49378 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 745 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0382; FRL–8372–4] 

RIN 2070–AJ40 

Lead; Fees for Accreditation of 

Training Programs and Certification of 

Lead-Based Paint Activities and 

Renovation Contractors 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing this proposed 

rule to revise the existing fees for EPA’s 

Lead-Based Paint Activities regulations 

and establish fees for the Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting rule. As specified 

in section 402 of the Toxic Substances 

Control Act (TSCA), EPA must establish 

and implement a fee schedule to recover 

for the U.S. Treasury the Agency’s costs 

of administering and enforcing the 

standards and requirements applicable 

to lead-based paint training programs 

and contractors. Specifically, this 

proposed rule establishes the fees that 

will be charged, in those States and 

Indian Tribes without authorized 

programs, for training programs seeking 

accreditation under 40 CFR 745.225, for 

firms engaged in renovations seeking 

certification under 40 CFR 745.89, and 

for individuals or firms engaged in leadbased paint activities seeking 

certification under 40 CFR 745.226. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 22, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0382, by 

one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• 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: OPPT Document 

Control Office (DCO), EPA East Bldg., 

Rm. 6428, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0382. 

The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

DCO is (202) 564–8930. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the DCO’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

docket ID number EPA–HQ–OPPT–

2008–0382. EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the docket without change and may be 

made available on-line at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov website is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

regulations.gov, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the comment that is 

placed in the docket and made available 

on the Internet. If you submit an 

electronic comment, EPA recommends 

that you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD-ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the docket index available 

at http://www.regulations.gov. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

Federal holidays. The telephone number 

of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information contact: Colby 

Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, 

Environmental Assistance Division 

(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 554–1404; e-mail address: 

TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. 

For technical information contact: 

Marc Edmonds, National Program 

Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460–

0001; telephone number: (202) 566–

0758; e-mail address: 

edmonds.marc@epa.gov. 

For authorization status information 

for States, Territories, and Indian tribes 

contact: National Lead Information 

Center (NLIC) at 1–800–424–LEAD. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

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 who 

must be certified to conduct renovation 

activities in accordance with 40 CFR 

745.89, or if you are a professional 

(individual or firm) who must be 

certified to conduct lead-based paint 

activities in accordance with 40 CFR 

745.226. 

This proposed rule applies only in 

States, Territories, and Indian Tribes 

that do not have authorized programs 

pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. Potentially 

affected categories and entities may 

include, but are not limited to: 

• 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 building and 

dwellings, residential property 

managers. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49379 

• 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. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. To determine whether 

you or your business may be affected by 

this action, you should carefully 

examine the applicability provisions in 

40 CFR 745.89, 40 CFR 745.225, and 40 

CFR 745.226. 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. 

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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 

A. What Action is the Agency Taking? 

EPA is issuing this proposed rule for 

two reasons. First, EPA is proposing to 

revise the existing fees for training 

providers, firms, and individuals under 

the Lead-Based Paint Activities 

regulations. Second, EPA is proposing 

to establish fees for training providers 

and renovation firms under the recently 

issued Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

rule. As specified in TSCA section 402, 

EPA must establish and implement a fee 

schedule to recover for the U.S. 

Treasury the Agency’s costs of 

administering and enforcing the 

standards and requirements applicable 

to lead-based paint training programs 

and contractors. Specifically, this 

proposed rule establishes the fees that 

will be charged, in those States and 

Indian Tribes without authorized 

programs, for training programs seeking 

accreditation under 40 CFR 745.225, for 

firms engaged in renovations seeking 

certification under 40 CFR 745.89, and 

for individuals or firms engaged in leadbased paint activities seeking 

certification under 40 CFR 745.226. 

B. What is the Agency’s Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

This proposed rule is being issued 

under the authority of TSCA sections 

402(a)(3) and 402(c)(3), 15 U.S.C. 

2682(a)(3) and 2682(c)(3). 

C. What Regulations Have Already Been 

Promulgated Under TSCA section 402? 

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, Public Law 

102–550 (also known as the Residential 

Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act 

of 1992) (Title X). 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 added a new title to TSCA 

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. 

These regulations 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 child-occupied facilities 

(also referred to as the Lead-Based Paint 

Activities regulations) (Ref. 1). These 

regulations, codified at 40 CFR part 745, 

subpart L, contain an accreditation 

program for training providers and 

training and certification requirements 

for lead-based paint inspectors, risk 

assessors, project designers, abatement 

supervisors, and abatement workers. 

Work practice standards for lead-based 

paint activities are included. Pursuant 

to TSCA section 404, provision was 

made for interested States, Territories, 

and Indian Tribes to apply for and 

receive authorization to administer their 

own lead-based paint activities 

programs. Requirements applicable to 

State, Territorial, and Tribal programs 

are codified in 40 CFR part 745, subpart 

Q. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
49380 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Section 402(a)(3) of TSCA directs the 

Agency to establish fees to recover the 

cost of administering and enforcing the 

standards and requirements established 

under TSCA section 402. Specifically, 

TSCA section 402(a)(3) requires EPA to 

impose fees on persons operating 

training programs accredited under Title 

IV of TSCA and contractors certified in 

accordance with TSCA section 

402(a)(1). 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. 2). These fees were 

established as directed by TSCA section 

402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover 

the cost of administering and enforcing 

the lead-based paint activities 

requirements in States without 

authorized programs. 

Section 402(c) of TSCA pertains to 

renovation and remodeling activities. 

TSCA section 402(c)(3) requires EPA to 

revise the regulations issued under 

TSCA section 402(a), the Lead-Based 

Paint Activities regulations, 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 

the Lead-Based Paint Activities 

regulations to renovation, repair, and 

painting activities in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities (the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule) 

(Ref. 3). Pursuant to the Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting rule, persons 

performing covered renovation activities 

must be properly trained, renovators 

and renovation firms must be certified, 

and persons who provide renovator 

training must be accredited. The 

requirements of the Renovation, Repair, 

and Painting rule become effective in 

stages with the entire rule becoming 

effective as of April 22, 2010. 

D. How is EPA Proposing to Revise the 

Existing Fees? 

40 CFR 745.238 contains the fee 

schedule established in 1999 for the 

Lead-Based Paint Activities regulations 

under TSCA section 402(a)(3). As 

discussed more fully in the economic 

analysis accompanying the final rule 

establishing the current fee schedule, 

EPA based a great deal of its 

administrative cost estimates on 

information from existing State leadbased paint certification and 

accreditation programs (Ref. 4). This 

was necessary because, at the time, EPA 

did not have direct experience in 

administering a lead-based paint 

accreditation and certification program. 

This is not the case today. EPA has been 

administering the Federal lead-based 

paint accreditation and certification 

program for nearly a decade. As a result, 

EPA has its own data upon which to 

rely to estimate the future costs of 

administering the program. 

To estimate the costs of administering 

the accreditation and certification 

program, EPA followed the pattern used 

in the economic analysis for the 1999 

fee schedule. EPA directly estimated 

total costs for enforcement activities and 

Headquarters administrative activities 

(e.g., the cost to maintain the Federal 

Lead-Based Paint Program (FLPP) 

database, the cost to enter data into the 

database), since these activities cannot 

be linked to specific applications. 

Enforcement cost estimates were 

generated based on the actual resources 

currently allocated for enforcement. 

EPA calculated the costs for Regional 

administrative activities on a per 

application basis, (e.g., the cost to 

review an application, the cost to issue 

a certificate), because these costs 

depend largely on the number and type 

of applications received. As described 

in the economic analysis for this 

proposed rule, the information 

pertaining to the Regional cost of 

processing applications was determined 

by observing and recording actual 

Regional application processing 

activities over a 30–day period (Ref. 5). 

The total program cost for EPA Regional 

administrative activities would be the 

sum of the EPA Regional administrative 

costs for each type of application 

multiplied by the total number of that 

type of application received. 

Since 1999, EPA has made substantial 

changes in the way that it administers 

its accreditation and certification 

program. The transition to the FLPP 

database and the associated centralized 

data processing has resulted in a shift in 

processing costs from the Regions to 

Headquarters. Despite inflation that has 

increased the cost of government labor 

by 35 to 40% over this time interval, 

EPA’s cost estimates for this proposed 

rule indicate that the overall costs of the 

abatement program have declined 

slightly in comparison to the estimates 

made in 1999. In addition, although the 

economic analysis for this proposed rule 

contains fee estimates broken down by 

particular discipline as well as by type 

of application, EPA’s observation of 

Regional application processing 

activities indicated that there are not 

likely to be substantial differences in 

processing costs across the disciplines. 

Thus, EPA’s initial estimates for the 

revised fees do not differentiate 

accreditation and certification fees by 

discipline (as is currently the case). 

EPA’s initial fee estimates are as 

follows, rounded to the nearest $10. 

These estimates are based on average 

Regional administrative costs by 

application type, and not by discipline, 

with the estimated enforcement costs 

and estimated Headquarters 

administrative costs apportioned 

equally across all activities. 

• Accreditation for Initial Training 

Course—$730 

• Accreditation for Refresher Training 

Course—$550 

• Re-accreditation for Initial Training 

Course—$480 

• Re-accreditation for Refresher 

Training Course—$430 

• Initial firm certification—$410 

• Firm re-certification—$410 

• Individual certification—$410 

• Individual re-certification—$410 

EPA considered, but is not proposing 

to revise the existing fees to reflect these 

estimates. As discussed in this unit, 

EPA is proposing to adjust these 

estimates to lower individual 

certification and re-certification fees for 

workers and for Federally-recognized 

Indian Tribes and Tribal employees. 

Nevertheless, EPA requests comment on 

whether these estimated fees should be 

imposed without such an adjustment. 

One reason that EPA is proposing to 

adjust its estimates to lower individual 

certification and re-certification fees is 

because commenters on the 1999 fee 

schedule expressed concern about the 

fee for individual worker certification. 

Several believed that the total impact of 

training, certification, and lost wages 

during training would be costprohibitive for workers, who are 

typically hourly wage-earners. Other 

commenters contended that workers 

would move from firm to firm and in 

and out of the business, which would 

make the proposed worker certification 

fee cost-prohibitive for firms. Finally, 

some commenters believed that the 

proposed worker certification fee has a 

disproportionately negative impact on 

efforts to train and certify low-income 

persons from the neighborhoods most 

affected by lead poisoning. As a result 

of these comments, EPA lowered the 

worker certification fee by adjusting the 

balance of administrative and 

enforcement costs not directly 

attributable to a particular application 

between workers and firms. Thus, in the 

final rule, the individual certification 

fees ranged from $520 for risk assessors 

to $280 for workers. Although EPA is 

not proposing to differentiate among the 

non-worker disciplines (i.e., between 

risk assessors and supervisors), EPA 

believes that the concerns pertaining to 

the worker discipline expressed by 

these commenters are likely to be 

equally applicable today. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49381 

In addition, EPA has received input 

from stakeholders that indicates that 

Indian Tribes may be having difficulty 

paying firm and individual certification 

fees. While TSCA section 402(a)(3) 

exempts State, local government, and 

non-profit training programs from 

Federal accreditation fees, it does not 

provide an exemption for certification 

fees. It is EPA’s understanding that 

Indian Tribes typically incur 

certification fees for Tribal employees 

who perform lead-based paint 

inspections and risk assessments in 

Tribal housing. EPA estimates that only 

a small number of Indian Tribes and 

Tribal employees will seek certification 

each year to perform these activities. 

Accordingly, if EPA were to impose 

only a nominal certification fee on 

Tribal firms (Indian Tribes seeking firm 

certification) and Tribal employees, and 

apportion the remainder of the costs for 

these certifications across all of the 

other accreditation and certification 

activities, the impact on the resulting 

fee estimates for all of the other fee 

activities is negligible. 

Therefore, in revising the existing 

fees, EPA is proposing to establish the 

fees for worker certification and recertification at $100 less than other 

individual certifications and recertifications. Because EPA must 

recover all of the estimated costs of 

operating the accreditation and 

certification program, this $100 

reduction per expected worker 

certification or re-certification 

application must be recovered through 

fees charged for other applications. EPA 

believes that it would be more equitable 

to spread the costs represented by the 

$100 reduction over all of the fees 

charged to training course providers and 

firms. The proposed fee schedule set 

forth below does so. In addition, EPA is 

also proposing to establish nominal fees 

for firm certification and re-certification 

for Federally-recognized Indian Tribes 

and nominal fees for individual 

certification and re-certification for 

Tribal employees. Finally, EPA is also 

proposing to keep the certificate 

replacement fee at $15, the certification 

exam fee at $70 and the multijurisdiction registration fee at $35. 

Accordingly, EPA is proposing to revise 

the existing fees in 40 CFR 745.238 as 

follows: 

• Accreditation for Initial Training 

Course—$870. 

• Accreditation for Refresher Training 

Course—$690. 

• Re-accreditation for Initial Training 

Course—$620. 

• Re-accreditation for Refresher 

Training Course—$580. 

• Initial firm certification—$550. 

• Initial Tribal firm certification—$20. 

• Firm re-certification—$550. 

• Tribal firm re-certification—$20. 

• Individual certification (for all 

disciplines except worker)—$410. 

• Individual worker certification—

$310. 

• Individual Tribal certification (all 

disciplines)—$10. 

• Individual re-certification (for all 

disciplines except worker)—$410. 

• Individual worker re-certification—

$310. 

• Individual Tribal re-certification (all 

disciplines)—$10. 

As discussed in the economic analysis 

for this proposed rule, the estimated 

enforcement costs and estimated 

Headquarters administrative costs are 

not directly attributable to a specific 

application. EPA considered 

apportioning those costs in such a way 

as to generate fee estimates that are 

more similar to the current fees. The 

fees in the following list are based on 

the average Regional administrative 

costs by application type with the 

estimated enforcement costs and 

estimated Headquarters administrative 

costs apportioned in a way that makes 

them similar to the current fees. 

Although EPA is not proposing to 

establish fees in this manner, such an 

apportionment results in the following 

estimates: 

• Accreditation for Initial Training 

Course—$2,140. 

• Accreditation for Refresher Training 

Course—$950. 

• Re-accreditation for Initial Training 

Course—$1,350. 

• Re-accreditation for Refresher 

Training Course—$650. 

• Initial firm certification—$510. 

• Firm re-certification—$410. 

• Individual certification (for all 

disciplines except worker)—$440. 

• Individual worker certification—

$270. 

• Individual re-certification (for all 

disciplines except worker)—$380. 

• Individual worker re-certification—

$230. 

The apportionment of the estimated 

enforcement and Headquarters 

administrative costs in this way results 

in a substantially higher fee for 

accreditation and re-accreditation of 

training programs, as well as for firm 

certification. The individual 

certification and re-certification fees are 

correspondingly lower. EPA requests 

comment on whether the enforcement 

and Headquarters administrative costs 

should be apportioned this way to make 

the revised fees being proposed in this 

document more consistent with the 

existing fees. 

E. What Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Fees are being Proposed? 

EPA interprets the language of TSCA 

section 402(c)(3), which requires EPA to 

revise the TSCA section 402(a) 

regulations to apply to renovation and 

remodeling activities that create leadbased paint hazards, to include the 

establishment of fees as directed by 

TSCA section 402(a)(3). Therefore, EPA 

is also proposing to establish fees for the 

accreditation and re-accreditation of 

persons who provide renovator or dust 

sampling technician training and fees 

for the certification and re-certification 

of renovation firms. In accordance with 

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Rule, beginning on April 22, 2009, 

training course providers may apply to 

EPA for renovator or dust sampling 

technician course accreditation (Ref. 3). 

Renovation firms may begin applying 

for certification to perform renovation, 

repair, and painting activities on 

October 22, 2009. 

EPA’s method for estimating fees to 

recover the costs of administering the 

renovation, repair, and painting 

accreditation and certification program 

is similar to the method used to estimate 

the proposed revisions to the existing 

fees in 40 CFR 745.238. Because the 

training provider accreditation and firm 

certification processes are virtually 

identical under the Lead-Based Paint 

Activities regulations and the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule, 

EPA used the same estimates for 

Regional administrative costs in 

calculating all of the fees being 

proposed in this action. However, 

because the substantive provisions of 

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

rule will not be fully implemented until 

April 2010, EPA does not have actual 

application totals upon which to base its 

estimates of the number of accreditation 

and certification applications that will 

be received in the future. In addition, 

EPA is not currently conducting 

enforcement activities related to the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program, so the enforcement costs for 

the program must be estimated based on 

projected EPA resources to be devoted 

to enforcement of the program, rather 

than on actual enforcement activities. 

As for the initial estimates for the LeadBased Paint Activities regulations 

accreditation and certification fees, the 

estimated enforcement costs and 

estimated Headquarters administrative 

costs for the Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting rule accreditation and 

certification program have been 

apportioned equally across all activities. 

A more detailed description of how 

these costs were calculated is presented 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
49382 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

in the economic analysis for this 

proposed rule (Ref. 5). Based upon its 

estimate of the costs of administering 

the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program, EPA is proposing to establish 

the following fees: 

• Accreditation for Initial Renovator 

or Dust Sampling Technician Course—

$560. 

• Accreditation for Refresher 

Renovator or Dust Sampling Technician 

Course—$400. 

• Re-accreditation for Initial 

Renovator or Dust Sampling Technician 

Course—$340. 

• Re-accreditation for Refresher 

Renovator or Dust Sampling Technician 

Course—$310. 

• Initial renovation firm 

certification—$300. 

• Initial Tribal renovation firm 

certification—$20. 

• Renovation firm re-certification—

$300. 

• Tribal renovation firm recertification—$20. 

EPA is not proposing to establish 

individual certification and recertification fees because the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule 

does not require individuals to apply to 

EPA for certification. Eliminating this 

requirement also eliminates a significant 

portion of the Regional and 

Headquarters administrative costs that 

would have to be recovered by a 

certification fee. The portion of the 

enforcement costs that would have been 

attributed to individuals has been 

distributed evenly across the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program fees for training provider 

accreditation and firm certification. 

EPA’s economic analysis for this 

proposed rule calculates administrative 

and enforcement costs for the LeadBased Paint Activities regulations 

separately from those costs for the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule. 

This is primarily due to the differences 

in estimation methods necessary for an 

existing, mature program, the LeadBased Paint Activities regulations, as 

compared to a new program for which 

implementation has not yet begun. This 

approach results in similar fees for firm 

certification and re-certification under 

the two programs, but the Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program 

accreditation and re-accreditation fees 

are considerably lower than the 

corresponding fees for the Lead-Based 

Paint Activities regulations. The 

administrative and enforcement cost 

estimates for these two programs could 

be combined to yield accreditation, reaccreditation, firm certification, and 

firm re-certification fees that are the 

same for both programs. EPA requests 

comment on whether the estimated 

costs for these two programs should be 

combined in such a manner. 

Commenters should keep in mind that 

the 212,000 renovation firm certification 

applications that EPA expects to receive 

in the first year of the Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting Program vastly 

outweigh the numbers of other types of 

applications under either regulation that 

EPA expects to receive in the same time 

period. As a result, modest adjustments 

in either direction to the renovation firm 

certification fees will result in dramatic 

changes to the accreditation fees. 

Although EPA believes that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the Agency 

understands that many of the firms that 

must comply with the Renovation, 

Repair, and Painting rule will be sole 

proprietors, many of which earn low 

annual revenues. EPA estimates that, of 

the 211,721 firms seeking certification, 

approximately 104,712 of them are sole 

proprietorships with no employees. 

Because the fees associated with the 

rule will have the greatest impact on 

firms earning low revenues, the Agency 

is considering reducing the certification 

fee for renovation firms that have 

annual revenues below $25,000 based 

on gross receipts. 

EPA requests comment on whether 

firms with annual revenues below 

$25,000 should pay a reduced firm 

certification fee of $100. This reduction 

would be offset by increasing the fees 

for the other firms and/or training 

providers. If the reduction is passed on 

to other firms that do not qualify for the 

lower fee, these firms would pay a 

certification fee of $370. EPA requests 

comment on reducing fees for certain 

small businesses, whether these fees 

would be appropriate, what level of 

revenue should trigger the lower fee, or 

whether a measure other than gross 

receipts, such as number of employees, 

should be used to determine who 

qualifies for the reduced fee. The 

Agency also requests comment on how 

the reduction in fees should be 

distributed between training providers 

and firms. 

When EPA estimated the number of 

firms that would qualify for the reduced 

certification fee, the Agency used data 

from the U.S. Census Bureau and a 

study published by the Joint Center for 

Housing Studies of Harvard University 

for estimates of the total numbers of 

firms that are sole proprietorships and 

earn below $25,000 annually. EPA also 

relied on the following assumption from 

the Economic Analysis for the final 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule 

regarding which lessors and property 

managers would seek firm certification 

which states ‘‘that only establishments 

with employees are expected to seek 

certification; non-employers are 

unlikely to have the time or manpower 

to perform renovations themselves and 

are more likely to hire an outside 

contractor for work that disturbs more 

than 6 square feet of a painted surface.’’

EPA solicits comments on its numerical 

estimates of the numbers of lessors and 

property managers, including those 

without employees, that will require 

firm certification. The Agency is 

particularly interested in any data that 

would help in refining these estimates. 

EPA also requests comments on 

whether the final rule should establish 

lower Federal fees for State and local 

governments seeking firm certification 

and their employees seeking individual 

certification. These governments are 

already exempt under TSCA section 

402(a)(3) from paying Federal 

accreditation fees and EPA believes 

some additional cost savings may be 

justified. The Agency is aware that State 

and local governments may spend a 

significant portion of abatement 

program funds on certifications thereby 

reducing funds available for performing 

important public services related to 

abatements. To address this funding 

issue, EPA is considering lowering the 

Federal certification fees for State and 

local governments under the Lead-Based 

Paint Activities regulations and 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule. 

For example, governments could pay 

50% of the firm and individual fees 

proposed in this action. If fees are 

decreased for governments then fees for 

non-government firms and individuals 

would have to be increased. At this time 

the Agency does not know how many 

State and local governments fall under 

this proposed rule and thus can not 

estimate how a decrease in fees for 

governments would effect other fees. 

Thus, EPA requests comment on 

whether certification fees should be 

lower for State and local governments 

and their employees, what those fees 

should be, and how to apportion the 

remainder of the costs for these 

certifications across all of the other 

accreditation and certification activities. 

The Agency also requests comment on 

how many State and local government 

firms and individuals must comply with 

the Lead-Based Paint Activities 

regulations and Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting rule. This information would 

help EPA determine the impact that 

lowering the fees for governments 

would have on accreditation and 

certification fees for non-government 

entities. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49383 

III. References 

The following is a list of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this proposed rule and 

placed in the public docket that was 

established under docket ID number 

EPA–HQ–OPPT–2008–0382. For 

information on accessing the docket, 

refer to the ADDRESSES unit. 

1. EPA. Lead; Requirements for LeadBased Paint Activities in Target Housing 

and Child-Occupied Facilities. Final 

Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, 

August 29, 1996) (FRL–5389–9). 

2. EPA. Lead; Fees for Accreditation 

of Training Programs and Certification 

of Lead-based Paint Activities 

Contractors. Final Rule. Federal 

Register (64 FR 31092, June 9, 1999) 

(FRL–6058–6). 

3. EPA. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and 

Painting Program. Final Rule. Federal 

Register (73 FR 21692, April 22, 2008) 

(FRL–8355–7) 

4. EPA. Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics (OPPT). Economic Analysis 

of the Final TSCA Section 402(a)(3) 

Lead-based Paint Accreditation and 

Certification Fee Rule (February 1999). 

5. EPA. OPPT. Economic Analysis for 

the TSCA Section 402 Lead-Based Paint 

Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule 

(June 2008). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866, entitled 

Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the 

Executive Order. EPA has prepared an 

economic analysis of the potential 

impact of this action. The impact of the 

fees for the Lead-based Paint Activities 

regulations is estimated to be $1.2 

million per year, or $6.1 million over 

the next 5 years. The impact of the fees 

for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

Program is estimated to be $61 million 

in the first year, and $22 million in each 

of the following 4 years, or $150 million 

over the next 5 years. EPA’s analysis is 

contained in a document entitled 

Economic Analysis of the TSCA Section 

402 Lead-Based Paint Accreditation and 

Certification Fee Rule. This document is 

available as a part of the public docket 

for this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose any new 

information collection burden because 

this proposal would merely establish 

fees associated with previously 

promulgated accreditation and 

certification application requirements. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has previously approved the 

information collection requirements 

contained in 40 CFR part 745, subpart 

E and subpart L, under the provisions of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB 

control number 2070–0155 (EPA ICR 

number 1715). The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act 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 in accordance 

with section 601 of RFA as: 

1. A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. 

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. 

The small entities that are potentially 

directly regulated by this proposed rule 

include: Small businesses (including 

abatement and renovation contractors, 

environmental testing firms, and 

property owners and managers); small 

nonprofits (including day care centers, 

private schools, and advocacy groups); 

and small governments (local 

governments, school districts). 

This proposal would result in a slight 

overall decrease in the fees currently 

assessed under the Lead-Based Paint 

Activities regulations. Fees for training 

providers will decrease with the 

exception of the project designer course 

refresher. Individual fees will decrease 

for the certification and recertification 

of risk assessors, and the certification of 

supervisors and project designers. 

Consequently, EPA estimates that this 

portion of the proposed rule will have 

no adverse impact on small entities; in 

fact the small entities affected by the 

proposed rule will incur cost savings. 

With respect to the fees for the 

Renovation, Repair, and Painting rule, 

EPA estimates that there are an average 

of 204,958 small entities that would be 

affected by this proposed rule. Of these, 

there are an estimated 179,820 small 

businesses with an average impact 

ranging from 0.007% to 0.220%, 18,088 

small non-profits with an average 

impact ranging from 0.006% to 0.097%, 

and 7,050 small governments with an 

average impact ranging from 0.0004% to 

0.002%. 

Although this proposed rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this proposed rule on small 

entities. In response to concerns about 

impacts on abatement workers and the 

firms that employ them, EPA is 

proposing reduced fees for worker 

certification. However, TSCA section 

402(a)(3) requires EPA to recover the 

costs of administering its lead training 

course provider accreditation and 

contractor certification program through 

fees. To the extent that EPA lowers 

accreditation or certification fees for 

small businesses (or some subset of 

small businesses), larger businesses 

would be required to contribute more. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any 1 year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of UMRA generally requires 

EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
49384 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

EPA to adopt an alternative other than 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and Tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any 1 year. EPA has prepared an 

economic analysis of the potential 

impact of this action, which is estimated 

to be $156 million over the next 5 years 

which is an average of $31 million per 

year. Thus, this proposed rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of UMRA. 

In addition, EPA has determined that 

this proposed rule contains no 

regulatory requirements that might 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Small governments may 

perform lead-based paint inspections, 

risk assessments, or abatements, or 

operate schools that are child-occupied 

facilities. EPA generally measures a 

significant impact under UMRA as 

being expenditures, in the aggregate, of 

more than 1% of small government 

revenues in any 1 year. As explained in 

Unit III.C., the proposed rule is expected 

to result in small government impacts 

well under 1% of revenues. So EPA has 

determined that the proposed rule does 

not significantly affect small 

governments. Nor does the proposed 

rule uniquely affect small governments, 

as the proposed rule is not targeted at 

small governments, does not primarily 

affect small governments, and does not 

impose a different burden on small 

governments than on other entities that 

perform regulated activities. 

E. Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’

This proposed rule does not have 

federalism implications. 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This proposal 

merely seeks to establish fees, as 

required by TSCA sections 402(a)(3) and 

402(c)(3), to recover the costs of 

administering the previously 

promulgated Federal lead-based paint 

accreditation and certification programs. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this proposed rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and State and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from State and local 

officials. 

F. Tribal Implications 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175, because this 

proposal would only establish fees, as 

required by TSCA section 402(a)(3) and 

402(c)(3), to recover the costs of 

administering the previously 

promulgated Federal Lead-Based Paint 

Accreditation and Certification 

Programs. Thus, Executive Order 13175 

does not apply to this proposed rule. 

Nonetheless, EPA specifically solicits 

additional comment on this proposed 

rule from Tribal officials. 

G. Children’s Health Protection 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045, entitled Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, and because the 

Agency does not believe the 

environmental health or safety risks 

addressed by this action present a 

disproportionate risk to children. This 

proposal merely seeks to establish fees, 

as required by TSCA sections 402(a)(3) 

and 402(c)(3), to recover the costs of 

administering the previously 

promulgated Federal lead-based paint 

accreditation and certification programs. 

H. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. Technology Standards 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–

113, 12(d) (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 rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, entitled, 

Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (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 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 49385 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. This proposal merely 

seeks to establish fees, as required by 

TSCA sections 402(a)(3) and 402(c)(3), 

to recover the costs of administering the 

previously promulgated Federal leadbased paint accreditation and 

certification programs. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 

Environmental protection, Fees, Lead, 

Lead-based paint, Renovation. 

Dated: August 13, 2008. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR 

chapter I be amended as follows: 

PART 745—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 745 

would continue to read as follows: 

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

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

2. Section 745.92 is added to subpart 

E to read as follows: 

§ 745.92 Fees for the accreditation of 

renovation and dust sampling technician 

training and the certification of renovation 

firms. 

(a) Persons who must pay fees. Fees 

in accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section must be paid by: 

(1) Training programs. (i) All nonexempt training programs applying to 

EPA for the accreditation and reaccreditation of training programs in 

one or more of the following disciplines: 

Renovator, dust sampling technician. 

(ii) Exemption. No fee shall be 

imposed on any training program 

operated by a State, federally recognized 

Indian Tribe, local government, or 

nonprofit organization. This exemption 

does not apply to the certification of 

firms or individuals. 

(2) Firms. All firms applying to EPA 

for certification and re-certification to 

conduct renovations. 

(b) Fee amounts—(1) Certification and 

accreditation fees. Initial and renewal 

certification and accreditation fees are 

specified in the following table: 

CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION FEE LEVELS

Training Program Accreditation Re-accreditation (every 4 years) 

Initial Renovator or Dust Sampling Technician 

Course 

$560 $340 

Refresher Renovator or Dust Sampling Technician 

Course 

$400 $310 

Renovation Firm Certification Re-certification (every 5 years) 

Firm 

Tribal Firm 

$300 

$20 

$300 

$20 

(2) Lost certificate. A $15 fee will be 

charged for the replacement of a firm 

certificate. 

(c) Certificate replacement. Firms 

seeking certificate replacement must: 

(1) Complete the applicable portions 

of the ‘‘Application for Firms’’ in 

accordance with the instructions 

provided. 

(2) Submit the application and a 

payment of $15 in accordance with the 

instructions provided with the 

application package. 

(d) Failure to remit fees. (1) EPA will 

not provide certification, recertification, accreditation, or reaccreditation for any firm or training 

program that does not remit fees 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

section in accordance with the 

procedures specified in 40 CFR 745.89. 

(2) EPA will not replace a certificate 

for any firm that does not remit the $15 

fee in accordance with the procedures 

specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

3. Section 745.238 of subpart L is 

amended as follows: 

a. Revise the table in paragraph (c)(1). 

b. Remove the phrase ‘‘to Conduct 

Lead-based Paint Activities’’ in 

paragraph (d)(1)(ii). 

c. Remove the phrase ‘‘to Conduct 

Lead-based Paint Activities’’ in 

paragraph (e)(1)(ii). 

§ 745.238 Fees for accreditation and 

certification of lead-based paint activities. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION FEE LEVELS

Training Program Accreditation Re-accreditation (every 4 years, see 40 

CFR 745.225(f)(1) for details) 

Initial Course 

Inspector 

Risk assessor 

Supervisor 

Worker 

Project Designer 

$870 

$870 

$870 

$870 

$870 

$620 

$620 

$620 

$620 

$620 

Refresher Course 

Inspector 

Risk assessor 

Supervisor 

Worker 

Project Designer 

$690 

$690 

$690 

$690 

$690 

$580 

$580 

$580 

$580 

$580 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS
49386 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 163 / Thursday, August 21, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION FEE LEVELS—Continued 

Training Program Accreditation Re-accreditation (every 4 years, see 40 

CFR 745.225(f)(1) for details) 

Lead-based Paint Activities—Individual Certification Re-certification (every 3 years, see 40 CFR 

745.226(e)(1) for details) 

Inspector 

Risk assessor 

Supervisor 

Worker 

Project designer 

Tribal certification (all disciplines) 

$410 

$410 

$410 

$310 

$410 

$10 

$410 

$410 

$410 

$310 

$410 

$10 

Lead-based Paint Activities—Firm Certification Re-certification (every 3 years, see 40 CFR 

745.226(f)(7) for details) 

Firm 

Tribal Firm 

$550 

$20 

$550 

$20 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E8–19432 Filed 8–20–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

49 CFR Part 22 

[Docket No: OST–2008–0236] 

RIN 2105–AD50 

Short-Term Lending Program (STLP) 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: In an effort to financially 

assist Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprises (DBEs) and other certified 

small and disadvantaged business 

(SDBs) in their execution of 

transportation related contracts at the 

local, state and federal levels, the 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged 

Business Utilization (OSDBU) has 

developed the Short-Term Lending 

Program (STLP), under which DOT 

guarantees short-term lines of credit for 

said businesses. The program is 

administered through cooperative 

agreements between DOT’s OSDBU and 

Participating Lenders and under the 

STLP’s governing policies and 

procedures. This NPRM proposes new 

rules to govern the STLP. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rules 

must be received by October 20, 2008. 

Late comments will be considered to the 

extent practicable. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

to this rule by any of the following 

methods: 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

dms.dot.gov: Follow the instructions for 

submitting comments on the Web site. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility; 

U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Ave., SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room 140, Washington, 

DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Room 140 on the 

ground floor of the West Building 

Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 

SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy Strine, Financial Assistance 

Division Manager, U.S Department of 

Transportation, OSDBU, 1200 New 

Jersey Ave, SE., Room W56–497, 

Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 

(800) 532–1169 ext. 65343 or (202) 366–

5343. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Director of DOT’s OSDBU has 

been delegated to carry out the 

functions vested in the Secretary of 

Transportation by section 906 of the 

Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory 

Reform Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 940–210, as 

amended) known as the Minority 

Business Resource Center Program, 

which includes a guaranteed loan 

program. 49 U.S.C. 332 authorizes 

DOT’s OSDBU to establish, under the 

Minority Resource Center, programs that 

would assist DBEs and SDBs in 

acquiring access to working capital and 

to debt financing, in order to obtain 

transportation-related contracts wholly 

or partially funded by DOT. To 

implement this authority, OSDBU 

developed its Short Term Lending 

Program (STLP) which offers DBE’s and 

other certified small and disadvantaged 

businesses short term working capital 

loans at variable interest rates to 

perform on these transportation-related 

contracts. 

Initially developed in 1989 as a direct 

loan program, the STLP was converted 

in 2001 to a loan guarantee program 

under which, private sector 

Participating Lenders (PLs) offer loans 

with a government guarantee of up to 75 

percent for qualified applicants. 

These loans are revolving lines of 

credit that provide working capital 

funds to assist the borrower in financing 

the direct labor and material costs of 

completing transportation contracts. 

The contracts that are funded are 

assigned to the loan as collateral, and 

the PL advances monies up to 85% of 

eligible and approved Accounts 

Receivable that arise from the Assigned 

Contract(s). The contracts must be 

transportation-related and receive DOT 

funding. Repayment comes in the form 

of a two-party check to the borrower and 

to the PL directly from the contract 

proceeds. The total length of time that 

an eligible borrower may remain in the 

program cannot exceed a total of five 

years. 

DOT monitors these loans, which 

require contract assignments and direct 

joint payee check remittances for 

principal repayment, through its 

relationship with the transportation 

agencies and recipients that receive 

DOT funds and the Participating 

Lenders (PLs). 

The STLP has undergone an extensive 

program review to improve its business 

processes and achieve operational and 

financial efficiencies. As part of this 

effort, DOT is proposing regulations to 

replace the internal policies and 

guidelines currently used to manage the 

program. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with PROPOSALS