lscp-consumers.htm

. 478 Finally, in an effort to raise awareness of the consequences of lead poisoning among 479 parents and pregnant women who live in hom es built before 1978, the Coalition to End 480 Childhood Lead Poisoning, EPA and HUD joined the Ad Council in April 2010 to launch a 481 national multimedia PSA campaign. As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most 482 common pathways for lead poisoning are deteri orating lead-based paint (on older windows, 483 doors and trim, or walls) or improperly-performe d renovation, repair and painting activities that 484*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 22 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] cause paint to chip, peel, or flake. 485 EPA will continue to evaluate and consider additional outreach and educational 486 opportunities to improve property owner and o ccupant understanding of dust-lead hazards 487 created by renovations. EPA also will continue to monitor implementation of the RRP rule. If 488 future information, studies, or data indicate that the existing RRP rule work practices are not 489 reliable, safe, and effective, EPA will consid er whether additional requirements should be 490 proposed. 491
2. Elimination of provision allowing cl earance in lieu of cleaning verification. In the 492 2010 proposal, EPA proposed to eliminate the exis ting provision that allows renovation firms to 493 skip the cleaning verification part of the mandatory cleaning protocol if another Federal, State, or 494 local law or regulation, or th e contract between the renovatio n firm and the property owner , 495 requires the renovation firm to use qualified entities to perform dust wipe testing and requires the 496 renovation firm to achieve clearance. The rati onale for eliminating this provision was based on 497 the fact that, as discussed in the preamble to the 2010 proposal and the preamble to the 2008 498 RRP final rule, clean ing verification is not a direct substitute for dust wipe testing and clearance. 499 Rather, the Dust Study shows th at cleaning verification is an integral part of the whole suite of 500 RRP work practices which . The Dust Study demonstrates that these practices , when observed as 501 a whole, is are effective at minimizing exposure to dus t-lead hazards generated by renovations. 502 As such, cleaning verification ca nnot legitimately be severed from the rest of the RRP work 503
prac tices. 504 EPA received only a handful of comments on this aspect of the 2010 proposal. 505 Commenters thought that removing this provisi on from the RRP rule would make the rule 506 inconsistent with the HUD regulations or State or local laws. Some be lieved that requiring both 507*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] cleaning verification and clearance was unnecessarily burdensome, and pointed out that persons 508 trained in lead-safe work practices had been achieving clearance without cleaning verification for 509 a number of years now. EPA does not agree that r emoving this provision is inconsistent with the 510 HUD regulations . The Dust Study demonstrates that cleaning verification is an important final 511 fine cleaning step that also pr ovides some feedback about the cleanliness of the surface to the 512

renovator. In fa ct, the Dust Study showed that, in a significant number of cases, the cleaning 513 verification step was necessary in order to remove the dust

- lead hazards created by the 514 renovation

. It is likely that completing the enti re RRP cleaning prot ocol, including cle aning 515 verification, increases the probabili ty that clearance, where requi red, will be achieved on the first 516 attempt. Thus, requiring th e performance of the entire RRP rule cleaning protocol, including 517 cleaning verification, is ha rdly inconsistent with the HUD regulations . In addition, EPA believes 518 that the cleaning verification pr ocess, in almost all cases, is minimally burdensome. EPA’s 519

“ Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing ” (Ref. 6 ) showed that 520 cleaning verification should take approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth 521 may be used for up to 40 square feet of un carpeted floor, countertop, or windowsill space. The 522 material requirements for cleaning verification are very inexpensive. EPA estimated, as part of 523 the 2008 final RRP rule analyses , that the material cost for eac h disposable cloth is $0.46 and 524 that handles are $13.60 apiece (Ref. 1 0 ). Therefore, as proposed, EPA is removing While EPA 525 does not agree with all of thes e assertions, EPA does agree that it is unnecessary to require 526 renovation firms who must achieve clearance to follow the specific cleaning verification 527 protocol. After all, these firms must continue to clean until they achieve the clearance standards. 528 As discussed in the preamble to the 2010 Proposal, and mentioned by some commenters 529 specifically in reference to this provision, contractors who receiv e the regular feedback provided 530*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] by a clearance requirement have l earned how to clean so that theytypically achieve clearance on 531 the first attempt. Specificall y, in its Evaluation of the HUD L ead-Based Paint Hazard Control 532 Grant Program (Ref. 10), HUD noted that the rate of passing initial clea rance was associated 533 with repetition of lead hazard control act ivities. Therefore, EPA is retaining the provision that 534 allows the cleaning verification st ep to be skipped if the renov ation firm must also achieve 535 clearance. However, EPA believes thatrenovation firms whose projects are subject to clearance 536 only as a result of contractual requirements are less likely to gain the repetitive experience of 537 cleaning sufficiently so as to meet clearance with few cleaning cycles, so EPA encourages 538 property owners who include clearance in their renovation contracts to al so require renovation 539 firms to perform cleaning verification. EPA also not es that States and Tribes are free to include 540 both clearance and cleaning verificati on in their laws and regulations. 541
3. Paint chip sample collection. In May , 2010, EPA proposed to give certified renovators 542 another option for determining whether lead-based paint is present on components to be affected 543 by a renovation. This option would allow certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from 544 components to be affected by a renovation instead of using test kits to test the paint on the 545 components. The samples would be required to be sent to an entity recognized under the 546 NLLAP for analysis. In issui ng this 2010 proposal, EPA reasoned th at it would be easy to teach 547 certified renovators to collect paint chip sample s in the renovator course and this would provide 548 maximum flexibility for certified renovators and renovation firms. 549 EPA received a number of comments on this part of its 2010 proposal. Some 550 commenters supported this option because they felt th at it is easy to properlycollect a paint chip 551 sample, and they agreed that this would provi de additional needed flexibility for certified 552 renovators and renovation firms. One commente r stated that, as a homeowner, he had been 553*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] instructed by an NLLAP laboratory over the te lephone on how to properly collect a paint chip 554 sample and forward it to the laboratory for analys is. This experience led him to believe that it 555 would be feasible to include inthe renovator course instruction on how to collect a paint chip 556 sample and forward it for analysis. Other comm enters did not support th is aspect of the 2010 557 proposal because they believe that only certified inspectors or risk assessors should be permitted 558 to collect paint chip samples or make determinat ions about the presence or absence of lead-based 559 paint. Several noted that this would conflict with St ate laws that prohibit anyone other than a 560 certified inspector or risk assessor from samp ling for lead-based paint. Some commenters 561 expressed concern about the length of the renovator course, and th e ability to add the additional 562 information on paint chip colle ction, including information on chain-of-custody issues and 563 laboratory submission procedures , without lengthening the course beyond 8 hours. Others noted 564 that renovators are already bei ng taught many of the necessary skills during instruction on how 565 to properly use test kits. 566 Because renovator training courses are alrea dy required to include training in how and 567 where to use test kits, and the associated reco rdkeeping requirements, EPA agrees with those 568 commenters who believed that it woul d take very little additional ti me to also provide renovators 569 with specific training in how to collect a chip sample and submit it for analysis. The selection of 570 locations to test and the recordk eeping requirements would be identi cal whether test kits or paint 571 chip sampling is used, except that the laboratory report would also have to be maintained along 572 with the records associated with the renovation. EPA also agrees with those commenters who 573 thought that this option would pr ovide additional important flexibility. EPA is promulgating the 574 proposed option allowing certified renovators to collect paint chip samples from painted 575 components that will be disturbed by a renova tion and submit those samples to an NLLAP- 576*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] recognized entity for analysis. EPA will modify th e model certified renovator training course to 577 add the necessary information on sample collec tion, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission 578 procedures. One commenter wondered how renovato rs who have already taken the training to 579 become certified would learn about this option and how to use it. EPA will post the information 580 developed for the renovator traini ng course on its website. EPA may will also e-mail this 581 information to certified renovation firms that pr ovided an e-mail address on their certification 582 applications. As pointed out by several commente rs, paint chip sample co llection, by itself, is a 583 relatively simple thing to learn and EPA believes that certified re novators who have already been 584 trained in how to properly use a te st kit will be able to learn how to properl y collect a paint chip 585 sample and submit it to an NLLAP-recognized entity from the material EPA posts on its website. 586 At least one commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to modify the 587 recordkeeping requirements to accommodate this option and include information specific to 588 paint chip sample collection, su ch as component and location te sted, identity of the NLLAP 589 entity analyzing the samples, and the sample results. Accordingly, EPA is modifying 40 CFR 590 745.86(b)(1) to add a new subsection subparagraph(iii) that requires records pertaining to paint 591 chip sample collection and anal ysis, including a description of the components that were 592 sampled, and the locations sampled, the name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity 593 performing the analysis, and the results for each sample. EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 594 745.86(b)(6) to include a certification by the certifie d renovator that, if paint chip samples were 595 collected, that the samples were collected from the components in the locations specified, that 596 the samples were submitted for analysis to the identified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the 597 sample results were as specified. 598 This option does not make certified renovator the equivalent of a certified lead-based 599*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] paint inspector. Certified renova tors must still test each aff ected component, they are not 600 permitted to exclude components based on similar painting histories or perform random paint 601 sampling in multi-unit buildings. Just as with the current provisions for test kit use, in those 602 states that do not permit persons other than certifie d inspectors or risk assesso rs to sample or test 603 for lead-based paint, certified renovators will not be able to exercise this option. 604
4. Training provider accreditation. In May 2010, EPA proposed a number of minor 605 changes to the training provider accreditation provisions. EPA received very little public 606 comment on these proposed amendments, and EP A is promulgating these amendments as 607 proposed. 608

a. Documentation of personnel qualifications . The first of these minor amendments 609 involves submission of documentation of traini ng program manager and principal instructor 610 qualifications along with training provider app lications for accreditati on. Training providers 611 who wish to provide renovator, dust sampling tec hnician, or lead-based paint activities training 612 for Federal certification purposes must apply for and receive accreditation from EPA. To 613 become accredited, a provider must employ a tr aining program manager as well as principal 614 instructor(s) who meet certain education, training and wo rk experience requirements. The 615 training provider must indicate on its applicat ion for accreditation that the training program 616 manager and principal instructor(s) meet these requirements; however, the 2008 RRP rule did not 617 require documentation ( e.g. , resumes) regarding the qualificati ons of these individuals to be 618 submitted to EPA. The Agency believes it is important to review this information when 619 determining whether to approve a training provider application. When EPA reviews applications 620 for accreditation, it is common for the Agency to request this documentation from training 621 providers in order to verify thatthe training program manager and principal instructor(s) have the 622*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] proper qualifications. Requesting this informati on takes time and can delay the review of an 623 application. Therefore, the Agency will now re quire training providers to submit documentation 624 regarding the qualifications of the education, training and work experience of training managers 625 and principal instructors withtheir applications for accre ditation. Only one commenter 626 commented on this provision, expressi ng general support for the change. 627 b. Submission of training course materials. EPA is also promulgating other proposed 628 changes to the required materials that must be submitted along with an a ccreditation application. 629 EPA received only one comment expressing gene ral support for this proposed change. 630 Specifically, to become accredited, a training provid er must submit a copy of its training course 631 materials with its application for accreditation fo r review by the Agency. If a training provider 632 chooses to use the model course developed by EP A or a course approved by an authorized State 633 or Indian Tribe, then the provider is not currentl y required to submit the course materials with its 634 application. Instead, the training provider indicates on its applic ation that it will use the EPA 635 model course or a course approved by an authori zed State or Indian Trib e. Authorized States 636 and Indian Tribes can have renovation or abatem ent programs that are si gnificantly different 637 from the EPA-administered program which w ould be reflected in their approved course 638 materials. In these instances, a training course approved by the State or In dian Tribe may not be 639 sufficient for the purposes of training someone on the requirements of the f F ederal program. 640 Accordingly, the Agency proposed to require training providers who apply to EPA for 641 accreditation and wish to use a course approved by anauthorized State or Indian Tribe to submit 642 the course materials for EPA review. EPA r easoned that this will give the Agency the 643 opportunity to identify and addre ss any significant differences be tween the requirements of EPA 644 and the authorized program that may appear in the course so the Agency can ensure that EPA- 645*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] accredited training providers are using appropriate course materials. 646 EPA is promulgating this provision as propos ed. This provision only applies to those 647 training providers who wish to us e a training course approved by anauthorized State or Indian 648 Tribe that is different from th e EPA model training course. Tr aining providers wishing to use 649 the EPA model courses need not submit those materials with their applications. 650

c. Role of principal instructor . EPA is promulgating a proposed minor amendment 651 involving a clarification of the role of principal instructors in teaching courses. The regulation, 652 at 40 CFR 745.227(c)(3), states thatprincipal instructors are res ponsible for the organization of 653 their courses and oversight of the teaching of all course material. The regulations also define 654 “principal instructor” as “the individual who has the primary responsibility for organizing and 655 teaching a particular course.” Nonetheless, the rule also allows training program managers to 656 designate experts in a particular field (e.g., doctors or lawyers) as guest instructors, on an as 657 needed basis, to teach discrete portions of the c ourse. EPA interprets these provisions to require 658 a principal instructor to be present and prim arily responsible for teaching the course, although 659 guest instructors may be used to teach some porti on(s) of the course. Pr incipal instructors are 660 also responsible for the qua lity of the instruction delivered by the guest instructors. To ensure 661 that the regulation is clear on this point, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 745. 227 225 (c)(3) to 662 state that principal instructor(s) are primarily responsible for teaching the course materials and 663 must be present to provide instruction (or overs ight of portions of the course taught by guest 664 instructors) for the course for which he has been designated the prin cipal instructor. EPA 665 received two comments on this provision, both su pported the change, and one specifically stated 666 a belief that having principal in structors present while guest l ecturers teach would improve the 667 content of many courses. EPA agrees with these commenters and EPA is promulgating this 668*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] provision as proposed

. 669 d. Application amendments . EPA is promulgating as proposed another minor amendment 670 involving a specific provision requiring trai ning providers to amend their accreditation 671 application whenever there is a change to th e information presented in their most recent 672 accreditation or re-accred itation application. The RRP rule includes requirements for amending 673 the certification of a re novation firm. Firms must submit an amendment within 90 days of the 674 date that a change occurs to information in its most recent application for certification or re675 certification. Examples of amendments include a change in the firm’s name without transfer of 676 ownership, or a change of addre ss or other contact information. To amend its certification, a 677 firm must submit an application, noting on the form that it was submitted as an amendment. The 678 firm must complete the sections of the appli cation pertaining to the new information, and sign 679 and date the form. EPA has interpreted the tr aining provider accreditation regulations to require 680 accredited training providers to submit amended app lications whenever there is a change to the 681 information provided in the trai ning provider’s most recent application for accreditation or re682 accreditation, including information regardi ng the training manager and any principal 683 instructor(s) teaching courses offered by the traini ng provider. However, the existing regulations 684 do not specify a time limit for submitting an amen dment, so EPA proposed to require training 685 providers to submit amendments within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information in 686 each provider’s most recent application. As proposed, if the training provider does not amend its 687 most recent accreditation application within the 90-day time period, it must stop providing 688 training until the accreditation application is amended. EPA also proposed to approve or 689 disapprove amendments for a new training manager, any new or additional principal instructors, 690 or any new permanent training loca tion within 30 days of the date EPA receives the amendment. 691*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] This 30-day time period will give EPA time to check the qualifications of the training 692 manager(s) or principal instru ctor(s) before the training ma nager begins managing or the 693 principal instructor begins teaching a course. This 30-day time period also gives EPA time to 694 verify the suitability of a new permanent traini ng location by visiting th e location. As proposed, 695 the training provider would not be permitted to provide training under the new training manager 696 or offer courses taught by any new principal in structor(s) or at the new training location until 697 EPA either approves the amendment or 30 days has passed. EPA also proposed to clarify that no 698 fee will be charged for accreditation applicati on or certification amendments. EPA received no 699 comments on this proposed amendment. 700 Because qualified training managers and prin cipal instructors are critical to ensuring 701 effective training, it is important for EPA to have the ability to review th eir qualifications before 702 they begin to provide training. If unqualified individuals prov ide training, it could be very 703 difficult to determine whether the trainees recei ved adequate training a nd resolve any concerns 704 over the quality of the training. Requiring retraining would notonly inconvenience the training 705 provider, it would also be bur densome for the trainees them selves. Therefore, EPA is 706 promulgating the 30-day review period for new tr aining managers and principal instructors as 707 proposed, with several modifications. The first relates to the calculati on of the 30-day review 708 period. EPA is clarifying that the 30-day pe riod begins upon submission of a complete 709 application for amendment. Thus, if the am endment involves a ne w training manager or 710 principal instructor, the training provider must fill out the section of the application that 711 identifies the training provider and the sections that pertain to the new training manager or 712 principal instructor, sign the a pplication, and include the indivi dual’s qualifications along with 713 the application for amendment. If the applicat ion does not include these items, then the 30-day 714*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] review period would not begin until the missing information is submitted. 715 In addition, in further review ing this proposed provision, EPA has decided that additional 716 flexibility would be beneficial for training provide rs. If the training prov ider wishes to use a 717 training manager or principal instructor who has already been reviewed by EPA as part of a 718 successful application for training provider a ccreditation under 40 CFR 745.225, whether for that 719 training provider or another, th e training provider may do so on aninterim basis without delay. 720 The training manager or principal instructor must still meet the qualifications for the position as 721 described in 40 CFR 745.225(c)(1)-(2). If, within 30 days of the da te that the training provider 722 begins using such an individual as a new tr aining manager or prin cipal instructor, EPA 723 determines that the individual should not be us ed in such a capacity, EPA will provide written 724 notice to the training provider. The training provider must stop providing training under the new 725 training manager or principal instructor upon receipt of written notice from EPA. 726 With respect to new permanent training lo cations, EPA is also concerned that a poor 727 choice of location could negatively affect the quality of training. For example, if a location is 728 chosen that does not have a suitable surface fo r performing cleaning verification, trainees would 729 be unable to experience actually doing, during the hands-on portion of the course, something that 730 will be an important part of th eir responsibilities as certified renovators. However, EPA believes 731 that the choice of training location does not, inmost cases, have as big of an impact on the 732 quality of training as the training manager or th e principal instructor. During the accreditation 733 process for new training provide rs, it has been EPA’s practice to review the qualifications for 734 each and every training manager and principal instructor named on an application. In contrast, 735 where a training provider has identified multiple pe rmanent training locations in its application, 736 EPA has chosen to visit a sample of locations, rather than each and every location. In addition, 737*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] EPA has been approving traveling tr aining providers based on the cr iteria that the providers will 738 use to select a training location, a demonstration of the hands-on tr aining, and an examination of 739 the equipment the providers plan to use in traini ng. Therefore, EPA will allow training providers 740 to use new permanent training locations on an inte rim basis for 30 days. If, during that 30 days, 741 EPA determines that the location is not adequate, the training provider must stop using that 742 location upon written notice from EPA. 743

e. Hands-on training requirements. Another minor amendment involves the topics for 744 which hands-on training is required in the re novator and dust sampling technician courses. The 745 regulations at40 CFR 745.225 includes requirements and procedures that training programs 746 must follow to become accredited in order to prov ide instruction in lead-based paint courses. 747 Minimum requirements for training curricula are found in this sect ion, which lists course topics 748 that must be included in the diffe rent training courses with an indi cation of the topics that require 749 hands-on instruction. However, EPA inadvert ently omitted indicating which course topics 750 required hands-on training for the renovator and dust sampling technician disciplines. 751 Accordingly, EPA proposed to identify in 40 CFR 745.225(d) which topics in the renovator and 752 dust sampling technician courses require hands-on training. In fu rther clarification, EPA also 753 proposed to add a sentence to 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2 ) stating that refresher courses for all 754 disciplines except project designer mu st include a hands-on component. 755 EPA received several comments on this as pect of the 2010 proposal. Two commenters 756 supported the proposed topics for hands-on training for renovators and dust sampling 757 technicians. Another commenter wondered why report preparation would be a required hands758 on topic for dust sampling technicians when it ha s never been a hands-on topic for the other 759 disciplines that must prepare reports. While it is true that hands-on traini ng in report preparation 760*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] is not required for most lead trai ning disciplines, it is required for the inspector discipline. Thus, 761 certified inspectors and certifi ed risk assessors, who must successfully complete both the 762 inspector course and th e risk assessor course, receive hands-on training in report preparation. 763 EPA believes that report prepara tion for dust sampling technician s is likewise important enough 764 to warrant hands-on training in how to do it pr operly. Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the 765 required hands-on training topics as propose d. Renovator trainees must receive hands-on 766 training in using test kits, re novation methods that minimize cr eation of dust and lead-based 767 paint hazards, containment and cleanup methods , and cleaning verification. Dust sampling 768 technician trainees must rece ive hands-on training in dust sampling methodologies and report 769 preparation. 770 EPA received two comments sp ecifically on the proposed add ition of a statement that all 771 refresher training courses, with the exception of the project designer re fresher course, must 772 include hands-on training. One commenter was an environmental advocacy group, the other an 773 industry trade associatio n. Neither commenter supported this aspect of the 2010 proposal; they 774 thought that requiring hands-on training for renovator refresher courses would limit the 775 availability of refresher traini ng and increase costs unnecessarily. Both commenters thought that 776 enough information could probably be conveyed in a distance learning or e-learning setting to 777 warrant dispensing with the hands-on requirementfor renovator courses. The environmental 778 advocacy group pointed out that EPA’s current m odel refresher training course for renovators 779 contains two required hands-on skill sets—tes t kit usage and cleaning verification. This 780 commenter felt that this was appropr iate, given that previously-train ed individuals ar e still taking 781 advantage of the “grandfathering” provision that allows them to successfully complete an 782 accredited renovator refresher course to become cer tified renovators. Those individuals would 783*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 35 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] not have had previous training in those two skills, so hands- on training would be necessary. 784 However, once the grandfathering provision is no longer available, as di scussed later in this 785 section of the preamble, all cert ified renovators would have had ha nds-on training in these skills. 786 While EPA agrees with this commenter that, for now, it is particularly important for renovator 787 refresher courses must to include hands-on training in test kit use and in cleaning verification

. , 788 EPA disagrees that hands-on re fresher training is unnecessary. A hands-on component for 789 refresher courses will help ensure that certified renovato rs remain competent in the skills needed 790 to comply with the RRP rule, including test kit use, containment, and cleaning (including 791 cleaning verification). Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed amendment to 40 CFR 792 745.225(e)(2) that specifically states that hands- on training is required for all refresher courses 793 except project designer. EPA plans to re-eva luate the renovator refresher course after the 794 grandfathering provision sunsets, but before the currently-certified renovators are due for 795 refresher training. At that time, EPA will cons ider whether hands-on tr aining is still necessary 796 and appropriate for renovator re fresher training. 797 f. E-learning. As stated in the 2010 proposal, we b-based training and other types of 798 alternative training de livery are permitted under both th e Lead-based Paint Activities 799 Regulations and the RRP rule. An EPA model on -line renovator course that may be used to 800 deliver the classroom portion of the renovator cour se is available. While such alternative 801 training delivery options cannot be used to de liver required hands-on training, EPA encourages 802 training providers to make use of such options where appropriate to increase access to training 803 and make it more affordable. Web-based training courses are considered separate courses and a 804 separate application fee is required for each. 805 EPA’s model electronic traini ng course contains certain ba sic administration and delivery 806*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 36 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] requirements. These include assigning a unique iden tifier to each student, to allow the training 807 provider to track student course progress and completion. In addition, there are knowledge 808 checks for each chapter, which must be comple ted before the student can go on to the next 809 chapter, and a final test for the electronic learning portion which cons ists of at least 20 questions. 810 Finally, students must be able to save or prin t an uneditable copy of a record showing completion 811 of the electronic learning portion of the course. In May 2010, EP A proposed to incorporate these 812 requirements into 40 CFR 745.225 to ensure that a ll training providers wish ing to use electronic 813 learning for the classroom portions of lead-based paint courses are aware of these requirements 814 and plan their course development accordingly. EPA requested comment on a variety of topics, 815 including the number of questions in the course test and the score required to pass. 816 EPA received several comments on this aspe ct of the 2010 proposal. Some commenters 817 were concerned with verifying the identity of pe rsons logging into e-learning courses. Several 818 noted that, because it is impossible to verify w ith certainty the identity of persons completing 819 online training, an in-person final co urse test is necessary to ensure that the trainee is adequately 820 trained. In this final rule, EPA is ame nding 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6) to explicitly require e821 learning training providers to as sign a unique identifier to each student in order to track the 822 student’s progress through the course. EPA be lieves that this requirement, along with the 823 existing requirement that the trainee participate inthe hands-on training and take the final course 824 test in person, will provide reasonable assuran ce that the same person has completed all of the 825 portions of the course. In response to these co mmenters, EPA is modifying the regulations to 826 specifically state that e-learni ng or other alternative delivery methods cannot be used for the 827 hands-on training, the final course test, or the proficiency test, if one is given. 828 Commenters also expressed concern thatthe EPA model online course could be 829*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 37 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] completed in as little as one hour, which coul d mean that a person could become a certified 830 renovator with only 3 hours of training. EPA di sagrees with these commenters. The current 831 model course posted on the EPA website is not a functioning course and does not contain the 832 background learning management system (LMS) which tracks the st udent’s progress and 833 requires satisfactory completion of the knowledge checks and the fina l test. Therefore, the time 834 it takes to page through the model course is no t representative of the time it would take to 835 successfully complete an accredited e-learning course. Assuming that 2 training hours are spent 836 on hands-on training, 40 CFR 745.225( c)(6)(vi) requires a minimu m of six 50 minute training 837 hours or 5 hours of classroom time for renovato rs. This requirement applies equally to 838 traditional classroom settings as well as to e-learning courses course offered for accreditation. 839 While EPA realizes that renovato r trainees will not all proceed through an e-learning course at 840 the same pace, an e-learning course offered for accreditation must be generally designed so that 841 an average trainee takes approximately 5 hours to proceed through the course, including all of 842 the knowledge checks and the course test. 843 One commenter thought that EPA’s proposed requirement of an 80% minimum passing 844 score on the course test for the online course wa s too restrictive. Another commenter disagreed, 845 reasoning that an 80% minimum passing score wa s reasonable but that a 100% passing score 846 would be too restrictive, because it would likely result s in students being penalized for poorly847 worded questions or alternate in terpretations, regardless of the st ate of the student ’s knowledge. 848 This commenter thought that it wa s appropriate to have a higher passing score requirement for 849 the e-learning portion of a trai ning course, because the student would have an opportunity to 850 review the material and retake the test. EPA agrees with the second commenter. The 80% 851 minimum passing score is intended to demonstrat e mastery of the subject and lower scores do 852*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 38 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] not achieve this goal. If students do not pass th e test, they must review the material and try 853 again. To ensure that, just as in conventional testi ng, students using electronic means to take the 854 test do not receive feedback on their answers until after they complete and submit the test, the 855 electronic testing provis ion at 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(D) e xplicitly prohibits such interim 856 feedback, a feature contained in some websites. 857 One commenter suggested that EPA consider se parately accrediting entities that provide 858 online training and entities that provide hands-on training. The commenter argued that 859 developing an online course is a capital-intensive project that requ ires a large number of trainees 860 to recover the costs, so relatively few entities ar e likely to undertake onlin e course development. 861 In contrast, the commenter stated that the delive ry of hands-on training must be more local and 862 mobile, it requires a smaller capital investment, and each entity may have relatively few trainees. 863 EPA recognizes that this may be the case, at least for now, while EPA is administering the RRP 864 program in most States. However, this may ch ange as more States become authorized and 865 impose requirements for training that may differ from the EPA requirements. In any event, as 866 the commenter notes, EPA has developed a streamlined process to allow accredited training 867 providers to add an e-learning component to their accreditation by using an already developed 868 and accredited online course. Th is allows accredited training pr oviders to offer online training 869 without having to make a large capital outlay to de velop a course. EPA con tinues to believe that 870 the training provider who issues the final course completion certificate to a trainee, thus 871 conferring certified renovator stat us on the trainee, must be re sponsible for ensuring that the 872 student has completed all of the required traini ng. EPA does not offer partial accreditations, or 873 accreditation for a portion of a course. 874 On a related topic, this commenter thought that it would be burdensome to require the 875*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 39 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] hands-on training provider to maintain records of the specific times each student logged in to the 876 online portion of the course, ea ch student’s progress, and completion data. The commenter 877 believed that, in the case where the online provi der and the hands-on provider are separate 878 entities, working under a contractual agreement to present an entire trai ning course, it would be 879 relatively easy for the online provider to maintain the records. In contrast, the commenter 880 thought that it would be much mo re burdensome for EPA to require that the hands-on provider 881 download or otherwise take possess ion of these records. EPA di sagrees with this commenter, 882 because EPA believes that the amount of data a ssociated with this particular requirement for 883 each trainee is not substantial. However, if a particular accredited training provider felt 884 otherwise, the provider could c ontract with the provider of th e online training to store the 885 records. Although the accredited training provi der would remain ultimately responsible for 886 being able to produce those records, as long as the training provider is able to produce them in 887 response to a request from EPA, EPA would consider the traini ng provider in compliance with 888 the recordkeeping requirements. 889 One commenter provided a number of specific comments on EPA’s proposed 890 requirements for e-learning course s. First, the commenter tho ught that the requirement for 891 knowledge checks for each module of the course was too inflexible, and that it could be difficult 892 to determine what a module is for purposes of knowledge checks. The commenter suggested that 893 EPA instead require periodic knowledge checks. EPA agrees with this comment and is 894 promulgating a requirement for periodic knowledg e checks equivalent to the number and content 895 of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’s mo del course. This would be 16-24 knowledge 896 checks over the entire course. This commenter al so thought that the requi rement that a student 897 be able to generate an uneditable copy of an e-learning course completion certificate too 898*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 40 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] stringent. The commenter pointed out that al most anyone reasonably familiar with computers 899 could alter a secure PDF, image, or word pr ocessing file through the print function. EPA will 900 add language to the proposed provision at 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(E) to clarify that EPA 901 merely meant that the certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and easy editing by 902 students . A secure PDF file would comply with these requirements. Allowing students to 903 generate and print the course completion certificat e provides them with re asonable certainty that 904 they have completed the e-learning portion of th e course before attempting the hands-on portion. 905 EPA recommends that accredited training provider s verify through other means, such as the e906 learning progress records, that each student who completes the hands-on training has also 907 completed the online portion of the course befo re training providers i ssue the final course 908 completion certificate. 909
g. Combined refresher courses. In the 2010 proposal, EPA requested comment on 910 whether training providers should be allo wed to provide a combined Abatement 911 Worker/Renovator refresher course or a combin ed Abatement Supervisor/Renovator refresher 912 course or both. After the 2008 RRP rule wa s promulgated, EPA received input from the 913 regulated community and others indicating that many abatement c ontractors are likely to also 914 become certified renovation firms. If this is the ca se, it would be advantageous for such firms to 915 be able to send their employees to combined refre shers so that the employees would more readily 916 be able to keep up their dual certifications. EPA requested co mment on the likelihood that this 917 will be the case, and, if combined refreshers are desirable, whether the di fferent certification time 918 periods for individual abatement certification (3 years) and individual re novator certification (5 919 years) should be harmonized and, if so, how. EPA received two comments on this topic; both 920 commenters supported the idea of combined refres her courses and thought they would provide 921*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 41 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] increased flexibility for industry. One commenter thought that the certification time periods 922 should be harmonized to 3 years for all disciplin es because the commenter believed that 5 years 923 was too long to go without a refresher. The other commenter did not th ink that harmonization 924 was necessary, because the abatement worker or supervisor would just take the combined 925 refresher every three 3 years to meet the shorter certificat ion periods in the Lead-based Paint 926 Activities Rule. EPA agrees with these commen ters that combined refresher courses may be 927 beneficial. While the current regulations permit training provid ers to offer refresher courses 928 sequentially, e.g. , a 4-hour renovator course on the afte rnoon of one day, followed by an 8-hour 929 worker course the next day, taking the courses sequentially would result in some duplication of 930 training topics for persons certifi ed as both renovators and abatement workers. On the other 931 hand, EPA is not certain that appr opriate refresher topics for both disciplines could be covered in 932 a single 8-hour day. EPA plans to evaluate the content of its supervis or, worker, and renovator 933 refresher courses to determine what an appropriate combined course length might be. Depending 934 on the results of this evaluation, EPA will cons ider amending these regulations to establish 935 course length requirements for combined refresher courses. 936 h. Recordkeeping. Another amendment proposed in May 2010 involves recordkeeping 937 requirements for training providers . Previously, training providers were required to keep training 938 records for 3 years and 6 months. This length of time was chosen because of the length of 939 individual certification periods for lead-based paint activities, which can be as long as 3 years 940 and 6 months including interim certificati on. However, the renovator and dust sampling 941 technician certification periods ar e 5 years, with no interim certificat ion. Therefore, in order to 942 ensure that the training records from the previ ous training course are available for certified 943 renovators and dust sampling techni cians taking refresher courses, EPA proposed to increase the 944*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 42 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] recordkeeping period applicable to these discip lines to 5 years. EPA received two comments on 945 this aspect of the 2010 proposal, both commenter s thought that the recordkeeping requirements 946 for all disciplines should be in creased to 5 years. These co mmenters thought it would be less 947 confusing for training providers if there was one period applicab le to all. One commenter 948 pointed out that EPA had extende d the certificatio n period for renovators trained before April 22, 949 2010 to July 1, 2015, so the training records for thos e trainees ought to be kept for as long as 950 their certification last s. This commenter suggested that EP A require training records to be kept 951 for 5 years or until the expiration of certification resulting from th e training, whichever is longer. 952 While EPA agrees that it may be easier for traini ng providers to keep records for the same length 953 of time regardless of the discipline, EPA does not believe that it is necessary to make this a 954 requirement. Training providers who prefer to have one sing le recordkeeping process can 955 always choose to maintain their records for 5 years across the board. Therefore, EPA is 956 promulgating the increased recor dkeeping requirement for provide rs of accredite d renovator and 957 dust sampling technician training as proposed. EPA also agrees with the commenter who 958 suggested that there be a longe r recordkeeping requirement for renovator training courses offered 959 before April 22, 2010. Accordingly, EPA is also promulgating a requirement that records for 960 renovator training courses completed before April 22, 2010 must be kept until July 1, 2015. 961 i. Trainee photographs. EPA also proposed certain mi nimum standards for the trainee 962 photographs that must appear on renovator and dust sampling technician course completion 963 certificates. Accredited traini ng programs are required to issue a course completion certificate 964 for each person who passes a training course. A variety of information is required to be on the 965 certificate including the name of the course, the name and address of the student, and contact 966 information for the training program. Course certificates for renovators or dust sampling 967*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 43 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] technicians must include a photogr aph of the student, but the re gulation does not include size 968 requirements or other specifications for the phot ograph. Since publishing the 2008 RRP rule, the 969 Agency has been asked if there is a minimu m size for the photograph. EPA believes that it 970 would be beneficial to have mi nimum standards for the photograph in order to ensure that the 971 person in the photograph is rec ognizable. EPA proposed to re quire that the photographs on 972 course completion certificates be an accurate and recognizable image of th e trainee and at least 973 one square inch in size. EPA also reque sted comments on whether the image quality 974 requirements should be more specific, e.g. , more quantitative. EP A received several comments 975 on this provision. Commenters generally supported the proposed requirements, but did not favor 976 additional requirements, such as quantitative requirements fo r image quality, as they were 977 concerned about the burden asso ciated with such additional re quirements. EPA agrees with 978 these commenters that the proposed requirements ar e sufficient. Therefore, EPA is promulgating 979 the image quality requirements as proposed. 980 j. Clarifying changes to 40 CFR 745.225. Finally, as stated previously, 40 CFR 745.225 981 includes requirements and procedures that trai ning programs must follow to become accredited 982 in order to provide instructi on in renovator, dust sampling t echnician, and lead-based paint 983 activities courses. The final 2008 RRP rule amended Section § 745.225 to cover persons who 984 provide or wish to provide renova tor or dust sampling technician training for the purposes of the 985 RRP rule. There are some instances where the regulations do not spec ifically mention the 986 renovator or dust sampling technician courses even though the regulatio ns apply to those 987 courses. For example, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) explains the requirements which a training 988 provider must follow when submitting notification to EPA after the completion of a training. 989 However, the conforming changes, i.e. , to replace “lead-based paint activities courses” with 990*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 44 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] “renovator, dust sampling technician, and lead-basedpaint activities courses,” were not made to 991 every subparagraph even though all the requirements of that sec tion apply to those courses. 992 Consequently, EPA proposed to clarify that the requirements in 40 CFR 745.225 apply to 993 renovator and dust sampling technician courses in a ddition to lead-based pain t activities courses. 994 EPA received one comment offering general supp ort for these proposed revisions. EPA is 995 promulgating these revisions as proposed. 996
5 . State and Tribal Program Authorization program authorization

. Under the RRP rule, 997 interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for, and receive authorization to 998 administer and enforce all of the elements of the RRP program. In May 2010, EPA proposed 999 several changes to the State and Tribal program authorization regulati ons. The first was a 1000 clarification that State and Tribal programs do not need to include requirements for the 1001 accreditation of dust sampling technicians if they require dust sampling to be performed only by 1002 a certified inspector or risk assessor. EPA r eceived only one comment re lating to this proposed 1003 revision, and that commenter though t that EPA should require Stat es and Tribes to allow dust 1004 sampling technicians to collect samples. Howeve r, EPA does not have the authority to prohibit 1005 States and Tribes from having a more stringent program than the EPA’s, e.g. , requiring more 1006 training for persons collecting dust wipe samples than EPA require s. It would not make sense 1007 for EPA to require States and Tribes to establis h the dust sampling technici an discipline if those 1008 trainees would not be allowed to perform any du ties under State or Tribal law. Therefore, EPA 1009 is promulgating this change to the text of the regulation as proposed. 1010 Along these same lines, EPA proposed to a dd a provision requiri ng State or Tribal 1011 programs to have procedures and requirements for on-the-job training of renovation workers who 1012 do not receive accredited training. EPA neglected to include such a provision in the 2008 RRP 1013*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 45 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Rule. As with the dust sampling technician discipline, State and Tribal programs are only 1014 required to have these provisions if they permit on-the-job training for renovation workers. If, 1015 for example, a State or Tribal program only allows certified renovators to perform renovation 1016 activities within a regulated re novation work area, then no pr ovisions for on-the-job training 1017 would be required for that State or Tribal program. EPA received one comment generally 1018 supporting this change. EPA is promulgati ng this revision as proposed. 1019 EPA also proposed to amend the State and Tr ibal program requirements to clarify that 1020 both individuals and firm s must receive certification. Only one comment was received on this 1021 topic, pointing out that EPA’s proposed regul atory text at 40 CFR 745.326(e)(1) did not 1022 accomplish that objective. EPA agrees with this commenter, and has revised the regulatory text 1023 throughout this section accordingly to ensure th at EPA’s requirements are clear. EPA requires 1024 both renovators and renovation firms to be certified. A renovator becomes certified by 1025 successfully completing an accredited renovator training class. A renovation firm becomes 1026 certified by submitting an application to EPA, atte sting that it and its employees will follow the 1027 work practice standards at 40 CFR § 745.85 for conducting renovations, and paying a 1028 certification fee. EPA believes that, in order for a State or Tribal program to be at least as 1029 protective as EPA’s program, the State or Tribal program must, at a mi nimum, require formal 1030 certification for renovation firms. States and Tribes may, but are not requiredto, formally certify 1031 renovators. The certified renovationfirm is responsible not only fo r the behavior of its certified 1032 renovators but also for the othe r workers that have been trai ned by the certified renovators. 1033 Thus, the renovation firm is ultimately responsibl e for the proper performance of the renovation. 1034 Requiring formal certification for renovation firms facilitates compliance monitoring and 1035 enforcement for EPA as well as for State and Trib al programs. A program that only required 1036*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 46 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] formal certification for individual renovators an d not firms would not be as protective. 1037 In addition, as pointed out by several Stat e commenters, EPA inadvertently included the 1038 wrong provisions in the proposed regulatory text for revising authorized State and Tribal 1039 programs to conform to revisions to the 2008 RR P rule. The existing provisions at 40 CFR 1040 745.326(f) give authorized St ate and Tribal programs two 2 years from the effective date of any 1041 EPA revisions to the 2008 RRP rule to demonstrat e that the State or Tribal program meets the 1042 requirements of the revised 2008 RRP rule. This two 2 year period is also afforded to States and 1043 Tribes that submit applications fo r authorization before the effec tive date of any EPA revisions. 1044 EPA did not intend to make any changes to this provision and States a nd Tribes still have two 2 1045 years to make changes to their progr ams necessitated by revisions to the f F ederal RRP program. 1046 Finally, EPA proposed to require that, in order to be authorized for any of the lead-based 1047 paint programs, State or Tribal programs demonstrate that: (1) the The State or Tribe is able to 1048 sue to obtain penalties, (2) civ il and criminal penalties of at least $10,000 are assessable for each 1049 instance of violation, (3 ) if violations are co ntinuous, the penalties are assessable up to the 1050 maximum amount for each day of violation, and (4) the burden of proof and degree of 1051 knowledge or intent of the respondent is no greate r than it is for EPA under TSCA. EPA also 1052 requested comment on what criteria States or Tr ibes should consider inassessing penalties and 1053 whether the $10,000 minimum penalty authority leve l should be periodic ally adjusted for 1054 inflation. As discussed in the preamble to th e proposed rule, in choosing the proposed minimum 1055 penalty authority of $10,000 per vi olation per day, EPA looked to other programs that States and 1056 Tribes may be authorized to administer. Some of these programs have minimum penalty 1057 authority requirements for State and Tribal pr ograms and some do not. For example, under the 1058 Clean Air Act (CAA) implementing regulations at 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3) and the Resource 1059*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 47 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) impl ementing regulations at 40 CFR 271.16(a)(3), 1060 State programs must have the authority to assess civil and crimin al fines of at least $10,000 per 1061 day per violation. Other programs have es tablished lower minimum penalty authority 1062 requirements. The implementing regulations fo r the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require 1063 State programs to have the authority to impose a penalty of at least $1,000 per day per violation 1064 on public water systems serving a population of more than 10,000 individuals. Some EPA 1065 programs have set no minimum penalty authority requirements for States and Tribes; these 1066 programs include the Asbestos Hazard Emergenc y Response Act program and the State pesticide 1067 applicator certification program un der the Federal Insecticide, Fungici de, and Rodenticide Act. 1068 EPA received a number of comments on this provision. Six State commenters opposed 1069 the proposed provisions. Several argued that their legislatures ha d already created the authority 1070 to establish an RRP program, but the maximu m penalty amount was less than $10,000. Five 1071 States described their existing penalty authoriti es--one already has a minimum penalty authority 1072 of $10,000, one has $5,000, and the other three have $1,000. These States did not believe that 1073 they would be able to increase the maximum pe nalty authority, because it was comparable to 1074 other programs administered by the State, or that it would take se veral years to get an increase 1075 through the legislature, during which time EPA woul d have to administer the program in their 1076 jurisdictions. At least two al ready-authorized State RRP progr ams pointed out that they had 1077 been authorized with maximum penalty authorities of less than $10,000. One State noted that it 1078 could assess penalties of up to $750 or $1,000 under its EPA-authorized RRP program, the 1079 other’s maximum RRP penalty au thority ranged from $1,00 to $1000. One of these States also 1080 noted that it had been effectiv ely enforcing the Lead-based Paint Activities Program and the Pre1081 Renovation Education Program for years now, and the State did not believe th at an increase in its 1082*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 48 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] maximum penalty authority would improve the effectiveness of its programs in any way. 1083 Another State commented that it has penalty au thority of $10,000, but th at limit is for each 1084 enforcement case, not per violation per day. Some of the State commenters also noted that most 1085 enforcement actions in an RRP program would be against very small companies or individuals, 1086 and penalties of less than $10,000 per violation per day would still be very effective deterrents 1087 for such entities. 1088 Two environmental advocacy groups supported EPA’s proposed minimum penalty 1089 authority of $10,000, arguing that substantial penalt ies are necessary to get the attention of the 1090 regulated community and meaningful enforcement is critical to the rule’s success at protecting 1091 individuals from exposures to dangerous levels of lead. 1092 EPA agrees with these commenters on the importance of an effective enforcement 1093 program. Strong enforcement of the lead-based pa int regulations by authorized State and Tribal 1094 programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child occupied 1095 facilities undergoing lead abatem ent, renovation, repair or painting. However, EPA also agrees 1096 with those States that argued that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint 1097 programs would be against very small entities. Although small entities al so violate the CAA and 1098 RCRA, it is likely that the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of 1099 smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA ha s established minimum penalty 1100 authorities. Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal 1101 programs of $5,000. Because it is especially important to deter multiple violations and 1102 continuing violations, this fina l rule retains the “per violat ion, per day” requirement. 1103 In response to the related requests for comment , State commenters did not favor adding a 1104 mechanism for adjusting these minimum penalty authorities for inflation. One environmental 1105*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 49 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] advocacy group supported the idea, but thought that it should not be a barrie r to State and Tribal 1106 program authorization. EPA agrees with thes e commenters and no mechanism for adjusting 1107 these minimums for inflation is included in this final rule. 1108 Commenters suggested a number of factors that should be considered by States and 1109 Tribes when imposing penalties for violations of their authorized programs. Several favored 1110 enforcement history and risk, but no t to the extent of treating firs t-time offenders too lightly. A 1111 handful of commenters argued that size of business, and ability to stay in business should not be 1112 considered, because small companies can cause as much harm as large companies. EPA believes 1113 that States and Tribes may legitimately consider any of the factors that EPA typically considers, 1114 such as nature, circumstances, and extent of the violation, the culp ability of the violator, history 1115 of prior violations, ability to pay or continue inbusiness, voluntary disclosure, and attitude of the 1116 violator. However, EPA will not require States and Tribes to consider any of these factors. 1117 Finally, EPA received no comments on the propo sed addition of an explicit requirement 1118 that States and Tribes have the ability to sue vi olators to collect penaltie s and that the burden of 1119 proof for enforcement be no more rigorous th an the EPA standard under TSCA. EPA believes 1120 that these two elements are important elements of an effective enforcement program. Therefore, 1121 EPA is promulgating these additiona l requirements as proposed. 1122
6 . Vertical containment. EPA’s 2010 proposal included more specific language on 1123 vertical containment requirements for exterior pr ojects. As proposed, the rule would specifically 1124 state that vertical containment is required for ex terior renovation projects that are covered by the 1125 rule and that affect painted surf aces within 10 feet of the propertyline. In such cases, vertical 1126 containment is necessary to ensure that adjacen t buildings or properties are not contaminated by 1127 leaded dust or debris generate d by the renovation. EPA’s Dust Study demonstrates that leaded 1128*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 50 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] dust and debris from exterior renovations can be found 10 feet away from activities disturbing 1129 leaded paint, even if no prohibi ted or restricted practices are used. For example, in an 1130 experiment involving the dry scraping of paint from a single story gara ge, significant dust-lead 1131 levels were detected on collecti on trays at distances from 9 to 11 feet from the scraping activity 1132 (Ref. 7 6 , page 6-25). These levels ranged from 7,500 μ g/ft 2 to more than 16,500 μ g/ft 2 . The 1133 RRP rule, at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2), requires renovation firms to isol ate the work area so that no 1134 dust or debris leaves the work area while the re novation is being performed. The rule further 1135 states, at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2 )(ii)(D), that, in certa in situations, the renov ation firm must take 1136 extra precautions in containing the work area to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation 1137 does not migrate to adjacent properties. EPA knows of no work practice other than some a 1138 system of vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area that 1139 would universally and effectively prevent the migration of dust and debris from renovations 1140 performed within 10 feet of the prop erty line to adjacent properties. 1141 EPA also proposed to clarify, in the regulator y text itself, that windy conditions may also 1142 necessitate the use of vertical containment to prevent contamin ation of other buildings, other 1143 areas of the property, or adjacent buildings or pr operties. Specific mention of windy conditions 1144 was made in the preamble to the final 2008 RRP rule, although it was not included in the 1145 regulatory text. Nevertheless, EP A expects atmospheric conditions to be one of several factors 1146 that renovation firms consider when designing containment systems. Other factors would 1147 include the height of the build ing and the paint disturbance and the type of renovation activity 1148 planned. EPA believes thoughtthat specifically including wi ndy conditions as a factor to 1149 consider when designing an effective containment system will would serve as an important 1150 reminder for renovation firms. Including the mention of windy conditions in the proposed 1151*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 51 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] regulatory text does did not mean that vertical containment is would be required for any particular 1152 renovations. The 2010 proposal also included a definition of the term “containment” in order to 1153 clarify what is meant by the term. The propos ed definition was based on the definition of 1154 “Worksite preparation level” from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 1155 “Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Pa int Hazards in Housing” (HUD 1156 Guidelines, Ref. 11). The proposed defin ition included additional information on what 1157 constitutes vertical containment. 1158 Some commenters supported th e proposed revisions to the vertical containment 1159 requirements. One thought that contaminati on of neighboring properties is a common and 1160 serious problem. Other comment ers did not support the proposed revisions. These commenters 1161 thought that the proposed revisions were too inflexible and unn ecessary. EPA disagrees with 1162 these commenters. As discussed, the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior 1163 renovations travels at least 10 feet from the ac tivity. The RRP rule re quires the ground to be 1164 covered with plastic sheeting or other impe rmeable material extending 10 feet beyond the 1165 surfaces being renovated or a suffi cient distance to collect falli ng paint debris, whichever is 1166 greater, unless prevented by the prop erty line. In the absence of some asystem of vertical 1167 containmentor equivalent extra precauti ons in containing the work area , EPA knows of no work 1168 practice that would universally and effectively ensure that adjacent properties are not 1169 contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint within 10 feet of the property line. 1170 However, the vertical containment requirement is intended to provide flexibility for certified 1171 renovators to design effective containment systems ba sed on the renovation activity and the work 1172 site. Vertical containment systems can span a range from simple barriers to more extensive 1173 scaffolding, depending on the size of the job and other relevant factors. Complex vertical 1174*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 52 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] containment systems with extensive scaffolding ar e often not necessary to effectively contain the 1175 dust generated by a renovation. One commenter thought that it s hould be sufficient to require 1176 the renovation firm to inform the neighbors to keep their windows and doors closed while the 1177 renovation is ongoing. While this mi ght prevent leaded dust from drifting into the interiors of 1178 adjacent buildings, it does not address contamin ation of the neighboring porches, balconies, or 1179 yards. This does not meet the standard already present in the RRP rule, that dust and debris not 1180 be permitted to leave the work area while the renovation is ongoing. EPA is also concerned 1181 about the ability of re novation firms to affect the behavi or of neighbors whose homes are not 1182 being renovated. 1183 Several commenters expressed concern aboutthe safety of workers and vertical 1184 containment. One argued that OSHA has said th at vertical containment is not required in 1185 situations where worker safety would be compro mised, such as in windy conditions. EPA agrees 1186 that erecting extensive scaffolding to support a large vertical containment system in some windy 1187 conditions may be unsafe for workers. If such a vertical containment system would be necessary 1188 to ensure containment of the dust genera ted by a particular renovation, EPA knows of no 1189 alternative but to reschedule the renovation fo r a more clement day. The HUD Guidelines state 1190 that exterior renovation work s hould not be conducted when the wind speed is greater than 20 1191 miles per hour (Ref. 11). The Guidelines also state that work must cease and cleanup be 1192 completed before rain begins. EPA has not im posed these specific requirements, but renovation 1193 firms should consider this guidance when deciding how to proceed. 1194 Other commenters were concerned about the ad ditional costs that the revisions to the 1195 vertical containment provisi ons would impose on renovations

. and the potential negative impact 1196 on affordable housing and weatherization programs. EPA agrees that it is more expensive to 1197*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 53 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] conduct exterior renovati ons with vertical containment th an without. In EPA’s economic 1198 analysis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA addressed th ose situations where the renovation firm must 1199 take extra precautions to effectively contain dust and debris, including work areas in close 1200 proximity to other buildings, work areas that a but a property line, and windy conditions. The 1201 2008 economic analysis specifically notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of 1202 vertical containment to prevent paint dust and debris from contaminating the ground or any 1203 object beyond the work area. To account for thes e situations, EPA estimated that approximately 1204 2% of exterior jobs would use exterior contai nment, and the incremental cost of vertical 1205 containment varies from $330 per wall to $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the job. 1206 Thus, EPA has already accounted for the additional costs incurred for using vertical containment 1207 systems on renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line. 1208 Because EPA does not know of any effective a lternatives to the vertical containment 1209 requirement for exterior renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line, EPA is 1210 promulgating a requirement that vertical cont ainment or equivalent extra precautions in 1211 containing the work area be used on exterior renovations performed within 10 feet of the 1212 property line. This requirement is intended to provide flexibility for certified renovators to 1213 design effective containment systems based on th e renovation activity and the work site. To 1214 ensure that renovation firms understand that the requi rement refers to a wide variety of effective 1215 work area containment systems, EPA is including the phrase “or equivalent extra precautions in 1216 containing the work area” in this requirement. E ffective work area containment can span a range 1217 from simple barriers to more extensive scaffold ing, depending on the size of the job and other 1218 relevant factors. Complex vertical containment systems with extensive scaffolding are often not 1219 necessary to effectively contain the dust generated by a renovation. Because EPA does not know 1220*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 54 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] of any effective alternatives to the vertical containment requirement for exterior renovations 1221 performed within 10 feet of the property line, and because EPA believes that the additional 1222 guid ance provided by the addition of the “windy condi tions” example to the regulatory text will 1223 be helpful to renovation firms, EPA is pr omulgating these revisions as proposed. 1224 An example of a simple barrier system, on a job requiring hand scrapi ng within a few feet 1225 of the ground and within a few feet of the pr operty line, would be laying plastic or other 1226 impermeable material on the ground between the paint-disturbing activity and the property line, 1227 anchoring it to the house, and th en extending the material up and over the fence at the property 1228 line. A slightly more extensive containment approach could involve the use of a triangular 1229 eave/soffit “lean-to” system. In this system, pl astic or other impermeable material could be 1230 spread out on the ground 5-10 feet out from the exterior side wall, de pending upon the available 1231 space. The same impermeable material could be attached to the eave or soffit area at the 1232 roofline, and held away from the building by an extension ladder temporarily fastened to where 1233 the wall meets the eave or soffit. The material would then be fastened and sealed onto the 1234 ground cover. A variation of th is system would involve drapin g the plastic or impermeable 1235 material over a frame consisting of commercially -available tension rods or strong painter’s 1236 extension tubes. Effective containment could also consist of plastic or other impermeable 1237 material draped from outriggers, or framework s ecured to the roofline, ta ped to the sides of the 1238 building to surround the work area, and fastened and sealed to the ground cover. Yet another 1239 containment system could involve a rigid box-like framework, constructed out of commercially1240 available tension rods or pain ter’s extension tubes, wrapped in impermeable sheeting and 1241 anchored to the ground cover and th e sides of the building. EPA be lieves that these measures, in 1242 most cases, should be sufficient to contain dust and debris where extra containment measures are 1243*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 55 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] needed, such as work that creates large amounts of dust or work performed within 10 feet of the 1244 property line. 1245 EPA realizes that it may be costly or impr acticable to deploy an elaborate vertical 1246 containment system, for example, in high rise multi-story buildings. The Agency, furthermore 1247 does not wish to create hazardous situations fo r workers that would outweigh the benefit of 1248 capturing the dust with scaffolding-based vertic al containment systems. EPA believes that 1249 equally effective systems may exist. Thus, EPA added language indicating that “equivalent 1250 extra precautions in containing the work area” will also satisfy the requirement to contain dust on 1251 the worksite of exterior renovations perfor med within 10 feet of the property line. 1252 EPA continues to believe that it is importantto remind renovation firms that there may be 1253 other situations where vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the 1254 work area would be required in order to prevent dust and debris from leaving the work area. 1255 However, because some commenters appeared to believe that EPA’s mention of windy 1256 conditions amounted to a requirement to use vertical containment in windy conditions, EPA is 1257 deleting the phrase “such as in windy conditions .” The complete provision, as promulgated, 1258 reads: “If the renovation will aff ect surfaces within 10 feet of the property line, the renovation 1259 firm must erect vertical containm ent or equivalent extra precauti ons in containing the work area 1260 to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate adjacent buildings or 1261 migrate to adjacent properties. Vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing 1262 the work area may also be necessary in other s ituations in order to pr event contamination of 1263 other buildings, other areas of the property, or ad jacent buildings or properties.” EPA wishes to 1264 encourage innovation in designing effective cont ainment systems or measures, so EPA will 1265 consider any information or data made availabl e to it that could be used to determine the 1266*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 56 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] equivalence of extra containment precautions in containing the work area. For example, the 1267 Department of Energy (DOE) suggested that an e quivalent containment sy stem could involve the 1268 use of a trough-like system beneath the paint- disturbing work. The trough would consist of 1269 polyethylene and tubing fabricated in a U-shape configuration, extending 1 to 2 feet from the 1270 exterior side of the building. According to DOE, the bottom of the trough could be weighted 1271 down with scrap lumber and sprayed with water en abling it to capture the falling dust and debris. 1272 DOE suggested that this trough, es pecially if combined with du st minimization techniques such 1273 as wet methods, the use of dust-capturing shr ouds, and HEPA vacuums, would be equally 1274 effective at containing dust and debris as vertical containment. EPA cannot determine that the 1275 trough, by itself, provides effective containment of dust and debris, but will be examining this in 1276 the future. Similarly, DOE suggested that anothe r possible method for the dust that is generated 1277 during an exterior renovation to be captured could involve the use of a shroud attached to a 1278 power tool with a HEPA vacuum , also attached to the shrou d, where the dust and debris is 1279 captured right at the source--thereby not allowing it to fall onto polyethylene, workers clothing, 1280 equipment, and tools. EPA seeks data or ot her information upon which to evaluate that the 1281 following are effective at containing dust and de bris: the trough in combination with dust 1282 minimization techniques; the use of a shroud attached to a power tool with a HEPA vacuum; or 1283 other alternative methods. EPA w ill review and issue guidance as appropriate. EPA intends to 1284 work collaboratively with DOE and HUD and other agencies and stakeholders as appropriate to 1285 develop further guidance on equivalent extra precauti ons in containing the work area. 1286 In addition, since promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule, EPA has received several inquiries 1287 from the regulated community on th e rule’s containment provisions. In addition, since 1288 promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule, EPA has received several inquiries from the regulated 1289*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 57 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] community on the rule’s containment provisions. In particular, EPA has been asked to address 1290 the problem of obstacles that pr event renovation firms from using 6 feet of plastic sheeting or 1291 other impermeable material on interior floors or 10 feet of material on the ground. EPA believes 1292 that the proper use of vertical containment measures may be a more effective method for 1293 containing the work area than use of traditional floor or ground containment alone, especially 1294 where obstacles prevent or make it impractical to install floor or ground containment to the 1295 extent required by the RRP rule. Therefore, EPA is amending the containment provisions for 1296 both interior and exterior renovations to permit renovation firms to erect vertical containment at 1297 a distance of less than 6 feet from the work surface, for interiors, provided that the vertical 1298 containment is floor to ceiling, or less than 10 feet for exteriors, and not also require them to 1299 comply with the minimum floor or ground containmen t requirements of the RRP rule

. closer to 1300 the renovation activity than the minimum floor or gr ound containment distance specified in the 1301 RRP rule to give renovation firm s more flexibility in designing effective containment strategies 1302 for particular work sites. For exterior re novations, this amendment would allow a renovation 1303 firm to construct vertical containment less th an 10 feet from the renovation activity. If a 1304 renovation firm chooses to take advantage of this provision, the ground containment may extend 1305 less than 10 feet, stopping just outside the edge of the vertical containment, as long as the 1306 distance is sufficient to contai n all dust and debris during the renovation and post-renovation 1307 cleanup. For example, a renovation firm erects anexterior vertical containment system 1308 consisting of a rigid box-like framework wrapped in impermeable plastic sheeting and anchored 1309 to the ground and home. If this containment system is erected 5 feet from the side of the home, 1310 and placed on top of ground containment, such c ontainment should effectively limit the travel of 1311 dust and debris to the interior of the enclosure. Under the am ended containment provisions, the 1312*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 58 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] renovation firm would not be required to extend plastic sheeting or other impermeable material 1313 another 5 feet beyond the vertical containment system

. in order to meet the 10 foot minimum 1314 ground containment requirement promulgated in the 2008 RRP rule. 1315 This amendment will affect interior renovations similarly

. EPA is also providing 1316 increased flexibility for renovation firms by allowi ng firms the option to use vertical containment 1317 measures in combination with reduced fl oor containment on interior renovations. However, to 1318 qualify for reduced floor containment requirements , vertical containment systems for interior 1319 renovations must consist of impermeable barriers th at extend from the floor to the ceiling and are 1320 tightly sealed at joints withthe floor, ceiling and walls ( e.g. through the use of tape, foam or 1321 other means which create tight seal s), thus effectively cr eating a separate enclosure. This type of 1322 vertical containment acts as the functional equivalent of a wall for purposes of defining the work 1323 area and, if the vertical containment meets thes e criteria, the floor containment measures may 1324 stop at the edge of the vertical barrier. However, unlike perman ent walls, vertical containment 1325 barriers are subject to all containment cleani ng requirements including misting, inward folding, 1326 sealing, and proper disposal following the renov ation. A firm must also thoroughly clean an 1327 additional two feet beyond the vert ically-contained work area. Fi nally, during ingress or egress 1328 from the vertical enclosure, a firm must take precaution to ensure that dust and debris on 1329 personnel, tools, and other item s do not escape the work area. 1330 Upon further consideration of the proposed definition of containment, particularly 1331 in light of the comments received on the propos ed vertical containment requirements, EPA has 1332 determined that a broader defini tion of containment is unnecessary, and may even be confusing, 1333 but a definition of vertical containment woul d help to clarify the vertical containment 1334 requirements. In addition, EPA believes that there may be confusion among the regulated 1335*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 59 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] community and other stakeholders about what EPA means when it uses the term “vertical 1336 containment.” As previously discussed, vertical containment can span the range from simple 1337 barriers to box-like structures to more extensive scaffolding. Accordingly, EPA is promulgating 1338 a definition of “vertical contai nment” that is similar to th e last sentence of the proposed 1339 definition of “containment.” Vertical containment is defined as a vertical barrier consisting of 1340 plastic sheeting or other impermeable material over scaffolding or a wood or metal rigid frame, or 1341 an equivalent system of containing the work area . The definition further states that vertical 1342 containment is required for some exterior re novations but it may be used on any renovation. 1343 EPA encourages members of the regulated co mmunity, or other stakeholders, who have 1344 questions on the work area containment requirements or any other aspect of the RRP rule to 1345 consult the Frequent Question database accessi ble from EPA’s primary lead web page at 1346 www.epa.gov/lead or contact the National Lead Informati on Center by calling 1(800) 424– 1347 LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or spee ch-impaired persons may reach the National Lead Information 1348 Center through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. 1349
7. Prohibited or restricted practices

. In May 2010, EPA proposed to make a number of 1350 minor revisions to clarify the prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in 40 CFR 1351 745.85(a)(3). The first was a clarification that these prohibitions and restrictions, e.g. , the 1352 prohibition on open flame burning or torching, apply to all painte d surfaces, not just surfaces 1353 where the presence of lead-based paint has been confirmed. The term “lead-based paint” was 1354 incorrectly and inadvertently used in this subsection subparagraph , making it inconsistent with 1355 the rest of the RRP rule, which applies in the pr esence of known lead-based paint as well as paint 1356 that has not been tested for lead content. A ccordingly, EPA proposed to replace the term “lead1357 based paint” with “painted surfaces” in this subsection subparagraph . Of course, if the painted 1358*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 60 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] surface has been tested and found to be free of lead-based paint, the prohibitions and restrictions 1359 on work practices in the final RRP rule do notapply. Commenters generally supported this 1360 revision, although two commenters noted that EPA uses the term “painted surfaces” throughout 1361 the RRP rule and it is unclear whethe r this refers just to paint or to other surface coatings as well. 1362 These commenters noted that the definition of “lead-based paint” includes paint and other 1363 surface coatings but there is no definition of th e term “painted surfaces.” These commenters 1364 observed that other surface coati ngs, such as varnish, can contai n significant amounts of lead. 1365 The commenters suggested that EPA address this issue throughout the RRP rule. EPA agrees 1366 with these commenters. In using the term “painted surfaces,” EPA has always meant component 1367 surfaces that are covered in whole or in part with a coating that could be lead-based paint. The 1368 term was designed to encompass situations where th e surface is covered with lead-based paint as 1369 defined by the regulation as well as situations wh ere the lead content of the surface coating had 1370 not been determined. EPA never intended to exclude varnishes or other surface coatings from 1371 the coverage of the RRP rule. In fact, the applicability section of the RRP rule, 40 CFR 745.82, 1372 limits the exclusions for testing to those situations where the components to be disturbed by a 1373 renovation have been demonstrated to be free of paint and other surface coatings that contain 1374 lead at levels equal to or exceeding the regulat ory threshold. Therefore, EPA is promulgating 1375 this revision as proposed and EPA is also addi ng a clarifying definition of “painted surface” to 1376 40 CFR 745.83. This definition states that pa inted surface means a component surface covered 1377 in whole or in part with paint or other surface coatings. 1378 In addition, EPA proposed to cl arify that the restriction inthis section on the use of 1379 machines that remove paint through high speed op eration applies anywhere painted surfaces are 1380 being disturbed by such machines , ; the restriction is not limited to situations where all of the 1381*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 61 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] paint is removed by such machines. EPA recei ved no comments specific ally on this proposed 1382 revision, although the comments on the general issu e of paint including other surface coatings 1383 are also applicable here. EPA is promulgating th is revision as proposed, with the addition of the 1384 phrase “or other surface coatings” after the term “p aint,” because EPA never intended to create a 1385 loophole that would allow someone to remove some or most of the paint or other surface coating 1386 from a component without complyi ng with the restriction. 1387 Finally, EPA proposed to clarify what was mean t by HEPA exhaust control. In order to 1388 better express what is require d when machines designed to remove paint through high speed 1389 operation are used, EPA consulted the Occupa tional Safety and Health Administration’s 1390 Technical Manual (Ref. 1 2 13 ). The use of shrouded tools to remove lead-based paint is 1391 discussed in Chapter 3 of Section V, entitled “Controlling Lead Exposures in the Construction 1392 Industry: Engineering and Work Practice Controls.” Using language from this reference, EPA 1393 proposed to amend 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii) to read, “The use of machines designed to remove 1394 paint through high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, 1395 abrasive blasting, or sandblasti ng, is prohibited on painted surf aces unless such machines are 1396 used shrouded and equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the 1397 point of generation.” EPA received several comm ents on this topic. The commenters generally 1398 supported the change, but two thought that there should be a performance standard included in 1399 the provision, a visible standard that warns the workers that the shroud or containment system is 1400 not working properly. EPA agrees with these co mmenters. Another commenter thought that the 1401 term “shrouded” in the proposed revision would make the RRP ru le more stringent than the 1402 requirements applicable to abatement contractors. After consulting the abatement chapter of the 1403 HUD Guidelines, EPA has determined that the propos ed language could potentially be read to 1404*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 62 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] exclude one of the two types of sanders desc ribed by HUD as appropriate for abatement work 1405 because they provide HEPA exhaust control. Accordingly, EPA is promulgating the revision as 1406 proposed, except that the regulatory language will read “. . . unle ss such machines have shrouds 1407 or containment systems and are equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and 1408 debris at the point of generation. Machines must be operated so that no vi sible dust or release of 1409 air occurs outside the shroud or containment system.” 1410
8 . HEPA vacuums . In May 2010, EPA proposed to cl arify that vacuums qualifying as 1411 HEPA vacuums for the purposes of this rule must be operated and maintained in accordance with 1412 the manufacturer’s instructions in order to contin ue to qualify as HEPA vacuums. This includes 1413 following the manufacturer’s filter change inte rval recommendations. EPA also proposed to 1414 clarify that the standard for HE PA filters, that they be capable of capturing particles of 0.3 1415 microns with 99.97% efficiency, means that th e filters must have a Minimum Efficiency 1416 Reporting Value (MERV) of 17 or greater. At the time, EPA also recommended that renovation 1417 firms have information from the manufacturer th at the particular mode l of vacuum that the 1418 renovation firm intends to use, or the vacuum’s HEPA filter, has been tested in accordance with 1419 an applicable test method, such as ASTM F1471-09, “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 1420 Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System,” and has been determined to 1421 meet this standard (Ref. 13). 1422 EPA received a number of comments on th ese proposed revisions. Commenters 1423 specifically addressing the requirement that vacuums be operated in accordance with the 1424 manufacturer’s instructions, including filter chan ge interval recommendations, were in general 1425 agreement with the requirement. Other commenters expressed a general concern that these 1426 revisions would prohibit the us e of consumer-grade HEPA vacuums that renovation firms had 1427*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 63 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] recently purchased to comply with the RRP ru le. Some argued that the proposed language 1428 regarding the MERV was too stri ngent, given industry practice fo r high-efficiency vacuums. 1429 One commenter cited research they had done on th e efficiency of HEPA vacuums to argue that 1430 the HEPA vacuums used in EPA’s Dust Study w ould not have met the MERV standard proposed 1431 by EPA. However, the commenter did not pr ovide sufficient information to support this 1432 assertion. Several commenters echoed comments EPA received during the rulemaking process 1433 for the 2008 RRP rule, arguing that HEPA vacuum s are too expensive and are not necessary. 1434 Other commenters believed that additional requirements should be added, such as a requirement 1435 to field test the efficiency of the vacuums on a regular basis or afte r filter changes. 1436 EPA continues to believe that HEPA vacuum s are a necessary part of the required RRP 1437 work practices. In addition, the OSHA Lead in C onstruction standard requ ires the use of HEPA 1438 vacuums whenever vacuums are used. However, EPA also understands the concerns of those 1439 commenters who had already purchased HEPA vac uums for purposes of the RRP rule as well as 1440 those others who thought that th e proposed MERV value of 17 w ould be too stringent. In 1441 balancing these concerns, EPA has decided to pr omulgate the requirement that HEPA vacuums 1442 be operated in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions, but not the requirement that 1443 compliant vacuums be rated at a MERV value of 17 or higher. 1444 In addition, in response to EPA’s reco mmendation that renovation firms obtain 1445 information from the manufacturer that the efficien cy of their particular model of HEPA vacuum 1446 or HEPA filter has been tested in accordance with an applicab le test method, some commenters 1447 noted that this information may not be readily available to renovation fi rms. These commenters 1448 suggested that EPA maintain a lis t of HEPA vacuums that have been tested and found to meet 1449 the HEPA vacuum requirements. EPA will consider developing and maintaining such a list. 1450*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 64 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 9 . On-the-job training . EPA’s 2010 proposal included a clarification regarding the 1451 required elements of on-the-job training provide d by renovators. Specifically, EPA proposed to 1452 clarify that the RRP rule requi res certified renovators to trai n other renovation workers in only 1453 the work practices required by the RRP rule thatthe workers will be using in performing their 1454 assigned tasks. As discussed in the 2010 proposal , EPA did not intend to require training in any 1455 other subjects, such as how to paint or how to connect pipes. EPA is promulgating the 1456 clarification as proposed and amending 40 CFR 745.90(b)(2) and (b)(4 ) to refer specifically to 1457 the work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85(a ). Two comments were received on this 1458 proposed clarification, both commenters ex pressed support for the change. 1459
10 . Grandfathering . Under the final 2008 RRP rule, individuals who successfully 1460 completed an accredited abatement worker or supervisor course, and individuals who 1461 successfully completed the HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD model re novation training courses 1462 may take an accredited refresher renovation trai ning course in lieu of the initial renovation 1463 training to become a certified renovator. Inaddition, individuals who have successfully 1464 completed an accredited lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently 1465 certified in the discipline, may take an accredite d refresher dust sampling technician course in 1466 lieu of the initial training to become a certified dust sampling technician. As discussed in the 1467 2010 proposal, EPA inadvertently failed to includ e in the 2008 RRP rule a time limit for taking 1468 the refresher in lieu of the initial course. Many of the commenters who addressed the issue of 1469 grandfathering in the 2008 RRP rulemaking contende d that there should be restrictions based on 1470 how much time elapsed since th e training was taken. In addi tion, under the lead -based paint 1471 activities regulations at 40 CF R 745.226, EPA allowed a similar grandfathering provision but 1472 only for a limited time. Accordingly, EPA proposed to set a limit on when an individual can take 1473*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 65 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] advantage of the grandfathering provision unde r the RRP rule. The preamble to the 2010 1474 proposal stated that the limit would be July 31, 2011, such that renova tors and dust sampling 1475 technicians who take the appropriate prerequisite course before that date would be permitted to 1476 take an accredited refresher tr aining course in lieu of the initial training. EPA received 3 three 1477 comments on this provision. One commenter helpfu lly pointed out that, while the preamble said 1478 that the limit would be July 31, 2011, the proposed regulatory text said th at it would be April 22, 1479 2011. The three commenters supported the lim it of July 31, 2011, one noting that EPA should 1480 not continue to encourage renovato rs to take lead-safe work prac tices courses that do not meet 1481 the requirements for certified renovator training. EPA generally agrees with these commenters 1482 and is promulgating a provision that allows reno vators and dust sampling technicians who take 1483 the appropriate prerequisite course before the eff ective date of this rule to take an accredited 1484 refresher training course in lieu of the initial training. 1485 EPA also proposed a clarifica tion regarding the grandfatheri ng provision as it applies to 1486 the dust sampling technician discipline. Indivi duals who successfully complete an accredited 1487 lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently certified in the discipline, 1488 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling tec hnician course in lieu of the initial training 1489 before April 22, 2011 the effective date of this rule to become a certified dust sampling 1490 technician. Inspectors and risk assessors who are certified by EPA or an authorized state 1491 program are qualified to perform dust sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, 1492 or abatements as well as for other purposes, such as post-renovation dust sa mpling. Therefore, it 1493 would be unnecessary for a certifie d inspector or risk assessor to seek certification as a dust 1494 sampling technician. The 2008 RRP rule explains who is eligible to ta ke the refresher dust 1495 sampling technician course in lieu of the in itial training. However, the regulations as 1496*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 66 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] promulgated did not explicitly say that a certif ied inspector or risk assessor may perform dust 1497 sampling. In order to clarify the intent of the regulation, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 1498 745.90(a)(3) to specifically state that a certified inspector or ri sk assessor may act as a dust 1499 sampling technician. EPA is promulgating th is provision as proposed. One comment was 1500 received on this topic expressing gene ral support for the amendment. 1501

1502
III. References 1503 As indicated under ADDRESSES , a docket has been established for this rulemaking 1504 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The following is a listing of the 1505 documents that are specifically referenced inthis final rule. The docket includes these 1506 documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced 1507 within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not 1508 physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other do cuments, please consult 1509 the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. 1510 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E PA). Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing 1511 Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 1512 Register (75 FR 25038, May 6, 2010) (FRL–8823–5). 1513 2. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 1514 (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). 1515 3. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities; Final Rule. Federal 1516 Register (61 FR 45778), August 29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). 1517
4 . EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (October 2006). 1518
5

. 4. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dange rous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. 1519*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 67 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Federal Register(66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL–6763–5). 1520
6 5 . EPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cl oth Field Study in Residential Housing 1521 (September 2005). 1522
7 6 . EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair, And Painting 1523 Activities. (November 13, 2007). 1524
8

. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. ( 2009 )

. 1525
9 7 . EPA. Lead Exposure Asso ciated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase 1526 I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 1997). 1527 8. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. (2009). 1528
10 9 . EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). “Economic Analysis 1529 for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painti ng Program Final Rule for Target Housing and 1530 Child-Occupied Facili ties” (March 2008). 1531
11 10 . U.S. Department of Housi ng and Urban Development (HUD). Evaluation of the 1532 HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program: Final Report. May 1, 2004. 1533
11. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in 1534 Housing (June 1995). 1535 12. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupationa l Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 1536 Technical Manual TED 01-00-015 [TED 1-0.15A]. Revised June 24, 2008. 1537 13. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High1538 Efficiency Particulate Ai r-Filter System (F1471-09). 1539 14. EPA. OPPT. “Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits Associated with the 1540 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirement s for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 1541 Program Final Rule” (July 2011). 1542*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 68 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 15. EPA. OPPT. “Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 1543 Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child1544 Occupied Faciliti es” (April 2010). 1545 16. EPA. Final Clearance Rule ICR Addendum for the rulemaking entitled Lead; 1546 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirement s for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 1547 Program; Final Rule. (July 2011). 1548 17. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advo cacy Review Panel on the Lead-based Paint 1549 Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. (March 3, 2000). 1550 18. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, a nd Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 1551 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL- 8355

- 7 7755-5 ). 1552 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 1553
A. Regulatory Planning and Review 1554 Under Executive Or der 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( ( 58 FR 51735, 1555 October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regu latory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted 1556 this action to the Office of Management and Bu dget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 1557 12866 and 13563, entitled Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January 1558 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented 1559 in the docket for this action. 1560 In addition, EPA prepared a document discus sing the potential costs and benefits 1561 associated with this final rule. This docu ment, entitled “Discussion of Potential Costs and 1562 Benefits Associated with the Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, 1563 Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule” (Ref. 14), is available in the docket for this action and 1564 is briefly summarized here. 1565*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 69 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] For the most part, the amendments to the RRP rule contained in this final rule impose 1566 only minimal incremental costs. For example, th e requirement for training course providers to 1567 submit copies of personnel qualifications along w ith their applications will result in providers 1568 making copies of and submitting with their application 2-4 additional pieces of paper that they 1569 are already required to have in their posse ssion before submitting the application. The 1570 requirement to submit copies of State training course materials, if used, could add significantly to 1571 the size of the training provider’s application. However, EPA believes that it will be a rare 1572 occurrence for training providers to use State- approved training course materials, when EPA 1573 model training course materials ar e readily available. Likewise, the provision allowing certified 1574 renovators to collect paint chip samples in lieu of using test kits adds no additional costs, because 1575 certified renovators are not requir ed to take this step in additi on to existing activities – it is an 1576 added option from which they may choose. Si milarly, the minimum enforcement provisions and 1577 other requirements for State and Tribal programs imposes no costs because States and Tribes are 1578 not required to have authorizedprograms, nor are they required to revise their programs to 1579 incorporate EPA revisions. While EPA is requiri ng specific recordkeeping for training providers 1580 who wish to provide e-learning co urses, e-learning courses are not required from any training 1581 provider. In addition, EPA belie ves that the recordkeeping requi rements for e-learning courses 1582 are comparable to, and no more burdensome than, the ordinary recordkeeping already required 1583 for courses provided in traditional formats. 1584 Many of the amendments are merely clarif ications of existing regulatory language and 1585 implementation of policy and impose no additiona l costs. Examples of these amendments 1586 include the clarifications on the role of the prin cipal instructor in an accredited training program, 1587 the requirement that the trainee photograph on a c ourse completion certificate be an accurate 1588*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 70 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] representation of the trainee and no smaller than one square in ch, and the clarification that 1589 certified renovators are only requ ired to provide on-the-job traini ng in the RRP work practices to 1590 other renovation workers. 1591 With respect to the vertical containment requirements of th is final rule, EPA has already 1592 accounted for the costs of those requirements. In EPA’s economic analysis for the 2008 RRP 1593 rule, EPA addressed those situations where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to 1594 effectively contain dust and debr is, including work areas in clos e proximity to other buildings, 1595 work areas that abut a property line, and windy conditions. The 2008 economic analysis 1596 specifically notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of vertical containment to 1597 prevent paint dust and debris from contaminati ng the ground or any object beyond the work area. 1598 To account for these situations, EP A estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use 1599 exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall 1600 to $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the j ob. Thus, EPA has already accounted for the 1601 additional costs incurred for using vertical cont ainment systems on renovations performed within 1602 10 feet of the property line. 1603 Some of the amendments are likely to result in some additional costs for the regulated 1604 community, but EPA is unable to estimate what t hose costs might be. For example, removal of 1605 the provision allowing renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification step when performing 1606 clean-up if the firm is also required to achieve clearance could result in some minimal additional 1607 cost for those renovations. As previously disc ussed, EPA’s “Electrostat ic Cloth and Wet Cloth 1608 Field Study in Resident ial Housing” (Ref. 6 5 ) showed that cleaning verification should take 1609 approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth may be used for up to 40 square 1610 feet of uncarpeted floor, counter top, or windowsill space. EPA es timated, as part of the final 1611*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 71 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 2008 RRP rule analyses, that the material cost fo r each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that handles 1612 are $13.60 apiece (Ref. 1 0 9 ). EPA assumed that these handles can be used for approximately 1613 1,000 events. On the other hand, the Dust Study de monstrates that the we t disposable cleaning 1614 cloth method is very effective at cleaning up dust. It is likely that completing the entire RRP 1615 cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, will increase the probability that clearance, 1616 where required by HUD or another entity, will be achieved on the fi rst attempt, thus eliminating 1617 the burden of additional clearance attempts. 1618 This final rule extends the recordkeeping re quirement for providers of certified renovator 1619 and certified dust sampling technici an training from 3 years and 6 m onths to 5 years in general 1620 and slightly more than 5 years for training pr oviders who offered accre dited courses in these 1621 disciplines before April 22, 2010. The recordkeep ing extension does not affect recordkeeping 1622 requirements associated with obtaining and ma intaining accreditation. This extension only 1623 affects those records pertaining to training courses, specifically notifications. Pro-rating the 1624 recordkeeping cost estimates from EPA’s economi c analysis for the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping 1625 Final Rule, also published in the Federal Registeron May 6, 2010 (Ref. 15), shows that the 1626 recordkeeping burden for courses provided during the first year th e rule was effective increases 1627 from $43.68 to $61.88 per training provider. For c ourses provided in subsequent years, the 1628 recordkeeping burden per training provider incr eases from $4.80 to $6.80. These estimates are 1629 for the entire 5 years that the r ecords would have to be kept. 1630 For the 2008 RRP rule, EPA has estimated the number of individuals residing in target 1631 housing units or attending COFs where renovation events are performed. The proposed rule will 1632 benefit 809,000 that there would be approximately 1.4 millionchildren under the age of 6 and 1633 7,547,000 individuals age 6 and older (including 96 ,000 pregnant women) per year 5.4 million 1634*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 72 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] adults who would be affected by minimizing having their exposure to lead dust 1635 generatedminimized due to the rule. The analysis fo r the 2010 final Opt-Out rule estimated that 1636 an additional 5.2 million older children and adults would be affected by renovations. 1637 reduced lead exposure due to the rule. B. Paperwork Burdens 1638 The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for 1639 approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 1640 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) 1641 document to amend an existing ICR that is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0155 (EPA 1642 ICR No. 1715). The ICR amendment, entitled “ICR Addendum for Final Rule entitled “Lead; 1643 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirement s for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 1644 Program; Final Rule (RIN 2070–AJ57)” and identified under EPA I CR No. 2381.02, has been 1645 placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 16). 1646 This regulatory action c ontains only two amendments to the approved existing 1647 information collection: Amendments to the requirement for the training provider to submit 1648 documentation of training manager and principal in structor qualifications; and a requirement for 1649 providers of renovator and dust sampling technici an training to maintain training records for 1650 these courses for 5 years, rather than 3 year s and 6 months. These requirements add only 1651 negligible paperwork burden hours to the existing burden estimate. 1652 EPA previously estimated for the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 10 9 ) and the final Opt-out 1653 rule (Ref. 15) that 170 training providers woul d be accredited to provide renovator training. 1654 These training providers will now have to submit an additional 2-4 photocopies along with their 1655 applications for accreditation. EPA estimates th at each photocopy costs $0.09 to generate, for a 1656 maximum of $0.36 additional cost for training pr oviders with one trai ning manager and one 1657*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 73 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] principal instructor. Each of these 170 training providers is also required to provide training 1658 course notifications under the existing RRP rule. These notifications will now have to be kept 1659 for 5 years instead of 3 years and 6 months. EP A has also estimated that each of these training 1660 providers would offer on average a total of 86 re novator or dust sampling technician courses in 1661 the first year, and 20 per year thereafter. This would requ ire a total of 182 single-page 1662 notifications in the first year, and 42 each year thereafter. 1663 Under PRA, burden is define d at 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and means the total time, effort, or 1664 financial resources expended by persons to gene rate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide 1665 information to or for a Federal agency. An ag ency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 1666 not required to respond to a co llection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 1667 control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’ s regulations codified in 40 CFR chapter I, 1668 after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either 1669 by publication in the Federal Registeror by other appropriate means, such as on the related 1670 collection instrument or form, as applicable. 1671
C. Small Entity Impacts 1672 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regul atory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq ., 1673 the Agency hereby certifies that this final ru le will not have a signi ficant adverse economic 1674 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 1675 organizations, and small governmental jurisdiction s. For purposes of assessing the impacts of 1676 this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined in accordance with RFA section 601 as: 1677 1. A small business as defined by th e Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 1678 regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 1679 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a c ity, county, town, school 1680*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 74 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] district, or special di strict with a populat ion of less than 50,000. 1681 3. A small organization that is any not-fo r-profit enterprise which is independently 1682 owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 1683 The small entities directly regulated by this fi nal rule are providers of lead-based paint 1684 related training, renovation firms, individua ls who perform renovations, and any small 1685 governmental jurisdictions or not-f or-profit enterprises that provide lead-based paint training or 1686 renovation services. As discussed previously, EPA has decided not to promulgate the clearance 1687 and clearance testing requirements, and is in stead promulgating minor amendments to the 1688 requirements for lead-based paint training prov iders and renovation firms that will have only 1689 negligible adverse impacts on any small entities. 1690 In addition, RFA states that agencies “may c onsider a series of cl osely related rules as 1691 one rule for the purposes of [an IRFA]” in order to avoid “duplicative action.” 5 U.S.C. § 605(c). 1692 This rulemaking is closely related to the 2008 RRP rule. Indeed, the proposed rule addressed 1693 one of the major issues in the 2008 rulemaking a nd some of the provisions finalized in the 2008 1694 RRP rule. Accordingly, EPA was not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis for 1695 this rulemaking. Nonetheless, EPA exercised its discretion to complete an Initial Regulatory 1696 Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the 2010 proposal (see 75 FR 25038). The IRFA considered the 1697 potential adverse economic impacts of the 2010 proposed rule on affected small entities, 1698 primarily those related to the proposed clearance and clearanc e testing requirements. The 1699 proposed provisions analyzed for purposes of th e IRFA are not part of this final rule. 1700 Moreover, as discussed in the 2010 proposed rule in more detail, the Small Business 1701 Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel that was condu cted in connection with the 2006 RRP proposal 1702 is equally applicable to this closely related amendment to the 2008 RRP rule. The SBAR Panel 1703*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 75 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] discussed all major aspects of the 2006 proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities, 1704 including issues related to ensuring that proper cleanup occurs after renovation activities. As a 1705 part of the panel process, EPA “collect[ed] advice and recommendations” from several Small 1706 Entity Representatives (SERs) on the 2006 pr oposal to regulate renovation and remodeling 1707 activities. 5 U.S.C. § 609(b). The SBAR Panel report, entitled Report of the Small Business 1708 Advocacy Review Panel on The Lead-base Painti ng; Certification and Training; Renovation and 1709 Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000), expressly addresse d containment and dust clearance 1710 testing requirements

. (Ref. 17). Thus, the primary issues considered in this rulemaking are 1711 wholly within the scope of the issues EPA cons idered as part of the 2008 RRP rule and were 1712 within the scope of the issues considered by the SBAR Panel. Reconvening the RRP Panel for 1713 the 2010 proposed rule would be proce durally duplicative and unnecessary. 1714
D. Unfunded Mandates 1715 This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 1716 million or more for State, local, and tribal government s, in the aggregate, or the private sector in 1717 any one year. This rule includes only minor am endments to the requirements for providers of 1718 lead-based paint training and fo r renovation firms. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 1719 requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 1720 U.S.C. 1531-1538). 1721 This rule is also not subject to the re quirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 1722 contains no regulatory require ments that might significantlyor uniquely affect small 1723 governments. Small governments are only regulated by this action to the exte nt that they engage 1724 in providing lead-based paint tr aining or renovation services. 1725
E. Federalism 1726*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 76 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 1727 EPA has determined that this final rule does no t have “federalism implications,” because it will 1728 not have substantial direct effects on the St ates, on the relationship between the national 1729 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 1730 levels of government, as specified in Execu tive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 1731 not apply to this final rule. Nevert heless, in the spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, 1732 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the Agency and State and 1733 local governments, EPA consulte d with representatives of St ate and local governments during 1734 the rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP rule. Th ese consultations are as described in the 1735 preamble to the 2006 RRP proposed rule (Ref. 18). 1736
F. Indian Tribal Government Implications 1737 As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 1738
Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), EPA has determined that this 1739 final rule does not have tribal implications be cause it will not have subs tantial direct effects on 1740 Tribal governments, on the relatio nship between the Federal Govern ment and the Indian Tribes, 1741 or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 1742 Tribes, as specified in the Ex ecutive Order. Thus, Executive Or der 13175 does not apply to this 1743 final rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not a pply to this final rule, EPA consulted with 1744 Tribal officials and others by discussing poten tial renovation regulator y options at several 1745 national lead program meetings hosted by EP A and other interested Federal agencies. 1746
G. Protection of Children 1747 Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 1748 and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) does not apply to this final rule because it is not 1749*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 77 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] an ”economically significant regul atory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866. While the 1750 environmental health or safety risk addresse d by the 2008 RRP rule does have a disproportionate 1751 effect on children, this final rule makes only mi nor changes in the administrative requirements 1752 for accredited training providers and includes minor amendments to the requirements for 1753 renovation firms. 1754 EPA has evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of renovation, repair, and 1755 painting projects on children. Various aspects of th is evaluation are discu ssed in the preamble to 1756 the 2006 proposed RRP rule (Ref. 18). The prim ary purpose of the final 2008 RRP rule is to 1757 minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazard s created during renovati on, repair, and painting 1758 activities in housing where chil dren under age 6 reside and in housing or other buildings 1759 frequented by children under age 6. In the ab sence of the final 2008 RRP rule, adequate work 1760 practices are not likely to be employed during renovation, repair, and painting activ ities. EPA’s 1761 analysis indicates that there will be approxi mately 1.4 million children under age 6 affected by 1762 the RRP rule. These children are projected to rece ive considerable benefits due to the RRP rule. 1763 In addition, older children will also benefit from the protections afforded by the RRP rule. 1764
H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 1765 This final rule is not a “significant energy ac tion” as defined in Executive Order 13211, 1766 entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that Signific antly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 1767
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the 1768 supply, distribution, or use of energy. 1769
I. Technical Standards 1770 This regulatory action does not involve any technical standard s that would require 1771 Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National 1772*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 78 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. Section 1773 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary co nsensus standards in its regulatory activities 1774 unless to do so would be inconsistent with appl icable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 1775 consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifi cations, test methods, 1776 sampling procedures, business practices) that ar e developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 1777 standards bodies. NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 1778 the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 1779
J. Environmental Justice 1780 Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 1781 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 1782 Federal executive policy on envir onmental justice. Its main pr ovision directs Federal agencies, 1783 to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of 1784 their mission by identifying and addressing, as ap propriate, disproportionately high and adverse 1785 human health or environmental effects of thei r programs, policies, and activities on minority 1786 populations and low-income populat ions in the United States. 1787 While EPA has not assessed the potential imp act of this final rule on minority and low1788 income populations, EPA did assess the potential impact of the fina l 2008 RRP rule as a whole. 1789 As a result of the final 2008 RRP rule assessmen t, contained in the economic analysis for the 1790 final 2008 RRP rule, EPA has determined that the RRP rule will not have disproportionately high 1791 and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 1792 because it increases the level of environmental protection for a ll affected populations without 1793 having any disproportionately hi gh and adverse human health or environmental effects on any 1794 population, including any minority or low-income population (Ref. 1 0 9 ). 1795*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 79 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] V. Congressional Review Act 1796 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq ., generally provides that before a rule 1797 may take effect, the agency prom ulgating the rule must submit a ru le report to each House of the 1798 Congress and the Comptroller General of the Unit ed States. EPA will submit a report containing 1799 this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, 1800 and the Comptroller General of the United Stat es prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 1801 Register . This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 1802

1803*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 80 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 1804 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 1805 Environmental protection, Child-occ upied facility, Housing renovation, 1806 Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 1807

1808 Dated: ________________ 1809

1810

1811

____________________________________ 1812
Administrator. 1813

1814*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 81 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: 1815 PART 745--[AMENDED] 1816 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 1817 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 1818 2. In § 745.82, add a new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows. 1819 § 745.82 Applicability. 1820 (a) * * * 1821 (3) Renovations in target hous ing or child-occupied facili ties in which a certified 1822 renovator has collected a paint chip sample from each painted component affected by the 1823 renovation and a laboratory recogn ized by EPA pursuant to sec tion 405(b) of TSCA as being 1824 capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in paint chip samples has determined that the 1825 samples are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 1826 mg/cm 2 or 0.5% by weight. If the components ma ke up an integrated whole, such as the 1827 individual stair treads and risers of a single staircase, the reno vator is required to test only one of 1828 the individual components, unless the individual components appear to have been repainted or 1829 refinished separately. 1830
* * * * * 1831 3. In § 745.83, add the definition “ Containment Painted surface ” and the definition 1832

“ Painted surface Vertical containment ” in alphabetical order to read as follows: 1833 § 745.83 Definitions. 1834
* * * * * 1835 Painted surface means a component surface covered in whole or in part with paint or 1836 other surface coatings. 1837*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 82 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] * * * * * 1838
Vertical containment means a vertical barrier consis ting of plastic sheeting or other 1839 impermeable material over scaffolding or a wood or metal rigid frame, or an equivalent system of 1840 containing the work area . Vertical containment is required for some exterior renovations but it 1841 may be used on any renovation. 1842
* * * * * 1843 4. Section 745.85 is amended as follows: 1844 a. Revise paragraphparagraphs (a)(2)(i)(D) and (a)(2)(ii)( C) and ( D); 1845 b. Revise paragraph (a)(3); 1846 c. Remove paragraph (c); 1847 The revisions read as follows: 1848 § 745.85 Work practice standards. 1849 (a) * * * 1850 (2) * * * 1851 (i) * * * 1852 (D) Cover the floor surface, including inst alled carpet, with tape d-down plastic sheeting 1853 or other impermeable material in the work area 6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces 1854 undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance to contain the dust, wh ichever is greater. Floor 1855 containment measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier when using a vertical 1856 containment system consisting of impermeable barriers that extend from the floor to the ceiling 1857 and are tightly sealed at joints w ith the floor, ceiling and walls. 1858
* * * * * 1859 (ii) * * * 1860*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 83 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (C) Cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material 1861 extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfac es undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance 1862 to collect falling paint debris, whichever is greater, unless the property lin e prevents 10 feet of 1863 such ground covering. Ground containment measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier 1864 when using a vertical containment system. 1865 (D) If the renovation will a ffect surfaces within 10 f eet of the property line, the 1866 renovation firm must erect vertical containment or equivalent extra prec autions in containing the 1867 work area to ensure that dust and debris from th e renovation does not contaminate adjacent 1868 buildings or migrate to adjacent properties. Vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions 1869 in containing the work area may also be necessary in other situations , such as in windy 1870 condit ions, in order to prevent contamination of othe r buildings, other areas of the property, or 1871 adjacent buildings or properties. 1872 (3) Prohibited and restricted practices. The work practices listed below are prohibited or 1873 restricted during a renovation as follows: 1874 (i) Open-flame burning or torching of painted surfaces is prohibited. 1875 (ii) The use of machines designed to rem ove paint or other surface coatings through high 1876 speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 1877 sandblasting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines have shrouds or 1878 containment systems and are equipped with a HE PA vacuum attachment to collect dust and 1879 debris at the point of generation. 1880 (iii) Operating a heat gun on painted surfaces is permitted only at temperatures below 1881 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. 1882
* * * * * 1883*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 84 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 5. In § Section745.86, delete paragraph (d)

. is amended as follows: 1884 a. Add paragraph (b)(1)(iii). 1885 b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)( 6

. )(iv) – (vii) as paragraphs (b)(6)(v) – (viii), respectively. 1886 c. Add new paragraph (b)(6)(iv). 1887 The additions and revisions read as follows: 1888 § 745.86 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements. 1889
* * * * * 1890 (b) * * * 1891 (1) * * * 1892 (iii) Records prepared by a certified renovator after coll ecting paint chip samples, 1893 including a description of the components that were tested in cluding their locations, the name 1894 and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity pe rforming the analysis, and the results for each 1895 sample. 1896
* * * * * 1897 (6) * * * 1898 (iv) If paint chip samples were collected, that the samples were collected at the specified 1899 locations, that the specified N LLAP-recognized laboratory analyzed the samples, and that the 1900 results were as specified. 1901
* * * * * 1902
6. Section 745.90 is amended as follows: 1903

a. By revising Revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3). 1904 b. By revising Revise paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(8). 1905 § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification. 1906*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 85 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (a) * * * 1907 (2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited abatement worker or 1908 supervisor course, or individuals who succe ssfully completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD 1909 model renovation training course before [ insert date [60] days after date of publication in the 1910 Federal Register ] may take an accredited refr esher renovator training cour se in lieu of the initial 1911 renovator training course to b ecome a certified renovator. 1912 (3) Individuals who have successfully comple ted an accredited lead-b ased paint inspector 1913 or risk assessor course [ insert date [60] days after date of publication in the Federal Register ] 1914 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling techni cian course in lieu of the initial training to 1915 become a certified dust sampling technician. In dividuals who are current ly certified as lead1916 based paint inspectors or risk assessors may act as certified dust sampling technicians without 1917 further training. 1918
* * * * * 1919 (b) * * * 1920 (2) Must provide training to workers on th e work practices requir ed by § 745.85(a) that 1921 they will be using in perf orming their assigned tasks. 1922
* * * * * 1923 (4) Must regularly direct wo rk being performed by other i ndividuals to ensure that the 1924 work practices required by § 745.85( a) are being followed, including maintaining the integrity of 1925 the containment barriers and ensuring that dust or debris does not spread beyond the work area. 1926
* * * * * 1927 (8) Must prepare the records re quired by § 745.86(b)(1 )(ii) and (6). 1928
* * * * * 1929*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 86 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 7. In § 745.92, add paragraph (b )(3) to read as follows: 1930 § 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling technician training and 1931 the certification of renovation firms. 1932 1933 * * * * * 1934 (b) * * * 1935 (3) Accreditation or certification amendments. No fee will be charged for accreditation or 1936 certification amendments. 1937
* * * * * 1938 8. Revise § 745.225 to read as follows: 1939 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: targ et housing and child occupied facilities. 1940 (a) Scope. (1) A training program may seek accreditation to offe r courses in any of the 1941 following disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, proj ect designer, abatement worker, 1942 renovator, and dust sampling technician. A training program may also seek accreditation to offer 1943 refresher courses for each of the above listed disciplines. 1944 (2) Training programs may first apply to EP A for accreditation of their lead-based paint 1945 activities courses or refresher courses pursuant to this se ction on or after August 31, 1998. 1946 Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their renovator or dust sampling 1947 technician courses or refreshe r courses pursuant to this se ction on or after April 22, 2009. 1948 (3) A training program must not provide, o ffer, or claim to provide EPA- accredited lead1949 based paint activities courses without applyi ng for and receiving accreditation from EPA as 1950 required under paragraph (b) of this section on or after March 1, 1999. A training program must 1951 not provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA-accredited renovato r or dust sampling technician 1952 courses without applying for and receiving ac creditation from EPA as required under paragraph 1953 (b) of this section on or after June 23, 2008. 1954*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 87 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (b) Application process. The following are procedures a tr aining program must follow to 1955 receive EPA accreditation to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust 1956 sampling technician courses: 1957 (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit a written application to EPA 1958 containing the following information: 1959 (i) The training program’s name , address, and telephone number. 1960 (ii) A list of courses for which it is appl ying for accreditation. For the purposes of this 1961 section, courses taught in diffe rent languages and electronic l earning courses are considered 1962 different courses, and each must independe ntly meet the accreditation requirements. 1963 (iii) The name and documentation of the quali fications of the trai ning program manager. 1964 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of qualif ications of any prin cipal instructor(s). 1965 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the training 1966 program meets the requirements es tablished in paragraph (c) of th is section. If a training program 1967 uses EPA-recommended model training materials, or training materials approved by a State or 1968 Indian Tribe that has been authorized by EPA unde r subpart Q of this part , the training program 1969 manager shall include a statem ent certifying that, as well. 1970 (vi) If a training program does not use EP A-recommended model tr aining materials, its 1971 application for accreditati on shall also include: 1972 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manua ls, or other materials to be used for each 1973

course. 1974 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 1975 (C) When applying for accreditation of a course in a language other than 1976 English, a signed statement from a qualified, indepe ndent translator that they had compared the 1977*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 88 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] course to the English language version and found the translation to be accurate. 1978 (vii) All training programs shall include in their application for accreditation the 1979 following: 1980 (A) A description of the f acilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands-on 1981 training. 1982 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 1983 (C) A description of the ac tivities and procedures that will be used for conducting the 1984 assessment of hands-on skills for each course. 1985 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as desc ribed in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 1986 (2) If a training program meets the requireme nts in paragraph (c) of this section, then 1987 EPA shall approve the applica tion for accreditation no more th an 180 days after receiving a 1988 complete application from the training program. In the case of approval, a certificate of 1989 accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a letter describing the 1990 reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the appl icant. Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its 1991 discretion, work with the applicant to address inadequacies in the application for accreditation. 1992 EPA may also request additional materials reta ined by the training program under paragraph (i) 1993 of this section. If a training pr ogram’s application is disappro ved, the program may reapply for 1994 accreditation at any time. 1995 (3) A training program may apply for accredi tation to offer courses or refresher courses 1996 in as many disciplines as it chooses. A traini ng program may seek accreditation for additional 1997 courses at any time as long as the program can dem onstrate that it meets the requirements of this 1998 section. 1999 (4) A training program applying for accreditation must submit the appropriate fees in 2000*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 89 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] accordance with § 745.238. 2001 (c) Requirements for the accredita tion of training programs. For a training program to 2002 obtain accreditation from EPA to of fer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or 2003 dust sampling technician courses, the progr am must meet the following requirements: 2004 (1) The training program shall empl oy a training manager who has: 2005 (i) At least 2 years of experi ence, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; or 2006 (ii) A bachelor’s or graduate degree inbuilding construction technology, engineering, 2007 industrial hygiene, safety, pub lic health, education, busine ss administration or program 2008 management or a related field; or 2009 (iii) Two years of experience in mana ging a training program specializing in 2010 environmental hazards; and 2011 (iv) Demonstrated experience, educati on, or training in the construction industry 2012 including: Lead or asbestos abatement, pa inting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, occupational 2013 safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 2014 (2) The training manager shall designate a qua lified principal instructor for each course 2015 who has: 2016 (i) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; and 2017 (ii) Successfully completed at least 16 hour s of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized 2018 State or Tribal-accredited l ead-specific training; and 2019 (iii) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in lead or asbestos abatement, 2020 painting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, occu pational safety and health, or industrial 2021 hygiene. 2022 (3) The principal instructor sh all be responsible for the orga nization of the course, course 2023*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 90 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] delivery, and oversight of the teaching of all course material. The training manager may 2024 designate guest instructors as need ed for a portion of the course to provide instruction specific to 2025 the lecture, hands-on activities, or work practice components of a course. However, the principal 2026 instructor is primarily responsib le for teaching the course materials and must be present to 2027 provide instruction (or oversight of portions of the course taughtby guest instructors) for the 2028 course for which he has been desi gnated the princi pal instructor. 2029 (4) The following documents shall be r ecognized by EPA as evidence that training 2030 managers and principal instructors have the educ ation, work experience, training requirements or 2031 demonstrated experience, specifica lly listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. This 2032 documentation must be submitted with the accredi tation application and retained by the training 2033 program as required by the recordke eping requirements contained in paragraph (i) of this section. 2034 Those documents include the following: 2035 (i) Official academic transcripts or di ploma as evidence of meeting the education 2036 requirements. 2037 (ii) Resumes, letters of reference, or documentation of work experience, as evidence of 2038 meeting the work experience requirements. 2039 (iii) Certificates from train-the-trainer c ourses and lead-specific training courses, as 2040 evidence of meeting the training requirements. 2041 (5) The training program shall ensure the availability of, and provide adequate facilities 2042 for, the delivery of the lecture, course test, hands-on training, and assessment activities. This 2043 includes providing training equipment that reflec ts current work practices and maintaining or 2044 updating the equipment and facilities as needed. 2045 (6) To become accredited in the following di sciplines, the training program shall provide 2046*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 91 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] training courses that meet the following training requirements: 2047 (i) The inspector course shall last a minimum of 24 training hours, with a minimum of 8 2048 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 2049 inspector course are contained in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 2050 (ii) The risk assessor course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a minimum 2051 of 4 hours devoted to hands-on tr aining activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 2052 risk assessor course are contained inparagraph (d)(2) of this section. 2053 (iii) The supervisor course shall last a mi nimum of 32 training hours, with a minimum of 2054 8 hours devoted to hands-on activities. The mini mum curriculum requirements for the supervisor 2055 course are contained in paragr aph (d)(3) of this section. 2056 (iv) The project designer course shall last a minimum of 8 trai ning hours. The minimum 2057 curriculum requirements for the project designer cour se are contained in pa ragraph (d)(4) of this 2058 section. 2059 (v) The abatement worker course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a 2060 minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on trai ning activities. The minimum curriculum 2061 requirements for the abatement worker course are contained in paragraph (d )(5) of this section. 2062 (vi) The renovator course must last a mini mum of 8 training hours, with a minimum of 2 2063 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 2064 renovator course are contained in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 2065 (vii) The dust sampling technician course mu st last a minimum of 8 training hours, with a 2066 minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on trai ning activities. The minimum curriculum 2067 requirements for the dust sampling technician cour se are contained in pa ragraph (d)(7) of this 2068 section. 2069*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 92 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (viii) Electronic learning and other alternative course deli very methods are permitted for 2070 the classroom portion of renovator, dust sampli ng technician, or lead-b ased paint activities 2071 courses but not the hands-on portion of these courses, or for final co urse tests or proficiency tests 2072 described in paragraph (c)(7) of this section. El ectronic learning courses must comply with the 2073 following requirements: 2074 (A) A unique identifier must be assigned to each student for them to use to launch and re2075 launch the course. 2076 (B) The training provider must track each stud ent’s course log-ins, launches, progress, 2077 and completion, and maintain these records in ac cordance with paragraph (i) of this section. 2078 (C) The course must include periodic know ledge checks equivalent to the number and 2079 content of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’ s model course, but at least 16 over the entire 2080 course. The knowledge checks must be successfully completed before the student can go on to 2081 the next module. 2082 (D) There must be a test of at least 20 que stions at the end of the electronic learning 2083 portion of the course, of which 80% must be answered correctlyby the student for successful 2084 completion of the electronic le arning portion of the course. The test must be designed so that 2085 students to do not receive feedback on their te st answers until after they have completed and 2086 submitted the test. 2087 (E) Each student must be able to save or print a copy of an elec tronic learning course 2088 completion certificate. The electronic ce rtificate must not be susceptible to immediate and easy 2089 editing by students

. 2090 (7) For each course offered, the training progr am shall conduct either a course test at the 2091 completion of the course, and if ap plicable, a hands-on ski lls assessment, or in the alternative, a 2092*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 93 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] proficiency test for that discipline. Each individual studentmust successfully complete the 2093 hands-on skills assessment and recei ve a passing score on the course test to pass any course, or 2094 successfully complete a proficiency test. 2095 (i) The training manager is re sponsible for maintaining the va lidity and integrity of the 2096 hands-on skills assessment or proficiency test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees’ 2097 performance of the work practices and procedures associated with the course topics contained in 2098 paragraph (d) of this section. 2099 (ii) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity of the 2100 course test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees ’ knowledge and re tention of the 2101 course topics. 2102 (iii) The course test shall be developed in accordance with the test blueprint submitted 2103 with the training accre ditation application. 2104 (8) The training program shall issue unique course completion certificates to each 2105 individual who passes the training course. The co urse completion certificate shall include: 2106 (i) The name, a unique identification nu mber, and address of the individual. 2107 (ii) The name of the particular c ourse that the individual completed. 2108 (iii) Dates of course completion/test passage. 2109 (iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, proj ect designer, supervisor, or abatement worker 2110 course completion certificates, th e expiration date of interim certification, which is 6 months 2111 from the date of course completion. 2112 (v) The name, address, and telephon e number of the training program. 2113 (vi) The language in which the course was taught. 2114 (vii) For renovator and dust sampling tec hnician course completion certificates, a 2115*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 94 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] photograph of the individual. The photograph must be an accurate and recognizable image of the 2116 individual. As reproduced on the certificate, the photograph must not be smaller than 1 square 2117 inch. 2118 (9) The training manager shall develop and implement a quality control plan. The plan 2119 shall be used to maintain and improve the qualit y of the training program over time. This plan 2120 shall contain at least the following elements: 2121 (i) Procedures for periodic revision of trai ning materials and the course test to reflect 2122 innovations in the field. 2123 (ii) Procedures for the training manager’s annual review of principal instructor 2124 competency. 2125 (10) Courses offered by the training program must teach the work practice standards 2126 contained in § 745.85 or § 745.227, as applicable, insuch a manner that trainees are provided 2127 with the knowledge needed to perform the renovati ons or lead-based paint activities they will be 2128 responsible for conducting. 2129 (11) The training manager shall be respons ible for ensuring that the training program 2130 complies at all times with all of the requirements in this section. 2131 (12) The training manager shall allow EPA to audit the training program to verify the 2132 contents of the application for accreditation as described in paragraph (b) of this section. 2133 (13) The training manager must provide notification of re novator, dust sampling 2134 technician, or lead-based pa int activities courses offered. 2135 (i) The training manager mu st provide EPA with notific ation of all renovator, dust 2136 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activit ies courses offered. The original notification 2137 must be received by EPA at least 7 business days prior to the start date of any renovator, dust 2138*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 95 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities course. 2139 (ii) The training manager must provide EPA updated notification when renovator, dust 2140 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activit ies courses will begin on a date other than the 2141 start date specified in the or iginal notifica tion, as follows: 2142 (A) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 2143 beginning prior to the start date provided to EP A, an updated notification must be received by 2144 EPA at least 7 business days before the new start date. 2145 (B) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 2146 beginning after the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be received by EPA 2147 at least 2 business days before th e start date provided to EPA. 2148 (iii) The training manager must update EPA of any change in location of renovator, dust 2149 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activitie s courses at least 7 busin ess days prior to the 2150 start date provided to EPA. 2151 (iv) The training manager must update EPA regarding any course cancellations, or any 2152 other change to the original notification. Update d notifications must be received by EPA at least 2153 2 business days prior to the start date provided to EPA. 2154 (v) Each notification, including update s, must include the following: 2155 (A) Notification type (ori ginal, update, cancellation). 2156 (B) Training program name, EPA accreditat ion number, address, and telephone number. 2157 (C) Course discipline, type (initial/refresh er), and the language in which instruction will 2158 be given. 2159 (D) Date(s) and tim e(s) of training. 2160 (E) Training location(s) te lephone number, and address. 2161*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 96 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (F) Principal instructor’s name. 2162 (G) Training manager’s name and signature. 2163 (vi) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: Written 2164 notification, or electronically using the Ag ency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 2165 notification of lead-based pain t activities course schedules ca n be accomplished by using either 2166 the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training Notification” or a similar form containing the 2167 information required in paragraph (c)(13)(v) of th is section. All written notifications must be 2168 delivered to EPA by U.S. Postal Service, fax, commercia l delivery service, or hand delivery 2169 (persons submitting notification by U.S. Postal Service are reminded that they should allow 3 2170 additional business days for delivery in order to ensure that EPA receives the notification by the 2171 required date). Instructions and sample fo rms can be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800– 424– 2172 LEAD(5323), or on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/lead http://www.epa.gov/lead. Hearing2173 or speech-impaired persons may reach the abov e telephone number through TTY by calling the 2174 toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339

. 2175 (vii) Renovator, dust sampling t echnician, or lead-based pain t activities courses must not 2176 begin on a date, or at a location other than that specified in the original notification unless an 2177 updated notification identifying a new start date or location is submitted, in which case the 2178 course must begin on the new start date and/or location specified in th e updated notification. 2179 (viii) No training program shall provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead2180 based paint activities courses without first notif ying EPA of such activities in accordance with 2181 the requirements of this paragraph. 2182 (14) The training manager must provide not ification following completion of renovator, 2183 dust sampling technician, or lead-b ased paint activities courses. 2184*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 97 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (i) The training manager mustprovide EPA notification after the completion of any lead2185 based paint activities course. This notice must be received by EPA no later than 10 business 2186 days following course completion. 2187 (ii) The notification must include the following: 2188 (A) Training program name, EPA accreditat ion number, address, and telephone number. 2189 (B) Course discipline and type (initial/refresher). 2190 (C) Date(s) of training. 2191 (D) The following information fo r each student who took the course: 2192 ( 1 ) Name. 2193 ( 2 ) Address. 2194 ( 3 ) Date of birth. 2195 ( 4 ) Course completion certificate number. 2196 ( 5 ) Course test score. 2197 ( 6) For renovator or dust sampling technician courses, a digital photograph of the student. 2198 (E) Training manager’s name and signature. 2199 (iii) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: Written 2200 notification, or electron ically using the Agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 2201 notification following renovator, dus t sampling technician, or lead-b ased paint activities training 2202 courses can be accomplished by using either the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training 2203 Course Follow-up” or a similar fo rm containing the information re quired in paragraph (c)(14)(ii) 2204 of this section. All written notifications must be delivered to EPA by U.S. Postal Service, fax, 2205 commercial delivery service, or hand delivery (p ersons submitting notification by U.S. Postal 2206 Service are reminded that they should allow 3 ad ditional business days for delivery in order to 2207*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 98 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] ensure that EPA receives the notif ication by the required date). Instructions and sample forms 2208 can be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800–424–LEAD (5323), or on the Internet at 2209 http://www.epa.gov/lead. 2210 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. To become accredited to offer lead2211 based paint courses in the specific disciplines listed be low in this paragraph , training programs 2212 must ensure that their courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 2213 (1) Inspector. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv), (v), (vi), and 2214 (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 2215 (i) Role and responsibilities of an inspector. 2216 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2217 (iii) Background information on Federal, Stat e, and local regulations and guidance that 2218 pertains to lead-based paint and lead- based paint activities. 2219 (iv) Lead-based paint inspection methods, including selection of rooms and components 2220 for sampling or testing. 2221 (v) Paint, dust, and so il sampling methodologies. 2222 (vi) Clearance standards and te sting, including random sampling. 2223 (vii) Preparation of the final inspection report. 2224 (viii) Recordkeeping. 2225 (2) Risk assessor. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (vi), and 2226 (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 2227 (i) Role and responsibilit ies of a risk assessor. 2228 (ii) Collection of background informa tion to perform a risk assessment. 2229 (iii) Sources of environmental lead contamin ation such as paint, surface dust and soil, 2230*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 99 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] water, air, packaging, and food. 2231 (iv) Visual inspection for th e purposes of identifying potential sources of lead-based paint 2232 hazards. 2233 (v) Lead hazard screen protocol. 2234 (vi) Sampling for other sources of lead exposure. 2235 (vii) Interpretation of lead-based paint and other lead sampling results, including all 2236 applicable State or Federal or State guidance or regulations pert aining to lead-based paint 2237 hazards. 2238 (viii) Development of hazard control options, the role of interim controls, and operations 2239 and maintenance activities to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 2240 (ix) Preparation of a fina l risk assessment report. 2241 (3) Supervisor. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(3)(v), (vii), (viii), 2242 (ix), and (x) of this sectio n must be included in the ha nds-on portion of the course. 2243 (i) Role and responsibil ities of a supervisor. 2244 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2245 (iii) Background information on Federal, Stat e, and local regulations and guidance that 2246 pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 2247 (iv) Liability and insurance issues re lating to lead-based paint abatement. 2248 (v) Risk assessment and inspection report interpretation. 2249 (vi) Development and implementation of anoccupant protection plan and abatement 2250 report. 2251 (vii) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control. 2252 (viii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based pa int hazard reduction methods, 2253*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 100 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] including restricted practices. 2254 (ix) Interior dust abatemen t/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard control and reduction 2255 methods. 2256 (x) Soil and exterior dust abatement or l ead-based paint hazard control and reduction 2257 methods. 2258 (xi) Clearance standards and testing. 2259 (xii) Cleanup and waste disposal. 2260 (xiii) Recordkeeping. 2261 (4) Project designer. (i) Role and responsibilitie s of a project designer. 2262 (ii) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan for large-scale 2263 abatement projects. 2264 (iii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 2265 including restricted practices for large-scale abatement projects. 2266 (iv) Interior dust abatemen t/cleanup or lead hazard control and reduction methods for 2267 large-scale abatement projects. 2268 (v) Clearance standards and testing for large scale abatement projects. 2269 (vi) Integration of lead -based paint abatement met hods with modernization and 2270 rehabilitation projects for large scale abatement projects. 2271 (5) Abatement worker. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(5)(iv), (v), 2272 (vi), and (vii) of this section must be in cluded in the hands-on portion of the course. 2273 (i) Role and responsibilities of an abatement worker. 2274 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2275 (iii) Background information on Federal, Stat e and local regulations and guidance that 2276*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 101 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 2277 (iv) Lead-based paint ha zard recognition and control. 2278 (v) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint h azard reduction methods, including 2279 restricted practices. 2280 (vi) Interior dust abatement methods/cle anup or lead-based pa int hazard reduction. 2281 (vii) Soil and exterior dust abatement methods or lead-b ased paint hazard reduction. 2282 (6) Renovator. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv), (vi), (vii), and 2283 (viii) of this section must be includ ed in the hands-on portion of the course. 2284 (i) Role and responsib ility of a renovator. 2285 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2286 (iii) Background information on EPA, HUD, OS HA, and other Federal, State, and local 2287 regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 2288 (iv) Procedures for using acceptable test kits to determine whether paint is lead-based 2289 paint. 2290 (v) Procedures for collecting a paint ch ip sample and sending it to a laboratory 2291 recognized by EPA under se ction 405(b) of TSCA. 2292 (vi) Renovation methods to minimize the creat ion of dust and lead-based paint hazards. 2293 (vii) Interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods. 2294 (viii) Methods to ensure that the reno vation has been properly completed, including 2295 cleaning verification and clearance testing. 2296 (ix) Waste handling and disposal. 2297 (x) Providing on-the-job tr aining to other workers. 2298 (xi) Record preparation. 2299*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 102 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (7) Dust sampling technician. Instruction in the topics desc ribed in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv) 2300 and (vi) of this section must be include d in the hands-on portion of the course. 2301 (i) Role and responsibility of a dust sampling technician. 2302 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 2303 (iii) Background information on Federal, Stat e, and local regulations and guidance that 2304 pertains to lead-based pain t and renovation activities. 2305 (iv) Dust samp ling methodologies. 2306 (v) Clearance standards and testing. 2307 (vi) Report preparation. 2308 (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training programs. A training 2309 program may seek accreditation to offer refresher training co urses in any of the following 2310 disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor , project designer, abatement worker, renovator, 2311 and dust sampling technician. To obtain EPA accr editation to offer refres her training, a training 2312 program must meet the following minimum requirements: 2313 (1) Each refresher course sh all review the curriculum topics of the full-length courses 2314 listed under paragraph (d) of this section, as a ppropriate. In addition, to become accredited to 2315 offer refresher training courses, training programs shall ensure that their courses of study 2316 include, at a minimum, the following: 2317 (i) An overview of current safe ty practices relating to lead-based paint in general, as well 2318 as specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 2319 (ii) Current laws and regulations relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as 2320 specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 2321 (iii) Current technologies relating to lead-based paint in ge neral, as well as specific 2322*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 103 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] information pertaining to th e appropriate discipline. 2323 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk a ssessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must 2324 last a minimum of 8 training hour s. Refresher courses for projectdesigner, renovator, and dust 2325 sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all 2326 disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on component. 2327 (3) For each course Except for project designer co urses, for all other courses offered, the 2328 training program shall conduct a hands-on assessment (for al l courses except project designer), , 2329 and at the completion of th e course, a course test. 2330 (4) A training program may apply for accredi tation of a refresher course concurrently 2331 with its application for accr editation of the corre sponding training course as described in 2332 paragraph (b) of this section. If so, EPA shall use the approval procedur e described in paragraph 2333 (b) of this section. In addition, the minimu m requirements contained in paragraphs (c ) (except 2334 for the requirements in paragraph )(1) through(c)( 6)), 5) and (c)(7) through (c)(14), and (e)(1), 2335 (e)(2) andthrough(e)(3) of this sectio n shall also apply. 2336 (5) A training program seeking accreditation to offer refresher trai ning courses only shall 2337 submit a written application to EPA containing the following information: 2338 (i) The refresher training program’s name, address, and telephone number. 2339 (ii) A list of courses for wh ich it is applying for accreditation. 2340 (iii) The name and documentation of the quali fications of the trai ning program manager. 2341 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of the qua lifications of the prin cipal instructor(s). 2342 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the refresher 2343 training program meets the minimum requirements es tablished in paragraph (c) of this section, 2344 except for the requirements in para graph (c)(6) of this section. If a training program uses EPA- 2345*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 104 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] developed model training materials, or training materials approved by a State or Indian Tribe that 2346 has been authorized by EPA under § 745.324 to devel op its refresher traini ng course materials, 2347 the training manager shall include a statement certifying that, as well. 2348 (vi) If the refresher trai ning course materials are not based on EPA-developed model 2349 training materials, the training program’s application for accreditation shall include: 2350 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals to be used for each course. 2351 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 2352 (vii) All refresher training programs shall in clude in their application for accreditation the 2353 following: 2354 (A) A description of the f acilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands-on 2355 training. 2356 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 2357 (C) A description of the ac tivities and procedures that will be used for conducting the 2358 assessment of hands-on skills for each course (if applicable). 2359 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as desc ribed in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 2360 (viii) The requirements in paragraphs (c)( 1) through (c)(5), and (c )(7) through (c)(14) of 2361 this section apply to refre sher training providers. 2362 (ix) If a refresher training program meets the requirements li sted in this paragraph, then 2363 EPA shall approve the applica tion for accreditation no more th an 180 days after receiving a 2364 complete application from the refr esher training program. In the cas e of approval, a certificate of 2365 accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a letter describing the 2366 reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the appl icant. Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its 2367 discretion, work with the applicant to address inadequacies in the application for accreditation. 2368*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 105 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] EPA may also request additional materials re tained by the refresher training program under 2369 paragraph (i) of this section. If a refresher tr aining program’s applica tion is disapproved, the 2370 program may reapply for acc reditation at any time. 2371 (f) Re-accreditation of training programs. (1) Unless re-accredited, a training program’s 2372 accreditation, including refresher training accreditation, shall expire 4 years after the date of 2373 issuance. If a training program meets the requirements of this section, the training program shall 2374 be reaccredited. 2375 (2) A training program seeking reaccreditationre-accreditation shall submit an application 2376 to EPA no later than 180 days before its accredit ation expires. If a training program does not 2377 submit its application for re-accr editation by that date, EPA cannotguarantee that the program 2378 will be re-accredited before th e end of the accr editation period. 2379 (3) The training program’s applicatio n for re-accreditation shall contain: 2380 (i) The training program’s name , address, and telephone number. 2381 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for re-accreditation. 2382 (iii) The name and qualifications of the training program manager. 2383 (iv) The name(s) and qualifications of the principa l instructor(s). 2384 (v) A description of any changes to the trai ning facility, equipment or course materials 2385 since its last application was approved that adversely affects the students’ ability to learn. 2386 (vi) A statement signed by the program manager stating: 2387 (A) That the training program complies at a ll times with all require ments in paragraphs 2388 (c) and (e) of this sectio n, as applicable; and 2389 (B) The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of paragraph (i) of this section shall be 2390 followed. 2391*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 106 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (vii) A payment of appropriate fees in accordance with § 745.238. 2392 (4) Upon request, the training program shall allow EPA to audit th e training program to 2393 verify the contents of the application for re-accre ditation as described in paragraph (f)(3) of this 2394 section. 2395 (g) Suspension, revocation, and modification of accredited training programs. (1) EPA 2396 may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, suspend, revoke, or modify training program 2397 accreditation, including refresher tr aining accreditation, if a training program, training manager, 2398 or other person with supervisory auth ority over the training program has: 2399 (i) Misrepresented the conten ts of a training course to EP A and/or the student population. 2400 (ii) Failed to submit required informati on or notifications in a timely manner. 2401 (iii) Failed to maintain required records. 2402 (iv) Falsified accreditation reco rds, instructor qualifications , or other accreditation-related 2403 information or documentation. 2404 (v) Failed to comply with the training standards and requirement s in this section. 2405 (vi) Failed to comply with Federal, State, orlocal lead-based paint statutes or regulations. 2406 (vii) Made false or misleading statements to EPA in its application for accreditation or re2407 accreditation which EPA relied upon in approving the application. 2408 (2) In addition to an administrative or judicial finding of vi olation, execution of a consent 2409 agreement in settlement of an enforcement ac tion constitutes, for purposes of this section, 2410 evidence of a failure to comply withrelevant statutes or regulations. 2411 (h) Procedures for suspension, revocation or modification of training program 2412
accreditation. (1) Prior to taking action to suspend, re voke, or modify the accreditation of a 2413 training program, EPA shall notify the affected entity in writing of the following: 2414*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 107 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (i) The legal and factual basis for th e suspension, revocation, or modification. 2415 (ii) The anticipated commencement date and duration of the su spension, revocation, or 2416 modification. 2417 (iii) Actions, if any, which the affected enti ty may take to avoid suspension, revocation, 2418 or modification, or to receive accreditation in the future. 2419 (iv) The opportunity and method for request ing a hearing prior to final EPA action to 2420 suspend, revoke or modify accreditation. 2421 (v) Any additional information, as appropriate, which EPA may provide. 2422 (2) If a hearing is requested by the accredited training program, EPA shall: 2423 (i) Provide the affected entity an opportunityto offer written statements in response to 2424 EPA’s assertions of the legal and factual basis for its proposed action, and any other 2425 explanations, comments, and arguments it deems relevant to the proposed action. 2426 (ii) Provide the affected entity such other procedural opportunities as EPA may deem 2427 appropriate to ensure a fa ir and impartial hearing. 2428 (iii) Appoint an official of EPA as Presid ing Officer to conduct the hearing. No person 2429 shall serve as Presiding Officer if he or she has had any prior conn ection with the specific matter. 2430 (3) The Presiding Officer appointed pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section shall: 2431 (i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing within 90 days of the request for a 2432 hearing. 2433 (ii) Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment, and argument submitted. 2434 (iii) Notify the affected entity in writing w ithin 90 days of completion of the hearing of 2435 his or her decision and order. Such an order is a final agency action wh ich may be subject to 2436 judicial review. 2437*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 108 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (4) If EPA determines that the public health, interest, or welfare warrants immediate 2438 action to suspend the accreditati on of any training program prior to the opportunityfor a hearing, 2439 it shall: 2440 (i) Notify the affected entity of its inte nt to immediately suspend training program 2441 accreditation for the reasons listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. If a suspension, 2442 revocation, or modification notice ha s not previously been issued pursuant to para graph (g)(1) of 2443 this section, it shall be issued at the same time the em ergency suspension notice is issued. 2444 (ii) Notify the affected entity in writing of the grounds for the immediate suspension and 2445 why it is necessary to suspend the entity’s acc reditation before an opportunity for a suspension, 2446 revocation or modification hearing. 2447 (iii) Notify the affected entity of the antic ipated commencement da te and duration of the 2448 immediate suspension. 2449 (iv) Notify the affected entity of its right to request a hearing on the immediate 2450 suspension within 15 days of the suspension ta king place and the procedur es for the conduct of 2451 such a hearing. 2452 (5) Any notice, decision, or order issued by EPA under this section, any transcripts or 2453 other verbatim record of oral testimony, and any documents filed by an accredited training 2454 program in a hearing under this section shall be available to the public, except as otherwise 2455 provided by section 14 of TSCA or by 40 CFR part 2. Any such hearing at which oral testimony 2456 is presented shall be open to th e public, except that the Presiding Officer may exclude the public 2457 to the extent necessary to allow presentation of information which may be entitled to confidential 2458 treatment under section 14 of TSCA or 40 CFR part 2. 2459 (6) The public shall be notified of the suspension, revocati on, modification or 2460*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 109 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] reinstatement of a training program’s accreditation through appropriate mechanisms. 2461 (7) EPA shall maintain a list of parties w hose accreditation has been suspended, revoked, 2462 modified or reinstated. 2463 (i) Training program recordkeeping requirements. (1) Accredited training programs shall 2464 maintain, and make available to EP A, upon request, the following records: 2465 (i) All documents specified in paragraph (c )(4) of this section that demonstrate the 2466 qualifications listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c )(2) of this section of the training manager and 2467 principal instructors. 2468 (ii) Current curriculum/course materials and documents reflecting any changes made to 2469 these materials. 2470 (iii) The course test blueprint. 2471 (iv) Information regarding how the hands -on assessment is conducted including, but not 2472 limited to: 2473 (A) Who conducts the assessment. 2474 (B) How the skills are graded. 2475 (C) What facilities are used. 2476 (D) The pass/fail rate. 2477 (v) The quality control plan as describe d in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 2478 (vi) Results of the students’ hands-on skills assessments and c ourse tests, and a record of 2479 each student’s course completion certificate. 2480 (vii) Any other material not listed above in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(vi) of this 2481 section that was submitted to EPA as part of the program’s application for accreditation. 2482 (viii) For renovator refresher and dust samp ling technician refresher courses, a copy of 2483*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 110 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] each trainee’s prior course completion certificate s howing that each trainee was eligible to take 2484 the refresher course. 2485 (ix) For course modules delivered in an elec tronic format, a recordof each student’s log2486 ins, launches, progress, and completion, and a copy of the electron ic learning completion 2487 certificate for each student. 2488 (2) The training program must retain reco rds pertaining to ren ovator, dust sampling 2489 technician and lead-based paint activities course s at the address specified on the training program 2490 accreditation application (or as modified in accord ance with paragraph (i)(3) of this section) for 2491 the following minimum periods: 2492 (i) Records pertaining to lead-based paint activities courses must be retained for a 2493 minimum of 3 years and 6 months. 2494 (ii) Records pertaining to renovator or dust sampling technician courses offered before 2495 April 22, 2010 must be retained until July 1, 2015. 2496 (ii) Records pertaining to renovator or dust sampling technician courses offered on or 2497 after April 22, 2010 must be retained for a mini mum of 5 years. 2498 (3) The training program shall notify EPA in writing within 30 days of changing the 2499 address specified on its training program accredit ation application or transferring the records 2500 from that address. 2501 (j) Amendment of accreditation. (1) A training program must amend its accreditation 2502 within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information included in the program’s most recent 2503 application. If the training program fails to amend its accreditation within 90 days of the date the 2504 change occurs, the program may not provide reno vator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 2505 paint activities training until its accreditation is amended. 2506*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 111 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] (2) To amend an accreditation, a training program must submit a completed 2507 “Accreditation Application for Training Providers,” signed by an authorized agent of the training 2508 provider, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and indicating the information 2509 that has changed. 2510 (3) (3) Training managers, principal instructors, permanent training locations. If the 2511 amendment includes a new training program manager, any new or additional principal 2512 instructor(s), or any new permanent training loca tion(s), the training provider is not permitted to 2513 provide training under the new tr aining manager or offer course s taught by any new principal 2514 instructor(s) or at the new training location(s) until EPA either approves the amendment or 30 2515 days have elapsed, whichever occurs earlier. Except: 2516 (i) If the amendment includes a new trai ning program manager or new or additional 2517 principal instructor that was identified in a training provider accreditation application that EPA 2518 has already approved under this section, the training provider may begin to provide training 2519 under the new training manager or offer courses taught by the new princi pal instructor on an 2520 interim basis as soon as the provider submits th e amendment to EPA. The training provider may 2521 continue to provide training unde r the new training manager or o ffer courses taught by the new 2522 principal instructor if EPA approves the am endment or if EPA does not disapprove the 2523 amendment within 30 days. 2524 (ii) If the amendment includes a new perm anent training location, the training provider 2525 may begin to provide training atthe new permanent training loca tion on an interim basis as soon 2526 as the provider submits the amendment to EPA. The training provider may continue to provide 2527 training at the new permanent training location if EPA approves the amendment or if EPA does 2528 not disapprove the amendment within 30 days. 2529*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 112 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 9. In § 745.238, add paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: 2530 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based paint activities. 2531
* * * * * 2532 (c) * * * 2533 (5) (5) Accreditation amendment fees

. No fee will be charged for accreditation 2534 amendments. 2535
* * * * * 2536 10. In § 745.326, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i) , (a)(2)(ii), (d), (e)(1), and (e)(3): 2537 § 745.326 Renovation: State and Tr ibal program requirements. 2538 (a) * * * 2539 (2) * * * 2540 (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling 2541 technician training programs. ( Note: a State and Tribal program is not required to include 2542 procedures and requirements for the dust sampling technician training disc ipline if the State or 2543 Tribal program requires dust sampling to be perf ormed by a certified lead-based paint inspector 2544 or risk assessor.) 2545 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredited initial and refresher training for 2546 renovators and dust sampling technicians and on -the-job training for other individuals who 2547 perform renovations. 2548
* * * * * 2549 (d) Certification of individual s and/or renovation firms. To be considered at least as 2550 protective as the Federal program, th e State or Tribal program must: 2551 (1) Establish procedures and requirements th at ensure that individuals who perform or 2552*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 113 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] direct renovations are properl y trained. These procedures a nd requirements must include: 2553 (i) A requirement that renovations be performed and directed by at least one individual 2554 who has been trained by an accredited training program. 2555 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accred ited refresher training for these individuals. 2556 (iii) Procedures and requirements for indivi duals who have received accredited training to 2557 provide on-the-job training for those individuals who perform renovations but do not receive 2558 accredited training. ( Note: a State and Tribal program is not required to include procedures and 2559 requirements for on-the-job training for renovati on workers if the State or Tribal program 2560 requires accredited initial and refresher tr aining for all persons who perform renovations ) .) 2561 (2) Establish procedures and requirements fo r the formal certification and re-certification 2562 of renovation firms. 2563 (3) Establish procedures for the suspension, revocation, or modificati on of certifications. 2564 (e) * * * 2565 (1) Renovations must be conducted only by certified renovation firms, using trained 2566 individuals. 2567
* * * * * 2568 (3) Certified individuals and/or renovation firms must re tain appropriate records. 2569
* * * * * 2570 11. In § 745.327, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2 ), (b)(3), and (c)(2) to read as follows: 2571 § 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement programs. 2572
* * * * * 2573 (b) * * * 2574 (1) Lead-based paint activities or renovation requirements. State or Tribal lead-based 2575*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 114 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] paint compliance and enforcement programs will be considered adequate if the State or Indian 2576 Tribe demonstrates, in its applic ation at § 745.324(b)(2), that it ha s established a l ead-based paint 2577 program that contains all of the elements specified in § 745.325 or § 745.326, or both, as 2578 applicable. 2579 (2) Authority to enter. State or Tribal officials must be able to enter, through consent, 2580 warrant, or other authority, premises or facilities where lead-based paint violations may occur for 2581 purposes of conducting inspections. 2582 (i) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter premises or facilities where those 2583 engaged in training for lead-based paint activities or renovati ons conduct business. 2584 (ii) For the purposes of enforcing a renovation program, State or Trib al officials must be 2585 able to enter a firm’s place of business or work site. 2586 (iii) State or Tribal officials must have authority to take samples and review records as 2587 part of the lead-based paint inspection process. 2588 (3) Flexible remedies. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement 2589 program must provide for a diverse and flexible array of enforcement statutory and regulatory 2590 authorities and remedies. At a minimum, these authorities and remedies, which must also be 2591 reflected in an enforcement response policy, must include the following: 2592 (i) The authority to issue warning letters , Notices of Noncompliance, Notices of 2593 Violation, or the equivalent; 2594 (ii) The authority to assess administrative or civil fines, includ ing a maximum penalty 2595 authority for any violation in an amountno less than $5,000 per violation per day; 2596 (iii) The authority to assess the maximum pena lties or fines for each instance of violation 2597 and, if the violation is continuous , the authority to assess penalt ies or fines up to the maximum 2598*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 115 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] amount for each day of violation, with all penal ties assessed or collectedbeing appropriate for 2599 the violation after consideration of factors as the State or Tribe dete rmine to be relevant, 2600 including the size or viability of the business, enforcement histor y, risks to human health or the 2601 environment posed by the violati on, and other similar factors; 2602 (iv) The authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 2603 competent jurisdiction to recover penalties; 2604 (v) The authority to suspend, revoke, or modi fy the accreditation of any training provider 2605 or the certification of any individual or firm; 2606 (vi) The authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 2607 competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threaten ed or continuing viol ation of any program 2608 requirement, without the necessity of a prior suspension or revoca tion of a trainer’s accreditation 2609 or a firm’s or individual’s certification; 2610 (vii) The authority to apply criminal sanctions, including r ecovering fines; and 2611 (viii) The authority to enforce its authori zed program using a burden of proof standard, 2612 including the degree of knowledge or intent of the respondent that is no greater than it is for EPA 2613 under TSCA. 2614
* * * * * 2615 (c) * * * 2616 (2) Compliance assistance. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 2617 enforcement program must provide compliance assistance to the public and the regulated 2618 community to facilitate awareness and understand ing of and compliance with State or Tribal 2619 requirements governing the conduct of lead-based pa int activities or renova tions. The type and 2620 nature of this assistance can be defined by the State or Indian Tribe to achieve this goal. 2621*** EO12866 Review Draft – Delibera tive Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 116 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] * * * * * 2622