Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304-0011
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Lead-Based Paint Programs: Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements
Posted Date: 2015-01-14T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 14, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1873-1880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00473]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 1874]]

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 low-level 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 lead-based 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 lead-based 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 child-
occupied 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

[[Page 1875]]

the LBP Activities rule requirements to renovation, repair, and 
painting activities in target housing and child-occupied 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 (e-learning). 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 hands-on 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 e-learning 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 lead-based 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

[[Page 1876]]

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 lead-based 
paint activities requirements in States without authorized programs. 
The fee schedule created a multi-jurisdiction 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 EPA-administered 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 EPA-administered 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 EPA-administered 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 EPA-administered 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 Lead-based Paint Activities program, they will be able to work in 
any EPA-administered 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)

[[Page 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 lead-based 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 Child-Occupied 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 Lead-Based 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 EPA-administered 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

[[Page 1878]]

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 Lead-Based 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 
double-counting, EPA's Economic Analysis and ICR for this action do not 
include the burden and cost of reinstating the post-training 
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 e-learning 
refresher renovator training

[[Page 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 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 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 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. 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 e-learning 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 multi-jurisdiction 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 lead-based paint activities or renovation, 
repair or painting activities disturbing lead-based paint.

[[Page 1880]]

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]

0
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.

0
2. In Sec.  745.225:
0
a. Add new paragraph (a)(4).
0
b. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e).
0
c. Revise paragraphs (c)(14)(i) and (e)(2) and (3).
    The addition and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  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 lead-based 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 lead-based 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.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  745.238:
0
a. Remove paragraph (c)(3).
0
b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) as (c)(3) and (4).
0
c. Revise the headings for paragraphs (d)(1) and (2).
0
d. Revise paragraph (e)(2).
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  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