*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 1 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1 EO12866_Rin2070-AJ57_LRRP Clearance_FRM_Redlined-v04-14_2011-07-15.docx 

2 As revised to address comments received during the review under EO 12866. 

3 BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

4 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

5 40 CFR Part 745

6 [EPA–HQ–OPPT–2005-0049; FRL–8823-58881-8] 

7 RIN 2070–AJ57 

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

9 Painting Program 

10 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

11 ACTION: Final rule. 

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

13 settlement of litigation over certain post-renovation cleaning requirements of the 2008 Lead 

14 Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule, the EPA agreed to propose a number of 

15 revisions to the 2008 RRP rule that established accreditation, training, certification, and 

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

17 renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. and to 

18 subsequently take final action on the proposed rule by July 15, 2011. The proposed rule 

19 published on May 6, 2010. EPA has decided not to promulgate dust wipe testing and clearance 

20 requirements as proposed. However, EPA is promulgating several other revisions to the RRP 

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

22 it to a recognized laboratory for analysis in lieu of using a lead test kit, minor changes to the 

23 training program accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in accredited training 

24 programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal renovation programs, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 2 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

25 and minor revisions to the training and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also 

26 promulgating clarifications to the requirements for vertical containment on exterior renovation 

27 projects, the prohibited or restricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high28 efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's action is EPA's final action on all aspects of 

29 the May 6, 2010 proposal. 

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

31 Federal Register]. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

39 available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket 

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

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

42 through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading 

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

44 Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may reach the above telephone numbers through TTY by 

45 calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. Docket visitors are required to 

46 show photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. 

47 All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and subject to search. Visitors will be 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 3 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

48 provided an EPA/DC badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned upon 

49 departure.

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

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

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

53 20460–0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0484; e-mail address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov.

54 For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South Clinton 

55 Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: TSCA56 Hotline@epa.govTSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may reach the 

57 above telephone number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-

58 877-8339. 

59 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

60 I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

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

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

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

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

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

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

67 elderly or persons with disabilities (unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside 

68 in such housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under this rule, a child-occupied facility is a 

69 building, or a portion of a building, constructed prior to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, 

70 under 6 years of age, on at least 2 different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 4 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

71 period), provided that each day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the combined weekly visits last at 

72 least 6 hours, and the combined annual visits last at least 60 hours. 

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

74 • Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single family housing construction, 

75 multi-family housing construction, residential remodelers.

76 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air77 conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish 

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

79 contractors, glass and glazing contractors. 

80 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 

81 residential property managers. 

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

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

84 kindergarten classrooms. 

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

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

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

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

89 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 

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

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

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

93 have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 5 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

96 CONTACT. 

97 II. Background 

98 A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

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

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

101 and recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for persons performing 

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

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

104 renovator to collect a paint chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory for analysis, minor 

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

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

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

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

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

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

111 it to a recognized laboratory for analysis in lieu of using a lead test kit, minor changes to the 

112 training program accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in accredited training 

113 programs, minimum enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal renovation programs, 

114 and minor revisions to the training and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also 

115 promulgating clarifications to the requirements for vertical containment on exterior renovation 

116 projects, the prohibited or restricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high-
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 6 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

117 efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's action is EPA's final action on all aspects of 

118 the May 6, 2010 proposal. 

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

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

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

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

123 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687. 

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

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

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

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

128 Painting (RRP) rule (Ref. 2). 

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

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

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

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

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

134 to apply to renovation and remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. 

135 Accordingly, the 2008 RRP rule established accreditation, training, certification, and 

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

137 renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities. Among 

138 other things, the work practice standards require renovation firms to follow specific requirements 

139 for containing the work area, refrain from using certain high-dust-generating work practices, and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 7 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

140 follow a specific cleaning protocol, including a step called “cleaning verification,” after 

141 concluding the paint-disturbing tasks involved in a renovation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

151 2008 RRP final rule (Ref. 2). 

152 One of the more difficult issues in the 2008 RRP rulemaking was the issue of 

153 determining when a renovation work area has been properly cleaned and is ready for 

154 reoccupancy. After a lead-based paint abatement project, EPA’s Lead-Based Paint Activities 

155 Regulations require the abatement contractor to achieve clearance. This means that the 

156 contractor must demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dust lead levels remaining in the 

157 abatement work area are below the clearance levels established in the 2001 rulemaking entitled 

158 “Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead” under section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control 

159 Act (Ref. 54). Dust wipe samples for clearance purposes must be collected by a certified 

160 individual and analyzed by an entity recognized under the National Lead Laboratory 

161 Accreditation Program (NLLAP). 

162 When promulgating the 2008 RRP rule, EPA considered requiring a similar process after 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 8 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

169 results of two studies, the “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential 

170 Housing” (Ref. 65) and the “Characterization of Dust Lead Levels after Renovation, Repair, and 

171 Painting Activities” (the “Dust Study,” Ref. 76) to determine that the full suite of RRP work 

172 practice requirements, including containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification, was effective 

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

174 activities. 

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

176 Among these were the differences between abatement and renovation, the costs of dust wipe 

177 testing and clearance, the potential delay in obtaining results, and the likelihood that renovation 

178 firms would become liable for pre-existing dust-lead hazards. Abatements have only one 

179 purpose, to permanently eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards, while 

180 renovations are performed for many reasons that often have nothing to do with lead-based paint. 

181 Concerns about the costs of dust wipe testing and clearance were brought to EPA’s attention 

182 during stakeholder input opportunities provided by EPA before the proposed RRP rule was 

183 issued in 2006 and echoed by commenters on the 2006 proposed RRP rule. If EPA had required 

184 dust wipe testing and clearance after every renovation project, it would have made up a 

185 significant portion of the cost of smaller projects. In addition, dust wipe testing results may not 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 9 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

186 be available for several days. If EPA had required traditional abatement-style clearance after 

187 renovations, the work area would not be able to be re-occupied while waiting for the laboratory 

188 results. Commenters also noted that requiring clearance after renovation jobs could, in some 

189 instances, result in the renovation firm being held responsible for abating all dust-lead hazards, 

190 including such hazards that may have existed in the area before the renovation commenced. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

201 activities – e.g., removal or modification of existing surfaces, containment and cleanup of dust 

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

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

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

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

206 to the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 2). 

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

208 issued, and an August 2009 agreement entered into with several environmental and children's 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 10 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

211 and clearance should be modified. 

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

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

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

215 the following types of interior renovations: 

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

217 • Removal or replacement of window or door frames. 

 • Scraping 60 ft2 218 or more of painted surfaces. 

 • Removing more than 40 ft2 219 of trim, molding, cabinets, or other fixtures. 

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

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

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

223 occupants of the renovated property. 

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

225 means or the disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through high-speed 

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

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

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

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

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

are codified at 40 CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), i.e., 40 μg/ft2 on floors, 250 μg/ft2 231 on interior 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 11 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

windowsills, and 400 μg/ft2 232 on window troughs, based on wipe samples. These additional 

233 requirements in the 2010 proposal were designed to ensure that lead-based paint hazards 

234 generated by renovation work are adequately cleaned after renovation work is finished and 

235 before the work areas are re-occupied. 

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

237 activities has been an important issue throughout the rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP rule. 

238 As discussed in the preamble to the 2008 RRP rule, abatements and renovations are performed 

239 by different contractors for different purposes, although similar activities, such as window 

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

241 either unoccupied or the occupants are temporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the 

242 abatement has been demonstrated to have been properly completed through the clearance 

243 process. Carpet in the housing is usually removed as part of the abatement because it is difficult 

244 to demonstrate that it is free of lead-based paint hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not been 

245 replaced during the abatement may need to be refinished or sealed in order to achieve clearance. 

246 Abatements have only one purpose--to permanently eliminate lead-based paint and lead-based 

247 paint hazards. In contrast, renovations other than interim controls are performed for reasons 

248 unrelated to lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. Renovations may be performed while 

249 the property is occupied or unoccupied, but occupants do not typically relocate pending the 

250 completion of the project. 

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

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

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

254 designed to effectively clean-up lead-based paint hazards created during renovation activities 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 12 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

255 without changing the scope of the renovation activity itself. Accordingly, the RRP rule does not 

256 require cleaning of dust or any other possible lead sources in portions of target housing or child257 occupied facilities beyond locations in and around the work area. Nor does the RRP rule require 

258 the replacement of carpets in the area of the renovation or the refinishing or sealing of 

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

260 hazards created during the renovation while not requiring renovation firms to remediate or 

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

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

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

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

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

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

267 day laborers to property maintenance staff to master craftsmen performing a range of activities 

268 from simple drywall repair to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath renovations to 

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

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

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

272 created by renovation activities. 

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

274 wipe testing requirements should be added to the RRP rule to provide additional protection for 

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

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

277 the overall reliability and effectiveness of the work practice requirements. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 13 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

292 clearance requirement is unwarranted. 

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

294 dust wipe testing after certain renovations. Members of the regulated community and other 

295 industry commenters argued that a dust wipe testing requirement would have the effect of 

296 holding renovation firms responsible for pre-existing hazards, albeit indirectly, by requiring 

297 firms to provide information on post-renovation dust lead levels to the property owner and 

298 occupant. This requirement would also have the effect of adding an element that is not generally 

299 considered a renovation activity, i.e., taking samples for laboratory analysis, and indeed, would 

300 have to be performed by a third party or only after a renovator received training in a separate and 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 14 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

301 distinct discipline—either as a dust wipe sample technician or a lead-based paint inspector. In 

302 addition, many argued that the Dust Study generally shows that the RRP work practices are 

303 effective at minimizing occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations, so 

304 additional dust wipe testing or clearance requirements are unnecessary. These commenters noted 

305 that this is particularly true for the renovations for which EPA proposed to require only dust wipe 

306 testing, because those renovations were specifically tested in the Dust Study. In addition, 

307 commenters suggested that the categories of jobs for which dust wipe testing or clearance would 

308 be required were arbitrary and not based on sufficient evidence. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

320 Dust Study. 

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

322 the comments received on this specific issue, EPA is not convinced that dust wipe testing in the 

323 absence of a clearance requirement would be a safe, reliable and effective work practice within 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 15 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

324 the meaning of TSCA §Section 402. As commenters noted, provision of dust wipe testing 

325 results in the absence of a clearance requirement does not by itself reduce the amount of dust 

326 generated during or left behind following a renovation. Furthermore, dust wipe testing results 

327 alone are not part of the information that must be provided at the pre-renovation stage under 

328 Section 406(b) of TSCA, and providing this type of information is not typically considered a 

329 renovation work practice. Again, the dust wipe testing would either have to be done by a third 

330 party or by a renovator who has taken a course and been trained in a completely different 

331 discipline. 

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

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

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

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

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

337 warranted imposition of a clearance requirement), EPA acknowledges that its 2010 proposal 

338 lacked a strong basis for drawing these lines – a point made by many commenters. While some 

339 commenters urged the point that dust wipe testing would encourage better cleanup, and provided 

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

341 this potential impact. This logic could potentially lead to requiring dust wipe testing for all jobs 

342 – a significant change in the existing rule that EPA is not prepared to make without better 

343 supporting evidence. Accordingly, upon the information before it, the Agency does not believe 

344 that a dust testing requirement alone is warranted. EPA notes that homeowners can arrange to 

345 have dust wipe testing done as part of a renovation (or at any time) if they would like 

346 information about dust-lead levels in their homes. EPA also notes that property owners can 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 16 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

347 contractually elect clearance testing at the completion of a project. EPA’s website has a page 

348 homeowners can use to locate certified lead inspection and abatement professionals and 

349 accredited training providers in their state (http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/locate.htm). 

350 EPA also proposed to require that renovation firms achieve clearance for a subset of jobs 

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

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

353 or abrasive blasters. Nonetheless, EPA remained concerned about promulgating a requirement 

354 that could make renovation firms responsible for pre-existing conditions and fundamentally 

355 change the scope of the renovation activity itself. Therefore, to avoid making renovation firms 

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

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

358 hired to refinish or replace that surface. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

366 minimizing exposure to lead hazards created by the renovation. 

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

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

369 the proposed clearance requirements should be expanded to cover most if not all renovation 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 17 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

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

374 relevance of the studies EPA cited in support of its 2010 proposal to require clearance after 

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

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

377 The cited studies include EPA’s Environmental Field Sampling Study (EFSS, Ref. 97) and 

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

379 the HEPA exhaust control studies addressed dusts not typically created during renovations 

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

381 Others addressed surfaces and surface coatings not typically encountered during renovations 

382 covered by the RRP rule; one involved paint removal from automobiles. Notwithstanding EPA’s 

383 2010 proposal and requests for comment, EPA did not receive any additional information or data 

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

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

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

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

388 the renovation work. 

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

390 balance struck in the RRP rule with respect to the distinction between abatement and 

391 renovations. Accordingly, in EPA’s judgment, the Agency should be in a position to conclude 

392 with a fair amount of certainty that doing so was necessary in light of its obligation to 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 18 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

393 promulgate work practices that take into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. Here, 

394 EPA acknowledges that it does not have data to support its concern that dust created by 

395 destructive demolition of plaster may be similar in nature to dust generated by machines 

396 designed to remove paint through high speed operation, and thus would have the potential to 

397 overwhelm the RRP cleaning protocol. EPA also recognizes that the data on the efficiency of 

398 HEPA is only suggestive that there might be an issue concerning these practices. Again, the 

399 studies EPA reviewed suggested that HEPA exhaust control could reduce the airborne dust levels 

400 by 90-95%. As commenters pointed out, it is not clear the results of these studies are applicable 

401 to the home renovation setting, given the differences between the surfaces and paints in 

402 residential settings and the surfaces and paints involved in the studies. Even if the results were 

403 applicable, there is no direct evidence that the RRP lead safe work practices could not reliably 

404 address the dust hazards created by the use of such power tools. Having received no additional 

405 information in this regard, EPA has determined that, among other things, the available 

406 information does not support a clearance requirement. Nevertheless, as discussed further in Unit 

407 II.C.7. of this preamble, EPA is adding a requirement that power tools be operated so that no 

408 visible dust or release of air occurs outside of the shroud or containment system. This 

409 requirement will work to mitigate the concerns EPA had with respect to the efficiency of power 

410 tool dust collection systems and the possibility that such tools might overwhelm the containment 

411 and specialized cleaning protocols of the RRP work practices. 

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

413 of its In an effort to ensure that the proposed clearance requirement would not typically result 

414 in holding renovation firms from being held responsible for abating pre-existing dust-lead 

415 hazards by including, EPA included a provision allowingto allow firms to stop the clearance 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 19 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

416 procedure after two failed clearance tests. The on a particular surface unless they had also 

417 contracted to refinish the surface. Upon further reflection, EPA is concerned about the potential 

418 ineffectiveness of this effort, because it would likely still result in some renovation firms having 

419 to clean up pre-existing dust-lead hazards. At the same time, the proposed provision would not 

420 result in the certainty regarding elimination of dust-lead hazards that is the defining characteristic 

421 of a clearance requirement. In addition, the practical effect of such a provision is that the 

422 proposed clearance requirement would, in fact, often result in a dust wipe testing requirement. 

423 As such, it raises many of the same issues and concerns that ultimately persuaded EPA not to 

424 promulgate just dust wipe testing requirements. Similarly, a clearance requirement that does not 

425 require renovation firms to achieve clearance would not provide the certainty regarding dust-lead 

426 hazards that is the defining characteristic of a clearance requirement. 

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

428 the line-drawing in its 2010 proposal, which would have resulted in a clearance requirement for 

429 some renovations, a dust wipe testing requirement for others, and no testing for the rest of the 

430 renovations covered by the RRP rule. 

431 . In revising the abatement regulations to apply to renovations, EPA has sought to keep 

432 the renovation requirements relatively simple and easy to apply, while attaining the overall 

433 objective of minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards generated by renovation activities. EPA 

434 is concerned that the proposed three-tier system would add a level of complexity to the rule that 

435 is undesirable. While EPA could potentially draw different lines in this final rule, or promulgate 

436 a requirement that all jobs achieve clearance, EPA does not believe it has a strong basis to do so. 

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

438 requirement is unwarranted. The best evidence that EPA has of the effectiveness of the work 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 20 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

442 should be significantly altered. 

443 Additionally, a variety of commenters, including industry representatives and some 

444 states, suggested that EPA had issued its 2010 proposal to require dust wipe testing and clearance 

445 too soon after promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule. At the time that the 2010 proposal was 

446 issued, full implementation of the 2008 RRP rule had only just begun. Commenters contended 

447 that renovation firms were still in the process of working through how to achieve compliance 

448 with the rule on a daily basis and that EPA should wait to add new requirements until firms were 

449 generally comfortable with the requirements promulgated in 2008. Commenters also argued that 

450 EPA should not make a determination that additional requirements are needed without first 

451 carefully assessing the status and impact of the existing RRP rule when fully implemented. EPA 

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

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

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

455 renovation firms are still determining what the RRP rule requires from them on renovation 

456 projects. EPA also acknowledges that there are practical implementation issues with 

457 promulgating a significant change so soon after thousands of renovators have become certified 

458 renovators, and have taken the required training, which did not include information on the 

459 proposed dust wipe testing or clearance requirements. 

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

461 time, rather than on additional requirements. EPA agrees that outreach and education on lead 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 21 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

471 information is available to the public on EPA’s web site at http://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press472 materials.htm. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

479 Finally, in an effort to raise awareness of the consequences of lead poisoning among 

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

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

482 national multimedia PSA campaign. As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most 

483 common pathways for lead poisoning are deteriorating lead-based paint (on older windows, 

484 doors and trim, or walls) or improperly-performed renovation, repair and painting activities that 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 22 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

485 cause paint to chip, peel, or flake. 

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

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

488 created by renovations. EPA also will continue to monitor implementation of the RRP rule. If 

489 future information, studies, or data indicate that the existing RRP rule work practices are not 

490 reliable, safe, and effective, EPA will consider whether additional requirements should be 

491 proposed. 

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

493 2010 proposal, EPA proposed to eliminate the existing provision that allows renovation firms to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

501 RRP work practices which. The Dust Study demonstrates that these practices, when observed as 

502 a whole, isare effective at minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards generated by renovations. 

503 As such, cleaning verification cannot legitimately be severed from the rest of the RRP work 

504 practices.

505 EPA received only a handful of comments on this aspect of the 2010 proposal. 

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

507 inconsistent with the HUD regulations or State or local laws. Some believed that requiring both 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 23 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

525 that handles are $13.60 apiece (Ref. 10). Therefore, as proposed, EPA is removingWhile EPA 

526 does not agree with all of these assertions, EPA does agree that it is unnecessary to require 

527 renovation firms who must achieve clearance to follow the specific cleaning verification 

528 protocol. After all, these firms must continue to clean until they achieve the clearance standards. 

529 As discussed in the preamble to the 2010 Proposal, and mentioned by some commenters 

530 specifically in reference to this provision, contractors who receive the regular feedback provided 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 24 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

531 by a clearance requirement have learned how to clean so that they typically achieve clearance on 

532 the first attempt. Specifically, in its Evaluation of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control 

533 Grant Program (Ref. 10), HUD noted that the rate of passing initial clearance was associated 

534 with repetition of lead hazard control activities. Therefore, EPA is retaining the provision that 

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

536 clearance. However, EPA believes that renovation firms whose projects are subject to clearance 

537 only as a result of contractual requirements are less likely to gain the repetitive experience of 

538 cleaning sufficiently so as to meet clearance with few cleaning cycles, so EPA encourages 

539 property owners who include clearance in their renovation contracts to also require renovation 

540 firms to perform cleaning verification. EPA also notes that States and Tribes are free to include 

541 both clearance and cleaning verification in their laws and regulations. 

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

543 another option for determining whether lead-based paint is present on components to be affected 

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

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

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

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

548 certified renovators to collect paint chip samples in the renovator course and this would provide 

549 maximum flexibility for certified renovators and renovation firms. 

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

551 commenters supported this option because they felt that it is easy to properly collect a paint chip 

552 sample, and they agreed that this would provide additional needed flexibility for certified 

553 renovators and renovation firms. One commenter stated that, as a homeowner, he had been 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 25 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

554 instructed by an NLLAP laboratory over the telephone on how to properly collect a paint chip 

555 sample and forward it to the laboratory for analysis. This experience led him to believe that it 

556 would be feasible to include in the renovator course instruction on how to collect a paint chip 

557 sample and forward it for analysis. Other commenters did not support this aspect of the 2010 

558 proposal because they believe that only certified inspectors or risk assessors should be permitted 

559 to collect paint chip samples or make determinations about the presence or absence of lead-based 

560 paint. Several noted that this would conflict with State laws that prohibit anyone other than a 

561 certified inspector or risk assessor from sampling for lead-based paint. Some commenters 

562 expressed concern about the length of the renovator course, and the ability to add the additional 

563 information on paint chip collection, including information on chain-of-custody issues and 

564 laboratory submission procedures, without lengthening the course beyond 8 hours. Others noted 

565 that renovators are already being taught many of the necessary skills during instruction on how 

566 to properly use test kits. 

567 Because renovator training courses are already required to include training in how and 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

576 components that will be disturbed by a renovation and submit those samples to an NLLAP-
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 26 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

577 recognized entity for analysis. EPA will modify the model certified renovator training course to 

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

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

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

581 developed for the renovator training course on its website. EPA maywill also e-mail this 

582 information to certified renovation firms that provided an e-mail address on their certification 

583 applications. As pointed out by several commenters, paint chip sample collection, by itself, is a 

584 relatively simple thing to learn and EPA believes that certified renovators who have already been 

585 trained in how to properly use a test kit will be able to learn how to properly collect a paint chip 

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

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

588 recordkeeping requirements to accommodate this option and include information specific to 

589 paint chip sample collection, such as component and location tested, identity of the NLLAP 

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

591 745.86(b)(1) to add a new subsectionsubparagraph (iii) that requires records pertaining to paint 

592 chip sample collection and analysis, including a description of the components that were 

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

594 performing the analysis, and the results for each sample. EPA is also modifying 40 CFR 

595 745.86(b)(6) to include a certification by the certified renovator that, if paint chip samples were 

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

597 the samples were submitted for analysis to the identified NLLAP-recognized entity, and that the 

598 sample results were as specified. 

599 This option does not make certified renovator the equivalent of a certified lead-based 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 27 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

600 paint inspector. Certified renovators must still test each affected component, they are not 

601 permitted to exclude components based on similar painting histories or perform random paint 

602 sampling in multi-unit buildings. Just as with the current provisions for test kit use, in those 

603 states that do not permit persons other than certified inspectors or risk assessors to sample or test 

604 for lead-based paint, certified renovators will not be able to exercise this option. 

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

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

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

608 proposed. 

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

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

611 qualifications along with training provider applications for accreditation. Training providers 

612 who wish to provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities training 

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

614 become accredited, a provider must employ a training program manager as well as principal 

615 instructor(s) who meet certain education, training and work experience requirements. The 

616 training provider must indicate on its application for accreditation that the training program 

617 manager and principal instructor(s) meet these requirements; however, the 2008 RRP rule did not 

618 require documentation (e.g., resumes) regarding the qualifications of these individuals to be 

619 submitted to EPA. The Agency believes it is important to review this information when 

620 determining whether to approve a training provider application. When EPA reviews applications 

621 for accreditation, it is common for the Agency to request this documentation from training 

622 providers in order to verify that the training program manager and principal instructor(s) have the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 28 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

623 proper qualifications. Requesting this information takes time and can delay the review of an 

624 application. Therefore, the Agency will now require training providers to submit documentation 

625 regarding the qualifications of the education, training and work experience of training managers 

626 and principal instructors with their applications for accreditation. Only one commenter 

627 commented on this provision, expressing general support for the change. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

637 and Indian Tribes can have renovation or abatement programs that are significantly different 

638 from the EPA-administered program which would be reflected in their approved course 

639 materials. In these instances, a training course approved by the State or Indian Tribe may not be 

640 sufficient for the purposes of training someone on the requirements of the fFederal program. 

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

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

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

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

645 and the authorized program that may appear in the course so the Agency can ensure that EPA-
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 29 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

646 accredited training providers are using appropriate course materials. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

659 a principal instructor to be present and primarily responsible for teaching the course, although 

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

661 also responsible for the quality of the instruction delivered by the guest instructors. To ensure 

662 that the regulation is clear on this point, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 745.227225(c)(3) to 

663 state that principal instructor(s) are primarily responsible for teaching the course materials and 

664 must be present to provide instruction (or oversight of portions of the course taught by guest 

665 instructors) for the course for which he has been designated the principal instructor. EPA 

666 received two comments on this provision, both supported the change, and one specifically stated 

667 a belief that having principal instructors present while guest lecturers teach would improve the 

668 content of many courses. EPA agrees with these commenters and EPA is promulgating this 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 30 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

669 provision as proposed. 

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

671 involving a specific provision requiring training providers to amend their accreditation 

672 application whenever there is a change to the information presented in their most recent 

673 accreditation or re-accreditation application. The RRP rule includes requirements for amending 

674 the certification of a renovation firm. Firms must submit an amendment within 90 days of the 

675 date that a change occurs to information in its most recent application for certification or re676 certification. Examples of amendments include a change in the firm’s name without transfer of 

677 ownership, or a change of address or other contact information. To amend its certification, a 

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

679 firm must complete the sections of the application pertaining to the new information, and sign 

680 and date the form. EPA has interpreted the training provider accreditation regulations to require 

681 accredited training providers to submit amended applications whenever there is a change to the 

682 information provided in the training provider’s most recent application for accreditation or re683 accreditation, including information regarding the training manager and any principal 

684 instructor(s) teaching courses offered by the training provider. However, the existing regulations 

685 do not specify a time limit for submitting an amendment, so EPA proposed to require training 

686 providers to submit amendments within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information in 

687 each provider’s most recent application. As proposed, if the training provider does not amend its 

688 most recent accreditation application within the 90-day time period, it must stop providing 

689 training until the accreditation application is amended. EPA also proposed to approve or 

690 disapprove amendments for a new training manager, any new or additional principal instructors, 

691 or any new permanent training location within 30 days of the date EPA receives the amendment. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 31 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

692 This 30-day time period will give EPA time to check the qualifications of the training 

693 manager(s) or principal instructor(s) before the training manager begins managing or the 

694 principal instructor begins teaching a course. This 30-day time period also gives EPA time to 

695 verify the suitability of a new permanent training location by visiting the location. As proposed, 

696 the training provider would not be permitted to provide training under the new training manager 

697 or offer courses taught by any new principal instructor(s) or at the new training location until 

698 EPA either approves the amendment or 30 days has passed. EPA also proposed to clarify that no 

699 fee will be charged for accreditation application or certification amendments. EPA received no 

700 comments on this proposed amendment. 

701 Because qualified training managers and principal instructors are critical to ensuring 

702 effective training, it is important for EPA to have the ability to review their qualifications before 

703 they begin to provide training. If unqualified individuals provide training, it could be very 

704 difficult to determine whether the trainees received adequate training and resolve any concerns 

705 over the quality of the training. Requiring retraining would not only inconvenience the training 

706 provider, it would also be burdensome for the trainees themselves. Therefore, EPA is 

707 promulgating the 30-day review period for new training managers and principal instructors as 

708 proposed, with several modifications. The first relates to the calculation of the 30-day review 

709 period. EPA is clarifying that the 30-day period begins upon submission of a complete 

710 application for amendment. Thus, if the amendment involves a new training manager or 

711 principal instructor, the training provider must fill out the section of the application that 

712 identifies the training provider and the sections that pertain to the new training manager or 

713 principal instructor, sign the application, and include the individual’s qualifications along with 

714 the application for amendment. If the application does not include these items, then the 30-day 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 32 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

715 review period would not begin until the missing information is submitted.

716 In addition, in further reviewing this proposed provision, EPA has decided that additional 

717 flexibility would be beneficial for training providers. If the training provider wishes to use a 

718 training manager or principal instructor who has already been reviewed by EPA as part of a 

719 successful application for training provider accreditation under 40 CFR 745.225, whether for that 

720 training provider or another, the training provider may do so on an interim basis without delay. 

721 The training manager or principal instructor must still meet the qualifications for the position as 

722 described in 40 CFR 745.225(c)(1)-(2). If, within 30 days of the date that the training provider 

723 begins using such an individual as a new training manager or principal instructor, EPA 

724 determines that the individual should not be used in such a capacity, EPA will provide written 

725 notice to the training provider. The training provider must stop providing training under the new 

726 training manager or principal instructor upon receipt of written notice from EPA. 

727 With respect to new permanent training locations, EPA is also concerned that a poor 

728 choice of location could negatively affect the quality of training. For example, if a location is 

729 chosen that does not have a suitable surface for performing cleaning verification, trainees would 

730 be unable to experience actually doing, during the hands-on portion of the course, something that 

731 will be an important part of their responsibilities as certified renovators. However, EPA believes 

732 that the choice of training location does not, in most cases, have as big of an impact on the 

733 quality of training as the training manager or the principal instructor. During the accreditation 

734 process for new training providers, it has been EPA’s practice to review the qualifications for 

735 each and every training manager and principal instructor named on an application. In contrast, 

736 where a training provider has identified multiple permanent training locations in its application, 

737 EPA has chosen to visit a sample of locations, rather than each and every location. In addition, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 33 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

738 EPA has been approving traveling training providers based on the criteria that the providers will 

739 use to select a training location, a demonstration of the hands-on training, and an examination of 

740 the equipment the providers plan to use in training. Therefore, EPA will allow training providers 

741 to use new permanent training locations on an interim basis for 30 days. If, during that 30 days, 

742 EPA determines that the location is not adequate, the training provider must stop using that 

743 location upon written notice from EPA. 

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

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

746 regulations at 40 CFR 745.225 includes requirements and procedures that training programs 

747 must follow to become accredited in order to provide instruction in lead-based paint courses. 

748 Minimum requirements for training curricula are found in this section, which lists course topics 

749 that must be included in the different training courses with an indication of the topics that require 

750 hands-on instruction. However, EPA inadvertently omitted indicating which course topics 

751 required hands-on training for the renovator and dust sampling technician disciplines. 

752 Accordingly, EPA proposed to identify in 40 CFR 745.225(d) which topics in the renovator and 

753 dust sampling technician courses require hands-on training. In further clarification, EPA also 

754 proposed to add a sentence to 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) stating that refresher courses for all 

755 disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on component. 

756 EPA received several comments on this aspect of the 2010 proposal. Two commenters 

757 supported the proposed topics for hands-on training for renovators and dust sampling 

758 technicians. Another commenter wondered why report preparation would be a required hands759 on topic for dust sampling technicians when it has never been a hands-on topic for the other 

760 disciplines that must prepare reports. While it is true that hands-on training in report preparation 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 34 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

761 is not required for most lead training disciplines, it is required for the inspector discipline. Thus, 

762 certified inspectors and certified risk assessors, who must successfully complete both the 

763 inspector course and the risk assessor course, receive hands-on training in report preparation. 

764 EPA believes that report preparation for dust sampling technicians is likewise important enough 

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

766 required hands-on training topics as proposed. Renovator trainees must receive hands-on 

767 training in using test kits, renovation methods that minimize creation of dust and lead-based 

768 paint hazards, containment and cleanup methods, and cleaning verification. Dust sampling 

769 technician trainees must receive hands-on training in dust sampling methodologies and report 

770 preparation. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

781 commenter felt that this was appropriate, given that previously-trained individuals are still taking 

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

783 accredited renovator refresher course to become certified renovators. Those individuals would 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 35 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

787 While EPA agrees with this commenter that, for now, it is particularly important for renovator 

788 refresher courses mustto include hands-on training in test kit use and in cleaning verification., 

789 EPA disagrees that hands-on refresher training is unnecessary. A hands-on component for 

790 refresher courses will help ensure that certified renovators remain competent in the skills needed 

791 to comply with the RRP rule, including test kit use, containment, and cleaning (including 

792 cleaning verification). Therefore, EPA is finalizing the proposed amendment to 40 CFR 

793 745.225(e)(2) that specifically states that hands-on training is required for all refresher courses 

794 except project designer. EPA plans to re-evaluate the renovator refresher course after the 

795 grandfathering provision sunsets, but before the currently-certified renovators are due for 

796 refresher training. At that time, EPA will consider whether hands-on training is still necessary 

797 and appropriate for renovator refresher training. 

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

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

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

801 deliver the classroom portion of the renovator course is available. While such alternative 

802 training delivery options cannot be used to deliver required hands-on training, EPA encourages 

803 training providers to make use of such options where appropriate to increase access to training 

804 and make it more affordable. Web-based training courses are considered separate courses and a 

805 separate application fee is required for each. 

806 EPA’s model electronic training course contains certain basic administration and delivery 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 36 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

809 checks for each chapter, which must be completed before the student can go on to the next 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

821 trained. In this final rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6) to explicitly require e822 learning training providers to assign a unique identifier to each student in order to track the 

823 student’s progress through the course. EPA believes that this requirement, along with the 

824 existing requirement that the trainee participate in the hands-on training and take the final course 

825 test in person, will provide reasonable assurance that the same person has completed all of the 

826 portions of the course. In response to these commenters, EPA is modifying the regulations to 

827 specifically state that e-learning or other alternative delivery methods cannot be used for the 

828 hands-on training, the final course test, or the proficiency test, if one is given. 

829 Commenters also expressed concern that the EPA model online course could be 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 37 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

833 background learning management system (LMS) which tracks the student’s progress and 

834 requires satisfactory completion of the knowledge checks and the final test. Therefore, the time 

835 it takes to page through the model course is not representative of the time it would take to 

836 successfully complete an accredited e-learning course. Assuming that 2 training hours are spent 

837 on hands-on training, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(vi) requires a minimum of six 50 minute training 

838 hours or 5 hours of classroom time for renovators. This requirement applies equally to 

839 traditional classroom settings as well as to e-learning courses course offered for accreditation. 

840 While EPA realizes that renovator trainees will not all proceed through an e-learning course at 

841 the same pace, an e-learning course offered for accreditation must be generally designed so that 

842 an average trainee takes approximately 5 hours to proceed through the course, including all of 

843 the knowledge checks and the course test. 

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

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

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

847 would be too restrictive, because it would likely results in students being penalized for poorly848 worded questions or alternate interpretations, regardless of the state of the student’s knowledge. 

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

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

851 review the material and retake the test. EPA agrees with the second commenter. The 80% 

852 minimum passing score is intended to demonstrate mastery of the subject and lower scores do 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 38 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

854 again. To ensure that, just as in conventional testing, students using electronic means to take the 

855 test do not receive feedback on their answers until after they complete and submit the test, the 

856 electronic testing provision at 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(D) explicitly prohibits such interim 

857 feedback, a feature contained in some websites. 

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

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

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

861 to recover the costs, so relatively few entities are likely to undertake online course development. 

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

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

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

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

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

867 the commenter notes, EPA has developed a streamlined process to allow accredited training 

868 providers to add an e-learning component to their accreditation by using an already developed 

869 and accredited online course. This allows accredited training providers to offer online training 

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

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

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

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

874 accreditation for a portion of a course. 

875 On a related topic, this commenter thought that it would be burdensome to require the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 39 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

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

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

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

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

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

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

882 download or otherwise take possession of these records. EPA disagrees with this commenter, 

883 because EPA believes that the amount of data associated with this particular requirement for 

884 each trainee is not substantial. However, if a particular accredited training provider felt 

885 otherwise, the provider could contract with the provider of the online training to store the 

886 records. Although the accredited training provider would remain ultimately responsible for 

887 being able to produce those records, as long as the training provider is able to produce them in 

888 response to a request from EPA, EPA would consider the training provider in compliance with 

889 the recordkeeping requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

898 be able to generate an uneditable copy of an e-learning course completion certificate too 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 40 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

899 stringent. The commenter pointed out that almost anyone reasonably familiar with computers 

900 could alter a secure PDF, image, or word processing file through the print function. EPA will 

901 add language to the proposed provision at 40 CFR 745.225(c)(6)(viii)(E) to clarify that EPA 

902 merely meant that the certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and easy editing by 

903 students. A secure PDF file would comply with these requirements. Allowing students to 

904 generate and print the course completion certificate provides them with reasonable certainty that 

905 they have completed the e-learning portion of the course before attempting the hands-on portion. 

906 EPA recommends that accredited training providers verify through other means, such as the e907 learning progress records, that each student who completes the hands-on training has also 

908 completed the online portion of the course before training providers issue the final course 

909 completion certificate. 

910 g. Combined refresher courses. In the 2010 proposal, EPA requested comment on 

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

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

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

914 regulated community and others indicating that many abatement contractors are likely to also 

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

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

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

918 will be the case, and, if combined refreshers are desirable, whether the different certification time 

919 periods for individual abatement certification (3 years) and individual renovator certification (5 

920 years) should be harmonized and, if so, how. EPA received two comments on this topic; both 

921 commenters supported the idea of combined refresher courses and thought they would provide 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 41 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

922 increased flexibility for industry. One commenter thought that the certification time periods 

923 should be harmonized to 3 years for all disciplines because the commenter believed that 5 years 

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

925 was necessary, because the abatement worker or supervisor would just take the combined 

926 refresher every three3 years to meet the shorter certification periods in the Lead-based Paint 

927 Activities Rule. EPA agrees with these commenters that combined refresher courses may be 

928 beneficial. While the current regulations permit training providers to offer refresher courses 

929 sequentially, e.g., a 4-hour renovator course on the afternoon of one day, followed by an 8-hour 

930 worker course the next day, taking the courses sequentially would result in some duplication of 

931 training topics for persons certified as both renovators and abatement workers. On the other 

932 hand, EPA is not certain that appropriate refresher topics for both disciplines could be covered in 

933 a single 8-hour day. EPA plans to evaluate the content of its supervisor, worker, and renovator 

934 refresher courses to determine what an appropriate combined course length might be. Depending 

935 on the results of this evaluation, EPA will consider amending these regulations to establish 

936 course length requirements for combined refresher courses. 

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

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

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

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

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

942 technician certification periods are 5 years, with no interim certification. Therefore, in order to 

943 ensure that the training records from the previous training course are available for certified 

944 renovators and dust sampling technicians taking refresher courses, EPA proposed to increase the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 42 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

945 recordkeeping period applicable to these disciplines to 5 years. EPA received two comments on 

946 this aspect of the 2010 proposal, both commenters thought that the recordkeeping requirements 

947 for all disciplines should be increased to 5 years. These commenters thought it would be less 

948 confusing for training providers if there was one period applicable to all. One commenter 

949 pointed out that EPA had extended the certification period for renovators trained before April 22, 

950 2010 to July 1, 2015, so the training records for those trainees ought to be kept for as long as 

951 their certification lasts. This commenter suggested that EPA require training records to be kept 

952 for 5 years or until the expiration of certification resulting from the training, whichever is longer. 

953 While EPA agrees that it may be easier for training providers to keep records for the same length 

954 of time regardless of the discipline, EPA does not believe that it is necessary to make this a 

955 requirement. Training providers who prefer to have one single recordkeeping process can 

956 always choose to maintain their records for 5 years across the board. Therefore, EPA is 

957 promulgating the increased recordkeeping requirement for providers of accredited renovator and 

958 dust sampling technician training as proposed. EPA also agrees with the commenter who 

959 suggested that there be a longer recordkeeping requirement for renovator training courses offered 

960 before April 22, 2010. Accordingly, EPA is also promulgating a requirement that records for 

961 renovator training courses completed before April 22, 2010 must be kept until July 1, 2015. 

962 i. Trainee photographs. EPA also proposed certain minimum standards for the trainee 

963 photographs that must appear on renovator and dust sampling technician course completion 

964 certificates. Accredited training programs are required to issue a course completion certificate 

965 for each person who passes a training course. A variety of information is required to be on the 

966 certificate including the name of the course, the name and address of the student, and contact 

967 information for the training program. Course certificates for renovators or dust sampling 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 43 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

968 technicians must include a photograph of the student, but the regulation does not include size 

969 requirements or other specifications for the photograph. Since publishing the 2008 RRP rule, the 

970 Agency has been asked if there is a minimum size for the photograph. EPA believes that it 

971 would be beneficial to have minimum standards for the photograph in order to ensure that the 

972 person in the photograph is recognizable. EPA proposed to require that the photographs on 

973 course completion certificates be an accurate and recognizable image of the trainee and at least 

974 one square inch in size. EPA also requested comments on whether the image quality 

975 requirements should be more specific, e.g., more quantitative. EPA received several comments 

976 on this provision. Commenters generally supported the proposed requirements, but did not favor 

977 additional requirements, such as quantitative requirements for image quality, as they were 

978 concerned about the burden associated with such additional requirements. EPA agrees with 

979 these commenters that the proposed requirements are sufficient. Therefore, EPA is promulgating 

980 the image quality requirements as proposed. 

981 j. Clarifying changes to 40 CFR 745.225. Finally, as stated previously, 40 CFR 745.225 

982 includes requirements and procedures that training programs must follow to become accredited 

983 in order to provide instruction in renovator, dust sampling technician, and lead-based paint 

984 activities courses. The final 2008 RRP rule amended Section §745.225 to cover persons who 

985 provide or wish to provide renovator or dust sampling technician training for the purposes of the 

986 RRP rule. There are some instances where the regulations do not specifically mention the 

987 renovator or dust sampling technician courses even though the regulations apply to those 

988 courses. For example, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) explains the requirements which a training 

989 provider must follow when submitting notification to EPA after the completion of a training. 

990 However, the conforming changes, i.e., to replace “lead-based paint activities courses” with 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 44 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

991 “renovator, dust sampling technician, and lead-based paint activities courses,” were not made to 

992 every subparagraph even though all the requirements of that section apply to those courses. 

993 Consequently, EPA proposed to clarify that the requirements in 40 CFR 745.225 apply to 

994 renovator and dust sampling technician courses in addition to lead-based paint activities courses. 

995 EPA received one comment offering general support for these proposed revisions. EPA is 

996 promulgating these revisions as proposed. 

997 5. State and Tribal Program Authorizationprogram authorization. Under the RRP rule, 

998 interested States, Territories, and Indian Tribes may apply for, and receive authorization to 

999 administer and enforce all of the elements of the RRP program. In May 2010, EPA proposed 

1000 several changes to the State and Tribal program authorization regulations. The first was a 

1001 clarification that State and Tribal programs do not need to include requirements for the 

1002 accreditation of dust sampling technicians if they require dust sampling to be performed only by 

1003 a certified inspector or risk assessor. EPA received only one comment relating to this proposed 

1004 revision, and that commenter thought that EPA should require States and Tribes to allow dust 

1005 sampling technicians to collect samples. However, EPA does not have the authority to prohibit 

1006 States and Tribes from having a more stringent program than the EPA’s, e.g., requiring more 

1007 training for persons collecting dust wipe samples than EPA requires. It would not make sense 

1008 for EPA to require States and Tribes to establish the dust sampling technician discipline if those 

1009 trainees would not be allowed to perform any duties under State or Tribal law. Therefore, EPA 

1010 is promulgating this change to the text of the regulation as proposed. 

1011 Along these same lines, EPA proposed to add a provision requiring State or Tribal 

1012 programs to have procedures and requirements for on-the-job training of renovation workers who 

1013 do not receive accredited training. EPA neglected to include such a provision in the 2008 RRP 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 45 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1014 Rule. As with the dust sampling technician discipline, State and Tribal programs are only 

1015 required to have these provisions if they permit on-the-job training for renovation workers. If, 

1016 for example, a State or Tribal program only allows certified renovators to perform renovation 

1017 activities within a regulated renovation work area, then no provisions for on-the-job training 

1018 would be required for that State or Tribal program. EPA received one comment generally 

1019 supporting this change. EPA is promulgating this revision as proposed. 

1020 EPA also proposed to amend the State and Tribal program requirements to clarify that 

1021 both individuals and firms must receive certification. Only one comment was received on this 

1022 topic, pointing out that EPA’s proposed regulatory text at 40 CFR 745.326(e)(1) did not 

1023 accomplish that objective. EPA agrees with this commenter, and has revised the regulatory text 

1024 throughout this section accordingly to ensure that EPA’s requirements are clear. EPA requires 

1025 both renovators and renovation firms to be certified. A renovator becomes certified by 

1026 successfully completing an accredited renovator training class. A renovation firm becomes 

1027 certified by submitting an application to EPA, attesting that it and its employees will follow the 

1028 work practice standards at 40 CFR § 745.85 for conducting renovations, and paying a 

1029 certification fee. EPA believes that, in order for a State or Tribal program to be at least as 

1030 protective as EPA’s program, the State or Tribal program must, at a minimum, require formal 

1031 certification for renovation firms. States and Tribes may, but are not required to, formally certify 

1032 renovators. The certified renovation firm is responsible not only for the behavior of its certified 

1033 renovators but also for the other workers that have been trained by the certified renovators. 

1034 Thus, the renovation firm is ultimately responsible for the proper performance of the renovation. 

1035 Requiring formal certification for renovation firms facilitates compliance monitoring and 

1036 enforcement for EPA as well as for State and Tribal programs. A program that only required 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 46 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1037 formal certification for individual renovators and not firms would not be as protective. 

1038 In addition, as pointed out by several State commenters, EPA inadvertently included the 

1039 wrong provisions in the proposed regulatory text for revising authorized State and Tribal 

1040 programs to conform to revisions to the 2008 RRP rule. The existing provisions at 40 CFR 

1041 745.326(f) give authorized State and Tribal programs two2 years from the effective date of any 

1042 EPA revisions to the 2008 RRP rule to demonstrate that the State or Tribal program meets the 

1043 requirements of the revised 2008 RRP rule. This two2 year period is also afforded to States and 

1044 Tribes that submit applications for authorization before the effective date of any EPA revisions. 

1045 EPA did not intend to make any changes to this provision and States and Tribes still have two2

1046 years to make changes to their programs necessitated by revisions to the fFederal RRP program. 

1047 Finally, EPA proposed to require that, in order to be authorized for any of the lead-based 

1048 paint programs, State or Tribal programs demonstrate that: (1) theThe State or Tribe is able to 

1049 sue to obtain penalties, (2) civil and criminal penalties of at least $10,000 are assessable for each 

1050 instance of violation, (3) if violations are continuous, the penalties are assessable up to the 

1051 maximum amount for each day of violation, and (4) the burden of proof and degree of 

1052 knowledge or intent of the respondent is no greater than it is for EPA under TSCA. EPA also 

1053 requested comment on what criteria States or Tribes should consider in assessing penalties and 

1054 whether the $10,000 minimum penalty authority level should be periodically adjusted for 

1055 inflation. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, in choosing the proposed minimum 

1056 penalty authority of $10,000 per violation per day, EPA looked to other programs that States and 

1057 Tribes may be authorized to administer. Some of these programs have minimum penalty 

1058 authority requirements for State and Tribal programs and some do not. For example, under the 

1059 Clean Air Act (CAA) implementing regulations at 40 CFR 70.11(a)(3) and the Resource 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 47 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1060 Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) implementing regulations at 40 CFR 271.16(a)(3), 

1061 State programs must have the authority to assess civil and criminal fines of at least $10,000 per 

1062 day per violation. Other programs have established lower minimum penalty authority 

1063 requirements. The implementing regulations for the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require 

1064 State programs to have the authority to impose a penalty of at least $1,000 per day per violation 

1065 on public water systems serving a population of more than 10,000 individuals. Some EPA 

1066 programs have set no minimum penalty authority requirements for States and Tribes; these 

1067 programs include the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act program and the State pesticide 

1068 applicator certification program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. 

1069 EPA received a number of comments on this provision. Six State commenters opposed 

1070 the proposed provisions. Several argued that their legislatures had already created the authority 

1071 to establish an RRP program, but the maximum penalty amount was less than $10,000. Five 

1072 States described their existing penalty authorities--one already has a minimum penalty authority 

1073 of $10,000, one has $5,000, and the other three have $1,000. These States did not believe that 

1074 they would be able to increase the maximum penalty authority, because it was comparable to 

1075 other programs administered by the State, or that it would take several years to get an increase 

1076 through the legislature, during which time EPA would have to administer the program in their 

1077 jurisdictions. At least two already-authorized State RRP programs pointed out that they had 

1078 been authorized with maximum penalty authorities of less than $10,000. One State noted that it 

1079 could assess penalties of up to $750 or $1,000 under its EPA-authorized RRP program, the 

1080 other’s maximum RRP penalty authority ranged from $1,00 to $1000. One of these States also 

1081 noted that it had been effectively enforcing the Lead-based Paint Activities Program and the Pre1082 Renovation Education Program for years now, and the State did not believe that an increase in its 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 48 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1083 maximum penalty authority would improve the effectiveness of its programs in any way. 

1084 Another State commented that it has penalty authority of $10,000, but that limit is for each 

1085 enforcement case, not per violation per day. Some of the State commenters also noted that most 

1086 enforcement actions in an RRP program would be against very small companies or individuals, 

1087 and penalties of less than $10,000 per violation per day would still be very effective deterrents 

1088 for such entities. 

1089 Two environmental advocacy groups supported EPA’s proposed minimum penalty 

1090 authority of $10,000, arguing that substantial penalties are necessary to get the attention of the 

1091 regulated community and meaningful enforcement is critical to the rule’s success at protecting 

1092 individuals from exposures to dangerous levels of lead. 

1093 EPA agrees with these commenters on the importance of an effective enforcement 

1094 program. Strong enforcement of the lead-based paint regulations by authorized State and Tribal 

1095 programs is critical to ensuring the safety of the occupants of target housing and child occupied 

1096 facilities undergoing lead abatement, renovation, repair or painting. However, EPA also agrees 

1097 with those States that argued that most of the enforcement actions in authorized lead-based paint 

1098 programs would be against very small entities. Although small entities also violate the CAA and 

1099 RCRA, it is likely that the regulated community in the lead-based paint programs consists of 

1100 smaller entities than the other programs for which EPA has established minimum penalty 

1101 authorities. Therefore, EPA is establishing a minimum penalty authority for State and Tribal 

1102 programs of $5,000. Because it is especially important to deter multiple violations and 

1103 continuing violations, this final rule retains the “per violation, per day” requirement. 

1104 In response to the related requests for comment, State commenters did not favor adding a 

1105 mechanism for adjusting these minimum penalty authorities for inflation. One environmental 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 49 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1106 advocacy group supported the idea, but thought that it should not be a barrier to State and Tribal 

1107 program authorization. EPA agrees with these commenters and no mechanism for adjusting 

1108 these minimums for inflation is included in this final rule. 

1109 Commenters suggested a number of factors that should be considered by States and 

1110 Tribes when imposing penalties for violations of their authorized programs. Several favored 

1111 enforcement history and risk, but not to the extent of treating first-time offenders too lightly. A 

1112 handful of commenters argued that size of business, and ability to stay in business should not be 

1113 considered, because small companies can cause as much harm as large companies. EPA believes 

1114 that States and Tribes may legitimately consider any of the factors that EPA typically considers, 

1115 such as nature, circumstances, and extent of the violation, the culpability of the violator, history 

1116 of prior violations, ability to pay or continue in business, voluntary disclosure, and attitude of the 

1117 violator. However, EPA will not require States and Tribes to consider any of these factors. 

1118 Finally, EPA received no comments on the proposed addition of an explicit requirement 

1119 that States and Tribes have the ability to sue violators to collect penalties and that the burden of 

1120 proof for enforcement be no more rigorous than the EPA standard under TSCA. EPA believes 

1121 that these two elements are important elements of an effective enforcement program. Therefore, 

1122 EPA is promulgating these additional requirements as proposed. 

1123 6. Vertical containment. EPA’s 2010 proposal included more specific language on 

1124 vertical containment requirements for exterior projects. As proposed, the rule would specifically 

1125 state that vertical containment is required for exterior renovation projects that are covered by the 

1126 rule and that affect painted surfaces within 10 feet of the property line. In such cases, vertical 

1127 containment is necessary to ensure that adjacent buildings or properties are not contaminated by 

1128 leaded dust or debris generated by the renovation. EPA’s Dust Study demonstrates that leaded 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 50 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1129 dust and debris from exterior renovations can be found 10 feet away from activities disturbing 

1130 leaded paint, even if no prohibited or restricted practices are used. For example, in an 

1131 experiment involving the dry scraping of paint from a single story garage, significant dust-lead 

1132 levels were detected on collection trays at distances from 9 to 11 feet from the scraping activity 

(Ref. 76, page 6-25). These levels ranged from 7,500 μg/ft2 to more than 16,500 μg/ft2 1133 . The 

1134 RRP rule, at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2), requires renovation firms to isolate the work area so that no 

1135 dust or debris leaves the work area while the renovation is being performed. The rule further 

1136 states, at 40 CFR 745.85(a)(2)(ii)(D), that, in certain situations, the renovation firm must take 

1137 extra precautions in containing the work area to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation 

1138 does not migrate to adjacent properties. EPA knows of no work practice other than somea

1139 system of vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area that 

1140 would universally and effectively prevent the migration of dust and debris from renovations 

1141 performed within 10 feet of the property line to adjacent properties. 

1142 EPA also proposed to clarify, in the regulatory text itself, that windy conditions may also 

1143 necessitate the use of vertical containment to prevent contamination of other buildings, other 

1144 areas of the property, or adjacent buildings or properties. Specific mention of windy conditions 

1145 was made in the preamble to the final 2008 RRP rule, although it was not included in the 

1146 regulatory text. Nevertheless, EPA expects atmospheric conditions to be one of several factors 

1147 that renovation firms consider when designing containment systems. Other factors would 

1148 include the height of the building and the paint disturbance and the type of renovation activity 

1149 planned. EPA believesthought that specifically including windy conditions as a factor to 

1150 consider when designing an effective containment system willwould serve as an important 

1151 reminder for renovation firms. Including the mention of windy conditions in the proposed 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 51 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1152 regulatory text doesdid not mean that vertical containment iswould be required for any particular 

1153 renovations. The 2010 proposal also included a definition of the term “containment” in order to 

1154 clarify what is meant by the term. The proposed definition was based on the definition of 

1155 “Worksite preparation level” from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s 

1156 “Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing” (HUD 

1157 Guidelines, Ref. 11). The proposed definition included additional information on what 

1158 constitutes vertical containment. 

1159 Some commenters supported the proposed revisions to the vertical containment 

1160 requirements. One thought that contamination of neighboring properties is a common and 

1161 serious problem. Other commenters did not support the proposed revisions. These commenters 

1162 thought that the proposed revisions were too inflexible and unnecessary. EPA disagrees with 

1163 these commenters. As discussed, the Dust Study shows that dust and debris from exterior 

1164 renovations travels at least 10 feet from the activity. The RRP rule requires the ground to be 

1165 covered with plastic sheeting or other impermeable material extending 10 feet beyond the 

1166 surfaces being renovated or a sufficient distance to collect falling paint debris, whichever is 

1167 greater, unless prevented by the property line. In the absence of somea system of vertical 

1168 containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area, EPA knows of no work 

1169 practice that would universally and effectively ensure that adjacent properties are not 

1170 contaminated when work disturbs lead-based paint within 10 feet of the property line. 

1171 However, the vertical containment requirement is intended to provide flexibility for certified 

1172 renovators to design effective containment systems based on the renovation activity and the work 

1173 site. Vertical containment systems can span a range from simple barriers to more extensive 

1174 scaffolding, depending on the size of the job and other relevant factors. Complex vertical 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 52 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1175 containment systems with extensive scaffolding are often not necessary to effectively contain the 

1176 dust generated by a renovation. One commenter thought that it should be sufficient to require 

1177 the renovation firm to inform the neighbors to keep their windows and doors closed while the 

1178 renovation is ongoing. While this might prevent leaded dust from drifting into the interiors of 

1179 adjacent buildings, it does not address contamination of the neighboring porches, balconies, or 

1180 yards. This does not meet the standard already present in the RRP rule, that dust and debris not 

1181 be permitted to leave the work area while the renovation is ongoing. EPA is also concerned 

1182 about the ability of renovation firms to affect the behavior of neighbors whose homes are not 

1183 being renovated. 

1184 Several commenters expressed concern about the safety of workers and vertical 

1185 containment. One argued that OSHA has said that vertical containment is not required in 

1186 situations where worker safety would be compromised, such as in windy conditions. EPA agrees 

1187 that erecting extensive scaffolding to support a large vertical containment system in some windy 

1188 conditions may be unsafe for workers. If such a vertical containment system would be necessary 

1189 to ensure containment of the dust generated by a particular renovation, EPA knows of no 

1190 alternative but to reschedule the renovation for a more clement day. The HUD Guidelines state 

1191 that exterior renovation work should not be conducted when the wind speed is greater than 20 

1192 miles per hour (Ref. 11). The Guidelines also state that work must cease and cleanup be 

1193 completed before rain begins. EPA has not imposed these specific requirements, but renovation 

1194 firms should consider this guidance when deciding how to proceed. 

1195 Other commenters were concerned about the additional costs that the revisions to the 

1196 vertical containment provisions would impose on renovations. and the potential negative impact 

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

Page 53 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1198 conduct exterior renovations with vertical containment than without. In EPA’s economic 

1199 analysis for the 2008 RRP rule, EPA addressed those situations where the renovation firm must 

1200 take extra precautions to effectively contain dust and debris, including work areas in close 

1201 proximity to other buildings, work areas that abut a property line, and windy conditions. The 

1202 2008 economic analysis specifically notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of 

1203 vertical containment to prevent paint dust and debris from contaminating the ground or any 

1204 object beyond the work area. To account for these situations, EPA estimated that approximately 

1205 2% of exterior jobs would use exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical 

1206 containment varies from $330 per wall to $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the job. 

1207 Thus, EPA has already accounted for the additional costs incurred for using vertical containment 

1208 systems on renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line. 

1209 Because EPA does not know of any effective alternatives to the vertical containment 

1210 requirement for exterior renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line, EPA is 

1211 promulgating a requirement that vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in 

1212 containing the work area be used on exterior renovations performed within 10 feet of the 

1213 property line. This requirement is intended to provide flexibility for certified renovators to 

1214 design effective containment systems based on the renovation activity and the work site. To 

1215 ensure that renovation firms understand that the requirement refers to a wide variety of effective 

1216 work area containment systems, EPA is including the phrase “or equivalent extra precautions in 

1217 containing the work area” in this requirement. Effective work area containment can span a range 

1218 from simple barriers to more extensive scaffolding, depending on the size of the job and other 

1219 relevant factors. Complex vertical containment systems with extensive scaffolding are often not 

1220 necessary to effectively contain the dust generated by a renovation. Because EPA does not know 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 54 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1221 of any effective alternatives to the vertical containment requirement for exterior renovations 

1222 performed within 10 feet of the property line, and because EPA believes that the additional 

1223 guidance provided by the addition of the “windy conditions” example to the regulatory text will 

1224 be helpful to renovation firms, EPA is promulgating these revisions as proposed.

1225 An example of a simple barrier system, on a job requiring hand scraping within a few feet 

1226 of the ground and within a few feet of the property line, would be laying plastic or other 

1227 impermeable material on the ground between the paint-disturbing activity and the property line, 

1228 anchoring it to the house, and then extending the material up and over the fence at the property 

1229 line. A slightly more extensive containment approach could involve the use of a triangular 

1230 eave/soffit “lean-to” system. In this system, plastic or other impermeable material could be 

1231 spread out on the ground 5-10 feet out from the exterior side wall, depending upon the available 

1232 space. The same impermeable material could be attached to the eave or soffit area at the 

1233 roofline, and held away from the building by an extension ladder temporarily fastened to where 

1234 the wall meets the eave or soffit. The material would then be fastened and sealed onto the 

1235 ground cover. A variation of this system would involve draping the plastic or impermeable 

1236 material over a frame consisting of commercially-available tension rods or strong painter’s 

1237 extension tubes. Effective containment could also consist of plastic or other impermeable 

1238 material draped from outriggers, or framework secured to the roofline, taped to the sides of the 

1239 building to surround the work area, and fastened and sealed to the ground cover. Yet another 

1240 containment system could involve a rigid box-like framework, constructed out of commercially1241 available tension rods or painter’s extension tubes, wrapped in impermeable sheeting and 

1242 anchored to the ground cover and the sides of the building. EPA believes that these measures, in 

1243 most cases, should be sufficient to contain dust and debris where extra containment measures are 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 55 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1244 needed, such as work that creates large amounts of dust or work performed within 10 feet of the 

1245 property line. 

1246 EPA realizes that it may be costly or impracticable to deploy an elaborate vertical 

1247 containment system, for example, in high rise multi-story buildings. The Agency, furthermore 

1248 does not wish to create hazardous situations for workers that would outweigh the benefit of 

1249 capturing the dust with scaffolding-based vertical containment systems. EPA believes that 

1250 equally effective systems may exist. Thus, EPA added language indicating that “equivalent 

1251 extra precautions in containing the work area” will also satisfy the requirement to contain dust on 

1252 the worksite of exterior renovations performed within 10 feet of the property line.

1253 EPA continues to believe that it is important to remind renovation firms that there may be 

1254 other situations where vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the 

1255 work area would be required in order to prevent dust and debris from leaving the work area. 

1256 However, because some commenters appeared to believe that EPA’s mention of windy 

1257 conditions amounted to a requirement to use vertical containment in windy conditions, EPA is 

1258 deleting the phrase “such as in windy conditions.” The complete provision, as promulgated, 

1259 reads: “If the renovation will affect surfaces within 10 feet of the property line, the renovation 

1260 firm must erect vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area 

1261 to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate adjacent buildings or 

1262 migrate to adjacent properties. Vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing 

1263 the work area may also be necessary in other situations in order to prevent contamination of 

1264 other buildings, other areas of the property, or adjacent buildings or properties.” EPA wishes to 

1265 encourage innovation in designing effective containment systems or measures, so EPA will 

1266 consider any information or data made available to it that could be used to determine the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 56 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1267 equivalence of extra containment precautions in containing the work area. For example, the 

1268 Department of Energy (DOE) suggested that an equivalent containment system could involve the 

1269 use of a trough-like system beneath the paint-disturbing work. The trough would consist of 

1270 polyethylene and tubing fabricated in a U-shape configuration, extending 1 to 2 feet from the 

1271 exterior side of the building. According to DOE, the bottom of the trough could be weighted 

1272 down with scrap lumber and sprayed with water enabling it to capture the falling dust and debris. 

1273 DOE suggested that this trough, especially if combined with dust minimization techniques such 

1274 as wet methods, the use of dust-capturing shrouds, and HEPA vacuums, would be equally 

1275 effective at containing dust and debris as vertical containment. EPA cannot determine that the 

1276 trough, by itself, provides effective containment of dust and debris, but will be examining this in 

1277 the future. Similarly, DOE suggested that another possible method for the dust that is generated 

1278 during an exterior renovation to be captured could involve the use of a shroud attached to a 

1279 power tool with a HEPA vacuum, also attached to the shroud, where the dust and debris is 

1280 captured right at the source--thereby not allowing it to fall onto polyethylene, workers clothing, 

1281 equipment, and tools. EPA seeks data or other information upon which to evaluate that the 

1282 following are effective at containing dust and debris: the trough in combination with dust 

1283 minimization techniques; the use of a shroud attached to a power tool with a HEPA vacuum; or 

1284 other alternative methods. EPA will review and issue guidance as appropriate. EPA intends to 

1285 work collaboratively with DOE and HUD and other agencies and stakeholders as appropriate to 

1286 develop further guidance on equivalent extra precautions in containing the work area. 

1287 In addition, since promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule, EPA has received several inquiries 

1288 from the regulated community on the rule’s containment provisions.In addition, since 

1289 promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule, EPA has received several inquiries from the regulated 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 57 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1290 community on the rule’s containment provisions. In particular, EPA has been asked to address 

1291 the problem of obstacles that prevent renovation firms from using 6 feet of plastic sheeting or 

1292 other impermeable material on interior floors or 10 feet of material on the ground. EPA believes 

1293 that the proper use of vertical containment measures may be a more effective method for 

1294 containing the work area than use of traditional floor or ground containment alone, especially 

1295 where obstacles prevent or make it impractical to install floor or ground containment to the 

1296 extent required by the RRP rule. Therefore, EPA is amending the containment provisions for 

1297 both interior and exterior renovations to permit renovation firms to erect vertical containment at 

1298 a distance of less than 6 feet from the work surface, for interiors, provided that the vertical 

1299 containment is floor to ceiling, or less than 10 feet for exteriors, and not also require them to 

1300 comply with the minimum floor or ground containment requirements of the RRP rule.closer to 

1301 the renovation activity than the minimum floor or ground containment distance specified in the 

1302 RRP rule to give renovation firms more flexibility in designing effective containment strategies 

1303 for particular work sites. For exterior renovations, this amendment would allow a renovation 

1304 firm to construct vertical containment less than 10 feet from the renovation activity. If a 

1305 renovation firm chooses to take advantage of this provision, the ground containment may extend 

1306 less than 10 feet, stopping just outside the edge of the vertical containment, as long as the 

1307 distance is sufficient to contain all dust and debris during the renovation and post-renovation 

1308 cleanup. For example, a renovation firm erects an exterior vertical containment system 

1309 consisting of a rigid box-like framework wrapped in impermeable plastic sheeting and anchored 

1310 to the ground and home. If this containment system is erected 5 feet from the side of the home, 

1311 and placed on top of ground containment, such containment should effectively limit the travel of 

1312 dust and debris to the interior of the enclosure. Under the amended containment provisions, the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 58 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1313 renovation firm would not be required to extend plastic sheeting or other impermeable material 

1314 another 5 feet beyond the vertical containment system. in order to meet the 10 foot minimum 

1315 ground containment requirement promulgated in the 2008 RRP rule. 

1316 This amendment will affect interior renovations similarly.EPA is also providing 

1317 increased flexibility for renovation firms by allowing firms the option to use vertical containment 

1318 measures in combination with reduced floor containment on interior renovations. However, to 

1319 qualify for reduced floor containment requirements, vertical containment systems for interior 

1320 renovations must consist of impermeable barriers that extend from the floor to the ceiling and are 

1321 tightly sealed at joints with the floor, ceiling and walls (e.g. through the use of tape, foam or 

1322 other means which create tight seals), thus effectively creating a separate enclosure. This type of 

1323 vertical containment acts as the functional equivalent of a wall for purposes of defining the work 

1324 area and, if the vertical containment meets these criteria, the floor containment measures may 

1325 stop at the edge of the vertical barrier. However, unlike permanent walls, vertical containment 

1326 barriers are subject to all containment cleaning requirements including misting, inward folding, 

1327 sealing, and proper disposal following the renovation. A firm must also thoroughly clean an 

1328 additional two feet beyond the vertically-contained work area. Finally, during ingress or egress 

1329 from the vertical enclosure, a firm must take precaution to ensure that dust and debris on 

1330 personnel, tools, and other items do not escape the work area. 

1331 Upon further consideration of the proposed definition of containment, particularly 

1332 in light of the comments received on the proposed vertical containment requirements, EPA has 

1333 determined that a broader definition of containment is unnecessary, and may even be confusing, 

1334 but a definition of vertical containment would help to clarify the vertical containment 

1335 requirements. In addition, EPA believes that there may be confusion among the regulated 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 59 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1336 community and other stakeholders about what EPA means when it uses the term “vertical 

1337 containment.” As previously discussed, vertical containment can span the range from simple 

1338 barriers to box-like structures to more extensive scaffolding. Accordingly, EPA is promulgating 

1339 a definition of “vertical containment” that is similar to the last sentence of the proposed 

1340 definition of “containment.” Vertical containment is defined as a vertical barrier consisting of 

1341 plastic sheeting or other impermeable material over scaffolding or a wood or metalrigid frame, or 

1342 an equivalent system of containing the work area. The definition further states that vertical 

1343 containment is required for some exterior renovations but it may be used on any renovation. 

1344 EPA encourages members of the regulated community, or other stakeholders, who have 

1345 questions on the work area containment requirements or any other aspect of the RRP rule to 

1346 consult the Frequent Question database accessible from EPA’s primary lead web page at 

1347 www.epa.gov/lead or contact the National Lead Information Center by calling 1(800) 424–

1348 LEAD [5323]. Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may reach the National Lead Information 

1349 Center through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

1350 7. Prohibited or restricted practices. In May 2010, EPA proposed to make a number of 

1351 minor revisions to clarify the prohibitions and restrictions on work practices in 40 CFR 

1352 745.85(a)(3). The first was a clarification that these prohibitions and restrictions, e.g., the 

1353 prohibition on open flame burning or torching, apply to all painted surfaces, not just surfaces 

1354 where the presence of lead-based paint has been confirmed. The term “lead-based paint” was 

1355 incorrectly and inadvertently used in this subsectionsubparagraph, making it inconsistent with 

1356 the rest of the RRP rule, which applies in the presence of known lead-based paint as well as paint 

1357 that has not been tested for lead content. Accordingly, EPA proposed to replace the term “lead1358 based paint” with “painted surfaces” in this subsectionsubparagraph. Of course, if the painted 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 60 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1359 surface has been tested and found to be free of lead-based paint, the prohibitions and restrictions 

1360 on work practices in the final RRP rule do not apply. Commenters generally supported this 

1361 revision, although two commenters noted that EPA uses the term “painted surfaces” throughout 

1362 the RRP rule and it is unclear whether this refers just to paint or to other surface coatings as well. 

1363 These commenters noted that the definition of “lead-based paint” includes paint and other 

1364 surface coatings but there is no definition of the term “painted surfaces.” These commenters 

1365 observed that other surface coatings, such as varnish, can contain significant amounts of lead. 

1366 The commenters suggested that EPA address this issue throughout the RRP rule. EPA agrees 

1367 with these commenters. In using the term “painted surfaces,” EPA has always meant component 

1368 surfaces that are covered in whole or in part with a coating that could be lead-based paint. The 

1369 term was designed to encompass situations where the surface is covered with lead-based paint as 

1370 defined by the regulation as well as situations where the lead content of the surface coating had 

1371 not been determined. EPA never intended to exclude varnishes or other surface coatings from 

1372 the coverage of the RRP rule. In fact, the applicability section of the RRP rule, 40 CFR 745.82, 

1373 limits the exclusions for testing to those situations where the components to be disturbed by a 

1374 renovation have been demonstrated to be free of paint and other surface coatings that contain 

1375 lead at levels equal to or exceeding the regulatory threshold. Therefore, EPA is promulgating 

1376 this revision as proposed and EPA is also adding a clarifying definition of “painted surface” to 

1377 40 CFR 745.83. This definition states that painted surface means a component surface covered 

1378 in whole or in part with paint or other surface coatings. 

1379 In addition, EPA proposed to clarify that the restriction in this section on the use of 

1380 machines that remove paint through high speed operation applies anywhere painted surfaces are 

1381 being disturbed by such machines,; the restriction is not limited to situations where all of the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 61 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1382 paint is removed by such machines. EPA received no comments specifically on this proposed 

1383 revision, although the comments on the general issue of paint including other surface coatings 

1384 are also applicable here. EPA is promulgating this revision as proposed, with the addition of the 

1385 phrase “or other surface coatings” after the term “paint,” because EPA never intended to create a 

1386 loophole that would allow someone to remove some or most of the paint or other surface coating 

1387 from a component without complying with the restriction. 

1388 Finally, EPA proposed to clarify what was meant by HEPA exhaust control. In order to 

1389 better express what is required when machines designed to remove paint through high speed 

1390 operation are used, EPA consulted the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 

1391 Technical Manual (Ref. 1213). The use of shrouded tools to remove lead-based paint is 

1392 discussed in Chapter 3 of Section V, entitled “Controlling Lead Exposures in the Construction 

1393 Industry: Engineering and Work Practice Controls.” Using language from this reference, EPA 

1394 proposed to amend 40 CFR 745.85(a)(3)(ii) to read, “The use of machines designed to remove 

1395 paint through high speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, 

1396 abrasive blasting, or sandblasting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines are 

1397 used shrouded and equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and debris at the 

1398 point of generation.” EPA received several comments on this topic. The commenters generally 

1399 supported the change, but two thought that there should be a performance standard included in 

1400 the provision, a visible standard that warns the workers that the shroud or containment system is 

1401 not working properly. EPA agrees with these commenters. Another commenter thought that the 

1402 term “shrouded” in the proposed revision would make the RRP rule more stringent than the 

1403 requirements applicable to abatement contractors. After consulting the abatement chapter of the 

1404 HUD Guidelines, EPA has determined that the proposed language could potentially be read to 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 62 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1405 exclude one of the two types of sanders described by HUD as appropriate for abatement work 

1406 because they provide HEPA exhaust control. Accordingly, EPA is promulgating the revision as 

1407 proposed, except that the regulatory language will read “. . . unless such machines have shrouds 

1408 or containment systems and are equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and 

1409 debris at the point of generation. Machines must be operated so that no visible dust or release of 

1410 air occurs outside the shroud or containment system.” 

1411 8. HEPA vacuums. In May 2010, EPA proposed to clarify that vacuums qualifying as 

1412 HEPA vacuums for the purposes of this rule must be operated and maintained in accordance with 

1413 the manufacturer’s instructions in order to continue to qualify as HEPA vacuums. This includes 

1414 following the manufacturer’s filter change interval recommendations. EPA also proposed to 

1415 clarify that the standard for HEPA filters, that they be capable of capturing particles of 0.3 

1416 microns with 99.97% efficiency, means that the filters must have a Minimum Efficiency 

1417 Reporting Value (MERV) of 17 or greater. At the time, EPA also recommended that renovation 

1418 firms have information from the manufacturer that the particular model of vacuum that the 

1419 renovation firm intends to use, or the vacuum’s HEPA filter, has been tested in accordance with 

1420 an applicable test method, such as ASTM F1471-09, “Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning 

1421 Performance of a High-Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System,” and has been determined to 

1422 meet this standard (Ref. 13). 

1423 EPA received a number of comments on these proposed revisions. Commenters 

1424 specifically addressing the requirement that vacuums be operated in accordance with the 

1425 manufacturer’s instructions, including filter change interval recommendations, were in general 

1426 agreement with the requirement. Other commenters expressed a general concern that these 

1427 revisions would prohibit the use of consumer-grade HEPA vacuums that renovation firms had 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 63 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1428 recently purchased to comply with the RRP rule. Some argued that the proposed language 

1429 regarding the MERV was too stringent, given industry practice for high-efficiency vacuums. 

1430 One commenter cited research they had done on the efficiency of HEPA vacuums to argue that 

1431 the HEPA vacuums used in EPA’s Dust Study would not have met the MERV standard proposed 

1432 by EPA. However, the commenter did not provide sufficient information to support this 

1433 assertion. Several commenters echoed comments EPA received during the rulemaking process 

1434 for the 2008 RRP rule, arguing that HEPA vacuums are too expensive and are not necessary. 

1435 Other commenters believed that additional requirements should be added, such as a requirement 

1436 to field test the efficiency of the vacuums on a regular basis or after filter changes. 

1437 EPA continues to believe that HEPA vacuums are a necessary part of the required RRP 

1438 work practices. In addition, the OSHA Lead in Construction standard requires the use of HEPA 

1439 vacuums whenever vacuums are used. However, EPA also understands the concerns of those 

1440 commenters who had already purchased HEPA vacuums for purposes of the RRP rule as well as 

1441 those others who thought that the proposed MERV value of 17 would be too stringent. In 

1442 balancing these concerns, EPA has decided to promulgate the requirement that HEPA vacuums 

1443 be operated in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions, but not the requirement that 

1444 compliant vacuums be rated at a MERV value of 17 or higher. 

1445 In addition, in response to EPA’s recommendation that renovation firms obtain 

1446 information from the manufacturer that the efficiency of their particular model of HEPA vacuum 

1447 or HEPA filter has been tested in accordance with an applicable test method, some commenters 

1448 noted that this information may not be readily available to renovation firms. These commenters 

1449 suggested that EPA maintain a list of HEPA vacuums that have been tested and found to meet 

1450 the HEPA vacuum requirements. EPA will consider developing and maintaining such a list. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 64 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1451 9. On-the-job training. EPA’s 2010 proposal included a clarification regarding the 

1452 required elements of on-the-job training provided by renovators. Specifically, EPA proposed to 

1453 clarify that the RRP rule requires certified renovators to train other renovation workers in only 

1454 the work practices required by the RRP rule that the workers will be using in performing their 

1455 assigned tasks. As discussed in the 2010 proposal, EPA did not intend to require training in any 

1456 other subjects, such as how to paint or how to connect pipes. EPA is promulgating the 

1457 clarification as proposed and amending 40 CFR 745.90(b)(2) and (b)(4) to refer specifically to 

1458 the work practice requirements in 40 CFR 745.85(a). Two comments were received on this 

1459 proposed clarification, both commenters expressed support for the change. 

1460 10. Grandfathering. Under the final 2008 RRP rule, individuals who successfully 

1461 completed an accredited abatement worker or supervisor course, and individuals who 

1462 successfully completed the HUD, EPA, or the joint EPA/HUD model renovation training courses 

1463 may take an accredited refresher renovation training course in lieu of the initial renovation 

1464 training to become a certified renovator. In addition, individuals who have successfully 

1465 completed an accredited lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently 

1466 certified in the discipline, may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in 

1467 lieu of the initial training to become a certified dust sampling technician. As discussed in the 

1468 2010 proposal, EPA inadvertently failed to include in the 2008 RRP rule a time limit for taking 

1469 the refresher in lieu of the initial course. Many of the commenters who addressed the issue of 

1470 grandfathering in the 2008 RRP rulemaking contended that there should be restrictions based on 

1471 how much time elapsed since the training was taken. In addition, under the lead-based paint 

1472 activities regulations at 40 CFR 745.226, EPA allowed a similar grandfathering provision but 

1473 only for a limited time. Accordingly, EPA proposed to set a limit on when an individual can take 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 65 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1474 advantage of the grandfathering provision under the RRP rule. The preamble to the 2010 

1475 proposal stated that the limit would be July 31, 2011, such that renovators and dust sampling 

1476 technicians who take the appropriate prerequisite course before that date would be permitted to 

1477 take an accredited refresher training course in lieu of the initial training. EPA received 3three

1478 comments on this provision. One commenter helpfully pointed out that, while the preamble said 

1479 that the limit would be July 31, 2011, the proposed regulatory text said that it would be April 22, 

1480 2011. The three commenters supported the limit of July 31, 2011, one noting that EPA should 

1481 not continue to encourage renovators to take lead-safe work practices courses that do not meet 

1482 the requirements for certified renovator training. EPA generally agrees with these commenters 

1483 and is promulgating a provision that allows renovators and dust sampling technicians who take 

1484 the appropriate prerequisite course before the effective date of this rule to take an accredited 

1485 refresher training course in lieu of the initial training. 

1486 EPA also proposed a clarification regarding the grandfathering provision as it applies to 

1487 the dust sampling technician discipline. Individuals who successfully complete an accredited 

1488 lead-based paint inspector or risk assessor course, but are not currently certified in the discipline, 

1489 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training 

1490 before April 22, 2011the effective date of this rule to become a certified dust sampling 

1491 technician. Inspectors and risk assessors who are certified by EPA or an authorized state 

1492 program are qualified to perform dust sampling as part of lead hazard screens, risk assessments, 

1493 or abatements as well as for other purposes, such as post-renovation dust sampling. Therefore, it 

1494 would be unnecessary for a certified inspector or risk assessor to seek certification as a dust 

1495 sampling technician. The 2008 RRP rule explains who is eligible to take the refresher dust 

1496 sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training. However, the regulations as 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 66 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1497 promulgated did not explicitly say that a certified inspector or risk assessor may perform dust 

1498 sampling. In order to clarify the intent of the regulation, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 

1499 745.90(a)(3) to specifically state that a certified inspector or risk assessor may act as a dust 

1500 sampling technician. EPA is promulgating this provision as proposed. One comment was 

1501 received on this topic expressing general support for the amendment. 

1502 

1503 III. References 

1504 As indicated under ADDRESSES, a docket has been established for this rulemaking 

1505 under docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. The following is a listing of the 

1506 documents that are specifically referenced in this final rule. The docket includes these 

1507 documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced 

1508 within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not 

1509 physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult 

1510 the technical contact listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1511 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing 

1512 Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

1513 Register (75 FR 25038, May 6, 2010) (FRL–8823–5). 

1514 2. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 

1515 (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL–8355–7). 

1516 3. EPA. Lead; Requirements for Lead-based Paint Activities; Final Rule. Federal 

1517 Register (61 FR 45778), August 29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). 

1518 4. EPA. Air Quality Criteria for Lead (October 2006).

1519 5. 4. EPA. Lead; Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead; Final Rule. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 67 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1520 Federal Register (66 FR 1206, January 5, 2001) (FRL–6763–5). 

1521 65. EPA. Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in Residential Housing 

1522 (September 2005). 

1523 76. EPA. Characterization of Dust Lead Levels After Renovation, Repair, And Painting 

1524 Activities. (November 13, 2007). 

1525 8. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. (2009).

1526 97. EPA. Lead Exposure Associated With Renovation and Remodeling Activities: Phase 

1527 I, Environmental Field Sampling Study (EPA 747-R-96-007, May 1997). 

1528 8. EPA. Reviewed Studies Pertaining to HEPA Shroud Effectiveness. (2009).

1529 10 9. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). “Economic Analysis 

1530 for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and 

1531 Child-Occupied Facilities” (March 2008). 

1532 1110. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Evaluation of the 

1533 HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program: Final Report. May 1, 2004.

1534 11. HUD. Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in 

1535 Housing (June 1995). 

1536 12. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 

1537 Technical Manual TED 01-00-015 [TED 1-0.15A]. Revised June 24, 2008. 

1538 13. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Air Cleaning Performance of a High1539 Efficiency Particulate Air-Filter System (F1471-09). 

1540 14. EPA. OPPT. “Discussion of Potential Costs and Benefits Associated with the

1541 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

1542 Program Final Rule” (July 2011). 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 68 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1543 15. EPA. OPPT. “Economic Analysis for the TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

1544 Painting Program Opt-out and Recordkeeping Final Rule for Target Housing and Child1545 Occupied Facilities” (April 2010). 

1546 16. EPA. Final Clearance Rule ICR Addendum for the rulemaking entitled Lead; 

1547 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

1548 Program; Final Rule. (July 2011). 

1549 17. EPA. Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Lead-based Paint 

1550 Certification and Training; Renovation and Remodeling Requirements. (March 3, 2000). 

1551 18. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Proposed Rule. Federal 

1552 Register (71 FR 1588, January 10, 2006) (FRL-8355-77755-5). 

1553 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

1554 A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

1555 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ((58 FR 51735, 

1556 October 4, 1993), this action is a "significant regulatory action.” Accordingly, EPA submitted 

1557 this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Orders 

1558 12866 and 13563, entitled Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January 

1559 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented 

1560 in the docket for this action. 

1561 In addition, EPA prepared a document discussing the potential costs and benefits 

1562 associated with this final rule. This document, entitled “Discussion of Potential Costs and 

1563 Benefits Associated with the Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, 

1564 Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule” (Ref. 14), is available in the docket for this action and 

1565 is briefly summarized here. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 69 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1566 For the most part, the amendments to the RRP rule contained in this final rule impose 

1567 only minimal incremental costs. For example, the requirement for training course providers to 

1568 submit copies of personnel qualifications along with their applications will result in providers 

1569 making copies of and submitting with their application 2-4 additional pieces of paper that they 

1570 are already required to have in their possession before submitting the application. The 

1571 requirement to submit copies of State training course materials, if used, could add significantly to 

1572 the size of the training provider’s application. However, EPA believes that it will be a rare 

1573 occurrence for training providers to use State-approved training course materials, when EPA 

1574 model training course materials are readily available. Likewise, the provision allowing certified 

1575 renovators to collect paint chip samples in lieu of using test kits adds no additional costs, because 

1576 certified renovators are not required to take this step in addition to existing activities – it is an 

1577 added option from which they may choose. Similarly, the minimum enforcement provisions and 

1578 other requirements for State and Tribal programs imposes no costs because States and Tribes are 

1579 not required to have authorized programs, nor are they required to revise their programs to 

1580 incorporate EPA revisions. While EPA is requiring specific recordkeeping for training providers 

1581 who wish to provide e-learning courses, e-learning courses are not required from any training 

1582 provider. In addition, EPA believes that the recordkeeping requirements for e-learning courses 

1583 are comparable to, and no more burdensome than, the ordinary recordkeeping already required 

1584 for courses provided in traditional formats. 

1585 Many of the amendments are merely clarifications of existing regulatory language and 

1586 implementation of policy and impose no additional costs. Examples of these amendments 

1587 include the clarifications on the role of the principal instructor in an accredited training program, 

1588 the requirement that the trainee photograph on a course completion certificate be an accurate 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 70 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1589 representation of the trainee and no smaller than one square inch, and the clarification that 

1590 certified renovators are only required to provide on-the-job training in the RRP work practices to 

1591 other renovation workers. 

1592 With respect to the vertical containment requirements of this final rule, EPA has already 

1593 accounted for the costs of those requirements. In EPA’s economic analysis for the 2008 RRP 

1594 rule, EPA addressed those situations where the renovation firm must take extra precautions to 

1595 effectively contain dust and debris, including work areas in close proximity to other buildings, 

1596 work areas that abut a property line, and windy conditions. The 2008 economic analysis 

1597 specifically notes that it is sometimes necessary to erect a system of vertical containment to 

1598 prevent paint dust and debris from contaminating the ground or any object beyond the work area. 

1599 To account for these situations, EPA estimated that approximately 2% of exterior jobs would use 

1600 exterior containment, and the incremental cost of vertical containment varies from $330 per wall 

1601 to $1,640 per wall, depending on the size of the job. Thus, EPA has already accounted for the 

1602 additional costs incurred for using vertical containment systems on renovations performed within 

1603 10 feet of the property line. 

1604 Some of the amendments are likely to result in some additional costs for the regulated 

1605 community, but EPA is unable to estimate what those costs might be. For example, removal of 

1606 the provision allowing renovation firms to skip the cleaning verification step when performing 

1607 clean-up if the firm is also required to achieve clearance could result in some minimal additional 

1608 cost for those renovations. As previously discussed, EPA’s “Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth 

1609 Field Study in Residential Housing” (Ref. 65) showed that cleaning verification should take 

1610 approximately 5 minutes per cloth for each pass, and each cloth may be used for up to 40 square 

1611 feet of uncarpeted floor, countertop, or windowsill space. EPA estimated, as part of the final 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 71 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1612 2008 RRP rule analyses, that the material cost for each disposable cloth is $0.46 and that handles 

1613 are $13.60 apiece (Ref. 109). EPA assumed that these handles can be used for approximately 

1614 1,000 events. On the other hand, the Dust Study demonstrates that the wet disposable cleaning 

1615 cloth method is very effective at cleaning up dust. It is likely that completing the entire RRP 

1616 cleaning protocol, including cleaning verification, will increase the probability that clearance, 

1617 where required by HUD or another entity, will be achieved on the first attempt, thus eliminating 

1618 the burden of additional clearance attempts. 

1619 This final rule extends the recordkeeping requirement for providers of certified renovator 

1620 and certified dust sampling technician training from 3 years and 6 months to 5 years in general 

1621 and slightly more than 5 years for training providers who offered accredited courses in these 

1622 disciplines before April 22, 2010. The recordkeeping extension does not affect recordkeeping 

1623 requirements associated with obtaining and maintaining accreditation. This extension only 

1624 affects those records pertaining to training courses, specifically notifications. Pro-rating the 

1625 recordkeeping cost estimates from EPA’s economic analysis for the Opt-Out and Recordkeeping 

1626 Final Rule, also published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2010 (Ref. 15), shows that the 

1627 recordkeeping burden for courses provided during the first year the rule was effective increases 

1628 from $43.68 to $61.88 per training provider. For courses provided in subsequent years, the 

1629 recordkeeping burden per training provider increases from $4.80 to $6.80. These estimates are 

1630 for the entire 5 years that the records would have to be kept. 

1631 For the 2008 RRP rule, EPA has estimated the number of individuals residing in target 

1632 housing units or attending COFs where renovation events are performed. The proposed rule will 

1633 benefit 809,000that there would be approximately 1.4 million children under the age of 6 and 

1634 7,547,000 individuals age 6 and older (including 96,000 pregnant women) per year5.4 million 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 72 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1635 adults who would be affected by minimizinghaving their exposure to lead dust 

1636 generatedminimized due to the rule. The analysis for the 2010 final Opt-Out rule estimated that 

1637 an additional 5.2 million older children and adults would be affected by renovations. 

1638 reduced lead exposure due to the rule.B. Paperwork Burdens 

1639 The information collection requirements contained in this rule have been submitted for 

1640 approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

1641 (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. EPA has prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) 

1642 document to amend an existing ICR that is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0155 (EPA 

1643 ICR No. 1715). The ICR amendment, entitled “ICR Addendum for Final Rule entitled “Lead; 

1644 Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

1645 Program; Final Rule (RIN 2070–AJ57)” and identified under EPA ICR No. 2381.02, has been 

1646 placed in the docket for this rule (Ref. 16). 

1647 This regulatory action contains only two amendments to the approved existing 

1648 information collection: Amendments to the requirement for the training provider to submit 

1649 documentation of training manager and principal instructor qualifications; and a requirement for 

1650 providers of renovator and dust sampling technician training to maintain training records for 

1651 these courses for 5 years, rather than 3 years and 6 months. These requirements add only 

1652 negligible paperwork burden hours to the existing burden estimate. 

1653 EPA previously estimated for the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 109) and the final Opt-out 

1654 rule (Ref. 15) that 170 training providers would be accredited to provide renovator training. 

1655 These training providers will now have to submit an additional 2-4 photocopies along with their 

1656 applications for accreditation. EPA estimates that each photocopy costs $0.09 to generate, for a 

1657 maximum of $0.36 additional cost for training providers with one training manager and one 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 73 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1658 principal instructor. Each of these 170 training providers is also required to provide training 

1659 course notifications under the existing RRP rule. These notifications will now have to be kept 

1660 for 5 years instead of 3 years and 6 months. EPA has also estimated that each of these training 

1661 providers would offer on average a total of 86 renovator or dust sampling technician courses in 

1662 the first year, and 20 per year thereafter. This would require a total of 182 single-page 

1663 notifications in the first year, and 42 each year thereafter. 

1664 Under PRA, burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and means the total time, effort, or 

1665 financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide 

1666 information to or for a Federal agency. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

1667 not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

1668 control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations codified in 40 CFR chapter I, 

1669 after appearing in the preamble of the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either 

1670 by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related 

1671 collection instrument or form, as applicable. 

1672 C. Small Entity Impacts 

1673 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

1674 the Agency hereby certifies that this final rule will not have a significant adverse economic 

1675 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small 

1676 organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of 

1677 this final rule on small entities, small entity is defined in accordance with RFA section 601 as: 

1678 1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

1679 regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 

1680 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 74 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1681 district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

1682 3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 

1683 owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

1684 The small entities directly regulated by this final rule are providers of lead-based paint 

1685 related training, renovation firms, individuals who perform renovations, and any small 

1686 governmental jurisdictions or not-for-profit enterprises that provide lead-based paint training or 

1687 renovation services. As discussed previously, EPA has decided not to promulgate the clearance 

1688 and clearance testing requirements, and is instead promulgating minor amendments to the 

1689 requirements for lead-based paint training providers and renovation firms that will have only 

1690 negligible adverse impacts on any small entities. 

1691 In addition, RFA states that agencies “may consider a series of closely related rules as 

1692 one rule for the purposes of [an IRFA]” in order to avoid “duplicative action.” 5 U.S.C. § 605(c). 

1693 This rulemaking is closely related to the 2008 RRP rule. Indeed, the proposed rule addressed 

1694 one of the major issues in the 2008 rulemaking and some of the provisions finalized in the 2008 

1695 RRP rule. Accordingly, EPA was not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis for 

1696 this rulemaking. Nonetheless, EPA exercised its discretion to complete an Initial Regulatory 

1697 Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the 2010 proposal (see 75 FR 25038). The IRFA considered the 

1698 potential adverse economic impacts of the 2010 proposed rule on affected small entities, 

1699 primarily those related to the proposed clearance and clearance testing requirements. The 

1700 proposed provisions analyzed for purposes of the IRFA are not part of this final rule. 

1701 Moreover, as discussed in the 2010 proposed rule in more detail, the Small Business 

1702 Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel that was conducted in connection with the 2006 RRP proposal 

1703 is equally applicable to this closely related amendment to the 2008 RRP rule. The SBAR Panel 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 75 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1704 discussed all major aspects of the 2006 proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling activities, 

1705 including issues related to ensuring that proper cleanup occurs after renovation activities. As a 

1706 part of the panel process, EPA “collect[ed] advice and recommendations” from several Small 

1707 Entity Representatives (SERs) on the 2006 proposal to regulate renovation and remodeling 

1708 activities. 5 U.S.C. § 609(b). The SBAR Panel report, entitled Report of the Small Business 

1709 Advocacy Review Panel on The Lead-base Painting; Certification and Training; Renovation and 

1710 Remodeling Requirements (March 3, 2000), expressly addressed containment and dust clearance 

1711 testing requirements. (Ref. 17). Thus, the primary issues considered in this rulemaking are 

1712 wholly within the scope of the issues EPA considered as part of the 2008 RRP rule and were 

1713 within the scope of the issues considered by the SBAR Panel. Reconvening the RRP Panel for 

1714 the 2010 proposed rule would be procedurally duplicative and unnecessary. 

1715 D. Unfunded Mandates 

1716 This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 

1717 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

1718 any one year. This rule includes only minor amendments to the requirements for providers of 

1719 lead-based paint training and for renovation firms. Thus, this rule is not subject to the 

1720 requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 

1721 U.S.C. 1531-1538). 

1722 This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it 

1723 contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 

1724 governments. Small governments are only regulated by this action to the extent that they engage 

1725 in providing lead-based paint training or renovation services. 

1726 E. Federalism 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 76 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1727 Pursuant to Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), 

1728 EPA has determined that this final rule does not have “federalism implications,” because it will 

1729 not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 

1730 government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 

1731 levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

1732 not apply to this final rule. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the objectives of this Executive Order, 

1733 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between the Agency and State and 

1734 local governments, EPA consulted with representatives of State and local governments during 

1735 the rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP rule. These consultations are as described in the 

1736 preamble to the 2006 RRP proposed rule (Ref. 18). 

1737 F. Indian Tribal Government Implications 

1738 As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 

1739 Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000), EPA has determined that this 

1740 final rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on 

1741 Tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes, 

1742 or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian 

1743 Tribes, as specified in the Executive Order. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 

1744 final rule. Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule, EPA consulted with 

1745 Tribal officials and others by discussing potential renovation regulatory options at several 

1746 national lead program meetings hosted by EPA and other interested Federal agencies. 

1747 G. Protection of Children 

1748 Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

1749 and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) does not apply to this final rule because it is not 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 77 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1750 an ”economically significant regulatory action” as defined by Executive Order 12866. While the 

1751 environmental health or safety risk addressed by the 2008 RRP rule does have a disproportionate 

1752 effect on children, this final rule makes only minor changes in the administrative requirements 

1753 for accredited training providers and includes minor amendments to the requirements for 

1754 renovation firms. 

1755 EPA has evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of renovation, repair, and 

1756 painting projects on children. Various aspects of this evaluation are discussed in the preamble to 

1757 the 2006 proposed RRP rule (Ref. 18). The primary purpose of the final 2008 RRP rule is to 

1758 minimize exposure to lead-based paint hazards created during renovation, repair, and painting 

1759 activities in housing where children under age 6 reside and in housing or other buildings 

1760 frequented by children under age 6. In the absence of the final 2008 RRP rule, adequate work 

1761 practices are not likely to be employed during renovation, repair, and painting activities. EPA’s 

1762 analysis indicates that there will be approximately 1.4 million children under age 6 affected by 

1763 the RRP rule. These children are projected to receive considerable benefits due to the RRP rule. 

1764 In addition, older children will also benefit from the protections afforded by the RRP rule. 

1765 H. Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

1766 This final rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, 

1767 entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 

1768 Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have any adverse effect on the 

1769 supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

1770 I. Technical Standards 

1771 This regulatory action does not involve any technical standards that would require 

1772 Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 78 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1773 Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note. Section 

1774 12(d) of NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities 

1775 unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

1776 consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 

1777 sampling procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 

1778 standards bodies. NTTAA requires EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when 

1779 the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

1780 J. Environmental Justice 

1781 Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

1782 Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 

1783 Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, 

1784 to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of 

1785 their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

1786 human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority 

1787 populations and low-income populations in the United States. 

1788 While EPA has not assessed the potential impact of this final rule on minority and low1789 income populations, EPA did assess the potential impact of the final 2008 RRP rule as a whole. 

1790 As a result of the final 2008 RRP rule assessment, contained in the economic analysis for the 

1791 final 2008 RRP rule, EPA has determined that the RRP rule will not have disproportionately high 

1792 and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations 

1793 because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without 

1794 having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any 

1795 population, including any minority or low-income population (Ref. 109). 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 79 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1796 V. Congressional Review Act 

1797 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally provides that before a rule 

1798 may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the 

1799 Congress and the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing 

1800 this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, 

1801 and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal 

1802 Register. This rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

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

Page 80 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1804 

1805 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

1806 Environmental protection, Child-occupied facility, Housing renovation, 

1807 Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

1808 

1809 Dated: ________________ 

1810 

1811 

1812 ____________________________________ 

1813 Administrator. 

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

Page 81 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1815 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows: 

1816 PART 745--[AMENDED] 

1817 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 

1818 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681–2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

1819 2. In § 745.82, add a new paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows. 

1820 § 745.82 Applicability. 

1821 (a) * * * 

1822 (3) Renovations in target housing or child-occupied facilities in which a certified 

1823 renovator has collected a paint chip sample from each painted component affected by the 

1824 renovation and a laboratory recognized by EPA pursuant to section 405(b) of TSCA as being 

1825 capable of performing analyses for lead compounds in paint chip samples has determined that the 

1826 samples are free of paint or other surface coatings that contain lead equal to or in excess of 1.0 

mg/cm2 1827 or 0.5% by weight. If the components make up an integrated whole, such as the 

1828 individual stair treads and risers of a single staircase, the renovator is required to test only one of 

1829 the individual components, unless the individual components appear to have been repainted or 

1830 refinished separately. 

1831 * * * * * 

1832 3. In § 745.83, add the definition “ContainmentPainted surface” and the definition 

1833 “Painted surfaceVertical containment” in alphabetical order to read as follows: 

1834 § 745.83 Definitions. 

1835 * * * * * 

1836 Painted surface means a component surface covered in whole or in part with paint or 

1837 other surface coatings. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 82 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1838 * * * * *

1839 Vertical containment means a vertical barrier consisting of plastic sheeting or other 

1840 impermeable material over scaffolding or a wood or metalrigid frame, or an equivalent system of 

1841 containing the work area. Vertical containment is required for some exterior renovations but it 

1842 may be used on any renovation. 

1843 * * * * * 

1844 4. Section 745.85 is amended as follows: 

1845 a. Revise paragraphparagraphs (a)(2)(i)(D) and (a)(2)(ii)(C) and (D); 

1846 b. Revise paragraph (a)(3); 

1847 c. Remove paragraph (c);

1848 The revisions read as follows: 

1849 § 745.85 Work practice standards. 

1850 (a) * * * 

1851 (2) * * * 

1852 (i) * * * 

1853 (D) Cover the floor surface, including installed carpet, with taped-down plastic sheeting 

1854 or other impermeable material in the work area 6 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces 

1855 undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance to contain the dust, whichever is greater. Floor 

1856 containment measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier when using a vertical 

1857 containment system consisting of impermeable barriers that extend from the floor to the ceiling 

1858 and are tightly sealed at joints with the floor, ceiling and walls. 

1859 * * * * *

1860 (ii) * * * 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 83 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1861 (C) Cover the ground with plastic sheeting or other disposable impermeable material 

1862 extending 10 feet beyond the perimeter of surfaces undergoing renovation or a sufficient distance 

1863 to collect falling paint debris, whichever is greater, unless the property line prevents 10 feet of 

1864 such ground covering. Ground containment measures may stop at the edge of the vertical barrier 

1865 when using a vertical containment system. 

1866 (D) If the renovation will affect surfaces within 10 feet of the property line, the 

1867 renovation firm must erect vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions in containing the 

1868 work area to ensure that dust and debris from the renovation does not contaminate adjacent 

1869 buildings or migrate to adjacent properties. Vertical containment or equivalent extra precautions 

1870 in containing the work area may also be necessary in other situations, such as in windy

1871 conditions, in order to prevent contamination of other buildings, other areas of the property, or 

1872 adjacent buildings or properties. 

1873 (3) Prohibited and restricted practices. The work practices listed below are prohibited or 

1874 restricted during a renovation as follows: 

1875 (i) Open-flame burning or torching of painted surfaces is prohibited. 

1876 (ii) The use of machines designed to remove paint or other surface coatings through high 

1877 speed operation such as sanding, grinding, power planing, needle gun, abrasive blasting, or 

1878 sandblasting, is prohibited on painted surfaces unless such machines have shrouds or 

1879 containment systems and are equipped with a HEPA vacuum attachment to collect dust and 

1880 debris at the point of generation. 

1881 (iii) Operating a heat gun on painted surfaces is permitted only at temperatures below 

1882 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit. 

1883 * * * * * 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 84 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1884 5. In § Section 745.86, delete paragraph (d). is amended as follows:

1885 a. Add paragraph (b)(1)(iii).

1886 b. Redesignate paragraphs (b)(6.)(iv) – (vii) as paragraphs (b)(6)(v) – (viii), respectively.

1887 c. Add new paragraph (b)(6)(iv).

1888 The additions and revisions read as follows:

1889 § 745.86 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.

1890 * * * * *

1891 (b) * * *

1892 (1) * * *

1893 (iii) Records prepared by a certified renovator after collecting paint chip samples, 

1894 including a description of the components that were tested including their locations, the name 

1895 and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing the analysis, and the results for each 

1896 sample. 

1897 * * * * *

1898 (6) * * *

1899 (iv) If paint chip samples were collected, that the samples were collected at the specified 

1900 locations, that the specified NLLAP-recognized laboratory analyzed the samples, and that the 

1901 results were as specified. 

1902 * * * * *

1903 6. Section 745.90 is amended as follows: 

1904 a. By revising Revise paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3). 

1905 b. By revising Revise paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(8). 

1906 § 745.90 Renovator certification and dust sampling technician certification. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 85 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1907 (a) * * * 

1908 (2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited abatement worker or 

1909 supervisor course, or individuals who successfully completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD 

1910 model renovation training course before [insert date [60] days after date of publication in the 

1911 Federal Register] may take an accredited refresher renovator training course in lieu of the initial 

1912 renovator training course to become a certified renovator. 

1913 (3) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited lead-based paint inspector 

1914 or risk assessor course [insert date [60] days after date of publication in the Federal Register] 

1915 may take an accredited refresher dust sampling technician course in lieu of the initial training to 

1916 become a certified dust sampling technician. Individuals who are currently certified as lead1917 based paint inspectors or risk assessors may act as certified dust sampling technicians without 

1918 further training. 

1919 * * * * * 

1920 (b) * * * 

1921 (2) Must provide training to workers on the work practices required by § 745.85(a) that 

1922 they will be using in performing their assigned tasks. 

1923 * * * * * 

1924 (4) Must regularly direct work being performed by other individuals to ensure that the 

1925 work practices required by § 745.85(a) are being followed, including maintaining the integrity of 

1926 the containment barriers and ensuring that dust or debris does not spread beyond the work area. 

1927 * * * * * 

1928 (8) Must prepare the records required by § 745.86(b)(1)(ii) and (6). 

1929 * * * * * 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 86 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1930 7. In § 745.92, add paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows: 

1931 § 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling technician training and 

1932 the certification of renovation firms. 

1933 

1934 * * * * * 

1935 (b) * * * 

1936 (3) Accreditation or certification amendments. No fee will be charged for accreditation or 

1937 certification amendments. 

1938 * * * * * 

1939 8. Revise § 745.225 to read as follows: 

1940 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child occupied facilities. 

1941 (a) Scope. (1) A training program may seek accreditation to offer courses in any of the 

1942 following disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, 

1943 renovator, and dust sampling technician. A training program may also seek accreditation to offer 

1944 refresher courses for each of the above listed disciplines. 

1945 (2) Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their lead-based paint 

1946 activities courses or refresher courses pursuant to this section on or after August 31, 1998. 

1947 Training programs may first apply to EPA for accreditation of their renovator or dust sampling 

1948 technician courses or refresher courses pursuant to this section on or after April 22, 2009. 

1949 (3) A training program must not provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA- accredited lead1950 based paint activities courses without applying for and receiving accreditation from EPA as 

1951 required under paragraph (b) of this section on or after March 1, 1999. A training program must 

1952 not provide, offer, or claim to provide EPA-accredited renovator or dust sampling technician 

1953 courses without applying for and receiving accreditation from EPA as required under paragraph 

1954 (b) of this section on or after June 23, 2008. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 87 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1955 (b) Application process. The following are procedures a training program must follow to 

1956 receive EPA accreditation to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust 

1957 sampling technician courses: 

1958 (1) A training program seeking accreditation shall submit a written application to EPA 

1959 containing the following information: 

1960 (i) The training program’s name, address, and telephone number. 

1961 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation. For the purposes of this 

1962 section, courses taught in different languages and electronic learning courses are considered 

1963 different courses, and each must independently meet the accreditation requirements. 

1964 (iii) The name and documentation of the qualifications of the training program manager. 

1965 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of qualifications of any principal instructor(s). 

1966 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the training 

1967 program meets the requirements established in paragraph (c) of this section. If a training program 

1968 uses EPA-recommended model training materials, or training materials approved by a State or 

1969 Indian Tribe that has been authorized by EPA under subpart Q of this part, the training program 

1970 manager shall include a statement certifying that, as well. 

1971 (vi) If a training program does not use EPA-recommended model training materials, its 

1972 application for accreditation shall also include: 

1973 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals, or other materials to be used for each 

1974 course. 

1975 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 

1976 (C) When applying for accreditation of a course in a language other than 

1977 English, a signed statement from a qualified, independent translator that they had compared the 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 88 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

1978 course to the English language version and found the translation to be accurate. 

1979 (vii) All training programs shall include in their application for accreditation the 

1980 following: 

1981 (A) A description of the facilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands-on 

1982 training. 

1983 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 

1984 (C) A description of the activities and procedures that will be used for conducting the 

1985 assessment of hands-on skills for each course. 

1986 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

1987 (2) If a training program meets the requirements in paragraph (c) of this section, then 

1988 EPA shall approve the application for accreditation no more than 180 days after receiving a 

1989 complete application from the training program. In the case of approval, a certificate of 

1990 accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a letter describing the 

1991 reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the applicant. Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its 

1992 discretion, work with the applicant to address inadequacies in the application for accreditation. 

1993 EPA may also request additional materials retained by the training program under paragraph (i) 

1994 of this section. If a training program’s application is disapproved, the program may reapply for 

1995 accreditation at any time. 

1996 (3) A training program may apply for accreditation to offer courses or refresher courses 

1997 in as many disciplines as it chooses. A training program may seek accreditation for additional 

1998 courses at any time as long as the program can demonstrate that it meets the requirements of this 

1999 section. 

2000 (4) A training program applying for accreditation must submit the appropriate fees in 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 89 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2001 accordance with § 745.238. 

2002 (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. For a training program to 

2003 obtain accreditation from EPA to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or 

2004 dust sampling technician courses, the program must meet the following requirements: 

2005 (1) The training program shall employ a training manager who has: 

2006 (i) At least 2 years of experience, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; or 

2007 (ii) A bachelor’s or graduate degree in building construction technology, engineering, 

2008 industrial hygiene, safety, public health, education, business administration or program 

2009 management or a related field; or 

2010 (iii) Two years of experience in managing a training program specializing in 

2011 environmental hazards; and 

2012 (iv) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in the construction industry 

2013 including: Lead or asbestos abatement, painting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, occupational 

2014 safety and health, or industrial hygiene. 

2015 (2) The training manager shall designate a qualified principal instructor for each course 

2016 who has: 

2017 (i) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in teaching workers or adults; and 

2018 (ii) Successfully completed at least 16 hours of any EPA-accredited or EPA-authorized 

2019 State or Tribal-accredited lead-specific training; and 

2020 (iii) Demonstrated experience, education, or training in lead or asbestos abatement, 

2021 painting, carpentry, renovation, remodeling, occupational safety and health, or industrial 

2022 hygiene. 

2023 (3) The principal instructor shall be responsible for the organization of the course, course 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 90 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2024 delivery, and oversight of the teaching of all course material. The training manager may 

2025 designate guest instructors as needed for a portion of the course to provide instruction specific to 

2026 the lecture, hands-on activities, or work practice components of a course. However, the principal 

2027 instructor is primarily responsible for teaching the course materials and must be present to 

2028 provide instruction (or oversight of portions of the course taught by guest instructors) for the 

2029 course for which he has been designated the principal instructor. 

2030 (4) The following documents shall be recognized by EPA as evidence that training 

2031 managers and principal instructors have the education, work experience, training requirements or 

2032 demonstrated experience, specifically listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. This 

2033 documentation must be submitted with the accreditation application and retained by the training 

2034 program as required by the recordkeeping requirements contained in paragraph (i) of this section. 

2035 Those documents include the following: 

2036 (i) Official academic transcripts or diploma as evidence of meeting the education 

2037 requirements. 

2038 (ii) Resumes, letters of reference, or documentation of work experience, as evidence of 

2039 meeting the work experience requirements. 

2040 (iii) Certificates from train-the-trainer courses and lead-specific training courses, as 

2041 evidence of meeting the training requirements. 

2042 (5) The training program shall ensure the availability of, and provide adequate facilities 

2043 for, the delivery of the lecture, course test, hands-on training, and assessment activities. This 

2044 includes providing training equipment that reflects current work practices and maintaining or 

2045 updating the equipment and facilities as needed. 

2046 (6) To become accredited in the following disciplines, the training program shall provide 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 91 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2047 training courses that meet the following training requirements: 

2048 (i) The inspector course shall last a minimum of 24 training hours, with a minimum of 8 

2049 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 

2050 inspector course are contained in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

2051 (ii) The risk assessor course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a minimum 

2052 of 4 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 

2053 risk assessor course are contained in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. 

2054 (iii) The supervisor course shall last a minimum of 32 training hours, with a minimum of 

2055 8 hours devoted to hands-on activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the supervisor 

2056 course are contained in paragraph (d)(3) of this section. 

2057 (iv) The project designer course shall last a minimum of 8 training hours. The minimum 

2058 curriculum requirements for the project designer course are contained in paragraph (d)(4) of this 

2059 section. 

2060 (v) The abatement worker course shall last a minimum of 16 training hours, with a 

2061 minimum of 8 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum 

2062 requirements for the abatement worker course are contained in paragraph (d)(5) of this section. 

2063 (vi) The renovator course must last a minimum of 8 training hours, with a minimum of 2 

2064 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum requirements for the 

2065 renovator course are contained in paragraph (d)(6) of this section. 

2066 (vii) The dust sampling technician course must last a minimum of 8 training hours, with a 

2067 minimum of 2 hours devoted to hands-on training activities. The minimum curriculum 

2068 requirements for the dust sampling technician course are contained in paragraph (d)(7) of this 

2069 section. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 92 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2070 (viii) Electronic learning and other alternative course delivery methods are permitted for 

2071 the classroom portion of renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities 

2072 courses but not the hands-on portion of these courses, or for final course tests or proficiency tests 

2073 described in paragraph (c)(7) of this section. Electronic learning courses must comply with the 

2074 following requirements: 

2075 (A) A unique identifier must be assigned to each student for them to use to launch and re2076 launch the course. 

2077 (B) The training provider must track each student’s course log-ins, launches, progress, 

2078 and completion, and maintain these records in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section. 

2079 (C) The course must include periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the number and 

2080 content of the knowledge checks contained in EPA’s model course, but at least 16 over the entire 

2081 course. The knowledge checks must be successfully completed before the student can go on to 

2082 the next module. 

2083 (D) There must be a test of at least 20 questions at the end of the electronic learning 

2084 portion of the course, of which 80% must be answered correctly by the student for successful 

2085 completion of the electronic learning portion of the course. The test must be designed so that 

2086 students to do not receive feedback on their test answers until after they have completed and 

2087 submitted the test. 

2088 (E) Each student must be able to save or print a copy of an electronic learning course 

2089 completion certificate. The electronic certificate must not be susceptible to immediate and easy 

2090 editing by students. 

2091 (7) For each course offered, the training program shall conduct either a course test at the 

2092 completion of the course, and if applicable, a hands-on skills assessment, or in the alternative, a 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 93 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2093 proficiency test for that discipline. Each individualstudent must successfully complete the 

2094 hands-on skills assessment and receive a passing score on the course test to pass any course, or 

2095 successfully complete a proficiency test. 

2096 (i) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity of the 

2097 hands-on skills assessment or proficiency test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees’ 

2098 performance of the work practices and procedures associated with the course topics contained in 

2099 paragraph (d) of this section. 

2100 (ii) The training manager is responsible for maintaining the validity and integrity of the 

2101 course test to ensure that it accurately evaluates the trainees’ knowledge and retention of the 

2102 course topics. 

2103 (iii) The course test shall be developed in accordance with the test blueprint submitted 

2104 with the training accreditation application. 

2105 (8) The training program shall issue unique course completion certificates to each 

2106 individual who passes the training course. The course completion certificate shall include: 

2107 (i) The name, a unique identification number, and address of the individual. 

2108 (ii) The name of the particular course that the individual completed. 

2109 (iii) Dates of course completion/test passage. 

2110 (iv) For initial inspector, risk assessor, project designer, supervisor, or abatement worker 

2111 course completion certificates, the expiration date of interim certification, which is 6 months 

2112 from the date of course completion. 

2113 (v) The name, address, and telephone number of the training program. 

2114 (vi) The language in which the course was taught. 

2115 (vii) For renovator and dust sampling technician course completion certificates, a 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 94 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2116 photograph of the individual. The photograph must be an accurate and recognizable image of the 

2117 individual. As reproduced on the certificate, the photograph must not be smaller than 1 square 

2118 inch. 

2119 (9) The training manager shall develop and implement a quality control plan. The plan 

2120 shall be used to maintain and improve the quality of the training program over time. This plan 

2121 shall contain at least the following elements: 

2122 (i) Procedures for periodic revision of training materials and the course test to reflect 

2123 innovations in the field. 

2124 (ii) Procedures for the training manager’s annual review of principal instructor 

2125 competency. 

2126 (10) Courses offered by the training program must teach the work practice standards 

2127 contained in § 745.85 or § 745.227, as applicable, in such a manner that trainees are provided 

2128 with the knowledge needed to perform the renovations or lead-based paint activities they will be 

2129 responsible for conducting. 

2130 (11) The training manager shall be responsible for ensuring that the training program 

2131 complies at all times with all of the requirements in this section. 

2132 (12) The training manager shall allow EPA to audit the training program to verify the 

2133 contents of the application for accreditation as described in paragraph (b) of this section. 

2134 (13) The training manager must provide notification of renovator, dust sampling 

2135 technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered. 

2136 (i) The training manager must provide EPA with notification of all renovator, dust 

2137 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses offered. The original notification 

2138 must be received by EPA at least 7 business days prior to the start date of any renovator, dust 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 95 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2139 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities course. 

2140 (ii) The training manager must provide EPA updated notification when renovator, dust 

2141 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses will begin on a date other than the 

2142 start date specified in the original notification, as follows: 

2143 (A) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 

2144 beginning prior to the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be received by 

2145 EPA at least 7 business days before the new start date. 

2146 (B) For renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses 

2147 beginning after the start date provided to EPA, an updated notification must be received by EPA 

2148 at least 2 business days before the start date provided to EPA. 

2149 (iii) The training manager must update EPA of any change in location of renovator, dust 

2150 sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses at least 7 business days prior to the 

2151 start date provided to EPA. 

2152 (iv) The training manager must update EPA regarding any course cancellations, or any 

2153 other change to the original notification. Updated notifications must be received by EPA at least 

2154 2 business days prior to the start date provided to EPA. 

2155 (v) Each notification, including updates, must include the following: 

2156 (A) Notification type (original, update, cancellation). 

2157 (B) Training program name, EPA accreditation number, address, and telephone number. 

2158 (C) Course discipline, type (initial/refresher), and the language in which instruction will 

2159 be given. 

2160 (D) Date(s) and time(s) of training. 

2161 (E) Training location(s) telephone number, and address. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 96 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2162 (F) Principal instructor’s name. 

2163 (G) Training manager’s name and signature. 

2164 (vi) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: Written 

2165 notification, or electronically using the Agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 

2166 notification of lead-based paint activities course schedules can be accomplished by using either 

2167 the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training Notification” or a similar form containing the 

2168 information required in paragraph (c)(13)(v) of this section. All written notifications must be 

2169 delivered to EPA by U.S. Postal Service, fax, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery 

2170 (persons submitting notification by U.S. Postal Service are reminded that they should allow 3 

2171 additional business days for delivery in order to ensure that EPA receives the notification by the 

2172 required date). Instructions and sample forms can be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800– 424–

2173 LEAD(5323), or on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/leadhttp://www.epa.gov/lead. Hearing2174 or speech-impaired persons may reach the above telephone number through TTY by calling the 

2175 toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. 

2176 (vii) Renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses must not 

2177 begin on a date, or at a location other than that specified in the original notification unless an 

2178 updated notification identifying a new start date or location is submitted, in which case the 

2179 course must begin on the new start date and/or location specified in the updated notification. 

2180 (viii) No training program shall provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead2181 based paint activities courses without first notifying EPA of such activities in accordance with 

2182 the requirements of this paragraph. 

2183 (14) The training manager must provide notification following completion of renovator, 

2184 dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities courses. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 97 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2185 (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of any lead2186 based paint activities course. This notice must be received by EPA no later than 10 business 

2187 days following course completion. 

2188 (ii) The notification must include the following: 

2189 (A) Training program name, EPA accreditation number, address, and telephone number. 

2190 (B) Course discipline and type (initial/refresher). 

2191 (C) Date(s) of training. 

2192 (D) The following information for each student who took the course: 

2193 (1) Name. 

2194 (2) Address. 

2195 (3) Date of birth. 

2196 (4) Course completion certificate number. 

2197 (5) Course test score. 

2198 (6) For renovator or dust sampling technician courses, a digital photograph of the student. 

2199 (E) Training manager’s name and signature. 

2200 (iii) Notification must be accomplished using any of the following methods: Written 

2201 notification, or electronically using the Agency’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Written 

2202 notification following renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities training 

2203 courses can be accomplished by using either the sample form titled “Lead-Based Paint Training 

2204 Course Follow-up” or a similar form containing the information required in paragraph (c)(14)(ii) 

2205 of this section. All written notifications must be delivered to EPA by U.S. Postal Service, fax, 

2206 commercial delivery service, or hand delivery (persons submitting notification by U.S. Postal 

2207 Service are reminded that they should allow 3 additional business days for delivery in order to 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 98 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2208 ensure that EPA receives the notification by the required date). Instructions and sample forms 

2209 can be obtained from the NLIC at 1–800–424–LEAD (5323), or on the Internet at 

2210 http://www.epa.gov/lead. 

2211 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. To become accredited to offer lead2212 based paint courses in the specific disciplines listed belowin this paragraph, training programs 

2213 must ensure that their courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 

2214 (1) Inspector. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(1)(iv), (v), (vi), and 

2215 (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2216 (i) Role and responsibilities of an inspector. 

2217 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

2218 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance that 

2219 pertains to lead-based paint and lead- based paint activities. 

2220 (iv) Lead-based paint inspection methods, including selection of rooms and components 

2221 for sampling or testing. 

2222 (v) Paint, dust, and soil sampling methodologies. 

2223 (vi) Clearance standards and testing, including random sampling. 

2224 (vii) Preparation of the final inspection report. 

2225 (viii) Recordkeeping. 

2226 (2) Risk assessor. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(2)(iv), (vi), and 

2227 (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2228 (i) Role and responsibilities of a risk assessor. 

2229 (ii) Collection of background information to perform a risk assessment. 

2230 (iii) Sources of environmental lead contamination such as paint, surface dust and soil, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 99 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2231 water, air, packaging, and food. 

2232 (iv) Visual inspection for the purposes of identifying potential sources of lead-based paint 

2233 hazards. 

2234 (v) Lead hazard screen protocol. 

2235 (vi) Sampling for other sources of lead exposure. 

2236 (vii) Interpretation of lead-based paint and other lead sampling results, including all 

2237 applicable State or Federal or State guidance or regulations pertaining to lead-based paint 

2238 hazards. 

2239 (viii) Development of hazard control options, the role of interim controls, and operations 

2240 and maintenance activities to reduce lead-based paint hazards. 

2241 (ix) Preparation of a final risk assessment report. 

2242 (3) Supervisor. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(3)(v), (vii), (viii), 

2243 (ix), and (x) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2244 (i) Role and responsibilities of a supervisor. 

2245 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

2246 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance that 

2247 pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 

2248 (iv) Liability and insurance issues relating to lead-based paint abatement. 

2249 (v) Risk assessment and inspection report interpretation. 

2250 (vi) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan and abatement 

2251 report. 

2252 (vii) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control. 

2253 (viii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 100 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2254 including restricted practices. 

2255 (ix) Interior dust abatement/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard control and reduction 

2256 methods. 

2257 (x) Soil and exterior dust abatement or lead-based paint hazard control and reduction 

2258 methods. 

2259 (xi) Clearance standards and testing. 

2260 (xii) Cleanup and waste disposal. 

2261 (xiii) Recordkeeping. 

2262 (4) Project designer. (i) Role and responsibilities of a project designer. 

2263 (ii) Development and implementation of an occupant protection plan for large-scale 

2264 abatement projects. 

2265 (iii) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, 

2266 including restricted practices for large-scale abatement projects. 

2267 (iv) Interior dust abatement/cleanup or lead hazard control and reduction methods for 

2268 large-scale abatement projects. 

2269 (v) Clearance standards and testing for large scale abatement projects. 

2270 (vi) Integration of lead-based paint abatement methods with modernization and 

2271 rehabilitation projects for large scale abatement projects. 

2272 (5) Abatement worker. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(5)(iv), (v), 

2273 (vi), and (vii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2274 (i) Role and responsibilities of an abatement worker. 

2275 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

2276 (iii) Background information on Federal, State and local regulations and guidance that 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 101 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2277 pertain to lead-based paint abatement. 

2278 (iv) Lead-based paint hazard recognition and control. 

2279 (v) Lead-based paint abatement and lead-based paint hazard reduction methods, including 

2280 restricted practices. 

2281 (vi) Interior dust abatement methods/cleanup or lead-based paint hazard reduction. 

2282 (vii) Soil and exterior dust abatement methods or lead-based paint hazard reduction. 

2283 (6) Renovator. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv), (vi), (vii), and 

2284 (viii) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2285 (i) Role and responsibility of a renovator. 

2286 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

2287 (iii) Background information on EPA, HUD, OSHA, and other Federal, State, and local 

2288 regulations and guidance that pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 

2289 (iv) Procedures for using acceptable test kits to determine whether paint is lead-based 

2290 paint. 

2291 (v) Procedures for collecting a paint chip sample and sending it to a laboratory 

2292 recognized by EPA under section 405(b) of TSCA. 

2293 (vi) Renovation methods to minimize the creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards. 

2294 (vii) Interior and exterior containment and cleanup methods. 

2295 (viii) Methods to ensure that the renovation has been properly completed, including 

2296 cleaning verification and clearance testing. 

2297 (ix) Waste handling and disposal. 

2298 (x) Providing on-the-job training to other workers. 

2299 (xi) Record preparation. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 102 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2300 (7) Dust sampling technician. Instruction in the topics described in paragraphs (d)(6)(iv) 

2301 and (vi) of this section must be included in the hands-on portion of the course. 

2302 (i) Role and responsibility of a dust sampling technician. 

2303 (ii) Background information on lead and its adverse health effects. 

2304 (iii) Background information on Federal, State, and local regulations and guidance that 

2305 pertains to lead-based paint and renovation activities. 

2306 (iv) Dust sampling methodologies. 

2307 (v) Clearance standards and testing. 

2308 (vi) Report preparation. 

2309 (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training programs. A training 

2310 program may seek accreditation to offer refresher training courses in any of the following 

2311 disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, 

2312 and dust sampling technician. To obtain EPA accreditation to offer refresher training, a training 

2313 program must meet the following minimum requirements: 

2314 (1) Each refresher course shall review the curriculum topics of the full-length courses 

2315 listed under paragraph (d) of this section, as appropriate. In addition, to become accredited to 

2316 offer refresher training courses, training programs shall ensure that their courses of study 

2317 include, at a minimum, the following: 

2318 (i) An overview of current safety practices relating to lead-based paint in general, as well 

2319 as specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

2320 (ii) Current laws and regulations relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as 

2321 specific information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

2322 (iii) Current technologies relating to lead-based paint in general, as well as specific 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 103 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2323 information pertaining to the appropriate discipline. 

2324 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must 

2325 last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher courses for project designer, renovator, and dust 

2326 sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all 

2327 disciplines except project designer must include a hands-on component. 

2328 (3) For each courseExcept for project designer courses, for all other courses offered, the 

2329 training program shall conduct a hands-on assessment (for all courses except project designer),,

2330 and at the completion of the course, a course test. 

2331 (4) A training program may apply for accreditation of a refresher course concurrently 

2332 with its application for accreditation of the corresponding training course as described in 

2333 paragraph (b) of this section. If so, EPA shall use the approval procedure described in paragraph 

2334 (b) of this section. In addition, the minimum requirements contained in paragraphs (c) (except 

2335 for the requirements in paragraph)(1) through (c)(6)),5) and (c)(7) through (c)(14), and (e)(1),

2336 (e)(2) andthrough (e)(3) of this section shall also apply. 

2337 (5) A training program seeking accreditation to offer refresher training courses only shall 

2338 submit a written application to EPA containing the following information: 

2339 (i) The refresher training program’s name, address, and telephone number. 

2340 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation. 

2341 (iii) The name and documentation of the qualifications of the training program manager. 

2342 (iv) The name(s) and documentation of the qualifications of the principal instructor(s). 

2343 (v) A statement signed by the training program manager certifying that the refresher 

2344 training program meets the minimum requirements established in paragraph (c) of this section, 

2345 except for the requirements in paragraph (c)(6) of this section. If a training program uses EPA-
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 104 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2346 developed model training materials, or training materials approved by a State or Indian Tribe that 

2347 has been authorized by EPA under § 745.324 to develop its refresher training course materials, 

2348 the training manager shall include a statement certifying that, as well. 

2349 (vi) If the refresher training course materials are not based on EPA-developed model 

2350 training materials, the training program’s application for accreditation shall include: 

2351 (A) A copy of the student and instructor manuals to be used for each course. 

2352 (B) A copy of the course agenda for each course. 

2353 (vii) All refresher training programs shall include in their application for accreditation the 

2354 following: 

2355 (A) A description of the facilities and equipment to be used for lecture and hands-on 

2356 training. 

2357 (B) A copy of the course test blueprint for each course. 

2358 (C) A description of the activities and procedures that will be used for conducting the 

2359 assessment of hands-on skills for each course (if applicable). 

2360 (D) A copy of the quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

2361 (viii) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5), and (c)(7) through (c)(14) of 

2362 this section apply to refresher training providers. 

2363 (ix) If a refresher training program meets the requirements listed in this paragraph, then 

2364 EPA shall approve the application for accreditation no more than 180 days after receiving a 

2365 complete application from the refresher training program. In the case of approval, a certificate of 

2366 accreditation shall be sent to the applicant. In the case of disapproval, a letter describing the 

2367 reasons for disapproval shall be sent to the applicant. Prior to disapproval, EPA may, at its 

2368 discretion, work with the applicant to address inadequacies in the application for accreditation. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 105 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2369 EPA may also request additional materials retained by the refresher training program under 

2370 paragraph (i) of this section. If a refresher training program’s application is disapproved, the 

2371 program may reapply for accreditation at any time. 

2372 (f) Re-accreditation of training programs. (1) Unless re-accredited, a training program’s 

2373 accreditation, including refresher training accreditation, shall expire 4 years after the date of 

2374 issuance. If a training program meets the requirements of this section, the training program shall 

2375 be reaccredited. 

2376 (2) A training program seeking reaccreditationre-accreditation shall submit an application 

2377 to EPA no later than 180 days before its accreditation expires. If a training program does not 

2378 submit its application for re-accreditation by that date, EPA cannot guarantee that the program 

2379 will be re-accredited before the end of the accreditation period. 

2380 (3) The training program’s application for re-accreditation shall contain: 

2381 (i) The training program’s name, address, and telephone number. 

2382 (ii) A list of courses for which it is applying for re-accreditation. 

2383 (iii) The name and qualifications of the training program manager. 

2384 (iv) The name(s) and qualifications of the principal instructor(s). 

2385 (v) A description of any changes to the training facility, equipment or course materials 

2386 since its last application was approved that adversely affects the students’ ability to learn. 

2387 (vi) A statement signed by the program manager stating: 

2388 (A) That the training program complies at all times with all requirements in paragraphs 

2389 (c) and (e) of this section, as applicable; and 

2390 (B) The recordkeeping and reporting requirements of paragraph (i) of this section shall be 

2391 followed. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 106 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2392 (vii) A payment of appropriate fees in accordance with § 745.238. 

2393 (4) Upon request, the training program shall allow EPA to audit the training program to 

2394 verify the contents of the application for re-accreditation as described in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

2395 section. 

2396 (g) Suspension, revocation, and modification of accredited training programs. (1) EPA 

2397 may, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, suspend, revoke, or modify training program 

2398 accreditation, including refresher training accreditation, if a training program, training manager, 

2399 or other person with supervisory authority over the training program has: 

2400 (i) Misrepresented the contents of a training course to EPA and/or the student population. 

2401 (ii) Failed to submit required information or notifications in a timely manner. 

2402 (iii) Failed to maintain required records. 

2403 (iv) Falsified accreditation records, instructor qualifications, or other accreditation-related 

2404 information or documentation. 

2405 (v) Failed to comply with the training standards and requirements in this section. 

2406 (vi) Failed to comply with Federal, State, or local lead-based paint statutes or regulations. 

2407 (vii) Made false or misleading statements to EPA in its application for accreditation or re2408 accreditation which EPA relied upon in approving the application. 

2409 (2) In addition to an administrative or judicial finding of violation, execution of a consent 

2410 agreement in settlement of an enforcement action constitutes, for purposes of this section, 

2411 evidence of a failure to comply with relevant statutes or regulations. 

2412 (h) Procedures for suspension, revocation or modification of training program 

2413 accreditation. (1) Prior to taking action to suspend, revoke, or modify the accreditation of a 

2414 training program, EPA shall notify the affected entity in writing of the following: 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 107 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2415 (i) The legal and factual basis for the suspension, revocation, or modification. 

2416 (ii) The anticipated commencement date and duration of the suspension, revocation, or 

2417 modification. 

2418 (iii) Actions, if any, which the affected entity may take to avoid suspension, revocation, 

2419 or modification, or to receive accreditation in the future. 

2420 (iv) The opportunity and method for requesting a hearing prior to final EPA action to 

2421 suspend, revoke or modify accreditation. 

2422 (v) Any additional information, as appropriate, which EPA may provide. 

2423 (2) If a hearing is requested by the accredited training program, EPA shall: 

2424 (i) Provide the affected entity an opportunity to offer written statements in response to 

2425 EPA’s assertions of the legal and factual basis for its proposed action, and any other 

2426 explanations, comments, and arguments it deems relevant to the proposed action. 

2427 (ii) Provide the affected entity such other procedural opportunities as EPA may deem 

2428 appropriate to ensure a fair and impartial hearing. 

2429 (iii) Appoint an official of EPA as Presiding Officer to conduct the hearing. No person 

2430 shall serve as Presiding Officer if he or she has had any prior connection with the specific matter. 

2431 (3) The Presiding Officer appointed pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) of this section shall: 

2432 (i) Conduct a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing within 90 days of the request for a 

2433 hearing. 

2434 (ii) Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment, and argument submitted. 

2435 (iii) Notify the affected entity in writing within 90 days of completion of the hearing of 

2436 his or her decision and order. Such an order is a final agency action which may be subject to 

2437 judicial review. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 108 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2438 (4) If EPA determines that the public health, interest, or welfare warrants immediate 

2439 action to suspend the accreditation of any training program prior to the opportunity for a hearing, 

2440 it shall: 

2441 (i) Notify the affected entity of its intent to immediately suspend training program 

2442 accreditation for the reasons listed in paragraph (g)(1) of this section. If a suspension, 

2443 revocation, or modification notice has not previously been issued pursuant to paragraph (g)(1) of 

2444 this section, it shall be issued at the same time the emergency suspension notice is issued. 

2445 (ii) Notify the affected entity in writing of the grounds for the immediate suspension and 

2446 why it is necessary to suspend the entity’s accreditation before an opportunity for a suspension, 

2447 revocation or modification hearing. 

2448 (iii) Notify the affected entity of the anticipated commencement date and duration of the 

2449 immediate suspension. 

2450 (iv) Notify the affected entity of its right to request a hearing on the immediate 

2451 suspension within 15 days of the suspension taking place and the procedures for the conduct of 

2452 such a hearing. 

2453 (5) Any notice, decision, or order issued by EPA under this section, any transcripts or 

2454 other verbatim record of oral testimony, and any documents filed by an accredited training 

2455 program in a hearing under this section shall be available to the public, except as otherwise 

2456 provided by section 14 of TSCA or by 40 CFR part 2. Any such hearing at which oral testimony 

2457 is presented shall be open to the public, except that the Presiding Officer may exclude the public 

2458 to the extent necessary to allow presentation of information which may be entitled to confidential 

2459 treatment under section 14 of TSCA or 40 CFR part 2. 

2460 (6) The public shall be notified of the suspension, revocation, modification or 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 109 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2461 reinstatement of a training program’s accreditation through appropriate mechanisms. 

2462 (7) EPA shall maintain a list of parties whose accreditation has been suspended, revoked, 

2463 modified or reinstated. 

2464 (i) Training program recordkeeping requirements. (1) Accredited training programs shall 

2465 maintain, and make available to EPA, upon request, the following records: 

2466 (i) All documents specified in paragraph (c)(4) of this section that demonstrate the 

2467 qualifications listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section of the training manager and 

2468 principal instructors. 

2469 (ii) Current curriculum/course materials and documents reflecting any changes made to 

2470 these materials. 

2471 (iii) The course test blueprint. 

2472 (iv) Information regarding how the hands-on assessment is conducted including, but not 

2473 limited to: 

2474 (A) Who conducts the assessment. 

2475 (B) How the skills are graded. 

2476 (C) What facilities are used. 

2477 (D) The pass/fail rate. 

2478 (v) The quality control plan as described in paragraph (c)(9) of this section. 

2479 (vi) Results of the students’ hands-on skills assessments and course tests, and a record of 

2480 each student’s course completion certificate. 

2481 (vii) Any other material not listed above in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) through (i)(1)(vi) of this 

2482 section that was submitted to EPA as part of the program’s application for accreditation. 

2483 (viii) For renovator refresher and dust sampling technician refresher courses, a copy of 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 110 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2484 each trainee’s prior course completion certificate showing that each trainee was eligible to take 

2485 the refresher course. 

2486 (ix) For course modules delivered in an electronic format, a record of each student’s log2487 ins, launches, progress, and completion, and a copy of the electronic learning completion 

2488 certificate for each student. 

2489 (2) The training program must retain records pertaining to renovator, dust sampling 

2490 technician and lead-based paint activities courses at the address specified on the training program 

2491 accreditation application (or as modified in accordance with paragraph (i)(3) of this section) for 

2492 the following minimum periods: 

2493 (i) Records pertaining to lead-based paint activities courses must be retained for a 

2494 minimum of 3 years and 6 months. 

2495 (ii) Records pertaining to renovator or dust sampling technician courses offered before 

2496 April 22, 2010 must be retained until July 1, 2015. 

2497 (ii) Records pertaining to renovator or dust sampling technician courses offered on or 

2498 after April 22, 2010 must be retained for a minimum of 5 years. 

2499 (3) The training program shall notify EPA in writing within 30 days of changing the 

2500 address specified on its training program accreditation application or transferring the records 

2501 from that address. 

2502 (j) Amendment of accreditation. (1) A training program must amend its accreditation 

2503 within 90 days of the date a change occurs to information included in the program’s most recent 

2504 application. If the training program fails to amend its accreditation within 90 days of the date the 

2505 change occurs, the program may not provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 

2506 paint activities training until its accreditation is amended. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 111 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2507 (2) To amend an accreditation, a training program must submit a completed 

2508 “Accreditation Application for Training Providers,” signed by an authorized agent of the training 

2509 provider, noting on the form that it is submitted as an amendment and indicating the information 

2510 that has changed. 

2511 (3) (3) Training managers, principal instructors, permanent training locations. If the 

2512 amendment includes a new training program manager, any new or additional principal 

2513 instructor(s), or any new permanent training location(s), the training provider is not permitted to 

2514 provide training under the new training manager or offer courses taught by any new principal 

2515 instructor(s) or at the new training location(s) until EPA either approves the amendment or 30 

2516 days have elapsed, whichever occurs earlier. Except:

2517 (i) If the amendment includes a new training program manager or new or additional 

2518 principal instructor that was identified in a training provider accreditation application that EPA 

2519 has already approved under this section, the training provider may begin to provide training 

2520 under the new training manager or offer courses taught by the new principal instructor on an 

2521 interim basis as soon as the provider submits the amendment to EPA. The training provider may 

2522 continue to provide training under the new training manager or offer courses taught by the new 

2523 principal instructor if EPA approves the amendment or if EPA does not disapprove the 

2524 amendment within 30 days. 

2525 (ii) If the amendment includes a new permanent training location, the training provider 

2526 may begin to provide training at the new permanent training location on an interim basis as soon 

2527 as the provider submits the amendment to EPA. The training provider may continue to provide 

2528 training at the new permanent training location if EPA approves the amendment or if EPA does 

2529 not disapprove the amendment within 30 days.
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 112 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2530 9. In § 745.238, add paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows: 

2531 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based paint activities. 

2532 * * * * * 

2533 (c) * * * 

2534 (5) (5) Accreditation amendment fees. No fee will be charged for accreditation 

2535 amendments. 

2536 * * * * * 

2537 10. In § 745.326, revise paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (d), (e)(1), and (e)(3): 

2538 § 745.326 Renovation: State and Tribal program requirements. 

2539 (a) * * * 

2540 (2) * * * 

2541 (i) Procedures and requirements for the accreditation of renovation and dust sampling 

2542 technician training programs. (Note: a State and Tribal program is not required to include 

2543 procedures and requirements for the dust sampling technician training discipline if the State or 

2544 Tribal program requires dust sampling to be performed by a certified lead-based paint inspector 

2545 or risk assessor.) 

2546 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredited initial and refresher training for 

2547 renovators and dust sampling technicians and on-the-job training for other individuals who 

2548 perform renovations. 

2549 * * * * * 

2550 (d) Certification of individuals and/or renovation firms. To be considered at least as 

2551 protective as the Federal program, the State or Tribal program must: 

2552 (1) Establish procedures and requirements that ensure that individuals who perform or 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 113 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2553 direct renovations are properly trained. These procedures and requirements must include: 

2554 (i) A requirement that renovations be performed and directed by at least one individual 

2555 who has been trained by an accredited training program. 

2556 (ii) Procedures and requirements for accredited refresher training for these individuals. 

2557 (iii) Procedures and requirements for individuals who have received accredited training to 

2558 provide on-the-job training for those individuals who perform renovations but do not receive 

2559 accredited training. (Note: a State and Tribal program is not required to include procedures and 

2560 requirements for on-the-job training for renovation workers if the State or Tribal program 

2561 requires accredited initial and refresher training for all persons who perform renovations).)

2562 (2) Establish procedures and requirements for the formal certification and re-certification 

2563 of renovation firms. 

2564 (3) Establish procedures for the suspension, revocation, or modification of certifications. 

2565 (e) * * * 

2566 (1) Renovations must be conducted only by certified renovation firms, using trained 

2567 individuals. 

2568 * * * * * 

2569 (3) Certified individuals and/or renovation firms must retain appropriate records. 

2570 * * * * *

2571 11. In § 745.327, revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(2) to read as follows: 

2572 § 745.327 State or Indian Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement programs. 

2573 * * * * * 

2574 (b) * * * 

2575 (1) Lead-based paint activities or renovation requirements. State or Tribal lead-based 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 114 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2576 paint compliance and enforcement programs will be considered adequate if the State or Indian 

2577 Tribe demonstrates, in its application at § 745.324(b)(2), that it has established a lead-based paint 

2578 program that contains all of the elements specified in § 745.325 or § 745.326, or both, as 

2579 applicable. 

2580 (2) Authority to enter. State or Tribal officials must be able to enter, through consent, 

2581 warrant, or other authority, premises or facilities where lead-based paint violations may occur for 

2582 purposes of conducting inspections. 

2583 (i) State or Tribal officials must be able to enter premises or facilities where those 

2584 engaged in training for lead-based paint activities or renovations conduct business. 

2585 (ii) For the purposes of enforcing a renovation program, State or Tribal officials must be 

2586 able to enter a firm’s place of business or work site. 

2587 (iii) State or Tribal officials must have authority to take samples and review records as 

2588 part of the lead-based paint inspection process. 

2589 (3) Flexible remedies. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and enforcement 

2590 program must provide for a diverse and flexible array of enforcement statutory and regulatory 

2591 authorities and remedies. At a minimum, these authorities and remedies, which must also be 

2592 reflected in an enforcement response policy, must include the following: 

2593 (i) The authority to issue warning letters, Notices of Noncompliance, Notices of 

2594 Violation, or the equivalent; 

2595 (ii) The authority to assess administrative or civil fines, including a maximum penalty 

2596 authority for any violation in an amount no less than $5,000 per violation per day; 

2597 (iii) The authority to assess the maximum penalties or fines for each instance of violation 

2598 and, if the violation is continuous, the authority to assess penalties or fines up to the maximum 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 115 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2599 amount for each day of violation, with all penalties assessed or collected being appropriate for 

2600 the violation after consideration of factors as the State or Tribe determine to be relevant, 

2601 including the size or viability of the business, enforcement history, risks to human health or the 

2602 environment posed by the violation, and other similar factors; 

2603 (iv) The authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 

2604 competent jurisdiction to recover penalties; 

2605 (v) The authority to suspend, revoke, or modify the accreditation of any training provider 

2606 or the certification of any individual or firm; 

2607 (vi) The authority to commence an administrative proceeding or to sue in courts of 

2608 competent jurisdiction to enjoin any threatened or continuing violation of any program 

2609 requirement, without the necessity of a prior suspension or revocation of a trainer’s accreditation 

2610 or a firm’s or individual’s certification; 

2611 (vii) The authority to apply criminal sanctions, including recovering fines; and 

2612 (viii) The authority to enforce its authorized program using a burden of proof standard, 

2613 including the degree of knowledge or intent of the respondent that is no greater than it is for EPA 

2614 under TSCA. 

2615 * * * * * 

2616 (c) * * * 

2617 (2) Compliance assistance. A State or Tribal lead-based paint compliance and 

2618 enforcement program must provide compliance assistance to the public and the regulated 

2619 community to facilitate awareness and understanding of and compliance with State or Tribal 

2620 requirements governing the conduct of lead-based paint activities or renovations. The type and 

2621 nature of this assistance can be defined by the State or Indian Tribe to achieve this goal. 
*** EO12866 Review Draft – Deliberative Document – Do NOT Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

Page 116 of 116 [RIN 2070-AJ57] 

2622 * * * * *