Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program, 47918-47946 [2011-19417]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 151 (Friday, August 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47918-47946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19417]



[[Page 47917]]

Vol. 76

Friday,

No. 151

August 5, 2011

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





40 CFR Part 745





Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, 
Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 151 / Friday, August 5, 2011 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 47918]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049; FRL-8881-8]
RIN 2070-AJ57


Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the 
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: As part of a settlement of litigation over certain post-
renovation cleaning requirements of the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, 
and Painting Program (RRP) rule, the EPA agreed to propose a number of 
revisions to the 2008 RRP rule that established accreditation, 
training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements as well as work 
practice standards for persons performing renovations for compensation 
in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities and to 
subsequently take final action on the proposed rule by July 15, 2011. 
The proposed rule published on May 6, 2010. EPA has decided not to 
promulgate dust wipe testing and clearance requirements as proposed. 
However, EPA is promulgating several other revisions to the RRP rule, 
including a provision allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint 
chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory for analysis in lieu 
of using a lead test kit, minor changes to the training program 
accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in 
accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for 
authorized state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions to 
the training and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also 
promulgating clarifications to the requirements for vertical 
containment on exterior renovation projects, the prohibited or 
restricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's action is EPA's 
final action on all aspects of the May 6, 2010 proposal.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 4, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the docket index available at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is 
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) 
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly 
available docket materials are available in the electronic docket at 
https://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 legal 
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. Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may reach the above 
telephone numbers through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay 
Service at 1-800-877-8339. 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 technical information contact: 
Cindy Wheeler, 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) 566-0484; e-mail address: wheeler.cindy@epa.gov.
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov. Hearing- or speech-
impaired persons may reach the above telephone number through TTY by 
calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you perform 
renovations of target housing or child-occupied facilities for 
compensation, dust sampling, or dust testing. You may also be affected 
by this action if you perform lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard 
screens, risk assessments or abatements in target housing or child-
occupied facilities or if you operate a training program for 
individuals who perform any of these activities. ``Target housing'' is 
defined in section 401 of TSCA as any housing constructed prior to 
1978, except housing for the elderly or persons with disabilities 
(unless any child under age 6 resides or is expected to reside in such 
housing) or any 0-bedroom dwelling. Under this rule, a child-occupied 
facility is a building, or a portion of a building, constructed prior 
to 1978, visited regularly by the same child, under 6 years of age, on 
at least 2 different days within any week (Sunday through Saturday 
period), provided that each day's visit lasts at least 3 hours and the 
combined weekly visits last at least 6 hours, and the combined annual 
visits last at least 60 hours.
    Potentially-affected 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 
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.
    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. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult

[[Page 47919]]

the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background

A. What action is the agency taking?

    On May 6, 2010, EPA proposed a number of revisions to the 2008 Lead 
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule that established 
accreditation, training, certification, and recordkeeping requirements 
as well as work practice standards for persons performing renovations 
for compensation in most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities 
(Ref. 1). Specifically, EPA proposed requirements for dust wipe 
testing, clearance, allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint 
chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory for analysis, minor 
changes to the training program accreditation application process, 
standards for e-learning in accredited training programs, minimum 
enforcement provisions for authorized state and tribal renovation 
programs, and minor revisions to the training and certification 
requirements for renovators. EPA has decided not to promulgate dust 
wipe testing and clearance requirements as proposed. However, EPA is 
promulgating several of the other proposed revisions to the RRP rule, 
including a provision allowing a certified renovator to collect a paint 
chip sample and send it to a recognized laboratory for analysis in lieu 
of using a lead test kit, minor changes to the training program 
accreditation application process, standards for e-learning in 
accredited training programs, minimum enforcement provisions for 
authorized state and tribal renovation programs, and minor revisions to 
the training and certification requirements for renovators. EPA is also 
promulgating clarifications to the requirements for vertical 
containment on exterior renovation projects, the prohibited or 
restricted work practice provisions, and the requirements for high-
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuums. Today's action is EPA's 
final action on all aspects of the May 6, 2010 proposal.

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    These work practice, training, certification and accreditation 
requirements, and the State, Territorial and Tribal authorization 
provisions are being promulgated under the authority of sections 
402(c)(3), 404, and 407 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 
U.S.C. 2682(c)(3), 2684, and 2687.

C. What are the specific provisions of this action?

    1. Clearance and dust wipe testing requirements for renovations. As 
discussed in this unit, EPA has decided not to promulgate clearance and 
dust wipe testing requirements as proposed in May 2010 for certain 
renovations covered by the 2008 Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 
(RRP) rule (Ref. 2).
    a. Background. In promulgating the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA 
determined that renovation, repair, and painting activities, when 
performed in the presence of lead-based paint, create lead-based paint 
hazards. Section 402(c)(3) of TSCA directs EPA to revise its 
regulations governing lead-based paint inspections, risk assessments, 
and abatements (the Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, or 
abatement regulations, Ref. 3) to apply to renovation and remodeling 
activities that create lead-based paint hazards. Accordingly, the 2008 
RRP rule established accreditation, training, certification, and 
recordkeeping requirements as well as work practice standards for 
persons performing renovations for compensation in most pre-1978 
housing and child-occupied facilities. Among other things, the work 
practice standards require renovation firms to follow specific 
requirements for containing the work area, refrain from using certain 
high-dust-generating work practices, and follow a specific cleaning 
protocol, including a step called ``cleaning verification,'' after 
concluding the paint-disturbing tasks involved in a renovation.
    As discussed in the preamble to the 2010 proposal, EPA is 
particularly concerned about dust-lead hazards generated by renovations 
because of the well-documented toxicity of lead, especially to younger 
children. For a more detailed discussion of the health effects of lead 
exposure, refer to information in the 2010 proposal (Ref. 1) and the 
2008 RRP final rule (Ref. 2).
    One of the more difficult issues in the 2008 RRP rulemaking was the 
issue of determining when a renovation work area has been properly 
cleaned and is ready for reoccupancy. After a lead-based paint 
abatement project, EPA's Lead-Based Paint Activities Regulations 
require the abatement contractor to achieve clearance. This means that 
the contractor must demonstrate, through dust wipe testing, that dust 
lead levels remaining in the abatement work area are below the 
clearance levels established in the 2001 rulemaking entitled 
``Identification of Dangerous Levels of Lead'' under section 403 of the 
Toxic Substances Control Act (Ref. 4). Dust wipe samples for clearance 
purposes must be collected by a certified individual and analyzed by an 
entity recognized under the National Lead Laboratory Accreditation 
Program (NLLAP).
    When promulgating the 2008 RRP rule, EPA considered requiring a 
similar process after renovations, but for various reasons, did not do 
so. EPA did not interpret its statutory mandate under TSCA section 
402(c)(3) as simply expanding the scope of the Lead-based Paint 
Activities Regulations to also cover renovation activities. Rather, EPA 
stated, in the final 2008 RRP rule, its belief that Congress intended 
for EPA to make revisions to those existing regulations to adapt them 
to a different set of activities and a very different regulated 
community. In establishing the cleaning element of the work practice 
requirements for renovations, EPA primarily relied on the results of 
two studies, the ``Electrostatic Cloth and Wet Cloth Field Study in 
Residential Housing'' (Ref. 5) and the ``Characterization of Dust Lead 
Levels after Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities'' (the ``Dust 
Study,'' Ref. 6) to determine that the full suite of RRP work practice 
requirements, including containment, cleaning, and cleaning 
verification, was effective at minimizing exposure to lead-based paint 
hazards created by renovation, repair, and painting activities.
    EPA also considered various other factors as well as issues raised 
by commenters. Among these were the differences between abatement and 
renovation, the costs of dust wipe testing and clearance, the potential 
delay in obtaining results, and the likelihood that renovation firms 
would become liable for pre-existing dust-lead hazards. Abatements have 
only one purpose, to permanently eliminate lead-based paint or lead-
based paint hazards, while renovations are performed for many reasons 
that often have nothing to do with lead-based paint. Concerns about the 
costs of dust wipe testing and clearance were brought to EPA's 
attention during stakeholder input opportunities provided by EPA before 
the proposed RRP rule was issued in 2006 and echoed by commenters on 
the 2006 proposed RRP rule. If EPA had required dust wipe testing and 
clearance after every renovation project, it would have made up a 
significant portion of the cost of smaller projects. In addition, dust 
wipe testing results may not be available for several days. If EPA had 
required traditional abatement-style clearance after renovations, the 
work area would not be able to be re-occupied while waiting for the 
laboratory results.

[[Page 47920]]

Commenters also noted that requiring clearance after renovation jobs 
could, in some instances, result in the renovation firm being held 
responsible for abating all dust-lead hazards, including such hazards 
that may have existed in the area before the renovation commenced.
    Other commenters on the 2006 proposed RRP rule thought that 
renovation work areas ought to be tested and cleared for re-occupancy 
in the same way that abatement work areas are cleared through the 
clearance process, including dust wipe testing. Many commenters 
believed that renovation firms should be required to demonstrate that 
no dust-lead hazards had been left behind in the work area. These 
commenters contended that the only effective way to do this is through 
dust wipe testing and clearance. While EPA understood the issues raised 
by these commenters, and agreed with some of the points that they made, 
EPA remained convinced that the suite of RRP work practices would be 
practical for renovation firms to implement while effectively 
minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations. The 
RRP work practices are, in essence, requirements to ensure that 
renovators undertake traditional renovation activities--e.g., removal 
or modification of existing surfaces, containment and cleanup of dust 
and debris, and ensuring the job site is cleaned up--in a lead-safe 
way. EPA believes the RRP rule effectively minimizes exposure to 
hazards generated by renovation activities without imposing practices 
and disciplines that are outside the scope of traditional renovation 
activities. More information on the comments received and EPA's 
decisions can be found in the preamble to the final 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 
2).
    b. 2010 Proposal. Based on additional stakeholder input received 
after the final rule was issued, and an August 2009 agreement entered 
into with several environmental and children's health advocacy groups 
in settlement of their lawsuit challenging the final 2008 RRP rule, EPA 
agreed to consider whether some of the decisions made in 2008 with 
regard to dust wipe testing and clearance should be modified.
    Accordingly, on May 6, 2010, EPA proposed to require dust wipe 
testing after many renovations covered by the RRP rule (Ref. 1). Under 
the 2010 proposal, dust wipe testing would have been required on 
uncarpeted floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the work area 
after the following types of interior renovations:
     Use of a heat gun at temperatures below 1100 degrees 
Fahrenheit.
     Removal or replacement of window or door frames.
     Scraping 60 ft\2\ or more of painted surfaces.
     Removing more than 40 ft\2\ of trim, molding, cabinets, or 
other fixtures.
    After these renovations, the renovation firm would have been 
required to collect dust wipe samples and have them analyzed for lead 
content by an entity recognized under NLLAP. The renovation firm would 
then have been required to provide these results to the owners and 
occupants of the renovated property.
    For another subset of jobs involving demolition or removal of 
plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint using 
machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation, such as 
power sanders or abrasive blasters, EPA proposed to require the 
renovation firm to achieve clearance. This would have involved a 
demonstration, through dust wipe testing, that dust-lead levels 
remaining on uncarpeted floors, windowsills, and window troughs in the 
work area were below regulatory clearance levels. These clearance 
levels would have been identical to the clearance levels established 
for the lead-based paint abatement program, which are codified at 40 
CFR 745.227(e)(8)(viii), i.e., 40 [mu]g/ft\2\ on floors, 250 [mu]g/
ft\2\ on interior windowsills, and 400 [mu]g/ft\2\ on window troughs, 
based on wipe samples. These additional requirements in the 2010 
proposal were designed to ensure that lead-based paint hazards 
generated by renovation work are adequately cleaned after renovation 
work is finished and before the work areas are re-occupied.
    c. This final rule. Maintaining the distinction between abatement 
and renovation activities has been an important issue throughout the 
rulemaking process for the 2008 RRP rule. As discussed in the preamble 
to the 2008 RRP rule, abatements and renovations are performed by 
different contractors for different purposes, although similar 
activities, such as window replacements, may be involved. Typically, 
when an abatement is performed, the housing is either unoccupied or the 
occupants are temporarily relocated to lead-safe housing until the 
abatement has been demonstrated to have been properly completed through 
the clearance process. Carpet in the housing is usually removed as part 
of the abatement because it is difficult to demonstrate that it is free 
of lead-based paint hazards. Uncarpeted floors that have not been 
replaced during the abatement may need to be refinished or sealed in 
order to achieve clearance. Abatements have only one purpose--to 
permanently eliminate lead-based paint and lead-based paint hazards. In 
contrast, renovations other than interim controls are performed for 
reasons unrelated to lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards. 
Renovations may be performed while the property is occupied or 
unoccupied, but occupants do not typically relocate pending the 
completion of the project.
    EPA did not design or intend the RRP rule to address cleanup of 
pre-existing dust-lead hazards. While the cleaning requirements of the 
RRP rule will, in some cases, have the ancillary benefit of removing 
some pre-existing dust-lead hazards, the cleaning requirements were 
designed to effectively clean-up lead-based paint hazards created 
during renovation activities without changing the scope of the 
renovation activity itself. Accordingly, the RRP rule does not require 
cleaning of dust or any other possible lead sources in portions of 
target housing or child-occupied facilities beyond locations in and 
around the work area. Nor does the RRP rule require the replacement of 
carpets in the area of the renovation or the refinishing or sealing of 
uncarpeted floors. The approach in the RRP rule was designed to address 
the lead-based paint hazards created during the renovation while not 
requiring renovation firms to remediate or eliminate hazards beyond the 
scope of the work they were hired to do.
    In addition, EPA has interpreted practicality in implementation to 
be an element of the statutory directive to take into account 
effectiveness and reliability. As discussed in the preamble to the 
final 2008 RRP rule, EPA believes that, given the highly variable 
nature of the regulated community, the work practices required by the 
RRP rule should be simple to understand and easy to use. EPA is 
cognizant of the fact that the RRP rule applies to a range of 
individuals from day laborers to property maintenance staff to master 
craftsmen performing a range of activities from simple drywall repair 
to window replacement to complete kitchen and bath renovations to 
building additions and everything in between. Work practices that are 
easy and practical to use are more likely to be followed by all of the 
persons who perform renovations, and, therefore, more likely to be 
reliable and effective in minimizing exposure to lead-based paint 
hazards created by renovation activities.
    The 2010 proposal for this rule was EPA's attempt to explore 
whether clearance and dust wipe testing requirements should be added to 
the

[[Page 47921]]

RRP rule to provide additional protection for some renovations. EPA's 
intention was to do this without generally holding renovation firms 
responsible for abating pre-existing dust-lead hazards or creating 
requirements that would impair the overall reliability and 
effectiveness of the work practice requirements.
    EPA received over 300 comments on its 2010 proposal. Members of the 
regulated community and other industry commenters were generally 
concerned that EPA had upset the balance it had struck in the 2008 RRP 
rule, arguing that a dust wipe testing or clearance requirement would 
have the effect of holding renovation firms responsible for pre-
existing hazards, whether directly by regulation, in the case of the 
proposed clearance requirements, or indirectly by requiring firms to 
provide information on post-renovation dust lead levels to the property 
owner and occupant. While there was little support for dust wipe 
testing alone, commenters that supported the 2010 proposal generally 
thought that a clearance requirement should be imposed and expanded to 
most, if not all, renovations.
    After carefully weighing the issues at stake and considering the 
concerns raised by commenters, and as explained in greater detail 
below, EPA has concluded that, on balance, the information before the 
Agency does not support imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance 
requirement on renovations. In particular, EPA is convinced that the 
work practices established in the 2008 RRP rule are reliable, 
effective, and safe, and that imposing a dust wipe testing or clearance 
requirement is unwarranted.
    Almost all of the commenters were opposed to the proposed 
provisions requiring only dust wipe testing after certain renovations. 
Members of the regulated community and other industry commenters argued 
that a dust wipe testing requirement would have the effect of holding 
renovation firms responsible for pre-existing hazards, albeit 
indirectly, by requiring firms to provide information on post-
renovation dust lead levels to the property owner and occupant. This 
requirement would also have the effect of adding an element that is not 
generally considered a renovation activity, i.e., taking samples for 
laboratory analysis, and indeed, would have to be performed by a third 
party or only after a renovator received training in a separate and 
distinct discipline--either as a dust wipe sample technician or a lead-
based paint inspector. In addition, many argued that the Dust Study 
generally shows that the RRP work practices are effective at minimizing 
occupant exposure to dust-lead hazards created by renovations, so 
additional dust wipe testing or clearance requirements are unnecessary. 
These commenters noted that this is particularly true for the 
renovations for which EPA proposed to require only dust wipe testing, 
because those renovations were specifically tested in the Dust Study. 
In addition, commenters suggested that the categories of jobs for which 
dust wipe testing or clearance would be required were arbitrary and not 
based on sufficient evidence.
    Some commenters, including several states, also questioned the 
utility and value of dust wipe testing in the absence of a clearance 
requirement. Some were concerned that property owners and occupants 
would not understand the significance of the results of dust wipe 
samples that exceed the clearance standards or what steps they should 
take to protect themselves and their families. One argued that, in the 
absence of standards and required remedial actions, dust wipe testing 
would add expense and time to a renovation project without providing a 
concrete increase in protection for occupants. On the other hand, other 
commenters contended that the feedback provided by numerical dust wipe 
testing results would result in improved cleaning performance on the 
part of renovation firms. Some cited anecdotal evidence of poor 
contractor performance in other programs, such as the abatement 
program, in support of a contention that the RRP rule work practices 
would not be as effective at minimizing dust-lead hazards as they were 
in the Dust Study.
    Additionally, after considering previous interpretations of the 
statutory requirements and the comments received on this specific 
issue, EPA is not convinced that dust wipe testing in the absence of a 
clearance requirement would be a safe, reliable and effective work 
practice within the meaning of TSCA Section 402. As commenters noted, 
provision of dust wipe testing results in the absence of a clearance 
requirement does not by itself reduce the amount of dust generated 
during or left behind following a renovation. Furthermore, dust wipe 
testing results alone are not part of the information that must be 
provided at the pre-renovation stage under Section 406(b) of TSCA, and 
providing this type of information is not typically considered a 
renovation work practice. Again, the dust wipe testing would either 
have to be done by a third party or by a renovator who has taken a 
course and been trained in a completely different discipline.
    EPA believes these commenters raise valid considerations. In 
particular, EPA agrees that the Dust Study demonstrates that with 
respect to these very activities, the suite of RRP work practices 
reliably addressed the hazards created by the renovation. In addition, 
although EPA attempted in its 2010 proposal to distinguish renovation 
activities that it thought warranted the addition of a dust wipe 
testing requirement from those that did not (and from those that 
warranted imposition of a clearance requirement), EPA acknowledges that 
its 2010 proposal lacked a strong basis for drawing these lines--a 
point made by many commenters. While some commenters urged the point 
that dust wipe testing would encourage better cleanup, and provided 
anecdotal support for that view, EPA has no record basis to judge the 
likelihood or frequency of this potential impact. This logic could 
potentially lead to requiring dust wipe testing for all jobs--a 
significant change in the existing rule that EPA is not prepared to 
make without better supporting evidence. Accordingly, upon the 
information before it, the Agency does not believe that a dust testing 
requirement alone is warranted. EPA notes that homeowners can arrange 
to have dust wipe testing done as part of a renovation (or at any time) 
if they would like information about dust-lead levels in their homes. 
EPA also notes that property owners can contractually elect clearance 
testing at the completion of a project. EPA's Web site has a page 
homeowners can use to locate certified lead inspection and abatement 
professionals and accredited training providers in their state (https://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/locate.htm).
    EPA also proposed to require that renovation firms achieve 
clearance for a subset of jobs involving demolition or removal of 
plaster through destructive means or the disturbance of paint using 
machines designed to remove paint through high-speed operation, such as 
power sanders or abrasive blasters. Nonetheless, EPA remained concerned 
about promulgating a requirement that could make renovation firms 
responsible for pre-existing conditions and fundamentally change the 
scope of the renovation activity itself. Therefore, to avoid making 
renovation firms replace carpets or refinish floors when they were not 
hired to do so, EPA proposed to allow a renovation firm to stop after 
two failed dust wipe tests on a particular surface if the firm was not 
hired to refinish or replace that surface.
    EPA was particularly concerned about these types of jobs because it 
had evidence that the work practices were not effective when machines 
designed

[[Page 47922]]

to remove paint through high speed operation were operated without HEPA 
shrouds and created large quantities of dust. EPA was concerned that 
even if such machines were equipped with HEPA shrouds, the RRP work 
practices may not be effective at minimizing exposure to lead hazards 
created by the renovation. Additionally, EPA stated its belief that 
dust created by the demolition or removal of plaster was similarly 
difficult to clean and therefore the RRP work practices might not be 
effective at minimizing exposure to lead hazards created by the 
renovation.
    With respect to the proposed clearance requirements, commenters 
generally fell into two camps. Commenters who were in ``favor'' of the 
2010 proposal nonetheless generally argued that the proposed clearance 
requirements should be expanded to cover most if not all renovation 
activities because clearance is the only method to ensure that no lead 
hazards remain upon the completion of a renovation job. Commenters who 
opposed any type of clearance requirement argued again that it erased 
the distinction between renovations and abatements and made renovation 
firms responsible for pre-existing conditions. These commenters also 
questioned the relevance of the studies EPA cited in support of its 
2010 proposal to require clearance after renovations involving 
demolition or removal of plaster through destructive means or the 
disturbance of paint using machines designed to remove paint through 
high-speed operation. The cited studies include EPA's Environmental 
Field Sampling Study (EFSS, Ref. 7) and studies examining the 
effectiveness of HEPA exhaust control on power tools (Ref. 8). Many of 
the HEPA exhaust control studies addressed dusts not typically created 
during renovations regulated by the RRP rule, such as crystalline 
silica dust resulting from the grinding of concrete. Others addressed 
surfaces and surface coatings not typically encountered during 
renovations covered by the RRP rule; one involved paint removal from 
automobiles. Notwithstanding EPA's 2010 proposal and requests for 
comment, EPA did not receive any additional information or data with 
respect to the dust or hazards created by these activities. Finally, on 
both sides of the issue, commenters did not favor the proposed 
provision allowing renovation firms to stop after two failed dust wipe 
tests, and, although some alternative suggestions were offered, none 
effectively addressed the competing considerations of occupant 
protection and not expanding the scope of the renovation work.
    EPA recognizes that imposing a clearance requirement would be a 
departure from the balance struck in the RRP rule with respect to the 
distinction between abatement and renovations. Accordingly, in EPA's 
judgment, the Agency should be in a position to conclude with a fair 
amount of certainty that doing so was necessary in light of its 
obligation to promulgate work practices that take into account 
reliability, effectiveness, and safety. Here, EPA acknowledges that it 
does not have data to support its concern that dust created by 
destructive demolition of plaster may be similar in nature to dust 
generated by machines designed to remove paint through high speed 
operation, and thus would have the potential to overwhelm the RRP 
cleaning protocol. EPA also recognizes that the data on the efficiency 
of HEPA is only suggestive that there might be an issue concerning 
these practices. Again, the studies EPA reviewed suggested that HEPA 
exhaust control could reduce the airborne dust levels by 90-95%. As 
commenters pointed out, it is not clear the results of these studies 
are applicable to the home renovation setting, given the differences 
between the surfaces and paints in residential settings and the 
surfaces and paints involved in the studies. Even if the results were 
applicable, there is no direct evidence that the RRP lead safe work 
practices could not reliably address the dust hazards created by the 
use of such power tools. Having received no additional information in 
this regard, EPA has determined that, among other things, the available 
information does not support a clearance requirement. Nevertheless, as 
discussed further in Unit II.C.7. of this preamble, EPA is adding a 
requirement that power tools be operated so that no visible dust or 
release of air occurs outside of the shroud or containment system. This 
requirement will work to mitigate the concerns EPA had with respect to 
the efficiency of power tool dust collection systems and the 
possibility that such tools might overwhelm the containment and 
specialized cleaning protocols of the RRP work practices.
    In an effort to ensure that the proposed clearance requirement 
would not typically result in holding renovation firms responsible for 
abating pre-existing dust-lead hazards, EPA included a provision to 
allow firms to stop the clearance procedure after two failed clearance 
tests on a particular surface unless they had also contracted to 
refinish the surface. Upon further reflection, EPA is concerned about 
the potential ineffectiveness of this effort, because it would likely 
still result in some renovation firms having to clean up pre-existing 
dust-lead hazards. At the same time, the proposed provision would not 
result in the certainty regarding elimination of dust-lead hazards that 
is the defining characteristic of a clearance requirement. In addition, 
the practical effect of such a provision is that the proposed clearance 
requirement would, in fact, often result in a dust wipe testing 
requirement. As such, it raises many of the same issues and concerns 
that ultimately persuaded EPA not to promulgate just dust wipe testing 
requirements.
    Furthermore, as stated above, EPA does not believe the record 
before it strongly supports the line-drawing in its 2010 proposal, 
which would have resulted in a clearance requirement for some 
renovations, a dust wipe testing requirement for others, and no testing 
for the rest of the renovations covered by the RRP rule.
    In revising the abatement regulations to apply to renovations, EPA 
has sought to keep the renovation requirements relatively simple and 
easy to apply, while attaining the overall objective of minimizing 
exposure to dust-lead hazards generated by renovation activities. EPA 
is concerned that the proposed three-tier system would add a level of 
complexity to the rule that is undesirable. While EPA could potentially 
draw different lines in this final rule, or promulgate a requirement 
that all jobs achieve clearance, EPA does not believe it has a strong 
basis to do so.
    The combination of these factors has convinced EPA that imposing a 
clearance requirement is unwarranted. The best evidence that EPA has of 
the effectiveness of the work practice standards is the Dust Study, and 
it demonstrates that overall the full suite of RRP work practices is 
effective at minimizing exposure to dust-lead hazards created by 
renovations. Without more, EPA is unable to conclude that the RRP work 
practice promulgated in 2008 should be significantly altered.
    Additionally, a variety of commenters, including industry 
representatives and some states, suggested that EPA had issued its 2010 
proposal to require dust wipe testing and clearance too soon after 
promulgation of the 2008 RRP rule. At the time that the 2010 proposal 
was issued, full implementation of the 2008 RRP rule had only just 
begun. Commenters contended that renovation firms were still in the 
process of working through how to achieve

[[Page 47923]]

compliance with the rule on a daily basis and that EPA should wait to 
add new requirements until firms were generally comfortable with the 
requirements promulgated in 2008. Commenters also argued that EPA 
should not make a determination that additional requirements are needed 
without first carefully assessing the status and impact of the existing 
RRP rule when fully implemented. EPA agrees with the general principle 
expressed by these commenters--that it is premature to impose 
significant additional work practice requirements for renovations 
already covered by the RRP rule, particularly given the information 
before the Agency. EPA also agrees that many renovation firms are still 
determining what the RRP rule requires from them on renovation 
projects. EPA also acknowledges that there are practical implementation 
issues with promulgating a significant change so soon after thousands 
of renovators have become certified renovators, and have taken the 
required training, which did not include information on the proposed 
dust wipe testing or clearance requirements.
    Some commenters suggested that EPA concentrate on RRP education and 
outreach at this time, rather than on additional requirements. EPA 
agrees that outreach and education on lead poisoning in general, and 
the link between renovations and increased blood lead levels in 
particular, continues to be important. As part of the RRP program's 
Lead-Safe Certified media campaign, EPA developed and made available to 
the public outreach materials aimed at both contractors and consumers. 
The materials include a Public Service Advertising (PSA) advertisement 
aimed at contractors, banners for Web sites, sample articles for 
magazines, newsletters or other publications to help inform contractors 
about the rule, post cards and buck slips to stuff into mailers, as 
well as an informational brochure about the rule for building managers. 
EPA has also developed fact sheets about the RRP rule that hardware or 
paint supply stores can hand out to their customers to inform them of 
the regulatory requirements. All of this information is available to 
the public on EPA's Web site at https://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-press-materials.htm.
    The Agency has also developed outreach materials for consumers in 
order to build demand for lead-safe certified firms among the public. 
The consumer outreach materials include consumer print advertisements, 
PSA radio advertisements in English and Spanish, and a fact sheet about 
the RRP rule that contractors can provide to consumers to inform them 
about the advantages of hiring lead-safe renovation firms. The consumer 
outreach materials are also downloadable from EPA's Web site at https://epa.gov/lead/pubs/lscp-consumers.htm.
    Finally, in an effort to raise awareness of the consequences of 
lead poisoning among parents and pregnant women who live in homes built 
before 1978, the Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning, EPA and HUD 
joined the Ad Council in April 2010 to launch a national multimedia PSA 
campaign. As stated in the PSA campaign press release, the most common 
pathways for lead poisoning are deteriorating lead-based paint (on 
older windows, doors and trim, or walls) or improperly-performed 
renovation, repair and painting activities that cause paint to chip, 
peel, or flake.
    EPA will continue to evaluate and consider additional outreach and 
educational opportunities to improve property owner and occupant 
understanding of dust-lead hazards created by renovations. EPA also 
will continue to monitor implementation of the RRP rule. If future 
information, studies, or data indicate that the existing RRP rule work 
practices are not reliable, safe, and effective, EPA will consider 
whether additional requirements should be proposed.
    2. Elimination of provision allowing clearance in lieu of cleaning 
verification. In the 2010 proposal, EPA proposed to eliminate the 
existing provision that allows renovation firms to skip the cleaning 
verification part of the mandatory cleaning protocol if another 
Federal, State, or local law or regulation, or the contract between the 
renovation firm and the property owner requires the renovation firm to 
use qualified entities to perform dust wipe testing and requires the 
renovation firm to achieve clearance. The rationale for eliminating 
this provision was based on the fact that, as discussed in the preamble 
to the 2010 proposal and the preamble to the 2008 RRP final rule, 
cleaning verification is an integral part of the whole suite of RRP 
work practices. The Dust Study demonstrates that these practices, when 
observed as a whole, are effective at minimizing exposure to dust-lead 
hazards generated by renovations.
    EPA received only a handful of comments on this aspect of the 2010 
proposal. Commenters thought that removing this provision from the RRP 
rule would make the rule inconsistent with the HUD regulations or State 
or local laws. Some believed that requiring both cleaning verification 
and clearance was unnecessarily burdensome, and pointed out that 
persons trained in lead-safe work practices had been achieving 
clearance without cleaning verification for a number of years now. 
While EPA does not agree with all of these assertions, EPA does agree 
that it is unnecessary to require renovation firms who must achieve 
clearance to follow the specific cleaning verification protocol. After 
all, these firms must continue to clean until they achieve the 
clearance standards. As discussed in the preamble to the 2010 Proposal, 
and mentioned by some commenters specifically in reference to this 
provision, contractors who receive the regular feedback provided by a 
clearance requirement have learned how to clean so that they typically 
achieve clearance on the first attempt. Specifically, in its Evaluation 
of the HUD Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Program (Ref. 10), HUD 
noted that the rate of passing initial clearance was associated with 
repetition of lead hazard control activities. Therefore, EPA is 
retaining the provision that allows the cleaning verification step to 
be skipped if the renovation firm must also achieve clearance. However, 
EPA believes that renovation firms whose projects are subject to 
clearance only as a result of contractual requirements are less likely 
to gain the repetitive experience of cleaning sufficiently so as to 
meet clearance with few cleaning cycles, so EPA encourages property 
owners who include clearance in their renovation contracts to also 
require renovation firms to perform cleaning verification. EPA also 
notes that States and Tribes are free to include both clearance and 
cleaning verification in their laws and regulations.
    3. Paint chip sample collection. In May 2010, EPA proposed to give 
certified renovators another option for determining whether lead-based 
paint is present on components to be affected by a renovation. This 
option would allow certified renovators to collect paint chip samples 
from components to be affected by a renovation instead of using test 
kits to test the paint on the components. The samples would be required 
to be sent to an entity recognized under the NLLAP for analysis. In 
issuing this 2010 proposal, EPA reasoned that it would be easy to teach 
certified renovators to collect paint chip samples in the renovator 
course and this would provide maximum flexibility for certified 
renovators and renovation firms.
    EPA received a number of comments on this part of its 2010 
proposal. Some commenters supported this option

[[Page 47924]]

because they felt that it is easy to properly collect a paint chip 
sample, and they agreed that this would provide additional needed 
flexibility for certified renovators and renovation firms. One 
commenter stated that, as a homeowner, he had been instructed by an 
NLLAP laboratory over the telephone on how to properly collect a paint 
chip sample and forward it to the laboratory for analysis. This 
experience led him to believe that it would be feasible to include in 
the renovator course instruction on how to collect a paint chip sample 
and forward it for analysis. Other commenters did not support this 
aspect of the 2010 proposal because they believe that only certified 
inspectors or risk assessors should be permitted to collect paint chip 
samples or make determinations about the presence or absence of lead-
based paint. Several noted that this would conflict with State laws 
that prohibit anyone other than a certified inspector or risk assessor 
from sampling for lead-based paint. Some commenters expressed concern 
about the length of the renovator course, and the ability to add the 
additional information on paint chip collection, including information 
on chain-of-custody issues and laboratory submission procedures, 
without lengthening the course beyond 8 hours. Others noted that 
renovators are already being taught many of the necessary skills during 
instruction on how to properly use test kits.
    Because renovator training courses are already required to include 
training in how and where to use test kits, and the associated 
recordkeeping requirements, EPA agrees with those commenters who 
believed that it would take very little additional time to also provide 
renovators with specific training in how to collect a chip sample and 
submit it for analysis. The selection of locations to test and the 
recordkeeping requirements would be identical whether test kits or 
paint chip sampling is used, except that the laboratory report would 
also have to be maintained along with the records associated with the 
renovation. EPA also agrees with those commenters who thought that this 
option would provide additional important flexibility. EPA is 
promulgating the proposed option allowing certified renovators to 
collect paint chip samples from painted components that will be 
disturbed by a renovation and submit those samples to an NLLAP-
recognized entity for analysis. EPA will modify the model certified 
renovator training course to add the necessary information on sample 
collection, chain-of-custody, and laboratory submission procedures. One 
commenter wondered how renovators who have already taken the training 
to become certified would learn about this option and how to use it. 
EPA will post the information developed for the renovator training 
course on its Web site. EPA will also e-mail this information to 
certified renovation firms that provided an e-mail address on their 
certification applications. As pointed out by several commenters, paint 
chip sample collection, by itself, is a relatively simple thing to 
learn and EPA believes that certified renovators who have already been 
trained in how to properly use a test kit will be able to learn how to 
properly collect a paint chip sample and submit it to an NLLAP-
recognized entity from the material EPA posts on its Web site.
    At least one commenter pointed out that EPA would also have to 
modify the recordkeeping requirements to accommodate this option and 
include information specific to paint chip sample collection, such as 
component and location tested, identity of the NLLAP entity analyzing 
the samples, and the sample results. Accordingly, EPA is modifying 40 
CFR 745.86(b)(1) to add a new subparagraph (iii) that requires records 
pertaining to paint chip sample collection and analysis, including a 
description of the components that were sampled, and the locations 
sampled, the name and address of the NLLAP-recognized entity performing 
the analysis, and the results for each sample. EPA is also modifying 40 
CFR 745.86(b)(6) to include a certification by the certified renovator 
that, if paint chip samples were collected, that the samples were 
collected from the components in the locations specified, that the 
samples were submitted for analysis to the identified NLLAP-recognized 
entity, and that the sample results were as specified.
    This option does not make certified renovator the equivalent of a 
certified lead-based paint inspector. Certified renovators must still 
test each affected component, they are not permitted to exclude 
components based on similar painting histories or perform random paint 
sampling in multi-unit buildings. Just as with the current provisions 
for test kit use, in those states that do not permit persons other than 
certified inspectors or risk assessors to sample or test for lead-based 
paint, certified renovators will not be able to exercise this option.
    4. Training provider accreditation. In May 2010, EPA proposed a 
number of minor changes to the training provider accreditation 
provisions. EPA received very little public comment on these proposed 
amendments, and EPA is promulgating these amendments as proposed.
    a. Documentation of personnel qualifications. The first of these 
minor amendments involves submission of documentation of training 
program manager and principal instructor qualifications along with 
training provider applications for accreditation. Training providers 
who wish to provide renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based 
paint activities training for Federal certification purposes must apply 
for and receive accreditation from EPA. To become accredited, a 
provider must employ a training program manager as well as principal 
instructor(s) who meet certain education, training and work experience 
requirements. The training provider must indicate on its application 
for accreditation that the training program manager and principal 
instructor(s) meet these requirements; however, the 2008 RRP rule did 
not require documentation (e.g., resumes) regarding the qualifications 
of these individuals to be submitted to EPA. The Agency believes it is 
important to review this information when determining whether to 
approve a training provider application. When EPA reviews applications 
for accreditation, it is common for the Agency to request this 
documentation from training providers in order to verify that the 
training program manager and principal instructor(s) have the proper 
qualifications. Requesting this information takes time and can delay 
the review of an application. Therefore, the Agency will now require 
training providers to submit documentation regarding the qualifications 
of the education, training and work experience of training managers and 
principal instructors with their applications for accreditation. Only 
one commenter commented on this provision, expressing general support 
for the change.
    b. Submission of training course materials. EPA is also 
promulgating other proposed changes to the required materials that must 
be submitted along with an accreditation application. EPA received only 
one comment expressing general support for this proposed change. 
Specifically, to become accredited, a training provider must submit a 
copy of its training course materials with its application for 
accreditation for review by the Agency. If a training provider chooses 
to use the model course developed by EPA or a course approved by an 
authorized State or Indian Tribe, then the provider is not

[[Page 47925]]

currently required to submit the course materials with its application. 
Instead, the training provider indicates on its application that it 
will use the EPA model course or a course approved by an authorized 
State or Indian Tribe. Authorized States and Indian Tribes can have 
renovation or abatement programs that are significantly different from 
the EPA-administered program which would be reflected in their approved 
course materials. In these instances, a training course approved by the 
State or Indian Tribe may not be sufficient for the purposes of 
training someone on the requirements of the Federal program.
    Accordingly, the Agency proposed to require training providers who 
apply to EPA for accreditation and wish to use a course approved by an 
authorized State or Indian Tribe to submit the course materials for EPA 
review. EPA reasoned that this will give the Agency the opportunity to 
identify and address any significant differences between the 
requirements of EPA and the authorized program that may appear in the 
course so the Agency can ensure that EPA-accredited training providers 
are using appropriate course materials.
    EPA is promulgating this provision as proposed. This provision only 
applies to those training providers who wish to use a training course 
approved by an authorized State or Indian Tribe that is different from 
the EPA model training course. Training providers wishing to use the 
EPA model courses need not submit those materials with their 
applications.
    c. Role of principal instructor. EPA is promulgating a proposed 
minor amendment involving a clarification of the role of principal 
instructors in teaching courses. The regulation, at 40 CFR 
745.225(c)(3), states that principal instructors are responsible for 
the organization of their courses and oversight of the teaching of all 
course material. The regulations also define ``principal instructor'' 
as ``the individual who has the primary responsibility for organizing 
and teaching a particular course.'' Nonetheless, the rule also allows 
training program managers to designate experts in a particular field 
(e.g., doctors or lawyers) as guest instructors, on an as needed basis, 
to teach discrete portions of the course. EPA interprets these 
provisions to require a principal instructor to be present and 
primarily responsible for teaching the course, although guest 
instructors may be used to teach some portion(s) of the course. 
Principal instructors are also responsible for the quality of the 
instruction delivered by the guest instructors. To ensure that the 
regulation is clear on this point, EPA proposed to amend 40 CFR 
745.225(c)(3) to state that principal instructor(s) are primarily 
responsible for teaching the course materials and must be present to 
provide instruction (or oversight of portions of the course taught by 
guest instructors) for the course for which he has been designated the 
principal instructor. EPA received two comments on this provision, both 
supported the change, and one specifically stated a belief that having 
principal instructors present while guest lecturers teach would improve 
the content of many courses. EPA agrees with these commenters and EPA 
is promulgating this provision as proposed.
    d. Application amendments. EPA is promulgating as proposed another 
minor amendment involving a specific provision requiring training 
providers to amend their accreditation application whenever there is a 
change to the information presented in their most recent accreditation 
or re-accreditation application. The RRP rule includes requirements for 
amending the certification of a renovation firm. Firms must submit an 
amendment within 90 days of the date that a change occurs to 
information in its most recent application for certification or re-
certification. Examples of amendments include a change in the firm's 
name without transfer of ownership, or a change of address or other 
contact information. To amend its certification, a firm must submit an 
application, noting on the form that it was submitted as an amendment. 
The firm must complete the sections of the application pertaining to 
the new information, and sign and date the form. EPA has interpreted 
the training provider accreditation regulations to require accredited 
training providers to submit amended applications whenever there is a 
change to the information provided in the training provider's most 
recent application for accreditation or re-accreditation, including 
information regarding the training manager and any principal 
instructor(s) teaching courses offered by the training provider. 
However, the existing regulations do not specify a time limit for 
submitting an amendment, so EPA proposed to require training providers 
to submit amendments within 90 days of the date a change occurs to 
information in each provider's most recent application. As proposed, if 
the training provider does not amend its most recent accreditation 
application within the 90-day time period, it must stop providing 
training until the accreditation application is amended. EPA also 
proposed to approve or disapprove amendments for a new training 
manager, any new or additional principal instructors, or any new 
permanent training location within 30 days of the date EPA receives the 
amendment. This 30-day time period will give EPA time to check the 
qualifications of the training manager(s) or principal instructor(s) 
before the training manager begins managing or the principal instructor 
begins teaching a course. This 30-day time period also gives EPA time 
to verify the suitability of a new permanent training location by 
visiting the location. As proposed, the training provider would not be 
permitted to provide training under the new training manager or offer 
courses taught by any new principal instructor(s) or at the new 
training location until EPA either approves the amendment or 30 days 
has passed. EPA also proposed to clarify that no fee will be charged 
for accreditation application or certification amendments. EPA received 
no comments on this proposed amendment.
    Because qualified training managers and principal instructors are 
critical to ensuring effective training, it is important for EPA to 
have the ability to review their qualifications before they begin to 
provide training. If unqualified individuals provide training, it could 
be very difficult to determine whether the trainees received adequate 
training and resolve any concerns over the quality of the training. 
Requiring retraining would not only inconvenience the training 
provider, it would also be burdensome for the trainees themselves. 
Therefore, EPA is promulgating the 30-day review period for new 
training managers and principal instructors as proposed, with several 
modifications. The first relates to the calculation of the 30-day 
review period. EPA is clarifying that the 30-day period begins upon 
submission of a complete application for amendment. Thus, if the 
amendment involves a new training manager or principal instructor, the 
training provider must fill out the section of the application that 
identifies the training provider and the sections that pertain to the 
new training manager or principal instructor, sign the application, and 
include the individual's qualifications along with the application for 
amendment. If the application does not include these items, then the 
30-day review period would not begin until the missing information is 
submitted.
    In addition, in further reviewing this proposed provision, EPA has 
decided that additional flexibility would be beneficial for training 
providers. If the training provider wishes to use a

[[Page 47926]]

training manager or principal instructor who has already been reviewed 
by EPA as part of a successful application for training provider 
accreditation under 40 CFR 745.225, whether for that training provider 
or another, the training provider may do so on an interim basis without 
delay. The training manager or principal instructor must still meet the 
qualifications for the position as described in 40 CFR 745.225(c)(1)-
(2). If, within 30 days of the date that the training provider begins 
using such an individual as a new training manager or principal 
instructor, EPA determines that the individual should not be used in 
such a capacity, EPA will provide written notice to the training 
provider. The training provider must stop providing training under the 
new training manager or principal instructor upon receipt of written 
notice from EPA.
    With respect to new permanent training locations, EPA is also 
concerned that a poor choice of location could negatively affect the 
quality of training. For example, if a location is chosen that does not 
have a suitable surface for performing cleaning verification, trainees 
would be unable to experience actually doing, during the hands-on 
portion of the course, something that will be an important part of 
their responsibilities as certified renovators. However, EPA believes 
that the choice of training location does not, in most cases, have as 
big of an impact on the quality of training as the training manager or 
the principal instructor. During the accreditation process for new 
training providers, it has been EPA's practice to review the 
qualifications for each and every training manager and principal 
instructor named on an application. In contrast, where a training 
provider has identified multiple permanent training locations in its 
application, EPA has chosen to visit a sample of locations, rather than 
each and every location. In addition, EPA has been approving traveling 
training providers based on the criteria that the providers will use to 
select a training location, a demonstration of the hands-on training, 
and an examination of the equipment the providers plan to use in 
training. Therefore, EPA will allow training providers to use new 
permanent training locations on an interim basis for 30 days. If, 
during that 30 days, EPA determines that the location is not adequate, 
the training provider must stop using that location upon written notice 
from EPA.
    e. Hands-on training requirements. Another minor amendment involves 
the topics for which hands-on training is required in the renovator and 
dust sampling technician courses. The regulations at 40 CFR 745.225 
includes requirements and procedures that training programs must follow 
to become accredited in order to provide instruction in lead-based 
paint courses. Minimum requirements for training curricula are found in 
this section, which lists course topics that must be included in the 
different training courses with an indication of the topics that 
require hands-on instruction. However, EPA inadvertently omitted 
indicating which course topics required hands-on training for the 
renovator and dust sampling technician disciplines. Accordingly, EPA 
proposed to identify in 40 CFR 745.225(d) which topics in the renovator 
and dust sampling technician courses require hands-on training. In 
further clarification, EPA also proposed to add a sentence to 40 CFR 
745.225(e)(2) stating