Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1873 

Mailing Standards of the United States 

Postal Service, Domestic Mail Manual 

(DMM) 

* * * * * 

240 Standard Mail 

243 Prices and Eligibility 

* * * * * 

3.0 Basic Eligibility Standards for 

Standard Mail 

* * * * * 

3.2 Defining Characteristics 

* * * * * 

3.2.2 Standard Mail Marketing 

Parcels 

[Revise 3.2.2 to read as follows:] 

All Standard Mail Marketing parcels 

(regular and nonprofit) must bear an 

alternate addressing format and cannot 

be used for ‘‘fulfillment purposes’’ (i.e. 

the sending of items specifically 

purchased or requested by the customer 

of a mailer). The alternate address 

format must be on the same line as the 

addressee’s name or on the address line 

directly above or below the addressee’s 

name. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an appropriate 

amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect 

these changes if our proposal is 

adopted. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Federal Requirements. 

[FR Doc. 2015–00401 Filed 1–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0304; FRL–9920–85] 

RIN 2070–AK02 

Lead-Based Paint Programs; 

Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific 

Certification and Accreditation 

Requirements and Renovator 

Refresher Training Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing minor 

revisions to the Lead Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule that 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 22, 2008, and the Lead-based 

Paint (LBP) Activities rule that 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 29, 1996. The proposed 

revisions are intended to improve the 

day-to-day function of these programs 

by reducing burdens to industry and the 

EPA, and by clarifying language for 

training providers, while retaining the 

protections provided by the original 

rules. EPA is proposing to eliminate the 

requirement that the renovator refresher 

training have a hands-on component. 

The Agency is also proposing to remove 

jurisdiction-specific certification and 

accreditation requirements under the 

LBP Activities program. Currently, this 

program requires that training 

providers, firms and individuals seek 

certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a 

State) where the organization or person 

wants to work. In addition, EPA is 

adding clarifying language to the 

requirements for training providers 

under both the RRP and LBP Activities 

programs. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2014–0304, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: Document Control Office 

(7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on commenting 

or visiting the docket, along with more 

information about dockets generally, is 

available at http: 

//www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Marc 

Edmonds, National Program Chemicals 

Division (7404T), Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 566–0758; 

email address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you operate a training 

program required to be accredited under 

40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm or 

individual who must be certified to 

conduct lead-based paint activities in 

accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if 

you are an individual who must be 

certified to conduct renovation activities 

in accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. This 

proposed rule applies only in States, 

territories, and tribal areas that do not 

have authorized programs pursuant to 

40 CFR 745.324. For further information 

regarding the authorization status of 

States, territories, and Tribes, contact 

the National Lead Information Center at 

1–800–424–LEAD [5323]. 

The following list of North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

to help readers determine whether this 

document applies to them. Potentially 

affected entities may include: 

• Building construction (NAICS code 

236), e.g., single-family housing 

construction, multi-family housing 

construction, residential remodelers. 

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS 

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

air-conditioning contractors, painting 

and wall covering contractors, electrical 

contractors, finish carpentry contractors, 

drywall and insulation contractors, 

siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

contractors, glass and glazing 

contractors. 

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

lessors of residential buildings and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers. 

• Child day care services (NAICS 

code 624410). 

• Elementary and secondary schools 

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

schools with kindergarten classrooms. 

• Other technical and trade schools 

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

providers. 

• Engineering services (NAICS code 

541330) and building inspection 

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

sampling technicians. 

• Lead abatement professionals 

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

supervisors engaged in lead-based paint 

activities. 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the technical 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

This proposed rule is being issued 

under the authority of sections 402(a) 

and 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2682(a) 

and 2682(c)(3). 

C. What action is the Agency taking? 

EPA is proposing minor revisions to 

the RRP rule that published in the 

Federal Register on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 

1) and the Lead-based Paint Activities 

rule that published in the Federal 

Register on August 29, 1996 (Ref. 2). 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 

requirement that the renovator refresher 

training have a hands-on component. 

The Agency is also proposing to remove 

jurisdictions under the LBP Activities 

program. Currently, this program 

requires that training providers, firms 

and individuals seek certification in 

each jurisdiction (e.g., a State) where the 

organization or person wants to work. In 

addition, EPA is adding clarifying 

language to the requirements for 

training providers under both the RRP 

and LBP Activities programs. 

D. Why is the Agency taking this action? 

The proposed revisions are intended 

to improve the day-to-day function of 

these programs by reducing burdens to 

industry and the EPA and by clarifying 

language for training providers, while 

retaining the benefits of the original 

rules. 

E. What are the estimated incremental 

impacts of this action? 

EPA has prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and impacts associated 

with this proposed rule. This analysis is 

summarized in greater detail in the 

discussion concerning Executive Order 

12866 and Executive Order 13563 in 

Unit V.A. The following is a brief 

outline of the estimated incremental 

impacts of this proposed rule. 

• Overall costs. The annualized cost 

savings of this proposed rule are 

estimated at approximately $9.6 million 

per year using a 3% discount rate and 

$9.8 million per year using a 7% 

discount rate. 

• Small entity impacts. The proposed 

rule would not have a significant impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. This proposed rule would 

relieve regulatory burden for affected 

small entities, and would not have a 

direct negative impact on any small 

entities. 

• Effects on State, local, and Tribal 

governments. This proposed rule would 

not have a significant intergovernmental 

mandate, significant or unique effects 

on small governments, or have 

Federalism implications. 

F. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http://

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for preparing your comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

i. Identify the document by docket ID 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

ii. Follow directions. The Agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

iv. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

v. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

vi. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns and suggest 

alternatives. 

vii. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

viii. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background 

In 1992, Congress found that lowlevel lead poisoning was widespread 

among American children, affecting, at 

that time, as many as 3,000,000 children 

under age 6; that the ingestion of 

household dust containing lead from 

deteriorating or abraded lead-based 

paint was the most common cause of 

lead poisoning in children; and that the 

health and development of children 

living in as many as 3,800,000 American 

homes was endangered by chipping or 

peeling lead paint, or excessive amounts 

of lead-contaminated dust in their 

homes. Congress further determined 

that the prior Federal response to this 

threat was insufficient and enacted Title 

X of the Housing and Community 

Development Act of 1992 (also known 

as the Residential Lead-Based Paint 

Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Title 

X) (Ref. 3). Title X established a national 

goal of eliminating lead-based paint 

hazards in housing as expeditiously as 

possible and provided a leadership role 

for the federal government in building 

the infrastructure necessary to achieve 

this goal. 

Title X amended TSCA to add a new 

subchapter entitled ‘‘Title IV—Lead 

Exposure Reduction.’’ Most of EPA’s 

responsibilities for addressing leadbased paint hazards can be found in this 

title, with TSCA section 402 being one 

source of the rulemaking authority to 

carry out these responsibilities. Section 

402(a) of TSCA directs EPA to 

promulgate regulations covering leadbased paint activities to ensure persons 

performing these activities are properly 

trained, that training programs are 

accredited, and that contractors 

performing these activities are certified. 

Regulations promulgated under TSCA 

section 402(a) must contain standards 

for performing lead-based paint 

activities, taking into account reliability, 

effectiveness, and safety. On August 29, 

1996, EPA promulgated final regulations 

under TSCA section 402(a) that govern 

lead-based paint inspections, lead 

hazard screens, risk assessments, and 

abatements in target housing and childoccupied facilities (also referred to as 

the LBP Activities regulations) (Ref. 2). 

The LBP Activities rule, codified at 40 

CFR part 745, subpart L, contained an 

accreditation program for training 

providers and training, and certification 

and work practice requirements for 

lead-based paint inspectors, risk 

assessors, project designers, abatement 

supervisors, and abatement workers. 

Pursuant to TSCA section 404, 

provisions were made for interested 

States, territories, and Tribes to apply 

for and receive authorization to 

administer their own LBP Activities 

programs. Requirements applicable to 

State, territorial, and tribal programs are 

codified in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. 

Section 402(c) of TSCA pertains to 

renovation and remodeling activities. 

Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA requires EPA 

to revise the regulations issued under 

TSCA section 402(a) to apply to 

renovation or remodeling activities that 

create lead-based paint hazards. On 

April 22, 2008, EPA issued a final 

regulation applying a revised version of 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1875 

the LBP Activities rule requirements to 

renovation, repair, and painting 

activities in target housing and childoccupied facilities (Ref. 1). Pursuant to 

the RRP rule, persons performing 

covered renovation activities must be 

properly trained, renovators and 

renovation firms must be certified, and 

training providers must be accredited 

(Ref. 1). The requirements of the RRP 

rule became effective in stages with the 

entire rule becoming effective as of 

April 22, 2010. 

III. Proposed Revisions 

A. Hands-on Training 

To become certified as a renovator, a 

person must successfully complete a 

renovator course accredited by EPA or 

by a State, territorial, or tribal program 

authorized by EPA. To gain initial 

certification, renovators must complete 

an 8-hour training course. Until October 

4, 2011, renovators that successfully 

completed an EPA, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovation 

training course were able to take the 4- 

hour refresher renovator training in lieu 

of the 8-hour initial course. Both of 

these courses require hands-on training. 

Trainings are taught either in a 

classroom or via electronic learning (elearning). In an e-learning course, 

students take the lecture portion of the 

course over the Internet and then travel 

to a training facility to perform the 

hands-on activities and take the exam. 

To maintain certification, renovators 

must complete a renovator refresher 

course within 5 years of the date the 

individual completed their previous 

renovator training. Renovators who 

received their initial certification before 

April 22, 2010, however, have until July 

1, 2015, to take the refresher training to 

maintain certification. If the renovator 

does not complete the course within the 

required timeframe, the individual must 

retake the initial 8-hour course to 

become certified again. 

The 8-hour initial training includes 

hands-on training in testing for lead in 

paint, methods for minimizing the 

creation of dust and lead-based paint 

hazards, interior and exterior 

containment and cleanup methods, and 

cleaning verification. Activities covered 

include the use of EPA-recognized test 

kits, setting up barriers, covering 

furniture, ducts, and carpeted floors 

with plastic, mopping floors, bagging 

waste, and determining that the work 

area has been adequately cleaned. Each 

student performs these activities in front 

of an instructor who determines if the 

student is proficient in each one. 

Students must be deemed proficient in 

order to pass the class and become 

certified. The current version of the 

renovator refresher course includes 

hands-on training in testing paint for 

lead and cleaning verification. 

At the time the RRP rule became 

effective it was important to have 

hands-on training in the refresher 

course because certain renovators were 

eligible to take only the refresher course 

to receive their initial certification (i.e., 

renovators who completed a 

prerequisite training). After October 4, 

2011, however, renovators could no 

longer take the refresher course to gain 

initial certification even if they were 

previously eligible to take the refresher 

course in lieu of the initial course. From 

that date forward, all renovators taking 

the refresher course will already have 

received hands-on training as part of 

their initial renovator certification (i.e., 

an initial or refresher course). Now that 

renovators will take the refresher course 

only after being initially certified in a 

way that includes hands-on training, 

EPA believes it is less important for the 

refresher course to include hands-on 

training. In addition, renovators that are 

seeking recertification have been 

practicing the hands-on skills on 

renovation jobs during their 5-year 

certification. Furthermore, due to the 

less technical nature of work practices 

taught in the renovator course versus 

those taught in the abatement course, 

EPA believes performing hands-on 

activities once is sufficient to teach 

renovators the skills they need to 

perform renovations following the RRP 

rule work practices. 

In addition, by eliminating this 

requirement, renovators seeking 

recertification will be able to take the 

course entirely online without having to 

travel to a training location to perform 

the hands-on activities. This change will 

make it easier for renovators to take the 

refresher training, especially renovators 

who live far from a training facility. 

Renovators will save time and travel 

costs by taking the course from a single 

location, possibly their own home. If 

taking the training is made easier, EPA 

believes that more renovators will take 

the refresher training and become 

recertified. Having more renovators take 

the refresher training will lead to a 

higher number of certified renovators, 

resulting in a workforce better able to 

perform renovations in a lead-safe 

manner. For these reasons, EPA believes 

it is appropriate to eliminate the handson training in the renovator refresher 

course. The Agency requests comment 

on eliminating the requirement to 

include hands-on training in the 

renovator refresher course. 

While the Agency believes that the 

hands-on requirement in the renovator 

refresher course is no longer necessary, 

it has not ruled out having hands-on 

activities that are performed via elearning instead of in person. This 

would allow instructors to assess the 

student’s skills without having the 

student travel to a classroom. EPA 

requests comment on how the hands-on 

portion of the refresher course could be 

performed by the student and assessed 

by the instructor via e-learning. 

Another option for maintaining the 

hands-on requirement in the renovator 

refresher course is to modify it to make 

it less burdensome for trainers and 

students. For example, the requirement 

could be changed so the hands-on 

portion of the course is only required 

every other time a renovator gets 

recertified instead of every 5 years. 

Under this scenario, the renovator 

would only have to take the hands-on 

training once every 10 years. The 

Agency requests comment on possible 

alternative approaches to conducting 

the hands-on skills to make the training 

less burdensome. 

The Agency does not intend to 

eliminate the hands-on activities in the 

refresher courses for the other leadbased paint program disciplines: Risk 

assessor, inspector, supervisor, 

abatement worker and dust sampling 

technician. The work performed by 

these disciplines involves highly 

specialized skills which individuals 

must learn in training courses 

accredited by EPA or authorized States, 

territories, and Tribes. For example, a 

significant portion of an abatement 

worker’s training is focused on 

abatement techniques and selection of 

the appropriate course of action for a 

variety of hazards. Renovators, on the 

other hand, do not seek to permanently 

eliminate lead hazards; instead they 

perform maintenance and improvement 

tasks as directed by the consumer. Thus, 

the goal of EPA’s renovator training and 

certification program is not to update 

the methodology a renovator uses to 

accomplish these tasks (i.e., how to be 

painters, plumbers, or carpenters), but 

rather to ensure that persons who 

already know how to perform 

renovations perform their typical work 

in a lead-safe manner. Because of the 

technical nature of the work performed 

by risk assessors, inspectors, 

supervisors, abatement workers and 

dust sampling technicians, the Agency 

believes that it is important for their 

refresher training courses to include 

hands-on learning. 

Currently, training providers are 

required to submit both a pre-training 

and post-training notification for each 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

course that they teach. Both types of 

notifications must contain information 

about the course including, but not 

limited to, date, time and location. The 

post-training notification must also 

include information about the trainees 

including name, address and test score, 

among other things. Pre-training 

notifications must be submitted at least 

7 business days prior to the start of the 

course. Post-training notifications must 

be submitted no later than 10 business 

days following course completion. The 

notification requirements help EPA 

monitor compliance with the training 

and certification provisions of the RRP 

and LBP Activities programs. Training 

providers that teach online courses must 

submit pre- and post-training 

notifications for each hands-on training 

session they teach. If the Agency 

eliminates the hands-on requirement for 

the refresher training then there will be 

no classroom session for which to notify 

EPA. Because the training provider will 

still need to send the names of the 

students to EPA, the notification 

requirements will need to be changed. 

The Agency requests comment on how 

it should modify the notification 

requirements to accommodate a training 

taught entirely online. 

In the absence of more particular 

information regarding the number of 

renovators that may take an online class 

to complete the required refresher 

training, EPA assumes that 98% of 

renovators will take the online training 

if the hands-on requirement is removed, 

based on the significant cost savings 

that would result from reduced tuition 

costs and by avoiding the time and 

associated expenses needed to travel to 

a training site. EPA requests comment 

on this assumption. EPA also requests 

comment and supporting information 

on the savings that would accrue to 

renovators if EPA removes the hands-on 

training requirement for renovator 

refresher courses; whether the tuition is 

likely to differ for online and in-person 

refresher training; and how the costs 

training providers would incur to offer 

online refresher training courses 

compare to the costs of offering courses 

in person. 

The Agency is considering a further 

modification to the notification 

requirements regarding online 

notifications. For years, training 

providers have had the option of 

submitting notifications electronically 

via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX); 

63% of training providers opted to do so 

in the past year. The CDX system is 

designed to streamline the notification 

process for training providers and EPA 

alike, and to perform basic validations 

of electronic submissions that reduce 

common errors in notifications 

otherwise submitted on paper. 

Depending on how the notification 

requirements are modified, training 

providers may find it more efficient and 

less burdensome to submit notifications 

to EPA electronically if the hands-on 

refresher training requirement was 

eliminated. Such a change could result 

in an increased rate of electronic 

reporting of training notifications to 

EPA. To reduce the burden on the 

Agency and save taxpayer dollars, EPA 

will consider requiring training 

providers that teach the online refresher 

renovator course to submit their 

notifications for that course online. The 

Agency requests comment on whether it 

should require training providers to 

submit notifications online for the 

online refresher course. 

The Agency is concerned that, by the 

time a final rule is published, many 

renovators will have already taken the 

refresher training that includes the 

hands-on learning and will have missed 

out on the burden savings that this 

proposed rule would provide. In light of 

this, EPA is considering extending the 

certifications for a portion of renovators 

so they would be able to realize the 

benefits of this proposed rule. For 

example, the Agency could extend for 6 

months the renovator certifications that 

expire by July 1, 2015. EPA requests 

comments on whether it should extend 

the certifications of renovators so they 

can take advantage of the burden 

savings of this proposed rule. 

B. Jurisdictions 

On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart L, was amended to include a fee 

schedule for training programs seeking 

EPA accreditation and for individuals 

and firms seeking EPA certification (Ref. 

4). These fees were established as 

directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), 

which requires EPA to recover the cost 

of administering and enforcing the leadbased paint activities requirements in 

States without authorized programs. 

The fee schedule created a multijurisdiction registration fee which 

applies to individuals, firms and 

training programs that provide training 

or perform lead-based paint activities in 

more than one State administered by the 

EPA program. This fee is applied per 

discipline for each additional EPAadministered State in which the 

applicant seeks certification/

recertification or accreditation/

reaccreditation. An EPA-administered 

jurisdiction is either an individual State 

without an authorized program or all 

Tribes without authorized programs in a 

given EPA Region. 

The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 

was based on the estimated burdens 

required for Agency clerical, technical, 

and managerial staff to perform tasks 

associated with adding jurisdictions to a 

certification or accreditation. Tasks 

include entering the information into a 

database, approving or disapproving the 

application and generating and mailing 

a certificate to the applicant. After years 

of implementing the LBP Activities 

program, the Agency believes that 

separate certifications for each EPAadministered State jurisdiction are not 

necessary. In particular, EPA does not 

believe it is necessary for the Agency to 

certify or accredit the same applicant 

multiple times; certification in one EPAadministered State jurisdiction should 

be sufficient to perform work in any 

other EPA-administered States. For 

instance, EPA did not include separate 

certifications for each EPA-administered 

State in the RRP rule and found that it 

did not adversely impact the program. 

In addition, only requiring one 

certification for all EPA-administered 

State jurisdictions helps to streamline 

the certification and accreditation 

process. Accordingly, the Agency is 

proposing to eliminate the requirement 

for separate certifications in each EPAadministered State jurisdiction in the 

LBP Activities program. If jurisdictions 

are eliminated, regulated entities will no 

longer have to send an application and 

fees to EPA for the purpose of adding 

additional EPA-administered State 

jurisdictions to their certification or 

accreditation. Once a regulated entity 

applies and is approved in the Leadbased Paint Activities program, they 

will be able to work in any EPAadministered State. EPA requests 

comment on whether it should 

eliminate this requirement from the 

Lead-based Paint Activities regulations. 

Eliminating the fee for adding an 

EPA-administered State jurisdiction will 

not cause the other fees under the LBP 

Activities regulations to increase. As 

stated earlier, TSCA requires EPA to 

recover the cost of administering and 

enforcing the lead-based paint activities 

requirements. Eliminating the 

requirement to apply for additional 

jurisdictions also eliminates the 

Agency’s costs for processing those 

applications and its need to recover the 

fee. Thus, eliminating the $35 fee will 

not require the Agency to adjust the 

other fees it collects under the LBP 

Activities rule. 

C. Clarification Regarding Training 

Provider Application Requirements 

EPA is clarifying the application 

regulations for accredited training 

providers under the RRP rule (Ref. 1) 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1877 

and LBP Activities rule (Ref. 2). It was 

brought to the Agency’s attention that 

the regulations did not specifically state 

what constituted a violation of the 

regulations at 40 CFR 745.225. For 

example, some other regulatory 

provisions, such as 40 CFR 745.87, 

specifically list various activities that 

are considered a violation of TSCA. 

Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to 

add clarifying language explaining that 

training providers must follow the 

requirements in that section. EPA 

believes that accredited training 

providers already understand this, but 

EPA is proposing to add the clarifying 

language to ensure understanding of the 

requirements—similar to what has been 

done in other regulations. This 

clarifying language does not change any 

requirements for accredited training 

providers. The Agency requests 

comment on adding this clarification to 

the regulations at 40 CFR 745.225(a)(4), 

(c), (d) and (e). 

D. Correction to Training Notification 

Requirements 

The regulatory text of the final RRP 

rule in 2008 (Ref. 1) inadvertently 

omitted a requirement for accredited 

providers of renovation training to 

provide notification to EPA after each 

training course the provider delivers. 

The provision was designed to supply 

important information regarding 

certified renovators for EPA’s 

compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, 

EPA issued a rule (Ref. 5) to correct this 

omission by amending 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(14) to require post-course 

notifications from accredited providers 

of renovator or dust sampling technician 

training. The 2009 rule also included 

conforming changes to 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct 

name of the sample post-course 

notification form and to make it clear 

that all methods of post-course 

notification are available to both 

renovation training providers and leadbased paint activities training providers. 

As amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) 

required renovation training providers 

to notify EPA no later than 10 business 

days following course completion. 

Although EPA identified this 

requirement in its cost estimates in 

2008, the regulatory provision was 

subsequently overwritten by another 

rulemaking. Specifically, in a 2011 rule 

(Ref. 6), the regulatory language 

inadvertently removed the regulatory 

text that was added to 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009 rule. In 

this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 

add the same language back to 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(14)(i) that was included in 

the 2009 rule. EPA requests comment on 

adding this language back to the 

notification requirements. Since EPA 

has continued to account for the costs 

and paperwork burden associated with 

this notification provision, this 

proposed correction does not increase 

the estimated costs and burdens for the 

RRP program. 

E. Effective Date 

EPA is proposing to find under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 

U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists 

to dispense with the 30-day delay in the 

effective date of the final rule that EPA 

intends to promulgate based upon this 

proposed rule. As stated earlier in this 

preamble, removing the hands-on 

requirement will make it easier for 

renovators to take the refresher training, 

especially renovators who live far from 

a training facility. If taking the training 

is made easier, EPA believes that 

removing the hands-on requirement will 

lead to more renovators taking the 

training and becoming recertified. 

Consequently, delaying the effective 

date may result in fewer renovators 

taking the training and becoming 

recertified. For this reason, the Agency 

believes it is in the public interest to 

remove the requirement as soon as 

possible. EPA also believes that such 

action would relieve a restriction in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). EPA 

therefore proposes to issue a final rule 

making this change effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

IV. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the technical person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 

(73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL– 

8355–7). 

2. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint 

Activities in Target Housing and ChildOccupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal 

Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) 

(FRL–5389–9). 

3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard 

Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4851 et 

seq.). 

4. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training 

Programs and Certification of Lead-based 

Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 

1999) (FRL–6058–6). 

5. Lead; Minor Amendments to the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program; Final Rule. Federal Register 

(74 FR 34257, July 15, 2009) (FRL–8422– 

7). 

6. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing 

Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting Program; Final Rule. 

Federal Register (76 FR 47918, August 5, 

2011) (FRL–8881–8). 

7. EPA. Economic Analysis for the LeadBased Paint Program Minor 

Amendments Proposed Rule (Economic 

Analysis). December 2014. 

8. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) 

for TSCA sections 402 and 404 Training, 

Certification, Accreditation and 

Standards for Lead-Based Paint 

Activities and Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting. EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and OMB 

No. 2070–[NEW]. December 2014. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This proposed rule has been 

designated by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) as a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA 

submitted this action to OMB for review 

under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 

(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any 

changes made in response to OMB 

recommendations are documented in 

the docket. 

EPA has prepared an analysis of the 

potential cost savings associated with 

this rulemaking. This analysis is 

contained in the Economic Analysis for 

the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor 

Amendments Proposed Rule (Ref. 7) and 

is briefly summarized here. 

In a typical year, individuals, firms, 

and training providers apply to perform 

lead-based paint activities or provide 

training in a total of 431 additional EPAadministered jurisdictions. Removing 

the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee will result 

in total estimated cost savings of 

approximately $15,000 per year to these 

entities. 

Removing the hands-on training 

requirement for renovator refresher 

training is estimated to reduce the 

tuition by an average of $37. Removing 

the hands-on requirement also makes 

online renovator refresher training more 

attractive to training providers and 

renovators. If renovators become 

recertified by taking an e-learning 

refresher course they are estimated to 

save an additional $165 by avoiding the 

time and associated expenses needed to 

travel to a training site. Renovator 

training and certification (which is valid 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

for 5 years) became mandatory in 2010, 

and a large number of renovators were 

trained that year. As many as 168,000 of 

these renovators are predicted to seek 

refresher training in 2015. Over time, 

the annual number is predicted to 

equilibrate such that up to 48,000 

renovators may seek refresher training 

in later years. Nearly all of these 

renovators are assumed to choose online 

refresher training if the option is 

available. Therefore, removing the 

hands-on requirement for renovator 

refresher training is estimated to reduce 

costs by over $9 million per year. 

The proposed rule includes a 

correction to the training notification 

requirements to add back regulatory text 

on post-training notifications that was 

inadvertently overwritten in a 2011 rule 

(although most training providers are 

continuing to provide post-training 

notifications to EPA in a timely 

manner). EPA has already accounted for 

the burden and cost of requiring 

accredited providers of renovation 

training to provide notification to EPA 

after each training course the provider 

delivers. For example, the currently 

approved ICR for the TSCA sections 402 

and 404 Training, Certification, 

Accreditation and Standards for LeadBased Paint Activities and Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting (EPA ICR No. 

1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070–0155) 

estimates that 600 renovation training 

providers will submit an average of 14 

post-training notifications per year. This 

yields a total of 8,400 post-training 

notifications per year at an average 

burden of 1.6 hours per response, 

resulting in a total burden for this 

activity of 13,440 hours at a cost of 

$339,578. In order to avoid doublecounting, EPA’s Economic Analysis and 

ICR for this action do not include the 

burden and cost of reinstating the posttraining notification requirements. 

The clarifying language being added 

to the rule explaining that training 

providers must follow the regulations 

does not affect the cost of compliance 

because it does not change any 

requirements for accredited training 

providers. 

Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee 

and the requirement for hands on 

refresher renovator training is estimated 

to result in cost savings of up to $9.6 

million per year using a 3% discount 

rate and $9.8 million per year using a 

7% discount rate. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

The information collection 

requirements in this proposed rule have 

been submitted to OMB for review and 

approval under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 

seq. The ICR document prepared by 

EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 

2502.01 and the OMB Control No. 2070- 

[NEW] (Ref. 8). The ICR document 

provides a detailed presentation of the 

estimated burden and costs predicted as 

a result of the proposed rule. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

There are 275 training providers 

accredited to offer renovator refresher 

training programs. All these training 

providers are assumed to apply to EPA 

to become accredited to offer e-learning 

refresher training once the requirement 

for hands-on renovator refresher 

training is removed. The applications 

must address issues such as how the 

trainer will ensure that students 

successfully complete the e-learning 

modules and the e-learning final 

assessment. Training providers are most 

likely to add an already reviewed and 

accepted e-learning course from another 

training provider to their training 

curriculum. In that case, their burden to 

become familiar with the new rule and 

to submit an application is estimated to 

average 13.8 hours per response, at a 

cost of $687. For the 275 training 

providers this results in a total burden 

of 3,795 hours at a total cost $188,861. 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to an information collection 

request unless it displays a currently 

valid OMB control number, or is 

otherwise required to submit the 

specific information by a statute. The 

OMB control numbers for EPA’s 

regulations codified in Title 40 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after 

appearing in the preamble of the final 

rule, are further displayed either by 

publication in the Federal Register or 

by other appropriate means, such as on 

the related collection instrument or 

form, if applicable. The display of OMB 

control numbers for certain EPA 

regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR 

9.1. 

Submit any comments on the 

Agency’s need for this information, the 

accuracy of the provided burden 

estimates, and any suggested methods 

for minimizing respondent burden to 

both EPA and OMB. For EPA, follow the 

instructions in ADDRESSES at the 

beginning of this document. For OMB, 

reference ‘‘OMB Desk Officer for EPA’’ 

and email your comments to oira_

submission@omb.eop.gov. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

January 14, 2015, a comment to OMB is 

best assured of having its full effect if 

OMB receives it by February 13, 2015. 

The final rule will address any OMB or 

public comments received on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proposal. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

APA, 5 U.S.C. 551–553, or any other 

statute unless the agency certifies that 

the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Small entities include small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of this 

proposed rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: 

1. A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The 

SBA’s definitions typically are based 

upon either a sales or an employment 

level, depending on the nature of the 

industry. 

2. A small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000. 

3. A small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

In determining whether a rule has a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

impact of concern is any significant 

adverse economic impact on small 

entities, since the primary purpose of 

the regulatory flexibility analyses is to 

identify and address regulatory 

alternatives ‘‘which minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.’’ 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 

Thus, an agency may certify that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities if the rule relieves regulatory 

burden, or otherwise has a positive 

economic effect on all of the small 

entities subject to the rule. 

The proposed rule would eliminate 

multi-jurisdiction registration fees for 

the LBP Activities program, and 

eliminate the hands-on training 

requirement from the lead renovation 

refresher training course. This results in 

cost savings for entities that no longer 

would pay the multi-jurisdiction 

registration fees and for renovators that 

would have a less expensive refresher 

training option available to them. Those 

training providers that choose to offer elearning refresher renovator training 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 1879 

would incur a cost to apply for 

accreditation of their e-learning courses. 

However, it is expected that only 

training providers that anticipate 

recovering accreditation costs through 

tuition charges would opt to apply for 

the additional accreditation because 

there is no requirement mandating these 

firms to offer an e-learning refresher 

training option under the proposed rule. 

Therefore, there would be no direct 

negative cost impacts on small entities 

as a result of the proposed rule. We have 

therefore concluded that this proposed 

rule will relieve regulatory burden for 

all affected small entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

This action does not contain any 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538, for State, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. The 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State, local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. Therefore, this action 

is not subject to the requirements of 

UMRA sections 202 or 205. This action 

is also not subject to the requirements 

of UMRA section 203 because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. Those training 

providers (both those in the private 

sector as well as local or tribal 

governments) that choose to offer elearning refresher renovator training 

would incur a cost to apply for 

accreditation of their e-learning courses. 

However, it is expected that only 

training providers that anticipate 

recovering accreditation costs through 

tuition charges would opt to apply for 

the additional accreditation because 

there is no requirement mandating these 

firms to offer an e-learning refresher 

training option under the proposed rule. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. Local 

governments can serve as training 

providers, and those training providers 

that choose to offer e-learning refresher 

renovator training would incur a cost to 

apply for accreditation of their elearning courses. However, it is 

expected that only training providers 

that anticipate recovering accreditation 

costs through tuition charges would opt 

to apply for the additional accreditation 

because there is no requirement 

mandating these firms to offer an elearning refresher training option under 

the proposed rule. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. EPA specifically solicits 

comment on this proposed action from 

State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). Tribal governments can serve as 

training providers, and those training 

providers that choose to offer e-learning 

refresher renovator training would incur 

a cost to apply for accreditation of their 

e-learning courses. However, it is 

expected that only training providers 

that anticipate recovering accreditation 

costs through tuition charges would opt 

to apply for the additional accreditation 

because there is no requirement 

mandating these firms to offer an elearning refresher training option under 

the proposed rule. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

action from tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 

1997) because it is not an economically 

significant regulatory action as defined 

by Executive Order 12866, and because 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

would not establish an environmental 

standard intended to mitigate health or 

safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ as defined in 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001), because it is not likely 

to have a significant adverse effect on 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. Further, this rule is not likely to 

have any adverse energy effects because 

it does not require any action related to 

the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 

272 note, directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA 

to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rule does not involve 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA is 

not considering the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. EPA welcomes 

comments on this aspect of the 

proposed rule and specifically invites 

the public to identify additional 

potentially applicable voluntary 

consensus standards and to explain why 

such standards should be used in this 

regulation. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not directly affect the 

level of protection provided to human 

health or the environment. The 

proposed rule would remove multijurisdiction fees for the LBP Activities 

program and remove the hands-on 

requirement for refresher renovator 

training. However, it would not change 

the work practice requirements for leadbased paint activities or renovation, 

repair or painting activities disturbing 

lead-based paint. 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Lead, 

Lead-based paint, Renovation. 

Dated: January 7, 2015. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 745—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 745 

continues to read as follows: 

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

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

■ 2. In § 745.225: 

■ a. Add new paragraph (a)(4). 

■ b. Revise the introductory text of 

paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 

■ c. Revise paragraphs (c)(14)(i) and 

(e)(2) and (3). 

The addition and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 745.225 Accreditation of training 

programs: target housing and child 

occupied facilities. 

(a) * * * 

(4) Accredited training programs, 

training program managers, and 

principal instructors must comply with 

all of the requirements of this section 

including approved terms of the 

application and all of the requirements 

and limitations specified in any 

accreditation documents issued to 

training programs. 

* * * * * 

(c) Requirements for the accreditation 

of training programs. A training 

program accredited by EPA to offer leadbased paint activities courses, renovator 

courses, or dust sampling technician 

courses must meet the following 

requirements: 

* * * * * 

(14) * * * 

(i) The training manager must provide 

EPA notification after the completion of 

any renovator, dust sampling, or leadbased paint activities course. This 

notification must be received by EPA no 

later than 10 business days following 

course completion. 

* * * * * 

(d) Minimum training curriculum 

requirements. A training program 

accredited by EPA to offer lead-based 

paint courses in the specific disciplines 

listed in this paragraph (d) must ensure 

that its courses of study include, at a 

minimum, the following course topics. 

* * * * * 

(e) Requirements for the accreditation 

of refresher training programs. A 

training program may seek accreditation 

to offer refresher training courses in any 

of the following disciplines: Inspector, 

risk assessor, supervisor, project 

designer, abatement worker, renovator, 

and dust sampling technician. A 

training program accredited by EPA to 

offer refresher training must meet the 

following minimum requirements: 

* * * * * 

(2) Refresher courses for inspector, 

risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement 

worker must last a minimum of 8 

training hours. Refresher courses for 

project designer, renovator, and dust 

sampling technician must last a 

minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher 

courses for all disciplines except 

renovator and project designer must 

include a hands-on component. 

(3) Except for renovator and project 

designer courses, for all other courses 

offered, the training program shall 

conduct a hands-on assessment. With 

the exception of project designer 

courses, the training program shall 

conduct a course test at the completion 

of the course. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 745.238: 

■ a. Remove paragraph (c)(3). 

■ b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4) and 

(5) as (c)(3) and (4). 

■ c. Revise the headings for paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (2). 

■ d. Revise paragraph (e)(2). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 745.238 Fees for accreditation and 

certification of lead-based paint activities. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) Certification and re-certification 

* * * 

(2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(2) Submit application and payment 

in the amount specified in paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section in accordance with 

the instructions provided with the 

application package. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2015–00473 Filed 1–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Indian Health Service 

42 CFR Part 136 

RIN 0917–AA12 

Payment for Physician and Other 

Health Care Professional Services 

Purchased by Indian Health Programs 

and Medical Charges Associated With 

Non-Hospital-Based Care 

AGENCY: Indian Health Service, HHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of the 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document extends the 

comment period for the Payment for 

Physician and Other Health Care 

Professional Services Purchased by 

Indian Health Programs and Medical 

Charges Associated with Non-HospitalBased Care proposed rule, which was 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 5, 2014. The comment period 

for the proposed rule, which would 

have ended on January 20, 2015, is 

extended to February 4, 2015. 

DATES: The comment period for the 

proposed rule published in the 

December 5, 2014 Federal Register (79 

FR 72160) is extended to February 4, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: Because of staff and 

resource limitations, we cannot accept 

comments by facsimile transmission. 

You may submit comments in one of 

four ways (please choose only one of the 

ways listed): 

1. Electronically. You may submit 

electronic comments on this regulation 

to http://regulations.gov. Follow the 

‘‘Submit a Comment’’ instructions. 

2. By regular mail. You may mail 

written comments to the following 

address ONLY: Betty Gould, Regulations 

Officer, Indian Health Service, 801 

Thompson, Avenue, TMP STE 450, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. Please allow 

sufficient time for mailed comments to 

be received before the close of the 

comment period. 

3. By express or overnight mail. You 

may send written comments to the 

above address. 

4. By hand or courier. If you prefer, 

you may deliver (by hand or courier) 

your written comments before the close 

of the comment period to the address 

above. 

If you intend to deliver your 

comments to the Rockville address, 

please call telephone number (301) 443– 

1116 in advance to schedule your 

arrival with a staff member. 

Comments will be made available for 

public inspection at the Rockville 


wreier-aviles on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS