Rev.
0313
1101
STATE
STATUTES,
REGULATIONS
AND
lMAYOR'S
ORDER
Department
of
Health
.

Environmental
Health
Administration
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
Program
APPENDIX
C
Rev.
0313
1/
01
STATE
STATUTES,
REGULATIONS
AND
MAYOR S
ORDERS
1.
D.
C.
Law
11­
221
2.
D.
C.
Code
6­
997
3.
Title
20
DCMR,
Section
806
(
Regulations)
4.
D.
C.
Law
5­
35,
 
Lead­
Based
Paint
Poisoning
Prevention
Act
of
1983
5.
Title
14
DCMR,
Section
707.3
et
seq.
6.
Title
22
DCMR,
Section
118
7.
D.
C.
Law
2­
28,
 
Public
Property
Lead
Elimination
Act
of
1977
8.
D.
C.
Code
Section
9­
302
9.
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
Student
Health
Care
Act
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.
18.
19.
D.
C.
Code
Section
31­
2401
Title
29
DCMR,
Section
327.4
Mayor s
Order
97­
42
Mayor s
Order
99­
68
The
Department
of
Health
Organization
Order
No.
99­
24
D.
C.
Law
13­
103
16
DCMR,
Section
3240
(
Civil
Infractions
for
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control)
Civil
Infractions
Act
9
6­
2701
16
DCMR,
Section
3100
(
Civil
Infractions
Administrative
Procedures)
16
DCMR,
Section
3201
(
Civil
Infractions
Schedule
of
Fines)
16
DCMR,
Section
3226
(
X)
@
CRA
housing
Divisions
Infractions)
LEAD
POISONING
PREVENTION
LAWS
APPLICABLE
IN
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
3
D.
C.
LAW
11­
221
THE
LEAD­
BASED
PAINT
ABATEMENT
AND
CONTROL
ACT
OF
1996.

D.
C.
Law
11­
221,
The
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control
Act
of
1996,
regulates
all
lead­
based
paint
activities,
as
defined,
in
all
types
of
housing.
This
Act
exemp
persons
with
disabilities
unless
any
chi1
esides
in,
is
expected
to
reside
in
or
regularly
visits
such
housing.
Any
zero
(
0)
bedroom
unit
such
an
efficiency
apartment
or
housing
built
after
1978
is
exempted.
Additionally,
individuals
who
perform
lead­
based
paint
activities
at
residences.
which
they
own
and
occupy,
are
exempted,
of
eight
(
8)
ye*
sides
or
is
expected
to
reside
or
s
such
housing.
­­
blsMaofCdhrmbtbfh#
shw
YAY
2­
1m
COUNCIL
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
ri
­

NOTICE
.
D.
C.
LAW
11­
221
"
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control
Act
of
1996".

Pursuanr
to
Section
4
I2
of
the
Disrnct
of
Columbia
Self­
Government
and
Governmental
Reorganization
Act.
P.
1.
93­
I98
"
the
Act".
the
Council
of
the
Dismct
of
Columbia
adopted
Bill
ko.
1
1­
640.
on
first
and
second
readings.
Ocrober
1.
1996
and
\
ovember
­_
1996.
respective&
Foliowing
the
signarure
of
rhe
Mavor­
on
Sovember
70.
1996.
pursuant
to
Secrion
404e)
of
"
the
Act".
ana
was
assigned
Act
ho.
I
1438.

and
published
in
the
December
27.
!
996.
edirron
of
the
D.
C.
Register
(
Vol.
43
page
6854)
and
transmitted
to
Congress
on
Janw
23.
1997
for
a
30­
day
review.
in
accordance
uith
Secrion
602rcrr
I
oi
!
he
Acl
The
Council
of
the
Disirici
of
Columbia
hereby
ewes
nitice
rhar
rhe
jO­
day
Congressional
Review
Period
has
crpircd.
and
therefore.
cltes
this
enactment
as
D.
C
Law
I
1­
2'
!.
effective
.4pnl
9.
I997
r\

_.

I
Chairman
Pro
Tempore
of
the
Councl)

Feb
5.<.
5.6.7.10.1
l.:'.
i1._';.'
5.76.~
7.
Z8
\
tar.
I.
4.5.6.10.1I.
2.
i
3.14.
­.
18.19.20.2
1
4
DT
'.
S
5
i
DEC
2
7
1996
ENROLLED
ORICISAL.

AN
ACT
3,
C.
ACT
11­
438
N
THE
COCSCIL
OFTHE
DISTRICTOF
COLUMBM
Toestablisn
a
program
to
reuuc?.
:
liminate.
.
md
abate
Icau­
bahed
paint
hdznrah
in
the
District
ot
\

UuM.*

CoI
urnbia.
1K
I
DEC
2
7
1996
ENROLLED
0RIG
1NA
L
corpordtmn.
sole
propnetorstnp.
government.
quasi­
government
entity.
non­
protit
organlrauon.
or
orner
business
concern
[
hat
conducts
icad­
based
paint
activitieh.
(
5)
"
Centried
business
enrity
or
cemfied
individual"
means
3
businw
entity
or
mdividual
who
has
mer
the
requirement%
ror
conducrrng
lead­
based
paint
activities
purhuanr
to
thtS
dCt.

16)
"
Fncrion
sunlice
'
mean3
dn
intenor
or
exrenor
sun;
ice
that
is
subjecf
IO
&
brasion
or
rncuon.
including
certain
winao\
v.
rloor.
;
ind
stair
sunaces.

I
i\
'
Impact
sunace
'
memh
.
in
interior
or
exterror
wnact.
rhar
is
subiect
to
?=::
in:.
chipping.
cnalkinp.
crxking.
or
J?!?
nnrarron
b!.
repeateu
imuacrs.
(
8)
"
had­
based
painr
'
means
mv
painr
or
other
sunace
coating
containing
lead
csicL
':
or
iead
in
ILS
compounds
in
any
quanut?
exc,
o:
ding
3%
or
rhe
total
weight
a1
the
marend
(
11'
:
2
'
,:
L.&.
more
than
seven­
tenths
01
;
1milligram
per
square
centimeter
t.
U.
7
mgcm'l.
or
in
quantity
L;'
'..
hazard.
7
.
surticicnt
to
constitute
Y
health­
oi.
envrronrnenta1
1'.
(
9)
"
Leiid­
based
paint
acfiviries"
means
the
rollowing
(
A
1
Identification.
nsk
assessment.
inspectJon.
and
abatement
of
lead­
based
paint.
lead­
based
paint
hazards.
lead­
contaminated
dust.
and
lead­
conramlnatedsoil:
and
IB)
Planning.
prnrect
designing.
and
supemston
or
anv
of
the
xtivities
/
i%
U
in
subparagraon
(
A
1
of
this
uaI2prJDh.
cC1
The
rum
'
Ieaci­
bued
paint
activities
mes
nor
include
routine.
(
minap.
Lnrl
common
maintenance
and
repairs.

[
10)
"
kad­
b&
sed
paint
hazard"
means
any
civicfirion
char
cduses
01.
may
cause
2xDosure
to
lead
from
lead­
contaminated
dust.
lead­
contaminated
soil.
or
lead­
ctlntarn~
nared.
painr
that
is
dercriciraceL!
or
present
in
,
uxesslble
sun'aces.
tricfion
sunaces.
or
impact
sunaces
that
could
rehult
in
adverse
human
healrh
ertects
;
LS
determined
bv
the
Mayor.

L
I
1
I
'
Lz;
ld­
contamtnared
.
wi"
means
bare
soil
(
in
real
property
that
conrains
1eaU
at.
or
in
excehs
(
11..
the
leveh
derennincd
by
the
Mavor
to
be
huirdous
fo
human
neajth.

Scc.
.;.
Emblishment
(
it
Ictd­
bad
pain1
abatement
anci
ciintrol
program.
\
ma
bUW
The
\
layor
\
hall
establish
;
1
DrOgUll
tor
the
reduction.
elirninimon.
And
abatement
of
Iau­
baed
pant
hwards
in
the
Di.\
rnct
pursuant
to
the
proviswns
or
thls
act
that
wfil
meet
TErirrai
requiremenn.
to
include:
'.
I
)
Developmenr
or
standards
md
procedures
ror
conducring
lead­
based
paint
JcIIviLles;
:.
Community
ourrexn
dncl
education:
Jnd
?
iOther
runctions
tn
imoiement
this
acr
;
ib
determtnecl
b\,
the
Mavor.
DE
2
7
1996
ENROLLED
0R1G1NA
L
(
I)
Conduct
a
lead­
based
paint
acnvitv:
(
2)
kndenake
;
1
lead­
based
paint
abatement
protect:
or
(
31
Provide
trdinin_
r
10
nrhers
who
conduct
lead­
based
paint
activiUc>.
(
b)
An
individual
shall
nm
apply
a
lead­
based
paint
or
glaze
to
any
sunace
includin:.
but
not
limited
to:

I
1
)
The
intenor
wkextennr
sunaces
or:
(
A)
Anv
residential.
public.
klr
commercial
buildins.
bridge.
or
t!
rhzr
\
rruc.
ture
nr
\
uperstmcture:
or
81
.
Any
rix
turf.
!
iouhenoid
,
lopilance.
i.
riokin_
r.
cfnnking.
:
ir
cltin:
utensii.
furniture.
c)
r
toy
or
other
articlc
intended
for
use
oy
cnildren:
or'
(
21
Anypaved
sunace.
IcI
.
A
business
enrity
or
indivtdual
ahall
not
seil.
orrer
for
hale­
Jcli\
er.
rmnsrcr.
possess
with
intent
to
sell.
deliver..
or.
tmnsrer
anv
rixture.
househoid
ippliance.
ctitjkiflg.

dnnkinp.
or
eating
utensil.
furniture.
or
toy
or
tither
anicie
intended
tor
usc
by
children
to
\
Vhic.
n
d
lead­
based
oaint
or
glaze
has
been
appijed.
DEC
2
7
199
ENROLLED
ORlGlSAL
DEC
2
7
1996
E3
R(
IL
LE
I)
(
1RI
(;
1
A
1,
DEC
2
7
1996
EX
ROLLED
ORlCIS
AL
(
7)
.
Any
other
intr,
rrnation
[
hat
the
Slavnr
requires
DEC
27
1996
EZROLLED
ORIGI\
AL
r­
kT
ez3
­­
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
CODE
1981
PART
I.
GOVERNMENT
OF
DISTRICT.
TITLE
6.
Environmental
Controls
Subchapter
IX.
Lead
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control.
Copyright
(
C)
1981
­
1998
by
the
District
of
Columbia.
All
rights
reserved.
Current
through
Laws
12­
1
to
12­
104,12­
113,12­
114,
12­
125
to
12­
127,
and
Act
12­
138
of
the
12*
District
Council
Sess.
(
1997­
1998)

5
6­
997.1
Definitions.

For
the
purposes
of
this
subchapter,
the
term:

(
1)
 
Abatement 
means
any
set
of
measures
designed,
in
accordance
with
standards
established
by
the
Mayor,
to
eliminate
or
reduce
lead­
based
paint
hazards;
but,
such
measures
exclude
routine,
ordinary,
and
common
maintenance
and
repairs;
such
measures
may
include;

cv
(
A)
The
removal
of
lead­
based
paint
and
lead
contaminated
dust,
the
encapsulation,­
Q1
containment,
enclosure,
or
covering
of
lead­
based
paint,
the
replacement
or*.

ac3
z
demolition
of
lead­
painted
structures,
surfaces
or
fixtures,
and
the
removal
or
L 
Ja,
a
covering
of
lead
contaminated
soul;>­
Ip
Ug­­

B)
All
preparation,
cleanup,
disposal,
transportation,
testing,
and
post­
abatement+
=
a
3
clearance
testing
associated
with
the
activities
described
in
subparagraph
(
A)
of
\
M
this
paragraph;
and
Jza
N
(
C)
Renovation,
remodeling,
repair,
and
landscaping
activities
on
or
around
any
structure
built
prior
to
1978.

(
2)
 
Accessible
surface 
means
an
interior
or
exterior
surface
painted
with
lead­
based
paint
that
is
accessible
to
a
child
under
the
age
of
8
years.

(
3)
 
Accredited
training
provider 
means
a
training
provider
that
has
been
approved
by
the
Mayor
to
provide
training
for
individuals
who
conduct
lead­
based
paint
activities.

(
4)
 
Business
entity 
means
a
partnership,
firm,
company,
association,
corporation,
sole
proprietorship,
government,
quasi­
government
entity,
non­
profit
organization,
or
other
business
concern
that
conducts
lead­
based
paint
activities.

(
6)
 
Certified
business
entity
or
certified
individual 
means
a
business
entity
or
individual
who
has
met
the
requirements
for
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activities
pursuant
to
this
subchapter.

(
7)
 
Impact
surface 
means
an
interior
or
exterior
surface
that
is
subject
to
peeling,
chipping,
chalking,
cracking,
or
deterioration
by
repeated
impacts.
(
8)
 
Lead­
based
paint 
means
any
paint
or
other
surface
coating
containing
lead
or
lead
in
its
compounds
in
any
quantity
exceeding
.5%
or
the
totalweight
or
the
material
or
more
than
seven­
tenths
of
a
milligram
per
square
centimeter
(
0.7
mg/
cm2),
or
in
any
quantity
sufficient
to
constitute
a
health
or
environmental
hazard.

(
9)
 
Lead­
based
paint
activities 
means
the
following:

(
A)(
i)
Identification,
risk
assessment,
inspection,
and
abatement
of
lead­
based
paint,
lead­
based
paint
hazards,
lead­
contaminated
dust,
and
lead­
contaminated
soil;
and
(
B)(
ii)
Planning,
project
designing,
and
supervision
of
any
of
the
activities
listed
in
sub­
subparagraph
(
i)
of
this
subparagraph.

(
C)
The
term
 
lead­
based
paint
activities
does
not
include
routine,
ordinary,
and
common
maintenance
and
repairs.

(
10)
 
Lead­
based
paint
hazard 
means
any
condition
that
causes
or
may
cause
exposure
to
lead
from
lead­
contaminated
dust,
lead­
contaminated
soil,
or
lead­
contaminated
paint
that
is
deteriorated
or
present
in
accessible
surfaces,
friction
surfaces,
or
impact
surfaces
that
could
result
in
adverse
human
health
effects
as
determined
by
the
Mayor.

(
1
I)
 
Lead­
contaminated
soil 
means
bare
soil
on
real
property
that
contains
lead
at,
or
in
excess
of,
the
levels
determined
by
the
mayor
to
be
hazardous
to
human
health.

 j
6­
997.2
Establishment
of
lead­
based
paint
abatement
and
control
program.

The
Mayor
shall
establish
a
program
for
the
reduction,
elimination,
and
abatement
of
lead­
based
paint
hazards
in
the
District
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter
that
will
meet
federal
requirements,
to
include:

(
1)
Development
of
standards
and
procedures
for
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activities;

(
2)
Community
outreach
and
education;
and
(
3)
Other
functions
to
implement
this
subchapter
as
determined
by
the
Mayor.

 j
6­
997.3
Prohibition
on
lead­
based
paint
activities.

(
a)
A
business
entity
or
individual
shall
not
do
any
of
the
following
in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter
or
rules
promulgated
pursuant
to
this
subchapter:

(
1)
Conduct
a
lead­
based
paint
activity;

(
2)
Undertake
a
lead­
based
paint
abatement
project;
or
(
3)
Provide
training
to
others
who
conduct
lead­
based
paint
activities.
(
b)
An
individual
shall
not
apply
a
lead­
based
paint
or
glaze
to
any
surface
including,
but
not
limited
to:

(
1)
The
interior
and
exterior
surfaces
of
(
A)
Any
residential,
public,
or
commercial
building,
bridge,
or
other
structure
or
superstructure;
or
(
B)
Any
fixture,
household
appliance,
cooking,
drinking,
or
eating
utensil,
furniture,
or
toy
or
other
article
intended
for
use
by
children;
or
(
2)
Any
paved
surface.

(
c)
A
business
entity
or
individual
shall
not
sell,
offer
for
sale,
deliver,
transfer,
or
possess
with
intent
to
sell,
deliver,
or
transfer
any
fixture,
household
appliance,
cooking,
drinking,
or
eating
utensil,
furniture,
or
toy
or
other
article
intended
for
use
by
children
to
which
a
lead­
based
paint
or
glaze
has
been
applied.

3
6­
997.4
Exemptions
from
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter.

The
following
are
exempt
from
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter:

(
1)
Individuals
who
perform
lead­
based
paint
act5ivities
at
residences
which
they
own,
unless
the
residence
is
occupied
by
a
person
or
persons
other
than
the
owner
or
the
owner s
immediate
family;
unless
any
child
under
the
age
of
8
years
resides,
is
expected
to
reside
in,
or
regularly
visits
such
housing;

(
2)
Housing
for
the
elderly
or
persons
with
disabilities;
unless
any
child
under
the
age
of
8
years
resides,
is
expected
to
reside
in,
or
regularly
visits
such
housing;

(
3)
Any
(
0)­
bedroom
unit,
such
as
an
efficiency
apartment;
and
(
4)
Housing
built
after
1978.

9
6­
997.5
Certification
requirementsfor
individuals
and
business
entities.

(
a)
An
individual
shall
be
certified
by
the
Mayor
or
possess
certification
provided
by
a
training
program
that
has
been
formally
accredited
either
by
EPA
or
by
an
EPAapproved
state
program
prior
to
conducting
a
lead­
based
paint
activity
in
the
District.
To
obtain
certification
from
the
Mayor,
an
individual
shall:

(
1)
Submit
proof
to
the
Mayor
that
he
or
she
has
successfully
completed
an
accredited
training
course
and
any
required
accredited
review
course;

(
2)
Pass
an
examination
requiredby
the
Mayor,
and
3
(
3)
Meet
or
exceed
any
additional
requirements
set
by
the
Mayor.

(
b)
A
business
entity
shall
be
certified
by
the
Mayor
prior
to
conducting
a
lead­
based
paint
activity
or
project
in
the
District.
To
obtain
certification,
a
business
entity
shall
demonstrate
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Mayor
the
following;

(
1)
That
all
its
employees
and
subcontractors
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activities
are
certified
pursuant
to
this
subchapter;

(
2)
That
the
business
entity
and
its
employees
and
subcontractors
will
conduct
ieadbased
paint
activities
in
accordance
with
all
applicable
federal
and
District
environmental,
occupational
safety,
and
health
laws,
regulations,
and
rules;

(
3)
That
the
business
entity
and
its
employees
and
subcontractors
will
comply
with
all
applicable
federal
and
District
laws,
regulations,
and
rules
governing
the
disposal
of
all
waste
containing
lead;
and
(
4)
Any
additional
requirements
set
by
the
Mayor
necessary
to
implement
this
subchapter.

(
c)
The
Mayor
shall
establish
criteria,
procedures,
and
fees
for
reciprocity
of
certification.

(
d)
All
certificates
issued
to
business
entities
shall
expire
12
months
from
the
date
of
certification.

(
e)
Individuals
and
business
entities
seeking
certification
and
certification
renewal
in
the
District
shall
pay
a
reasonable
fee
set
by
the
Mayor.
The
Mayor
shall,
by
rulemaking,
revise
the
certification
and
certification
renewal
fees
as
necessary
to
cover
the
administrative
costs
associated
with
the
issuance
of
certificates.

3
6­
997.6
Accreditation
of
training
providers.

(
a)
A
training
provider
shall
be
accredited
separately
for
each
training
course
offered
by
that
training
provider.
To
receive
accreditation,
a
training
provider
shall:

(
1)
Submit
an
application
to
the
Mayor
for
approval,
or
provide
proof
of
accreditation
by
EPA,
or
a
state
EPA­
approved
accredited
training
provider;
the
application
shall
contain
the
following
idormation:

(
A)
Qualifications
of
all
training
managers
and
instructors:

(
B)
Copies
of
all
instructor
and
student
course
materials
for
each
course
offered;

(
C)
A
description
of
the
facilities
and
equipment
available
for
lecture
and
hands­
on
training;
and
4
(
D)
Any
other
information
determined
by
the
Mayor
to
be
necessary
for
approval
of
any
application
for
accreditation;
and
(
2)
Pay
a
reasonable
fee
with
each
application,
except
that
fees
shall
not
be
imposed
on
any
District
government
or
nonprofit
training
program;
the
Mayor
may
by
rulemaking
revise
the
application
fees
as
necessary
to
cover
the
administrative
costs
associated
with
accreditation
and
accreditation
renewal.

(
b)
Accreditation
by
the
Mayor
shall
expire
12
months
from
the
date
of
accreditation.

0
6­
997.7
Permit
requirements.

(
a)
Prior
to
conducting
a
lead­
based
paint
abatement
as
defined
in
5
6­
997.1(
l)(
A),
business
entities
and
individuals,
except
governmental
agencies,
shall
obtain
a
permit
from
the
Mayor.
To
obtain
a
permit,
an
application
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Mayor
for
approval
with
the
appropriate
fee.
The
application
shall
contain
the
following
information:

(
1)
The
location
of
the
lead­
based
paint
abatement
project;

(
2)
The
starting
and
completion
dates
of
the
lead­
based
paint
activity;

(
3)
The
appmximate
amount
of
lead­
based
paint
or
lead­
based
paint
containing
materials
to
be
abated.

(
4)
The
method
of
abatement
to
be
employed;

(
5)
The
provisions
for
medical
surveillance
and
worker
protection;

(
6)
The
manner
in
which
the
waste
containing
lead
will
be
disposed
and
location
of
the
disposal
site;

(
7)
A
description
of
the
areas
immediately
adjacent
to
the
abatement
site;

(
8)
Proof
of
certification,
pursuant
to
9
6­
997.5,
of
the
business
entity
and
of
all
individuals
who
will
be
engaging
in
the
lead­
based
paint
abatement;
and
(
9)
Any
other
information
required
by
the
Mayor.

(
b)
A
permit
fee
determined
by
the
Mayor
shall
be
assessed
for
each
lead­
based
paint
abatement
project.
The
Mayor
may
by
rulemaking
revise
permit
feesas
necessary
to
recover
the
costs
of
administering
and
enforcing
this
subchapter.
Permits
shall
be
valid
for
a
period
not
to
exceed
one
year
from
the
date
of
issuance.
Each
permit
shall
be
limited
to
one
site
and
shall
not
be
transferable
to
another
site.
,

9
6­
997.8
Record
keeping
requirements.

(
a)
Business
entities
and
individuals
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activities
shall:
(
1)
Keep
a
record
of
all
lead­
based
paint
activities
performed;
and
(
2)
Make
that
record
available
to
the
Mayor
upon
reasonable
request.

(
b)
The
records
required
by
this
section
shall
be
kept
for
a
minimum
of
3
years
(
c)
The
records
required
by
this
section
shall
include:

(
1)
The
address
or
location
of
each
lead­
based
paint
activity;

(
2)
The
name
and
address
of
the
individual
who
supervised
the
lead­
based
paint
activity;

(
3)
A
description
of
the
lead­
based
paint
activity
and
the
amount
of
lead­
based
paint,
if
any,
that
was
abated;

(
4)
The
starting
and
completion
dates
of
the
lead­
based
paint
activity;

(
5)
A
summary
of
the
procedures
that
were
used
to
comply
with
all
applicable
standards;

(
6)
The
name
and
address
of
each
disposal
site
where
the
waste
containing
lead
is
deposited;
and
(
7)
Any
other
information
that
the
Mayor
requires.

tj
6­
997.9
Inspection
by
the
Mayor.

(
a)
The
Mayor
shall
have
the
right
to
randomly
and
periodically
inspect
any
and
all
lead­
based
paint
activities
in
the
District,
and
all
pertinent
records,
documents,
or
data
compilations
,
for
the
purpose
of
ensuring
compliance
with
this
subchapter.
Inspections
may
bake
place
at
any
reasonable
time
upon
the
presentation
of
appropriate
credentials.

(
b)
If,
upon
inspection,
the
Mayor
has
reason
to
believe
that
(
i)
there
has
been
a
violation
of
this
subchapter
or
ofthe
rules
and
regulations
issued
pursuant
to
this
subchapter,
or
(
ii)
a
threat
exists
to
human
health,
the
public
welfare,
or
the
environment,
the
Mayor
may:

(
1)
Give
written
notice
of
the
alleged
violation
or
threat
to
the
party
responsible
and
order
the
party
to
take
such
corrective
measures
as
the
Mayor
determines
reasonable
and
necessary;

(
2)
Issue
a
cease
and
desist
order;

(
3)
Impose
civil
or
criminal
fines
and
penalties
in
accordance
with
96­
997.12
and
9
6­
997.13;
or
(
4)
Request
the
Corporation
Counsel
to
commence
appropriate
civil
action
in
the
Superior
Court
of
the
District
of
Columbia
to
secure
a
temporary
restraining
order,
a
preliminary
injunction,
a
permanent
injunction,
or
other
appropriate
relief.

(
e)
If
the
Mayor
is
denied
access
to
conduct
an
inspection
in
accordance
with
this
section,
the
Mayor
may
apply
to
the
Superior
Court
of
the
District
of
Columbia
for
a
search
warrant.
Denial
of
access
to
conduct
an
inspection
is
an
offense
punishable
pursuant
to
5
6­
997.13.

6
6­
997.10
Denial,
suspension,
or
revocation.

The
Mayor
may,
after
notice
and
opportunity
for
hearing,
suspend,
revoke,
modify,
or
refbse
to
issue,
renew,
or
restore
a
certificate,
permit,
or
accreditation
issued
under
3
6­
997.5,
tj
6­
997.6,
or
tj
6­
997.7
to
protect
the
public
health,
safety,
or
welfare,
if
the
Mayor
finds
that
the
applicant
or
holder
has:

(
1)
Failed
to
comply
with
any
provision
of
this
subchapter
or
rule
issued
pursuant
to
this
subchapter;

(
2)
Misrepresented
facts
relating
to
a
lead­
based
paint
activity
to
a
client
or
customer;

(
3)
Made
a
false
statement
or
misrepresentation
material
to
the
issuance,
modification
or
renewal
of
a
certificate,
permit,
or
accreditation;

(
4)
Submitted
a
false
or
fraudulent
record,
invoice,
or
report;

(
5)
As
a
training
provider,
or
as
an
instructor,
provided
inaccurate
information
or
inadequate
training;

(
6)
Had
a
history
of
repeated
violations;
or
(
7)
Had
a
certificate,
permit,
or
accreditation
denied,
revoked,
or
suspended
in
another
state
or
jurisdiction.

5
6­
997.11
Hearings.

Any
party
adversely
affected
by
an
action
taken
pursuant
to
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter,
or
the
rules
or
regulations
promulgated
pursuant
to
this
subchapter,
is
entitled
to
a
hearing
before
the
Mayor
upon
filing
with
the
Mayor,
within
15
days
from
the
date
of
such
action,
a
written
request
for
it
hearing.
Such
hearing
shall
be
held
in
accordance
with
tj
1­
1509.

9
6­
997.12
Criminal
penaltieslfines.

(
a)
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
subchapter,
any
violation
of
5
6­
997.3,
9
6997.5
6­
997.6,
or
tj
6­
997.7,
or
the
implementing
rules
and
regulations
shall
be
7
punishable
by
a
fine
not
to
exceed
$
1000
for
the
first
offense,
or
$
5,000
for
any
subsequent
offense,
imprisonment
not
to
exceed
6
months,
or
both.

(
b)
Each
day
of
each
violation
shall
constitute
a
separate
offense,
and
the
penalties
described
shall
be
applicable
to
each
of
the
separate
offenses.

(
c)
All
prosecutions
under
this
section
shall
be
in
the
Superior
Court
of
the
District
of
Columbia
in
the
name
of
the
District
of
Columbia
and
shall
be
instituted
by
the
Corporation
Counsel.

0
6­
997.13
Civil
penaltiedfnes;
civil
infractions.

(
a)
Any
violation
of
this
subchapter
is
punishable
by
a
fine
not
to
exceed
$
500
for
each
day
of
each
violation.

(
b)
Civil
fines,
penalties,
and
fees
may
be
imposed
as
alternativesanctions
for
any
infraction
of
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter
or
the
rules
issued
under
authority
of
Chapter
27
of
this
title.
Adjudication
of
any
infractions
shall
be
pursuant
to
Chapter
27
of
this
title.

0
6­
997.14
Rulemaking.

The
Mayor
shall
issue
rules
and
regulations
to
implement
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter,
in
accordance
with
subchapter
I
of
Chapter
15
of
Title
1.
A<,­

§
9­
302
Inspection
of
public
buildings
for
lead
paint
­
Required.

(
a)
The
Mayor
of
the
District
of
Columbia
is
hereby
authorized
and
directed
to
inspect
for
the
presence
of
lead
paint
in
all
public
buildings
and
publicly
­
operated
residences
belonging
to
or
in
the
possession
of
the
District
of
Columbia
and
regularly
frequented
by
children
under
6
ym
of
age.
Where
there
are
reasonable
grounds
to
believe
that
a
hazard
exists
to
the
health
of
such
children
because
of
the
presence
of
lead
or
lead
compounds
in
the
paint,
plaster,
or
structural
materials
of
any
such
interior
surface,
the
Mayor
shall
cause
an
analysis
to
be
made
of
paint,
plaster,
or
structural
materials
of
the
interior
structure
to
determine
the
quantity
of
lead
or
lead
compounds
contained
in
the
materials.
If
the
analysis
reveals
the
presence
of
lead
or
lead
compounds
in
a
quantity
in
excess
of
1
milligram
per
square
centimeter
of
surface
or
in
a
quantity
otherwise
sufficient
to
constitute
a
hazard
to
the
health
of
any
user
of
the
building,
the
Mayor
shall
cause
the
lead
condition
to
be
repaired:
Provided,
that
the
repairs
shall
be
of
a
sufficient
quality
to
equal
or
exceed
that
required
of
private
housing
located
in
the
District
of
Columbia
pursuant
to
regulations
promulgated
with
respect
to
housing
in
the
District
of
Columbia.
,
I
(
b)
When
an
inspection
mandated
by
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
indicates
the
necessity
for
a
repair,
the
repair
shall
begin
not
later
than
10
days
after
the
inspection.

(
c)
All
inspections
mandated
by
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
shall
be
commenced
within
180
days
afier
October
16,1977.
20
DCMR,
Section
806
ACCREDIATION,
CERTIFICATION,
AND
WORK
PRACTICE
FOR
LEAD­
BASED
PAINT
AND
LEAD
HAZARD
REGULATIONS
There
are
regulations
in
the
District
Housing
Code,
Title
20
DCMR
section
806,
that
govern
the
procedures
for
the
accreditation
of
training
programs
and
certification
of
individuals
and
business
entities
engaged
in
lead­
based
paint
activities,
and
the
work
practice
standards
for
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activities.

EST
COPY
AVAILABLE
DISTRK7
OFCOLUMBtA
R GISTER
JAN
2
­
I998
DEP.
XRTMENT
OF
CONSUMER
AWDREGCL.=
ITORY
.
AFFAlRS
NOTICE
OF
FNAL
RLZE?
JAKI;
UG
The
Director.
Department
of
Cons"
mer
and
Replatory
.
XTairs.
pursuant
to
the
authority
set
forth
in
$
I5
ofthe
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
Control
Act
of
1996.
efectrve
April
9.
1997.
D
C
Law
I
1­
22
1.
D
C
Code
5
6­
997
14
(
I997
Supp
).
and
Mavor's
Order
97­
I
IS.
dated
June
3,
1997.
herebv
gives
notice
of
the
adoption
of
the
foliowine
amendments
to
Title
20
ot'rhe
,
District
oi
Columbia
Municipal
Reeulations
(
DCMR)
Final
action
10
adopt
this
rule
ma
kin^
icas
taken
on
December
9,
1997
Vo
comments
have
been
received
and
no
substantive
changes
have
been
made
to
the
text
of
the
proposed
miemakin3
as
published
on
October
24.
1997
at
44
DCR
6090
This
final
rulemalung
will
be
effective
upon
publication
in
the
D
C
Register
The
purpose
of
the
proposed
ruiemaking
IS
IO
set
fonh
procedures
for
the
accreditation
ot
training
programs
and
certification
of
individuals
and
business
entlries
engazed
!
n
lead­
based
paint
activities.
and
to
establish
work
practice
standards
for
conductins
lead­
based
paint
activities
Chapter
8
ot'Title
30
DCMR
is
amended
bv
revising
the
headins
and
bv
adding
a
new
5
506
(
Control
of
Lead)
to
read
as
follows
CHAPTER
8
­.
ASBESTOS.
SULFLR
NITROGES
OXIDES
AhD
LE.
m
806
CONTROL
OF
LE.=

806
I
The
requirements
of40
CFR
4
745
223
(
Definitions).
40
CFR
b
'­
Iizz!
4ccreditation
of
trairung
programs
tarset
housinz
and
child­
occupied
facilities
1
40
CFR
h
745
226
(
certification
of
indivtduals
and
firms
engased
in
lead­
based
paint
actibities
target
housing
and
chld­
occupied
facilities)
and
40
CFR
b
745
2:­(\
LOA
practice
standards
for
conducting
lead­
based
paint
actibities
target
housing
and
child­
occupied
facilities)
are
adopted
and
incorporated
bv
rererence
v,
tth
the
rem>
used
and
defined
except
that
(
a)
The
term
"
Admistrator"
as
used
In
the
40
CFR
?­
I5
223.
7­
li
225.
745
226
and
745
227
shall
mean
the
Director
of
the
Dtstnct
of
Columbia
Depanment
.
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
("
Director").

(
b)
Lead­
based
punt
activities
subject
to
this
section
shall
not
De
staned
prior
[
O
receipt
of
wrinen
approval
from
the
Director.

ic)
The
phrase
"
EPA"
as
used
in
40
CFR
$$
745
123.
'
Ai
'
2'.
­
4:
'
76
and
745
217
shall
mean
the
Distnct­'
ofColumbia
Department
of
Consumer
and
Resulatory
.
Waifs
("
DCRA"),

1
d)
The
terns
"
abatement."
"
lead­
based
paint."
"
lead­
based
paint
acrtL'irv
"

"
lead­
based
pant
hazard"
and
"
lead
contaminated
soil"
shall
have
the
~
S77ltCTOF
COLUMBIA
REGIS7ER
JAN
2
­
1996
­
r)
i
806
2
SO6
3
SO6
4
same
meaning
as
used
in
D
C
Code
(
j
6­
997
1.
and
(
e)
To
receive
cenificarion
as
a
nsk
assessor.
the
iollowing
additional
requirements
shall
apply
(
I
)
The
person
certified
as
a
risk
assessor­
shall
not
maintain
a
financial
interest
in
a
lead
abatement
business
enritv.

(
2)
The
person
certified
as
a
nsk
assessor
shall
not
certifv
his
or
her
own
residence.
and
(
3)
If
performing
clearance
tests.
the
person
cenified
as
a
risk
assessor
must
submit
to
the
Director
pnor
to
resting
proof
ofcurrenr
liabtlitv
insurance.
including
professional.
environmental
and
general
Itabilitv.
in
an
amount
sufficient
ro
cover
the
lead­
based
paint
activitv
For
the
convenience
of
persons
subject
to
the
requirements
of
$
06
I.
Appendix
8
3
of
this
Subtitle
contains
pertinent
sections
of
40
CFR
Pan
745.
Ij
I
Fed
Res
45778
(
1996)

To
obtain
a
lead
abatement
permit.
a
business
entirv
or
individual
shall
(
a)
Submit
a
permit
application
to
the
Director
at
least
ten
(
10)
business
davs
pnor
to
commencement
of
proposed
acrn
it!.

(
b)
Submit
proof
of
current
liability
insurance.
lnciudine
professional.
environmental
and
senera1
liabilitv,
in
an
amount
suficient
to
cmer
the
lead­
based
paint
actrvitv.
and
(
c)
Cerci&
and
describe
intended
compliance
with
the
requirements
for
hazardous
waste
prescribed
by
Title
20
DCMR
Chapters
40­
54
To
obtain
certification
through
reciprocity,
an
individual
shalt
(
a)
Submit
proof
of
current
certification
provided
by
a
training
program
that
has
been
formally
accredited
by
EPA
or
bv
an
EP.
4­
approved
state
program
that
is
at
least
as
stnngent
as
the
requirements
of
this
section.

rb)
Pass
the
examination
required
by
the
Director
IC)
\
feet
or
exceed
any
additional
requirements
set
by
the
Director.
and
f
d)
Pay
the
rectprocitv
certification
fee
SO6
5
To
obrain
accreditation
throush
reciprocity.
a
trainmp
provider
shall
3
21
DISTRICT
OFCOLUMBIA
REGSER
JAN
2
­
1996
­
(
a)
Submit
proof
of
current
accreditation
by
EPA
or
by
an
EP.
4­
approved
state
program
that
IS
at
least
as
stringent
as
the
requirements
of
this
secrron.

(
b)
Pass
a
training
course
audit
administered
bv
the
Director.
and
(
c)
Pay
the
accreditation
reciprocity
fee
806
6
The
fee
schedule
shall
be
as
follows­

DocumenU'Activity
Business
Entity
Certification
Inspector
Certification
ksk
Assessor
Cenificatron
Supervisor
Certification
Project
Designer
Certification
.
Abatement
Worker
Certification
Reciprocity
Certification
inspector
Course
Accreditation
ksk
Assessor
Course
Accreditation
Supervisor
Course
.
Accreditation
,

.
Prolect
Designer
Course
Accreditation
Abatement
Worker
Course
Accreditation
Reciprocctv
Accreditation
4batement
Permit
Fee
Amount
lnitiaVRenewal
S300lyear
Initial
and
Renewal
930012
years
Initial
and
Renewal
%
300/
2years
Initial
and
Renewal
930012
years
Initial
and
Renewal
$
30012
years
Initial
and
Renewal
460/
2
years
lnitial
and
Renewal
Same
as
above
Same
as
above
S
1,200lyear
Initial
Course
$
400/
vear
Refresher
Course
S800lyear
Initial
Course
$
400lyear
Refresher
Course
S
1,600lvear
Initial
Course
$
400/
yeat
Refresher
Course
$
400/
vear
lnitial
Course
$
200lyear
Refresher
Course
S800lvea.
r
Initial
Course
$
400lyear
Refresher
Course
Same
as
above
Same
as
above
$
40
+
3%
of
22
I
'
WSTFIICT
OF
COLUMBIA
AEGISTEFI'
JM
2
­
1998
abatement
cost
Returned
Check
s25
Section
199
I
of
Title
20
DCMR
is
amended
bv
addine
a
new
definition
to
read
as
follows
199
I
Lead­
based
paint
project
­
shall
have
the
same
meaning
as
the
term
"
lead­
based
paint
activity
"

Sire
­
means
one
specific
address.
including
unit
number
In
a
multi­
unit
building.
(
8)
USEPA.
1995.
A
Field
Test
Of
Lead­
Based
Point
Twng
Technologies:
Surnmory
Report.
(
EPA
747­
R­
95­
002a.
Mav
19951.
(
9)
USEPA.
1995.
A
Revieiv
ofStudies
Addressing
Lcod.
Abatemcnt
Effectiveness.
(
EPA747­
R­
95406,
June
19951.'
(
101hitai,
Y.
Brown.
M.
L.
Chef.
J.
W..
and
Cosgrove.
E.
1991.
"
Residential
Delealng:
Effects
on
the
Blood
Lead
Levels
of
Lead­
Poisoned
Children."
Pediorncs.
88(
5):
893­
897.
(
11)
Farfel.
M.
R.
and
Chisoh.
1.
j.
Jr.
1990.
"
Health
and
Envlronmenlal
Outcomes
of
Traditional
and
Modified
Practices
foc
.4batement
of
Residentid
Lead­­
PainL"
Amencon
journd
Oi
Public
Health.
80(
10):
1240­
1245.
(
12)
HUD.
Office
of
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Poisoning
Prevention.
1995.
HUD
Gudelines
Appendix
11­
1
"
OntHour
Waiting
Period
Rationale
for
Clearance
Samp&
ng."
Uune
1995).

Lit
of
Subjects
in
aCFR
Part
745
Environmentalprotection.
Hatardosubstances
Lead.
Recordkeeping
and­
reporting
requirements.
._
Dared:
August
21.19%.
Caul
hlBrowner.
Admtnistmror..
Therefore.
40CFR
par'
745
is
amended
as
follows:

PART
745+
AMENEFED].­
A,­'
­,.

1.
The
authonty
citation
for
part
745
is
revlsed
to
read
as
follows:

Authonty:
IS
U.
S.
C
2605.2607,
and
268126
32.

2:
By
adding
new
subparts
L
and
Q
and
reserving
subparts
C­
K
and
M­
P
to
read
BS
iollows:

Subparts
G­
K
[
R~
t~
ed).

Subpart
L­
lea&
Based
Paint
Actlvlties
Ec
745.220
Scope
md
applicability.
745.225
Definitions.'
.
745.225
Accredilallon'of
mining
p'~
grsmr:
target
houcrng
and'
cbild+
ccupird
facijities.
745.226
Centhcatroo
of
individuals
and
fhsengaged
in
lead­
based
paint
'
nctrvities:
raqer
housing
and
chrld­
azmpred
facilities.
74S.
227
Work
pncrrce
standuds
for
conaucunq
ieaa­
baed
paint
activities:
tanpi
Qousinq
ma
cnild­
occuoied
facilities:
­
45.228
.
iccreairarton
of
trairiinq
3roqrarrts­
oubiic
ana
commercial
burldiner.
.
xiaees
an0
suoenmctures
IReserveol.
745.233
Laad.
hred
punt
adiviuer
mquiremeau.
745.235
.
EnhccrnenL
745.237
Inrpecuo~
U.
745.239
.
Effeavc
darer
Subparts
M­
P
[
Resmect)

Subpart
Q­­
State
and
lndlan
frfbal
Programs
5c
745.320
Scope
and
purpose.
745.323
[
kfinitiocu
145.324
huthonutlon
or,
Sule
aud
Indian
Trihl
progun&
745.325
tad­­
p~
ni
SUta
~
UV~
tijes:

and
&
dimTribd
pm
rqummenu.
145.326
Rbmnovdoo
ootificatioa:
Sutc
md
hdimTnbl
p~
rkquirarnanrr
745.327
SUI8
h&
M
rtibd
ku­
k;
paint
cnmpliantxsnd
cofomment
pcognsu.
745.328
.
Aurharinnon
of
Indian
Tribal
PmgramS.
745.330
&
nu
745.339
Effeaive
dater
Subpam
Gx
[
Reservedl
<
Subpart
L­
leabBaKd
Palnt
Actlvlties.

5
745220
Scopp
and
appllcablliW.
(
a)
Thissub$­
contains
procedures
and
Rquirtments
for
+
e
nuleditation
of
Iead­
based
paint
activities
training
programs.
pdurcr
nnd
requirements
for
the
certificationof
individuals
and
firmsengaged
in
lead­­
paint
activities.
and
work
practice
standards
for
performmg
such
activities.
This
subpart
also
requires
that.
except
as
discussed
below.
all
lead­
based
paint
activities.
asdefined
in
thissubpa.
be
­
performed
by
oenifiedindividuals
and
firms.
his
subpart
appliqto
all
individuak
and
 innswho
are
engaged
in
lead­
based
pnint
activities
as
defined
in
5745.223,
except
personswho
perform
these
activities
*
thin
residentd
dweUings
that
they
own.
unless
the
residentmi
dwelling
is
occupied
by
a
person
or
personsother
than.­
theowner
dr
the
owner's
immediate
lamilv
while
bese
activities
are
be­
performed.
or
a
child
residing
in
the
buildrng
has
been
identified
as
having
M
elevated
blood
lead
level.
This
subpart
applies
only
in
those
States
or
Indian
Country
that
do
not
have
an
authorized
State
or
Tribal
progm
pursuant
to
5745.324
of
subpart
Q.
(
cl
Each
depaent.
agency.
and
instrumentality
oi
the
executive.
ieqrsiative.
and
pdicial
branches
of
the
Federal
Government
tlavins
jurisdiction
"
over
aiv
propeny
or
factiitv.
ur
engaged
anc
suners*
x­
Jctures1
Reservcdl.
,:?
any
activttv
resuiting.
or
wnicn
may
­.

J.­?'
J
'.'.
orz
s:
arrice
siancia:
as
la:
resuit.
in
a
ieaa­
basw
paint
hazara.
md
aqent.
or
empiovee
ulereoi'nnC3C:~
T:
irao­
msec
~
dtptactivities
nuoili
~~
ach..
oiiicc:.

!'.
G
CC~
T~.
I:
Y:
C:
JI
ull.
ic;;
nrs.
::::
ace>
anc
i:
iall
bc
suoiecf
:
s
ana
romolv
with.
ail
,'.:
cJc?
sl,­.
lc:
:.:
cq
I
Secervpa,
reuerai.
State.
inierstaie.
ana
local
v
raquimrncnu.
both
substantiva
and
pmadural.
including
the
mqmtncnu
of
this
subparl
regarding
had­
based
paint.
Iead­
bued
parnt
actintias.
and
lead­
based
paint
hazardt.
(
dlWhile
thissubpan
esubiirhss
specifit
requinmeats
for
performing
lead­
basad
paint
activities
*
odd
they
be
undertaken.
nothurg
in
this
rubpan
requirss
that
the
ownbr
or
occupant
undertalrs
any
panicular
Isad­
baa
pmnt
activity.

5
745223
OefinlUanr
The
definitions
in
subpart
A
apply
lc
thisrubput
inaddition,
the
foUoHrlng
definitions
apply.
Abatement
means
any
msluure
or
sa,
ofme­&
design4
tnparmansntly
eliminate
Isad­
based
paint
harards.
Abatement
lncludes.
but
is
not
bitad
to:
(
11
The
removal
of
lead­
bacsh
put
and
ieadcontamiaated
dust
the
permanent
endosure
or
smprulatior
of
lead­
bed
paint.
the
mphmment
c
lead­
painted
curfeces
or
firmuss.
and
the
removal
orcoveting
of
lead­
contaminated
soil;
and
(
2)
All
preparation­.
cleaaup.
&
PO:
and
postabatementdeannaa
testing
activities.
clssodatedwith
such
measures.
[
3)
S@
dIy.
abatement
include
but
isnot
limited
to:
(
il
projects
for
which
there
isa
wr
conrrnct
or
other
documentation.
wt
provides
that
anindividual
or
firm
beconddg.
actrvities
in
or
to
a
residential
dwelling
or
drtld­
p1..
facdity
that
(
A)
Shall
result
in
the
parmsnent
ehination
of
1d­
Mpaint
hat
or
(
B)
Are
design&
to
permanently
ehinate
lead­
bssed­
wtbauds
are
describedin
paragrap&
(
1)
and
of
phis
debition;
(
ii)
Pmjectsrerdting
in
the
permanent
slimmation
of
Iwd­
base
paint
u.
cnnduaedby
firms
individds
terrified
in
acarrdana
5745.226.
des
suchpmole&
s
arr
covered
by
pwph
(
4)
of
this
debtion:
'

(
iii)
Projectsresulting
in
the'
.
permanent
ebation
of
lead­
ba
Lpknt
hazards.
cunducted
by
individuals
who.
through
theu
cx
name
or
promouond
literature.
represent,
advertise.
or
hold
rheb
out
to
be
in
the
business
of
perfo
Icaa­
based
pant
acuvlties
as
ide
and
defined
bv
this
seclon.
unie
?
rolects
are
covered
by
paragrap
'
31sdehnitlon.
Of
IIV)
Protects
resulLlRg
In
the
jennanent
eiirninatlon
oi
1eao.
t
,3aint
hazaras.
mat
are
COnouCIe
response
to
State
or
lob1
abatement
orders.
(
4)
Abatement
'
hs
not
include
renovation.
remodeling.
landstaping
or
ocher
activities.
when
such
activities
arc!
not
designed
to
permanently
eliminate
lead­
based
paint.
hazards.
hut.
instead.
are
designed
to
repair.
restore.
or
remodel
a
given
structure
or­
dwelling.
even
though
these
activities
may
incidentally
result
in
a
reduction
or'
eliminalion
of
lead­
based
paint
hazards.
Furthermore.
abatement
does
not
include
interim
controls.
operations
nnd
maintenance
activities.
or
other
measures
and
activities
designed
to
temporarjly.
but
not
permanently.
reduce
hd­
based
paint
h~
zards­
Accredited
training
program
means
a
training
program
that
has
been
acmdited
by
EPA
pursuant
to
5
745.225
io
provide
training
for
ind.
ividuals
engaged
in
lead­
bsed
paint
activities.
Adequate
quality
control
means
a
plan
or
design
which
ensums
the
authenticity.
integrity.
and
accuracy
of
samples.
including
dust.
soil.
and
paint
ch~
por
paint
film
samples.
Adequate
quality
control
ais0
includes
provisions
for
representative
sampling.
Certified
finn
means
a
company.
partnership,
Corporation.
sole
proprietorship.
association,
or
other
busmess
entity
that
performs
lead­
based
paint
activities
to
wki4
+
PA.
has
issued
a.
certificateof
approval
ptii;
suant.
to
5
'
74
5.226(
f).
Certified
inspector
means
individual
who
has
been
mined
by
an
accredited
training
propm.
as
defined
bv
this
section.
and
ceded
by
EPA
pursuant
to
745.226
1.0
conduct
Inspections.
A
certified
inspector
also
samples
for
the
presenoe'of
iead~
in
dust
and
soil
for
the
purposy
ofabatement
clearance
testing.
Certified
abatement
worker
means
an
individual
who
has
been
trained
by
an
accredited
training
program.
as
defined
by
this
secti~~,
and
certified
bv
EPA
pursuant
to
9
745.226
to
perform.
.
,

abatemi..,,.
Certifiedproject
designer
means
ari
individual
wno
has
been
trained
by
an
accredited
training
program.
as
defined
bv
this
section.
and
cenifred
bv
EPA
pursuant
to,
5
745.226
to
prepare
dua\
ambnt
proiecl
desigtis.
occupant
r:
rotection
plans.
a?
ci'abtement
reports.
Certified
risk
assessor
means
an
.
naivtuual
wno
has
neen
trainea
by
an
2cnedited
trninine
proenm.
as
defined
­>
v
this
$
:.~
n&
cwiiced
bv,
EPA
:
Iursuant
.\
5.226
io~
onau~
trisK
lssessnienis.
.
t*
ri,
ti
assecwr
akso
Jrnr?
ic?
ior
tt)
c,
D/
rsPnr­
li
iwo
in
nus1
111,
for
tile
I)
uri,
ose\
01aoaternenr
ri(
I.
I!*<:
I~
I:.
Certified
supervisor
means
an
individual
who
has
been
trained
by
an
accredited
training
program.
as
defined
by
this
section.
and
certified
by
 PA
PUISUMI
to
§
745.226
to
supervise
and
conduct
abatements.
and
to
prepare
ompant
protection
plans
and
abatement
reports.
Childoccupied
facility
means
a
building.
or
portion
oi
a
building.
constructed
prior
to
1978.
visited
regularly
by
the
same
child.
6
years
of
age
or
under,
on
at
least
two
different
days
within
any
week
(
Sunday
hugh
Saturday
period].
provided
that
each
day's
visit
lastsat
least
3
hours
and
the
combhed
weekly
visit
lastsat
least
6
horn.
and
the
combined
annual
visits
last
at
least
60
hour
Child­
cxni?
ied
facilities
may
indude,
but
are
not
limited
to.
daycam
centers.
praschools
and
kindergarten
clesmoms.
C~
eamncelevels
are
vaiues
that
indicate
the
maximum
mount
of
lead
permitted
in
dust
on
8
surfacefollowing
completiorrof
an
abatement
adivitv.
Gmon
ore^
means
a
po~
onol
a
building.
that
is
generally
accessible
to
all
oaupants.
Such
Marea
may
indude.
but
isknotlimited
to.
hallwavs.
stairways,
laundry
and
recreational
rooms.
playgrounds.
community
canters.
garages.
and
boundary
fences.
Component
or
building
component
means
specificdesign
orstructural
elements
or
futures
of
a
building.
residential
dwelling.
or
child­
occupied
facility
that
are
distinguished
from
each
other
by
form.
function.
and
location.
Theseindude.
but
are
not
limited
to.
interior
components
such
as:
ceilings.
clro'wn
molding.
wak,
chair
rails.
doors.
door
trim,
floors.
finepiaces
radiators
and
­
otherheating
units.
shelves.
shelf
supports.
stsir
treads.
stair
risers.
stair
stringers.
news1
posts.
railing
caps.
balustrades.
windows
and
trim
(
including
sashes.
window
heads.
jambs.
siUs
orstoolsand
troughs).
built
in
cabinets.
columns.
beams.
bathroom
vanities.
counter!
tops.
and
air
conditioners:
and
exterior
components
such
as:
painted
roofing.
chimneys.
flashing,
guttern
and
downspouts.
ceilings.
soffits.
fasciar.
rake
boards.
comerimads.
bulkheads.
doors
and.
door
trim.
fqices.
floors.
joists.
laltice
,
work.
railings
andpiling
caps.
siding.
handrails.
stair
nsers
and
treads.
stair
stringers.
columns,
balustrades.
winaow
sills
or
stools
and
trdughs.
casings.
sashes
and
wells,
and
air
conditioners.
Contarnrnentmeans
a
process
to
.
protect
workers
and
the
environment
bv
controlling
exposures
IO
the
leaacontaminated
dust
ana
deDris
crcatea
(
Jurine
ail
abnterncnt.
.
Couke
oeendo
rneans,
an
oiiiline
0:

the
KCV
iooics
to
DC
coverea
rliirtno
­
I
training
course.
'
including
the
time
allotted
to
teach
each
topic
Course
lest
means
an
evaluation
of
Ih
oven11
effectiveness
of
the
training
which
shall
test
the
tminees'
knowledgp
nnd
mtention
of
the
topics
coverad
during
be
course.
Coune
tesf
blue
print
means
wntten
documentation
identifying
the
proportion
of
course
test
questions
devoted
lo
each
major
topic
in
the
course
Quriculum.
Deten'omted
pornt
means
paint
that
cracking.
flaking.
chipping,
peeling.
or
olherwise
separating
hm
the
subsmt
of
LL
building
component.
Disciplinemans
me
of
the
specific
types
orcategories
of
lead­
based
paint
activities
identified
in
Lhissubpart
for
which
individuals
may
mive
trainir
ftom
acawfited
programs
and
becomt
certified
by
EPA.
Forenample.
"
abatement
worker"
is
a
disapline.
Distinctpainling
hisforymeans
the
applicationhistory.
as
indiated
by
11
vis&
appaat.
anca
ora
recordof
application.
over
time.
of
paint
or
otk
sutfaa,
coatings
to
a
component
or
room.
Documented
methodologies
are
methpds
or
protocols
used
to
sample
the
presence
of
lead
in
paint,
dust,
a
soil.
filevoted
blood
lead
level
lEBW
mt
an
excessive
absorption
of
lead
that
a
confirmed
concentration
of
lead
ir
whole
blood
of
20
@
dl
(
mi­
lead
per
deciliter
of
whole
blood)
fc
single
venous
test,
or
of
15­
19
&
dl
two
consecutive
tests
taken
3
to
4
*
monthsapah
Encapsulant
means
a
substahce
t
formsa
barrier
between
lead­
based
and
the
environment
using
a
Liwid
appiied
caatmg
(
with
or
wiLhout
reinforcement
materials)
or
an
adhesively
bonded
covering
matenr
Encapsulation
means
die
applica
of
an
encapsulant.
Enclosun
means
the
us8
of
rigid.
durable
construction
materials
Lhar
mechanically
fastened
to
the
subst
in
oder
to
act
as
a
bamer
betwear
based
paint
and
the
environment.
Cuesf
instructor
rneaAs
an
indii
designated
bv
the
training
proqrar
manager
or
principal
instmctor
to
provide
instmcbon
S~
CI~
Cto
the
lecture.
hands­
on
activities.
or
wc
practice
comuonents
ora
course
Hands­
on
sxrk
assessment
me
evaluation
which
tesis
the
irainec
ahilitv
to
satisfactorily
perforin
Ik
practices
ana
procedures
iclentrfi
9
745.25(
dj.
as
wcll
,
IS
anv
mnei''
iaitqht
in
3
training
ro'une
[
lnzordoits
wmte
means
anv
V.

.
icftnctl
I:\
­
io
CFR
761
2
Inspection
means
a
surface­
by­
suriace
investigation
todetermine
the
presence
of
lead­
based
paint
and
the
provision
of
a
report
explaining
the
resuits
of
the
i
nvestigation.
Interim
ceni/
iootion
means
the
stalus
of
an
individual
who
has
sucCessfuliy
completed
the
appmpriate
training
course
in
a
discipline
froman
acuedited
training
program,
as
defined
by
this
&
on,
but
has
not
yet
received
formal
certificationin
that
discipline
from
EPA
pursuant
to
5
745.226.
Interim
cedfiations
expire
6
months
after
the
completion
of
the
training
coucre..
and
is
equivalent
to
a
certificate
for
the
6month
period.
fntenm
contmls
means
a
set
of
..;
easures
designed
to
temporarily
reduce
human
exposure
or
likely
exposure
to
lead­
based
paint
hazards.
indudug
specialized
cleanmg.
repam.
maintenance,
painting.
temporary
containment.
ongoing
monitoring
of
lead­
based
paint
hazards
or
potenLid
hazards,
and
the
establishment
and
operation
of
management
and
resident
education
programs.
Lead­
basedpaint
means
paint
or
other
surfacecoatings
that
contain
lead
equal
to
or
in
excess
of
2.0
milligrams
per
square
centimeter
or
more
than
0.5
percent
by
weight.
Lead­
based
paintactivities
me­.
in
the
case
oftarget,
how­
bg
end
child­
occupied
facilities.
Jns$
ection:
risk
85sessment.
and
abatement,
as
defined
in
thissubpah
Lead­
basedpaint
hazard
means
any
condition
that
causesexposure
to
lead
fromleadcontammated
dust.
lesa­'
,

contaminated
soil,
or
leadcontaminated
paint
that
is
deteriorated
or
present
rn
accessible
surfaces.
friction
s,
uEfaces,
or
impact
surfaces
thst
wouid
result
in
adverse
human
health
effects
as
.
identified
by
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
TSCA
section
403.
Lead­
contari~
inateddust
means
surface
dust
in
residential
dwellings,
or
chiid­
oaxpied,
facilities
*
at
contains
MI
ma
or
mass
concentration
of
lead
at
or
in
excess
of
Ievek'identified
by
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
TSCA
section
403.
'

Lead­
cantaminared
soil
means
bare
soil.
on
residential
reaI.
propenv
ana
on
,
the
prupertv
of
a
chiid­
accupied
facilitv
that
contains
lead
at
or
in
excess
of
levels
identified
bv
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
TSCA
section
403.
fayi­
hozoruscreen
is
a
limited
risk
actiyity
tiiar
invoives
iirnites.
ust
za2mp[
incas.
uescrioea
in
I
i
745.227(
Cl.
ttrrrne
ureo
means
mv
area
01;
1
residential
dweIlin~
usea
ov
one
0:
.
Tore
ektlareri
clee
11
ana
uiiuc:
::
iciuairtq.
OUI
nor
iirnited
IO
itvrric
rooms.
kitchen
mas.
dens.
play
rooms.
end
children's
bedrooms.
Muitr­
famtiy
dweiiing
means
a
.
struclum
that
contains
more
than
one'
sepawte
residential
dwelling
unit.
which
is
usad
or
ar;
upied.
or
intended
to
be
used
or
CKxSupied,
in
­
whole
or
in
part.
M
the
home
or
midenb
of
one
or
more
persons.
Point
in
poor
condition
means
more
than
10
square
feet
of
deteriorated
paint
on
ertitrior
camponants
with
large
surface
areas:
or
mom
than
2
square
feet
of
deteriorated
paint
on
interior
components
with
large
surface
mas
(
e.
g..
walls.
callmgs.
Doors.
dmonf;
or
mora
than10perant
of
the
iutal
surface
area
of
the
component
is
deteriorated
on
interior
or
exteriorcomponents
with
small
surface
areas
(
windowsrlls.
baseboards.
soffits.
trim).
Pemanentfycovcred
soilmeans
soil
which
has
bees
separated
fmm
human
contact
by
the
placement
ofa
barrier
consisting
of
solidrelatively
impermeable
materiais.
such
85
pavement
or
concmte.
Grass.
mulch.
and
other
landscapmg
materials
are
not
considered
permanent
covenng.
Person
m+
any
natural
or
judicial
person
including
any
individual.
corporation,
partnership.
or
association;
any
Indian
Tribe.
State.
or
political
subdivision
thereof;
any
interstate
bodv;
and
any
deparrmant.
agency.
or
.
instrumentality
of
the
Federal.
government
Pri'ncipaf
instnrdor
meansthe
individual
who
has
the
primav
responsibility
for
organizingand
teaching
apartinrlar
muse.
Recognizwl
Jabomtory
means
an
environmental
laboratory
recogfuzed
by
EPA
pursuaut
to
TSCA
section
4051b)
as
being
capable
ofperforming
ananalysis
for
lead
compoundsin
paint.
soil.
and
dust.
Reduction
mslLLlS
measures
designed
to
reduce
or
eliminate
~
UIUMexposure
to
lead­­
wthkzatdsthrough
methodsinduding
interim
controls
and
abatement
Residential
dmlling
means
(
11
a
detached
singlefamily
dwelling
unit.
including
attacfied
structures
such
as
porches
end
stoops:
or
(
2)
a
singie
family
dwelling
unit
iri
a
structure
that
contains
more
thanone
separate
residential
dwelling
unit.
which
is
used
or
occupied.
or
intended
to
be
usea
or
occupied.
in
whoie
or
in
part.
as
the
home
or
residence
oi
one
or
more
persons.
Nisk
assessmenf
means
11)
an
on­
site
assessment.
explaining
the
resut~
lnvssugation
and
options
for
lead­
based
paint
hatarb.
Target
housing
means
MY
housin
consuucted
prirrr
to
1978.
except
housing
for
the
elderly
or
persons
u
disabilities
(
unIess,
anyone
or
mom
children
age
6
yeark
orunder.&&
is
expeaed
to
reside
in
ruch
housir
the
elderly
or
persons
with
disabili
or
MY
0­
bedroomdwelling.
Tmining
culriculum
moms
M
established
set
ofwurm
topics
for
instruction
in
an
accredited
­
nu
program
for
a
pWcuAu
dirclptine
designad
to
provide
spoaahmd
knowledge
and
&
ilk.
Tmining
hour
mm
at
Ie~
t50
minutes
of
actual
leanung.
indud
but
not
Limited
to.
timsdwoted
tc
'
lecture.
learning
activities.
small
acuvities.
demonstrations.
evalua
andor
handson
experienar.
Tmining
manager
meam
the
individual
responsible
for
admin
a
trainingpmgram
and
monitorir
performance
of
prinappi
instrua
guest
instructors.
Visual
inspection
for
dmct
means
the
visual
examination
of
residential
dwelling
or
a'ctri1d­
o
facility
following.
an
abatement
t
determine
whether
ornot
the
ab
has
been
successfuIly
corn
letec
Visual
inspection
for
riJasse
means
the
nsud
examinstion
o
residential
dwelling
or
8'
chiid­
C
facilityto
determine
the
existen
deteriorated
Iead­
based,
paint
or
potential
soc~
lossof
1ead­
ba­
d
hazards.

g
16.225
Acvsdlmtlon.
oftmlnlr
programs
targst
mu­­­
1
occupled
tacllltlosi
(
a)
Scope.
(
11Kn
pr~
g
seek
accreditation
to
offerleadpaint
activities
CO­
S
in
c
foilowing
disciplines:
inspecto
assessor,
supervisor.
pmi­
de
and
abateinant
worker.
A
tmin:
pmgram
may
also
6­
k
ad
offer
refresher
COULSBS
for
etic*

above
listed
dixipbs
21Training
pmognuns
may
to
EPA
for
aamxhtatlon
of
ths
based
paint
activities
courses
refresher
courses
pursuant
to
section.
on
or
after
August
31
(
3)
A
trairung
program
sha
Frovide.
offer.
or
claim
to
pic
accredited
lead­
based
paint
i
courses
without
appivrng
for
receiving
accreditation
from
.
rivestigation
IO
determine
the
ex.
isrencc.
reauirea
unaer
paragraph
Ib
'.

ii<
iiure.
seventy.
ana
location
oi
iccla­
cection
on
or
after
Manh.
1.
'
icl?
ea
paint
hazaros.
an0
121
thc
IIIJ
;\
Dp/
lcairorr
process.
T
.
arc
orocedums
a:>
revision
oi
a
reDorr,
nv
the
ir:
ci%:
i:
1za8
~
r!
lio~
vtr>~

ir
rrie
firm
conauciine
[
fie
risk
:,
roqranl
snail
follobv
10
rece
i
8
*
45816
Federa)
Register
/
Voi.
61.
No.
169
I
Thursday,
August
29,
1996
I
Rules
and
Re@
tions
accreditation
to
offerlead­
based
paint
activities
COUKOS:
(
1)
A
trsiningpogram
seeking
accreditation
shail
submit
B
witten
application
to
EPA
contsining
the
following
information:
(
i)
The
training
pmgram's
name.
address.
and
tekphone
number.
(
ii1.
A
list
of
courses
for
which
it
1s
appIFng
for
accreditation.
iir)
A
statement
signed
by
the
training
pmgra
manager
certifying
that
the
uaining
prolpam
meets
the
requirements
established
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
bs
sectron.
If
a
UWg
program
uses
EPA­
rehmmended
model
training
materials.
or
trainingmaterials
approved
by
a
State
or
Indian
Tribe
that
has
been
authorized
by
EPA
undec
subpart
Q
of
this
pan.
the
training
program
managershail
include
a
statement
cedfying
that.
ES
well.
Iiv)
ile
training
program
does
not
use
PA­
recommended
model
training
materials
or
wing
materials
approved
by
an
autborizecj
State
or
Lndian
Tribe.
ILS
applicatioa
for
acaeditatian
shall
ais0
indude:
IN
A
wpy
of
the
student
and
instructor
MU&.
orother
materids
to
be
used
for
each
come.
(
B1.
Acopy
of
the
course
agenda
for
each
course.
(
v)
All
training
prograxhs
shall
include
in
their
appiication
for
accreditation,
the
foiiowin
:
cn
;...­&

(
A)
A
fescrjpLion
of
tbe
iaciiities
and
equipment
to
be
used
for
lecye
and
hands­
ontrainin
.
(
8)
A
copy
of
2,
U)
UISB
test
bluepnnt
foreach
course.
(
C)
A
description
of
the
activiries
and
procadures
that
will
be
used
for
condumng
the
assessment
ai
hands­
on
skills
for
each
cow.
(
D1A
COPY
of
the
qdity'controI.
plan
desaibed
in
pantgraph
(~)(
9)
of
this­.
section.
as
it
dcooses.
A
training
pmgram
may
seek
a­
ditation
lor
additional
courses
at
;
my
time
as
long
as
the
program
can
demonstrate
that
it
meets
the,
reouirements
of
this
section.
kLRequinmpts
fur
the
a&
cmdtfnuon
oftraining
progmms.
For
a
training
pmpm
to
obtain
accreditation
from
EPA
to
offer
lead­
based
pint
activities
cowes.
the
program
shallmeet
the
following
quiremenu:
(
11
The
training
pmgram
shell
employ
.
a
traixung
manager
who
has:
(
it
At
lenst
2
years
of
experience.
education.
or
training
in
teaching
hU.
LS.
i
­
i
adults:
or
(
iii
A
bachelor's
or
graduate
depe
in
building
cnnstrudon
technology.
engmeenng.
industrial
hygiene,
safety,
public
health.
education.
business
administrationor
program
management
or
a
related
field;
or
(
iiilTwoyears
of
experience
in
managrng
abuing
program
speciahag
in
environmental
hazards:
and
(
iv)
Demonsped
experience.
education.
or
training
in
the
construction
industry
induding:
Iead
or
asbestosabatement.
painting.
carpentry.
renovation.
nmodeling,
oaupational
safety
and
heelth,
or
industrial
hygiene.
(
21The
eaining
manager
shall
designate
B
qualified
principal
Lhttructor
for
each.
coursewho
has:
(
i)
Demonstrated
experience.
education.
or
training
in
teaching
worken
or
adults:
nnnd
*
(
ii)
Sucoersfully
completed
at
least
16
hours
ofanyEPA­
acwdited
or
PAauthotid
State
orTribal­
accredited
leadspecific
training;
and
(
31
A
training
program
may
apply
for
be
retained
by
the
!
mining
prognun
1s
acmditation
to
offer
c~
ursesor
.
required
by
Ihe
recnrdkseping
refresner
courses
in
as
many
d~
sc~$
ines
tequrrements
contained
in
pangraph
[
a[
this
section.
Those
documents
include
the
following:
(
i}.
OCfrdalacademic
transcripts
or
dlploma
asevidence
of
meetmg
the
education
requirements.
(
ii)
Xarumes.
Letters
of
rsfemnca.
or
documentation
of
work
sxperiebca.
a:
evidence
of
meeting
the
work
ex$?.
rienla,
requimmsntc.
in)
Csrtifiatar
from
irain­
thaaair
courses
and
lead­
specific
training
courses.
asevidence
of.
meetiug*
the
tramin
requirements.
(
51~%
e
em1training
program
rha~
he
availability
of.
and
provide
adeqi
facilities
for.
the
deLveq
of
the
lea^
course
test,
handssn
training.
and
assessment
activities.
This
includes
~

prondrng
Wng
equlpmsnt
that
retle~
tsclvrent
work
pmctiars
and
maintaining
or
updating
the
equiipmz
and
faalities
asneeded.
(
6)
Tobecome
ECaedited
the
following
disciplines.
the
training
pmgnunshall
provide
trsrningmurr
that
meet
the
following
VainiDghou
re
uirkmenrs:
Ti,
The
inspector
io­
sim~
iast
minimum
of24
training
!
ours.
with
minrmum
of
8
hours
devoted
to
han
on
mining
activities.
The
minimun
nuridurn
requirements
for
the
inspector
course
are
contained
in
pyyyh
(
d)(
llOF
this
section.
11
T
e
nskassessor
course
chdl
a
minimum
of16
traininghours.
w­
i
minimum
of4
hours
devoted
to
har
on
training
activities.
The
minimu
~~
mdumxequirements
for
the
ris
'
assessorcourse
are
contained
in
parap
h
(
d)
W
of
thirreCtit~~

iii)
TLsup­
sor,
co­
wi
minimum
of
32­
6
how.
mmimum
of
8
hours
devoted­
to
hac
on
activities.
The
minimumcurria
requirementsfor
the
supervisorwe
are
contained
in
paragraph
(
dK31of
sectioa
,,
I
(
iv)
The
project
designer
c0u15a
last
a
mrpimum
of8
,
tnuniPghow
(
21If
a
training
prom
mmts
the
virements
in
pantpph
(
cj
ofthis
section.
then
JPA
shallapprove
the
applicatiom
for.
accredtation
no
more
'
,

­
Ih0?
180
dRV=
after
rece'ivinga
complete
application
from
the
trainisg
pmgram.
Lo
the
caseof
approval.
acenificate
of
acaeditaiion
shall
be
sent
to
the
applicant.
In
the
case,
ofdisapproval.
a"
letter
tiescnbing
the
masons
for
disappmvai
shall
be
sent
to
the
aopiicant.
Prior
to
disappmval.
EPk
mav.
at
its
aiscretmn.
work
with
the
applicani
to
address
inadequacies
in
the
aopiiurtion
for
accreditation.
EPA
mav
also
reaue~~;­
aqditio?
ai~
margnais
xrained
b,%$
heuarning.
program
under
mraqrapir
Li)
oi
this
section.
If
a
training'
.?
roeram
s
appiication
is
arsapproved.
:
ne
proeram
rnav
reappiv
tor
.­:
c;
eciitation
a:
Jnv
ilme
renovation,
ntmodeling,
occupationat
safety
and
haalth.
or
ind\
ntrial
hy
iene.
(
31
The
principal
instructor
rhea
be
mspansible
for
the
organiationofthe
courseand
oversight
of
the
teaching
of
all
course
material,
memining
manager
may
designate
guest
instructors
(
iii)
Demonstrated
experience.
education.
or
training
in
lead
or
asbestos
abatement.
painting,
carpenuy.

minimurc
cuniculum
reqmsnt
the
project
designer
course
are
as
needed
to
provide
instruction
contained
in
pmpph
IdII4)
of
th
specific
to
the
lectute.
hands­
on
Section.
activities.
or
work
practice
components
(
vi
The
abatement
worker
coum
of
a
course.
last
a
minimum
of
16training
hou
(
3)
The
following
documents
shall
be
with
a
minunurn
of
6hours
devott
recoqnized
bv
EPA
as
evidence
that
hands­
on
training
activities.
The
valnrng
manage?
and
pqnupei
mirumurn
cummiurn
requiremen
instructor;
have
the
education.
work
the
abatement
worker
COUSB
are
:
expehence.
[
mining
requirements
or
contained
In
paragtaph
(
d)(
s)
of
ti
demonstrated
experience.
spectficaliv
sect
ton.
iistea
in
paragraphs
IcI(
11and
(
cI(
21of
(
71
For
each
course
ajfered.
the
.

Ihis
secrion.
This
documen?
ation
need
trainin?
propram
shall
conduct
el
nor
be
Suomirted
with
the.
accreditation
roiirse
lest
at
the
completion
of
tt
:
npiicairan.
but.'
li
not
suumiiteu.
Silali
course.
ma
if
appi~
cabie.
J
hJnas
skills
rr;
sasrment.
or.
in
he
ahnative.
a
proficiency
test
for
that
disapline.
Each
individual
must
successfully
complete
Lbe
ha&­
on
skills
assessment
and
maima
passing
score
on
the
course
test
to
pass
any
course.
or
successfullycomplete
a
proficiency
test.
(
9Thetraining
manager
is
responsible
for
maintaining
the
validity
and
integrity
of
the
hands­
on
skills
assessment
or
pmfiency
test
to
~~
SUKTY
that
it
aaxmtely
evaluates
the
trainees'
with
all
of
the
requirements
in
this
section.
'(
121
The
Uaining
manager
shall
allow
PA
to
audit
the
mining
pqmm
lo­
verify
the
contents
of
the
applicstion
for
accreditation
as
described
in
paragraph
Ib)
of
this
section.
(
d)
Minimum
&
u~
ningcm.
culum
nquinmenrr.
To
becomeatnedited
to
ojfer
Lead­
bused
put
UJLUSOS
instruction
in
the
specific
disciplines
listed
below.
!
mining
programs
must
'

ensure
that
their
amof
study
include.
at
a
minimum.
the
foUowing
cow
topics.
Requirementsanding
m
an
asterisk
(')
indicate
sreas
that
require
handson
Bctivitiescasan
integral
componentof
the
come.
(
11ktrpeaor.
(
i)
Role
and
responsibilities
of
an
inspeaor.
(
ii)
Background
informationon
lead
and
its
adverse
health
effects.
(
iii)
Background
informationon
Federal,
State,
and
local
regulations
and
guidance
that
pertains
to
lead­
based
paint
and
ld­
based
paint
activities
iv)
Lad­
based
pent
inspeaon
methods,
including
selectionof
moms
and
components
for
sampling
or
testing.'
(
v)
Paint.
dust.
and
soil
sampling
methodolo&
es.*
(
vi)
Cleannca
standards
and
testing.
including
random
sampling.'
(
vii)
Prepmition
of
the
fi~
t
inspection
report.
(
viii)
Reeardkeeprng.
(
2)
Riskassessor.
(
i)
Role
and
responsibilities
of
a
risk
assessor.
(
iil.
CollecIionofbackground
information
to
perform
a
risk
assessment
(
iii)
Sourcasbf
environmental
lead
contamination
such
as
paint.
surface
dust­
andsoil.
wnter.
air.
pa*
gmg.
and
guidana
that
peruin
to
Lcud­
burrd
pmnt
abatement.
(
iv)
Liability
and
insma
issues
relatmg
to
Lead­
based
print
rbtement
(
v)
Risk
assessment
and
hpsction
mport
into
mtrtion.'
(
vi)
bv%
prnent
and
implemsntati
of
M
occupant­
proteciiooplan
and
abatement
mport.
(
viil
Lead­
bused
paint
hazaxd
recognition
and
antlD1.'
(
viii)
bad­
bd
paint
rhtsm.
rcte
lead­
based
paint
h@
mductian
methods,
including
mstxided
praaioes.
(
ix)
Interior
dust
abatsmantldeaa
or
lead­
bused
paint
hazardcontml
a
reduction
methods.'
(
XISoiland
exterior
dust
rbatam~
lead­
bated
p&
t
hazard
control
UIC
qdiction
methods.'
[
xi)
Clearance
standsnl;
and.
test
(
xii]
Cleanu
aad
wastn
&
pod
txidii)
RearrBkeep*.
(
4)
Pzuject
designer.
(
i)
Role
and
responsibilities
of
a
pmject
design
Jiil
QtveiopmentandLmpbeu
ofan
oaupant
protsction
plan
for
scale
abatement
projects.
(
iii)
Lead­
based
paint
abatgnou
lead­
based
paint
hanrdrsdudior
methods.
induding
nrSaictsd
pm
for
lagbscale
abatement
proiw3~
(
iv)
Interimdust
abatcunent/
clc
or
lead
bzudamtdIUI~
U~
methods
for
larged~
aleabatemet
pmjfXlS.
(
v)
CIeaninoestandarrki
and
te
larp
de.
abatement
pm
(
vi)
Integration
of
lead
abatement
hethodS
with
modor
and
rehabilitationprow
for
scale
abatement
prom
(
5)
Abotemcnt
woh.
(
i)
Rol
responsibilities
ofanabatemer:
(
ii)
Badcground
info~
tion
and
its
adverse
health
effects.
(
iU)
BacLgrobId
Info~
ti~
Federal.
State
and
ld
guidsn~
ethat
pertain
to
lead&$
paint
abatement
1
(
iv)
Lead­
based
paint
hazaud
recogniiion
and
ConOOL'
(
v)
Lead­
bebedpaint
rbatem
lead­
based
paint
hazard
redu
methods.
includingre~
trict~
praaces.'
(
vi)
Intenor
dust
abatemer
cleanup
or
lead­­
pain?
reduction.'
(
nilSoil
and
extenor
dus
methods
or
leaa­
based
pain
reauction.
(
e)
Aequrremenls
for
the
of
refresher
training
pmgm
rrainrng
program
may
seek
io
offer
refresner
training
c
oi
the
followinq
discipline
I:
Sh
assessor.
ssDervisor.
F
performance
of
the
work
practices
and
procedures
associated
with
the
come
topics
contained
in
paragraph
(
d)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
The
trainingmanager
is
,
rsponsik!:
f:
r
msintaining
the
validity
and'mtegr,';
of
the
coursetest
to
ensum
that
it
a­
tely
evaluates
the
trainees'
knowledge,
and
retention
of
the
course
topics.
(
iii)
The
come
test
shall
be
developed
in
accordance
with
the
test
blueprint
submitted
with
the
mu
accreditationapplication.
IS)
The
mng
program
shall
issue
uniquecourse
completion
axtifiat&
to
each
individual
who
passes
the
mining
cow.
The
come
completion
certificate
shall
include:
(
i)
The
name.
a
unique
identification
number.
and
address
of
the
individuai.
(
iil
The
name
of
the
particular
come
that
the
individuaIcompieted,

iiif
Dates
oi
cqprse
coqpletiodtest,­.
passage.
i,,.
.
(
ivf
Expiration
date
of
intenm
certification.
which
shall
be.
6months
from
the
date
of
course
completion.
(
v)
The
name,
address.
and
telephone.
number
of
the
tmrning
program.
~(
91ne
training
manager
shall
develop
and
implement
a
quality
control
plan.
The
pian
shall
be
used
to
maintam
and
improve
the
quality
of
the
tmning
program
over
time.
This
plan
shell
coqtain
at
least
the
following
.
elements:
(
i)
P,
medures
for
periodic
revision
of
mining
materiais
and
the
COUTSB
test
to
reflea
jnnova$
ons
in
the
lield.
[
ii)
Procedures
for­&
etrarning
'

manager's
annual
­
view
of
principal
instructorcompetency.
(
10)
The
trarning
program
shall
offer
courses
which
teach
the
work
practice
standards
for
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activiues
contained
in
S
745.227,
and
other
standards
developed
bv
EPA
vursuant
to
Title
IV
of
TSCA'.
These
sranaaros
shall
be
taught.
in
the
appropriate
courses
to
provide
trainees
e
kn,
owlepqeneeded
to
periorrn
:
mse2.:
paip'.
act
iviI
ies
t
tie
v
are
csoonsioie
ior
coriductinc.
:
1I
The
training
manaecr
siiall
bc
~~*.~
non<.~
rilii10:
onsiirine
tliat
[
hc
.

:
xi:
iiflc
propram
comoiicc
JIat1
Limes
~
f0d
(
iv)
Visual
insp&
tion
for
the
purposes
of
identifyang
potential
soms
of
lead­
based
paint
barards.*
''

(
v)
Lad
hazard
sawnprotocol.
(
vi)
Sampiing
for
other
soms
of
lead
ex
osure:
i,

gii)
Interpretation
of
lead­
based
paint
and
olher
lead
sampling
results.
including
all
appiicable
State
or
Fedeial
guidance
or
regulations
pertaining'to
leadrbased
paint
hazards.
(
viii1.
Development
of
hazard
control
options.
the
role
oi
interim
controls.
aha
operations
and
maintenance
activities
to
reduce
lead­
based
paint
hazards.
(
ix)
Preparation
of
a
fiiial
risk
assessment
report.
(
3)
Srrpelvrsor.
ti)
Role
and
responsihilifies
01
a
suoervisar.
(
iil
Backgrouna
information
on
ieaa
Ind
I~
Sadverse
neaiih
eiiects..

':
ill
Backcrouno
Lniormation
on
._..
rcc.
erai:
State.
J::!
I
i'oci:
reouiJlions
dna
.
i
I
!
/
b
C
designer.
and
abatement
worker.
To
obtain
&
PA
accredilation
to
offer
refresher
training,
e­
training
program
must
meet
the
following
minimum
re
uirements:
?
I
1
refresher
course
review
the
curricuhm
topics
of
the
full­
length
courses
listed
under
paragraph
Id)
of
this
section,
M
appropriate.
In
addition.
to
become
accredited
to
offer
refresher
training
courses,
training
programs
shall
ensue
that
thew
cow
ofstudy
include,
at
a
minimum.
the
following:
(
i)
hovewiew
of
current
safety
practices
relating
to
lead­
based
paint
activities
in
general.
as
well
as
specific
information
pertainjng
to
the
ap
m
riate
disaphe.
[
i)
emnt
laws
and
regulations
relating
to
lead­
based
paint
activities
in
general,
as
weU
IS
specific
information
pertaining
to
he
appropriate
discipiine.
(
iii)
Cunent
technoiogies
relating
to
lead­
based
paint
aevities
in
general.
as
well
as
specific
infomation
pertaining
to
the
ap
mpriate
discipline.
(
2)
EAmb+
ar
atuse.
except
for
the
project
designer
course.
shall
last
a
minimum
of8
mining
haws.
The
project
designer
rsbdier
course
shall
fasta
minimum
of
4
trainin
hours
(
3)
Foreach
course
alien!.
the
training
program
shall
conduct
a
hands­
on
assessment
(
if
applicable).
and
at
the
corn
letion
of
the
course,
a
coqe
test.
(*/'
A
training
pmy
may
apply
for
accreditation
of
a
kiresher
cotirse
concurrently.
with
its
application
for
.
ecaeditation
of
the
corresponding
training
come
as
described
in
paragraph
&)­
ofthissection.
If
so.
EPA
shall
use
the
appmval
procedure
described
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
In
addition.
the
minimum
requirements
contained
in
paragraphs
(
c)[
except
for
the
requimnents:
in
paragraph
(
cll6)
l.
and
(
el(
l1,(
el@)
and
[
e)(
3)
ofthissection
shall
also
apply.
.
.
(
5)
A
trainingprogram
seeking
acmedilation
to
,
offerrehsher
training
courSes
only
shall
submit
a
written
application.
to
EPA
mtaining
the
.

f..­­:
lowing
infom'atiqq:
.
.
.,

(
il
The
refreshsr
training
program's
name.
addmss.
~
d
telephone
number.
(
iil
A
list
of
courses
for
which
it
is
app..
lying
for
accreditation.
ti11
A
statement
signed
by
the
rrairung
program
manager
certifying
that
the
refresher
training
program
meets
the
minimum
requirements
established
in
paragraph
(
c)
of
this
section.
except
for
1
he
requirements
.
inparagraph
(~
116)
of
this
section.
If
a
training
proqram
uses
EPA­
d:'+
eliiped
model
,
training
~.
iateri~~~~
r'!
raimfig.~
ateriais
Toproved
by
a
State
or
Indian
Tribe
that
has
been
authorized
bv
EPA
under
..
745.3­
1
to
develop
11s
rciresner
training
couBe
malenab.
the
training
manager
shall
indude
a
statement
certifyin
that.
as
well.
'

(
iv)
If
tae
rehsbr
training
couxse
matends
am
not
based
on
=
A­
developed
model
tmnmg
materials
or
training
matenak
approved
by
M
authonzed
State
or
Indim
Tribe.
the
training
progrua't
application
for
accreditation
shall
include:~~
~
~.~~

.(
A)
A
copy
of
the
student
and
tnmctar
manualsto
be
used
for
arch
course:
(
B)
A
copy
of
the
course
agenda
for
each
course.
(
v)
AJ
refresher
trarnlngprograms
shall
!
dude
in
their
application
for
accreditation
the
following
[
A)
A
description
of
&
e
&
dlitiesand
equipment
to
be
usedfor1­
and
handson
­
3(
B)
A
copy
of
e
cow
test
blueprint
for
each
course.
[
C)
A
description
of
the
adivities
and
pmceduras
that
will
be
used
for
conducting
the
as8s6rnent
of
hands­
on
skills
for­
eachmumlif
applicablal.
(
D)
A
copy
of
the
quality
control
plan
as
described
in
paragraph
(
cI(
9)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
The
mqpimmentsin
paragraphs
(
c)(
z)
throug&(
c)(
S),
and
(
c)(?)
thmugh
(
c)(
12)
of
this&
on
apply
to
refresher
trainingproviders
(
vii)
If
a
rehasher
training
progam
meets
the
requirementsListed
in
this
pangraph.
thenEPA
shallapprove
the
application
for
aaxeditationno
more
than
180days
after
miviag
a
complete
application
btn
the
mbsher
mining
program.
In
the
caseof
approval.
E
certificate
of
acasditation&
dl
be
sent
to
the
applicna~
In
the
ase
of
disapproval.
a
letter
describing
tbereasons
for
disapproval
&
all
be
sent
to
the
applicaat
Rim
to
disappmvsi.
EPA
may,
at
its
discration.,
work
with
the
eppiicant
to
address
inadequaci&
in
the
application
for
acaeditition
EPA
may
also
request
additionalmaterials
retained
by
the
refresher
mining
progqun
under(
paragraphti)
of
this
section.
If
B
refresker
mining
program's
application
isdisapproved.
the
program.
may
reapply
for
accreditation
at
any
time.
(
f)
Re­
occrcdilation
of
trnining
pmgmrns.{
lj
Unless
maccredited.
a
training
program's
accreditation
[
including
refreher
training
accreditation)
shall
expire
4
years
after
the
date
of
issuance.
If
a
gnrining
program
meets
the
requirements
oi
this
section.
the
training
proqram
shall
be
re­
,
accredited.

~

121
A
training
propram
seeking
re­,
xcreoitation
shall
suDmit
an
auplication
to
EPA
no
later
than
180
,;
Jvsociore
its
accrrarra'lion
cxitlres.
[
I
4
tmlning
program
doas
not
submit
its
appllcauon
for
re­
soawfitation
by
that
date.
­
A
cannot
guivantes
that
the
pmgmrn
will
re­
rcadited
bafon
thc
end
of
the
accreditation
panod.
(
31
The
mining
progrun't
8ppli~
XtiO:
for
re­
editation
shall
cun&
(
i)
The
mining
prognm'c
name.
address.
and
telephone
number.
lii)
A
list
ofcourses
for
Whicb
It
is
ep'/?..
lying
for
mecatditation
ILL)
A
desuiption
of
naychurgsrto
the
mining
facility,
quipment
or
course
materials
sin­
its
last
.
,

application
was
appmwd
that
advsra
affects
the
students
abiiity
to
learn.
(
iv)
A
~
Wementsigned
by
the
pmgmm
managersta
A)
That
the
painrngpmgram
complies
at
all
timeswith
aU
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
cl
&
d
(
e
this
section.
as
8
plicable:
and
(
B)
The
recodeeping
andrsrequirements
of
paragraph
(
i)
of
thk
seaion$
hall
be
roiiowsd.
(
4)
Upon
request.
the
traioingprg
shalLalIow
EPA
to
audit
the
training
program
to
verify
the
contentsofthe
application
for
re­
accreditationas
described
in
paragmph
(
O(
3)
of
this
section.
(
9,
Suspension.
revocation.
and
modification
of
accredited
hru'ning
pmgmms.
(
1)
EPA
may.
after
notice
an
opportunity
for
hearing.
nrspent
revoke.
or
modify
training
ptogram
accreditation
(
including
refmiher
mining
accreditation)
if
a
mg
pro+.
training
manager,
or
othe
person
with
supervisory
'
authority
the
trainingprogram
has:
I
(
i)
Misrepresentad
the
contents
mining
cowa
to
EPA
andlor
the
student
population.
(
ii)
Failed
to
submit
required
information
or
notifications
in
a
t
manner.
(
iii)
Failed
to­
maintain
requbd
records.
(
iv)
Falsified
accreditation
­
7
instructor
qualifications.
or
other
accreditation­
related
information
document6tion.
(
v)
Failed
to
comply
with
the
t
standards
and
requirements
in
tk
section.
(
vi)
Failed
to
cqmply
with
Fec
State.
or
locai
lead­
hased
paints
or
regulations.
(
vii).
Madefalse
or
misleading
statements
to
EPA
in
its
appiic;;
accreditation
or
re­
accreditatior
&
PA
relied
upon
in
approving
L
2pphcat
ion.
121
In
addition
to
nn
adminis.
luaicial
finding
oii
violation.
ex
of
a
consent
agreemerit
III
scttlr
,.

.~
nen.
forcementaction
constttl:
.

purposes
of
itiis
secfiori
eviae
heen
(
i]
The
legal
and
fnctud
%
Isls
for
the
dvocation
or.
modificationbenrins.
(
iii)
Notify
the
deed
antity
o
thesuspension,
revocation.
or
modificsuon.
anticipated~
ornmsnoementdate
urd(
ii)
The
anticipatedcommencement
date
and
duration
of
the
ruspsnsion.
duntion
of
theimmediate
suspension.
revocation.
or
modification.
liv)
Notify
theailtcted
entity
ol
i!
s
if
any.
which
the
right
to
request
a
he4Mg
on
the(
iii]
AC~~
OUS.
affected
entity
may
taka
to
avoid
immediatesuspension
within
15
daysof
suspension.
mvc+
on.
or
modifidan.
tbe
suspensiontakiag
place
aad
the.
inthe
future.
procaduas
tor
the
&
anduct
of
suchaor
to
~
ive~~
tation
(
i~;
aeOpp~­
nity
find
metbod
for
hearink
notice.
decision.
or
orderrequestinga
h
m
prior
to
find
(
5)
~
ny
action
to
suspend,
revoke
ormodify
issuedby
EPA
under
this
sectian,
any
acaeditatiae
mmciipts
ar
other
verbatim
record
of
additiondl
infarmation.
BS'
oral
te­
ony.
and
any
documents
Bled(
vi
~
ny
U
a.&
eariugkrequested1Y
the
by
ma
accredited
baining
pm$
ram
in8Ep
mpnate,
Which
may
fdde­
hearing
underthis
don
sbsube
accredited
trainiog
mganu,
 PAchalk
avdable
to
the
pubgc.
ercept
as
(
i)
Providethe
&
kted
aaW
othenvise
provided
by
don
14
of
opportunity
to
offerwritten
statemenu
TSCA
orby
.
part
2
of
thistide.
Anyriuh
in
response
to
asmaof
the
hearing
at
which
orai
testimony
is
legal
and
fachiai
basis
foritspmposed
presented
shall
be
ova
to
the
public.
action.
and
any
other
expbnati~
n~.
except
that
?+
e
PresidingOfficer
may
corrunents,
and
argumentsit
deems
exclude
thepublic
to
theextent
relevant
to.
tha
mposed
action.
necessary
to
aUow
presentation
of
(
ii)
bvide
$
e
k~
fectedentity
su~
b
infoanationwhi
may
beentitledto
confidentid
uaament
­
der
sdon
14
ofTSCA
or
part
2ofthis
title.
(
6)
The
public
shail
be
notified
ofhe
suspension.
revocation.
modifiartion
or
Presiding
Officerto
amduct
the
hearing.
reinstatement
af­
atraining
pmgram'~
No
person
+
dl
serve
as
Presiding
ameditstion
bugh
appmpriate
Officerif
he
or
she
has
had
anp
prior
mmdmaintain
a
tist
ofpmesCOUIli3C%
h
with
the
6
&
fiC
RletteF.
(
31
The
Presidmg
Okcm
nupointed
.
whose
acaeditation
has
been
failure
to
comply
wit$.
nlavant
suiuies
been
issued
pursuant
to
pamagraph
@(
I]
or
regulations.
of
his
section,
it
shall
be
isued
4t
th~
(
hl
Pmedums&
r
suspension.
same
time
the
emergency
suspension
revocation
or
modification
of
bpining
notice
is
issued.
progmm
uccreditntion.(
I)
Prior
to
(
ii)
Notify
the
affectedentity
in
Wg
actionto
suspend,
revoke.
or
writing
oftb8
gmunds
forthe
immediate
modify
aareditdoa
of
n
training
suspension
and
why
it
isnecawry
to
program,
EPA
rbdl
notifythdfmsd
suspend
rhe
entity'ssCcraditatian.
baf0~
entity
in
writing
of
the
followiag:
an
opportqnity
for
I
~
lspcnsion.

pursuent
to
panrgraph
ihl(
21,
of
this
section
sfiaL1.
(
i)
Conduct
a
fair,
orderfy.
kd
impartial
hearing
within
90
days
of
the
re
uest
for
8
hearing­
SUI
Consider
ali
relevant
evidence.
explanation,
comment.
and
argument.
submitted
Iiii)
N~
ti ythe
affeed
enti?
in
writing
within
90
days'of
cmpletion'of
the
hearing
ofhis
or
her
deckion
and
order,
Such
an
order
is
B
final
agency
action
which
may
be
su&
jx,
tto
judicial
review.
(
4)
If
qA
dete'nnmes
that
the
public
hzalth.
interest.
or
welfare
warrants
immediate
anion
IDsuspend
+
e,
accreditation
af
any
trainlna
program
prior
io
the
opponunitv
fora
nearins.
it
ifla11.
i,
ky
the
giiped
enwv
oi
11s
~

zt­
q
me+.
a
te
iv
syspeha
t
ra
i
n
i
ni
',,

nrcRram
acareditat~
onfor
me
reasons
.:
steci
in
paracrapn
&$(
I)
cijnis
>
V.
IJOI:
'
C.,
,
I
susoenstorl.
revrrCX12on.
9r
:;
rctu'rficat~
nnno:
rcp
itas
nor
urc\.
to::
Lb;
suspended.
revoked.
modifiedor
reinstated.
(
i]
7hining
progmm
recordkeeping
requirements.
(
1)
Abdited
tnuning
'
programs
shallmaintain.
and
make
available
to
EPA.
upon
mquest.
the
followingrecords:
(
il
All
documents
specified
in
paragraph
[
c)($)
of
this
section
that
demonstrate
the
quaiifications
listed
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
lland
Ic)
I2)
ol
dus
siction
of
the.
trsiningmanager
and
princi
ai
instructors.
(
ii)
Zurrent
cumcyium/=
ouse
materials
and
documents
reflecting
any
chan
es
made
to
these
matenals.
(
iiiy
The
come
test
blueprinl.
(
iv)
information
regarding
hotv
the
!
iancis­
on
assessment
is
conducted
Inchding.
but
nor
limited
Lo.
(
AI
LYho
conducts.
the
assessment
18)
HOWthe
skiils
are
graaea.
IC)
IVhat
lacillties
arc.
usea
ID)
The
pasxifail
wfe.
(
c)
The
OtJjillv
r­
qiitr(
i!..
r,!
3::
,>,

cinscrtbcd
117
psraernn!
i
;
cii3,
r(
i;
:!
iis
diiron.
sou&
t:
or
lii)
Submit
to
EPh
anapphcst:
a
&
by
of
a
vafid
lmti­~
tipair
activities
certification
(
or
Squiva
authorissdby
EPA
pfrom
a
State
ar
TriW
program
tl
subpart
Q
ofthispart
(
2)
SnlndLviduah
may
first
appl
for
cerlificstionto
engags
in
tea
paint
sctivities
prirsusnt
to
tbis
on
or
sftar
W­
I.
1999.
(
3)
Following
the
rubmis~
ion
application
demonstxattng
that
*
mquimments~
ofthis&
an
by
meet,
EPA
shalloa­
anUppL
an
inspe~
ror.
risk
ssses#
u.
ape
project
designar,!
orabatement
as
appropriate.
(
4)
Upon
receiving
EPA
cer)
individuals
c~~
ductinglead­
E
activities
shall
comply
with
Q
practice
standards
fatperfonr
appropriate
lead­
based
paint
as
established
in
5745.227.
(
5)
It
shali
be
a
violation
of
an
idtviduai
to
conduct
any
lead­
based
paint
activities
de
3
745.227
alter
,
August
30.
10
individual
has
no(
been
ceri:
pursuant
IO
this
sectron
to
d!
!)
J)
Inspector.
r/
sk
USS~
SSOI,­

SLID~
IVISOT.,..
{
1)
To,
becomr
CE
,
11:'.
JS
art
lmne(:
tor.
rib+.
3s'
45820
Federal
Register
I
VoI.
61.
No.
169
I
Thursday,
August
29.
1996
I
Rules
and
Regulations
supervisor.
purruant
to
pamgraph
!
al(
1l[
i)
of
this
section.
an
individual
mus1:
(
I
1
Successfull+
compiete
an
accredited­
course
in
the
appropriate
discipline
and
receive
a
course
compiction
certifiate
fromM
accredited
training
program.
(
ii)
Pass
the
certification
exam
in
the
appropriate
discipline
offered
by
EPA:
ana.
(
iii)
Meet
or
exceed
the
following
expenence
andlor
education
requirements:
(
AI
Inspectors.
(
1)
No
additional.
expenence
andor
education
re
uments.
72)
IReservedl
IB)
Risk
assessors.
(
I)
SU­
ful
Lurupietion
of
Ma&
ted
mining
courSe
for
inspectors:
and
121
Bachelor's
degree
and
1
yea
of
expenence
in
a
related
Geld
(
e.&.
lead.
asbestos.
environmental
remediation
work.
or
construction).
or
an
Associates
aegree
and
2
years
experience
ina
related
field
(
e.
g..
lead.
asbestos.
environmental
remediation
work.
or
construction):
or
(
3)
Certification
as
aninduseial
hygenist.
professional
engineer.
registered
architect
and/­
certification
In
a
reiated
engineering/
health/
environmental
Geld
(
e.
g..
safety
professional.
environmental
scientist):
or
(
41
A
high
schooldiploma~(
ar
equivalent).
and
at
least
3
fears
of
expenence
in
a
related
field
(
e.
g..
lead.
asbestos.
environmentai
remediation
work
or
construction).
(
ClSupervisor:
(
I)
One
year
of
.

expenence
as
acertified
lead­
based
?
ant
abatement
worker.
or
(
2)
At
least
2
years
of
experience
in
a
related
field
(
e.
g..
lead.'
asbestos.
or
enwonmental
remediationwork)
or
in
the
building
trades.
(
21
The
following
documents
shall
be
recognized
by
EPA
as
evidenat
of
mesung
the,
requifements
listed
in
bl[
ZI(
iiiI
of
this
paragrapk
(
il
Official,
aqdemic
transcripts
or,
drploma.
as'evidenm
of,
meetingthe
eauwtiou
requirements.
:

i
i
I
Resumes.
letters
of
refemnce.
or
documentation.
of
work
experience.
as
­
vlacnce
of
meeting
the
work
0
x
pert
ence
requirements.
:
iiil
Course
completion
certificates
­:
om
iead­
specific
or
ocher
related
.,
I
'
rainine
courses.
issued
by
accredited
'
raininq
programs,
as
evidence
of
:
neetine
the
training
requirements.

*
','
Succcssiully
complete
an
':
creniiecl
course
in
the
appropriate
discipline
and
receive
a
coune
completion
certificate
Irom
an
accredited
training
program.
(
ii)
Meet
or
exceed
the
education
andl
or
experience
reqrurements
in
pmgmph
(
b](
1')[
iilJof
this
seclion.
(
4)
me
course
completion
certificate
shall
sewe
as
interim
certification
lor
an
individual
until
the
next
available
opportunity
to
take
the
certification
exam.
Sudi
interim
certification
shall
expire
6months
afterissumcs.
(
5)
ARcr
passing
the
appropriate
certification
exam
and
submitting
an
application
demonstrating
that
helshe
meets
the
appropriate
ag,
education.
andlor
experience
prerequisites
described
in
pwgraph
b)(
1)
of
this
section,
an
individd
shall
be
issued
a
certificate
by
EPA.
TO
maintain
certification,
an
individual
must
be
recertified
asdescrrbed
in
paragraph
(
elof
this
section.
(
6)
An
individual
may
take
the
certification
exam
no
more
than
three
times
within
6months
of
hvbg
6
course
completion
certificate.
(
7)
If
an
individual
does
not
pass
the
certification
&
am
and
Rceive
a
certificate
within
6months
of
receiving
hislher
course'completion
certificate.
the
individual
must
retakethe
appropriate
coune
hm
en
accredited
training
program
before
reapplying
for
certification
from
EPA.
(
c)
Abofement
worker
and
project
destgner.
(
I]
To
become
certified
by
EPA
asan
abatemenpworker
or
project
designer.
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
aWl)(
i)
of
thissection.
an
individual
musk
(
i)
Successfully
complete
an
aca%
ditedcpurse
in
the
appropriate
discipline.
and
receive
a
come
completion
certificete
from
an
acmdited
training
program.
(
ii)
Meet
or
exceed
thetfollowing
additional
experience
andor
education
requirements:
(
AI
Abatement
workers.
(
2)
NO
additional
experiencz
andor
educztion
requirements.
5
(
21[
Reservedl
(
B1Project
designers.
(
I
1
SUCLCSS~
U~
.(
i)
Ori,
dal
academic
transcripts
Or
diploma.
as
endence
of
meeting
the
education
requirements.
(
iil
Resumes.
Istten
of
refsrenaj.
01
documenlation
Of
work
sxperience.
a
evidencs
of
mesling
the
work
ex
periena
requirements.
(
iii)
Course
completion
oertifitates
from
lead­
specific
or
other
lslatcd
training
courses.
ivued
by
accredit*
training
programs.
as
evidsnca
of
meeting
the
training
mquimments.
(
3)
The
atme
completion
csnifia
shall
serve
as
an
interim
aertificatior
until
certification
from
EPA
ismi\
but
shallbe
valid
for
no
mom
than
6
months
from.
the
date
of
completion.
(
4)
After
nraessfully
completing
appropriate
training
cowsas
and
meeting
any
other
qualifications
described
in
paragraph
(
cI(
1)
of
this
section.
an
individual
shall
be
issue
certificate
from
EPA.
To
maintain
certification,
an
individual
must
be
oemfied
as
described
in
eph
i
this'section.
[
d)
CertificnLion
based
on
prior
training.
(
I)
Any
individual
wk~
o
received
training
in
a
lead­
hrrad
pa
activity
between
October
1,1990.
a.
March
'
1.
1999
shallbe
eligible
for
certification
by
EPX
under
the
alternative
procedures
contained
ir
paragraph..
Individuals
who
have
reaived
lehd­
based
paint
activities
training
at
an
EPA­
authorized
State
Tribal
accredited
training
pmgram
also
be
eligible
forcertification
by
1
under
the
following
alternative
procedures:
(
i]
Applicants
for
certification
dS
inspector.
risk
assessor.
or
supemi:
shall:
(
A)
Demonstrate
&
at
the
applica
hassuccessfully
completed
tramin
on­
the­
job
treining
in'the
conduct
0
lead­
basad
paint
activity.
(
B)
Demonsmte
that
the
appiimeets
or
exceeds
the
education
and
experience­
requirements
in
paragm
[
b)(
l)(
iii)
of
thissection.
IC)
Successfully
complete
M
accredited
refresher
training
murs
the
appropriate
discipline.
completion
of
an
a­
dited
training
(
D)
Pass
a
certification
exam
course
for
supervisors.
administered
by
?
PA
for
the
apprc
I.?)
Bachelor's
degree
in
engineering.
discipline.
architecture;
or
a
related
profcssron.
and
(
ii)
Applicants
for
certification
I
1
vear
of
experience
in
buiidjnq
abatemcnt
worker
or
protect
desig
con~
tructionand
design
or
a
related
shali:
Lcld.'
or
.(
A)
Demonsvate
t.
hat
the
appk
(
31Four.
vcars
of
experience
in
hns
successiuilv
completed
traini
buiiding
construction
and
desrgn
or
a
on­
the­
lobtraining
in
the
conduct
r$
rrie.
d
field.
leaa­
basea
pain1
aclivit)'.
'
2;
The
ioiiowinq
documents
shall
bc
(
131
Drmonstrate
that
the
applrc
,.

rccoenized
hy
EP.\
as
evidence
oi
meets
tnr
eauc;
ltion
Jidkor
expcr
meeting
ttie
reQuiremenisI!
stea
in
this
reouiremenrs
in
oaraqriohc
(
c)
l1
:
iaraerabn
'.
I:
CII~
I~;
nc
I
'
3
­­
iC1
SucCe­
rriu~
Lycomplete
an
accredited
reinsher
training
coucse
for
the
appfopriatedisci
line.
(
2)
lndividuak
have
until
August
30.1999
to
apply
to
PA
for
mrtificationunder
rhe
prwdures.
Aft=
ht
dste.
individunb
wishing
to
obtain
certification
must
do
so
­
ugh
the
procedures
desctibed
in
F@
W~
(
a)*
end
pangraph
b]
or
(
c)
ofthis
6etion.
according
to
the
&
ci$*
e
for
which
cattifiation
is
cougbt.
(
e)
Re­
certificafion.
(
11Ta
maintain
certification
in
a
partidm
discipline.
a
csrtified
hdiVidUd
6hd
apply
to
and
­
be
re­
cergted
by
EPA
inbt
&
hpb@
by
EPA.
eit&
er:
(
i)
Every
3
ym
if
the
halvldU&
completed
a
mining
co­
8
a
course
test
ad
hapds­
on
kSseSSment:
Or
(
ii)
every
5
yews
if
the
individual.
completede
vaiaingCOWwith
a
proficiency
test.
(
2)
hindividual
shallbe
Wercified
if
the
individual
ruccssdully
CompLaW
&
e
eppmpriste
adit4
rehher
traininganuse
and
submits
d
valid
Copy
of
the
appropriate
refrestrer
course
completionceitifiaze.
[
I)
Cerijfjcation
offim.
0)
dI
firms
which
perform
oroffer
to
perform
any
of
the
lead­
based
paint
ectivitik
described
ia
5
745.227
&
et
August
30.
1999
shall
becertified
by
EPA;
(
21A
firm
see~
gqertii~
tiansnail
submit
to
EPA
6
leRsr%
ttesChg
that
the
6rm
shaU
ORI~
employ
appropriately
certified
employees
to
conduct
leatibased
paint
activities,
and
that
the
firm
and
its
empioyees
shall
follow
the­
work
practice
standards
in
!
j745.227
for
conducting
Lead­
basedpaint
activities
3)
Fmm
the
date
of
receivingthe
iii's
letter
requesting
oetritication.
EPA
shall
have
90
days
to
appmve
or
disapprove
the
fm'srequest
for
cehification
Within
that
time,
EE'A
shall
respond
with
either
e
certificate
of
approval
or
a'ketterdescribing
the
reasons
for
a
disap
roved.
(
41
The
Brm.
rhairmaintainail
Fards
pursuant
to
the
wquimmeqts
in
§
745.227,
(
51
Firms
may
first
apply
to
EPA
lor
certification
to
engage
in
lead­
based
paint
activities,
pursuant
to
thissection
on,
or
after
March
1.
1999.
.
ig)
Susoennon.
revucdtdun.
and
moarficarron
ot
ceriificutions.,
o.
j
,
~.~
uiviauai~
engaged
IR
lead­
basea
paint
c.
ccwi(
ies.
1'
1
IEPA
mav.
atrer
notice
ana
Opponufiliv
tor
Iicar!
ng.
Suspend.
Ty;
O
ntud.
itcan
riidivIduai's
,,

LZIi.
I
ii
if:+
gi
iriijis;
xiuai
has:
.
.
.
~­
Y::
JI~
c::;~~~
III~
I~
aacurnen!~
tinn
t
1
I1
;
O
uen
:;
a
u
Cu
IC(
iIilleillls.
5
2
ori
i
o
il
:\:
I.
,
.,.,
I
:.
c
c
.:,:
I:~
L
_,
:'):::
:):
P\
t:
u
%;:;

*$,,:,
r~
uctea
(
rdiii
it!(!
program
ihrougb
mtsmpresenlntion
of
admission
teuvtrements.
~


iii)
Obtained
anifiauon
duough
rnisrepmnution
af
certification
reguimments
or
dated
documcnls
dsshng
with
aduulion.
training.
professionalngrsuation.
or
srqmrience.
(
iv)
Pstformed
work
requiring
&
cation
at
Ijob
.
de
without
bring
proof
of
atrrifimtion.
(
v)
Permitted
the
duplication
or
use
of
the
iudividd'r
­
owncertificate
by
aaother.
[
vi)
Performed
work
for
which
wrtificstion
isreqwd.
but
for
which
8ppIUp&
t&
3
cfu(
iEcat.
ionhar
not
been
recxlived.
,

(
vii)
Failed
to
cornply
with
the
appmpriateworkpradice
atan&&
for
lead­
based
aint
activitiesat
745.227.
(
viii)
FaiPecito
amply
with
~
eder~
l.
Stnu.
or
local
Lad­
based
paint
statutes
or
regulrrtions.
(
21
inaddition
lo
anadministrative
or
jK&&
&­
of
ViOhtiOn.
fGr
'

purposrn
ot
thir
don
only;
axamtion
of
I)
amant
agxeement
in
rettfement
of
anenforcamentactionconstitutes
evidenceof
a
taisure
to
comply
with
relevant
statutesorregulations
fi]
Suspension.~
yodotjo~.
and
rnociificutdn
v/
cmtiicntionroffirms
engaged
in
lead­
bclsedpint
attirities.
It]
EeAqay,
after
noticeand
opportuuify
for
hearing,
suspend,
revoke,
or
modify
a
firm's
&
dc6tion
ifa
firm
bast
(
i)
Performedwork
requiring
certification
at
a
job
site
with
individuals
who
afer
not
certified.
(
ii]
Failed
to
comply
with
the
work
ffractimrtandardsaStAbWdia5745.227.(
z)
Misrepresented
facts
iaits
letter
ofap
iimtion
for
csrtificatioato
EPA.
livPPailed
to
maintaia
required­+[
VIFarled
to
amply
with
Fedetak.
State.
or
local
lead­
bad
paint
statutes
or
ngdations.
(
2)
laaddition
to
&.
adrmni?
rtrative
of
judicialfiodrngof
violstion.
for
purposss
of
thissection.
ody.
execution
of
a
consent
agreement
in
settlementof
an
enforcementbon
constitutes
evidence
of
a
failure
tu
comply
with
mievent
rtatutes
or
regulations.
(
i)
Pmcedums
jar
suspension.
reVdCCtlOn.
ormodificationof
the
cem
cation
of
individuuls
orfirms.
(
IfiIf
EPA
decides
to
suspend.
revoke.
or
modify
the
certification
oi
anv
individual
or
Gnn.
it
shall
norrfv
the
afienea
entity
in
writing
of
the
followme:
[
it
Thelegal
art0
factuni
hasis
iar
the
susoension,
revocation,
or
rn:
idttrcactorr
((
ti
The
CornrnericemeiLt'
ah:
e
3n;
r
auration
31
[
Ilk
SIJ.<
l'~=_
I:>
Lc)~.
rB*',<'(;,
t:<
VJll
or
moaifimoon
­(
iii)
Actions.
if
any.
which
the
affeded
entity
may
to
avoid
SUS~
N~
O~.
rcvocaunn.
or
modifiu
or
to
lsceivs
csrtithdon
in
the
fut.
fiv)
The
oppttuntty
ina
mathod
requssliog
a
baring
prior
to
find
E
action
to
rurpund.
mvoke.
or
modk
cdrtifiation.
(
v)
Any
additional
intanrution,
i
appmpriete.
which
EPA
may
pmw
(
2)
If
B
hearing
is
requastmi
by
rt,
certified
individual
or
h.
EPA
s
(
i)
Pmvids
he
affected
entity
ar:
opportunity
t~
oHer
writtan
man
in
responssto
=
A's
asortion
of
t
Iegd
~
d
factrralbauj
and
any
od
exphatioas,
commantr.
ad
it
dearnr
r+
eavant
to
the
pmpd
action
(
iil
Provide
the
effected
entity
r
ower
pd\
miopportunities=
may
deamappropriate
to
ensum
and
impartial
hsariag.
(
iiil
hppainl
an
oflicialof
PA
Presiding
Officer
to
aondua
the
No
pemn
&
ball
rarye
uf?
raddii
Officer
if
ha
or
she
bas
hmd
my
*

COnnecticMwittr
Lberpsdticma
13)
The
Presidrng
05­
r
thai
(
i)
Conduct
a
fair.
orderky.
impartial
hearing
withi0
90
daj
request
for
a
hearing;
(
U)
Consider
aU
rels~
ntevid
explsnatiun.
comment.
nndsrg
submitted
and
(
iii]
Notify
the
sffected
antiq
writing
within
90
days
ofcorn!
the
hearing
of
his
or
fit^
dM
order.
Suchnn
orderIsa
End
adon
subject
to
judicial
~
8.
svi~
(
4)
IfEpA
detetdRar
that
e
heaith.
intstest.
or
welfam
~
a:

immediate
action
to
suspend
t
cmificationof
_
MY
indindud.
prior
to
the
opportunity
for
8.
shall:
3
(
i)
Notifythe
affectsd
entity
iatent
to
immediately
suspenci
certificationfor
the,
lrsaraor
q.
paragrsph
(
h)(
1)
of
thhimction:
suspension,
revocation.
or
mc
notice'hasnot
previously
bes
shall
be
issued
at
tha
came
ti
immediqte
muspinsion
notic
(
ii)
Notify
the
affected
enl.
witing
of
the
gmunds
upon
immediate
tuspens~
onir
ba:
it
is
necessary
to
suspend
10
accreditation
before
an
opp
a
heanng
to
suspend.
mvok
!
lie
ind\
v­
rduni'sor
firm's
ce
Iiii)
~
otrfv*
beeffected
et
commencement
dare
and
d
immediate
susoension.
(!
VI
NGLI~
Ythe
rrifecred
er
~
qh:(
0rvOu~.
sta
Rearing
0
In\
mzd:
ate
susocnston
wrt
.

11:~
suspctlsio:
i
\
air%
piac
procedures
for
the
conduct
of
such
a
heanng.
(
5)
Any
nonce.
demsion.
or
order
.
sued
by
EPA
under
thissection.'
a
vanscnpt
ot
othervsrbatun
record
of
oral
tastlmony.
and
my
documentsfiled
by
a
certified
individual
or
6rmin
a
hemg
under
thisdon
shall
avulabie
to
the
public.
except
IS
othewse
provlded
by
seaon
14
of
TSCA
or
by
part
2
of
thistitle.
hny
such
hearing
at
whch
oral
latlmony
1s
presented
shall
be
open
to
the
public.
except
that
the
hsiding
Officsrmay
exclude
the
public
to
the
extant
necessary
to
dow
presantati~
aof
informaaon
wbch
may
be
entided
to
confidenhal
tmatmmt
mda
redlm14
of
TSCA
or
part
2of
thistrue.

§
745227
work­­
lor
conductingiGGprintaeuviibs:
target
housingurd
ChtWxcupkdfacUltft=

*[
E)
~
ffe~
bndntt.
applicobilitg.
and
terms.
(
1)
Begrnnrng
on
hhda
1.1999.
all
lead­
based
pint
rCti*
tie?
r
performed
pursunn!
to
the
work
pdm
standarb
containedin
thissection.
(
2)
When
performing
my
lead­
based
pat
activity
ddbsd
by
the
arti6d
rnctndual
asan
ipspection.
lead­
hauud
screen.
nsk
assessment
orabatement.
a
cemfied
individual
must
@
om
that
actlvlty
m
compliance
wth
the
'
ap
mpnate
mqurrements
below.
fi)
Documented
methodologies
that
are
apprupnate
for
tplsbeCtlon
LUB
found
UIthe
followug:
Th%
U.
S.
Department
of
Housng
and
Urban
Development
(
HUD)
Gudelines
for
the
Evaluahon
and
Control
of
Lead­
Based
Put
Hazardsxn
Housmg;
the
EPA
Cudance
on
Residential
Lead­
Based
Pant.
LeadConuunmated
Dust.
and
Lead­
Contamlnnted
Soil:
the
EPA
Residentlal
Samphng
for
Lack
Protocols
for
Dust
and
SoilSampling
[
PA
report
number
7476R­
95­
001):
Regulahons.
grudnnca.
methods
or
protocols
issued
by
States
and
Indian
Tnbes
that
have
been
authonzed
by
PA:
and
other
eqruvalent
methods
and
qui
aelines.
(
4)
Clearancelevels
ameppropnate
for
the
purposes
of
thisliectlon
may
be
found
rnthe
EPA
Cudanceon
Residennal
Lead­
BasedPamt.
Lead­
Contammated
Dust.
and
Lead
Contamrnrated
Sod
or
other
equvdenf
guiaeiines
To)
InsDection
[
1)
An
inspection
shall
be
conaucted
onlv
by
a
person
cemfied
b~
E?.?
as
an
inspector
or
risk
assessor
ana
:
f
conducted.
must
be
conducted
e
procedures
inhs
.:
I
\
vhcr.
conavctrng
an
inspectton..
'
helollowine
iocauons
shall
be
selecred
LcorE,
nc
to
uocumentea
rnelhoaoioqies
'
(
1)
In
a
residential
dwelling
and
child­
occupied
fa,
citity,
tach
component
with
a
distinct
painhng
history
and
each
exterior
component
with
a
distinct
painting
history
sh.
U
be
tested
for
ladbasad
paint.
except
thosa
components
that
the
inspector
or
risk
assesmr
determines
to
have
ben
nphd
after
1978.
X~
Kto
not
contnin
had­
based
paint:
and
(
ii]
In
a
multi­
family
dwelling
or
child­
oaxpied
facility,
each
component
with
a
distinct
painting
his
toy
in^
commar~
mea,
exespt
those
components
that
the
inspeaor
or
riskassussor
debnuinas
to
have
bean
mphd
after
1978.
or
to
a01
con­
ks!
Lh.
udphL
(
3)
Paint
shall
be
campled
inthe
following
manner:(
i)
ThemIysir
of
paint
to
determine
the
presena
of
lead
shallbe
conducted
using.
documented
methodologieswhich
inwrporate
adequate
quality
conmi
procedures;
andlor
(
ii)
All
collsaedpaint
chip
Mmpla
shallbe
analyzed
ncmndiag
to
paragraph
(
0of
thiscection
to
determine
if
theycontain
detectable
levek
of
lead
$
at
can
be
quanaed
numerically.
(
4)
The
certified
inspector
or
risk
assessorshallprepam
an
inspeaion
reportwhich
shallinclude
the
following
information:
(
i)
Date
of
each
inspection.
[
ii)
Address
of
building
iii)
Date
of
construction.
(
iv)
Apartment
numbers(
if
ap
licable).
6)
Name,
address.
and
telephone
­

number
of
the
owner
or
owners
of,
each
residential
dwellingor
cbild­
occupied
faality.
(
vi)
Name,
signature.
and
cedication
number
ofeach
certified
inspector
an&
or
nsk
assessor
amductin
testing.
(
vii)
Name.
addrew.
anIf
telephone
number
of
the
certified
firm
employing
each
mor
and/
orrisk
massor.
if
ap
licxble.
kiil
Each
testing
method
and
device
andlor
sampling
proadunr
amployad
for
paint
analysis.
Lduding
quality
control
data
and,
if
used.
the
serial
number
of
any
x­
ray
fiuoresance
(
XRFI
device.
(
ix)
Specific
locations
of
each
painted
component
tested
for
the
presence
of
leadhased
put.
(
x)
The
results
of
the
inspection
expressed
in
terms
appropriate
to
the
sam
ling
melhod
used.
(
cPLeod
hazard
screen.(
1)
A
lead
hazard
screen
shall
be
conducted
onlv
hv
a
person
certified
by
EPA
as
a
rlst
assessor.
(
21
If
conducted.
a
lead
hajzard
screen
inall
be'conaucted
as
iolisws:
facility
and
ormpait
usa
p.
nur~
that
may
caw
Icad­
bssed
pIIlrt
c
?
osupe
ti
one.
or.
mom
ddh
age
6
yam
and
under
shall
be
coUd
(
iijA
vmd
iprpectioo
of
the
residential
dwelling
or
chlldmpitd
Uty
rhll
kcsnduddd
to:
(
A)
Ds­
e
if
my
detariomted
paint
tpxusant.
mda)
Lacate
at
last
two
dust
samplinl
1­
tionr
(
iii).
Ifdetsriontad
print
is
resent.
each­
surhca
with
demit&
paint.
which
hdeumiocd.
nsiagdaxuasnt
­
uaLdolgCiar.
tobe
in
poorconditio:
and
to
have
a
distinctpainting
history
shall
be
td
for
the
pnsmas
of
leer.
(
iv)
In
residential
dwellings.
two
composits
dust
samplu
shall
tm
mUected.:
one
from
theflwnand
the
othsrhm
the
windows.
in
moa~
t.
hallwys
or
Etairweutwhars
OM
or
mors
childrm.
age
6
and
under.
are
mast
liLsly
to
comein
contactwith
dud
(
v)
Inmulti­
family
dwellings
and
childazupied
facilities.
in
addition
thenoor
and
window
samples
nquu
in
paragraph
(
c)(
l)[
iii)
ofthis
sactian
thsrisk­
or
&
dlakocollect
composite
dust
sampler
from
com~
nc
amas
where
one
or
moreChiidZen.
q
6
and
under.
are
most
likely
to
corn^^

into
contactwith
dust.
(
31
Dust
campies
shallbe
calbar.
and
analyzed
inthe
fouowing
mam:
(
i)
ddun
rample~
rhall
be
tak~~
usingdocumented
methdololJleo2
!
inmrponrte
adequate
quality
contrr
Pd
ii)
All
coUectsd
dust
mplw
611s
anaiyrd~
aceordingtopanrgrclph
(
0.
&
is
sactionto
determine
if
they
coat
detectable
levek
of
lead
that
can
be
quan~
ednumerically.
(
4)
Paint
shall
ksampled
in
the
followingmannm.
(
i)
The
dysis
o
paint
to
deterrdiae
the
pressnos
of
1.
shdi
be
conducted
using
document
methodologia
which
incorporate
adequate
qety
control
proadure
and/
or
.(
ii)
All
collected
paint
chip
sam~
shall
be
analyzed
accordtng
to
paragraph
(
0
of
this
sechon
io
determine
if
they
contam
dcrectabl
levels
of
lead
that
Can
be
quantifier
numencallv;
(
5)
ne
nsk
assessor
shall
PEP"
lead
hazard
screen.
repon.
wiuch
s
include
the
followng
infomarion
,.

(
I)
The
infomatlon
reauired
in
a
assessment
repon
as
soecified
in
paragraph
(
d)
ofthis
section.
inclu
i
­­
,
..
.

.
...­..
..

paragraphs
(
d)
fIll(
i)
through
(
d)(
1l)(
xiv).
and
excluding
paragraphs
(~)(
II)(
xv)
through
(
d)(
lll(
xviiitofthis
section.
Additionnlly.
any
background
informstion
cotlected
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
cl(
z)(
i)
ofthissection
shall
bs
included
in
the
risk
assessment
PB
on;
andp..
111
Recommendations.
if
warranted,
for
a
follow­
up
risk
assessment.
and
8s
ap
m
riate.
MYfurther
actions.
pd)
lisk
assessment.
(
11A
risk
assessment
shall
be
conducted
only
by
a
person
cenified
by
EPA
as
a
risk
assessor
and.
if
conducted.
must
be
conducted
amording
to
thb
procadin
this
paragraph.
(
2)
A
visual
mqxctioa
for+
k
assessment
of
the
residential
dwelling
'

or
cbild­
occupied
facility
shali
be
undeaken
to
locate
the
dstence
Of
deteriorated
paint.
BSSBSS
the
extent
and
CBUS~
Sof
the
deterioration.
and
other
potential
ieeii­
based
aint
hazards.
(
3)
Background
inPomstion
warding.
or
stairwell
utiiiLed
by
one
or
more
childmn.
age
6and
under.
and
in.
other
common
amas
in
the
child­
occupied
faciiity
where
the
risk
ass86sor
deternines
one
or
mom
children,
age
6
and
under,
ure
likely
to
come
into
can­
with
dust.
(
8)
Soil
samples
shall
be
collected
and
.
analyzed
for
lead
cancantrations
in
the
followinglocations:
(
i)
Exterior,
play
kfeas
where
bare
soil
is
resan~:
dF.
ii)
Driplinelfoundation
areas
where
bareroil
is
present.
(
9)
Any
paint,
dust,
or
soil
sampling
ortsrting
Wbe
mnducred
using
documented
methodologies
that
imp?;.­­*­
adequate
quality
control
.
p;,
sad=
(
IO)
Any
collected
paint
chip,
dust.
or
soil
samples
shall
be
analyzed
according
to
pqph
(
0of
thissection
to
determine
if
they
contain
detectable
based
paint
hazards
and
any
other
potential
lead
hazards.
(
xviii)
A
description
of
intenm
controls
and/
or
abatement
options
.
each
identified,
L­
d­
bd
peint
hg
and
a
sugg&
cd
prioritization
for
addressing
each
buud,
If
the
use
9
encapsulant
orendorum
is
recommended.
the
report
shall
mmnmend
a
maintenance
and
moaitonng
schedule
far
the
encaps
or
endosum.
(
e)
Abatement.
(
I)
An
abatenient
be­
conductedonly
by
an
individua
certifiedby
EPA.
and
if
conducted
be
conducted
accordingto
the
proaedures
in
thispaxngrapb.
(
2)
A.
certifiedsuperrirar.
irrequ
for
each
abatement
project
and
she
onsite
during
all
work
site
prupara
and
during
the
postsbatemen1
cie
of
work
fueas.
At
all
other
timer
n
abatement
activities
(
VB
being
conducted.
the
qrtified.
supeMsc
beonsite
oravailable
by
teiephon
pager­
oranswering
cumice.
and
a:
be
present
nt
the
work
site
in
no
r
than
2hours.
(
3)
Thecertified
superrisorMC
certified
firm
employing
that
sup
shall
ensurethat
all
abatement
ac
are
conducted
accordipg
to
the
requirements
of
this
sectionand
otherFederal.
State
and­
bd
requirements.
(
4)
Notification
of
the
commer
of
lead­
basad
paint
abatement
at
in
a
residentiai
dwelling
or
chik
ompied
facilityor
as
a
result
o
Federal.
State.
or
bcal
ordersha
pqn
to
EPR
prior
to
the
commencement
of
abatement
RC
The
procedure
fw
this
notificat
be
developed­
by
FA
prior
to
A.
31.19986
(
5)
k
written
occupaat
protec
plan
stdl
be
developed
for
all
abatement
projects
and
shall
be'
prepad
according
tu
the
fobw
pfOCi3dru8s:
(
i)
The
occupant
pmtection
r
be
unique
to
each
residential
d
or
child­
occupied
fadity
and
developed
prior,
to
the
abatemf
occupant
protection
plan
shali
the
measures
and
managemen'
procedures
that
will
be
taken
t
abatement
to
protect
the
build
occupants
from
exposm
to
BI
based
paint
hazards.
fii)
A
certified
supervisor
0:

designer
snall
prepare
the
occ
protection
plan.!
(
6)
The
work
bractices
liste.
shall
be
restricted
during
an
i
,
.

2s
lollowsill
Onel\­
nilRle
ourning
or
I
rean­
basea
paint
is
prohibrtet
presence
of
lead.
Each
other
surface
determined.
using
documented
~

methodoiogies,,
tobe
a
potential
lead­
based
paint
hazard
~
d
having
a
distinct
pa@­&
tory.
shdl
also
*
be
tested
for
the
resenm
of
lead.
(
57
In
residential
dwellings.
dust
samples
(
either
composite
or
sin&­
surface
samples1
hum
th0
window
and
floor
shall
be
collected
in
ail.
Iivingareas
where
one
or
more
children.
age
6
and
under.
am
most
likely
to
come
into
contact,
with
dust;
(
6)
For
multi­
family
dwellings
and
child­
occupied
facilities.
tbe
samples
required
in
paragraph
(
dl(
4)
of
this
section
shall
be
taken.'
in
addition,
window
and
floor
dust
samples
[
either
composite
or
single­
surface
samples)
shail
be
collected
in
the
foliowing
loations:
(
il
Common
are?
adiacent
to
the
sampled
residential
dwelling
ec
chiidoccupied
faolitv:
and
Iii)
Other
common
areas
in
the
building
where
the
risk
assessor
levels
of
lend
that
can
be
quantified
numerically.
the
physical
charaaeristi~
of
the
(
11)"
he
aertified
risk
assessor
shall
rwsidentiaI'dweLlingorchildoaupied
prepare
a
risk
assessment
report
which
fadiity
and
OcCupMt
us
pattmns
that
shallindude
the
fouowing
information:
may
cnuse
lead­&
sed
paint
exposure
to
(
i]
Date
of
assessment.
one
ormom
children
age
6
years.
and
(
ii)
Addrirs
ofeach
buildint
,
.
(
iii)
Date
of
constructhi
of
uildin
5.
under
sixail
be
collected,
(
iv)
Apartment
number
(
if
applicabPe).(
41
Each
surface
with
deteriorated
(
v)
Name.
adk.
and
telephonepaint.
which
is
determined,
using
documented
methodologies,
to
be
in
,
nurnber
of
ea&
ownm
of
each
building.
poor
condition
and
toka3e.
a
distinct
(
vi)
Name.
signatura.
and
certification
painting
history.
shall
be
&
ertedfor
the
~

of
the
certified
risk
assessor
conducting
the
assessment.
(
vii)
Name,
address.
and
telephone
number
of
the
certified
firm'employing
each
certified.
riskassesor
if
applicable.
(
viii)
Name.
address,
and
telephone
numberof
eackRcognued
laboratory
conductinganaiysis
of
coilected
pies.
(
ix)
Resuits
of
the
visual
inspecuon.
(
x)
Testing
method
and
sampling
pdum
for
paint
+
lysis
empioyed.
(
xi]
Specificlocations
of
en&
painted
componenttested
for
the
presence
of
laad
ai)
All
data
colieaed
fromon­
sits
testing,
including
quaiity
control
data
and.
if
used.
the
seriai
number
of
any
XRF
devica.
(
xiii)
Ail
resultsof
laboratory
analysis
on
collected
paint.
soil..
and
dust
sampler.
(
xiv)
Any
other
sam
lin
results.
(
xv)
Any
backpunf;
Pin
omation
collected
pursuant
to
paragrapn
(
dI(
31of
this
section.
(
xvi)
To
the
enent
that
thev
are
usea
as
part
of
the
lead­
based
pain!
hazard
dete%
tncs
!
hat.
oneoc­
more
cnildren.
.,
.
determination.
the
results
of
anv
aee
&&
b.
a.
undet.
arelikeiv
to
come
inro
.
previous^
inspections
or
analvses
ior
the
contact
rvith
oust.
presence
oT
lead­
based
paint.
or
ptner
1
For
cttrld­
occupied.
bcilities.
~
ssessrnents
oI
leaa
­
based
pa
I
R
t
­
relatea
window
ann
floor
aust
sarnoies
ietttler'
haiards.
(:
omi
oos
i(
e
or
s
I
ne
I
e
~
5
(
J
r
12ce
sa
ni
L)
ies
i
ixvtii
A
aescrrpcron,
oi
the
iocation
\
rial1
be
coilecteo
In
eacn
room.
iijiiwav
type.
ana
seventv
oi
idenrifiea
leao1
(
iil
Machine
sanding
or
grinding
or
abrssive
blasting
or
sandblasting
of
lead­
based
paint
is
prohibited
unless
used
with
High
Elficiency
lrarticulate
Air
WEF'A
t
exhaust
control
which
remot'es
panicles
ol0.3
micmno
or
larger
from
.
the
air
at
99.97
percent
or
greater
efficiency:
liii)
Dry
scraping
of
lead­
based
paint
is
permitted
only
in
con)
unction
with
heat
guns
or
around
electrid
outlefs
or
when
mating
defective
psint
spots,
totaling
no
mom
than
2
square
feet
in
any
one
room,
hallwoy.
or
stainveif
or
totaling
no
more
than
20
square
feeton
exteriorsurfaaes;
and
(
iv)
Operating
a
heat
gun
on
lead­~
based
paint
is
permiited
only
at
temperartma
below
1100degrees
Fhnheii.
17)
Zfconducted.
soil
ebatement
she11
be
conducted
in
One
of
the
following
ways:
(
ij
ff
soil
is
removed.
the
leadcontammated
sod
shall
be
t~
pkcedwith
soil
that
isnot
Leadcontamiaatd.
or
lii)
If
soil
is
not
removed..
the
ieadcontaminated
soil
sbaU
be
permanently
covered.
as
detioed
in
0
745.223.
.(
61
The
following
post­
ebattment
ciearance
ptoceduras
shall
be
performed
only
by
a
certified
inspector
orrisk
0SSBSSOI:
(
i)
Following
an
abatement,
a
visual
inspeaion
shall
be
performed
to
determine
if
deteriorated
painted
surfaces
andlor
visible
FOUR&
df
dust.
be
raken
from
one
window
(
if
available\
and
one
dust
sample
shell
be
taken
Ironr
the
floor
of
no
less
than
four
rooms.
hallways
or
stairwells
within
the
containment
area.
In
addition.
one
dust
sample
shall
be
taken
from
the
floor
outside
the
conuinment
area.
If
lhere
are
less
than
four
rooms.
hallways
or
stairwells
within
the
containment
area.
then
00rooms.
hallways
or
suiwells
shall
be
sampled.
(
B)
After
conducting
an
abi1ie~
t0nt
wilh
no
containment.
two
dub(
samples
shall
be
taken
from
no
less
thin
four
rooms,
hallways
or
stairwells
in
the
residential
dwelling
or
cbild­
occupied
facility.
One
dust
sample
shall
be
taken
fmm
one
window
(
if
available)
and
one
dust
sample
shall
be
taken
from
the
floor
of
each
room,
hallway
or
stairwell
selected.
If
them
are
lessthan
four
rooms.
hallways
or
staimells
within
the
residentid
dwehg
or
cbild­
axupied
facility
then
dlmorns.
haIlways
or
staimellssballbe
sampled.
(
C)
Following
anexteriorpaint
abatement,
a
visible
inspectionshall
be
conducted.
All
horizontal
skSBres
in
the
outdoor
Iiving
area
closest
to
th~
abated
surface
shall
be
found
to
be
cleaned
of
visible
dust
and
debris.
In
addition.
a
visual
&
peaon
shall
be
conducted
to
determine
the
presence
of
paint
chips
on
the
driplineor
next
!
O
the
foundation
beiow
my
exterior
(
whichever
is
smaller)
in
the
randomly
sampled
papulation
exceed
the
ap
ropriate
ctearance
lsvelr[..
lit1
Therandomly
selected
residential
dwellings
shall
be
sampled
and
evaluated
for
clcnnncs
acootding
to
the
proczdrires
kund
in
paragraph
(
e)@)
of
this
secttort.
(
101An
abatement
report
shell
be
prepad
by
a
csnified
supervisor
or
project
designer.
Theabatemeat
report
shall
inchde
the
following
information:
fi)
Stan
and
completion
detssof
abatemenl.
(
iil
The
name
and
addriss
of
certifiedfum
conducting.
theabatement
and
the
name
of
each
superviw
assigned
to
the
abatement
pmjd
(
iii)
Theoccupant
protection
plan
prepared
pursuant
to
paragraph
(
e)
lS)
of
this
section.
(
iv)
The
name.
address,
and'signsture
of
each
certified
risk
assessor
or
inspectorconducting
clearance
sampling
and
the
date
of
clearance
tafting.
*
(
VIThe
resuits
of
clearana,
testing
and
dlsoiranaiyses(
if
appiisabie)
and
the
name
ofea&
recognizedlaboratory
that
conduded
the
analyses,
(
vi]
A
detailad
written­
descriptionof
the
abatement,
including
ahtomant
methodsused.
loeations.
olmop~
sandl
or
componentswhere
abatement
ornured.
reason
for
seiecting
pdcufar
abatement
methodsfor
each
componen:
and
any
suggested
monitoring
of
encapsutants
or
endosuns.(
nCollection
and
lobomtory
ana&
sis
of
samples.
Any
paint
chip.
dust,
orsoi
samples
coilpxed
pursuant
to
the
work
pmctiea
srandatds
contained
in
this,
section
shall
be:
11)
Collected
by
persons
certifiedby
EPA
asMinspector
or
risk
sfhestclr,
(
2)
Anslyzed
by
e
labolatory
mngrwzd
by
EPA
pursu'knt
td
section
40S(
bl
of
TSCA
as
being
capable
of
performing
analyses
for
lead
/
compounds
inpaint
chip.
dust.
and
soi
~~~
positcdrrstsampling.
Composite
dust
sampling
may
only
be
conducted
inthe
situations
specified
paragraphs
(
c)
tbrougb
{
e)
of
this
section.
If
such
sampling
isconducter:
tbe
foilowing
conditions
shall
apply:
(
IbCompositedust
samples
shall
consist
of
at
least
two
subsmples:
(
2)
Every
component
that
is
being
tesied
shall
be
included
inh?
samp!:
and
(
3)
Cornposi~
edust
samples
shalt
n
consist
of
subsampies
lrom
more
thar
one
tvpe
of
component.
(
hl
Recordkeearne.
All
repons
or
plans
requirea
in
thts
section
shall
be''
maintamed
bv
the
certified
firm
or
indkbtuual
wno
orepared
the
repon
f
'

deteriorpted
painted
surfacesor
visible
smolrnts
of
dust,
debris
or
residue
are
present.
these
conditionsmust
be
eliminated
prior
tu
the
antinuation
of
the
clearance
pmcedures.
(
ii)
Follo,
wingthe
visual
inspection
and
anv
postkbatement
ciequp
m~
redby
parapph
le)
WIi)
of,&.
section.
clearance
sampLing
forfeadcontammated
&
st
shall
be
conducted­
Cl@
arasicesampling
may
be
cljnduned
by
employing
single­
sqrfaca
sampling
or
'
composite
sampling
technr~~
es.
liiil
Dust
sample?;
for
clearance
purposes
shgll
be
taken
using
.
'
.

documented
methodolog&
that
incorporate.
adequate
quality
control
procedures.
(
ivj
Dust
samples
for
clearance
:
purposes
shall
be
taken
a
minimum
of
1
hour
after
completion
of
find
post­
abatement
cleanup
actlvit+.
[
VIThe
following
post­
abatement
.'
I
clearance
activities
shall
be
canducted
AS
appropriate
oasea
upon
rne
extent
or
surface
abated.
If
paint
chip5
are
present.
bey
must
be
ramoved
from
the
debris
or
residue
are
still
present.
LI
site
an'd
properly
disposed
of.
according
to
all
applicable
Feded.
State
and
local
uirements.=?
vi)
The
moms.
hallways
or
stairwells
'
selectedfor
sampling
shall
be
selected
accordingto
documented
methodologies.
(
vii)
The
ceded
inspector
or
risk
assessor
shall
compare
the.
residua1lead
level
(
as
determined
by
the
labomtory
adalysis)
fmm
each
dust
sampte
with
applicable
clearance
fevels
for
lead
in
dust
on
floorsand
windows.
IF
the
residual
ieed
levels
in
a
dust
sample
exceed
the
clearance
levels.
all
the
mmponencs
reprasented
by
the
failed
sample
shall
bit
recleaned
and
retested
until
clearance
levpis
are
met.
(
9)
In
e
mulii­
family
dwelling
with
sunrlarly
constructed
and
maintamed
residential
dwelljngs.
random
sampling
for
the
purposes
okieepnce
mav
be
conducted
provided:
[
i)
Thecertified
indivicjuals
who
abate
or
c1ean.
theresidentid
dwellings
do
not
know
which
residenttal
dwellinq
will
be
selected
for
the
rmdam
sam
le.
(
iil
A
sufficient
number
oPresidential
dwellings
are
selected
for
dust
samoiine
:
o
provide
a
95
percent
levei
oi
Yoniidence
that
no
more
than
5
percent
!)
r
50
of
theresidential
dwellJries
d
­.

no
fewer
ttun3
years.
mecertified
fih
or
individual
aho
shall
pmvide
COPI~
S
of
these
rsporcs
IOhe
building
owner
whoconcractcd
for
its
services.

ITUPS
Acuedmtlon
of
minlng
pmgmr.
pUetlC
Mdcamm0rcf.
l
buUdtngs,
Mdw
and
aupwrtntcarms[­
m.
5
Cetununon01
Indlvlduab
~
d
(\
muangagadInI­
palnt
acttvt(
ks:
publlc
Md
awnma­
chtbuildings,
bfidgsr
and
suparsauctuns
[
Reserved).

5
7­
work
prrmcs
standads
for
mductfnQ
Wd­
bUSdWlnt
.
Cdd@
S
publlcand
tom
ktUdlngqbrldga,
Md
wpemnrchrms
(
ResanM.

57­
Laad­
ksd
pdnt
octlvllct.
qulrcmentr
Lead­
based
paint
activities.
as
defined
'
inthis
part.
shall"
odybe
conducted
according
to
the
procedures
and
work
practice
standards
contained
in
5
745.227of
thissubpar!.
NO
individual
or
firm
may
offer
to
perform
or
perf­
any
lead­
basedpaint
activity
as
defined
in
this
part.
des
artified
to
perfonn
that
activity
according
to
the
procedures
in
8,745.226.
~

5
745235
Enforcement
(
a)
Faiiqn
or
refusal
to
comply
mth
any
requirement
of
55
745.225.745.226.
745.227.
or
745.233
is
a
prohibited
act
under
seclions.
fitintk409otrSCA
(
15
U.
S.
C.
2614.
26891.
blFailure
or
refusal
to
establish;
maintain.
provide.
copy,
or'permit
access.
to
records
or
reports0s
required
by
55
745.225.745.226,
or
745.227
is
a,
prohibited
act
under
se,
ctions15
and
409
of
TSCA
(
15
U.
S.
C.
2614.
2689).
IC)
Failura
or
refusal
to
permit
entry
or
mspecuon'as
required
by
5
745.237
ana
section
11
of
TSCA
(
15
U.
S.
C.
2610)
is
a
piobibited
act
under
sections
15
end
409
of
TSCA
(
15
U.
S.
C.
2614.2689).
(
dl
tn
addition
to
the
above,
any
indwidual
or
firm
that
performs
any
of
~

the
following
acts
shall
be
deemed
to
have
comqntted
a
pmhibited
act
under
sections.
1;
sand
409'
ofTSCA
(
15U.
S.
C.
2614.26@).
These
inciude
the
following;:
(
i)
Oblaining
certification
through
fraudulent
representation:
(
iil
Failing
to
obtain
cenificauon
irom
I
EP.
4
and
performing
work
requiring
cenificarion,
ac
J
lob
site;
or
liii)
Fraudulentlv
obtaining
cenifi.
Gaiion
ana
engaging
In
leadagti
fties~
requirine
..,..
ion.
­
I.;
.
*.

01
L'ioIators
are
subject
10
c:\':
L
ana
criminal
sanctionspursuanc
10
sec[
lOn
::)
0:
T:
C+.
(
1
j
U.
5.
C.
2Gl51
fflr
t.
iC::

,
ioiation
j74S.
237
InwoM.
EPh
may
condua
reaJonabie
kwOnS
PUrSUMt
10
the
pmVlSi0~

ofdon
11of
TSCA
(
15
U.
S.
C
26101
to
ensum
complianca
wib
this
sub*.

g'
745239
E!
f.
ctlniLcas.
ThLrrubpan
L
W
appiy
in
any
State
or
Lndian
Country
that
does
not
have
mauttrorizsdprogrun
under
subput
Q,
effective
August
31.1998.
ln
such
stabs
ar
Indian
coua
:
(
a)
Trauungprogrrmr
dnot
provide.
oUer
or
dah
to
pmnde
training
or
refresher
lraining
for
dation
without
adtation
hm
EPA
muant
to
g
745.225
on
or
after
MAd
1.1999.
.
ih]
No­
individual
or
fumshall
pdozzta,
offer.
or
claim
to
perform
Ieadb
d
paint
activities.
asdefined
in
this
subpart.
without
certification
from
EPA
to
canduct
ruth
activities
pursuant
to
5745.226
onorafter
Augukt
30.1999.
[
c]
All
lead­
bared
paint
activities
shall
be
perfonnod­
pursuantto
the
work
practlca
standardscontained
in
5
745.227
on
or
after
August
30.1999.

Subpam&
P
(
Reserved)

%.

Subpan
Wbte
and
lndhn
Tflbal
Progrerns
57­
Sawmdpurposs
(
a)
This
rubm
estnblishes
the
requirementsthat
State
or
Tribal
p'oe;"~
msmust
meet
for
authorization
by
the
Adnuutrator
to
admhstet
ad
enforce
the
standards.
regulations.
or
otherrequirementsestablished
under
TSCA
section
402
afrdorsection
406
and
stubiishes
the
plwrdurss
EPA
will
follow
inapproving,
revising,
and
withdraw
approval
of
State
or
Tribal
'=
State
orTribal
lead­
bared
pdt
training
and
Certification
plpgrsms.
a
State
or
IndianTribemay
seekauthoxization
to
administerend
enforce
§
§
745.225,745.226.
and
f45.227.
Theprovisioot­
of
55
745.220.
745.223.
745,233,
745.235,
745.237,
ad
745.239
shall
be
applidle
for
the
oses
of
such
program
authorization.
pT(
c
For
State
or
Tribal
pre­
renovauon
notification
programs.
a
State
or
Indian
Tribe
may
seekaulharization
to
..
.
administer
and
enforce
regulations
developed
pursuant
to
TSCA
secuon
406.
(
dl
A
State
or
Indian
Tribe
appiving
.
for
program
authorizauon'raay
seel;
either
intenm
approval
or
final
approval
of
the
compliance
and
enforcement
portion
oi
&
e
State
or
Tribal
lead­
based
paint
pzogram
pursuant
to
me
pceaures
at
5
745.3i!
Uf(
a).
iel
S!
ate
0.
r
Tribal,
submissions
for
prqqram
aumorization
snail
compiv
with
the
prwsdurst
set
out
int&

su%
Zy
State
or
Tribal
program
approvedby
the
Achiuktntor
uadr
thissubpart
W
at
dltimes
compi
with
the
rsquitun~
nuof
mbp
~

(
g,
Inm
y
states
will
hck
authority
to
ngukte
.
ctlvitisr
in
in.
Country.
Thirkk
of
rutbity
dw:
inrpcrir
SUU'C4biJity.
W
fUl
pmpm
au$
horiaioninm­
6
withthklubpuLDA~
Uadmipi
he
program
inIndkrrcountrp.
ifnc
the
SW
nor
Indian
Tribe
hubeer
granted
prognm
authorization
by
E
5745323
odlnltkm
Thedefinitiops
rubpur
A
apf
thisrubput
Inadditian.
the
4elk
in
5
745623
md
the
following
dehitioru
apply.
India
Gun,
tryrnems(
I)
all
la
withintha
lirmts
of
my
hmericar
bdbn
reservation
under
the
junrdiction
of
the
U.
S.
gowe
notwi~
theLsuurosoft
patent
and
&
iuding
righmf­
w
llmnhgthroughaut
!
ha
­

ti
all
dependentIndiancommupiti
within
the
bodes
of
the
United
whether
within
the
origid
or
subsequentlyacquired
territory*
and
whether
within
or
outside
ti
of
a
State:
md
(
3)
allIndian
ello
the
indimtitles
which
have
not
extinguished.
including.
rights<
runningthroughthe
same.
Indian
Tribe
means
MY
indie
band.
MtiOll.
or
comdty
mc
by
theSecnwy
of
the
Interior
exe­
iag
substsatidROVS~
duties
and
powem.
5
745321
AUmOmOn
Of
SPtll
Pw
a)
Appfi'cation
content
ad
proc~
d~.(
1)
Aay
Statcl.
orin
Tribe
that
reeksautho*
tian
I
'
to
edminiaer
and
enforce
any
provisi0rr;
rof
sub+
Lof
this
under
don
402(
a)
of
TSCA
provisions
of
r+
phtionsdwe
under
rsctlon
406
of
TSCA
sh
an
application
to
the
Admini:
accordance
with
the
pdu
paragraph(
a).
(
21
Before
develop*
anaF
for
authorizahon.
a
Stdte
or
L
shall
disseminate
a
public
nr
intent
to
SeeK
such
authorizs
provide
an
opportunity
fot
8
heanng.
13)
A
State
or,
Tribal
applir
­
include:
(
i)
A
transmiltal
letter
hr
Covernor
or
Tribal
Chairper
equivaienr
oificia.
i)­
request1
"
,

apurovai.
(
11)
A
smmarv
ni
the
Sla
­..
program.
;
?,
IS
surnntarv
WI
,"
I.

D.
C.
Law
5­
35
THE
LEAD
BASED
PAINT
POISONING
PREVENTION
ACT
OF
1983
There
are
provisions
contained
in
the
D.
C.
Law
5­
35,
Lead­
Based
Paint
Poisoning
Prevention
Act
of
1983
which
apply
lead
hazard
prevention
controls
to
owners
of
residential
premises,
as
defined,
in
which
a
child
under
the
age
of
eight
years
resides,
or
is
a
regular
visitor
who
spends
a
substantial
portion
of
his
or
her
time
on
the
premises.

N
..
I..
I
­
­­­­
COUMCXL
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUHBIA
'
Lead­
3ased
Faint
Poisoning
Prevention­
4ct
of
1983".

Pursuant
ta
Section
412
of
the
Dlstriit
uf
",
lumoia
Self­

Government
and
Governmental
2eorganl
zatlon
Act,
P.
L.
33­
198,

"
the
Act"',
the
Councll
of
the
District
of
Colunbia
adoptea
ail1
Mo.
5­
38
on
flrst
and
second
readings,
June
21,
1983
ana
July
5,
1983,
respectlvely.
Folloulng
the
signature
of
the
Mayor
on
July
21,
1983,
this
legislattan
was
assigned
Act
NO.
5­
57,

published
in
the
August
19,
1983
edltlon
of
the
­
D.
C.
Register,

(
Vel,
30
page
4156)
and
ttansnltted
to
Congress
July
22,
1983
'
I
for
a
30­
day
rcvlew,
tn
accordance
ulth
Sectlon
602
(
c)

the
Aet.

.
'
fht
douc\
cll
of
the
OIsttlct
of
Coluabid
hereby
gives
natlce
that
the
30­
day
Congresrlonal
Revier
Perlod
Rds
expires,
and
therefore.
cites
,
thts
enactment
ds
3.
C.
,
au
5­
35,
effectlre
October
8,
1983.

I
1
Chairman
sf
the
Counci
I\<

Dater
Courte6
Qurlrg
the
30­
dry
Conptcsslonar
Review
Period:
­­­­­_
I_

July
ZZ,
25,2b,
2?,
28,29
2
D.
C.
ACT
5
=
S
7
COD1FICXT
ION
D.
C.
Yunfcipa
Regulat
!
LlflS
(
WR)

,
Readily
accessible
exterior
surfaces
s:
T.
a,­..
:;
e::::.:
al!
y
:
neluds
doors,
door
fr­
ames,
railings,
steps,
~::
idgw
frames
and
YtlLS.

  
Residential
promlsom 
means
azy
5uild:
ng
*
iho!.
Ly
or
p8btLy
Used
or
intended
to
be
used
for
Living
and
s:
eaplng
by
human
occupants,
togather
with
any
fences,
walls,
sfieds:

gaa­
aqes,
oh
athos
accossory
buildinqs
appurtenant
to
such
d
1
3
EarOLic.:!
~
y:~
i::~
l
buildtng,
an&
the
area
of
land
surrounding
the
building
and
actuaily
or
by
Legal
construction
forming
3ne
er.
c:
osure
:
n
which
3uch
a
building
is
located.".

(
b)
,
Section
2102
is
amended
by
adding
isrnediateiy
following
the
phrase
"
part
thereof"
the
phrase
"(
including
those
owned
by
the
District
of
Columbia
c~
o­;
er::?
ent)".

(
c)
Section
2605.2
is
amended
to
read
as
fo:!,?
xs:

"
2605.2
The
Mayor
of
the
DistrLct
of
Zcl~~
hiasi­.
all
designate
an
agent
of
the
District
of
C9lxSia
Zo
Lcspect
any
residential
premises
where
there
is
reason
to
believe
lead
may
present.
a
health
hazard
because
of
the
presence
of
a
child
under
the
age
of'
8
years
vho
(
a)
lives
in
the
premises
or
(
b)
is
a
regular
visitor
to
the
premises
who
spends'a
substantial
portion
of
his
tire
there.
.
For
the
purpose
of
this
section,
the
phrase
'
a
substantial
FortLon
c~
f!­
tis
time'
shall
mean
at
least
ten
(
10)
hours
per
;
e~
k
In
the
aggregate
on
a
regular
basis.
The
3es:
y:'
lated
aqent,

whene.;
er
(
a)
upon
inspection
finds
the
presence
of
flaking,

peeling,
chipped
or
loose
paint,
plaster,
or
:
t:"­*.'..­­*
a1
materials
an
any
interior
or
exterior
surfs,
4
of
3~
1~

residential
pr8mfses,
or
(
b)
has
other
reasc:­.
abLe
qr>
t­
indS
to
believe
that
8
hat8rd
may
exist
to
the
IieaLth
,
r,
f
any
inhabitant
of
or
visitor
to
the
residential
premises
becau'se
of
the
presence
of
lead
or
load
in
its
compound8
on
such
surfaces,
is
authorizod
to
socute
specimens
of
paint,

plaster,
or
structural
materials,
and
to
analyze
or
cause
an
analysis
to
be
made
of
the
specimen8
to
deternine
the
qJantrty
of
lead
Or
lead
in
its
compounds
contained
;
n
the
­
­
...

boiled
OPlu:
nal
I
wterfa1.
The
agent
may,
instead
of
securing
'
specrmens,

test
a
surface
with
an
in
situ._­
analyzer
deqiice.
In
knsta~.:
es
%
here
suspected
lead
poisoninq
has
been
rapcrrrd
and
':
er:
fied,
the
Yayor
Dr
his
desigEatPd
a;.
ent
may
'~
a:
ze
the
inspection
of
any
exterior
surface,
beyond
those
surfaces
specrfica1:
y
xentioned
in
sect13n
::
cl2,
ard
arler
zorrectians
af
my
exterior
surface
z:
r.
i:
z:
27.
f;..:
nd
hazarc!
Dus
Jnder
sectron
2595.3,
pr=
lv:
ded
:?
a:
there
LS
a
reasonable
probability
that
the
exter':
or
surface
c=.
adit:
cns
an
:
ha
property
other
thar.
t5cse
ape=:
f:=
a::
y
xted
in
ssct:
cn
1102
are
related
to
the
reported
Lead
poisoning.".

(
d)
Section
2605.3
is
amended
'.
o
re~.
das
fGllows:

'
2685,3
In
any
case
in
which
analysis
reveals
the
presence
of
Lead
or
lead
in
its
compounds
in
a'quantity
exceedanq­
0­
5
of
f
percent
or
more
of
the
total
xeight
of
:
he
:
mtar­
taLs
or
0.7
milligrams
or
more
per
square
:
an:~;
meter
(
3.7
wg/
cmf)
or
in
a
quantizl
;
t:?
arwzse
suf ic:
ent
to
z3r,
sh:
tuze
a
3azard
fo
:;?
e
:?
eal:
h
sf
an*/

....,
ab.
,.
c.
I.,
...:
3~
t
sf
:
ke
ros:
den~
ial
prern;
ses
IT~
E?
C
::..
e
;
f
3
to
the
res;
ieE:
iLl.
F~
F?:(
ears.
ar
:­
c7aLar
.
J:
SL~
Q~
':;
e3
ir,
cer
the
aqet
of
8
years
vi10
spends
a
substan&.
r,
l
:_~:.
t;;
n
3f
:::
s
time
thore,
tho
rgoncy
shall
notify
rile
?*
A
..
­
Of
3f
'
hed
­­
e.­+

%
partacnt
3f
Rousinq
ulci
Community
Sc..
reLc;
ment,
:
p.
,
dr:
t:
r.
q
*:
chin
seventy­
tvu
(
72)
hours,
that
a
lead
pcisoni:
iq
hazard
ax.
irrtu.
The
Dfroctot
of
tho
Dopartmsnt
of
HOU8lng
and
fcaaaaunlty
Dovefoptent
&
all
notify,
in
writinq,
the
.?
habitant8
and
tho
owner
of
reC6Kd
sf
the
property
that
,
sad
In
quantity
mubbicfent
to
conatrtute
a
hazard
vas
3
5­
found
and
that
a
lead
poisoning
hazard
ex;
sts.".

suffizient
to
constitute
a
hazard
to
the
k+
a:
th
of
any
resident
of
the
residential
premises
ar
a:­:(
~~
cjular­
ii;
itor
to
the
residential
premises
who
spends
a
;~;
t­,
zantialportion
­.
of
his
time
in
the
residential
premises.
"
fie
Director
of
the'aepartment
of
Housing
and
Community
De­
elopment
shall
arder
the
owner
of
the
residential
premises
&
n
which
a
iead
po~
sonrnqhazard
was
found
to:

',
a)
?.*?
eve
ai!
materials
CGIltdiRL;?
q
laid
=
e
;
rad
:
a
its
r­~~
oundsfrom
the
interior
or
evterl3­..,:;:­
fazes:
3
their
bas6
surface,
,
inder
the
safety
csr.
d:
t
::
KY
app:­
a?
red
hy
the
3n:
ector
df
Housing
and
Community
2e*.*
n:
zerent,
3n.
l
'­.
hen
either
cover
'
surfaces
with
a
paint
not
ccr;:
ai:::
r.
q
:.?
ad
3r
lead
:
n
its
compounds
in
a
quantity
exceeding
0
5
Q 
1
percent
of
the
total
uefght
of
the
material
3r
3.7
mi
11
tgrams
per
square
centimeter
(
0.7nng/
cx'
)
of
the
material
or
leave
the
surfaces
in
their
natural
state
pr~­~:
rled:!­.
at
the
f?
a.
ne
spread
rating
~
f
?
he
3atur­
a;
sta7e
­­­
1
is
at
least
equal
to
#
at
required
by
the
Second
Amendment
to
the
1972
D.
C.
Building
Code;

"(
b)
Cover
the
interior
Or
exter:
or
surfaces
2r:
h
a
durable
materlal
approved
by
the
DirectDr
Tf
the
3epartrnent
of
Housing
and
Community
Development;
or,

"(
c)
Eliminate
the
Lead
hazard
by
a::?
sr
~
e:
i­.
zds
apprz­:
ed
by
the
Director
of
the
Departmen:
2f
?.~..
s::­.
g
+
md
Cc­
mczity
Development.

'
Inaccessible
exterior
surfaces
must
?;
e
scraped
to
cemove~
pcel~
ngand
fLaking
paint
and
to
Take
tlhe
surface
,
tigkt=

"
910
surfaee
which
is
the
subject
of
a
notice
pursuant
to
this
section
shall
be
refinished
untll
an.
inspector
from
.
I
tho
Cepartment
e%
Hausing
and
Community
Deve*
ebopmenthas
certif~
4din
writing
that
the
condition
affec.
trnq
the
sut%
ace
has
been
abated
in
aseardance
v:?.!~
these
.
~~
ec
L
a
t
5
ons,
._

"
Any
gwner
V~
O1s
ser­
Jed
with
an
~
rder?~;
rsuanz~
3
:?:
3
sectisz
ghall
ccmp1.
y
wxth
such
an
=?
rdtr
vrth:
ln
:$:­*
':
2)
i,
ads
of
st3
service
upon
him
oc
shall
obtain
an
exter,
s:
zn
:
 
the
tan
(
10)­
day
period
drop
the
Director
of
:
he
3ecartnent
of
Housing
and
Coarunlty
Development.
No
excecs13c
s!­.
3LL
exce8d
thirty
(
30)
d8y8,
but
thirty
(
30)­
day
extens:
ons
may
be
renav+
rt
tha
discretion
of
th8
Director
of'
the
Bepartmont
of
Ibu8ing
and
Cormunity
Development.".

(
f)
By
adding
a
now
saction
2605.
to
read
ai
follows:

*
Z535a
Right
of
Entry,
Inspection',
and
Subpcena'

?
=*
ders
&
rolled
Or:
Ylnar
"(
a)
Tho
Mayor
and
any
other
duly
authorized
official
of
the
District
of
Colunbia
having
jurisdiction
over,
or
responsibilities
pertaining
to,
any
residential
premises
shall
have
the
right,
after
presenting
official
credentials
of
identification
and
authority
issued
by
the
District
of
Columbia
either
with
or
without
prior
notice,
to
enter
upon
and
into
any
residential
premises
in
vhich
(
a)
one
(
1)
or
more
children
under
the
age
of
8
years
reside
and
thore
is
chipped,
peeling,
or
flaking
paint,
or
other.
materials
on
ono
(
1)
or
more
surfaces
which
are
reasonably
accessible
to
children
under
the
age
of
8
years,
or
(
b)
a
medical
evaluation
completed
within
the
sixty
(
60)­
day
period
preceding
an
inspection
ha8
revealed
the
presence
of
lead
­
1
toxicity
in
any'occupant
or
regular
visitor
to
the
premises
who
spend8
a
substantial
portion
of
his
time
there,
in
order
to
determine
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
these
regulations.
The
entry
and
inspection
shalleake
place
with
the
least
possible
disruption
to
the
occupants.

"(
b)
The
right
of
entry
and
inspection
shall
be
c.
extended
to
any
residential
premises
which
the
Mayor
has
reason
to
klieve
are
in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
those
regulatlon~.
No
entry
or
inspection
of
any
ro8identiil
pr.
rfSOe
.
hll
be
a8de
without
the
permission
of
tho
occupant
Or
thm
pralsoa
UhS8
a
warrant
is
obtained
first
from
the
SUpOSlOr
Court
of
tho
Df8trict
of
Columbia
pursuant
to
tho
Dlmtrict
of
Colurbia
Coda,
soction
11­
941,

authorizxng
tho
entry
and
inspection
for
the
purposo
of
determining
compliance
with
ptovi8ionr
of
these
regulations.
14
DCMR
Section
707.3
et
seq.

There
are
regulations
contained
in
the
District s
Housing
Code,
at
Title
14
of
the
District
ofColumbia
Municipal
Regulation
(
DCMR),
enacted
by
the
Council,
which
apply
lead
hazard
prevention
controls
to
owners
of
residential
premises,
as
defined,
in
which
a
child
under
the
age
of
eight
years
resides,
or
is
a
regular
visitor
who
spends
a
substantial
portion
of
his
or
her
time
on
the
premises.
Title
14
C­

R
7
HOUSING
CODE
CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE,

sets.
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
799
700
700.1
700.2
701
701.1
701.2
701.3
AND
REPAIRS
1.

GENERALPROVISIONS
The
purpose
of
this
subtitle
is
to
require
repairs
and
maintenance
designed
to
de
a
prek
or
neighborhood
healthy
and
safe.
Theserequirements
are
in
addition
to
the
basic
repairs
and
maintenance
needed
to
keep
out
the
elements.

Each
premises
accommodating
one
(
1)
or
more
habitation
shall
be
maintained
and
kept
in
repair
to
provide
decent
living
accommodations
for
the
occupants.

Structureslocated
on
a
premises,
inciuding,
but
not
limited
to,
accessory
structures
(
suck
aswalls,
garages,
fences,
and
sheds)
shall
be
maintained
in
a
sanitary
and
structurally
sound'
condition
and
in
good
repair.
.­

All
walhys
on
private
property
shall
be
maintained
in
good
repair,
free
of
holes
and
safe
for
walking
purposes.

Material
used
in
making
any
repair
shall
be
of
a
quality
and
kind
suitable
for
the
purpose
for
which
it
is
used,
and
ofa
kind
normally
used
by
a
good
mechanic
in
the
appropriate
trade.
Each
repair
shall
be
done
in
a
workmanlike
manner.
Tale
14
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
701.4
Construction
details
for
alterations,
additions
or
other
work
done
as
a
result
of
any
standard
established
in
thissubtitle
shall
be
accomplished­
ug&
er.
permit
and
in
the
manner
provided
in
the
Building
Code,
Electrical
Code,
Plumbing
Code,
or
other
building
regulations
o the
District
of
Columbia,
as
applicable.

SOURCE:
The
Housing
Regulations
of
the
Districtof
Columbia,
5G
DCAR
0
01209,2513.2514
end
2515.
C.
O.
55­
1
503
(
August
11,1955),
85
amended
by
C.
O.
58458issued
April
1,1958.

702
ROOFS
AND
CHIMNFES
702.1
The
roof
shall
be
maintained
so
it
does
not
leak,
and
all
rain
water
shall
be
drained
and
conveyed
from
the
roof
so
that
it
does
not
causewet
walk
or
ceilings.

702.2
Each
smoke
pipe
and
each
chimney
shall
be
adequately
supported,
free
 &
omobstruction,
and
maintained
in
such
conditionthat
there
willbe
no
leakage
orbacking
up
of
noxious
or
dangerous
gases.

702.3
Each
chimney
shall
be
reasonably
plumb.

702.4
The
total
area
of
all
flue
openings
shall
not
exceed
the
net
area
of
the­
chimney
flue.

702.5
unreqUired.
openinPSin
chimneys
shall
be
closed
with
masonry.

702.6
All
flue
openings
in
chimneys
shall
be
suppiied
with
flue
crocks,
or
metal
or
masonry
thimbles703
GUTTERS
AND
DRAINAGE
703.1
All
gutters
and
downspouts
shall
be
properly
connected,
and
shall
be
maintained
in
good
condition,
free
of
holes
and
obstructions.

703.2
Water
shall
be
conveyed
offpremises
in
accordance
with
the
plumbing
regulations
of
the
District
of
Columbia
703.3
The
ownerof
any
premises
used
in
whole
or
in
part
for
residential
pu~­~~
sesshall
cause
the
yard
or
area
at
the
premises
to
be
graded
and
paved
so
that
all
drainage
flows
eeely
from
all
parts
of
the
premises
into
any
saver
traps
which
may
have
been
provided
for
that
purpose.

703.4
If
there
are
no
sewer
traps,
thd
drainage
shall
flowaway
from
any
inhabited
building
on
the
0
premises.
.

703.5
Yard
spaces
and
other
areas
appurtenant
to
a
residential
building
shall
be
graded
by
the
owner
to
avoid
the
accumulation
of
water.

SOURCE:
The
HousingRegulationsof
the
District
of
Coiumba,
5G
DCRR
8
51203,2510
and
2604.
C.
O.
55­
1503
(
August
11,1955).

7­
2
'
3
Title
14
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
..
L
704
FOUNDATIONS,
STRUCI URAL
MEMBERS,
eEXTERIOR­

WALLS704.1
Foundations
and
structural
members
shall
provide
a
safe,
firm,
and
substantial
base
and
support
for
the
structure
at
all
points.

704.2
Exterior
walk
shall
be
structurally
sound
and
free
of
cracks
and
holes
through
which
rodents
or
the
elements
can
enter
the
buildings.

704.3
Masonry
walls
shall
be
kept
pointed.

704.4
Allexterior
surfacing
materials
shall
be
kept
securely
fastened
in
place.

704.5
Allexterior
wood
surfaces
shall
be
kept
painted,
varnished,
shellacked,
or
covered
with
other
preservative,
unless
the
wood
is
customarily
used
in
its
natural
state.

SOURCE:
The
Housing
Regulationsof
the
Districtof
Columbia.
5G
DCAR
5
§
25W
and
2512,
C.
O.
55­
1503
(
August
11,
1955).

705
wIM)
OWS
AND
DOORS
705.1
Each
window
shall
be
fully
supplied
with
window
panes
which
are
without
open
cracks
or
.
holes.
705.2
Each
window
sash
shall
be
in
good
condition
and
shall
fit
reasonably
well
within
its
frame705.3
Each
window,
otherthan
fixedwindows,
shall
be
capable
of
being
easily
opened
and
held
in
open
or
closed
position
by
window
hardware.

705.4
Each
door,
transom,
side
tight,
skylight,
door
hinge,
and
door
latch
shall
be
in
gd
condition.

705.5
Each
exterior
door,
when
closed,
shall
fit
reasonably
well
within
its
frame
and
shall
t­
w
equipped
with
a
lockwhich
will
permit
easy
egress
without
a
key
but
will
prevent
entrancc
to
the
multi­
unit
dwelling
without
a
key
unless
the
door
is
opened
from
the
insidr.
electrically
or
otherwise,
by
one
(
1)
ofthe
tenants
or
by
an
employee
of
the
building
ouncr.

705.6
All
windows
and
doors
and
their
frames
shall
be
construckd
and
maintained
in
relation
to
each
other
and
to
wall
construction
to
do
the
following:

(
a)
]
Exclude
rain
completely
from
entering
the
structure:
and
(
b)
Exclude
wind
substantially
from
entering
the
structure.

705.7
Each
basement
hatchway
shall
be
constructed
and
maintained
to
prevent
the
entrance
of
rodents,
rain,
and
surface
drainage
water
into
the
d3eIiing.

SOURCE:
The
Housing
Regulations
ofthe
District
of
Columbia,
5G
0CP.
R
52506,
C.
O.
551503
(
August
11,
1955).
u
amended
by
§
2of
the
Mandatory
Lock
AmendmentAct
of
1984,
D.
C.
Law
5­
131.31
DCR
572(
November
16,
1984)

7­
3
Title
14
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
706
INTERIOR
WALLS,
FLOOR,
AND
CEILINGS
706.1
Each
interior
wall
or
ceiling
shall
be
structurally
sound
and
free
of
loose
plaster
or
other
loose
structural
or
surfacing
material.

706.2
Each
interior
wall
or
ceiling
shall
be
free
of
holes
and
wide
cracks.

706.3
Each
floor
shall
be
structurally
sound,
reasonably
level,
and
free
of
holes
and
wide
cracks.

706.4
Each
floorshall
be
free
of
loose,
splintered,
protruding,
or
rotting
floor
boards.

706.5
The
floorsand
interior
wall
surfaces
of
residential
buildings
shall
be
maintained
reasonably
free
of
dampness.

706.6
In
any
habitable
room
where
any
wall
or
floorsurface
is
damp,
that
condition
shall
be
corrected,
and
the
wall
or
floor
shall
be
maintained
in
a
corrected
condition.

SOURCE:
The
Housing
Regulations
of
the
Districtof
Columbia.
X;
DCRR
§
§
2504,2505and2511,
C.
O.
551503
(
August
11,1955).

707
*
PEELING
WALL
COVEFUNG
OR
PAINT
707.1
Loose,
or
peeling
wall
covering
or
paint
on
interior
surfaces
shall
be
removed,
and
the
surface
so
exposed
shall
be
repainted
or
repapered
by
the
owner,
except
as
provided
otherwise
in
$
707.2.

707.2
If
a
room
or
ceiling
is
completely
replastered
and
whitecoated,
that
room
or
ceiling
need
not
be
painted
or
papered.

707.3
The
owner
of
any
residential
premises
in
which
there
resides
a
child
under
the
age
of
eight
(
8)
years
or
to
which
a
child
under
the
age
of
eight
(
8)
years
is
a
regular
visitor
who
spends
a
substantial
portion
of
his
or
her
time
in
the
premises,
shall
maintain
the
interior
and
exterior
surfaces
of
the
residential
premises
free
of
lead
or
lead
in
its
compoundsin
any
quantity
exding
five­
tenths
(
05)
of
one
percent
(
1%)
of
the
total
weight
of
the
material
,,
or
more
than
seven­
tenths
of
a
milligram
per
square
centimeter
(
0.7
mg/
cm2),
or
in
any
'
quantity
sufficient
to
constitute
a
hazard
to
the
health
of
any
resident
of
the
residential
.'
premises
of
any
regular
visitor
to
the
residential
premises
who
spends
a
substantial
portion
of
his
or
her
time
in
the
residential
premises.

707.4
The
Director
of
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
shall
order
the
owner
of
the
residential
premises
as
described
in
5707.3
in
which
a
lead
poisoning
hazard
was
found
to
do
any
of
the
following:

(
a)
Remove
all
materials
containing
lead
or
lead
in
its
compounds
from
the
interior
or
exterior
surfaces
to
their
base
surface,
under
the
safety
conditions
approved
by
the
Director
of
Housing
and
Community
Development,
and
then
either
cover
surfaces
with
a
paint
not
containing
lead
or
lead
in
its
compounds
in
a
quantity
exceeding
five­
tenths
(
0.5)
of
one
percent
(
1%)
of
the
total
weight
of
the
material
or
seven­
tenths
of
a
milligram
per
square
centimeter
(
0.7
mg/
cm2)
of
the
material
or
leave
the
surfaces
in
Title
14
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
their
natural
state:
Provided,
that
the
flame
spread
rating
of
the
natural
state
is
at
least
equal
to
that
required
by
the
Second
Amendment
to
the
1972
D.
C.
Building
Code.

(
b)
Covering
the
interior
or
exterior
surfaces
with
a
durable
material
approved
by
the
Director
of
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development;
or
(
c)
Eliminate
the
lead
hazard
by
other
methods
approved
by
the
Director
of
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development.

707.5
Inaccessible
exterior
surfaces
shall
be
scraped
to
remove
peeling
and
flaking
paint
and
to
make
the
surface
tight.

707.6
No
surface
which
is
the
subject
of
a
notice
pursuant
to
9707.4
shall
be
refinished
until
an
inspector
from
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
has
certified
in
writing
that
the
condition
affecting
the
surface
has
been
abated
in
accordance
with
the
 
section.

707.7
Any
owner
who
is
served
with
an
order
pursuant
to
9707.4
shall
comply
with
the
order
within
ten
(
10)
days
of
its
service
upon
him
or
her
or
shall
obtain
an
extension
of
the
ten
(
10)
day
period
from
the
Director
of
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development.
No
extension
shall
exceed
thirty
(
30)
days,
but
thirty
(
30)
day
extensions
may
be
renewed
at
the
discretion
of
the
Director
of
the
Department
Housing
and
Community
Development.

707.8
The
Mayor
of
the
District
of
Columbia
shall
designate
an
agent
of
the
District
of
Columbia
to
inspect
any
residential
premises
where
there
is
reason
to
believe
lead
may
present
a
health
hazard
because
of
the
presence
of
a
child
under
the
age
of
eight
(
8)
years
who
lives
in
the
premises
or
is
a
regular
visitor
to
the
premises
who
spends
a
substantial
portion
of
his
or
her
time
there.

707.9
For
the
purpose
of
this
section,
the
phrase
 
a
substantial
portion
of
his
or
her
time 
means
at
least
ten
(
10)
hours
per
week
in
the
aggregate
on
a
regdar
basis.

707.10
The
designated
agent
is
authorized
to
secure
specimens
of
paint,
plaster,
or
structural
materials,
and
to
analyze
or
causean
analysis
to
be
made
oEthe
specimens
to
determine
the
quantity
of
lead
or
lead
in
its
compounds
contained
in
the
material
whenever
the
agent
finds
any
of
the
following
conditions:

(
a)
Upon
inspection
findstbe
presence
of
flaking,
peeling,
chipped
orloose
paint,
plaster,
or
structural
materials
on
any
interior
or
exterior
surface
of
any
residential
premises;
or
@)
Has
other
reasonable
grounds
to
believe
that
a
hazard
may
exist
to
the
health
of
any
inhabitant
of
or
visitor
to
the
residential
premises
because
of
the
presence
of
lead
or
lead
in
its
compounds
on
the
surfaces.

707.11
The
agent
may,
instead
of
securing
specimens,
as
described
in
9707.10,
test
a
surface
with
an
in
situ
analyzer
device.

707.12
In
instances
where
suspected
lead
poisoning
has
been
reported
and
verified,
the
Mayor
or
his
or
her
designated
agent
may
cause
the
inspection
of
any
exterior
surface,
beyond
those
Title
14
District
of
Columbia
MunicipaiRegulations
'
4
surfaces
specificallydefined
in
$
199,
and
order
corrections
of
any
exterior
surface
condition
L
found
hazardous
under
$
707.13;
Provided,
that
tb
is
a
reasonable
probability
that
the
exterior
surface
conditions
on
the
property
other
than
those
specificallydefined
in
$
199
are
related
to
the
reported
lead
poisoning.

707.13
In
any
case
in
which
analysis
rsveals
the
presence
of
lead
or
lead
in
its
compounds
in
a
quantity
exceeding
five­
tenths
(
0.5)
of
one
percent
(
1%)
or
more
of
the
total
weight
of
materials
or
seven­
tenths
of
a
milligram
or
more
per
square
centimeter
(
0.7
mg/
cm2)
or
in
a
quantity
othenvise
sufficient
to
constitute
a
hazard
to
the
health
of
any
inhabitant
ofthe
residential
premises
under
the
age
of
eight
(
8)
years,
01:
regular
visitor
to
the
residential
premises
under
the
age
eight
(
8)
years
who
spends
a
substantial
portion
of
his
or
her
time
there,
the'agency
shall
notify
the
Director
of
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development,
in
writing,
within
seventy­
two
(
72)
hours,
that
a
lead
poisoning
hazard
exists.

707.14
The
Director
of
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
shall
notify,
in
Writing,
the
inhabitants
and
the
owner
of
record
of
the
property
that
lead
in
a
quantity
sufficient
to
constitute
a
hazard
was
found
and
that
a
lead
poisoning
hazard
exists707.15
In
order
to
determine
compliance
with
the
provisions
of
this
section,
the
Mayor
and
any
other
duly
authorized
official
of
the
District
of
Columbia
having
jurisdiction
over.
or
responsibilitiespertaining
to,
any
residential
premises
shall
have
the
right,
after
presenting
Official
credentials
ofidentification
and
authority
issued
by
the
District
ofColumbia
either
viith
orwithout
prior
notice,
to
enter
upon
and
into
any
residentiGrek
in
which
aay,
of
the
followingconditions
exist:
\

(
a)
One
(
1)
or
more
children
under
the
age
ofeight
(
8)
years
reside
at
the
premk
and
there
is
chipped,
peeling,
or
flaking
paint,
or
other
materials
on
one
(
1)
or
more
surfaces
which
are
reasonably
accessible
to
children
under
the
age
of
eight
(
8)
yean.
or
(
b)
A
medical
evaluation
completed
within
the
sixty
(
60)
day
period
preceding
an
inspection
has
revealed
the
presence
of
lead
toxicit/
in
any
occupant
or
regular
visitor
to
the
premises
who
spends
a
substantial
portion
of
his
or
her
time
thcie.

707.16
The
entry
and
inspection
pursuant
to
$
707.15
shall
take
place
with
the
least
possible
disruption
to
the
occupants:

707.17
The
right
of
entry
and
inspection
set
forth
in
$
707.16
shall
be
extended
to
any
residential
premises
which
the
Mayor
has
reason
to
believe
are
in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
ths
section.

707.18
No
entry
or
inspection
of
any
residential
premises
shall
be
made
without
the
permission
?
f
the
occupant
of.
the
premises
unless
a
warrant
is
obtained
first
from
the
Superior
Court
of
,
the
District
of
Columbia
pursuant
to
D.
C.
code
$
11­
941
(
1981),
authorizing
the
entry
and
inspection
 or
the
purpose
oEdetermining
compliance
with
provisions
of
this
section.

707.19
Any
entry
and
inspection
shall
be
made
with
the
least
possible
disruption
to
the
occupants.

SOURCE:
The
Housing
Regulations
of
the
District
of
Columbia
5G
DCRR
§
2605.
C.
0.
55­
1503
(
August
11,
1955);
as
amended
by
52of
the
Lead­
Based
Paint
Poisoning
Prevention
Act
of
1983,
D.
C.
Law
5­
35,30
DCR
4156
(
August
19.
1983).

7­
6
7
Title
14
District
of
Coiumbia
Municipal
Regulations
._
­­
c
'

708
STAIRWAYS,
STEPS,
AND
PORCHES
708.1
Stairways,
steps,
and
porches
shall
be
firm,
and
the
walking
surfaces
shall
be
sufficiently
smooth
so
as
to
be
readily
cleaned
and
provide
safe
passageways
free
of
tripping
hazards.

708.2
Treadsshall
be
reasonably
level
and
in
any
flight
evenly
spaced.

708.3
Interior
stairs
more
than
tivo
(
2)
risers
high
shall
have
an
enclosingwall,
balustrade,
or
other
guard
on
each
side,
and
shall
have
a
handrail
on
at
least
one
side.

'
708.4
All
stair
well
openings
shall
have
a
balustrade
or
other
guard
along
the
entire
length
of
any
open
or
otherwise
unprotected
side.

708.5
Open
porches
forty­
two
inches
(
42")
or
more
above
the
ground
shall'have
balustrades
or
other
guards
not
more
than
forty­
twoinches
(
42")
in
height
along
the
entire
length
of
any
open,
unprotected
side.

708.6
Open
porches
iess
than
forty­
twoinches
(
42")
but
more
than
twenty­
fout
inches
(
24")
above
the
ground
shall
have
balustrades,
or
other
guards
not
more
than
forty­
two
inches
(
42")
in
height
or
a
top
rail
not
more
than
forty­
two
inches
(
42")
above
the
porch
floor
with
an
intermediate
rail
approximately
midway
between
the
floor
and
t6r;
ail
along
the
entire
length
of
any
open
unprotected
side.
i
708.7
Exterior
fightsofstairs
more
than
twenty­
four
inches
(
24")
in
height,
attached
to
buildings
or
an
appurtenance
of
bddings,
including
a
porch
or
landing,
shall
be
protected
with
a
handrail,
balustrade,
or
other
guard
on
at
least
one
side.

708.8
If
an
exterior
flight
of
stairs
exten&
more
than
forty­
two
inches
(
427,
each
side
ofthe
stairs
shall
be
protected
by
either
a
handrail,
balustrade,
or
wall.

708.9
If
an
exterior
flight
of
stairs
is
protected
by
two
(
2)
walls,
one
shall
have
a
handrail
which
.
Will
clear
the
wall
by
not
less
than
one
and
one­
half
inches
(
1
la")
to
provide
maximum
safety­

The
vertical
distance
from
the
top
of
any
handrail,
balustrade,
or
other
guard
to
the
surface708.10
708.11
All
steps,
rails,
balustrades,
or
other
guards
shall
be
of
sound
material
and
securely
fastened.
of
any
platform
or
front
edge
of
any
stair
tread
shall
be
not
less
than
thirty
inches
(
30")
and
not
more
than
forty­
two
inches
(
42").

SOURCE:
The
Housing
Regulations
of
the
Dii~
dof
Cdumbia,
5G
DCRR
§
2508.
C.
O.
551503
(
August
11.
1955);
as
,
amended
by
C.
O.
66313issued
March
8.
1966,
12
DCR
198
(
March
28.1966).

.
­

799
DEFINITIONS
799.1
Theprovisions
of
$
199
of
chapter
1
ofthis
title
and
the
definitions
set
forth
in
that
section
shall
be
applicable
to
this
chapter.
22
DCMR,
Section
118
There
is
also
a
provision
of
the
Public
Health
Regulations
(
22
DCMR,
section
118)
which
outlaws
the
use
of
lead
based
paint.
J'
1
15
115.13
$
116:

117
117.1
117.2
117.3
1
MATTRESSES
(
Continued)

Any
person
violating
any
of
the
provisions
of
this
section
shall,
upon
conviction,
be
punished
by
a
fine
of
not
less
than
ten
dollars,
($
10)
or
more
than
forty­
five
dollar?­($
45)
for
each
offense.

RESERVED
BEST
COW
AVAILABLE
COMN
USE
OF
CERTAIN
ARTICLES
No
person
shall
provide
or
expose,
or
permit
in
any
place
under
his
or
her
control
the
provision
or
exposure,
for
common.
use
or
reuse,
whether
by
purchase,
rental,
exchange
as
a
service,
or
by
any
other
similar
arrangement,
any
article
that
may
come
into
intimate
personal
contact
with
its
user,
unless
the
fol
owing
requi
rements
are
met:

(
a)
Since
last
used,
the
article
shal
have
been
thoroughly
and
effectively
cleaned,
and
either
d
sinfected
or
sterilized
by
a
method
approved
by
the
Director;
and
(
b)
The
article
shall
be
clean
at
the
time
it
is
presented
for
use.

As
used
in
this
section,
the
phrase
"
article
which
may
come
into
intimate
personal
contact
with
the
user"
shall
mean
any
article
that
in
normal
use
may
reasonably
be
expected
to
transmit
disease
germs,
parasites,
ectoparasites,
or
filth
from
one
user
to
the
next
user.
This
phrase
shall
not
include
any
article
primarily
intenaed
for
use,
or
used,
manually.

Any
person
violating
any
of
the
provisions
of
this
section
or
failing
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
this
section
shall
be
punished
by
a
fine
of
not
more
than
three
hundred
dollars
($
300).

LEAD
PAINT
It
shall
be
unlawful
for­
any
person
to
apply
to
any
toy,
article
of
furniture,
or
interior
or
exterior
surface
of
any
habitation,
paint
Or
any
other
similar
surface­
coating
material
containing
lead
cumpounds
of
which
the
lead
content
(
c'alculated
as
the
metal
)
exceeds
five­
tenths
of
one
percent
(
0.5%)
of
the
total
weight
of
the
contained
solids
or
dried
paint
film.

1­
19
a
I
118
LEAD
PAINT
(
Continued)

118.2
It
shall
be
unlawful
for
any
person
to
offer
for
sale
or
sell
any
,,
paint
or
other
similar
surface­
coating
material
intended,
or
packaged
"'!

in
a
form
suitable
for
use,
on
toys,
furniture,
or
in
or
around
habitable
premises,
which
contains
lead
compounds
of
which
the
lead
content
(
calculated
as
the
metal)
exceeds
five­
tenths
of
one
percent
(
0.5%)
of
the
total
weight
of
the
contained
solids
or
dried
paint
film.

118.3
For
the
purposes
of
this
section,
"
exterior
surface''
shall
mean
any
surface
on
the
exterior
of
any
residential
building;
including,
but
not
limited
to,
any
portion
of
a
window,
window
frame,
door,
door
frame,
wall,
stair,
porch,
balcony,
rail,
or
other
guard
or
appurtenance.

118.4
For
the
purposes
of
this
section,
"
interior
surface"
shall
mean
any
surface
in
the
interior
of
any
residential
building;
including,
but
not
limited
to,
any
portion
of
a
window,
window
frame,
door,
door
frame,
wall,
ceiling,
stair,
rail,
spindle,
balustrade,
or
other
guard
or
appurtenance.

118.5
Any
person
who
violates
any
provision
of
this
section
shall,
upon
conviction,
be
punished
by
a
fine
not
to
exceed
three
($
300)
or
by
imprisonment
not
to
exceed
ten
(
10)
days
for
each
violation
.

118.6
Any
physician
who
diagnoses
or
treats
a
case
of
lead
ntoxi
cat
ion
$
shall,
within
seventy­
two
(
72)
hours,
report
the
case
to
the
Director
I
on
a
form
prescribed
and
furnished
by
the
Director.

119
ILLEGAL
USE
OF
GLUES
CONTAINING
A
SOLVENT
HAVING
THE
PROPERTY
OF
RELEASING
TOXIC
VAPORS
OR
FUMES
\
I
119.1
No
person
shall,
for
the
purpose
of
causing
a
condition
of
intoxication,
inebriation,
excitement,
stupefaction,
or
the
dulling
of
his
or
her
brain
or
nervous
system,
intentionally
smell
or
inhale
the
fumes
from
any
glue
containing
a
solvent
which
has
the
property
of
releasing
toxic
vapors
or
fumes;
Provided,
that
nothing
in
this
section
shall
be
interpreted
as
applying
to
the
inhalation
of
any
anesthesia
far,
medical
or
dental
purposes.

BEST
COPY
AVAILABL
1.
­
20
3
D.
C.
Law
2­
28
PUBLIC
PROPERTY
LEAD
ELIMINATION
ACT
OF
1977
There
are
the
provisions
in
D.
C.
Law
2­
28,
Public
Property
Lead
Elimination
Act
of
1977,
which
authorize
lead
hazard
inspection,
analysis
and
repair
of
all
public
buildings
and
publicly
operated
residences
belonging
to
or
in
the
possession
of
the
District
of
Columbia
which
are
regularly
frequented
by
children
under
six
(
6)
years.
If
the
analysis
finds
a
lead
hazard
exists
then
the
lead
condition
must
be
repaired.
....

......

......
\,

....
COUNCIL
OF
TEE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUXE5
......
...
...
NOTICE
...
...
I.
...

!.;
ove.
nber
3,
1,077
I,,'

'.
D.
C
LAW
2­
28
"
Public'kroperty
Lead
Eliminztion
...

Act
of
1977n.
...

Pursuant
to
Section
412
of
the
District
of
Colunbia
Self­
Government
and
Governmental
Reorgznization
Act
(
PL
93­
198)
I
the
Act,
the
Cokcil
of
the
District
of
Columbia
adopted
Bill
....
­
NO.
2­
85
on
first
and
second
readings
June
28,
1977,
and
~
'>
July
12,
1977,
respectively.
Following
the
sigmture
of
the
August
I,
1977,
this
legislation
wzs
essisriec
Act
s
KO.
2­
63,
published
in
the
August
19,
1977,
eeition
cf
the
D.
C.
Register,
and
transmitted
to
both
Ecuses
of
Congress
for
a
30­
day
review,
in
accordance
with
Section
6C2(
c)
(
1)
of
the
Act.

_.
The
Council
of
the
District
of
Colunbie
hereby
gives
notice
that
the
30­
day
Congressional
Review
Period
has
expired
and,
therefore,
cites
the
following
legislation
as
D.
C.
Law
2­
28,
effective
October
26,
1977.

b
..................
.....

..............
.....
......
I
.___.....
.................
,.....
Chainan
05I
the
courici~
r.::.

f­
...
,....
......
..

(\'@
I.
24,
D.
C.
Register,
1448,
Aiqust
IS,
lZ7ij
..

"­.....
...
......
.....
.­
..


l.
1..
­­
\
­
2

or
in
a
quantity
Othemise
sufficient
to
constitite;
a
hazard
catfse
"
de
lead
condition
to
be
reaaircd:

reszirs
shzll
be
of
a
strfZicient
quality
to
equal
or
exceed
that
required
of
private
housing
located
in
%\
e
Dispict
of
Columbia
pursuant
to
regulations
promulgated
with
respect
to
houshg
in
the
District
of
ColuzSia.

(
b)
Tbn
an
inspection
mandated
by
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
indicates
C­
sc
necessity
for
a
repair,
t.%
e
repair
sfiall
begin
not
later.
L\
an
ten
(
10)
days
aft=
the
inspection.

(
c)
All
inspections
maated
by
subsection
(
a)
of
this
­
J.
section
shall
be
cOPmP­?
ced
within
one
h&&
et!
an2
eighty
(
190)
days
after
the
effective
date
of
this
act,

Sec.
3,
(
a)
There
is
hezeby
authorized
to
be
appropriated
from
the
fmds
available
to
the
Goverment
of
%\
e
District
of
Columbia
the
budget
an
aount
not
to­­.
­

exceed
one
nillion,
one
hundred
ond
twenty
thousand
dollars
($
1,120,'
000)
for
the
fiscal
year
co­
acing
on
October
I,

1978
to
carzy
out
the
purposes
of
tle
act:
PROVIDED,

BOIk'CVCR,
That
grant
funds
available
to
the
Govement
of
the
District
of
ColrtnLia
may
be
expended
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
this
act
wit!!
out
regard
to
any
limitation
ifr
this
section.
I
/
..

­'
I.
c.

r
"

..

y'
,
I
,
.*'
.
&
r.
e
.
J
'
1
­

3
I'
­

(
5)
In
each
fiscal
year
comcncing
on
or
aft&
October
1,
2379,
fifty
thousand
dollars
($
50,000)
aze
autSozized
to
be
appropriated
to
carry
out
t.%
s
act:
PXOVIDZD,
T­'
ut
authorization
is
hezeby
granted
to
eqezd
fuds
in
any
fiscal.
gear
comencing
OD
or
after
Octobez
I,
1379
ug
to
the
­
amount
aut!!
oriz.
ed
in
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
but
not
appropriated
&
the
fiscal
year
c­
qcing
on
OctoSer
I,

1978.

See.
4.
This
act
shall
become
Law
as
;?
roviSeC
for
acts
of
the
Council
of
the
District
of
ColunSia
in
sec&&
on
602(
c)(
I)
of
t!!
e
Dis&
diCt
02
Columbia
Self­
Goverzuzctlzt
.
and
Governmental
Reorganization
Act:
PEUVIXD,
IiOfZ'VEX,,
That
'
7.
section
2
of
this
act
shall
not
take
effect
until
the
,
i
.
I
provisions
of
secLAon
3
of
'
this
act
ar=
inpleniented.

..

1
31
.­'
1
5I
I
­­*­'
Docket
No:
2
­
85
'
­
7
,

.­

AUC
W
...

Sobmitttd
to
Ya
Congxas:

'
W'
i
_._­­.

ROLL'­
CILJ.
rn:

­*

*..

c.

c
..

...

n
c
:

W
­\­_
\
7­.
D.
C.
Code
Section
9­
302
There
are
regulations
in
D.
C.
Code
59­
302,
which
authorize
lead
hazard
inspection,
analysis
and
repair
of
all
public
buildings
and
publicly
operated
residences
belonging
to
or
in
the
possession
of
the
District
of
Columbia
which
are
regularly
frequented
by
children
under
six
(
6)
years.
If
the
analysis
finds
a
lead
hazard
exists
then
the
lead
condition
must
be
repaired.
­­
§
9­
301
PUBLICBUILDINGSAND
GROUNDS
CHAPTER
AND
IMPROVEMENTS.
3.
REPAIRS
sec.
sec.
.
9­
301.
Authorization
to
establish
working
9­
303.
Same
­
Appropriations.
fund.
9­
302.
Inspection
of
public
buildings
for
lead
­.
paint
­
Required.

0
9­
301.
Authorization
toestablish
working
fund.

On
and
after
July
1,
1954,
work
performed
for
repairs
and
improvements
may
be
by
contract
or
otherwise,
except
for
amounts
exceeding
$
5,000
which
shall
be
determined
by
the
Mayor
of
the
District
of
Columbia;
and
the
Mayor
is
authorized
to
establish
a
working
fund
for
such
purposes
without
fiscal
year
limitation,
said
fund
to
be
reimbursed
for
repairs
and
improvements
performed
under
that
fund
&
om
fundsavailable
for
these
purposes,
and
payments
are
authorized
to
be
made
to
said
fund
in
advance
if
required
by
the
Director
of
the
Department
of
General
Services
subject
to
subsequent
adjustments,
bm
fundsavailable
for
necessary
expenses,
including
allowances
for
privately
owned
automobiles.
(
July
1,1954,68Stat.
393,
ch.
449,
§
5;
July
23,1959,
73
Stat.
238,
Pub.'
L.
86­
104,8
15;
Apr.
8,1960,74
Stat.
30,
Pub.
L.
86­
412,
3
15;
1973Ed.,
8
9­
501.)

Referencea
in
text.
­
The
Department
of
Buildings
and
Grounds
was
replaced
by
the
Department
of
General
Services
by
Commissioner's
Order
69­
96,
dated
March
7,1969.
The
functions
of
the
Department
of
General
Services
were
transferred,
in
part,
to
the
Department
of
Public
Works
by
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1983,
effective
March
1,1984,
and
transferred,
in
part,
to
the
Department
of
Administrative
Services
by
Reorganization
PIan
No.
5
of
1983,
effective
March
1.1984.
Change
in
government.
­
This
section
originated
at
a
time
when
local
government
powers
were
delegated
to
a
Board
of
Commissioners
of
the
District
of
Columbia
(
see
Acts
Relating
to
the
Establiihment
of
the
District
of
Columbia
and
its
VariousForma
of
Governmental
Organization
in
Volume
1).
Section
401
of
Reorganization
Plan
No.
3of
1967(
seeReorganization
Plans
in
Volume
1)
transferred
all
of
the
functions
of
the
Board
of
Commissioners
under
this
section
to
a
single
Commissioner.
The
District
of
Columbia
Self­
Government
and
Governmental
Reorganization
Act,
87
Stat.
818,4
711(
D.
C.
Code,
8
1­
211),
abolished
the
District
of
Columbia
Council
and
the
Wce
of
Commissioner
of
the
District
of
Columbia.
These
branches
of
government
were
replaced
by
the
Council
of
the
District
of
Columbia
and
the
OEce
of
Mayor
of
the
District
of
Columbia,
respectively.
Accordingly,
and
also
pursuant
to
0
714(
a)
of
such
Act
(
D.
C.
Code,
0
1­
213(
a)),
appropriate
changes
interminology
were
made
in
this
section.

0
9­
302.
Inspection
of
public
buildings
for
lead
paint
­
Required.
(
a)
The
Mayor
of
the
District
of
Columbia
is
hereby
authorized
and
directed
to
inspect
for
the
presence
of
lead
paint
in
all
public
birildings
and
publicly­
operated
residences
belonging
to
or
in
the
possession
of
the
District
of
Columbia
and
regularly
frequented
by
children
under
6years
of
age.
Where
there
are
reasonable
grounds
to
believe
that
a
hazard
exists
to
the
health
of
such
children
because
of
the
presens
of
lead
or
lead
compounds
in
the
paint,
plaster,
or
structural
materials
of
any
such
interior
surface,
the
Mayor
shall
cause
an
analysis
to
be
made
of
the
paint,
plaster,
or
structural
materials
of
the
interior
structure
to
determine
the
quantity'
of
lead
or
lead
compounds
contained
in
the
material.
If
the
analysis
reveals
the
presence
of
lead
or
lead
.
272
­­
REPAIRS
m
IMPROVEMENTS
ComDounds
in
a
quantity
in
excess
of
1
milligram
per
square'centimeter
of
surfice
or
in
a
quantity
otherwise
sufficientto
constitute
a
hazard
to
the
health
of
any
user
of
the
building,
the
Mayor
shall
cause
the
lead
Eondition
to
be
repaired:
Provided,
that
the
repairs
shall
be
of
a
sufficient
quality
to
equal
or
exceed
that
required
of
private
housing
located
in
the
District
of
Columbia
pursuant
to
regulations
promulgated
with
respect
to
housing
in
the
District
of
Columbia.
(
b)
When
an
inspection
mandated
by
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
indicates
the
necessity
for
a
repsr,
the
repair
shall
begin
not
later
than
10days
after
the
inspection.
(
c)
All
inspections
mandated
by
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
shall
be
commenced
within
180
days
after
October
26,1977.(
1973Ed.,
Q
9­
502;
Oct.
26,1977,
D.
C.
Law
2­
28,6
2,24DCR
3721.)

Section
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
tively,
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
Allgust
1,1977,
ferred
to
in
§
9­
303.
it
was
assignedAct
No.
2­
63and
transmitted
to
Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
28.
­
Law
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
ita
review.
2­
28,
the
"
Public
Property
Lead
Elimination
New
implementing
regulations.
­
Pur­
Act
of
1977,"
was
introduced
in
Council
and
suant
to
this
section,
the
followingnew
regulaassigned
Bill
No.
2­
85,
which
was
referred
to
tions
were
adopted
in
1983:
The
"
Lead­
Based
the
Committee
on
Government
Operations.
The
Paint
Poisoning
Prevention
Act
of
1983"(
D.
C.
$
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
Law
5­
35,
Oct.
8,1983,30DCR
4156):
on
June
28,1977
and
July
12,
1977,

respec0
9­
303.
Same
­
Appropriations.
(
a)
There
is
hereby
authorized
to
be
appropriated
from
the
funds
available
to
the
government
of
the
District
of
Columbia
in
the
budget
an
mount
not
to
exceed
$
1,120,000for
the
fiscal
year
commencing
on
October
1,1978,
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
this
section
and
Q
9­
302:
Provided,
however,
that
grant
fundsavailable
to
the
government
of
the
District
of
Columbiamay
beexpended
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
this
section
and
Q
9­
302without
regard
to
any
limitation
in
this
section.
(
b)
In
each
fiscal
year
commencing
on
or
after
October
1,
1979,$
50,000are
authorized
to
be
appropriated
to
cany
out
this
section
and
Q
9­
302:
Provided,
that
authorization
is
hereby
granted
to
expend
hds
in
any
fiscal
year
commencing
on
or
&
r
October
1,
1979,
up
to
the
amount
authorized
in
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
but
not
appropriated
in
the
fiscal
year
commencing
on
October
1,1978.(
1973Ed.,
0
9­
503;
Od.
26,1977,
D.
C.
Law
2­
28,
§
3,
24
DCR
3721.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
28.
­
See
note
to
8
9­
302.

273
DOCoLAW
6­
66
STUDENT
HEALTH
CARE
ACT
OF
1985
There
are
the
provisions
of
the
Student
Health
Care
Act,
which
requires
a
test
for
blood
lead
level
upon
entry
of
a
student
six
(
6)
years
of
age
into
a
school
or
child­
development
facility.
AN
ACT
D,
Ca
ACT
1.0­
61
.
JULY
29,
1993
..
c
lstrlct
of.
Columbfa
V
..
.

..
APPROVED:
July
29,
1993
c
D.
C.
CODE
SECTION
31­
2401
et
seq.
STUDENT
HEALTH
CARE
Regulations­
forthe
provisions
of
the
Student
Health
Care
Act,
which
requires
a
test
for
blood
lead
level
upon
entry
of
a
student
six
(
6)
years
of
age
into
a
school
or
child­
development
facility
are
provided
in
D.
C.
Code,
Section
31­
2401
et
seq.
0
31­
2401
EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONSAND
CULTURAL
CHAPTER
HEALTH24.
STUDENT
CARE.

Subchapter
I.
GeneralProuisions.
firbchapter
II.
Public
School
Nurses.

SeC.
Sec.
31­
2401.
Definitions.
31­
2421.
Assignment
to
schools;
hours;
level
of
31­
2402.
Examination
requirements;
certifi­
services;
nurse
or
athletic
trainer
cabs
of
health,
testing
for
lead
at
sponsoredathletic
events;
fund­
poisoning
and
dental
health.
ing.
31­
2403.
Exemption
for
religious
beliefs.
31­
2404.
Notice
of
noncompliance;
attendance
Subchapter
III.
Administration
of
Medication
unafFected.
by
Public
School
Employees.
31­
2405.
Fee
for
examination
by
public
health
authorities;
indigency.
31­
2431.
Dethitions.
31­
2406.
Duty
to
obtain
treatment.
31­
2432.
Administration
of
medication
by
a
31­
2407.
Student
health
files.
public
school
employee.
31­
2408.
Joint
administration
by
Mayor
and
31­
2433.
Requirements
for
the
licensed
practi­
Board
of
Education;
rules.
tioner.
31­
2409.
Protection
&
om
liability.
31­
2410.
Reporting
and
studies
of
lead
poison­
31­
2434.
Rules
and
regulations
for
impiemening
tests.
tation
of
subchapter.

Subchapter
I.
General
Provisions.

Editor s
notes.
­
Because
of
the
enactment
include
$
8
31­
2401through
31­
2409,
has
been
of
subchapter
II
of
thie
chapter
by
D.
C.
Law
designated
as
subchapter
I
of
this
chapter.
7­
45,
the
preexisting
text
of
this
chapter,
to
0
31­
2401.
Definitions.

For
the
purposes
of
this
subchapter:
(
1)
 
Adult
student 
and
 
minor
student 
mean
those
terms
as
they
are
defined
in
Q
499
of
the
Board
of
Education
Rules,
effective
July
29,
1977
(
5
DCMR
2099).
(
2)
 
Certifiednurse
practitioner 
means
a
registered
nurse
who
is
licensed
in
the
United
States
or
its
territories,
has
had
postgraduate
education
and
training
in
pediatrics,
adolescent
medicine,
or
the
assessment
.
and
care
of
school­
aged
children,
and
is
certihi
as
a
nurse
practitioner
by
the
American
Nurses 
Association,
the
National
Board
of
Pediatric
Nurse
Practitioners
and
Associates,
or
any
other
certifying
organization
acceptable
to
the
Mayor.
(
3)
 
District 
means
the
District
of
Columbia.
(
4)
 
Physician 
means
an
individual
who
is
licensed
to
practice
medicine
in
the
United
States
or
its
territories
and
has
had
postgraduate
education
or
training
in
pediatrics
or
adolescent
medicine.
(
Dec.
3,
1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
0
2,32DCR
6086.)

Legislative
hietory
of
Law
6­
66.
­
Law
signed
Act
No.
6­
89and
transmitted
to
bth
6­
66,
 
Student
Health
Care
Act
of
1985, 
was
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
Shorttitle.­
The
first
section
of
D.
C.
Law
6­
135,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
6­
66
provided
%
at
this
act
may
be
cited
as
Education
and
reassigned
to
the
Committee
on
the
 
Student
Health
Care
Act
of
1985 . 
HumanServices.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
Editor 
s
notea
­
Because
of
the
codificaand
second
readings
on
September
10,
1985,
tion
of
D.
C.
Law
7­
45
as
subchapter
I1
of
this
and
September
24,1985,
respectively.
Signed
chapter,
and
the
designation
of
the
preexisting
by
the
Mayor
on
Odober
9,1985,
it
was
as­
text
of
Chapter
24
as
subchapter
I,
 
subchap
296
tern
has
t
introductc
0
31­
2
(
a)
E:
private
lst,
3rd.
a
certifi
practitic
before
t
requirec
(
a­
1)
center,
.
kinderg,
student
(
b)
poisonir
menis
fi
student!
submiss
student:
(
c)
m
for
lead
sufficien
cate
of
America
(
d)
El
prekind4
ic
s­
pxis
requireo
D.
C.
La1
DCR
571
Legisla
noteto
§
:

Certifi
be
requi
examina
guardiar
statemei
the
exai
practice:
)
I
Nurses.

hours;
level
of
ithletic
trainer
:
c
events;

hdof
Medication
 
lyees.

dication
by
a
 
yee.
icensed
practifor
impiemen­

J409,
has
been
is
chapter.

is
they
are
29,
1977
(
5
)
is
licensed
ication
and
tnd
care
of
e
American
tioners
and
.
Mayor.

.
e
medicine
lucation
or
Law
6­
66,

itted
to
both
1
of
D.
C.
Law
v
be
cited
as
985 . 
the
codifica
terI1
of
ths
f:
preexisting
I,
 
subchap­
STUDENT
CARE
0
31­
2403HEALTH
ter 
has
been
substituted
for
 
chapter 
in
the
introductory
language.

3
31­
2402.
Examination
requirements;
certificates
of
health,
testing
for
lead
poisoning
and
dental
health.

(
a)
Except
as
provided
in
0
31­
2403,
whenever
a
student
attending
public
or
private
school
in
the
District
enters
prekindergarten,
kindergarten,
and
the
lst,
3rd,
5th,
7th,
9th,
and
11th
grades,
he
or
she
shall
furnish
the
school
with
a
certificate
of
health
completed
and
signed
by
a
physician
or
certified
nurse
practitioner
who
has
examined
the
student
not
more
than
150
calendar
days
before
his
or
her
1st
day
of
school.
The
examination
shall
cover
all
items
required
by
the
certificate
of
health
form
for
the
student s
particular
age
group.
(
a­
1)
Upon
entry
of
a
student
under
6
years
of
age
into
a
licensed
day
care
center,
Head
Start
or
similar
early
childhood
program,
prekindergarten,
kindergarten
or
first
grade
in
a
public
or
private
school
in
the
District,
the
student
shall
furnish
the
school
with
a
certificate
of
testing
for
lead
poisoning.
(
b)
The
Mayor
shall
establish
requirements
for
periodic
testing
for
lead
poisoning
and
dental
examinations.
The
Mayor
shall
also
establish
=
quimenta
for
the
submission
of
certificates
of
testing
for
lead
poisoning
for
the
students
subject
to
the
provisions
of
subsection
(
a­
1)
of
this
section,
and
submission
of
certificates
of
dental
health
for
elementary
and
secondary
school
students.
(
c)
The
Mayor
shall
develop
standard
forms
for
certificates
of
health,
testing
for
lead
poisoning
and
dental
health
and
shall
make
blank
forms
available
in
sufficient
quantities
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
this
subchapter.
The
certificate
of
health
form
shall
contain
at
a
minimum
all
items
required
by
the
American
Academy
of
Pediatrics
for
each
relevant
age
group.
(
d)
Except
as
provided
in
31­
2403,
the
Mayor
may
require
that
prekindergarten,
elementary,
and
secondary
school
students
who
participate
in
special
programs
or
have
been
exposed
to
certain
hazards
meet
examination
requirements
in
addition
to
those
established
by
this
subchapter.
(
Dec.
3,1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
p
3,32
DCR
6086;
Oct.
15,
1993,
D.
C.
Law
10­
29,
O
2(
a)­(
c),
40
DCR
5752.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
66.­
See
Legislative
history
of
Law
10­
29.­
See
note
to
8
31­
2401.
 
note
to
8
31­
2410.

3
31­
2403.
Exemption
for
religious
beliefs.

Certificates
of
health,
testing
for
lead
poisoning
and
dental
health
shall
not
be
required
under
this
subchapter,
and
no
physical,
lead
poisoning
or
dental
examination
shall
be
required
by
the
Mayor,
if
a
minor
student s
parent
or
guardian
or
an
adult
student
submits
in
good
faith
a
written
notarized
statement
to
the
principal
or
other
appropriate
school
official
affirming
that
the
examination(
s)
in
question
would
violate
the
established
tenets
and
practices
of
the
parent s,
guardian s
or
student s
church
or
religious
denomi297
 
6
31­
2404
EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONSAND
CULTURAL
nation.
(
Dec.
3,
1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
4,32
DCR
6086;
Oct.
15,
1993,
D.
C.
a
student
be
exclu
Law
10­
29,
4
2(
d),
40
DCR
5752.)
this
section.
(
Dec.

Section
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
Legislative
history
of
Law
10­
29.­
See
Section
referenceferred
to
in
5
31­
2402.
note
to
8
31­
2410.
ferred
to
in
8
31­
2406Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
66.­
See
note
to
5
31­
2401.
9
31­
2406.
DU
0
31­
2404.
Notice
of
noncompliance;
attendance
unaffected
If
a
student
is
c
shall
be
his
or
he
(
a)
No
student
shall
be
excluded
from
school
on
account
of
his
or
her
failure
his
or
her
parent
to
furnish
a
required
certificate
of
health,
testing
for
lead
poisoning
or
dental
necessary
for
him
health.
If
a
certificate
of
health,
testing
for
lead
poisoning
or
dental
health
is
is
not
available
not
furnished
when
required,
the
principal
or
other
appropriate
school
official
treatment
is
mac
shall
give
both
oral
and
written
notice
to
a
minor
student s
parent(
s)
or
consent
of
the
p
guardian
or
an
adult
student
that
submission
of
the
certificate
is
required
by
District
law,
min
law.
The
notice
shall
explain
how
to
contact
the
public
health
authorities
for
provided
in
6
31
the
purpose
of
having
the
student
examined
if
private
health
care
is
not
Legieiative
histoavailable
or
desired.
If
aRer
30
calendar
days
the
student
has
still
not
note
to
!
j
31­
2401.
furnished
the
required
certificate
of
health,
testing
for
lead
poisoning
or
dental
health,
the
principal
or
other
appropriate
school
official
shall
inquire
into
0
31­
2407.
Si
whether
the
student
has
had
an
examination.
If
the
student
has
not
been
given
an
examination
and
none
is
scheduled,
the
principal
or
other
appropriate
(
a)
TheBoard
school
official
shall
notify
the
public
health
authorities,
who
shall
make
prompt
Mayor,
with
re
and,
if
necessary,
continuing
efforts
to
secure
the
consent
of
the
parentis),
procedures
regu
guardian,
or
adult
student
so
that
the
student
may
as
soon
aspossible
be
given
maintain
health
the
required
examination(
s)
either
in
a
public
health
facility
or
at
school.
all
health­
relate
(
b)
Notwithstanding
the
provisions
in
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section,
any
(
b)
Astudent
parent
or
guardian
who,
without
good
cause,
fails
to
comply
with
the
provi­
furnished
pursu
sions
of
this
subchapter
or
any
rule
issued
pursuant
to
0
31­
2408
shall,
at
the
inspection,
disc1
discretion
of
the
Mayor,
be
subject
to
a
fine
not
to
exceed
$
100
per
school
year.
federal
law.
(
Dit.
(
Dec.
3,1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
P5,32
DCR
6086;
Oct.
15,1993,
D.
C.
Law
10­
29,
§
2(
e),
40
DCR
5752.)
Legislative
hist
note
to
8
31­
2401.
Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
66.­
See
Legislative
history
of
Law
10­
29.
­
See
note
to
8
31­
2401.
note
to
8
31­
2410.
6
31­
2408.
J
9
31­
2405.
Fee
for
examination
by
public
health
authorities
indigency.
The
Mayor
A
fee,
based
on
rates
to
be
established
by
the
Mayor,
shall
be
charged
to
a
subchapter
and
minor
student s
parent(
s)
or
guardian
or
an
adult
student
when
the
student
of
Title
1,
to
car
has
been
examined
by
public
health
authorities
pursuant
to
this
subchapter
6086.1
and
the
parentb),
guardian,
or
adult
student
is
not
indigent.
The
Mayor
shall
Section
referei
define
 
indigency 
under
this
section
and
may
establish
a
sliding
scale
of
ferred
to
in
5
31­
2
partial
payment
based
on
the
parents ,
guardian s,
or
adult
student s
reason
able
abiiity
to
pay
some
of
the
examination
costs.
Under
no
circumstances
shall
298
STUDENT
CARE
6
31­
2408HEALTH
3,
1993,
D.
C.

IW
10­
2s.­
see
nce
unafor
her
failure
ling
or
dental
ntal
health
is
school
official
parentk)
or
s
required
by
uthorities
for
1
care
is
not
has
still
not
ling
or
dental
inquire
into
at
been
given
'
appropriate
IT
I
prompt
ht
,
arent(
s),
iible
be
given
t
school.
section,
any
th
the
provishall
at
the
r
school
year.
J.
Law
10­
29,

w
10­
29.
­
See
L
authoricharged
to
a
the
student
.;
subchapter
Mayor
shall
!
ing
scale
of
,
nt's
reason­
;
tames
shall
a
student
be
excluded
from
school
pending
the
payment
of
a
fee
imposed
under
this
section.
(
Dec.
3,
1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
4
6,
32
DCR
6086.)

Section
ceferexscea
­
This
section
is
re­
Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
66.­
See
ferred
to
in
4
31­
2406.
note
to
4
31­
2401.

8
31­
2406.
Duty
to
obtain
treatment.

If
a
student
is
excluded
from
school
pursuant
to
$
4
6­
117
through
6­
130,
it
shall
be
his
or
her
responsibility
if
an
adult
student,
and
the
responsibility
of
his
or
her
parentb)
or
guardian
if
a
minor
student,
to
obtain
any
treatment
necessary
for
him
or
her
to
resume
attendance
at
school.
If
private
health
care
is
not
available
or
desired,
the
Mayor
shall
ensure
that
the
necessary
treatment
is
made
available
by
public
health
authorities
after
obtaining
the
consent
of
the
parent(
s),
guardian,
adult
student,
or,
when
authorized
by
District
law,
minor
student.
Fees
shall
be
determined
in
the
same
manner
as
provided
in
$
31­
2405.(
Dee.
3,
1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
8
7,
32
DCR
6086.)

Legidetive
history
of
Law
6­
66.­
See
note
to
5
31­
2401.

9
31­
2407.
Student
health
files.

(
a)
The
Board
of
Education,
with
respect
to
public
school
students,
and
the
Mayor,
with
respect
to
private
school
students,
shall
establish
uniform
procedures
requiring
elementary
and
secondary
schools
in
the
District
to
maintain
health
files
for
each
student.
Each
student's
health
file
shall
contain
all
health­
related
documents
submitted
by
or
on
behalf
of
the
student.
(
b)
A
student's
health
file
and
all
certificates
of
health
and
dental
health
hrnished
pursuant
to
this
subchapter
shall
be
confidential
and
subject
to
inspection,
disclosure,
arid
use
only
as
provided
by
applicable
District
and
federal
law.
(
Dec.
3,
1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
4
8,
32
DCR
6086.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
66.­
See
note
to
P
31­
2401.

0
31­
2408.
Joint
administration
by
Mayor
and
Board
of
Education;
rules.

The
Mayor
and
the
Board
of
Education
shall
jointly
administer
this
subchapter
and
each
shall
issue
rules
pursuant
to
subchapter
I
of
Chapter
15
of
Title
1,
to
cany
out
its
purposes.
(
Dec.
3,1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
O9,32
DCR
6086.)

Sedion
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
66.
­
See
ferred
to
in
0
31­
2404.
note
to
4
31­
2401.

299
5
§
31­
2409
EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONSAND
CULTURAL
practical
nurses
s0
31­
2409.
Protection
from
liability.
and
in
general
co
(
c)
Any
school
Neither
the
District
government
or
its
agencies,
officials,
and
employees
nor
nurse
services
prt
any
private
school
or
its
officials
and
employees
shall
be
subject
to
civil
or
that
level
of
sen
1
from
information
contained
in
a
student's
health
file,
or
to
obtain
treatment
for
a
student
solely
on
account
of
such
information.
(
Dec.
3,
1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
0
10,
32
DCR
6086.)
registered
nurse
based
on
a
reduc
requiring
special
(
d)
Appropriat
Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
66.
­%
e
note
to
8
31­
2401.
Education
in
acc
consultation
with
Board
of
Educat
§
31­
2410.
Reporting
and
studies
of
lead
poisoning
tests.
sponsored
by
a
DI
requiring
medica
(
a)
The
Mayor
shall
establish
requirements
for
the
mandatory
reporting
of
all
lead
poisoning
tests
conduded
in
the
District
of
Columbia.
not
limited
to:
(
1)
A
license
(
2)
Aregiste
criminal
liability
for
failing
to
recognize
or
communicate
a
need
for
treatment
section,
whichevc
(
b)
The
Mayor
shall
use
the
data
collected
in
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
to
,(
3)
Acertifieconduct
an
epidemiological
study
for
the
purpose
of
preventing
future
lead
(
4)
An
emer
poisoning.
The
Mayor
shall
submit
the
study
to
the
Council
of
the
District
of
(
5)
A
certifie
Columbia
within
2years
from
October
15,1993.(
Dec.
3,1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
Department
of
H9
loa,
as
added
Oct.
15,1993,
D.
C.
Law
10­
29,
s2(
f),
40DCR
5752.)
(
6)
An
adul
cardiopulmonary
Legishkve
history
ofLaw
1049.
­
D.
C.
ings
on
June
29,
1993,
and
July
13,
1993,
Law
10­
29,
the
'
Student
Health
Care
Amend­
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
July
29,
ment
Act
of
1993,"
was
introduced
in
Council
1993,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
10­
61and
trana­
and
assignedBill
No.
10­
54,
which
was
referred
mitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
ita
re
to
the
Committee
on
Education
and
Libraries.
view.
D.
C.
Law
10­
29became
effective
on
Octo­
(
eX1)
Appropr
injury
involved
1
that
shall
be
prc
District
and
that
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
read­
ber
15,1993.
detailed
as
follov
'
I
(
A)
For
fo
Subchapter
II.
Public
School
Nurses.
(
B)
For
bi
events,
or
cross­
§
31­
2421.
Assignment
to
schools;
hours;
level
of
services;
registered
nurse
nurse
or
athletic
trainer
at
sponsored
athletic
provider,
as
dete
(
C)
For
v(
events;
funding.
medical
doctor,
c
any
other
certifi(
a)
A
registered
nurse
shall
be
assigned
to
each
District
of
Columbia
Department
of("
District")
elementary
and
secondary
public
school
a
minimum
of
12hours
per
current
certificatweek
during
each
semester
and
during
summer
school
if
a
summer
school
(
D)
For
tc
program
is
operated.
financial
resourc(
b)(
l)
The
minimum
hours
per
week
of
registered
nurse
services
at
each
(
E)
For
a
school
shall
increase
from
12
to
16
hours
per
week
beginning
1
year
aRer
coverage,
commt
December
10,1987.
The
minimum
hours
per
week
of
registered
nurse
services
Superintendent
at
each
school
shall
increase
from
16
to
20
hours
per
week
beginning
2years
Director,
Depart
after
December
10,
1987.
(
2)
The
met
(
2)
Licensed
practical
nurses
may
be
used
to
supplement
the
registered
minimum
hours
nurse
work
force
in
meeting
the
required
20
hours
per
week
minimum
this
section.
registered
nurse
services
at
each
elementary
and
middle
school.
The­
licensed
300
I
L
md
employees
nor
subject
to
civil
or
ieed
for
treatment
tain
treatment
for
35,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,

mning
tests.

ltory
reporting
of
a. 
of
this
section
to
lting
hture
lead
of
the
District
of
i,
D.
C.
Law
6­
66,
:
R
5752.)

md
­
hly
13,
1993,
 
r
on
July
29,
 
Jo.
.61and
trans­
Congress
for
its
rene
effective
on
Octoofservices
red
athletic
:
t
of
Columbia
of
12
hours
per
iummer
school
xrvices
at
each
:
g1
year
after
nurse
services
inning
2
years
the
registered
 
eli
minimum
The
licensed
practical
nurses
shall
perform
their
duties
under
the
appropriate
supervision
and
in
general
collaboration
with
the
registered
nurses.
(
c)
Any
school
that,
on
May
1,
1987,
exceeded
the
standards
for
registered
,

nurse
services
prescribed
by
subsection
(
a)
or
(
b)
of
this
section
shall
cont­
kue
that
level
of
service,
or
the
level
prescribed
by
subsection
(
a)
or
(
b)
of
this
section,
whichever
is
greater.
No
reduction
shall
be
made
in
the
level
of
registered
nurse
services
at
any
school
except
in
response
to
a
reduced
need
based
on
a
reduced
student
enrollment
or
a
reduced
proportion
of
students
requiring
special
services
because
of
handicapping
conditions.
(
d)
Appropriate
medical
coverage,
asdefined
in
rules
issued
by
the
Board
of
Education
in
accordance
with
subchapter
I
of
Chapter
15
of
Title
1,
and
in
consultation
with
the
Director,
Department
of
Health,
shall
be
provided
by
the
Board
of
Education
at
any
interscholastic
athletic
event
if
the
event
is
sponsored
by
a
District
public
school,
occurs
in
the
District,
and
is
identified
a8
requiring
medical
coverage
by
rule.
This
medical
coverage
may
include,
but
is
not
limited
to:
(
1)
A
licensed
medical
doctor;
(
2)
A
registered
nurse;
,(
3)
A
certified
athletic
trainer:
(
4)
An
emergency
medical
technician
( 
EMT )
or
paramedic;
(
5)
A
certsed
prehospital
care
provider
(
asdetermined
by
the
Director,
Department
of
Health);
or
(
6)
An
adult
trained
by
the
Red
Cross
with
current
certification
in
cardiopulmonary
resuscitation
( 
CPR ),
first
aid,
or
life­
saving.
(
eX1)
Appropriate
medical
coverage
shall
be
consistent
with
the
risk
of
injury
involved
in
the
interscholastic
athletic
event.
The
medical
personnel
that
shall
be
present
at
an
interscholastic
athletic
event
that
occurs
in
the
District
and
that
is
sponsored
by
a
District
secondary
public
school
shall
be
detailed
as
follows:
(
A)
For
football,
a
licensed
medical
doctor;
(
B)
For
basketball,
wrestling,
soccer,
indoor
or
outdoor
track
and
field
events,
or
cross­
country,
at
least
1
licensed
doctor,
certified
athletic
trainer,
registered
nurse,
EMT
or
paramedic,
or
any
other
certified
prehospital
care
provider,
as
determined
by
the
Director,
Department
of
Health;
(
C>
For
volleyball,
baseball,
softball,
or
swimming,
at
least
1.
licensed
medical
doctor,
certified
athletic
trainer,
registered
nurse,
EMTor
paramedic,
any
other
certified
prehospital
care
provider,
as
determined
by
the
Director,
Department
of
Health,
or
adult
trained
by
the
American
Red
Cross
with
current
certification
in
CPR,
first
aid,
or
lifesaving;
(
D)
For
tennis
or
golf,
medical
personnel
coverage
shall
be
optional
as
financial
resources
allow;
and
(
E)
For
any
other
sport,
the
appropriate
level
of
medical
personnel
coverage,
commensurate
with
the
risk
of
injury
involved,
shall
be
set
by
the
Superintendent
of
Schools
of
the
District
of
Columbia,
in
consultation
with
the
Director,
Department
of
Health,
and
approved
by
the
Board
of
Education;
and
(
2)
The
medical
personnel
coverage
services
shall
be
in
addition
to
the
minimum
hours
of
registered
nurse
services
required
by
subsection
(
a)
or
(
b)
of
this
section.

301
7
§
31­
2421
EDUCATIONAND
CULTURAL
INSTITUTIONS
(
0
Sufficient
bds
to
carry
out
the
requirements
of
this
section
shall
be
appropriated
out
of
the
general
revenues
of
the
District.
(
gf
Beginning
with
the
fiscal
year
1991,
the
responsibility
for
implementation
of
this
act
shall
be
transferred
from
the
Department
of
Human
Services
to
the
Board
of
Education.
(
Dec.
10,1987,
D.
C.
Law
7­
45,
O
2,34
DCR
6845;
July
25,1990,
D.
C.
Law
8­
149,
5
2,
37
DCR
3717;
Aug.
17,
1991,
D.
C.
Law
9­
29,
6
2,
38
DCR
4213;
Mar.
20,
1998,
D.
C.
Law
12­
60,
§
401,
44DCR
7378.)

Effect
ofamendments.
­
D.
C.
Law
12­
60
substituted
 
Director,
Department
of
Health 
for
 
Commissioner
of
Public
Health 
in
the
introductory
language
of
(
d)
and
in
(
dX5),
(
eMl)(
B),(
eXl)(
C),
and
(
eXlXE).
lkmporary
amendment
of
section.
­
D.
C.
Law
12­
59
substituted
Virector,
Department
of
Health 
for
 
Commissioner
of
Public
Health 
in
the
introductory
language
of
(
d)
and
in
(
d)(
5),
(
eXl)(
B),
(
eXlXC),
and
te)(
l)(
E).
Section
2001(
b)
of
D.
C.
Law
12­
59
provided
that
the
act
shall
expire
a%
r
225
days
of
its
having
taken
effect.
Section
2002
of
D.
C.
Law
12­
59provided
that
the
act
shall
apply
of
October
1,
1997.
Emergency
act
amendments.­
For
temporary
amendment
of
section,
see
$
401
of
the
Fiscal
Year
1998
Revised
Budget
Support
Emergency
Act
of
1997
(
D.
C.
Act
12­
152,
October
17,
1997,
44DCR
6196),
and
$
401
of
the
Fiscal
Year
1998
&
vised
Budget
Support
Congressional
Review
Emergency
Act
of
1997
(
D.
C.
Act
12­
239,
January
13,
1998,
45
DCR
508).
Section
2002
of
D.
C.
Act
12­
152
provides
for
the
application
of
the
act.
Legislative
history
of
Law
7­
45.­
Law
7­
45, 
District
of
Columbia
Public
School
Nurse
Assignment
Act
of
1987, 
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
7­
47,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
Human
Services.
The
Bill
was
adopted
gn
first
and
second
readings
on
July
14,1987,
and
September
29,1987,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
October
16,
1987,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
7­
78
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legislative
history
of
Law
8­
130.
­
Law
8­
130
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
8­
528.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
February
27,
1990,
and
March
13,
1990,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
March
27,
1990,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
8­
182
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legislative
history
ofLaw
8­
149.
­
Law
8­
149
was
introduced
in
Council
and.
assigned
Bill
No.
8­
511,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
Human
Services.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
May
1,
1990,
and
May
15,1990,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
May
30,1990,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
8­
207
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legislative
history
of
Law
9­
19.
­
Law
9­
19
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
9­
205.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
May
7,
1991,
and
June
4,
1991,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
June
21,1991,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
9­
43
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legis tative
history
of
Law
9­
29.
­
Law
9­
29
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
9­
160,
which
was
referred
to
the
Commit
on
Education
and
Libraries.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
June
4,
1991,
and
June
18,
1991,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
July
2,
1991,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
9­
56
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legislative
history
of
Law
12­
59.
­
See
note
to
g
31­
2218.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1260.
­
See
note
to
$
31­
2218.
References
in
text.
­ 
This
act 
referred
to
in
(
g)
is
D.
C.
Law
8­
149.
Application
ofLaw
12­
60.
­
Section
2002
of
D.
C.
Law
12­
60
provided
that
the
act
shall
apply
as
of
October
1,
1997.
Private
action
mandating
compliance
approved.
­
This
section
creates
an
implied
private
right
of
action.
Because
the
District
conceded
that
it
had
never
complied
with
this
section
and
has
raised
on
appeal
only
the
issue
of
whether
this
section
creates
an
implied
privati
right
of
action,
it
follows
that
the
trial
court
properly
granted
summaryjudgment
for
appellee
parents
on
the
claim
under
this
sec­.
tion
as
well
as
permanent
iqjunctive
relief
mandating
compliance.
Kelly
v.
Parents
United
for
D.
C.
Pub.
Sch.,
App.
D.
C.,
641
A.
2d
159
(
1994).
Section
1983
claim
not
available.
­
Since
no
other
additional
kind
of
remedy
would
provide
any
greater,
more
expedient
protection
of
appellee
parents
presumed
property
interest
in
school
nurses
than
injunctive
relief,
and
bemuse
District
of
Columbia
procedures
were
deemed
constitutionally
adequate,
there
was
no
42
U.
S.
C.
8
1983
violation
and
attorney
fees
under
the
federal
statute
were
not
recoverable.
Kelly
v.
Parents
U
D.
C..
641
A.
2d
15
Subchapter
6
31­
2431.

For
purpose
(
1) 
Adm
(
A)
Thf
ingestion,
inh
(
B)
SUI
stances
only.
(
2)
 
Gene
(
A)
Ar
school
emplo!
device;
and
(
B)
The
ner
is
not
req
(
3)
 
Lice1
nurse.
(
4)
 
Lice1
or
advanced
r
(
5)
 
Medment
regarde
or
the
normal
(
6)
 
Pres
practitioner
c
mouth,
teleph
writing
by
tht
(
7)
 
Prin
(
8)
 
Stud
public
school
I
of
Columbia
p
10­
55,
9
2,
4
Legislative
h
Law
~
10­
55,
the
.
by
Public
Schooi
introduced
in
C
10­
14,
which
wa.
Education
and
L
on
first
and
secc
and
September
by
the
Mayor
o
signed
Act
No.
1
Houses
of
Cong
10­
55
became
ef
itt
111
\
302
b
29
DCMR,
Section
327.4
CHILD
DEVELOPMENT
FACILITIES
REGULATIONS
There
is
a
provision
in
the
Public
Welfare
code,
Title
29
Section
327.4
of
the
DCMR
that
requires
that
in
child
development
facilities,
all
items
that
children
may
touch
and
all
interior
surfaces
of
the
building
be
maintained
free
of
lead.
326
RECORDKEEPING
(
Continued)

326.7
A
record
containing
the
following
information
shall
be
maintained
by
.
each
child
development
facility
for
each
of
its
employees:

(
a)
The
name
and
address
of
employing
facility;

(
b)
The
employee's
name
in
full;

(
c)
Sex;

(
d)
Birthdate;

(
e)
Home
address;

(
f)
Title
of
position;

(
4)
Duties;

(
h)
Qualifications
(
attach
copy
of
curriculum
vitae);

(
i)
Date
of
appointment
to
present
position;

(
j)
Date
of
health
exam;
and
k)
The
employee's
health
record
including
physician's
opinion
concerning
empldyee's
general
physical
condition,
freedom
from@,!,,,,
disease
in
a
comnunicable
form
and
ability
to
work
closely
witt
or
care
for
infants
or
children
without'danger
to
the
infants
or
children;
date
of
chest
x­
rays;
when
indicated,
date
of
laboratory
tests
for
comnunicable
disease;
physician's
signature
address
and
telephone
number;
and
health
insurance
information.

327
PHYSICAL
REQUIREMENTS
OF
FACILITIES
327.1
All
child
development
facilities
shall1
conform
with
the
Building
Cod
of
the
District
(
DCMR
Title
12,
as
amended
by
the
provisions
of
Reg.
No.
74­
34),
the
Health
Regulations
of
the
District
of
Columbia
(
DCMR
Title
22),
and
all
other
applicable
Oistrict
rules
and
regulations.

327.2
In
d
facility
that
houses
both
infants
and
children,
expect
child
development
homes,
the
physical
requirements
for
the
infants
shall
apply,
unless
the
area
housing
the
infants
is
maintained
as
a
separate
fire
area.

327.3
Proper
heating
shall
be
provided.
A
minimum
temperature
of
sixty­
five
degrees
Fahrenheit
(
65"
F.)
shall
be
maintained
in
all
rooms
at
all
times.
2)

3
­
20
0s
*

327
327.4
327.5
328
328.1
328.2
328.3
329
329.1
329.2
329.3
329.4
.
329.5
,9
PHYSICAL
REQUIREMENTS
OF
FACILITIES
(
Continued)

All
items
that
children
may
touch
and
all
interior
surfaces
of
the
building
shall
be
m&
ntained,
by
the
operator
or
owner,'
free
of
lead
or
its
compounds
in
any
quantity
of
more
than
one
milligram
per
square
centimeter
(
1
mg/
cm2).

Natural
light
and
ventilation
requirements
of
the
Building
Code
(
DCMR
Title
12)
shall
be
met
in
all
child
development
facilities.

PROGRAM
SPACE
REQUIREHENTS
Suitable
space
for
outdoor
play
shall
be
provided.
This
space
shall
be
free
from
conditions
which
are
or
may
be
hazardous
to
the
life
or
health
of
the
children
or
infants.

A
minimum
of
sixty
square
feet
(
60
ft.
2)
of
outdoor
play
area
per
child
or
infant
per
sess.
ion
shall
be
provided
in
an
enclosed
yard
on
the
premises
or
in
a
nearby
park
or
playground,
or
on
a
properly
safeguarded
roof
facility
approved
by
the
Mayor.

Adequate
indoor
space
suitable
for
the
daily
program
shall
be
provided.
A
minimum
of
thirty­
five
square
feet
(
35
ft.
2)
per
child
per
session,
exclusive
of
bathrooms,
closets,
halls,
kitchen,
and
storage
places,
shall
be
provided.
Play
space
shall
be
clear
of
cots
except
at
nap
time.

TOILETS
AND
LAVATORIES
At
least
one
(
1)
flush
toilet
and
one
(
1)
lavatory
shall
be
provided
for
every
ten
(
10)
occupants
of
the
facility,
including
staff.
Urinals
may
be
substituted
for
flush
toilets
on
a
two
(
2)
urinals
to
one
(
1)
flush
toilet
basis,
but
two­
thirds
(
2/
3)
of
the
required
number
of
flush
toilets
shall
be
maintained.
Adult
facilities
shall
be
provided
separately
from
those
for
the
children
or
infants.

When
toilets
and
lavatories
are
not
of
a
height
to
be
used
by
the
children
without
assistance,
a
block
or
step
shall
be
provided.

Training
chairs
shall
be
provided
by
the
facility
for
use
by
children
who
require
them.
Training
potties
shall
be
emptied
promptly
and
sanitized
after
each
use.

Soap
and
individual­
or
paper
towels
shall
be
provided.

A
drinking
fountain
shall
be
provided
in
the
facility
or
individual
clean
cups
for
drinking
shall
be
provided.

3­
21
­
Mayor s
Order
97­
42
Establishes
the
Department
of
Health
and
implementation
of
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996.

w
wt­
w
GOvEBNMEpI(
T
OF
THEDISTRICT
OF
COLUMBU
t
i
Yayor's
Order
97
­
4
2
February
16,
A997
Implementation
of
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996,
SUBmm:
Establishment
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Department
of
Health
ORIGINATING
AGENCY:
Office
of
the
Mayor
t:.
t
!'
By
virtue
of
the
authority
vested
in
me
as
Mayor
of
the
District
of
Columbia
by
section
422(
12)
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Self­
I
Government
and
Governmental
Reorganization'Act
of
1973,
approved
December
24,
1973
(
87
Stat.
790;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
1­
242
(
121);
the
Governmental
Reorganization
Procedures
Act
of
1981,
effective
October
17,
1981
(
D.
C.
Law
4­
42;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
1­
299.1
seq.);
the
Department
of
Public
Health
Establishment
Act*
of
1992,
effective
March
13,
1993
(
D.
C.
Law
9­
182;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
131
et
seq.);
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996
for
the
Department
of
P
Health
Approval
Resolution
of
1996,
effective
July
17,
1996
(
Res.
11­
450;
43
DCR
3974);
and
as
provided
in
paragraph
two
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Financial
Responsibility
and
Management
Assistance
Authority
letter,
dated
December
18,
1996,
approving
the
establishment
of
the
Department
of
Health,
it
is
hereby
ORDERED
that:

1.
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996
("
Plan"),
establishing
the
iDistrict
of
Columbia
Department
of
Health'shall
be
effective
nunc
pro
tunc
to
January
13,
1997.

2.
The
Director
of
the
Department
of
Health
shall
undertake
such
necessary
or
appropriate
steps
to
ensure
implementation
of
the
Plan,
a
copy
of
which
is
attached
to
and
incorporated
into
this
Order,
The
Director
of
the.
Department
of
Health
is
hereby
delegated
authority
to
carry
out
the
functions
of
the
Department
of
Health
pursuant
to
sections
I,
XIr,
IV,
VI
.­
VI
and
VI1
of
the
Plan
for
the
Department
of
Health.

3.
The
heads
of
each
department
and
agency
responsible,
in
whole
or
in
part,
for
transferring
to
the
Department
of
Health,
positions,
property,
records,
appropriations
or
other
funds,
or
for
providing
other
services
or
functions
shall
immediately
undertake
all
necessary
steps
to
implement
the
provisions
of
the
Plan.

?

.
1360
4.
The
functions
and
resources
set
forth
in
sections
I,
111,
XV,
VI
VI
and
VI1
of
the
Plan
are
hereby
transferred
to
the
"

Department
of
Health.

5.
EFWVE
DATE:
This
Order
shall
become
effective
nunc
pro
tunc
to
January
13,
1997.

HAYOR
J
ATTEST:
\
MThLEEN
E.
ARNOLD'
SECRETARY
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
1361
3
Mayor's
Order
99­
68
Delegates
to
the
Department
of
Health
the
authority
to
conduct
hearings
for
the
Department
on
denial,
suspensions,
revocation
or
modification
of
certificates,
permits
or
accreditation
pursuant
to
the
Lead
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control
Act
of
1996
(
D.
C.
Law
11221
GOVERNMENT
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
ADMINISTRATIVE
ISSUANCE
SYSTEM
Mayor's
Order
99­
68
April
28,
1999
SUBJECT:
Delegation
of
Authority
Pursuant
to
D.
C.
Law
6­
42,
the
"
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Civil
Ineactions
Act
of
1985"

Office
of
the
Mayor
ORIGINATING
AGENCY:

By
virtue
of
the
authority
vested
in
me
as
Mayor
of
the
District
of
Columbia
by
section
422(
6)
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Home
Rule
Act
of
1973,
as
amended,
87
Stat.
790,
Pub.
L.
No.
93­
198,
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
1­
242(
6)
(
1997
Supp.),
and
the
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Civil
Infiactions
Act
of
1985,
effective
October
5,
1985
(
D.
C.
Law
6­
42;
D.
C.
Code.
sec.
6­
2701
et
seq.,
1997Supp.
(
the
"
Act"),
it
is
hereby
ORDERED
that:

1.
The
Director,
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
is
delegated
the
Mayor's
authority
pursuant
to
the
Act,
except
as
provided
in
paragraph
2
of
this
Order.

2.
The
Director,
Department
of
Health,
is
delegated
the
Mayor's
authority
to
perform
the
following
functions
under
the
Act
asthey
pertain
to
laws
administered
by
the
Department
of
Health:

(
a)
Appoint
1
or
more
attorneys
to
serve
as
administrative
law
judges
or
attorney
examiners
to
implement
the
provisions
of
the
Act
pursuant
to
section
103
of
the
Act.
(
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
2703);

(
b)
Prepare
and
periodically
amend
a
schedule
of
fines
to
be
imposed
under
the
Act,
pursuant
to
section
104
of
the
Act.
(
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
2704);

(
c)
Issue
des
necessary
to
carry
out
the
purposes
of
the
Act
and
Department
of
Health
programs
pursuant
to
section
105
of
the
Act.
(
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
2705);

(
d)
Serve
notices
of
*
actions
pursuant
to
section
201
of
the
Act.
(
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6271
1);

(
e)
Enter
final
orders
to
pay
fines,
penalties,
or
costs
as
a
judgment
against
and
enforce
that
judgment
pursuant
to
section
201
of
the
Act.
(
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
2713);
and
(
0Impose
civil
fines,
penalties
and
costs
for
adjudicated
infiactions
pursuant
to
section
104
of
the
Act
(
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
2704).
3.
For
the
purpose
of
this
Mayor's
Order,
the
laws
administered
by
the
Department
of
Health
include
the
following:
[*
4235]

(
a)
The
Water
Pollution
Control
Act
of
1984,
effective
March
16,
1985
(
D.
C.
Law
5­
188;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
921
et
seq.);

(
b)
The
Pharmacist
and
Pharmacy
Regulation
Act
of
1980,
effective
September
16,
1980
(
D.
C.
Law
3­
98;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
2­
2020
et
seq.);

(
c)
The
Smoking
Restriction
Act
of
1979,
effective
September
28,
1979
(
D.
C.
Law
3­
22;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
91
1
et
seq.);

(
d)
The
Pesticide
Operations
Act
of
1977,
effective
April
18,
1977
(
D.
C.
Law
2­
70;
24
DCR
6867);

(
e)
The
Hazardous
Waste
Management
Act
of
1977,
effective
March
16,
1978
@.
C.
Law
2­
64;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
701
et
seq.);

(
f)
The
District
of
Columbia
Tissue
Bank,
approved
September
10,
1962
(
76
Stat.
535;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
2­
1601
et
seq.);

(
g)
District
of
Columbia
Drug
Manufacture
and
Distribution
Licensure
Act
of
1990,
effective
June
13,
1990
(
D.
C.
Law
8­
137;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
33­
1001
et
seq.);

(
h)
An
Act
to
Prevent
the
Adulteration
of
Candy
in
the
District
of
Columbia,
approved
May
5,
1898
(
30
Stat.
398;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
33­
201
et
seq.);

(
i)
The
Lead
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control
Act
of
1996,
effective
April
9,
1997
(
D.
C.
Law
11­
221;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
997.1
et
seq.);

fi)
The
Youth
Residential
Facilities
Licensure
Act
of
1986,
effective
August
13,
1986
(
D.
C.
Law
6­
139;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
3­
801
et
seq.);

(
k)
The
Health­
Care.
and
Community
Residence
Facility,
Hospice,
and
Home
Care
Licensure
Act
of
1983,
effective
February
24,
1984
(
D.
C.
Law
5­
48;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
321301
et'seq.);

(
1)
The
District
of
Columbia
Underground
Storage
Tank
Management
Act
of
1990,
effective
March
8,
1991
(
D.
C.
Law
8­
242;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
995.1
et
seq.);

(
m)
The
Asbestos
Licensing
and
Control
Act
of
1990,
effective
May
1,
1990
(
D.
C.
Law
8­
1
16;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
99
1.1
et
seq.);

(
n)
The
Air
Pollution
Control
Act
of
1984,
effective
March
15,
1985
(
D.
C.
Law
5­
165;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
6­
904
et
seq.);

3
(
0)
The
Clinical
Laboratory
Act
of
1988,
effective
March
16,
1989
(
D.
C.
Law
7­
182;
[*
4236]
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
32­
1501
et
seq.);

(
p)
The
District
of
Columbia
Uniform
Controlled
Substances
Act
of
1981,
effective
August
5,
1981
(
D.
C.
Law.
4­
29;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
33­
501
et
seq.);

(
4)
The
District
of
Columbia
Child
Placing
Authority
Act
of
1979,
effective
August
23,
1980
(
D.
C.
Law
3­
59;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
32­
1001
et
seq.);

(
r)
An
Act
Relating
to
the
adulteration
of
foods
and
drugs
in
the
District
of
Columbia,
approved
(
February
17,
1898
(
30
Stat.
247;
D.
C.
Code,
sec.
33­
104);
and
(
s)
Child
Development
Facilities
Regulation
Act
of
1998,
effective
December
9,
1998
(
D.
C.
Act
12­
530;
45
DCR
274).

4.
The
Director,
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
and
the
Director,
Department
of
Health,
are
authorized
to
make
sub­
delegations
necessary
to
carry
out
the
provisions
of
the
Act.

5.
This
Order
supersedes
Mayor's
Order
86­
38,
dated
March
4,
1986.

6.
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
This
Order
shall
become
effective
immediately.

ANTHONY
A.
WILLIAMS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
BEVERLY
DENISE
RIVERS
SECRETARY
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
,
Department
of
Health
Organization
Order
No.
99­
24
Creates
the
Office
of
Adjudication
and
Hearings
to
administer
the
above
functions.
­­
Department
of
'­
3alth
ORGANIZATION
ORDER
NO.
24
DATE
12­
17­
99
ORIGINATINGAGLNW
Office
of
the
Director
SUPCDSZDCS/
AMIWDS:

SUBJICCT:
Office
of
Adjudicatjon
and
Hearings
By
virtue
of
the
authority
vested
in
me
by
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996,
and
pursuant
to
Mayois
Order
No.
97­
42,
effective
January
13,
1997,
and
Mayor's
Order
No.
99­
68,
effective
April
28,
1999,
it
is
hereby
ORDERED
that:

1.
ESTABLISHMENT:
There
is
established
in
the
Office
of
the
Director,
Department
of
Health,
the
Office
of
Adjudication
and
Hearings,
headed
by
a
Chief
Administrative
Law
Judge,
with
the
mission,
structure,
and
bnctions
set
forth
below:

I1
MISSION:
To
administeradjudicative
functions
of
the
Department
of
Health
in
a
manner
that
is
efficient,
effective,
and
fair.

I][
STRUCTURE:
The
Office
of
Adjudication
and
Hearings
(,,,
AH"
or
"
Office")
is
structured
without
sub­
components.
The
Chief
Judge
shall
report
to
the
Director,
but
shall
create
and
maintain
a
system
in
which
judicial
fact
finding
and
legal
decisions
are
made
in
a
f&,
impartial
and
independent
manner
and
without
exparre
influence
fiom
other
organizational
elements
or
personnel.

IV
FUNCTIONS:
The
Office,
under
the
authority
of
the
Chief
Judge,
is
responsible
for
the
following:

A.
DeveIoping
and
proposing
a
Code
of
Administrative
Judicial
Ethics.
which,
upon
approval
by
the
Director,
shall
be
applied
throughout
Om;

B.
Managing
a
system
for
scheduling
administrativehearings
and
other
adjudicative
matters,
notifying
parties
and/
or
their
attorneys
of
ail
orders,
judgments,
schedulingdecisions,
and
other
court
actions;

C.
Holding
required
adjudicative
hearings,
consistent
with
this
order
and
applicable
law,
for
all
matters
falling
under
the
adjudicative
jurisdiction
of
organizational
units
within
the
Department
of
Health.
or
with
the
approval
of
the
Director,
other
agencies.
These
include,
without
limitation,
the
following
administrationsand
organizational
units:

1.
Environmental
Health
Administration;
2.
Licensing
and
Regulation
Administration
3.
Medical
Assistance
Administration
4.
Preventive
Health
Services
Administration
O5
'
Government
of
the
District
of
Columt
0.0.
NO.
24
Date:
12­
17­
99
­
2­

Such
hearings
can
include,
without
limitation,
hearings
on:

1
*
Notices
of
violation
and
proposed
compliance
orders;
2
Suspensions,
revocations
and
denials
of
licenses,
certificationsand
permits;
3
Patient
transfers;
4
Nurse­
aide
abuse
claims;

D.

E.

F.

G.

­­
H.

I.

J.
5.
Dangerous
dog
and
animal
control
matters
6.
Civil
infractions;
7.
Matters
pertaining
to
Medicaid
payments
in
which
the
recipient
or
another
person
or
entity
is
entitled
to
an
oral
evidentiary
hearing
under
42
CFR
part
205
or
other
applicable
law;
8.
Professional
licensing
and
discipline
matters
when
delegated
by
an
appropriate
authority
and
when
such
delegation
is
accepted
by
Order
of
the
Chief
Judge.

Managing
a
case
file,
calendar,
docketing,
and
scheduling
system
and
authorizing
forms
that
may
be
used
by
OM,
or
submitted
to
OM
by
parties
appearing
before
it;

Assessing,
adjusting,
and
suspending
fines,
penalties,
and
fees,
and
suspending,
revoking
and
restoring
permits,
Iicenses,
and
other
regulatory
authorizations;

Issuing
written
and
oral
decisions
and
orders
and
discharging
other
powers
and
duties
granted
by
statute
or
other
law
orauthority;

Submitting
an
annual
proposed
budget
and
spending
plan
to
the
Director
and
conducting
procurement
activities
for
OAH
consistent
with
District
of
Columbia
law
and
with
support
md
assistance
of
appropriate
administrative
units
in
the
Department
of
Health;

Developing
ethical
and
proper
standards
for
employee
performance
accountability.
Hiring,
evaluating,
promoting*
separating
andlor
disciplining
employees
consistent
with
the
requirements
of
the
Comprehensive
Merit
Personnel
Act
and
other
District
of
CoIumbia
Law.

Developing
qualification
standards
for
Administrative
Law
Judges
and
other
OAH
employees
and
developing
requirements
for
orientation,
training
and
continuing
regal
education
including
requirements
necessary
to
comply
with
statutory
mandates.

Adopting
operating
procedures,
practices,
and
policies
for
the
Ofice
and
proposing
to
the
Director
the
formal
promulgation
of
regulations
as
may
be
necessary
or
desirable
to
carry
out
the
mission
of
the
Office;

3
Government
of
the
District
of
ColUmi
0.0.
NO.
24
0A.
H
Date:
12­
17­
99
­
3­
II­
3­
B­
2
4
K.
Evaluating
adjudication
and
related
hnctions
carried
out
for
the
Department
of
Health
by
agencies
or
entities
other
than
OAH
under
agreements,
memoranda
of
understanding,
and
the
like
and,
with
the
approval
of
the
Director
and
the
Chief
Judge,
modifying
or
terminating
such
agreements,
with
OAH
then
assuming
responsibility
for
those
functions.
Notwithstanding
the
above
provision,
OAH
may
begin
hearing
dangerous
dog
and
animal
control
matters
upon
Order
of
the
Chief
Judge
and
upon
30
days
notice
to
the
Department
of
Human
Services.

L.
Beginning
November
1,2000,
with
the
approval
of
the
Director
and
the
Chief
Judge,
and
if
otherwise
authorized
by
law,
hearing
matters
pertaining
to
disputes
between
health
care
providers
and
the
Department
of
Health
concerning
Medicaid
payment
reconciliation
including
disputes
pertaining
to
Department
of
Health
final
decisions
on
notices
of
program
reimbursement;

M.
Reportingjudgments,
orders,
decrees,
and
other
decisions
to
legal
publishers
(
e.
g.
Westlaw
andLexis)
under
standards
and
circumstances
to
be
determined
by
the
Chief
Judge;

N.
Handling
payments
received
in
a
manner
consistent
with
law
and
clearly
established
policies
and
procedures.
Utilizing
revenues
collected
and
retained
by
OAH
consistent
with
D.
C.
Law
12­
283
or
other
law,
andor
with
the
Director s
approval,
utilizing
funds
collected
and
retained
by
other
units
of
the
Department
of
Health
receiving
services
from
OAH
consistent
with
D.
C.
Law
12­
283
or
other
law.

V.
STAFFING
PATTERN:
The
positions
in
the
Office
of
Adjudication
and
Hearings
are
listed
on
Attachment
A
to
this
order.

VI.
TRANSFER
OFPOSITION:
None
VII.
RESOURCES:
Fiscal
Year
2000
budget,
grants,
indirect
cost
recovery,
intra­
District
or
­
similar
transfers,
andlor
other
mechanisms
providing
funding
support
fromDepartment
of
Health
andor
other
organizational
units
utilizing
services
provided
by
OAH.
Except
as
otherwiseordered
by
the
Chief
Judge,
OAH
shall
hear
matters
to
the
extent
that
one
of
the
above
fbnding
sources
has
been
identified
to
provide
adequate
hearing
and
adjudication
capacity,
or
to
the
extent
fundsare
lawfully
available
pursuant
to
paragraph
IV.
Nof
this
Order.
­

VIII.
MISCELANEOUS:
Nothing
in
this
Order
shall
be
construed
as
conferring
upon
any
party
any
new
or
additional
right
to
a
hearing
or
other
adjudication.
0.0.
NO.
24
OAR
Date:
12­
17­
99
­
4­
11­
3­
B­
24
Ix
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
This
order
shall
take
effect
immediately.

I
/
Ivan
C.
A.
Walks,
MD
1
Director
..
I.
D.
C.
Law
13­
103
Delegates
to
the
Department
of
Health
the
authority
to
regulate
actions
that
affect
lead
poison
program
implementation.

/
COUNCIL
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
NOTICE
D.
C.
LAW
13­
103
"
Departmentof
Health
Functions
Clarification
Temporary
Act
of
19ppTL
Pursuant
to
Section
412
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Home
Rule
Act,
P.
L.
93­
198
"
the
Act",
the
Council
of
the
District
of
Columbia
adopted
Bill
13­
515
on
first
and
second
readings
December
7,
1999
and
December
2
1,
1999,
respectively.
Following
the
signature
of
the
Mayor
on
January
10,2000,
pursuant
to
Section
404(
e)
of
"
the
Act",
the
bill
became
Act
13­
250
and
tt
was
published
in
the
February
25,2000
edition­
ofthe
D.
C.
Register
(
Vol.
47,

page
1089).
The
Act
was
transmitted
to
Congress
on
February
23,2000
for
a
30­
day
review,

in
accordance
with
Section
602(
c)(
1)
of
the
Act.

The
Council
of
the
District
of
Columbia
hereby
gives
notice
that
the
30­
day
Congressional
review
period
has
expired,
and
the
Act
is
now
D.
C.
Law
13­
103,
effective
May
9,2000.

LINDA
W.
CROPP
Chairman
of
the
Council
­
Daw
Counted
During
the
30­
day
Congressional
Review
Period:

Feb.
29
Mar.
1,2,6,7,8,9,20,21,22,23,24,27,28,29,30
Apr.
3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13
­_
May
1,2,3,4,8
3
ENROLLED
ORIGINAL
ANACT
­.
rrL
D.
C.
ACT
13­
250
INTHE
COUNCIL
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
m
To
clarify,
on
a
temporary
basis,
the
functions
transferred
from
the
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
to
the
Department
of
Health
pursuant
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996.

BE­
ITENACTED
BY
THE
COUNCIL
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA,
That
this
act
may
be
cited
as
the
"
Department
of
Health
Functions
Clarification
Temporary
Act
of
1999".

Sec.
2.
(
a)
The
functions
of
the
Department
of
Health,
as
established
by
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996,
effective
July
17,
1996
(
D.
C.
Code
Vol.
l),
shall
be
the
following:
(
1)
To
regulate
health
care
and
social
service
professionals;
(
2)
To
regulate
occupational
and
professional
conduct
and
standardsfor
health
care
and
social
service
professionals,
including
investigating,
licensing,
and
enforcing
applicable
laws
and
regulations;
(
3)
To
regulate
actions
that
affect
the
physical
environment
and
ensure
compliance
with
applicable
federal
and
District
laws
and
rules
that
govern
the
uses
and
practices
that
affect
the
physical
environment,
including
air
resources
management,
water
resources
management,
storm
water
management,
soil
resources
management,
hazardous
waste,
pesticides,
lead
poison
program
implementation,
asbestos
program
management,
underground
storage
tank
regulation,
aquatic
and
wildlife
resources
management,
medical
waste
management,
low­
level
radioactive
waste
control,
and
toxic
chemical
control;
(
4)
To
regulate
health
care
and
social
service
facilities;
(
5)
To
regulate
food
service
establishments,
including,
but
not
limited
tQ,
retailers
and
wholesalers
of
food
and
food
products,
grocery
stores,
restaurants,
food
vendors,
dairies,
patent
medicine
outlets,
ice
cream
manufacturers,
candy
manufacturers,
bottling
establishments,
wholesale
and
retail
seafood
dealers,
delicatessens,
and
bakeries;
(
6)
To
regulate
pharmacies
and
pharmacy
personnel;
(
7)
To
determine
which
drugs
and
other
substances
shall
be
classified
as
controlled
substances,
and
identify
persons
and
facilities
that
handle,
manage,
distribute,
dispense,
and
conduct
research
with
controlled
substances;
(
8)
To
regulate
radiological
and
medical
devices;
(
9)
To
regulate
the
manufacture,
distribution,
and
dispensing
of
controlled
substances;

1
Codific&
km
District
of
Cohbia
Code
2000
supp
No*,
Vol.
1
Reorgafution
Plan
No.
4
of
19%
ENROLLED
ORIGINAL
(
10)
To
regulate
the
operation
of
barber
shops
and
bsty
salons;
(
1
1)
To
regulate
swimming
pools;
(
12)
To
regulate
massage
and
health
spa
establishments;
and
(
1
3)
To
perform
any
other
bctions
expressly
described
in
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996,
as
construed
in
light
of
all
documents
formally
made
a
part
of
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996
pursuant
to
section
6
of
the
Governmental
Reorganization
Procedures
Act
of
1981,
effective
October
17,
1981
(
D.
C.
Law
4­
42;
D.
C.
Code
6
1­
299.5).
(
b)
For
the
purpose
of
this
act,
the
term
"
regulate"
shall
include
all
licensing,
certification,
investigation,
inspection,
permitting,
registration,
and
enforcement
functions,
including
the
issuance
of
civil
infractions,
except
that
the
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
shall
continue
to
issue
licenses
for
businesses
engaged
in
functions
related
to
the
physical
environment
as
set
forth
in
section
2(
a)(
3).
(
c)
The
Mayor
shall
establish
fees
to
implement
this
act.
All
fees
collected
pursuant
to
this
act
shall
be
deposited
in
the
General
Fund
to
the
credit
of
the
administration
within
the
Department
of
Health
responsible
for
collecting
the
fees.
(
d)
The
Mayor,
pursuant
to
title
I
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
approved
October
21,
1968
(
82
Stat.
1204;
D.
C.
Code
5
1­
1501
etseq.),
shall
issue
rules
to
implement
the
provisions
of
this
act.

Sec.
3.
There
is
no
fiscal
impact
concerned
withthis
legislation.

Sec.
4.
(
a)
This
act
shall
take
effect
following
approval
by
the
Mayor
(
or
in
the
event
of
veto
by
the
Mayor,
action
by
the
Council
to
ovenide
the
veto),
approval
by
the
Financial
Responsibility
and
Management
Assistance
Authority
as
provided
in
section
203(
a)
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Financial
Responsibility
and
Management
Assistance
Act
of
1995,
zpproved
April
17,
1995
(
109
Stat.
116;
D.
C.
Code
6
47­
392.3(
a)),
a
30­
day
period
of
Congressional
review
as
provided
in
section
602(
c)(
1)
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Home
Rule
Act,
approved
December
24,
1973
(
87
Stat.
813;
D.
C.
Code
5
1­
233(~)(
1)),
and
publication
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register.
e)
This
act
sh#
expire
after
225
days
of
its
having
taken
effect.

Council
of
the
District
of
Colum6ia
Mayor
I
District
of
Columbia
APPROVED:
January
10,
2000
Jf2
COUNCIL
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
COUNCIL
?
ERlOD
THIRTEEN
B13­
515
RECORD
OF
omm
COUNCIL
VOTE
Dwluc
Nm.
I
I
IIEM
ON
CONSENTCALENDAR
1>
4
ACI ION
&
DAm
­
ADOPTED
FIRST
READING,
12­
07­
99
1)
4
VOlCEVrn
APPROVED
ALL
PRESENT
UWRDED
VOTE
ON
REQUEST
ABSENT
1
I
ROLLCALLVOTE­
srul
I
­­­­)
UWRDEDVOTE
I
OFommCOUNCIL
w
­
Aye
Nay
NV
AB
CnrKUlankr
Aye
Nay
NV
cW.
dlwda
Aye
Nay
NV
AB
Ch.
cropp
cb8VkS
~~~

Allen
Evan8
Ambrorc
Gr8ham
Brull
J.
nL
.
1
q
ACYION
&
DATE
ADOPTED
FINAI
IX
VMcPVurE
APPROVED
REcouDEDVare~
RsQIJEsr
~~
~~

Cltmia
I
Mendelson
I
I
I
I
RoucALLvOTE­
IuI
Co.
d.
wrkr
Aye
Nay
NV
AB
Cwdlrcaba
Aye
N8y
NV
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Catania
I
I
1
I
I
Mcndelroa
I
I
I
x
­
Idkues
vate
AB
­
Mlclll
CERTIFICATIONRECORD
Orange
Patterson
&
hW8rb
RFADING,
17­
71
94
I
I
I
1
M
c.(
I­
Ayr
Nay
NV
AB
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
NV
­
PrUeBI
HI
V0Ci.
g
ENROLLED
ORIGINAL
AN
ACT
Codifif
prim
District
of
­­
rL
Columbia
D.
C,
ACT
L­
3­
250
Code
2000
supp.

INTHE
COUNCIL
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
:

TOclarify,
on
a
temporary
basis,
the
functions
transferred
from
the
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
to
the
Department
of
Health
pursuant
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996.

BE
IT
ENACTED
BY
THE
COUNCIL
OF
THE
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA,
That
this
act
may
be
cited
as
the
"
Department
of
Health
Functions
Clarification
Temporary
Act
of
1999".

Note,
Vol.
1
Sa.
2.
(
a)
The
functions
of
the
Department
of
Health,
as
established
by
Reorganization
howniza­

Plan
Xo.
4
of
1996,
effective
July
17,
1996
(
D.
C.
Code
Vol.
l),
shall
be
the
following:
tion
Plan
No.
4
of
19%(
1)
To
regulate
health
care
and
social
service
professionals;
(
2)
To
regulate
occupational
and
professional
conduct
and
standards
for
health
care
and
social
service
professionals,
including
investigating,
licensing,
and
enforcing
applicable
laws
and
regulations;
(
3)
To
regulate
actions
that
affect
the
physical
environment
and
ensure
compliance
with
applicable
federal
and
District
laws
and
rules
that
govern
the
uses
and
practices
that
affect
the
physical
environment,
including
airresources
management,
water
resources
management,
storm
water
management,
soil
resources
management,
hazardous
waste,
pesticides,
lead
poison
program
implementation,
asbestos
program
management,
underground
storage
tank
regulation,
aquatic
and
wildlife
resources
management,
medical
waste
management,
low­
level
radioactive
waste
control,
and
toxic
chemical
control;
(
4)
To
regulate
health
care
and
social
service
facilities;
(
5)
To
regulate
food
service
establishments,
including,
but
not
limited
to,
retailers
and
wholesalers
of
food
and
food
products,
grocery
stores,
restaurants,
food
vendors,
dairies,
patent
medicine
outlets,
ice
cream
manufacturers,
candy
manufacturers,
bottling
establishments,
wholesale
and
retail
seafood
dealers,
delicatessens,
and
bakeries;
(
6)
To
regulate
phannacies
and
pharmacy
personnel;
(
7)
To
determine
which
drugs
and
other
substances
shall
be
classified
as
controlled
substances,
and
identify
persons
and
facilities
that
handle,
manage,
distribute,
dispense,
and
conduct
research
with
controlled
substances;
(
8)
To
regulate
radiological
and
medical
devices;
(
9)
To
regulate
the
manufacture,
distribution,
and
dispensing
of
controlled
substances;
­­
ENROLLEDORIGINAL
(
10)
To
regulate
the
gperation
of
barber
shops
and
beauty
salons;­(
1
1)
To
regulate
swimming
pools;
(
12)
To
regulate
massage
and
health
spa
establishments;
and
(
13)
To
perform
any
other
functions
expressly
described
in
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996,
as
construed
in
light
of
all
documents
formally
made
a
part
of
Reorganization
Plan
No.
4
of
1996
pursuant
to
section
6
of
the
Governmental
Reorganization
Procedures
Act
of
1981,
effective
October
17,
1981
(
D.
C.
Law
4­
42;
D.
C.
Code
3
1­
299.5).
(
b)
For
the
purpose
of
this
act,
the
term
"
regulate"
shall
include
all
licensing,
certification,
investigation,
inspection,
permitting,
registration,
and
enforcement
functions,
including
the
issuance
of
civil
infractions,
except
that
the
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
shall
continue
to
issue
licenses
for
businesses
engaged
in
functions
related
to
the
physical
environment
as
set
forth
in
section
2(
a)(
3).
(
c)
The
Mayor
shall
establish
fees
to
implement
this
act..
All
fees
collected
pursuant
to
this
act
shallbe
deposited
in
the
General
Fund
to
the
credit
of
the
administration
within
the
Department
of
Health
responsible
for
collecting
the
fees.
(
d)
The
Mayor,
pursuant
to
title
I
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
approved
October
21,
1968
(
82
Stat.
1204;
D.
C.
Code
3
1­
1501
etseq.),
shall'issue
rules
to
implement
the
provisions
of
this
act.

Sec.
3.
There
is
no
fiscal
impact
concerned
with
this
legislation.

Sec.
4.
(
a)
This
act
shall
take
effect
following
approval
by
the
Mayor
(
or
in
the
event
of
veto
by
the
Mayor,
action
by
the
Council
to
ovemde
the
veto),
approval
by
the
Financial
Responsibility
and
Management
Assistance
Authority
as
provided
in
section
203(
a)
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Financial
Responsibility
and
Management
Assistance
Act
of
1995,
approved
April
17,
1995
(
109
Stat.
116;
D.
C.
Code
5
47­
392.3(
a)),
a
30­
day
period
of
Congressional
review
as
provided
in
section
602(
c)(
1)
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Home
Rule
Act,
approved
December
24,
1973
(
87
Stat.
813;
D.
C.
Code
3
1­
233(~)(
1)),
and
publication
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register.
(
b)
This
act
shplt
expire
after
225
days
of
its
having
taken
effect.

Council
of
the
District
of
Colum6ia
Mayor
I
District
of
Columbia
APPROVED:
January
10,
2000
COUNCIL
OF
THE
DISTRICTOF
COLUMBIA
COUNCIL
WOD
THUITEEN
RECORDOF
OUFlClU
COUNCIL
VOTE
B13­
515
DUhth.

ADOPTED
FIRST
READING,
12­
07­
99
Chmn.
Cropp
Catant
71l)
QACIlW
&
DATP
ADOPTFD
FINAl
RF4ILLpILG.
17­­
99
IX
voIccvm
APPROVED
nsconoEDvmonREQlJssr
Aye
Nay
NV
AB
coudlrcrkr
Aye
Nay
NV
AB
Aye
N8y
NV
AB
chrnecropp
ch8vour
Orange
Alien
Evlnr
P8ttUSOE
Ambrocc
Graham
Sehwutz
~

Brull
Juvit
:
1
I
I
Catant
I
I
I
I
1
Mendelson
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
AB
­
Ab­(
NV
­
hesen1MIVoliag
CERTIFICATION
RECOW
Title
16
DCMR,
Section
3240
47
DC
REG
8091
Notice
of
Final
Rulemaking
civil
infraction
schedule
for
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control
DEPARTMENT
OF
HEALTH
NOTICE­
OF
FINAL
RULEMAKING
­.
3.

The
Director
of
the
Department
of
Health
("
DOH"),
pursuant­.­
to.­
the
authority
set
forth
in
section.
14(
b)
of
the
"
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control
Act
&
4996",
as
amended,
effective
April
9,
1997
(
D.
C.
Law
11­
221;
D.
C.
Code
9
6­
997.13(
b)
(
1999
Supp.)),
104(
a)(
l)
of
the
"
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Civil
Infractions
Act
of
1985"
("
Civil
Infractions
Act"),
as
amended,
effective
October
5,
1985
(
D.
C.
Law
6­
42;
D.
C.
Code
962704
a)(
1)
(
1995
Repl.
Vol.)),
and
Mayor's
Order
99­
68,
dated
April
28,
1999,
hereby
gives
notice
of
the
adoption
of
the
following
amendment
to
Chapter
32
of
Title
16
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
(
DCMR).
Final
action
to
adopt
these
rules
was
taken
June
5,
2000.
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
was
published
in
the
D.
C.
Register
on
March
17,
at
47
DCR
1904.
The
Mayor
submitted
the
rules
to
the
Council
for
a
60­
day
period
of
review
as
required
by
9
104(
a)(
1)
of
the
Civil
Infractions
Act,
and
the
rules
were
deemed
approved
on
June
4,2000.
The
amendment
establishes
fines
for
violations
of
the
provisions
of
the
"
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control
Act
of
1996"
(
D.
C.
Law
11­
221;
D.
C.
Code
56­
997.1
et
seq.).
No
comments
were
received
and
no
changes
have
been
made
to
the
Proposed
Rules
as
previously
published.

16
DCMR
Chapter
32
(
Civil
Infractions)
is
amended
by
adding
a
new
section
3240
to
read
as
follows:

3240
LEAD­
BASED
PAINT
ABATEMENT
AND
CONTROL
3240.1
Violation
of
the
follQking
provisions
shall
be
a
Class
2
infraction:

D.
C.
Code
§
6­
997.5(
a)
and
(
b)
(
failure
to
obtain
certification
before
conducting
a
lead­
based
paint
activity);

D.
C.
Code
§
6­
997.7(
a)
(
failure
to
obtain
a
permit
before
conducting
lead­
based
paint
abatement);

tr
D.
C.
Code
$
6­
997.
Ga)(
3)
(
providing
training
to
others
for
lead­
based
paint
activities
without
accreditation);

D.
C.
Code
§
6­
997.3(
b)
(
applying
lead­
based
paint
or
glaze
to
a
surface);

D.
C.
Code
59­
997.3(
c)
(
selling,
offering
for
sale,
delivering,
transferring,
or
possessing
with
intent
to
sell,
deliver
or
transfer
an
article
intended
for
use
by
children
that
has
lead­
based
paint
or
glaze
applied);
and
D.
C.
Code
§
6­
997.6(
a)
(
failure
to
obtain
accreditation
for
each
training
course
or
review
course
offered).

3
DE 
R1CT
OF
COLUMBIA
REGISTER
OCT
6
­
2ooo
3240.2
Violation
of
D.
C.
Code
$
6­
997.8(
record
keeping
requirements)
shall
be
a
Class
3
inhction.

_
I
3240.3
Violation
of
any
provision
of
the
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
and
Control
Act
of
1996,
D.
C.
Law
11­
221
that
is
not
cited
elsewhere
in
this
section
shail
be
a
Class
­­.­­
4infkaclion
fi
L
i
3
8092
DISTRICT
OF
COLUNBIA
CODE,
TITLE
6,
CHAPTER
'
7
0
6­
2701
CIVIL
ISFRACTIOX
ACT
35.
a~.
LYD
%
 '
ET?

Subcnnpter
1.
Purooses:
Detiniriom;
5ec.
.
Aa'mmisrrariie
Lou:
d'udqes
am'
5.2713.
iieanng.
.
Atiorney
Examiners:
Sancrions:
6.2714
Finai
decision.
3qumrions
5.2715.
Senice.

:
ec.
0­
2701.
Puruose.
Suocnamer
III.
.
Admrnrsrrarroe
Reureui.

5­
2706.
Summay
ac::
on
Suocrxorer
ii
?­
yecures
6.2711.
Sotice
oi
!
nfracr:
on.
5.2712.
.
lnswer
Subcnapter
I.
Purposes;
DefinLtLons:
,­
ldrnLnlstratzveLaw
Juages
ana
,
qttorne_
v
Examiners;
&
ncrions;
Reguiatlons.

5
6­
2701.
Purpose.

.
It
is
the
purpose
or^
the
Council
of
the
Distnct
oi
Columbia
in
the
adoption
.4r.

chs
act
to
proLiae
for
the
imposrtion
of
alternanr­
e
ciLii
sancnons
for
mi?:
rions
oi­~
awsand
repuiatlons
amended
Dy
titie
IT­.
and
to
prwiae
for
a
llnifoi
and
expeainous
system
of
adininisrratlve
,
adjudication
wrn
respect
to
t
:
niraciions.
OCL3.
1985.
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.
s
101.22
DCR
4450.;

.
I
Levdative
history
of
Law
642.
­
Law
5­
42.
tne
­
Deoarrmenc
oi
Consumer
ana
hgu
amp
Affairs
Cib4
Infractions
Act
of
1985."
was
.
..
nrroducea
:
n
L'ounni
ana
assignea
Bill
NO.
6­
187.
wnich­
was
reierrea
to
the
Cowtree
on
Consumer
ana
Requiamry
Mairs.
The
ail1
was
aaoprea
on
nrsr
ana
secona
reaamgs
on
iune
25.'
1985.
ana
Juiv
9.
1985.
respectivetv.
Signed
DV
the
Mavor
on
iuiv
16.
1985.
if
was
assigned
.\
ct
No.
13­
60ana
transmirted
[
o
born
Houses
oi
'
ionmess
ioi
:
is
renew.
References
in
tea
­
Thu
act."
referred
t~
:
ear
rrie
Degmnmg
01'
:
he
secuon.
ij
3.
C.
Law
$.
6­
2702.
Definitions.
6­
42.
'?;
le
Il..*
referrea
:
o
near
th@
mddl
xe
section.
:
s
Tit1e.
n'
G<
3
C.
Law
642.
Delegarion
of
aurhonty
pursua~
rtoL.
6­
32.
­
See
Slavors
Oroer
36­
38.
h1­
k
1986.
D.
C.
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review
est
lished.
­
See
Mayors
Order
a6­
50.
hlarcn
1986.
Cited
m
FW
Wooiwonn
Co.
v.
Diem[
Coiumola
ad.
oiAupeais
Cr
Renew.
App.
1
579
A.%
;;
3
.
lOgOI.

For
th'e
purposes
of
tfus
act.
;
he
term:
.,
I.,
.'
Disrnct"
means
the
District
ai
Calumoia.
~?!
­
1nfracnon'
means
any
act.
or
iaiiure
to
act
for
whch
a
C
I
sac
Tav
be
imposed
under
the
provlslons
of
ths
act.
ana
wth
respect
KO
w
....
+
ither
the
Corporation
Counsei
or
the.
Cnited
States
.
ittornev
for
the
Dis
..
,

L...
.
.
>
f.
CoiurnDiz'liautnonzed
to
commence
a
cnmmai.
oroceea1ng
in
the
.
SUP
~
Zounof
the
Distnct
of'
Columola.
or
for.
wnich
another
ci\
li
saricnon
rm':
:
mposed
waer
2n.
s
2isn?
c:
iaivs
or
xzuiations
­...
__
0
6­
2703
3
i
:>
layor"
means
the
JIayor
of
the
Distnct
of
Columbia.
4)"
Person"
means
corporatlons.
firms.
agencies.
compames.
assoclanom.
orgmzations.
partnersnips.
societies.
and
joint
stock
comparues,
as
well
as
indiwduds.
si
*
Respondent''
means
any
person
charged
wth
an
infraction
as
defined
in
paragraph
(
2)
otths
section.
~
Oct.
5.
1985.
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.
3
102.
32
DCR
4450:
Liar.
8,
1991.
D.
C.
La.
w
6­
23:.
3
?:
a,.
38
DCR
314.~

9
6­
2703.
Administrative
law
judges
and'attorneyexamin­
ers.

re
Law
I
g.
ai.
The
Mayor
snail
appoint
1
or
more
attornevs
to
serve
as
admustranve
law
judges
or
attornev
examiners
to
tmpiernent
the
provisions
of
ths
act.

Ij
­$­.
b
1
Administranve
law
judges
F
*
or
attorney
examiners
shall
have
the
follow­
ing
powers:
1:
Presiding
over
heanngs
in
contested
matters
under
thk
act:
2
i
Compeiling
the
attendance
of
witnesses
by
subpoena.
administering
the
adoption
of
oaths.
t+
ik
the
testimony
of
witnesses
under
oath.
'
and
&
srnlssing.
rehear­
ions
ior
inirac­
i%
g.
a,
d.
cbnnnuing
cases:
e
for
a
uniform
3
I
Imposing
sanctions
for
infractions
under
subchapter
I1
ofthis
cha­
pter,
respect
to
:
ne
inriuciing
monetq
tines.
penaities.
ana
heanng
ana
inspection
costs;
'
.
i!
SuspenGng
permits
or
licenses
for
the
purpose
oi.
eniorcmg
the
panent
oi
monetary
tines.
penalties.
or
heanng
and
inspecnon
cos=;
c
near
:
re
rniadle
of
3
I
Permitting
the
payment
of
monetaF
fines.
penalties.
and
heanng
and
2
5
LdW
642.
ppursuant
to
Law
inspection
costs
in
excess
0;'
S50
in
monthly
installments
over
3.
penod
not
cer
56­
38.
liarcn
4.
greater
than
6
months
and
airowing
.
a
fee
oi
1
percent
per
month
of
:
he
outsrandmg
amount
owed
by
a
respqndent
for
the
instailment
senwe:
s
and
Fiemew
esrab­
61
Suspendme
all
pr
pan;
of
any
fine
or
penalty
imposed
on
prounds
of
raer
a6­
50.
Slarcn
21.
past
compliance
or
past
good
faith
attempts
to
comply
u?
th
appiicable
laws
and
Co
.
3istnct
of
regulations,
or
upon
condition
chat
the
respondent
correct
the
infraction
bv
a)~
n
s
.%
vie=
ADD
3
C
i
date
certain:
and.

..
7)
Sealing
the
prermses
where
the
conduct
occurred
whch
is
the
@
assof
the
atanon
to
enforce
orders
requiring
the
payment
of
monetary
fines.
penaities:
or
heanng
and
inspecnon
costs.
c:.
.
Each.
iicensmgor
permitnng
authonn.
or
successor,
ennp
established
by
the
iaws
and
regdations
amended
by
titie
R­
mav
delegate
to
admlnIStraiwe
law
Judges
or
attornev
examiners.
who
are
appointed
pursuant
to
rhs
secnon.
the
authority
to
conduct
heanngs,
pursuant,
co
the
laws
ana
regulations
and
to
recommend
appropnate
action.
inciuaing
aemai.
suspenslon.
or
revocation
of
..
qy
perm!
t
or
license..
io
the
licensine
or
perkittine'authonn..
.
.
..
.
P'?
nor.
IO
assuminz
any
duties
or
responslbilitres
pursuant
:
o
subchapters
JI
:;
muen
111
of
ths
cnapter.
admirustrative
Law
judqes
or
anorney
exammers,
.

...
sna:!
nave
cornpiecea
'
n
.;
nentauon
cir
gr3rnrnr
course
2staoiisnea
by
the
fj
6­
2704
Mayor
for
the
purpose
of
famiiianzlng
themseives
twth
relevant
rules,
procc
dures.
and
substantwe
law.

i
e)
.
IdmuusTratlve
law
judges
and
attorney
examlners
appomwd
pursuar
to
this
secnon
may
hear
cases
pursuant
to
Chapter
39
ofTitle
28.
(
Oct.
5,198,
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.
5
103.
32
DCR
4450:
Slar.
8.
1991.
D.
C.
Law
8­
237.
5
2(
b),
C
DCR
314.)

Ssrion
references.­
This
section
IS
reierrea
tn
in
q
28­
3902.
Legdative
hietory
of
Law
642.
­
See
now.
t,
a
4
62701.
Leaslarive
history
of
Law
8­
237.­
See
~
OWLO
q
6­
3706.
References
in
text.
­ 
Thisact. 
referred
:
n
suosecuon
{
ai
ana
subsection
ibXl).
IS
D.
Law
642.
 
Titie
IY. 
referrea
LO
in
suDsem!
c!.
is
Title
X
of
D
C
Law
0­
42.

3
6­
2704.
iMonetary
sanctions.

6
a)(
1)
The
Mayor
shall
prepare
and
penodicady
amend
a
schedule
of
finr
The
schedule
of
fines,
shall
be
submitted
to
the
Council
of
the
Disrnct
Columbia
( 
Council )
for
its
approval
or
disapproval.
in
whole
or
in
part.
 
,

resoiunon.
The
schedhle
of
fines
and
subsequent
amendments
shall
r
 

become
effective
until
approved
by
the
Councd.
or
60
days
after
submissior
the
Councd
has
not
disapproveh
the
schedule
or
amendments.

.
­
r
2)
In
ad dxtxonto
the
cixd
fine.
the
foil.
owing
penalties
mav
be
impose
A
respondent
who
fails
to
answer
a
notice
of
iniractlon
withn
:~.
­
e;.
..
f­
4~
time
speclfred
by
4
6­
2712!
e,
may
be
assessed
a
penalty
eauai
to
the
amoi
of
the
cid
fine
for
the
infraction
set
forth
in
the
notice.
B)
A
respondent
who
fails
to
answer
a
second
notice
of
infract
withn
the
time
specified
by
5
6­
2712(
f)
may
be
assessed
a
penalty
equa
tivlce
the
ahount
of
the
civii
fine
for,
the
iniracrion
set
forth
in
the
nonce.
bJ
In
aabtion
to
any
cid
fines
and
pendtles
imposed
followg
:
adjudxadon
of
an
infraction
adverse
to
a
respondent.
an
admmistranve
i:.
.
judge
or
attorney
exher
may,
in
accordance
mthdes
issued
bi
the
May
impose
upon,
the
respondent.
by­
order;
the
COSKS
to
the
District
of
E
adbtional
inspenions
before.
during,
or
after
the
heanng,
and
other
cc
associa 
red
with
the
hearing.
~
OCK.
3.
1985.
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.5
104.32
DCR
4i
.
May
10;
1989.
D..
C.
Law.
7­
231.
4
21­
36
DCR
492:
Star.
3.
1991.
D.
C.
:
i.
.
I1.
j;
11.
I
: 
.
 
.3­.
237,.
$. 
2(
cj.
38
DCR
314.)

Section
references.
­
This
seaion
is
referred
to
UIQ
§
6­
2712
ana
6­
27j3.
Le&
arive
history
of
Law
642.
­
See
>
OW
to
4
6­
2701.
Legdative
history
of
Law
7­
231.­
LdH.
:­
231,
the
Tkchn~
caiAmendments
Act
01
198. 
was
inrroducea
in
Councii
ana
assignea
Bill
30.7­
5e6.
wnicn
was
reterrea
to
the
iomrniiree
oi
the
\ 
f%
oie.
me
Bill
was
aaooced
on
nrsr
ana
cccona
reaarngs
on
SovernDer
29.
!
9%
ana
36cern­
r
13.
. 
19B8.
r6sDecriseiv
5:
aea
DV
:>
e
:.
layor
on
yanua.
n.
d.
1989.
:
t
 &
as
assimea
hi:
..
 ..
o
T­
753
ana
tr3nsm1ttea
:
o
cotn
:.
oases
Gr
.
sneTess
for,!
s
review
oh
­­
cn?
L
I.
cnucno4.
s
0
6­
271
1
2ievant
rules.
proce­
5
6­
2705.
Fkgulations.

appointed
pursuant
The
Mayor
may
issue
rules
and
regulanom
necessal?;
to
cariy
out
the
:
tie
29.
IOct.
5.
1985.
purposes
of
ths
act.
iOct.
5.
1985,
D.
C.
Law
642.9
105.
32
DCR
4450.)

~
w
$­
237.
Zb).
38
Cross
referencea.
­.
k
LD
purooses
of
Law
References
in
text.
­­
T'h!
s
acr."
referred
to
642.
S*
9
6­
2701.
ar
the
end
of
the
secuon.
is
D
C
Law
642.
Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
42.
­
bee
..­
This
act."
reierrea
to
note
LQ
6
6­
2701.

­
1DSeCLlOn
I
b
I(
1I
:
s
D
c
i
­+*
erne0:
o
in
suosection
5
6­
2706.
Summary
action.
­
iw
6­
42
a,
IF
:
he
Mavor
detemmes.
after
investigation.
that
the
conduct
of
a
licehsee
presents
an
imminent
danger
to
the
neaith
or
safen­
of'
the
residents
of
the
Dismct.
the
Mayor
may
order
the
seaiing
ofthe
premises
upon
whch
the
respondent
is
engaged
in
the
unlawful
conauct.
prorided
that
the
premises
are
3
scnedule
of
fines.
primarily
used
for
the
uniawfd
acnvlty.

of
The
Distnct
cf
'
bi
At
the
time
of
the
sealing
of
the
premlses.
the
Mayor
shall
provide
the
'­(
noleor.
in
part.
by
licensee
wth
written
notice
stating
the
action
being
taken.
the
basis
for
the
ndments
shall
not
action.
and
the
right
ofth%
iicensee
to
request
a
hearing.

.'
CJ
A
licensee
shall
have'the
right
to
request
a
heanng
withn
72
hours
aRer
­
after
submission
if
senice
oi
notice
of
the
seaiing
of
the
premises.
The
Mayor
shall
hoid
a
hearing­.
nu,.
.
s
may
be
imposed:
with
72
hours
of
receipt
oia
timely
request.
and
shall
issue
a
decision
within
.;
iaction
wihin
tne
CT
,.
.
7Zbhours
after
the
hearing.
d').
Ever).
decision
and
order
adverse
to
a
licensee
shall
be
accompanied
by
;
uai
to
the
amount
findings
of
fact
and
concluslons
of
law.
The
findings
shall
be
supported
by,
and
in
accordance
wth.
reliable.
probative,
and
substantial
evldence.
The
Mayor
­.
xice
of
infraction
shail,
prowde
a
copy
of
the
decision
and
order
and
accompan);
lng
findings
of
3
penaitl;
equai
to
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
KO
each
party
to
a
case
or
to
eacn
party's
attorney
:
n
m
the
notice.
.
of
record.
sed
fdlownq
the
:
e,
.
by
person'aggneved
by
a
ha1
summary
acnon
may
seek
judicial
iammistrsitive
law
remew
in
accordance
with
subchapter
I
of
Chapter
15
of
Title
1.
:
Oct.­.
5,
1985,
­
sued
by
the
Mayor.
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.5
106.
as,
aaded
Mar.
8.
1991.
D.
C.
Law
6­
23;.
S
Z(
d),
38
DCR
­:
e
District
of
any
%

3
14.
..
g.
and
or;
her
costs
104.32
DCR
3450:
Legrelative
history
ofLaw
8­
237.
­
Law
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
nrst
ana
second
read­
:.
1991.
D.
C.
Law
8­
237.
the
­
Depanment
of,
Consumer,
and
Reg­:
ngs
on
Decemwr
4.
1990.
ana
December
18.
'.
.;
uiatov,
Affairs.
Cibd
In'fractions
Act
of
1985
!
99@.
respecrlveiv.
Signed
Dy
the
Mayor
on
T&
cai,
ana
Clantying
henamenrs
Act
of
Decemwr
27.­
1990.
IL
was
assigned
Act
No.

:
­
1990."
was
mtroduced
in
Councli
and
assigned
5­
320
ana
transmitted
LO
wtn
Xouses
of
Con81f'Law
6­
23'?.­
See
Bill
No.
6­
203.
wnicn
was
referred
to
the
Com­
gress
ror
ISrevlew
mtrqe
on
Consumer
ana
Regu1awr)
i
.
Ham.

Su'bchapter
II.
Proceciures.

"
5
6­
ziii.
Notice.
of
infraction.

a!
In
order
to
injltiate
a
proceeding
under
subchapters
I
and
I1
of
tiUs
.
I(

z%.
I.
,.
1'
chapby.
:
he
Mavor
shall
serve
a
nonce
of
infracnon
upon
a
respondenr.
The
Mayor
shall
retain
a
copy
of
the
nonce
of
ixkactlon,
wnicn
snail
bear
a
cemficanon
attesting
t3
[!­.
e
rnarters
,
set
:'?
ITT:
12
:
ne
notice.

7­

I
;
o
1
bi
The
Nayor
shall
prepare
the
notice
of
infraction.
ihch
shall
contau
i!
The
name
and
address
oi
the
respondent:

i
2)
.
icitation
of
the
law
or
regulation
alleged
to
have
been
violated:
3)
The
nature.
time,
and
place
of
the
infraction:
1)%­
here
appropriate.
the
date
by
which
the
respondent
must
compl!
avoid
incuning
a
fine
or
penalty;
51
The
amount
of
the
fine
appiicabie
to
'
the
infraction:
6)
The
manner.
place.
and
time
in
whch
the
fine
and
penalties:
fi.
z
may
be
paid:
7;
Some
that
failure
to
pay
monetary
sanctions
may
result
in.
susF
jion
of
respondent's
permit
or
iicense:
.,:
5,
Sorice
that
faiiure
:
z
answer
the
~
OK~
C?
:
niraction
wthn
calendar
days
tiom
the
daw
of
senlce.
or
other
penoa
i.
vhi~
nthe
Mayor
r
establish
by
ruie
or
reguiation.
nay
result
13
cenalries.
and
the
amoun
those
penaities:
ana
'
9)
Sotice
of
the
respondent's
nght
to
requesr
a.
nearing
with
respec
the
infraction.
and
the
procedure
for
requesting
a
hearing.

'
cj
If
an
administrative
law
judge
or
attorney
examiner
dete&
ines
tb
notice
of
infraction
{
s
defective
on
its
face.
the
administrative
law
judg
attorney
examiner
shall
enter
an
order
dismissing
the
nonce
of
infraction
ahall
promptly
notify
the
respondent.
iOct.
5.
198.5.
D.
C.
Law
6­
42,
4
201
­
DC&
R4450:
.\
far.
3.
1991.
D.
C.
Law
a­
237.
5
?:
e!.
?.
3
DCR
314.)

'

~

.­­­
Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
12.
­
fee
.
Legislative
histoF
of
4w
8­
237.
nore
LO
4
i.,
T'
3!
note
to
:?'­:.':*)

3
6­
2712,
Answer,

ai
In
answer
to
a
notice
of
infraction
a
respondent
may:
li
.
icimt
the
inri.
action:
.

.2)
Admx
the
infraction
wth
an
explanation
wnicn
the
heqnng
exam
may
take
into
account
in
the
imposition
of
a
sanction
for
the
infraction;
c
3)
Denv
commission
of
the
infraction.
b
I
A
respondent
who
responds
to
a
notice
of
iniraation
but
fails
to
in&
whether
the
respondent
acimirs.
admits
with
expianation.
or
denies
infraction
shall
be
considered
to
nave
admitted
the
:
niraction
if
the
respoc
pays
ihe
appropriate
fine
ana
penalnes.
and
shall
othennse
be
consider
have
demed
the
infraction.
.
c!
­
4respondent
may
answer
the
notice
of
inhacnon
by
mad
or
in
per
I
d)
A
respondent
adrmthg
aninfraction
shd,.
at
the
time
the
respor
submits
an
answer.
pay­
the.
applicable
civil
fine
estabiished
pursua:
.':
6­
2'
704(
a!(
1;.
snd
any
applicable
penalties
pursuant
:
o
.:
6­
2704(
aA2).
.>
r
s
ei
A
respondent
shall
answer
a
notice
of
infraction
sirhn
15
calendar
of
the
date
the
notice
of
infraction
was
served.
or
inthn
any
other
tune
F:
:
he
1Iavor
nay.
establish
by
rule
or
replation.
F:
If
3
respondent
has
been
semed
a
notice
of'
inrraction
anti
fails.
.
good
cause.
.:
a
answer
within
tne
nme
penoa
estaoiisnea
in
subsecnon
:
his
sectisr..
:
ne
respondent
zkaA
be
iiaDle
for
:
he
?~
n31t7;
estabiisned
pur
5
.
I>.;!
­
i
in.
v.­
nich
snail
contain:
:
o
4
i3­
2;
04ia­
a2,:­
4:.?:
e
:$
Iayar
.
hail
then
sene
a
second
notice
of
infraction
upon
the
respondent.
If
:
ne
respondent
fads
to
answer
the
second
notice
of
1
nave
oeen
woiatea:
:
nfraction
wthin
i5
caienaar
aays'oi
semxe.
or
wthn
any
other
time
period
:
he
Alayor
may
establish
by
de
or
regulation.
the
respondent
shail
be
liable
spondent
must
comply
to
I
for
the
penalty
established
pursuant
to
3
6­'
2704(
ar(
Z)(
Bi.
g,
So
notice
of
infracnon
issued
pursuant
to
subchapters
I
and
I1
of
ths
­
action:
chapter
snail
abndge
or
abrogate
any
rime
penods
established
by
the
laws
and
­.
ne
and
penaities.
if
any,
remlanons
amended
by
titie
n­
regarding
cure
of
an
Infraction.
i
Oct.
5.
1985,
3.
C.
LLWo­­
k2.
:
202.
S2
13CR
4450:
J1,
ar
5.
199,
l.
D.
C.
Law
5­
23;.
4
2(
h!,
38
IS­
mal;
resuit
in
suspen­
3CR314.)

..
Section
reierences.
­­_=
­
rc:
ieTr
..­
rp­
Legislative
histon.
of
Law
E­
237.
,­

See.­~:
.:
r.:
hcaon
t.
vithir.
:
5
..?
r?
ea
:
a
;
n
:
n.­...
14
..
,:
e
10
2
6.7706
,
a
wucn
[
ne
Jlayor
may
LepsLacive
history
of
Law'd42.
­.:,
e
References
in
text.
­.?.
tie
K.*
referrea
tc
.
ties.
ana
:
he
amount
oI'
­.
3x
:
o
:
ri­
ZG1
­.
2
,
:
5
;::
le
iV
01'
9.
C
LAW042.

I
neannz
wth
respect
to
:
6­
2713.
Hearing.
anng
ai
The
administrative
iaw
judge
or
attorney
ewminer
snail
conducz
:
niner
aetermines
that
a
jeanng
on
a
n'otice
of
piraction
in
accordance
with
Chapter
15
of
Title
1
irmtrative
law
judge
or
except
as
othemse
pro<
ided
by
this
act.
The
Mayor
shall
bear
the
burden
c
notice
of
infracnon
ana
tsrabiisning
an
infraction
oy
a
preponderance
of
the
evidence.
IC
iawtj­
42.:
1Oi.
32
b
I
if
a
respondent
iaiis.
without
good
cause.
to
appear
at
a
hearing
of
whci:
s
DCR
311
,
..,
e
'
rwponaent
has
been
'
semed
a
notice.
:
he
admin:
strative
law
judge
c
istory
of
Law
d­
237.
­
See
@,
.­­)
attorney
examiner
may
proceed
wth
the
neanng
and
enter
a
find
order
in
th
xise.
c;,
.
iiter
due
consideracion
or
the
e~.
iaenceana
arbments.
the
administr:
Tive
iaw,!
uage
or
attorney
examiner
snail
determine'
whether
the
Mayor
hz
estabiisned
the
infraction.
\$%
ere
the
Llayor
nas
not
established
the
mfracuo:
:
he
aaminrstrative
law
;
udee
or
attorney
examiner
shall
enter
an
orat
&
ismissinq
the
notice
c:'
infraction.
ithere
the
Mavor'
has
establrshed
th
:
n
the
hearing
examiner
.
infracnon.
the
aamiustranve
iaw
judge
or
arrornev
examiner
shd
enter
a
for
the
iniraction:
or
appropnate
mtten
oraer.
which
shall
set
fonh
finaings
of
fact.
conclusions
t
law.
ana
a
sanctron.
::
on
but
faiis
to
inbcate
,
dj
.
Inorder
entered
pursuant
to
this
section
is
ci~
din
nature:
anation.
or
aerues
the
'
­
el
Cpon
a
finding
that
the
respondent
has
committed
the
infraction.
t.
'
action
ifthe
responaent
.
,
'
admimstrative
iaw,
Judge
br
attorney
examiner
may
order
the
respondent
envlse
oe
considered
to
pay
a
c~
mlfine
and.
where
appropnate.
penaities
pursuant
to
4
6­
27041a~
and
costs
pursuant
KO
d
6­
2704'
bi.
\

n
by
~
dor
in
person.
,
f!
The
admimscrative
iaw
judge
or
attorney
examiner
may
suspend
a
ne
time
the
respondent
permit
or
license
wnicn
authonzes
the
respondent
to
engage
In
the
activity
jtaoiisned
pursuant
;
a
which
the
infraction
reiates
if
the
respondent
faiis
KO
pay
anv
fines.

penaltifo
z
i­
X04{
aj(
2..
.)
r
costs
in
accordance
:
nth
the
administrative
iaw
jutices
or
attorney
exa
­
cithn
;
5
caiendar
cays
:
ner';'
oraer.
Suspension
:<
:
ne
permit
;
r
:
icense
snaii
continue
until
n
any
other
rime
oer.
oa
respondent
complies
wth
:
ne
adminisrrarive
iaw
judges
or
attorney
exam
er's
order.
a:
,,.
(­.
I
:­
e
resoondent.
tr.
e
aarninis~
rativeiaw
ludee
or
at:­
c::
an
qna
faiis.
,.\
lrk~
u:&.
'*­,
'
z:
i'con~.~
reau­
es,
t
nea
iT.
5ilnsection
e'
c:,,
i
ney
examiner
713~­
ia\..
:
ne
!,~
po~
i~
i~
fi
:
Jny
=
anc:
ion
:.?
iposea
pena
"

1.
.~
ST~
C~
IS~
P~
2
dm
inI
s
t
rci
t
::.
CT
ri­'<.­
I
e\*:~..
zars:
i3nr
6
...
5
6­
2714
&
ux
.&
sD&
FETi
'
h)
The
Mayor
may
cause
:
o
be
entered
ariv
?
mal
order
requiring
respondent
to
pay
fines.
penaities.
or
costs
as
a'judgement
aganst
respondent
in
the
Cid
Actions
Branch
of
the
Civil
hvision
of
the
Super
.
Corn
of
the
Dismct
of
Columbia.
The
Mayor
may
enforce
the
judgement
in
same
manner
as
any
other
civil
judgement
may
be
enforced
under
Distnct
1
ti)
The
iMayor
mav
place
liens
on
property
for
nonpawent
of
fines,
per
ties,
and
costs
as
follows:
'
1)
Whenever
the
ouiner
of
real
property
in
the
District
of
Columbia
f.
to
pay
all
fines.
penalties.
or
costs
associated
with
a
final
adjudication
un
ths
chapter.
the
Distnct
siiail
have
a
continuing
lien
upon
the
propen?,
upon
any
improvements
on
the
groperry
in
the
amount
of
the
outstanc
charges;
2)
These
liens
shall.
have
pnonty
over
all
other
liens
except
liens'
Distxict
taxes
and
Distnct
water
cnarges:
and
3)
If
oucstandine
charges
remain
unpaid
90
days'
aker
the
date
to
apa
final
adjudication.
and
no
appeal
has
been
taken.
:
ne
property
may
be
for
costs.
at
the
next
tax
sale
in
the
same
manner
and
under
the
s
conditions
as
propey
soid
for
delinquent
general.
taxes,.
if
the­
outstan;
charges,
together
wth
penalties
and
costs,
have
not
been
paid
in
fullpnr
the
saie.
I
Oct.
5.
1985.,
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.
3
203.
32
DCR
4430;?
ilk.
8.
1991.
Law
8­
237,
4
Zij.
35
DCR
3L4.,
7
0
:,
.
­­
4.
'
'
­.
Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
42.
­
See
:
n
rhe
first
sencence
of
suDsecuon
la,.
E
rrote
to
9
6­
27'
01.
Law
6­
42,
Legislative
history
of
Law
8­
237.­
See
.'
This
cnaDwr.­
referred
~
0
In
11(
1'~.:
5
note
to
4
6­
2706.
Law
6­
42
as
anenaed
by
D.
C.
Law
C­
23­
Referencesin
text.
­­
This
act."
reterrea
to
5
6­
2714.
Final
decision.

ai
The
oriier
of
the
administrative
law
judge
or
anorney
examLner
become
find
15
calendar
days
after
semce
of
the
order
upon
the
responc
unless.
within
that
time
the
pany
files
an
administrative
appeal
pursua;
subchapter
I11
of
this
chapter.
(
b)
The
Mavor
may
prepare
a
listing
of
delinquenr
respondents
who
not
paid
or
appealed
wthn
15
days
of
service.
fines.
penalties.
or
resulting
from­
find
decisions
issued
by
attorney
examiners
and
may
pe
cally
publish
such
a
list
in
one
or
more
general
mculation
newsp
pubiished
in
the
District
of
Columbia.
1
Oct.
5.
1985.
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.
$
2!
,
DCR
3450:
5fa.
r.
8.
1991.'
D.
C.
Law
5­
237.
5
Zjj,
38
DCR
314.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
6­
42.
­
See
Lemslative
history
of
Law
8­
23?,
nore
20
q
6­
2701.
note
to
$
6­
2706.).
8
6­
2715.
Service.

Any
nonce
,
or
,
ortier
served
upon
a
respondent
or
otner
person
pursu
lubcnapre'i~
I
­
t.
houg&
111
ot'.
tfiis
cnapcer
may
be
personails
served.
ciei
:
a
the
respondent's
or
other
pers0n.
s
last
knouin
home
or
business'aadre
iefz
wth
a
person
GI"
sultable
aee
2nd
discrenon
reSldinE
or
empiovea
::
order
req'uiring
a
or
maded­
to
the
respondent
07
iirher
person
by
first
ciass
mail
to
the
ent
against
the
respondent's
last
known
home
or
business
address.
IVhen
serrice
is
by
mail.
5
of
the
Superior
atidtional
days
shall
be
added
to
the
time
penoa
\\<
thin
which
the
respondent
udgement
in
the
or
other
person
rnay,
or
is
required
to.
take
any
action
specified
in
the
notice
or
under
District
law.
order.
c
Oct.
5.
1985.
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.
205.
32
DCR
4430.)
ent
of
fines.
penal­
Leg~
slativehisrov
of
Law
1542.­.+
re
ct
of
Columbia
fails
?
OW
LO
9
6­
2701.

I
adjuchcation
under
n
the
property
and
Subcnapter
III.
=
idrnrnlstr&
lr:
e
Review
oi
che
outstanding
S
6­
2721.
Jurisdiction
to
hear
appeal.
ens
except
liens
for
.
The
Dismct
of'
Cvlumoia
3oard
gi'.
ippeai.
and
Review
shall
entertain
and
er
the.
aate
to
appeai
aetermm­
e
appeais
ameiy
5ied
0­
persons
aggrieved
by
orders
issued
by
opew
rnay
be
sold
heanng
examiners
pursuant
to
chis
chapter
or
by
the
Mavor.
except
that
under
.
the
same
appeais
invoiiing
infractions
of
Chapter
4oiTitle
5.
or
the
District
of
Colwnbia
.
!
f
:
he
outstanding
Zoning
Reguiatlons
shali
be,
entertamed
ana
determined
by
the
Dismct
01
paid
in
full
prior
to
Columbia.
Board
of
Zomng
A&
justrnent:
appeals
invoiwng
infractions
of
Chap­
:
Mar.
S.
1991.
D.
C.
rer
1ofTitle
25.
or
of
any
reguiation
isshed
under
the
authontv
ofthat
chaote:
shah
be
entertained
and
determined
by
the
Distnct
or'
Columbia
Irlcohoiu
3everage
C,
ontrol
Board:
appeals
involvinp
infractions
of
laws
governinr
'
orcupatlons
anti
proressions
or
of
reviations
issued
under
the
authonty
o
those
iaws
snail
be
enterrainea
3nd
ietermined
by
che
appropnate
occupa
:
io&
or
3roiessionai
board
or
commission:
ana
appeais
Invoi~
lnginfraction
'
r3fChaprer
25
oi'Title
45.
or
oiany
requiauon
issued
under
rhe
authority
oitha
,:
napter
shall
be
entertained
ana
determined
by
:
he
Distnct
of
CoiumDl
Rental
Housing­
Commission.
Oct.
5.
!
9Sj.
D.
C
Laic­
6­
42.
S
2Gl.
32
DC'
ornev
examiner
shall
$
450:
SIX.
S.
?
991.­
T).
C.
Law
5­
23;.
:
2.
k,.,
3s
DCR
31­
1.
upon
the
respondent.
Section
references.
­
This
section
15
re­
Legislative
histon.
of
Law
8­
237.
­
5­
t.
e
appeal
pursuant
ta
ferrea
LO
in
P
6­
2­
22
­.
ore
20
2
<­:
TO6
Legshrive
history
of
Law
642.
­$
re
emondents
who
have
note
to
q
6­
2701
penatties.
or
costs
rs
ana
may
penodi­
5
6­
2722.
Right
to
admtinistrative
appeal
and
costs
of
ai
ation
newspapers
peal.
Law
6­
42.
6
204.
32
.
by:
person
ag,
qeved
by
an
order
or'
an
aciminiscratrve
iaw
judge
or
attorn
examiner
issued
pursuant
to
subchapters
I
and
I1
of
thischapter.
or
the
May
N
of
LAW
6.237.
­
See
may
appeal
to
the
remervtng
apencl
specified
:
n
;
6­
2721.
The
costs
of
a
appeai.
ypiuding..
but
not
limited
tat
:
he
espense
01'
provialno
a
KranscnDt
:
he
heannq.
.
snail
be
borne
by
the
appeilant
xiiess
excusec
by
the
Ma!
gursuant
to
rules
issued
by
the
>
layor.
'
Oct.
5.
i9kS.
D.
C.
Law
6­
42.
$
302.

­=.

'
,
9
6­
2723.
Scope
of
review.

The
rewemng
agency
shall
make
a
determinatioh
,
of
each
appeal
on
the
basis
of
the.
record
established
before
the
adminismative
law
Judge
or
attorney
examlner.
The
re\
iewing
agency
shali
set
aside
anv
administranve
law
judge
or
attorney
examiner
order
that
is
without
obsersance
of
procedure
required
by
law
or
repiations.
including
any
applicabie
procedure
required
by
subchapters
I
and
­
11
of
ths­
chapter,
or
any
administrative
Law
judge
or
attorney
examiner
order
that
is
unsupported
by
a
preponderance
of
the
evidence
on
the
record.
The
revleurlng
agency
snd
appiy
the
rule
of
harmless
error.
ana
shall
have
power
to
affirm.
reverse.
or
modi&
the
order
of
the
acimimstran~
eiaw
judge
or
atrorney
examiner.
The
rewewng
agency
ma!
remand
a
case
[
or
further
proceedings
before
the
aaministratn'e
law
judge
OT
attornes
esamrner.
­
4
tewewng
agency
may
nor:
nodie
a
monetary
sancnor
imposed
by
an
admimstrat~
veiaw
judge
or
attomey
examiner
if
that
sancnor
is
wthn
the
htts
established
by
jaw
or
re,
guiauon.
Oct.
5.
1985.
D.
C.
La?
6­
42.
3
303.32
DCR
4450:
llar.
S.
1991.
D.
C.
Law
5­
23:.
$
3rr11.38DCR
314
Legislative
history
of
Law
642.
­
See
Legislative
history
of
Law
8­
237.­
3e
now
to
Q
6­
2701.
p
note
to
$
6­
2706
DISTRICT
OF
C
,
TITLE
I,
Chapter
15
rative
Procedures
.
kc
ADMINISTRATION
.
ADMINISTRATICE
PROCEDURE.
,

Subchapter
1.
Ahmstrative
procedure.

SeC.
1­
1501.
Effect
of
subchapter.
1­
1502.
Definitio~.
1­
1503.
Establiabment
of
procedures.
1.1504.
open
meetings;
transcnpts.
1­
1505.
official
pubticatione.
1.1506.
Public
notice
and
participation
in
rulemakmg
emergency
rules.
1­
1507.
Compilation
of
rules
and
regulations.
1­
1508.
Declaratory
orders.
1.1509.
Contested
cases.
1­
1510.
Judicial
renew.
1­
1511.
iRepealedI.

Subchapter
U.
F+
om
of
Information.

1­
1521.
Public
policy.
1­
1522.
Right
of
access
to
public
records:
al
lowable
costs:
time
limits.
1­
1523.
Letters
of
denial.
1­
1524.
Exemptions
&
om
disclosure.
1­
1525.
Recordrng
of
final
votes.
!­
1526.
fnformation
required
to
be
made
pub1ic
I.
1527.
Adrmnistrative
appeals.

Cited
in
Rhema
Chnstian
Center
v
Distnct
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
&
rung
Adjustment.
App.
gsec.
1­
1528.
Oversight
of
disclosure
acrivrties.
B71
529.
Definitions.

Subchapter
LU.
lagai
Publication.

I­
53I
Defitutiona.
1­
532.
Distnct
of
Columbia
hlunicipal
Rep
iations.
1­
533.
District
of
Columbia
Repster.
1­
534.
Docurnentd
to
be
filed
in
the
Distnct
of
Columbia
Office
of
Dwumenm.
1­
535.
Permanent
supplements
to
the
Dis
nct
of
Columbia
Municipai
Regularions
I­
536.
Documents
to
be
filed
with
Xdminis­
S
rrator.
1­
1537
Publication.
specifications,
and
distnbution
of
the
Distnct
of
Columbia
Mwcipal
Regulations.
1.1538
Legal
effectiveness
of
documents.
1­
1539
Correction
of
errors
In
documents.
1­
1540
Certification
1.154
1
Presumption
created
by
publication.
1­
1542
Penalties
D.
C..
515
A.
2d
I89
11986):
Spever
v
Barry,
hpp.
D.
C.,
568
A.
2d
1147
119911.

Subchapter
I.
Administrative
Procedure.

9
1­
1501.
Effect
of
subchapter.

This
subchapter
shall
supplement
all
other
provisions
of
law
establishing
procedures
tm
be
observed
by
the
Mayor
and
agencies
of
the
District
government
in
the
application
of
laws
administered
by
them,
except
that
this
sub­
chapter
shall
supersede
any
such
law
and
procedure
to
the
extent
of
any
conflict
theremth.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,82
Stat.
1204.
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
4
2;
1973
Ed.,
6
1­
1501;
Od.
8.
1975,
D.
C.
Law
1­
19,
title
I,
9
102(
aJ,
22
DCR
2048:
Mar.
2%
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
S
3(
a),
(
c),
23
DCR
9532b.
j
'
1
Section
references.
­
This
section
IS
rs­
ings
on
June
3.
1975
and
June
20.
1975.
respec
ferred
to
in
9!
i
1­
624.24.
1­
1306.
1.1431.
tivelv
Signed
bv
the
Mayor
on
Julv
10.
1975.
1­
1432.
1­
1435.
1­
1451.
1­
1533.
1­
1904.
1­
2502,
was
assiqed
Act
No.
1­
30
and
transmitd
to
1­
2541.
1­
2552.
2­
2309.
6­
1506.
11­
722.
00th
Houses
of
Congress
for
ILS
review.
11­
1525.
29­
817.
36­
209.
36­
322.
36­
412.
­
hpslauve
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
!!
10­
404.
and
47­
1462.
note
LO
9
1.1521.
Leddative
history
of
Law
1­
19.
­
Law
D.
C.
Board
of
Appeals
and
Renew
e*
1­
19
was
induced
in
Council
and
assigned
tabtished.
­
Se
Mavor's
Order
84­
79.
Ad
Bill
No.
1­
1.
which
was
referred
to
the
Com­
26.
1984.
as
amended
bv
Mavor's
Order
86­
50,
.
a
mittee
of
the
Whole.
the
Committee
on
?
he
Ju.
.
ilarch
31.
:
986
7
dicta?
and
the
Committee
on
Criminal
Law
Purpose
of
subchapter.
­
i'onPss
The
Bill
was
adopwd
on
tirsr
and
secona
reaa­.
lduptd
this
subchapwr
KO
assure
a
lair
and
1
204
i
.
mjfom
administrative
process
for
local
mnt
agencies.
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District.__

:
h.
pter
supersedes
other
laws.
­

I
&
chapter
supersedes
any
law
or
proce­
I
of
the
Mayor,
the
Council,
and
the
agen
of
the
District
government,
where
they
mirt
with
the
provisions
of
the
subchapter.

pF&$
apter
applicable
to
unemployment
~~~~
nsatiunprocedings.
­
This
sub
b
&
pwr
applies
to
proceedings
under
the
Un
r 
mployment
Compensation
Act
(
Title
46),
and
.
. 
ii\.
L..
I
;
!,:
~
lr,
iy~:
di! 
mdh,,
gvinc
nmwrlrlrrc
hv
__
Unemployment
Compensation
Board
in
an
unemployment
compensation
proceeding.
Woodridge
Nursery
School
v.
Jessup,
App.
D.
C.,
269
A.
2d
199
(
1970);
Wallace
v.
District
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
289
A.
2d
885
(
1972),
ad,
294
A.
2d
177
(
App.
D.
C.

And
Zoning
Commission
hearings.
­
Thie
subchapter
is
applicable
to
proceedings
before
the
Zoning
Commiasion.
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
Soc y
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
287
A.
2d
101
(
1972).
Where
controversy
ia
a
 
contested
case .
­
A
controversy
which
amse
out
of
the
Zoning
Commission s
actions
in
granting
a
change
in
zoning
so
as
to
permit
a
townhouse
development
which
action
followed
an
adjudicatory
hearing,
is
a
 
contested
case 
so
that
Court
of
Appeals
has
jurisdiction
to
review
the
action.
Palisades
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
368
A.
2d
1143
(
1977).
But
not
to
quasi­
legislative
proceedings
before
Zoning
Commission.
­
Proceedings
61
before
the
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Com
1­
mission
are
quasi­
legislative
in
character,
not
1­
adjudicative
in
nature,
and
the
strictures
of
this
subchapter
and
the
full
range
of
due
pro­
Y
cess
protections
necessary
to
an
adversary
ad­

I
judication
are
not
applicable.
Ruppert
v.
Wash
ington,
366
F.
Supp.
686
(
D.
D.
C.
1973),
affd,
I
543
F.
2d
416
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1976).
Subchapter
applicable
to
Public
Service
Commission
except
for
standard
and
scope
of
review.
­
The
provision
of
B
11­
722
which
t
gives
the
Court
of
Appeals
jurisdiction
to
re­

)
view
orders
and
decisions
of
any
agency
of
the
District
in
accordance
with
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
and
to
review
orders
or
decision
of
the
Public
Service
Commission
in
accordance
with
Commission sorganic
act
(
Title
43).
carves
out
only
a
limited
area­
in
which
Administrative
Procedure
Act
is
inapplicable
to
the
Commission,
that
being
in
the
area
of
standard
and
scope
of
review,
rather
than
a
wholesale
exemption
from
Administrative
Procedure
Act
coverage.
C
&
P
Tel.
Co.
v.
Public
Sew.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
339
A.
2d
710
(
1975).
Subchapter
inapplicable
to
Nationai
Capital
Housing
Authority.
­
The
National
Capital
Housing
Authority
is
not
an
 
agency
of
the
District
of
Columbia 
within
the
meaning
of
this
subchapter.
Coleman
v.
United
States,
App.
D.
C.,
311
A.
2d
496
(
1973).
And
to
Joint
Committee
on
Landmarks.
­
Join6
Committee
on
Landmarks
of
the
National
Capital,
as
an
intergovernmental
agency,
is
not
an
agency
of
the
District
of
Co
lurPbia,
and
the
Court
of
Appeals
lacks
jurisdiction
to
entertain
petition
for
review
of
its
action
under
this
subchapter.
Latimer
v.
Joint
Comm.
on
Landmarks,
App.
D.
C.,
345
A.
2d
484
(
1Y
12).

This
subchapter
is
applicable
to
proceedings
before
Police
and
Firemen s
Retirement
and
Relief
Board.
Kea
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
429
A.
2d
174
(
1981).
No
conflict
between
this
subchapter
and
Traffic
Adjudication
Act.
­
There
is
no
conflict
between
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
and
the
Traffic
Adjudication
Act
(
Chapter
6
of
Title
40),
as
it
is
clear
that
the
legislative
intent
in
the
latter
was
to
create
an
exception
to
the
former s
definitim
of
 
contested
case 
in
§
1­
1502(
8).
District
of
Columbia
v.
Sullivan,
App.
D.
C.,
436
A.
2d
364
(
1981).
Claim
must
be
decided
first
by
Iocal
courts
of
the
District
of
Columbia.
­
Claim
that
failure
of
District
of
Columbia
Department
of
Corrections
to
comply.
with
the
public
notice
and
comment
requirements
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Administrative
procedure
Act,
D.
C.
Code
8
1­
1501et
seq.,
and
the
publication
requirement
of
D.
C.
Code
8
1­
1538(
b)
rendered
prison
visitation
regulations
invalid
must
be
decided
in
the
first
instance
by
the
local
courts
of
the
District
of
Columbia.
Robinson
v.
Palmer,
841
F.
2d
1151
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1988).
Subchapter
inapplicable
where
agency
did
not
have
authority
or
power
to
adjudicate
dispute.
­
Where
a
regulatory
agency
(
the
Educational
Institution
Licensure
Commission
had
neither
authority
to
adjudicate
the
dispute
between
student
and
regulated
institution
nor
the
power
to
award
the
money
damages
the
student
sought,
neither
the
doctrine
of
exhaustion
of
administrative
remedies
nor
primary
jurisdiction
operates
to
bar
the
student s
civil
action.
Goode
v.
Antioch
Univ.,
App.
D.
C.,
544
A.
2d
704
(
1988).
Award
of attorney s
fees.
­
Where
tenants
caused
the
commission
to
rule,
for
the
first
time,
that
landlord s
capital
improvement
petition
requesting
increase
in
rent
was
a
contested
case
within
the
meaning
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
and
that
the
landlord
had
tbe
burden
of
proof,
which
it
could
only
meet
by
affirmatively
pre205
5
1­
1502
ADMINISTUTION
senting
evidence,
and
where
part
of
the
relief
that
the
prevailing
tenants
obtained
was
a
refund
of
the
increased
rent
charged
by
the
landlord
as
a
result
of
the
approval
of
the
capital
improvement
pecition
by
the
rent
udminisuator
relief
was
name
type
often
awarded
to
prevmling
tenants
in
tenant­
initiated
proceedings
and
tenants
were
entitled
to
presumptlve
award
of
attorneys
feen.
Hampton
Courts
Ten­
ante 
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C..
573
A.
2d
10
(
1990).
aBd,
599
A.
2d
1113
(
1991).
Cited
in
Jacobs
V.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd..
App.
D.
C..
382
A.
2d
282
(
1978):
Debruhl
v.
Distna
of
Columbia
Hackers 
LIcew
Appeal
Bd..
App.
D.
C..
384
A.
2d
121
(
1978):
Lewis
v.
Dismc
of
Columbia
Comm
n
on
Licensure
to
Practice
Healing
Art.
App.
D.
C..
385
A.
2d
1148
(
1978);
Kenmore
Joint
Venture
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment.
App.
D.
C..
391
A.
2d
269
11978):
Washington
Pub.
InterestOrganization
v.
Public
Sew.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
393
A.
2d
71
(
19781,
cert.
denied,
4­
44
US.
926,
100
S.
Ct.
265.62
L.
Ed.
2d
182
(
1979):
Jones
v.
Distnct
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd..
App.
D.
C..
395
A.
2d
392
(
1978);
Neer
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd..
App.
D.
C.,
415
A.
2d
523
11980):
Citizens
Corn.
to
Save
Historic
Rhodes
Tavern
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Dep 
t
of
Hous.
&
Community
Dev..
App.
D.
C..
132
A.
2d
710.
cen.
denied.
454
US.
1054.
102
S.
Ct.
599,
70
L.
Ed.
2d
590
(
1981);
Le
Jimmy.
he.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd..
App.
D.
C.,
433
A.
2d
1090
119811;
Barry
v.
Wilson.
App.
D.
C..
448
A.
2d
244
8
1­
1502.
Definitions.
As
used
in
this
subchapter:
I
:
1982):
Brice
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep 
t
of
Emp.
Sews..
App.
D.
C.,
472 
A.
Zd
406
(
19841:
Weinberg
v.
Barry.
604
F.
Supp.
390
(
D.
D.
C.
1985):
Robinson
v.
Palmer.
619
F.
Supp.
34.4
(
D.
D.
C.
19851;
George
Hyman
Constr.
Co.
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews..
App.
D.
C..
497
A.
2d
103
f
1985);
District
of
Columbia
Hoep.
Aas n
v.
Barry.
App.
D.
C..
498
A.
2d
216
(
1985);
Dell
v.
Department
of
Emp.
Sews..
App.
D.
C.,
499
A.
2d
102
(
1985);
Robiwn
v.
Palmer.
631
F.
Supp.
52
(
D.
D.
C.
1986):
George
Washington
Univ.
Medical
Center
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review.
App.
D.
C..
530
A.
2d
227
(
1987):
Washington
Times
y
Distnct
of
Columbia
Dep 
t
of
Emp.
Sews..
App.
D.
C..
530
A.
2d
1186
(
1987):
in
White
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Elections
&
Ethics.
Xpp.
D.
C..
537
X.
2d
1133
(
1988):
Brookens
v.
Committee
on
L 
nauthorued
Practice
of
Law.
App.
D.
C..
538
A.
2d
1120
(
1988);
Allen
v.
Ford.
116
WLR
1869
(
Super.
Ct.):
Alder
v.
Columbia
Histoneal
Soc y.
690
F.
Supp.
9
fD.
D.
C.
1988):
Committee
of
Blind
Vendors
v.
District
ol
Columbia
695
F.
Supp.
1234
(
D.
D.
C.
1988);
Council
of
School
Officers
v.
Vaughn,
App.
D.
C..
533
A.
2d
1222
f
19891;
Schlank
v.
Williams
App.
D.
C..
572
A.
2d
101,
cert.
denied,
­
US.­.
111
S.
Ct.
341,
112
L.
Ed.
2d
306
(
1990):
Abnev
v
District
of
Columbia.
App.
D.
C..
580
A.
2d
1036
i
1990):
Eilers
v.
Distnn
of
Columbia
Bureau
of
Motor
Vehicles
Servs..
Xpp.
D.
C..
583
A.
2d
677
(
1990):
Miller
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia.
App.
D.
C..
587
A.
2d
213
,1991);
Simpson
v.
District
of
Columbia
OfFicg
of
Human
Rights.
App.
D.
C..
597
A.
2d
392
11991).

(
1HA)
The
term
 
Mayor 
means
the
Mayor
of
the
Distnct
of
Columbia,
or
his
or
her
designated
agent.
(
 3)
The
term
 
Council 
means
the
Council
of
the
District
of
Columbia
established
by
0
1­
221(
a)
unless
the
term
 
District
of
Columbia
Council 
is
used
in
which
event
it
shall
mean
the
District
of
Columbia
Coancil
established
by
subsection
(
a)
of
§
201
of
Reorganization
Plan
No.
3
of
1967
(
81Stat948
(
2)
The
term
 
District 
means
the
District
of
Columbia.
(
3)
The
term
 
agency 
includes
both
subordinate
agency
and
independent
agency.
(
4)
The
term
 
subordinate
agency 
means
any
officer,
employee.
office,
department.
division,
board,
commission,
or
other
agency
of
the
government
of
the
District,
other
than
an
independent
agency
or
the
Mayor
or
the
Council.
required
by
law
or
by
the
Mayor
or
the
Council
to
administer
any
law
or
any
rule.
adopted
under
the
authonty
of
a
law.
(
5)
The
term
 
independent
agencv 
means
any
agencv
of
the
government
of
the
District
with
respect
uo
which
the
Mayor
and
the
Council
are
not
autho3
 
206
.)
ep
t
of
19841.
D
DC.
JP.
344
co
v
.
.
.
App
lurnbia
?
d
216
5ervs..
tion
v
 
jeorge
 
tstnct
.
ADP.
Ti
rnes
­
em s,

 
I[?
v
rhics.
t 
ns
v
Law,
ford.
irnbia
:
9881:
CO
.9d81:
.
APP.

LVIlea

i
306
.
iPP
­!
ct
or
 
W5
.

01s
213
 
iTice
.
792
&
i.
or
­
ioia
:
15
rab
tat.

lent
ice.
I
of
~
Cll.

I
nv
tjnc
:
io
rized
by
law,
other
than
this
subchapter,
to
establish
administrative
procedures
but
does
not
include
the
several
courts
of
the
District
and
the
Tax
Division
of
the
Superior
Court.
.
(
6)
The
term
 
rule 
means
the
whole
or
any
part
of
any
Mayor s
or
agency s
statement
of
general
or
particular
applicability
and
future
effect
­­
designed
to
implement,
interpret,
or
prescribe
law
or
policy
or
to
describe
the
organization,
procedure,
or
practice
requirements
of
the
Mayor
or
of
any
(
7)
The
term
 
rulemaking 
means
Mayor s
or
agency s
process
for
the
formulation,
amendment,
or
repeal
of
a
rule,
(
8)
The
term
 
contested
case 
means
a
proceeding
before
the
Mayor
or
any
agency
in
which
the
legal
rights.
duties.
or
privileges
of
specific
parties
are
required
by
any
law
(
other
than
this
subchapter).
or
by
constitutional
right,
to
be
determined
after
a
hearing
before
the
Mayor
or
before
an
agency,
but
shall
not
include:
(
A)
Any
matter
subject
to
a
subsequent
trial
of
the
law
and
the
facts
de
novo
in
any
court;
(
B)
The
selection
or
tenure
of
an
officer
or
employee
of
the
District;
(
C)
Proceedings
in
which
decisions
rest
solely
on
inspections,
tests,
or
(
D)
Cases
in
which
the
Mayor
or
an
agency
act
as
an
agent
for
a
court
(
9)
The
term
 
person 
includes
inhvidunls,
partnerships,
corporations,
associations.
and
public
or
private
organizations
of
any
character
other
than
:
the
Mayor,
the
Council.
or
an
agency.
(
10)
The
term
 
party 
includes
the
Mayor
and
any
person
or
agency
named
or
admitted
as
a
party,
or
properly
seeking
and
entitled
as
of
right
to
 
be
admitted
as
a
party,
in
anv
proceedmg
before
the
Mayor
or
an
agency,
but
.
nothing
herein
shall
be
construed
to
prevent
the
Mayor
or
an
agency
from
admitting
the
Mayor
or
any
person
or
agency
as
a
party
for
limited
purposes.
(
11)
The
term
 
order 
means
the
whole
or
any
part
of
the
final
disposition
(
whether
affirmative.
negative,
injunctive.
or
declaratory
in
form)
of
the
Mayor or
of
any
agency
in
any
matter
other
than
ruiemahng,
but
including
(
12)
The
term
 
license 
includes
the
whole
or
part
of
any
permit,
certifi
ate,
approval,
reestration,
charter,
membership,
statutory
exemption,
or
other
form
of
permission
granted
by
the
Mayor
or
any
agency.
(
13)
The
term
 
licensing 
includes
process
respecting
the
grant,
renewal,
$
enid,
revocation.
suspension,
annulment.
withdrawal,
limitation,
amend­
 

ment,
modification.
or
conditioning
of
a
license
by
the
Mayor
or
an
agency.
. ­>
(
14)
The
term
 
relief 
includes
the
whole
or
part
of
any
Mayor s
or
t
of
money,
assistance,
license,
authority,
exemption,

excep
El)
Recognition
of
anv
claim.
neht.
immunity,
privilege,
exemption.
or
exception:
and
4c
?
07
 ,
I
I
 
d
I
.
­­
7
5
1­
1502
ADMINISTRATION
(
C)
Taking
of
any
other
action
upon
the
application
or
petition
of,
and
beneficial
to,
any
person.
(
15)
The
wrm
 
proceeding 
means
any
process
of
the
Mayor
or
an
agency
as
defined
in
paragraphs
(
6),
(
ll),
and
(
12)
of
this
section.
(
16)
The
term
 
sanction 
includes
the
whoie
or
part
of
any
Mayor 
s
or
agency s:
(
A)
Prohibition,
requirement,
limitation,
or
other
condition
affeaing
the
freedom
olh
any
person:
(
B)
Withholding
of
relief;
(
C)
Imposition
of
any
form
of
penalty
or
fine:
(
D)
Destruction,
taking,
seizure,
or
withholding
of
property;
(
E)
Assessment
of
damages.
reimbursement,
restitution,
compensation.
costs,
charges.,
or
fees;
(
F)
Reqwmrement,
revocation,
.
or
suspension
of
a
license;
and
(
GITaking
of
other
compulsory
or
restrictive
action.
(
17)
The
term
 
regulation 
means
the
whole
or
any
part
of
any
District
of
Columbia
Council
statement
of
general
or
particular
applicability
and
future
effect
designed
to
implement,
interpret,
or
prescribe
law.
or
policy
or
to
describe
the
organization,
procedure,
or
practice
requirements
of
the
Mayor,
District
of
Co!
umbia
Council,
or
any
agency.
(
18)
The
Ixrm
 
public
record 
includes
all
books.
papers,
maps,
phob
graphs,
cards,
ta.
pes,
recordings,
or
other
documentary
materials
regardless
of
physical
form
or
characteristics
prepared,
owned.
used.
in
the
possession
of,
or
retained
by
the
Mayor
and
agencies.
(
19)
The
term
 
adjudication 
means
the
agency
process.
other
than
rule­
making,
for
the
formulation,
issuance,
and
enforcement
of
an
order.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,82Stat.
1204.
Pub.
L.
90­
614.
$
3;
1973
Ed..
S
1­
1502:
Oct.
8,
1975,
D.
C.
Law
1­
19.
title
1.
4
1021b)­(
q),
22
DCR
2048;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
4
31a),
(
c),
td),
23
DCR
9532b.)

Section
references.
­
This
section
is
referred
to
in
$
§
1:
1192.2.
1­
1529.
1­
1531.
1­
1902.
11­
722.
and
11­
1525.
Legislative
hismry
of
Law
1­
19.
­
See
.
note
to
P
1­
1501.
Legislative
hisllc~
ryof
Law
1­
96.
­
See
note
to
$
1­
1521.
District
of
Columbia
Tax
Court
abolished
­
The
Distnct
of
Columbia
Tax
Court.
formerly
referred
to
in
paragraph
(
5).
was
abolished
by
4
161Lat
or
Pub.
L.
91­
358.
&
1
Stat.
579.
and
the
functions
thereof
are
now
vested
in
the
Tax
Division
of
the
Supenor
Court
of
the
Distnct
of
Columbia.
Editor 
s
notes.
 
District
of
Columbia
Council
statement.
 
referred
to
in
I
17).
should
probablv
appear
as
 
statement
of
the
Council
of
the
Distnct
of
Columbia 
or
 
Council
statp
ment. 
in
view
oi
I
I3iB)
and
the
fact
that
ths
section
refen
u)
cunrent
and
ongoing
Counnl
activitv.
Board
held
not
PO
be
 
agency .
­
The
Contract
Appeals
Board
for
the
Dktnct
oi
CCP
lumbia
is
not
an
 
agencv 
within
the
me­
of
this
section.
Gunneil
Constr.
Co.
v.
Contract
Appeals
Bd..
App.
D.
C..
182
A.
2d
556
(
1971).
The
National
Capltai
Housing
Authonw
is
not
an
 
agency 
of
the
Distnct
of
Columbi.
within
the
meaninq
of
this
subchapter.
Cole
man
v.
United
States.
App.
D.
C..
311
A.
2d
496
(
1973).
The
Joint
Committee
on
Landmarks
of
the
Nationai
Capital.
as
an
intergnvernmeod
agency,
is
not
an
agencv
of
the
District
of
(
3lumbia
Latimer
v
Joint
Comm.
on
hdmarks
App.
D.
C..
345
A.
2d
484
(
1975).
Judicial
constructions
of
andogous
V
visions
in
federal
act
are
persuasive,
a~
ths
subchapter
is
modeled
on
the
federal
ad
a
great
extent.
panicuiarlv
with
respect
&
e
definition
oi
adjudicator?.
proceedznga
Pendleton
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
rions
&
Ethics.
App.
D.
C..
149
A.
2d
301
(
1­
Implementation
of
poLicV
within
ing
of
parapaph
16,
constitu(
e9
 
de .
­
Where
the
closure
01 
a
clinic
is
an
implemaE.

208
5
I
I 
ADMINXSTRAT 
IVE
PROCEDURE
§
1­
1502
icy,
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
section,
it
constituted
a
 
rule 
within
ng
of
paragraph
(
6).
Spivey
v.
Barry,
.&
pp.
1093(
D.
D.
C.
1980),
rev d
on
other
F.
2d
1222
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1981).
nict
between
this
subchapter
and
djudication
Act.
­
There
is
no
con­
wean
the
Administrative
Procedure
the
Traffic
Adjudication
Act
(
Chapter
401,
as
it
is
clear
that
the
legislative
in
the
latter
was
to
create
an
exception
former sdefinition
of
 
confisted
case 
in
h
(
81of
this
section.
District
of
Columlivan
App.
D.
C.,
436A.
2d364(
1981).
 .­
An
order
of
the
Mayor
which
sets
evei
of
public
assistance
payments
is
a
e  
as
defined
by
this
section
whether
it
is
considered
to
be
an
implementing
directive
or
.,
w,.
wrirrtion
nf
nolirv.
,
Junphanp
v.
npgart
...

merit
of
Human
Resources,
App.
D.
C.,
289
A.
2d
17
(
1972).
Food
Stamp
Operating
Manual
is
not
a
.
 
de .
­
The
Department
of
Human
Re
umsSocial
Services
Administration s
Food
stamp
Operating
Manual
is
neither
a
regulation
nor
a
 
rule 
within
the
purview
of
this
­
tion.
Wolston
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Human
Resources
Social
S~
NS.
Administration
App.
D.
C.,
291
A.
2d
85
(
1972).
Rulemaking
envisioned
as
quasi­
legislative
process.
­
The
Administrative
Procedure
Act
envisions
rulemaking
as
a
quasi­
legislative
process,
and
where
government
agency
performs
no
legislative
function
but
only
de
scribes
or
refers
to
regulation
as
it
is
written,
procedural
formalities
of
Administrative
Procedure
Act
are
unnecessary.
District
of
Columbia
v.
North
Washington
Neighbors,
Inc.,
App.
D.
C.,
367
A.
2d
143
(
1976):
cert.
denied,
434
US.
823,
98
S.
Ct.
68,
54
L.
Ed.
2d
80
(
1976).
 
Rdemaking .
­
The
change
of
the
debasement
factor
for
taxation
of
single­
family
residences
by
the
District s
taxing
authorities
is
 
rulemaking 
within
the
meaning
of
this
section.
District
of
Columbia
v.
Green,
App.
D.
C.,
310
A.
2d
848
(
19731,
affd,
App.
D.
C.,
348
A.
2d
305
(
1975).
District
action
held
not
 
rutemaking .
­
The
District s
letter
to
a
Senator,
in
which
the
District
outlined
its
reading
of
regulations
relevant
to
the
repair
of
water
pipes,
is
not
 
rulemaking
within
the
meaning
of
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
District
of
Columbia
v.
North
Washington
Neighbors,
Inc.,
App.
D.
C.,
367
A.
2d
143,
cert.
denied,
434
US.
823,
98
S.
Ct.
68,
54
L.
Ed.
2d
80
(
1976).
The
implementation
of
a
mandatory
federal
directive
that
permits
no
choice
by
the
District,
other
than
to
initiate
an
administrative
or
judicial
challenge,
is
not
 
rulemaking 
under
paragraph
(
7)
of
this
section.
Hamer
v.
Department
of
Human
Servs.,
App.
D.
C:,
492
A.
2d
1253
119853.
The
Department
of
Human
Services
did
n@
t
engage
in
 
rulemaking 
within
the
context
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
by
reducing
petitioner s
monthly
payment
under
a
grant
for
Aid
to
Families
with
Dependent
Children
until
a
prior
erroneous
overpayment
was
recouped
Boyd
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Human
Servs.,
App.
D.
C..
524
A.
2d
744
(
1987).
Zoning
proceeding
constituted
 
rulemaking
rather
than
a
 
contested
case 
where
the
Zoning
Commission
rezoned
at
least
50
lots
in
6
squares
and
solicited
and
received
testimony
regarding
the
impact
of
imminent
development
on
the
entire
vicinity.
The
fact
that
the
impetus
for
the
hearings
came
from
cit&!
rEwho
were
concerned
with
the
impact
of
a
high­
rise
structure
on
a
particular
piece
of
property
wm
of
nc
consequence
in
determining
whpther
the
!>
rnrpedipr
:
w=.
Q
rnntyctnrl
qcr
Schneider
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
383
A.
2d
324
(
1978).
The
Zoning
Commission
properly
proceeded
by
rulemaking
rather
than
by
contested
eases
in
preparing
new
zoning
proposals
for
waterfront
area.
Citizens
Ass n
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
392
A.
2d
1027
(
1978).
 
Contested
case 
construed.
­
The
principal
manifestation
of
a
 
contested
case, 
within
meaning
of
review
provisions
of
Administrative
Procedure
Act
of
District
of
Columbia,
is
its
character
as
a
quasi­
judicial
process
based
on
particular
facts
and
information,
and
immed,
iately
affecting
the
interests
of
specific
parties
in
the
proceeding.
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
Washington,
App.
D.
C.,
291
A.
2d
699
(
1972);
District
of
Columbia
v.
Douglass,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
329
(
1982).
Where
a
proceeding
by
a
quasi­
legislative
body
is
concerned
primarily
with
the
immediate
rights,
duties,
or
privileges
of
specific
parties
instead
of
with
general
policy
of
future
applicability
such
proceeding
falls
within
the
 
contested
case 
provisions
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Chevy
Chase
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Council,
App.
D.
C.,
327
A.
2d
310
(
1974).
An
administrative
proceeding
is
primarily
adjudicatory
and
is
therefore
governed
by
 
contested
case 
procedural
requirements
if
it
is
concerned
basically
with
weighing
particular
information
and
arriving
at
a
decision
directed
at
the
rights
of
specific
parties;
on
the
other
hand,
an
administrative
proceeding
is
not
subject
to
 
contested
case 
procedural
requirements
if
the
administrative
body
is
acting
in
a
legislative
capacity,
making
policy
decisions
directed
toward
general
public.
Chevy
Chase
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Council,
App.
D.
C.,
327
A.
2d
310
(
1974);
Schneider
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zonjng
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
383
A.
2d
324
(
19783.
In
order
for
a
matter
to
be
a
conte5ted
case,
it
must
involve
a
trial­
type
hearing
which
is
re209
6
I
<
t.
7+
1
5
1­
1502
ADMINISTRATION
quired
either
by
statute
or
by
constitutional
right.
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
Soc y,
Inc.
v.
Moore,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
184
(
1979);
Dupont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
Barry,
App.
D.
C.,
455
A.
2d
417
(
1983);
Rones
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Hous.
&
Community
Dev.,
App.
D.
C.,
500
A.
2d
998
(
1985).
For
a
proceeding
to
constitute
a
 
contested
case, 
a
specific
statute
or
the
Constitution
must
entitle
a
person
to
a
hearing
concerning
the
legal
rights
of
the
parties.
District
of
Columbia
v.
Douglass,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
329
(
1982).
Approval
by
the
Commission
of
a
preliminary
application
for
a
planned
unit
develop
ment
is
a
 
contested
case 
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
and
is
properly
before
an
appellate
court
as
a
final
order
entitled
to
review
DuPont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
426
A.
2d
327
(
1981).
The
issuance
or
denial
of
a
license
under
the
Healing
Arts
Practice
Act,
$
2­
1301
et
seq.,
now
repealed,
is
a
 
contested
case 
within
the
meaning
of
paragraph
(
8)
of
this
section.
District
of
Columbia
v.
Douglas,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
329
(
1982).
The
Court
of
Appeals
has
jurisdiction
to
hear
a
petition
for
review
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Hacker 
s
License
Appeal
Board
ruling,
affirming
the
denial
of
a
license
to
a
parolee,
because
it
arises
from
a
 
contested
case 
as
defined
under
paragraph
(
8).
Allen
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hacker s
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
471
A.
2d
271
(
1984).
The
D.
C.
Court
of
Appeals
hasjurisdiction
to
review
orders
or
decisions
of
District
of
Columbia
government
agencies
only
in
 
contested
cases. 
the^
types
of
proceedings
to
which
this
definition
refers
are
 
trial­
type 
hearings,
which
are
 
statutorily
or
constitutionally
compelled
Singleton
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Cors.,
App.
D.
C.,
596
A.
2d
56
(
1991).
Independent
agency
is
not
beyond
the
Mayor s
budgetary
reach.
­
Fact
that
the
Board
of
Library
Trustees
of
the
District
of
Co
a,
i,
L;;
yL!,::.
I,+­:..*
ir
!
ibt2.1.
? 
3
.....
 
independent
agency 
does
not
confer
a
status
on
the
library
which
puts
it
beyond
the
Mayor s
budgetary
reach.
Hazel
v:
B3,
App.
D.
C.,
580
A.
2d
110
(
1990).
 
Contested
case .
­
A
proceeding
involving
an
application
for
approval
of
planned
unit
development
is
a
 
contested
case 
within
the
meaning
of
this
chapter.
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
Soc 
y
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
287
A.
2d
101
11972).
The
Zoning
Commission s
grant
of
a
change
in
zoning
is
a
 
contested
case. 
Palisades
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
368A.
2d
1143
(
19771;
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
Soc 
y
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
380
A.
2d
174
(
1977),
overruled
on
other
grounds,
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
392
A.
2d
1027
(
1978).
A
proceeding
before
the
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review
to
review
an
order
of
the
Police
and
Firemen s
Retirement
Board
is
a
 
contested
case. 
Brewington
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appezls
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
287
A.
2d
532
(
1972).
An
application
for
a
special
exception
to
allow
the
construction
of
a
private
school
in
a
residential
zone
is
a
 
contested
case 
within
the
meaning
of
this
subchapter.
Rose
Lees
Hardy
Home
&
School
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
324
A.
2d
701
(
1974),
affd,
App.
D.
C.,
343
A.
2d
564
(
1975).
Proceeding
not
a
 
contested
case ,
­
A
disciplinary
proceeding
before
the
Metropolitan
Police
Special
Trial
Board
involved
a
police
officer s
tenure
as
an
employee,
and
thus
was
not
a
 
contested
case 
under
paragraph
(
8)(
B)
of
this
section.
Matala
v.
Washington,
App.
D.
C.,
276
A.
2d
126
(
1971).
A
proceeding
before
the
Zoning
Commission
which
lacks
the
specificity
of
subject
matter
and
result
indicative
of
an
adjudicatory
proceeding
and
is
a
quasi­
legislative
hearing
conducted
for
the
purpose
of
obtaining
facts
and
information,
and
the
views
of
the
public
pertinent
to
the
resolution
of
a
policy
decision,
is
not
a
 
contested
case 
within
the
judicial
review
provisions
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
Washington,
App.
D.
C.,
291
A.
2d
699
(
1972);
W.
C.
&
A.
N.
Miller
Dev.
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
340
A.
2d
420
(
1975).
A
proceeding
held
under
the
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Commission srules
of
practice.
which
results
in
the
downzoning
of
an
area,
is
not
a
 
contested
case 
within
the
meaning
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Ruppert
V.

Washington,
366
F.
Supp.
683
(
D.
D.
C.
1973).
The
refusal
of
the
Mayor
to
grant
a
request
to
take
immediate
steps
to
correct
an
alleged
3ir
~~
11~:+~
nnemorw~
ryin
the
nistrirt.
nf
COlumbia
is
not
a
 
contested
case 
withtn
piirview
of
this
subchapter.
Environmental
Defense
Fund,
Inc.
v.
Mayor­
Commissioner
of
D.
C.,
App.
D.
C,
317
A.
2d
515
(
1974).
A
public
hearing
prior
to
the
revision
of
hiin.
imum
Wage
and
Industrial
Safety
Board s
order
with
regard
to
persons
employed
in
hod*
restaurant,
and
allied
occupations
was
not
 
contested
case 
within
purview
of
notice
PT
visions
of
this
subchapter.
Hotel
Ass n
v.
trict
of
Columbia
Minimum
Wage
Safety
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
318
A.
2d
294
(
19  .
The
decision
of
the
Council
to
Close
a
PONoa
of
a
street
and,
once
closed.
to
author*=
th.
surveyor
to
convey
title
to
the
abutting
Id­
Ownem
for
deveiopment
does
not
COnstimw
210
ADMINISTRATTE
PROCEDURE
9
1­
1502
Kvc­
rv
drcisioii
to
transfer
a
government
em
ycc
Ii Uill
,)
lit 
p ~
lLlU11
LU
dlLLJLlle1
IO
LlUL
Ouu
ect
to
the
 
contested
case 
procedural
requiremcnts
nnd
direct
review
by
the
court.
District
OfColumbia
v.
Jones,
App.
D.
C.,
442
A.
2d
512
(
1982).
A
proceeding
before
the
Metropolitan
Police
Trial
Board
which
resulted
in
a
recommendation
of
dismissal
of
an
officer
for
malingering
involves
the
tenure
of
an
employee
of
the
District
of
Columbia,
and
thus
was
not
a
 
conteated
case 
under
paragraph
(
8)(
B)
of
this
section
Barry
v.
Wilson,
App.
D.
C.,
448A.
2d
244
(
1982).
The
term
 
contested
case 
does
not
include
a
procegding
regarding
the
selection
or
tonure
of
an
officer
or
employee
of
the
District.
Review
of
a
tenure
decision
is
properly
in
the
Superior
Court.
Kennedy
v.
Barry,
App.
D.
C.,
516
A.
2d
176
(
1986).
An
emergency
order
of
the
Taxicab
Commission
increasing
rates
is
not
a
contested
case
so
as
to
be
subject
to
direct
review.
Communication
Workers,
Local
2338
v.
District
of
Columbia
Taxicab
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
542
A.
2d
1221
(
1988).
Order
suspending
or
revoking
Class
 
F 
liquor
license
appealable.
­
An
order
of
the
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Board
denying
a
motion
to
suspend
or
revoke
Class
 
Flicenses
is
a
final,
appealable
order
within
the
meaning
ofparagraph
(
11)
of
this
section.
Haight
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
439
A.
2d
487
(
1981).
The
phrase
 
after
a
hearing 
as
used
in
ststute
defining
a
 
contested
case 
as
meaning
a
proceeding
in
which
the
legal
rights
and
privileges
of
specific
parties
are
required
to
be
determined,
means
after
a
trial­
type
hearing
where
such
is
implicitly
required
by
either
the
organic
act
or
constitutional
right.
Chevy
Chase
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Council.
App.
D.
C.,
327
A.
2d
310
(
1974);
Bryant
v.
Barry,
App.
D.
C.,
456
A.
2d
1252
(
1983).
Scope
of
paragraph
f8)(
B)
exclusion.
­
Paragraph
(
8)(
B)
was
intended
to
encompass
virtually
all
personnel
decisions.
Wells
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Educ,
App.
D.
C..
386
A.
2d
703
(
1978).
Includes
intra­
agency
transfers.
­
The
exclusion
under
paragraph
(
8)(
B)
encompasses
personnel
decisions
transferring
employees
within
an
agency.
Wells
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Educ.,
App.
D.
C.,
386
A.
2d
703
(
1978).
And
administrative
leave.
­
Administrative
leave
requests
are
facets
of
personnel
management
encompassed
within
the
term
 
selection
or
tenure 
under
paragraph
18)(
B).
Money
v.
Cullinane,
App.
D.
C.,
392
A.
2d
998
(
1978).
Prifoa
discipline
cases.
­
There
is
no
constitutional
right
to
a
full
trial­
type
hearing
in
prison
discipline
cases.
Prisoners
are
entitled
to
some
due
proress
protections.
such
as
the
II~
IILLu
reie:
vc
I~
OLIC~!
ui
Lne
cnarges
against
them
and
a
written
statement
of
reasons
for
any
disciplinary
action,
but
other
constitutional
rights
must
generally
be
balanced
against
the
correctional
goals
3f
the
prison
authorities
Singleton
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Cors.,
App.
D.
C.,
596
A.
2d
56
(
1991).
Remand
order
not
a
 
final
order. 
­
In
a
workers 
compensation
case,
an
order
by
the
Director
to
remand
a
case
to
the
Hearing
Examiner
for
further
findings,
was
not
a
final
order
because
the
remand
order
only
decided
1of
2
claims.
Warner
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
S~
NS.,
App.
D.
C.,
587
A.
2d
1091
(
1991).
Court
of
Appeals
jurisdiction
for
review
must
arise
from
 
contested
case .
­
District
of
Columbia
Court
of
Appeals jurisdiction
to
review
administrat,
ive
actions
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
must
arise
in
the
form
of
a
 
contested
case. 
District
of
Columbia
v.
Greater
Washington
Cent.
Labor
Council,
App.
D.
C.,
442
A.
2d
110,
rehearing
denied,
App.
D.
C.,
445
A.
2d
960
(
1982),
cert.
denied,
460
US.
1016,103S.
Ct.
1261,75
L.
Ed.
2d
486
(
1983).
Review
of
a
Metropolitan
Police
Department
Police
Trial
Board
decision
is
properly
in
the
Superior
Court,
rather
than
the
Court
of
Appeals
because
such
a
matter
involving
the
tenure
of
an
officer
or
employee
of
the
District
of
Columbia
is
specifically
excluded
from
the
definition
of
 
contested
case. 
Kegley
v.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
440
A.
2d
1013
(
1982).
In
view
of
the
exclusion
of
paragraph
(
8)(
B)
of
this
section,
tenure
of
an
officer
of
the
District
is
not
directly
reviewable
by
the
Court
of
Appeals.
Review
is
properly
in
the
Superior
Court.
Barry
v.
Holderbaum,
App.
D.
C.,
454
A.
2d
1328
(
1982).
Property
owner
may
seek
review
of
DHCD
final
action
by
Court
of
Appeals.
­
Because
W
5­
513
authorizes
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
(
DHCD),
an
administrative
agency
of
the
Dis21.1
I
4
1­
1503
trict.
to
deprive
the
owner
of
his
property.
and
because
the
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review
does
not
have
appellate
jurisdiction
over
an
enforce
ment
order.
due
process
entitles
the
owner
toa
"
contested
case"
heanng
at
DHCD
if
he
elects
to
show
cause
why
he
should
not
be
reqd
to
correct
such
condition:
whether
DHCD
granr~
or
refuses
such
a
hearing,
the
owner
can
seek
review
of
DHCD's
final
action
directly
by
the
Court
of
Appeals.
Auger
v.
D.
C.
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C..
477
A.
2d
196
(
1984).
Court
of
Appeals
may
not
review
agency
revocation
of
sign
permit
not
appealed
to
Board
ofAppeals
and
Review.
­
Where
petitioner
did
not
appeal
his
sign
permit
revocation
by
Distnct
agency
to
the
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review.
the
Court
of
Appeals
does
not
have
junsdiction
to
renew
the
agency's
revocation
of
the
permit
because
petitioner
failed
to
create
a
"
contested
case."
Auger
v.
D.
C.
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review.
App.
D.
C..
477
A.
2d
196
119841.
Cited
in
Woodndge
Nursery
School
v.
Jessup.
App.
D.
C..
269
A.
2d
199
(
1970);
Palace
Restaurant.
Inc.
v.
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
271
A.
2d
561
(
1970):
Johnson
v.
Board
of
Appeals
Sr
Review.
App.
D.
C..
282
A.
2d
566
(
19711.
cert.
denied.
405
U.
S.
955.
92
S.
Ct.
1175.
31
L.
Ed.
2d
232
(
1972):
Wallace
v.
Distnct
Unemployment
Comp.
.
Bd..
App.
D.
C..
289
A.
2d
885
I
19721:
Thomas
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeais
&
Review.
App.
D.
C..
355
A.
2d
789
11976):
L'Enfanr
Plaza
Properties,
Inc.
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Redeveiopmenr
Land
Agency.
564
F.
2d
515
8D.
C.
Cir.
1977):
Ammerman
v
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Accommodations
Comm'n.
App.
D.
C.,
375
~.
a
1060
(
1977):
Lechter­
Siege1
v.
Distnct
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd..
App.
D.
C..
395
A.
M
57
(
19781;
Rorie
v
Distnct
of
Columbia
Dep't
of
Human
Resources.
App.
D.
C..
403
A.
2d
11a
(
1979);
Network
Technical
Sews..
Inc.
v.
D.
C.
Data
Co..
App.
D.
C..
464
A.
2d
133
(
1983);
Ppie's
Counsel
v.
Public
Serv.
Comm'n,
App.
D.
C.,
474
A.
2d
8354
1984,:
Robinson
v.
Palmer.
619
F.
Supp.
344
1D.
D.
C.
1985):
Donneliy
.
ksocs.
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Historic
Reservation
Review
Bd..
Xpp.
D.
C..
520
A.
2d
270
11987):
Acheson
v
SheatTer.
.4pp.
D.
C..
520
A.
2d
318
(
1987):
Siler
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Dep't
of
Emp.
%
ITS..
App.
D.
C..
525
A.
2d
620
(
1987):
White
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Elections
&
Ethics.
App.
D.
C..
537
A.
2d
1133
i
1988):
Flores
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm'n.
App.
D.
C..
547
A.
2d
loo0
(
1988);
Committee
of
Blind
Vendors
v.
District
of
Columbia.
695
F.
Supp.
1234
1D.
D.
C.
1988);
Jones
&
Artis
Consrr.
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Contract
Appeals
Bd..
App.
D.
C..
549
A.
2d
315
f
19881:
Levy
v
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment.
App.
D.
C..
570
A.
2d
739
i1990):
Committee
of
100
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep't
of
Consumer
&
Reeulatory
Affairs.
.
lpp.
D
C
.
j7l
A.
2d
195
I19901:
In
re
Herndon.
App.
D
C..
596
A.
2d
592
(
19911:
Kennedy
v.
Dixon.
119
WLR
2637
(
Super.
Ct.
1991).

5
1­
1503.
Establishment
of
procedures.

fa,
The
Mayor
and
the
Council
shall,
for
the
Mayor
and
for
each
subordinate
agency,
establish
or
require
each
subordinate
agency
to
establish
procedures
in
accordance
with
this
subchapter.

1
b)
Each
independent
agency
shall
establish
procedures
in
accordance
with
this
subchapter.

ICJ
The
procedures
required
to
be
established
by
subsections
la)
and
(
b)
of
this
section
shall
include
requirements
of
practice
before
the
Mayor
and
each
agency.
(
Oct.
21,
1968.82
Stat.
1205,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
4
4;
1973
Ed.,
S;
1­
1503;
Oct.
8,
1975,
D.
C.
Law
1­
19,
title
I,
§
102(
r),(
s),
22
DCR
2051:
Mar.
29.
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96.
5
3(
a),
(
c),
23
DCR
9532b.
l
Section
references.
­
This
section
IS
referred
to
in
$
4
11­
722.
11­
1525.
and
33­
731.
Leg.
lsIative
history
of
Law
1­
19.
­&
e
note
u)
.)
1­
1501.
Lepslative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
k
note
to
<
1­
1521.
Lay
representation
before
agencies
implicates
public
policy.
­
While
Court
of
Ap
peais
is
empowered
to
define
the
practice
of
!
aw
so
that
it
either
excludes
or
includes
lav
represenration
beiore
aeencies.
it
IS
also
true
that
such
an
undertaking
implicates
important
public
policv
questions.
Brookens
v.
Committee
on
Unauthorized
Practice
of
Law.
.
ipp.
D.
C..
538
X.
2d
1120
11988).
In
absence
of
specific
procedures.
hearing
governed
bv
general
rules
of
ProOCdure
­
LVhen
the
conduct
of
a
zoning
hean43
IS
attacked
and
no
ordinance
or
rule
has
'
adopred
to
qovern
the
board's
conduct.
COm
wiil
relv
on
the
principle,
that
the
hearinp
mbe
governed
bv
well­
esrablished
des
01
P*
nL
Lpnd
r
19771
(
ental
Ac.
175
A.
2d
CL
Unem7
A.
2d
57
I
I1ep.
t
of
I
2d
1148
i
v
DC.
183);

Peai1
n.
App,
Palmer.
thneilv
'
c
Preser
L'd
270
1
t.'
.
520
11
I
urnbia
\
2d
620
'.
I
Ed.
of
.!
d
1133
I
Kenral
2d
1000
fhstnct
1988);
r:
OlUJn
i9
A.
2d
.
I
Bd.
of
.!
d
739
(
Iolumiffairs
,,
rnrion.
­
led!
v
111
:~

ordi
rote­

*
wlth
IbJof
:
each
i
503:
1977.
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
5
1­
1505
a
Hackers:
License
Appeal
Bd..
App.
0
A.
2d
1004
(
1978).
in
D.
C.
Human
Relauons
Comm'n
v.
National
Geographic
Soc'y,
475
F.
2d
366
(
D.
C.
3);
Weinberg
v.
Barry.
634
F.
Supp.
86
1986):
Porter
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Dep't
of
Emp.
Servs..
APP.
D.
C..
518
A.
2d
1020
en
meetings;
transcripts.

(
a)
All
meetings
(
including
hearings)
of
any
department.
agency,
board.
or
commission
of
the
Districe.
government.
including
meetings
of
the
Council
of
the
District
of
Columbia,
at
which
official
action
of
any
kind
is
taken
shall
be
open
to
the
public.
No
resolution,
rule,
act,
regulation,
or
other
official
action
ahall
be
effective
unless
taken,
made,
or
enacted
at
such
meeting.
or
a
transcription
shall
be
kept
for
all
such
meet
labie
to
the
public
during
normal
business
hours
ernmenlt.
Copies
of
such
written
transcripts
or
copies
of
such
transcriptions
shall
be
available,
upon
request,
to
the
public
at
reasonable
1­
1503a:
Dec.
24,1973.87
Stat.
831,
Pub.
L.
93­
198.
title
Section
references.
­"
his
section
is
re­
fed
to
in
$
8
1­
236.
1­
262.
1­
264.1.
1­
606.10.
2­
3102,
9­
602,
11­
722.
11­
1525.
31­
1543.
and
.,
Ik6~
1itionsapplicable.
­
1he
definitions
.
mntained
in
8
1­
202
apply
to
this
section.
not
cover
decision
on
application
to
carry
conceded
pistol.
­
The
deliberative
process
incident
to
the
Board
of
Ap­

Boud
of
Zoning
Adjustment
­
Where
a
dsdsion
of
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
was
made
in
an
executive
session
which
was
a
quasi­
judicial
action
in
which
historically
onlv
voting
members
play
a
role,
this
section
is
not
applicable.
Duponr
Circle
Citizens
Ass'n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zomng
Adjustment.
App.
D.
C..
364
A.
2d
610
(
1976).
Or
certain
meetings
of
Board
of
Education
­
Given
the
express
intent
of
Congress
to
allow
certain
meetings
of
the
Board
of
Education
to
be
closed
and
the
embodiment
of
that
InLent
in
a
specific
statute
tl
31­
1011.
that
pnor
statute
remains
in
effect
as
a
qualification
of
this
section
requnng
meetings
of
the
Distnct
government
to
be
open
to
the
public.
Goodwin
v.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Ebc..
App.
D.
C..
343
A.
2d
63
(
1975).
II
I
i
I
i
I
i
f
1­
1505.
Official
publications.

The
Mayor
shall
cause
to
be
published
the
official
publications
known
as
istrict
of
Columbia
Register
and
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
ations
pursuant
to
subchapter
I11
of
this
chapter.
('
b)
All
courts
within
the
District
shall
take
judicial
notice
of
rules.
regula
ti­.
and
Council
acts
and
resolutions
published
or
of
which
notice
is
given
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
or
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Reguhtions
pursuant
to
subchapter
I11
of
this
chapter.
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
of
Council
acts
and
resolutions.
regulations
adopted,
amended,
or
repealed
by
the
District
of
Columbia
Council
and
rules
adopted.
amended.
or
repealed
bv
the
>
favor
or
bv
2
13
9
1­
1506
ADMINISTRATION
any
agency
shall
not
be
considered
as
a
substitute
for
publication
in
1
or
more
newspapers
of
general
circulation
when
such
publication
is
required
by
statute
(
Oct.
21,
1968,82
Stat.
1206.
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
§
5;
1973
Ed..
5
1­
1504;
Oct.
8,
1975,
D.
C.
Law
1­
19,
title
I,
5
102(
tL­­
rx),
22
DCR
2051:
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96.
§
3(
a),
23
DCR
9532b;
Apr.
19.
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
120,
$
2,
23
DCR
9924;
Mar.
6,
1979.
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
4
6(
a),
25
DCR
6960.)'

Cross
references.
­
As
to
availability
of
D.
C.
Register
to
Advisory
Neighborhood
Commissions
see
5
1­
261.
As
toavailability
to
public
of
official
information.
see
.
i
1­
1521
et
seq.
Section
references.
­
This
section
is
referred
to
in
§
§
1­
1601.
11­
722.
11­
1525.
31­
1546.
and
33­
731.
Legwlative
history
of
Law
1­
19.
­
See
note
to
ri
1­
1501.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
note
to
ti
1­
1521.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
120.
­
Law
1­
120
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
1­
340.
which
was
referred,
to
the
Committee
on
the
Judiciary
and
the
Committee
on
Criminal
Law.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
November
23.
1976and
December
7.
1976.
respectively.
Enacted
without
signature
by
the
Mayor
on
January
1,
1977.
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
1­
206
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review
Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
Law
2­
153
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
2­
96.
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
the
Judiciary.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readines
on
November
28.
1978
and
Decemkr
12.
1978.
respectivelv.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
December
29.
1978.
it
WBS
assigned
Act
No.
2­
319
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Editor's
notes.
­
As
amended
by
D.
C.
Law
2­
153.
subsection
(
a)
origtnaily
contained
the
phrase
"
Subchapter
11.'.
"
Subchapter
II"
was
changed
to
"
subchapter
111"
in
subsection
(
a).
Regulation
incorporated
into
Districtpf
Columbia
Register
is
properly
publiehed.
­
A
police
regulation
of
the
Distnct
of
Columbia
pertaining
equal
employment
opportuntties
even
if
not
published.
in
a
compilation,
was
properly
published
where
a
special
edition
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Repter
incorporated
District
of
Columbia
police
regulations
and
such
regulations
were
available
for
purchase
at
District
of
Columbia
publicatioas
office
D.
C.
Human
Relations
Comm'n
v.
National
Geographic
Soc'v.
475
F.
2d
366
(
D.
C.
Cir
1973).
Agency
violates
section
by
taking
final
action
before
30
days.
­
Where
an
agency
iailed
to
wait
30
days
from
publication
of
notice
before
taking
final
action.
and
also
failed
to
indicate
in
the
notice
that
it
intended
to
take
action
in
less
than
30
days.
the
agency
violated
this
section.
Spivey
v.
Barry.
501
F.
Supp.
1093
D
D.
C
1980).
rev'd
on
other
mounds.
665
F.
2d
L222
1D.
C.
Cir.
1981).
Cited
in
Legtslative
Study
Club.
Inc.
v.
Disrnct
of
Coiumbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
.4djustment.
App.
D.
C..
359
A.
2d
I53
(
1976).

3
1­
1506.
Public
notice
and
participation
in
rulemaking;
emergency
rules.
la)
The
Mayor
and
each
independent
agency
shall,
prior
to
the
adoption
of
any
rule
or
the
amendment
or
repeal
thereof.
publish
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
(
unless
all
persons
subject
thereto
are
named
and
either
personallv
served
oi
otherwise
have
actual
notice
thereof
in
accordance
with
law)
notice
of
the
intended
action
so
as
to
afford
interested
persons
opportunity
to
submit
data
and
views
either
orally
or
in
writing,
as
may
be.
specified
in
such
notice.
The
publication
or
service
required
bv
this
subsection
of
any
notice
shall
be
made
not
less
than
30
days
prior
to
the
etrective
date
of
the
proposed
adoption.
amendment;
or
repeal.
as
the'
case
may
be.
except
as
otherwise
provided
by
the
Mayor
or
the
agency
upon
good
cause
hund
and
published
with
the
notice.
'
br
.
Any
interested
person
may
pecition
the
Mayor
or
an
Independent
agencv
requesting
the
piomulgation.
amendment.
or
repeal
of
any
rule.
The
.

ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
0
1­
1506
Mayor
and
each
independent
agency
shall
prescribe
by
rule
the
form
for
such
petitions,
and
the
procedure
for
their
submission,
consideration,
and
disposition
Nothing
in
this
subchapter
shall
make
it
mandatory
that
the
Mayor
or
any
agency
promulgate,
amend.
or
repeal
any
rule
pursuant
to
a
petition
therefor
submitted
in
accordance
with
this
section.
(
c)
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
section,
if,
in
an
emergency,

at3
determined
by
the
Mayor
or
an
independent
agency,
the
adoption
of
a
rule
is
necessary
for
the
immediate
preservation
of
the
public
peace,
health,
safety,
welfare,
or
morals,
the
Mayor
or
such
independent
agency
may
adopt
such
rules
as
may
be
necessary
in
the
circumstances,
and
such
rule
may
become
effective
immediately.
Any
such
emergency
rule
shall
forthwith
be
published
and
filed
in
the
manner
prescribed
in
subchapter
I11
of
this
chapter.
No
such
rule
shall
remain
in
effect
longer
than
120
days
after
the
date
of
its
adoption.
(
Oct.
21,1968,
82
Stat.
1206,
Pub.
L.
90­
614.
9
6;
1973
Ed..
$
1­
1505;
Oct.
8.
1975,
D.
C.
Law
1­
19,
title
I.
0
102(
y),
22
DCR
2053;
Mar.
29,
1977.
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
0
3(
a~(
c),
(
e),
23
DCI?
9532b.)

,
Cross
references.
­
As
to
publication
of
zens
Ass'n
v.
Zoning
Comm'n.
App.
D.
C.,
392
I
'
des
and
regulations
relating
to
adoption
sub­
X.
2d
1027
(
1978).
9'­
ddy
payments,
see
8
3­
115.
There
is
no
requiremew
that
opponents
of
a
Won
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
rule
be
given
the
opportunity
to
cross­
examine
,.<,
fed
to
in
$
5
1­
261.
1­
604.5.3­
115.3­
207.3.
witnesses
testifying
favorably
or
to
rebut
the
...
&
705,61005,
11­
722.11­
1525.31­
602.31­
603.
.

':­­
31­
1516.31­
1535,31­
1543.33­
731.35­
2111.
361209.
40­
1708.47­
383.
and
47­
2501.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
19.
­
See
note
to
8
1­
1501.
Legislative
history
of
Law
146.
­
See
..<.
note
to
9:
1­
1521.
'*­'
'
Subsection
(
a)
analogous
to
federal
statute
­
The
requirements
in
subsection
'

31of.
L7.
this
mion
as
M
nor.
ice
and
comment
are
closely
analogous
to
the
requiremenu
oi
the:*
ji
Federal
Administratlve
Procedure
Act
15
U.
S.
C.
9
551
et
seq.
1
for
an
informal
ruiemaking
proceeding.
Citizns
Xss'n
Y
Zoning
.
hmm'n,
App.
D.
C..
392
A.
2d
1027
11978).
"
Rdemaking"
construed.
­
The
change
of
thedebasement
factor
for
the
taxation
oisingi
family
residences
is.
wittun
the
meaning
of
this
subchapter.
"
rulemakmg"
such
as
IO
re­
the
publication
of
notice.
District
of
Co1umbk
v.
Green.
App.
D.
C.,
310
A.
2d
848
(
19731.
Sd,
App.
D.
C..
348
A.
2d
305
11975).
.1
heyor's
intwpretatlon
of
the
word
"
subdi
don"
in
the
Historic
Landmark
and
Historic
Dietrict
Protection
Act
was
not
a
"
ruIe"
for
Purpoeee
of
this
chapter.
and
was
nor
required
to
have
been
adopred
accordine
to
:
he
notice
rad
went
procedures.
Acheson
v
Sheaffer.
Am.
D.
C..
520
A.
2d
313
(
1987).
Rdernaking
affords
Limited
procedural
P­
ons.
­
In
a
rulemakine
proceedmg,
.
w&
iS
quasi­
legislative
In
character.
ail
the
­
ta
of
this
subchapter
and
the
lull
ranee
of
due
Drocess
protections
necessarv
IO
an
nd
entary
adjudication
are
not
apaiicaole
{'
it[
evldence
presented
by
proponents;
rulemakinq
differs
in
this
regard
hm
contested
cases.
Citi
ens
Ass'n
v.
Zoning
Comm'n.
App.
D.
C..
392
X.
2d
1027
(
1978).
Statement
of
basis
and
purpose
for
re@
latiom
not
required.
­
The
absence
oi
any
provision
requiring
Distnct
of
Columbia
agencies
u)
provide
a
staltment
of
basis
and
purpose
for
regulations
being
promulKated
under
the
rulemalung
provisions
of
subsection.
tajof
this
seztion
is
a
clear
indication
that
neither
Congress
nor
the
Council
of
the
Distnct
of
Columbia
intended
such
statements
to
be
requlred
of
District
agencies.
Distnct
of
Columbia
Hosp.
Ass'n
v.
Barry.
App.
D.
C..
498
A.
2d
216
(
1985).
aff'd.
586
A.
2d
686
(
1991).
Opportunity
to
comment
on
proposed
rules.
­
Interested
persons
are
not
afforded
an
opporturuty
to
comment
on
proposed
rules
within
the
meaning
of
this
section
if
the
general
public
does
not
know
where
or
how
t~

submit
the
commenfs.
Junghans'v.
Department
of
Human
Resources.
App.
D.
C..
289
A.
2d
17
'
1972).
In
order
that
interested
persons
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
on
a
proposed
rule.
:
he
general
public
must
be
advised
of
the
current
status
of
proposed
rule
as
it
stands
before
the
rulemaker.
and
Congre'ss
inrended
the
notice
of
a
proposed
rule
to
inform
the
public
that
the
rulemaker
would
either
waic
30
davs
before
laking
final
action
on
the
pending
pronosai
or
was
contemuiatine
lakine
linal
action
in
less
man
JO
davs.
juncrians
v
I>
epartment
215
5
1­
1506
ADMJNISTRATION
of
Human.
Resources,
App.
D.
C.,
289
A.
2d
17
(
1972).
Notice
requirements
imposed
upon
Zoning
Commission
prior
to
hearing
on
proposed
regulatory
action.
­
The
3
notice
requireinents
with
which
the
Zoning
Commission
must
comply
prior
to
a
hearing
on
proposed
regulatory
action
are:
(
1)
Subsection
(
a)
of
this
section;
(
21
5
5­
415;
and
(
3)
Zoning
Commission
Rule
3.411.
Monaco
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
461
A.
2d
1049
(
1983).
Opportunity
to
comment
afforded
by
Zoning
Commission.
­
The
requirement
under
this
section
and
8
5­
417
that
interested
members
of
the
public
be
afforded
a
reasonable
opportunity
to
comment
and
submit
data
was
met
by
the
Zoning
Commission s
holding
4
days
of
hearings
and
permitting
a
substantial
period
for
submission
of
written
comments.
Citizens
Ass n
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,

 
392
A.
2d
1027
(
1978).
Failure
to
exhaust
administrative
remedies
before
the
Zoning
Commission.
­­
The
Zoning
Commission
is
the
exclusive
agency
vested
with
responsibility
for
assuring
that
zoning
regulations
are
not
inconsistent
with
the
District s
comprehensive
plan,
and
failure
to
pursue
any
action
before
the
Zoning
Commission
amounts
to
failure
to
exhaust
administrative
remedies.
Tenley
&
Cleveland
Park
Emergency
Comm.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
550
A.
2d
331
(
1988),
cert.
denied,
489
US.
1082,
109
S.
Ct.
1539,
103
L.
Ed.
2d
843
(
1989).
Notice
and
opportunity
to
comment
deemed
sufficient
tosatisfy
due
process.
­
Notice
of
a
planned
closing
of
several
shelters
for
homeless
men
and
a
reasonable
opportunity
to
present
written
comments
constitute
all
the
process
that
is
due
the
homeless
mefi:,
in
part,
because
of
the
legislative
nature
of
the
proposed
termination
of
services.
Williams
v.
Barry,
708
F.
2d
789
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1983).
The
demands
of
due
process
were
satisfied
where
the
challenged
regulation
was
duly
published
and
adopted
in
compliance
with
the
no­

ILI
, .
..
lu.<..
lli.
lr
p, ~*
L­<.:
LL..,
.
I2
L_...._
C_..
VL.,

and
subsequently
published
in
final
form
in
 
I
compliance
with
§
1­
1532.
Flores
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
547
A.
2d
1000
(
1988),
cert.
denied,
490
U.
S.
1081,109
S.
Ct.
2103,104
L.
Ed.
2d
664
(
1989).
Compliance
with
notice
provision
not
required
­
The
Department
of
Human
Services
did
not
engage
in
 
rulemaking 
within
the
context
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
and,
therefore,
its
uniformly
applied
recoupment
rate
under
§
3­
218.1(
b)
of
the
Public
Assis­
Lance
Act
of
1982
was
effective
without
compliance
with
bhe
notice
requirement
of
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section.
Boyd
v.
District
of
Columbia
Columt
Dep t
of
Human
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
524
A.
2d
D.
C.,
4744
(
1987).
F.
2d
1:
Ex
parte
communications
proper.
­
Ex
ment
oparte
communications
between
the
Zoning
1253(
1Cornmission
staff
and
developers
which
oc­
Distric
curred
after
the
closing
of
the
record
but
before
(
1986);
issuance
of
the
Commission s
final
orders
did
not
violate
the
requirements
of
this
subchapter
or
of
due
process.
Citizens
Ass =
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
392
A.
2d
1027
(
1978).
Rules
of
State
Health
Planning
and
Development
Agency
held
valid.
­
Rules
adopted
by
the
District
of
Columbia
State
Health
Planning
and
Development
Agency,
as
part
of
implementing
the
administration
of
the
District s
certificate
of
need
program,
were
not
invalid
on
the
grounds
that
the
agency
adopting
the
rules
failed
to
provide
a
statement
of
basis
and
purpose
for
the
regulations
under
the
rulemaking
provisions
of
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section.
District
of
Columbia
Hosp.
Ass n
V.

Barry,
App.
D.
C.,
498
A.
2d
216
(
1985),
aff 
d,
586
A.
2d
686
(
1991).
Post
hoc
publication
of
regulations
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
cannot
cause
them
to
acquire
validity.
Rorie
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Human
Resources,
App.
D.
C.,
403
A.
2d
1148
(
1979).
Emergency
regulation
may
become
effective
prior
to
publication
in
Register.
­
The
Council s
emergency
regulation
pm
dures
do
not
require
that
an
emergency
regulation
be
published
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
before
becoming
effective.
Hobson
v.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
304
A.
2d
637
(
1973).
Emergency
regulation
justified.
­
The
results
which
were
likely
to
flow
from
a
judicial
decision
sustained
the
Council s
determination
that
an
emergency
existed
and
justifid
the
invocation
of
the
Council s
procedures
for
the
purpose
of
enacting
emergency
regulation*
Hobson
v.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
301
A.
2d
637
(
19731.
Notice
not
 
good
cause
found
and
pub.
lished 
to
permit
emergency
de.
­
Refep
cnce
in
the
notice
of
a
proposed
rule
to
a
mgU.
lation
of
the
Department
of
Health,
Educnlion
dliu
ViclIaIc,
wi~
llvuLI&
llLiijiiih
*
ilc..*
5.
i;
d 

regulation
could
be
found
and
read,
and
Wilb
24
A.
2d
­
EX
Zoning
!
lCh
ocbefore
:
em
did
chapter
Zoning
'
3781.
nd
De­
Rules
State
ricv.
as
i
ot'the
.*
renot
3dOpt2ent
of
ner
the
sol'
this
3s.
n
v
aif'd.

f)
ns
in
:
annot
.
Disjurres

ne
ef
er.

3rocei
rmladrnbia
,
on
v.
­
d
637
The
.
judi
ermi
tified
PS
for
.~
ions.

'
.
304
Pub5eferreguacion
[
hat
\
VI
thce
LO
.
encv.
cub­
I'
of
:
oi
J
17
;
lDld
4
PP.
.
en.

218i
c..
.
c
of
g
Adjustment.
App.
of
Emp.
Sews..
App.
D.
C..
531
A.
2d
244
(
19871:

'
Spivev
v.
Barry.
665
Committee
of
Blind
Vendors
v.
District
of
Co
Hamer
v.
Depan­
lumbla.
695
F.
Supp.
1234
1D.
D.
C.
1988):
Pro­
P.
D.
C..
492
A.
2d
fessional
awenng
Sew..
Inc.
v.
C
&
f'
Tel.
ExcavatingCo.
v.
Co..
App.
D.
C..
565
A.
2d
55
(
1989):
Speyer
v.

D.
C.*
A.
2d
of
Columbia
Dep't
Barry,
App.
D.
C..
588
A.
2d
1147
f19911.

As
soon
as
practicable
after
the
effective
date
of
this
subchapter,
the
r
shall
have
compiled,
indexed,
and
published
in
the
District
of
Colurn
istrict
of
Columbia
Council
and
the
Mayor
and
District
of
Columbia
Council
and
each
agency
the
time
of
such
compilation.
Such
compilations
shall
be
ented
or
revised
as
may
be
necessary
to
retlect
new
regula
and
changes
in
regulations
and
rules.
ons
shall
be
made
available
to
the
public
at
a
price
fixed
by
ublish
the
1st
compilation
required
by
subsection
(
a)
ear
after
the
effective
date
of
this
subchapter
and
no
e
District
of
Columbia
Council
nor
rule
adopted
by
ayor
or
by
an
agency
before
the
date
of
such
1st
publication
which
has
en
filed
and
published
in
accordance
with
this
subchapter
and
which
is
pilation
shall
be
in
effect
after
1
year
after
the
ctive
date
of
this
subchapter.
(
Oct.
21.
1968.
82
Stat.
i207.
Pub.
L.
90­
614.
t.
483,
Pub.
L.
93­
379,
3
3a);
(
eel,
title
11.
4
203.
22
DCR
,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
5
3(
aA
tc),
23
DCR
9532b.
j
Section
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
to
in
§
§
11­
722
and
11­
1525.

that
this
section
treet
and
allevs.
plaintiff
propenv
188
f
1977;
reneanne
denied.
435
C.
S.
1018.
98
S.
Ct.
1891.
56
L.
Ed.
2d
398
I
1978).
Regulation
incorporated
into
District
of
Columbia
Register
is
properly
published.
­.
A
police
regulation
of
the
District
of
Columbia
pe­
ng
to
equal
employment
opponunities
even
if
not
published
in
a
compilation.
was
properly
published
wnere
a
special
euition
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Repster
incorporated
District
of
Columbia
police
regulations
and
such
regulations
were
available
for
purchase
at
Distnct
of
Columbia
publications
office
D.
C.
Human
Relacions
Comm'n
v
Yational
Geographic
Soc'y,
475
F.
2d
366
1D.
C.
Cir.
1973).
While
the
District
of
Columbia
Adminisrraiive
Procedure
Act
requires
that
an
existing
regulation
must
be
published
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
within
1
year
after
the
effective
date
of
the
Act
1i.
e..
by
October
21.
1969).
that
requirement
was
satisfied
when
the
police
reguiarions
were
incorporated
by
re:
erence
inm
the
special
edition
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Re@
ster
on
Julv
27.
1970.
Green
v
Distnct
of
Columbia.
710
F.
3d
876
IDC
Cir.
1983).
1
i
I
.
i
217
5
1­
1508
ADMI
h':,
SlXATION
5
1­
1508.
Declaratory
orders.

On
petition
of
any
interested
person,
the
Mayor
or
an
agency,
within
their
discretion,
may
issue
a
declaratory
order
with
respect
to
the
applicability
of
1
any
rule,
regulation,
Council
act
or
resolution,
or
statute
enforceable
by
them
4
or
by
it,
to
terminate
a
controversy
!
other
than
a
contesLed
case)
or
to
remove
uncertainty.
A
declaratory
order,
as
provided
in
this
section,
shall
be
binding
1
between
the
Mayor
or
the
agency,
as
the
case
may
be,
and
the
petitioner
on
the
state
of
facts
alleged
and
established,
unless
such
order
is
altered
or
set
aside
by
a
court.
X
declaratory
order
is
subject
to
review
in
the
manner
provided
in
this
subchapter
for
the
review
of
orders
and
decisions
in
contested
cases,
except
that
the
refusal
of
the
Mayor
or
of
an
agency
to
issue
a
declaratory
order
shall
not
be
subject
to
review.
The
Mavor
and
each
agency
shall
prescribe
by
rule
the
form
for
such
petitions
and
the
procedure
for
their
submission
consideration,
and
disposition.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
82
Stat.
1207,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
rS
9;
1973
Ed..
B
1­
1508:
Oct.
8,
1975,
D.
C.
Law
1­
19,
title
I,
3
102(
ft),
22
DCR
2054:
Mar.
29,
1977.
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
3
3(
a).
(
c),
23
DCR
9532b.)

Section
rererences.
­
This
section
is
referred
to
§
§
11­
722
and
11­
1525.
Legislative
history
Gf
Law
1­
19.
­
see
note
M
$
1­
1501.
Legislative
hisrory
of
Law
1­
96.
.­
See
note
$
1­
1521.
Refusal
to
issue
order
not
reviewable.
­
The
refusal
of
the
Minimum
Wage
and
Industrial
Safety
Board
to
issue
a
declaratory
order
requested
by
an
employer
was
not
subject
to
9
1­
1509.
Contested
cases.
review.
Sanderling
Broadcasting
Cop.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Xinimurn
Wage
&
Indus.
Safety
Bd..
App.
D.
C..
315
A.
2d
828
11974).
Cited
in
Washinpn
Theater
Club.
fnc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep't
of
Fin.
&
Revenue,
Property
Assmt.
Civ..
App.
D.
C..
302
A.
2d
231.
CeR.
denied.
414
L's.
831.
94
S
Ct.
63.
38
L.
Ed.
2d
66
119731:
People's
Counsel
v
Public
.
Sew.
Comm'n.
App.
D.
C..
174
A.
2d
1274
(
1984,.

(
a)
In
any
contested
case.
ail
parties
thereto
shall
be
gven
reasonable
notice
of
the
afforded
hearing
by
the
Mayor
or
the
agency,
as
the
case
may
be.
The
notice
shall
state
the
time,
place,
and
issues
involved.
but
if,
by
reason
of
the
nature
of
the
proceeding,
the
Mayor
or
the
agency
determines
that
the
issues
cannot
be
fully
stated
in
advance
of
the
hearing,
or
if
subsequent
amendment
of
the
issues
is
necessary,
they
shall
be
fully
stated
as
soon
as
practicable.
and
opportunity
shall
be
afforded
all
parties
to
present
evidence
and
argument
wich
respect
thereto.
The
notice
shall
aiso
state
that
if
a
party
or
witness
is
deaf.
or
because
of
a
hearing
impediment
cannot
readily
understand
or
communicate
the
spoken
English
language,
the
party
or
witness
may
apply
to
the
agency
for
the
appointment
of
a
qualified
interpreter.
Unless
otherwise
requlred
by
law,
other
than
this
subchaptpr,
any
contested
case
may
be
disposed
of
by
stipulation.
agreed
settlement.
consent
order,
or
default
(
b)
In
contested
cases.
except
as
may
otherwise
be
provided
by
law.
other
than
this
subchapter.
the
proponent
of
a
rule
or
order
shail
have
the
burden
of
proof.
Any
oral
and
any
documentary
evidence
may
be
received.
but
the
hlavor
and
evey
agency
shall
exclude
irrelevant.
immateria!.
and
unduly
repetitious
e\.
iaence.
Every
party
shall
have
the
right
KO
present
in
person
Or
n
their
Jrirtv
of
them
'
emove
11
nding
Nner
on
i
or
set
lanner
!
rested
­
3c
I
ara
nail
!
r
sub
ub.
L.

I
02(
rn7.
i532b.
r
...
Dts.
I
ndus
!
974
I
[
ric
i'

..\
enue.
:
d
231.
;
s
L
!
J"
SilC
:
!??.
I
It!
no­

IV
be.
­
on
of
I[
the
Siuent
,
in
as
,!
ence
:)
any
nder
may
i
ess
case
1.
de­

Lner
..
nui
:
he
.:
uIv
,
I!
UT
counsel
his
case
or
defense
by
oral
and
documentary
eyidence,
to
submit
ttal
evidence,
and
to
conduct
such­
cross­
examinationas
may
be
required
full
and
true
disclosure
of
the
facts.
Where
any
decision
of
the
Mayor
or
agency
in
a
contested
case
rests
on
official
notice
of
a
material
fact
not
aring
in
the
evidence
in
the
record,
any
party
to
such
case
shall
on
timely
est
be
afforded
an
opportunity
to
show
the
contrary.
The
Mayor
or
the
agency
shall
ma.
rntain
an
official
record
in
each
con­
case,
to
include
testimony
and
exh.
ibits,
but
it
shall
not
be
necessary
to
any
transcription
unless
a
copy
ai
such
record
is
timely
requested
by
my
party
to
such
case.
or
transcription
IS
required
by
law,
other
than
this
hapter.
The
testimony
and
exhibits.
together
with
all
papers
and
requests
in
the
proceeding,
and
all
materiai
facts
not
appearing
in
the
evidence
t
with
respect
to
which
official
notice
15
taken,
shall
const.
itute
the
exclusive
for
order
or
decision.
No
sanction.
shall
be
imposed
or
rule
or
order
or
n
be
issued
except
upon
considera.
tion
of
such
exclusive
record,
or
such
r
portions
thereof
as
may
be
agreed
upon
by
all
the
parties
to
such
case.
dental
to
the
preparation
of
a
copy
or
copies
of
a
record
or
portion
1
be
borne
equally
by
all
pairties
requesting
the
copy
or
copies.
never
in
a
contested
case
a
maLjorityof
those
who
are
to
render
the
a1
order
or
decision
did
not
personally
hear
the
evidence,
no
order
or
decin
adverse
to
a
party
to
the
case
tother
than
the
Mayor
or
an
agency)
shall
made
until
a
proposed
order
or
decision,
including
findings
of
fact
and
clusions
of
law,
has
been
served
upon
the
parties
and
an
opportunity
has
n
afforded
to
each
party
adversely
arTected
to
file
exceptions
and
present
ent
to
a
majority
of
those
who
are
I,
o
render
the
order
or
decision.
who,
case,
shall
personally
consider
such
portions
of
the
exclusive
record,
BS
d
in
subsection
ic)
of
this
section.
as
mav
be
designated
bv
any
party.
very
decision
and
ordw
adverse
to
a
party
to
the
case.
rendered
by
the
or
an
agency
in
a
contested
case.
shall
be
in
writing
and
shall
be
anied
by
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
The
tindings
of
fact
consist
of
a
concise
statement
of
the
conclusions
upon
each
contested
f
fact.
Findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
shall
be
supported
by
and
rdance
with
the
reliable,
probative.
and
substantial
evidence.
A
copy
of
ion
and
order
and
accompanying
Endings
and
conclusions
shall
be
the
Mayor
or
the
agency,
as­
thecase
may
be,
to
each
party
or
to
his
of
record.
[
Oct.
21,
1968,
82
Stat.
1208.
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
4
10;
1973
1­
1509;
Oct.
8.
1975,
D.
C.
Law
1­
19,
title
I,,
9
102[
ggj­(
kk),
22
DCR
;
Mar.
29,
1977.
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
P
3ai.
(
c),
23
DCR
9532b;
Feb.
11,
1982,
hw.
4­
67,
9
2(
a).
28
DCR
5043:
Jan
28.
1988,
D.
C.
Law
7­
62,9
14(
a).
34
.
­.
As
u)
heanna
proce­:.
5­
2309.
36­
1002.
36­
1012.
10­
302.
10­
404.
under
Funeral
Direcrors
42­
225.
43­
1655.
45­
1658..
15­
3218.
47­
2820.
4
7­
2844.
and
47­
3;
15.
es.
­
This
seccion
is
re­
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
19.
­
See
7.
'
7.606.
2.2730.
2.2809.
LO
9
1­
1501.
6­
9959.
6­
1508.
11­
722.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
6­
706.
16­
SO4.
26406.1,
vxe
ta
4
1­
1521.
3905.
12.1604.
:
521
11.
Ikfislative
histoq
of
Law
4­
67.
­
Law
'
I
219
I
/
K
I
§
1­
1509
ADMINISTRATION
4­
67
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
4­
55,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
the
Judiciary.
The
Biil
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
October
13,
1981
and
October
27,
1981,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
November
9,
1981,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
4­
113
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legislative
history
of
Law
7­
62.­
Law
7­
62
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
7­
108,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
Government
Operations.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
October
13,
1987
and
October
27,
1987,
respectively
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
November
5,
1987,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
7­
95
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review
Consideration
of
hearsay
evidence
generally
­
The
Commission
on
Human
Rights
is
not
required
to
disregard
evidence
merely
because
such
evidence
is
hearsay;
in
fact,
hearsay
evidence
can
serve
under
some
circumstances
as
 
substantial
evidence 
on
which
to
base
a
finding
oi
fact.
The
weight
to
be
accorded
hearsay
evidence
is
determined
by
the
item s
truthfulness,
reasonableness
and
credibility
Wisconsin
Ave.
Nursing
Home
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comrn n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
527
A.
2d
282
(
1987).
Scope
of
procedural
guarantees.
­
The
procedural
guarantees
of
the
social
security
regulations,
District
of
Columbia
regulations,
and
this
subchapter,
merely
prescribe
the
procedure
that
must
attend
the
removal
of
a
benetit
and
have
no
relevance
in
determining
whether
a
property
right
exists.
Caton
v.
Barry,
500
F.
Supp.
45
(
D.
D.
C.
1980).
A
respondent
is
entitled
to
be
fully
aware
of
the
scope
of
the
charges
in
order
to
have
an
effective
opportunity
to
be
heard
and
to
expiain
his
conduct.
Hedgman
v.
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
549
A.
2d
720
11988).
 
Contested
case 
construed.
­
The
principal
manifestation
of
a
 
contested
case 
is
its
character
as
a
quasi­
judicial
process
based
on
particular
facts
and
information,
and
immediatelv
affecting
t.
he
interests
of
specific
parties
in
the
proceeding.
Citizens
Ass n
of 
beorgetown
Inc.
v.
Washington,
App.
D.
C.,
291
A.
2d
699
(
1972).
Notice
held
sufficient.
­
See
Clark sLL..
quors,
Inc.
v.
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
274
A.
2d
414
(
1971).
Notice
that
erroneously
described
scheduied
action
as
a
lot
width
variance
instead
of
a
lot
area
variance
nonetheless
gave
reasonable
notice
as
required
by
this
section.
Russell
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
402
A.
2d
1231
(
1979).
Where
the
taxidriver s
counsel,
through
questioning,
drew
to
the
attention
of
the
licensing
agency
facts
from
which
the
agency
found
violations
other
than
those
of
which
the
taxidriver
had
been
given
notice,
the
rulings
of
the
agency
as
they
related
to
the
new
violations
would
not
be
reversed
on
the
grounds
of
insufficient
notice.
Hedgman
v.
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd..,
App.
B.
C.,
549
A.
2d
720
(
1988).
Notice
was
suficient
to
satisfy
due
process
and
the
requirements
of
this
section.
Revithes
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
536
A.
2d
1007
(
1987).
Notice
held
insufficient.
­
See
Palace
Restaurant
Inc.
v.
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
271
A.
2d
561
(
1970);
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
365
A.
2d
372
(
1976);
Ammerman
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
AccommodationsComm n,
App.
D.
C.,
375
A.
2d
1060
(
1977);
M.
B.
E.,
Inc.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
485
A.
2d
152
(
1984).
Summary
dismissal,
though
justified,
violative
of
due
process
rights.
­
Although
the
conduct
of
plaintiff
deans
of
a
university
may
have
justified
their
removal
from
their
administrative
positions,
the
summary
nature
of
their
removal
without
giving
them
notice
and
an
opportunity
to
respond
was
violative
of
their
rights
to
procedural
due
process
guaranteed
by
the
Fifth
Amendment.
Allen
v.
Ford,
116
WLR
1869
(
Super.
Ct.).
Scopeofduty
imposedon
agency
by
subsection
(
e).
­
The
requirement
of
subsection
(
e;
of
this
section
that
agency
decisions
be
accompanied
by
findings
of
fact
and
supported
by
substantial
evidence
imposes
upon
the
agency
the
duty
to
make
findings
of
basic
facts
upon
which
the
agency
decision
rests;
the
agency
must
show
on
what
it
relied
in
reaching
ita
decision.
Washington
Gas
Light
Co.
v.
Public
Serv.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
375
(
19821,
cert.
denied,
462
US.
1107,103
S.
Ct.
2454.77
L.
Ed.
2d
1334
(
19831,
affd,
483
A.
2d
1164
(
1984).
Opportunity
to
rebut
evidence.
­
In
driver s
license
revocation
proceedings,
the
mo.
torist
is
entitled
to
opportunity
to
rebut
any
inaccuracy
in
his
trafic
record
or
to
show
that
traffic
record
is
not
relevant
or
material
or
ir
ucnerwise
InddrnisaiiJie.
q~
ck
i)
cpaits:..
.. 
v.

of
Motor
Vehicles,
App.
D.
C.,
331
A.
2d
319
(
1975).
This
chapter
gives
every
party
the
submit
rebuttal
evidence.
Hilton
Hob
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
App.
D.
C.,
531
A.
2d
999
(
1987).
Nondisclosure
of
compldnmt 
to
taxidriver
violated
section.
the
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Boa
a
complainant s
identity
to
a
driver
with
license
suspension
denied
hi
sonable
notice
of
the
issues
to
be
he
lation
of
subsection
(
a),
and
the
0
effectively.
cross­
examine,
in
viol
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
§
1­
1509
1.
Babazadeh
v.
District
of
Columbia
icense
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
390
(
1978).
to
consider
hearsay
is
not
imy
Kopff
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
,.
pp.
D.
C.,
381
A.
2d
1372
(
1977),
affd,
D.
C.,
413
A.
2d
152
(
1980).
Ly
information
gathered
in
sepaoriminai
investigation
held
admissible
pdlce
and
Firefighters 
Board
hearing.
In
hearing
before
Police
and
­
Firefighters 
umment
and
Relief
Board
to
determine
if
nuitant
had
been
restored
to
earning
capacp
._
I,
hearsay
information
gathered
in
criminal..­*~,$~
nL,& >.,
ut>
 
i!::
Lu::
2.;;:
.
.
i..
i:
::::,
.!!
cg:!
c
de
of
firearms,
consisting
of
corroborating
af
vltsof
disinterested
witnesses
who
pur8
firearms,
was
probative
and
could
be
led
on
by
Board
to
support
finding
that
an­

,
__._.­
Urement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
478
A.
2d
1093
(
1984).
Hearing
not
in
conformity
with
subsection
(
b)
requirements
where
the
agency
fails
to
swear
witnesses
or
permit
cross­
examination
Dietrich
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
It
is
error
for­
the
hearing
officer
to
refuse
to
allow
either
testimony
which
is
essential
to
proper
assessment
of
the
question
at
issue
or
cross­
examination
of
witnesses.
Kirven
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
379
A.
2d
1186
(
1977).
Where
the
unemployment
compensation
appeals
examiner
gave
full
consideration
to
employers
unsworn
comment
given
by
telephone,
he
deprived
the
plaintiff
of
right,
to
cross­
examine
on
issues
of
company
rules
and
misconduct.
Hawkins
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
381
A.
2d
619
(
1977).
Notice
required
that
material
fact
is
being
officially
noticed.
­
An
agency
must
notify
the
parties
to
an
administrative
proceeding
that
a
material
fact
is
being
officially
noticed
so
that
the
parties
will
have
an
opportunity
to
rebut
that
fact.
Carey
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
304
A.
2d
18
(
1973).
Submission
of
post­
hearing
evidence.
­
The
record
may
be
held
open
for
the
post­
hearing
submission
of
memoranda;
new
evidence
submitted
post­
hearing
may
not
be
admitted
into
the
record
and,
therefore,
may
not
provlde
a
basis
upon
which
an
agency
may
issue
a
decision
Harris
v.
District
of
Columbia
.
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
505
A.
2d
66
(
1986).
Submission
by
intervenor
of
proposed
findings
after
the
record
is
closed
in
a
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
proceeding
does
not
violate
the
District
of
Columbia
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Monaco
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
407
A.
2d
1091
(
1979).
Review
in
absence
of
statutory
authorization
­
Direct
review
of
administrative
agency
orders
is
limited,
in
the
absence
of
a
statutory
provision
permitting
review,
to
contested
cases.
Communication
Workers,
Local
2336
v.
District
of
Columbia
Taxicab
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
542
A.
2d
1221
(
1988).
Appellate
court s
role
is
only
to
examine
I
contested
issues
and
to
determine
whether
the
1Zoning
CoGission s
conclusions
meet
the
test
1of
substantial
evidence.
DuPont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
 
i
+
_,:­
T]!
p
t?
c
).
9::
­
0­.,
no?)
 
1 .

Under
subsection
(
e), 
whenCourt
of
Appeals
reviews
a
decision
by
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
its
task
is
limited
to
assuring
that
the
Board s
conclusions
flow
rationally
from
findings
of
fact,
and
that
those
findings
of
fact
are
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
Williams
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment
App.
D.
C.,
535
A.
2d
910
(
1988).
The
Court
of
Appeals
is
not
required
to
defer
to
an
agency s
interpretation
of
its
authority
if
ihat
view
is
plainly
wrong
or
inconsistent
with
the
regulation.
Levy
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
570A.
2d
739
(
1990).
Limited
administrative
discretion
in
reviewing
special
exception
applications.
­
The
discretion
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
in
reviewing
special
exception
applications
is
limited
fa
determining
whether
a
proposed
exception
satisfies
the
requirements
of
the
regulation
under
which
it
is
sought,
and
the
burden
of
so
demonstrating
rests
with
the
applicant.
Dupont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
390
A.
2d
1009
(
1978).
Transcription
of
record.
­
On
appeal
to
the
Director
of
the
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
from
a
decision
of
the
examiner
revoking
the
motorist s
operator s
permit,
the
motorist
is
entitled
to
a
transcript
of
the
hearing
before
the
examiner
where
the
motorist
had
made
a
timely
request
to
be
provided
with
the
transcript
and
had
offered
to
bear
the
whole
cost
thereof.
Quick
v.
Department
of
Motor
Vehicles
App.
D.
C.,
331
A.
2d
319
(
1975).
Expense
of
furnishing
transcripts.
­
The
decision
of
Public
Service
Commission
in
telephone
rate
proceeding
to
furnish
transcripts
to
intervenors
at
telephone
company s
expense
is
a
mere
nullity
because
it
contravenes
the
express
language
of
this
section.
C
&
P
Tel.
Co.
v.
Public
Sew.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
339
A,
2d
710
(
1975).
Review
limited
to
record
evidence.
­
Reviewing
agency
must
base
its
decision
solely
on
the
record
that
was
made
before
the
appeals
examiner
and
is
not
empowered
to
receive
3dditional
evidence.
Hilton
Hotels
Corp.
v.

Dis22
I
i
§
1­
1509
ADMINISTRATION
trict
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
531
A.
2d
999
(
1987).
Absence
from
session
where
no
evidence
is
heard
does
not
trigger
subsection
(
d).­
The
absence
of
1
member
of
the
Zoning
Commission
from
session,
at
which
rezoning
order
was
signed,
did
not
trigger
application
of
subsection
(
d)
of
this
section,
where
no
evidence
was
introduced
at
such
meeting
and
the
purpose
of
such
meeting
was
merely
to
review
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
and
to
sign
the
order
which
had
previously
been
approved
by
voice
vote.
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
Soc y
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
380
A.
2d
174
(
1977).
overruled
on
other
grounds,
Citizens
Mn
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
392
A.
2d
1027
(
1978).
Failure
to
issue
subsection
(
d)
proposed
order,
­
The
failure
of
the
District
Unemployment
Compensation
Board,
which
did
not
hear
the
evidence,
to
issue
a
proposed
order
or
decision
prior
to
issuance
of
final
order,
as
was
required
by
subsection
(
d)
of
this
section,
raquires
the
vacation
of
the
Board s
order.
Wallace
v.
Distiict
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
289
A.
2d
885
(
1972),
afl 
d,
App.
D.
C.,
294
A.
2d
177
(
1972).
Where
a
decision
rendered
by
the
acting
rent
administrator
as
to
permissible
rent
is
based
on
evidence
presented
before
hearing
examiner
and
no
proposed
order
was
issued
to
the
parties,
the
decision
is
a
 
final
order 
entered
without
compliance
with
the
procedural
requirements
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Meier
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Accommodations
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
372
A.
2d
566
(
1977).
Adoption
of
prior
order
as
proposed
order
­
The
District
Unemployment
Compensation
Board
may
adopt,
by
regulation
or
by
notice
to
the
parties,
the
order
or
decision
of
the
appeals
examiner,
provided
that
the
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
are
included
therein
as
its
proposed
order,
or
it
may
serve
a
new
proposed
order
or
decision
with
new
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
on
the
parties
Wallace
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
289
A.
2d
885
(
1973,
aFd.
App.
2.
L,
LY~
A.
Z~
i;
r
(
izr~/.
The
District
Unemployment
Compensation
Board
is
authorized
to
provide
by
a
procedural
rule
that
appeals
from
an
examindodecision
constitutes
the
proposed
findings
and
decision
of
the
Board,
and
provide
a
time
limit
in
which
to
file
with
the
Board
objections
to
the
appeals
examiner s
decision.
Carey
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
304
A.
2d
18
(
1973).
Findings
of
fact.
­
If
the
agency
fails
to
make
a
finding
on
a
material,
contested
issue
of
fact,
the
appellate
court
cannot
fill
the
gap
by
making
its
own
determination
from
the
record,
but
must
remand
the
case
for
findings
OR
that
issue.
Nursing
Servs.,
Inc.
v.
District
01
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
512
A.
2d
301
(
1986).
Taxicab
Commission
is
under
an
obligation
in
every
instance
to
issue
written
findings
01
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
Lim
v.
District
01
Columbia
Taxicab
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
564
A.
2d
720
(
1989).
The
Court
of
Appeals
will
normally
refuse
ta
infer
a
finding
where
no
specific
finding
was
made,
but
will
make
inferences
from
general
findings,
when
they
are
sufficiently
detailed
sc
as
to
provide
the
basic
underlying
reasons
for
the
conclusions
entered.
Daro
Realty,
Inc.
v.
Dist.
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C..
581
A.
2d
295
(
1990).
The
essence
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustments
regulatory
mandate
in
approving
a
campus
plan
is
to
evaluate
whether
proposed
use
as
a
college
or
university,
as
a
whole,
is
likely
to
become
objectionable
to
neighboring
property
because
of
noise,
traffic,
number
ol
students
and
other
conditions.
Levy
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
570
A.
2d
739
(
1990).
The
major
purpose
ofrequiring
findings
offact
and
conclusions
oflaw
by
an
agency
is
to
enable
the
reviewing
court
to
decide
whether
decision
follows
as
a
matter
of
law
from
facts
stated
as
its
basis,
and
also
whether
facts
so
stated
have
any
substantial
support
in
evidence.
Woodridge
Nursery
School
v.
Jessup,
App.
D.
C.,
269
A.
2d
199
(
1970).
Findings
of
fact,
conclusions
of
law,
and
the
reasoned
application
of
an
agency s
policy,
if
any,
must
be
clearly
reflected
in
an
administrative
agency s
decision
when
further
administrative
or
judicial
review
is
provided
by
statute
Hill
v.
District
of
Columbia
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
279
A.
2d
501
(
1971,,
rev d
on
other
grounds,
App.
D.
C.,
302
A.
2d
226
(
1973).
Limitations
on
review
offindings.
­
The
review
of
a
District
of
Columbia
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
decision
is
limited
to
assuring
that
its
conclusions
flow
rationally
from
the
findings
of
fact,
which
are
in
turn
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
Roumel
v.
District
of
h
lumbia
Bd.
ot
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
L).
L,
417
A.
2d
405
(
1980).
Review
by
Office
ofAppeals
and
Review
limited
to
rmrd
evidence.
­
The
Office
d
Appeals
and
Review
must
base
ita
decision,
solely
on
the
record
that
was
made
before
b.
appeals
examiner,
it
is
not
empowered
to
* 
ceive
additional
evidence.
Buckman
v.
Dietrlct;
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews.,
App.
D.
C*:
505
A.
2d
771
(
1986).
Findings
must
support
end
result
in
a
df,
1
cernible
manner,
and
the
result
reached
m*
be
supported
by
subsidiary
findine
Of
facts
on
all
material
issues.
Dietrich
v.
D­?
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
­
1
222
1
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
(
5
1­
1509
rplg
A.
M470
(
19721,
affd,
App.
D.
C.,
320
2
(
1974).
distrative
factfinder,
while
not
sub­.
a
the
same
rules
of
evidence
as
a
court,
n
...,,.
t
WBS
the
evidence
and
determine
shes
the
facts
for
which
it
,
JP.
I.­­­.
Din
St.
Joint
Venture
v.
Dis
of
Columbia
kntal
Hous.
Copm n,
App.
p~.,
466
A.
2d
414
(
1983).
IHRI
reauirements
for
factual
findings
cases
are:
(
1)
The
agency
=*
sitmakefindings
on
all
contested
issues
ma
i.

1
to
the
underlying
substantive
statute
or
1);
(
2)
its
findings
must
be
supported
by
sub
izntial
evidence
apparent
from
the
record
as
a
,
le;
and
(
3)
the
agency s
conclusions
of
law
m&
be
deiived
rationally
from
findings
that
in
accord
with
the
underlying
statute.
Bpevak
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
n
P.
407
A.
2d
549
(
19791.
A
reviewing
court
must
determine:
(
1)
Whether
the
agency
has
made
a
finding
of
fact
on
each
material
contested
issue
of
fact;
(
2)
whether
substantial
evidence
of
record
supports
each
finding;
and
(
3)
whether
the
conclugions
of
law
follow
rationally
from
the
findings.
George
Washington
Univ.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
429
A.
2d
1342
(
1981).
The
D.
C.
Court
of
Appeals
has
refashioned
the
requirements
of
subsection
(
e)
into
a
3­
part
test
for
administrative
decisions
in
contested
cams:
(
1)
The
decision
must
state
findings
of
Eact
on
each
material,
contested
factual
issue;
(
2)
those
findings
must
be
based
on
substantial
evidence;
and
(
3)
the
conclusions
of
law
must
follow
rationally
fromthe
findings.
Perkins
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
482
A.
2d
401(
1984);
Colbn
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C..
484
A.
2d
550
(
1984);
Allen
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firefighters 
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
528
A.
2d
1225
(
1987);
Hedgman
v.
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
549
A.
2d
720
(
1988).
The
agency s
findings
must
be
supported
by
reliable,
probative
and
substantial
evidence,
and
its
conclusions
of
law
must
flow
rationally
from
these
findings.
Eilers
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bureau
of
Motor
Vehicles
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
583
A.
2d
677
(
1990).
Credibility
findings
ofagency.
­
Reviewing
courts
are
not
absolutely
bound
by
the
credibility
findings
of
administrative
officers
or
agencies.
Eilers
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bureau
of
Motor
Vehicles
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
583
A.
2d
677
(
1990).
Reviewing
court
could
not
find
that
Hearing
Examiner
gave
 
full
and
reasoned
consideration
to
all
material
facts
and
issues 
where
examiner
should
have,
but
did
not,
offer
specific
cogent
reasons
for
crediting
inconsistent
and
contradictory
testimony
of
police
officer
and
rejecting
contrary
evidence
offered
by
accused
driver
and
his
witness.
Eilers
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bureau
of
Motor
Vehicles
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
583
A.
2d
677
(
1990).
An
agency
must
give
full
and
reasoned
consideration
to
all
material
facts
and
issues,
and
must
disclose
the
reasons
in
its
decisions;
neither
the
repetition
of
the
statutory
language
(
orof
language
from
a
decided
case)
nor
a
summary
of
the
evidence
of
the
witness
credited
by
the
agency
satisfies
the
requirements
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
especially
where
there
are
critical
questions
as
to
how
the
events
in
question
occurred
and
as
to
whether
the
officer s
testimony
was
reliable
and
probative
Eilers
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bureau
of
MotWVehicles
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
583A.
2d
677
(
1990).
Summaries
of
testimony
are
insufficient
2nd
ravwt
SP­­
xr
definitz
fmriiaes.
vFindings
which
are
merely
summaries
of
the
testimony
presented
are
insufficient
and
cannot
serve
as
a
substitute
for
making
definite
findings
of
all
the
relevant
basic
facts.
First
Baptist
Church
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
432
A.
2d
695
(
1981);
Hedgman
v.
Hackers 
Lkense
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
549
A.
2d
720
(
1988).
Findings
required
of
administrative
agencies
in
contested
cases
are
insufficient
if
they
merely
summarize
testimony
and
other
evidence
rather
than
make
definite
determinations
on
disputed
issues
of
fact.
Bakers
Local
118
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment
App.
D.
C.,
437
A.
2d
176
(
1981).
Mere
restatements
of
the
testimony
of
witnesses
or
recitations
of
evidence
are
insufficient
substitutes
for
specific
findings.
Committee
for
Washington s
Riverfront
Parks
v.
Thompson,
App.
D.
C.,
451
A.
2d
1177
(
1982).
And
decision
based
thereon
may
be
remanded
k,
agency.
­
Where,
instead
of
stating
what
facts
it
found
to
be
established
by
the
evidence,
an
agency
merely
summarized
or
restated
the
testimony
and
evidence
without
indicating
which
witness
it
credited
or
what
facts
it
found
to
be
established,
such
summary
does
not
constitute
findings
oi
fact
and
the
case
will
be
remanded
to
the
agency
to
restate
its
findings
Perry
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
451
A.
2d
88
(
1982).
Paraphrase
of
regulation
does
not
sat
is&
requirement
of
factual
finding.
­
When
an
administrative
agency
cloaks
a
paraphrase
of
the
relevant
regulation
as
a
factual
finding,
a
reviewing
court
has
no
basis
for
determining
whether
the
conclusions
of
law
followed
rationally
from
the
findings
of
fact,
thus,
the
challenged
decision
cannot
be
affh­
med
in
the
absence
of
findings
and
legal
conclusions
required
by
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Hedgman
v.
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
549
A.
2d
720
(
1988).

223
5
1­
1509
ADMINISTRATION
Form
of
factual
findings
defined.
­
The
Administrative
Procedure
Act
defines
the
form
findings
of
fact
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
must
take.
Wolf
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
397
A.
2d
936
(
1979).
Neitherrepetition
of
statutory
language
nor
simple
summary
of
evidence
satisfies
requirement
in
subsection
(
e)
that
the
board 
s
findings
 
consist
of
a
concise
statement
of
the
conclusions
upon
each
contested
issue
of
fact. 
Wheeler
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
395
A.
2d
85
(
1978).
 
Each
contested
issue
of
fact 
defined.
­
The
provision
of
this
section
requiring
findings
on
 
each
contested
issue
of
fact 
refers
to
issues
contested
before
the
agency
itself.
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
402
A.
2d
36
(
1979).
Prejudgment
of
contested
issues.
­
Prejudgment
by
Hearing
Examiner
of
contested
issues
was
found
and
action
of
agency
could
not
stand
where
examiner
announced
that
he
was
convinced
accused
driver
had
committed
traffic
violation
before
hearing
any
of
the
driver s
evidence
and
where,
after
receiving
all
evidence
but
before
driver s
counsel
began
closing
argument
asked
counsel
if
he
had
anything
 
in
mitigation. 
Eilers
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bureau
of
Motor
Vehicles
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
583
A.
2d
677
(
1990).
Findings
not
necessary
on
collateral
matters.
­
An
administrative
agency
does
not
have
to
make
findings
of
fact
upon
contentions
that
are
collateral
or
immaterial.
Lee
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
411
A.
2d
635
(
1980).
Any
finding
must
be
based
only
on
evidence
in
the
public
record
of
the
proceeding,
and
participants
in
the
proceeding
must
have
an
opportunity
to
address
themselves
to
that
evidence,
otherwise
fundamentals
of
due
process
are
denied.
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
AI3C
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
288
A.
2d
666
(
19721,
affd,
App.
D.
C.,
305
A.
2d
861
(
1973).
Basic
findings
of
fact
will
not
be
inferred
from
the
action
taken.
Brewington
v.
District
of
Columhia
Bd.
of
Aupeals
&
Review.
ADD.
U.
C.,
Ytl i
A.
2d
532
(
Mi21,
atf d,
App.
U.
C.,
309
A.
2d
112
(
1973).
Or
from
findings
not
made.
­
Findings
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
wow
be
inferred
from
other
findings
that
the
Board
did
make.
Dietrich
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
293
A.
2d
470
(
1972),
affd,
App.
D.
C.,
320
A.
2d
282
(
1974).
Or
from
the
record.
­
In
a
contested
case,
whenever
an
administrative
agency
fails
b
make
a
finding
on
a
material
contested
issue,
the
reviewing
court
cannot
properly
fill
the
gap
itself
by
inferring
findings
on
a
party s
objections
through
inspection
of
the
record,
the
agency sother
findings,
and
the
ultimate
decision
Lee
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
411
A.
2d
635
(
1980).
Decisions
by
administrative
agencies
of
District
of
Columbia
must
satisfy
substantial
evidence
test
which
is
derived
from
the
contested
cases
provision
of
subsection
(
e)
of
this
section.
Bakers
Local
118
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
437
A.
2d
176
(
1981).
Substantial
evidence
as
required
in
subsection
(
e)
means
such
relevant
evidence
as
a
reasonable
mind
might
accept
as
adequate
to
support
a
conclusion.
Wheeler
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
395
A.
2d
85
(
1978);
Heyert
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
399
A.
2d
1309
(
1979);
Saunders
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
444
A.
2d
16
(
1982);
Pendleton
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Elections
&
Ethics,
App.
D.
C.,
449
A.
2d
301
(
1982);
Woodley
Park
Community
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
490
A.
2d
628
(
1985).
The
Board
ofZoning
Adjustment
is
required
to
support
its
findings
with
more
than
a
mere
scintilla
of
rationally
connected
evidentiary
support.
Wheeler
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
395
A.
2d
85
(
1978).
Substantial
evidence
is
more
than
a
mere
scintilla.
Heyert
v.
District
of
Columbia,
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
399A.
2d
1309(
1979);
Saundere
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
sd.,
App.
D.
C.,
444
A.
2d
16
(
1982);
Pendleton
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Elections
&
Ethics.
App.
D.
C.,
449
A.
2d
301
(
1982).
An
agency
is
required
to
support
its
findings
with
more
than
a
mere
scintilla
of
rationally
connected
evidentiary
support.
Scott
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
447
A.
2d
447
(
1982).
Inherent
in
the
substantial
evidence
bat
are
3
requirements:
(
1)
There
must
be
findings
on
each
contested
issue
of
fact;
(
2)
the
de
cision
must
rationally
follow
from
the
facta:
and
(
3)
there
must
be
sufficient
evidence
sup
porting
each
finding.
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ZoninFl
Comm n,
App.
U.
C.,
402
A.
2d
36
iiSi3h
 

Thomas
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep tof
Labe
App.
D.
C.,
409A.
2d
164
(
1979);
Lee
v.
DistrieL
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
411
A.
2d
635
(
1980);
First
Baptist
Church
v.
Db
trict
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustmd
 .

App.
D.
C.,
432
A.
2d
694
(
1981);
Bakers
,;
118
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Ad.
justment,
App.
D.
C.,
437
A.
2d
176
(
1981);
c
P
Bldg.
Ltd.
Partnership
v.
District
of
bia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App:
D.
C.,
A.
2d
129
(
1982);
Woodley
Park
C0­
d
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of&
ning
J
justment,
App.
D.
C.,
490A.
2d
628(
1985);
m!
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
§
1­
1509
,

Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjust­
.,
570
A.
2d
739
(
1990).
trative
Procedure
Act
substanquires
(
1)
That
the
agency
basic
facts
on
all
material
;(
2)
that
these
findings,
taken
st
rationally
lead
to
conclusions
of
are
legally
sufficient
to
support
the
d
(
3)
that
each
basic
finding
is
sup­
Y
substantial
evidence.
DuPont
Circle
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
App.
D.
C.,
426
A.
2d
327
(
1981);
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
.,
462
A.
2d
364
(
1982);
Foxhall
Comity
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
OfZoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
524
A.
2d­
sssenceof
litigation.
The
termination
of
Dublic
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
484
A.
2d
542
(
1984).
But
agency
must
give
explanation
for
rejecting
expert
testimony.
­
An
agency
which
has
made
otherwise
proper
findings
and
reached
rational
conclusions
is
not
required
to
explain
why
it
favored
1witness
or
1
statistic
over
another;
however,
some
indication
of
the
reasons
for
rejecting
expert,
as
opposed
to
lay,
testimony
is
required.
Committee
for
Washingtons
Riverfront
Parks
v.
Thompson,
App.
D.
C.,
451
A.
2d
1177
(
1982).
Testimony
in
contested
cases
must
be
sworn.
­
Sworn
testimony
is
implicit
in
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
and
goes
to
the
769
(
1987).
 
Substantial
evidence 
in
contested
case
in\*
nlving
Board
of
Police
and
Fire
Surgeons
­
A
reasonably
up­
to­
date
medical
esamination
would
provide
the
 
reliable,
probative
and
substantial
evidence 
required
by
subsection(
e)
of
this
section
to
support
a
Board
of
Police
and
Fire
Surgeons 
determination
in
a
contested
case.
Saunders
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
444A.
2d
16
(
1982).
No
explanation
required.­
An
agency
is
not
legally
requiredto
explain
why
it
favored
1
witness
or
1
statistic
over
another.
Citizens
Aes n
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
District
of
CoIumbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
402
A.
2d
36
(
1979).
An
agency
generally
is
free
to
credit,
without
explanation,
nonexpert
testimony
of
a
witness,
even
in
the
face
of
directly
conflicting
evidence
by
an
opposing
witness,
so
long
as
there
is
sufficient
supporting
evidence
in
the
record
for
that
position.
Bakers
Local
118
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
437
A.
2d
176
(
1981).
An
agency
must
make
findings
on
 
each
contested
issue
of
fact 
under
subsection
(
e),
the
agency
need
not
provide
its
reasons
for
adopting
one
or
another
position
on
the
 
basic 
or
 
underlying 
facts
which
were
themselves
disputed
by
the
parties;
nevertheless,
the
agency
must
reach
sufiiciently
detailed
findings
on
basic
factual
issues
to
demonstrate
that
it
has
considered
and
ruled
upon
each
of
thg
party s
1:

I
contentions.
Draude
v.
District
of
Columbia
;­,
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
527
A.
2d
1242
(
1987).
Settlement
by
fewer
than
all
parties.
nt
Although
the
language
of
subsection
(
a)
of
thiscal
section
specifically
authorizes
only
agreed
set­
Id­
tlements
by
all
the
parties,
the
rationale
of&
that
provision
necessarily
obliges
an
agency
at
m­
least
to
consider
on
the
merits
a
reasonable42
settlement
proposed
in
good
faith
by
fewer 
tY
than
all
the
parties,
unless
the
statute
governid
ing
the
agency s
responsibility
clearly
indi
VY
cates
otherwise.
Proctor
v.
District
of
Columbia
assistance
payments
lipon
the
unsworn 
testimony
of
witnesses
in
a
contested
case
was
a
procedural
denial
as
to
require
a
new
evidentiary
hearing.
miirison
v.
bisbriu
ui
Lulunioia
Dep t
of
Human
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
472
A.
2d
405
(
1984).
Workers 
compensation
case.
­
Once
triggered,
the
presumption
of
compensability
in
a
workers 
compensation
case
requires
the
employer
to
produce
substantial
evidence
showing
that
the
death
or
disability
is
not
work­
related,
and
in
any
contested
case
the
Hearing
Examiner
must
include
finding
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
in
his
decision.
Spartin
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
584
A.
2d
564
(
1990).
Burdenof
proof.
­
Party
seeking
review
of
Public
Service
Commission
rate­
making
order
carries
the
heavy
burden
of
demonstrating
clearly
and
convincingly
a
fatal
flaw
in
the
action
taken;
the
PSC
has
the
burden
of
showing
fully
and
clearly
why
it
has
taken
the
particular
rate­
making
action.
Washington
GasLight
Co.
v.
Public
Serv.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
483
A.
2d
1164
(
1984).
Party
asserting
a
particular
fact
has
the
burden
of
affirmatively
proving
that
fact
and
this
burden
cannot
be
sustained
simply
by
showing
a
lack
of
substantial
evidence
to
support
a
contrary
finding.
Ailen
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
538
A.
2d
752
(
1988).
A
petitioner
seeking
review
of
an
administrative
agency
order,
must
show
(
1)
that
the
agency
proceeding
determined
the
legal
rights,
duties,
or
privileges
of
specific
parties;
and
(
2)
that
the
proceeding
below
was
a
trial­
type
hearing
required
by
law.
Communication
Workers,
Local
2336
v.
District
of
Columbia
Taxicab
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
542
A.
2d
1221
(
1988).
Tenants
had
the
burden
of
proving
that
contractors
fee
was
a
kickback
and
were
obligated
to
support
their
challenge
with
something
more
than
unsubstantiated
allegations,
because
contractors 
fees
in
cases
seeking
rent
increases
for
capital
improvements
are
custom225
az,
9
1­
1509
ADMINISTRATION
ary,
or
at
least
not
unusual,
and
because
there
is
nothing
in
any
pertinent
statute
that
requires
a
landlord
to
provide
additional
detail
regarding
such
an
expense.
Columbia
Realty
Venture
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Com.,
App.
D.
C.,
590
A.
2d
1043
(
1991).
 
Burden
of
proof 
in
this
section
means
burden
of
persuasion.
­
See
People s
Counsel
v.
Public
Serv.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
474
A.
2d
835
(
1984).
Legal
advice
received
from
the
Corporation
Counsel
is
not
evidence,
thus,
petitioners
do
not
have
a
right
to
contest
that
advice
in
a
hearing
under
subsection
(
b).
Daro
Realty,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
581
A.
2d
295
(
1990).
Failure
to
permit
cross­
examinationrelative
to
witness s
credibility
deemed
error.
­
Although
relevancy
provides
a
basis
for
excluding
evidence
where
a
witness s
conflicting
statements
affect
her
credibility,
the
Nurses 
Examining
Board s
failtile
to
permit
cross­
examination
relating
to
the
witness s
credibility
constitutes
error.
Arthur
v.
District
of
Columbia
Nurses Examining
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
459
A.
2d
141
(
1983).
Public
Service
Commission
is
not
bound
to
hold
a
hearing
on
every
question
and
does
have
the
authority
to
impose
a
settlement
which
is
substantially
acceptable
to
most,
if
not
all,
of
the
parties.
United
States
v
Public
Sew.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
465
A.
2d
829
(
1983).
Findings
of
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
comported
with
subsection
(
e)
where
the
record
revealed
adequate
Board
consideration
of
an
application
for
a
special
exception
and
included
facts
from
which
the
Board
could
make
a
reasonable
judgment
that
the
application
met
the
regulatory
prerequisites,
even
though
the
applicant
itself
did
almost
nothing
to
demonstrate
that
the
proposed
exception
satisfied
the
relevant
regulations,
and
the
hearing
was
little
more
than
a
formality.
Dupont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n,
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C..
dYu
n.
Ld
lUUr
(
i>
fa).
Findings
of
fact
held
sufficient.
­
See
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
323
A.
2d­
W.

1974);
Miller
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
352
A.
2d
387
(
1976);
Dupont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Cornm n,
App.
D.
C.,
355
A.
2d
550,
cert.
denied,
429
U
S.
966,
97
S.
Ct.
396.50
L.
Ed.
2d
334
(
1976);
Monaco
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
409
A.
2d
1067
(
1979);
DuPont
Circle
Citi­,
zens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
426
A.
2d
327
(
1981);
George
Washington
Univ.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
429
A.
2d
1342
(
1981).
A
2­
sentence
decision
is
inadequate
as
a
finding
of
fact
and
a
conclusion
of
law.
Woodridge
Nursery
School
v.
Jessup,
App.
D.
C.,
269
A.
2d.
199
(
1970).
Findings
of
fact
held
insufficient.
­
See
Allentuck
v.
District
of
Columbia
Minimum
Wage
&
Indus.
Safety
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
261
A.
2d
826
(
1969).
aff d,
App.
D.
C.,
264
A.
2d
307
(
1970);
Hill
v.
District
of
Columbia
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
279
A.
2d
501
(
1971);
Hill
v.
District
of
Columbia
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
281
A.
2d
433
(
1971);
Brewington
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
287
A.
2d
532
(
1972);
Dietrich
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
293
A.
2d
470
(
1972);
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
316
A.
2d
865
(
1974);
Shay
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
334
A.
2d
175
(
1975);
A.
L.
W.,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
338
A.
2d
428
(
1975);
Miller
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
339
A.
2d
715
(
1975);
General
Ry.
Signal
Co.
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
354
A.
2d
529
(
1976);
Communications
Workers
of
America
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
367
A.
2d
149
(
1976);
Newsweek
Magazine
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
376
A.
2d
777
(
1977),
cert.
denied,
434
U.
S.
1014,98
S.
Ct.
729,54
L.
Ed.
2d
758
(
1978);
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
377
A.
2d
436
(
1977);
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
379
A.
2d
694
(
1977);
Group
Hospitalization
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
380
A.
2d
170
(
1977);
Dupont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
390
A.
2d
1009
(
1978);
Washington
Ethical
Soc y
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
421
A.
2d
14
(
1980);
2101
Wis.
Assocs.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews.,
App.
D.
C.,
586
A.
2d
1221
iL3Yil.

Both
statute
and
case
law
require
the
findings
of
an
administrative
agency
to
be
supported
by
substantial
evidence
on
the
record
considered
as
a
whoie,
and
evidence
did
not
meet
that
standard.
Allen
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
538
A.
2d
752
(
1988).
The
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment s
failure
to
consider
the
effects
of
proposed
street
closings,
pedestrian
bridges
and
relief
from
height
strictions,
in
reviewing
university s
expansion
and
development
plan,
rendered
its
findingil
inadequate,
and
legally
insufficient
to
SUP@
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
a
0
1­
1509
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment s
ct
were
conclusory,
incomplete,
a
logical
nexus
to
its
conclusion,
etermination
that
there
had
been
change
of
circumstances
permitting
a
previously
denied
special
exception,
buse
of
discretion.
Towles
v.
District
of
a
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
8
A.
2d
1128
(
1990).
ss
requirements
in
hacker
susceedings
­
In
hacker
suspenings
due
process
requires
that
a
iver
be
afforded
the
opportunity
to
in­
his
file
and
to
secure
information
vital
to
wn
investigation
and
defense.
Babazadeh
District~
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Apv
_.__...
pal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C..
390
A.
2d
1004
(
1978):
Due
process
requires
the
Hackers 
License
..
1,
 
I.
1
,

PI,,,,,,
L ..
­\, ,
1..
._
IL 
U.
bL..
y­­­,
 
L
L.
L
right
to
inspect
his
file
after
formal
charges
are
filed
and
before
the
date
of
the
suspension
hearing.
Babazadeh
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
390
A.
2d
1004
(
1978).
Applicant
for
reinstatement
of
nursing
license
entitled
to
safeguards
guaranteed
by
this
chapter.
­
An
applicant
for
reinstatement
of
her
license
as
a
registered
nurse
is
entitled
to
the
specific
procedural
safeguards
guaranteed
by
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
for
contested
cases.
Woods
v.
District
of
Columbia
Nurses 
Examining
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
436
A.
2d
369
(
1981).
Property
owner
may
seek
review
of
DHCDfinal
action
by
Court
of
Appeals.
­
Because
3
5­
513
authorizes
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
(
DHCD),
an
administrative
agency
of
the
District
to
deprive
the
owner
of
his
property,
and
because
the
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review
does
not
have
appellatejurisdiction
over
an
enforcement
order,
due
process
entitles
the
owner
to
a
 
contested
case 
hearing
at
DHCD
if
he
elects
to
show
cause
why
he
should
not
be
required
to
correct
such
condition;
whether
DHCD
grants
or
refuses
such
a
hearing,
the
owner
can
seek
review
of
DHCDs
final
action
directly
by
the
Court
of
Appeals.
Auger
v.
D.
C.
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
477
A.
2d
196
(
1984).
Court
of
Appeals
may
not
review
agency
revocation
of
sign
permit
not
appealed
to
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review.
­
Where
petitioner
did
not
appeal
his
sign
permit
revocation
by
District
agency
with
the
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review,
the
Court
of
Appeals
does
not
havejurisdiction
to
review
the
agency s
revocation
of
the
permit
because
petitioner
failed
to
create
a
 
contested
case. 
Auger
v.
D.
C.
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
477
A.
2d
196
(
1984).
Authorization
of
lay
representation
not
ultra
vires.
­
Regulations
of
the
Rental
Accommodations
Oftice
authorizing
lay
representation
of
a
party
at
agency
proceedings
are
not
ultra
vires
of
this
section.
Brookens
v.
Committee
on
Unauthorized
Practice
of
Law,
App.
D.
C.,
538
A.
2d
1120
(
1988).
Review
of
Taxicab
Commission
orders.
­
An
emergency
order
of
the
Taxicab
Commission
increasing
rates
is
not
a
contested
case
so
as
to
be
subject
to
direct
review.
Communication
Workers,
Local
2336
v.
District
of
Columbia
Taxicab
Comm n,
App.
D.
C..
542
A.
2d
1221
i1988).
Cited
in
Proctor
v.
Hackers 
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
268
A.
2d
267
(
1970);
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
Soc y
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
287
A.
2d
101a72);
Village
Brooks,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
296
A.
2d
613
(
1972);
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown
Inc.
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
477
F.
2d
402
..
.
.
.
rl­.
,
k. .
­,
i.
iv,.
Ji,
;
ic~\
ii~
g~
uiL
ot
iu
~
JL~
LI~
LL
lumbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
299
A.
2d
145
(
1973);
Dietrich
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
320
A.
2d
282
(
1974);
Palisades
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
324
A.
2d
692
(
1974);
Perry
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Human
Resources,
App.
D.
C.,
326
A.
2d
249
(
1974);
Thomas
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
355
A.
2d
789
(
1976);
Jordan
v.
District
of
Columbia
App.
D.
C.,
362
A.
2d
114
(
1976);
L 
Enfant
Plaza
Properties,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Redevelopment
Land
Agency,
564
F.
2d
515
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1977);
Archer
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Human
Resources,
App.
D.
C.,
375
A.
2d
523
(
1977);
Schneider
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
383
A.
2d
324
(
1978);
Jameson s
Liquors,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
384
A.
2d
412
(
1978);
Kober
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
384
A.
2d
633
(
1978);
Wel!
s
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Educ.,
App.
D.
C.,
386
A.
2d
703
(
1978);
Washington
Pub.
Interest
Organization
v.
Public
Serv.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
393
A.
2d
71
(
1978,
cert.
denied,
444
US.
926,
100
S.
Ct,.
265,
62
L.
Ed.
2d
182
(
1979);
Jones
v.
District
of
Columbia
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
395
A.
2d
392
(
1978);
McIntosh
v.
Washington,
App.
D.
C.,
395
A.
2d
744
(
1978);
Sherman
v.
Commission
of
Licensure
to
Practice
Healing
Art,
App.
D.
C.,
407
A.
2d
595
(
1979);
Lange
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
407
A.
2d
1358(
1979);
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
195
(
1979);
Delevary
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Accommodations
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
411
A.
2d
354
(
1980);
Sheridan­
Kalorama
Neighborhood
Council
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
411
A.
2d
959
(
1979);
Adams
v.
District
Unemployment_
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
414
A.
2d
830
(
1980);
Kea
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,

227
9
1­
1510
ADMINISTRATION
429
A.
2d
174
(
1981);
900
G
St.
Assocs.
v.
Department
of
Hous.
&
Community
Dev..
App.
D.
C.,
430
A.
2d
1387
(
1981);
Citizens
Comm.
to
Save
Historic
Rhodes
Tavern
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep 
t
of
Hous.
&
Community
Dev.,
App.
D.
C.,
432A.
2d
710,
cert.
denied,
454
US.
1054,
102
S.
Ct.
599,
70
L.
Ed.
2d
590
(
1981);
Haight
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
439
A.
2d
487
(
1981);
Interstate
Gen.
Corp.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Accommodations
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
441
A.
2d
252
(
1982);
American
Combustion,
Inc.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
441
A.
2d
660
(
1982);
Jones
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
451
A.
2d
295
(
1982);
District
of
Columbia
v.
Douglass,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
329
(
1982);
Rodriguez
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
462
A.
2d
1170
(
19821,
appeal
dismissed
and
cert.
denied,
460
US.
1018,
103
S.
Ct.
1266,
75
L.
Ed.
2d
490
(
1983);
Network
Technical
Servs.,
Inc.
v.
D.
C.
Data
Co.,
App.
D.
C.,
464
A.
2d
133
(
1983);
General
Servs.
Admin.
v.
Public
Serv.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
469
A.
2d
1238(
1983);
Peoples
CounseI
v.
Public
Sew.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
472
A.
2d
860
(
1984);
Wire
Properties,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
476
A.
2d
679
(
1984);
Nova
Univ.
v.
Educational
Inst.
Licensure
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
483
A.
2d
1172
(
1984);
Clay
v.
District
of
Coiumbia,
112
WLR
2261
(
Super.
CtJ;
Humbles
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
484
A.
2d
586
(
1984);
Parker
v.
National
Corp.
for
How.
Partnerships,
619
F.
Supp.
1061(
D.
D.
C.
1985);
Selk
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews.,
App.
D.
C.,
497
A.
2d
1056
(
1985);
Stevens
Chevrolet,
Znc.
v.
Commission
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
498
A.
2d
546
(
1985);
George
Hyman
Constr.
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep 
t
of
Emp.
S~
NS.,
App.
D.
C.,
498
A.
2d
563
(
1985):
LCP,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
499
A.
2d
897
(
1985);
Ahmed
v.
.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
501A.
2d
415
(
1985);
Liuksila
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
How.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
503
A.
2d
666
(
1986);
Henry
J.
Kauf­

S
Z­
1510.
Judicial
review.
man
&
Assocs.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
503
A.
2d
684
(
1986);
Sterling
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
513
A.
2d
253
(
1986);
Smithsonian
Inst.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews.,
App.
D.
C.,
514
A.
2d
1191
(
1986);
Weinberg
v.
Johnson,
App.
D.
C.,
518
A.
2d
985
(
1986);
Szego
v.
Police
&
Firefighters 
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
528
A.
2d
1233
(
1987);
Morris
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
530
A.
2d
683
(
1987);
Washington
Times
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
530
A.
2d
1186
(
1987);
Martin
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firefighters 
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
532
A.
2d
102
(
19871;
Davis
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Employ.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
542
A.
2d
815
(
1988);
Jones
&
Artis
Constr.
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Contract
Appeals
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
549
A.
2d
315
(
1988);
Randall
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
551
A.
2d
90(
1988);
Mannan
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Medicine,
App.
D.
C.,
558
A.
2d
329
(
1989);
Simon
v.
United
States,
App.
D.
C.,
570
A.
2d
305
(
1990);
Committee
of
100v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Consumer
&
Reguli~
tory
Affairs,
App.
D.
C.,
571
A.
2d
195
(
1990).;
Myrick
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
577
A.
2d
757
(
1990);
Allen
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
%
NE.,
App.
D.
C.,
578
A.
2d
687(
1990);
Gamm
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
578
A.
2d
1134
(
1990);
Holderbaum
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firefighters 
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
579
A.
2d
213
(
1990);
Gilmartin
v.
District
of
CoIumbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
579
A.
2d
1164
(
1990);
Draude
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
582
A.
2d
949
(
1990);
Rafferty
v.
Dietrict
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C..
583
A.
2d
169
(
1990);
Kitchings
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
588
A.
2d
263
(
1991);
Cooper
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
588
A.
2d
1172
(
19911.
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
§
1­
1510
to
this
subchapter,
regulate
generally
all
matters
relating
to
s
on
such
appeals.
A
petition
for
review
shall
be
filed
in
such
Court
h
time
as
such
Court
may
by
rule
prescribe
and
a
copy
of
such
11
forthwith
be
served
by
mail
by
the
clerk
of
the
Court
upon
the
on
the
agency,
as
the
case
may
be.
Within
such
time
as
may
be
ffitdby
rule
of
the
Court,
the
Mayor
or
such
agency
shall
certify
and
file
in
'
&
e
court
the
exclusive
record
for
decision
and
any
supplementary
proceed
ings,
and
the
clerk
of
the
Court
shall
immediately
notify
the
petitioner
of
the
filing
thereof.
Upon
the
filing
of
a
petition
for
review,
the
Court
shall
have
jurisdiction
of
the
proceeding,
and
shall
have
power
to
afirm,
modify,
or
set
aside
the
order
or
decision
complained
of,­
h­+
vholeor
in
part,
and,
if
need
be,
to
remand
the
case
for
further
proceedings,
as
justice
may
require.
Filing
of
a
Tvtitinn
for
review
shall
not
in
itself
stay
enforcement
of
the
order
or
decision
of
the
Mayor
or
the
agency,
as
the
case
may
be.
I
ne
iviayul
UI
&
e
dgellby
pant,
or
the
reviewing
Court
may
order,
a
stay
upon
appropriate
terms.
The
Court
shall
hear
and
determine
all
appeals
upon
the
exclusive
record
for
decision
before
the
Mayor
or
the
ageccy.
The
review
of
all
administrative
orders
and
decisions
by
the
Court
shall
be
limited
to
such
issues
of
law
or
fact
as
are
subject
to
review
on
appeal
under
applicable
statutory
law,
other
than
this
subchapter.
In
all
other
cases
the
review
by
the
Court
of
administrative
orders
and
decisions
shall
be
in
accordance
with
the
rules
of
law
which
define
the
scope
and
limitations
of
review
of
administrative
proceedings.
Such
rules
shall
include,
but
not
be
limited
to,
the
power
of
the
Court:
(
1)
So
far
as
necessary
to
decision
and
where
presented,
to
decide
all
relevant
questions
of
law,
to
interpret
constitutional
and
statutory
provisions,
and
to
determine
the
meaning
or
applicability
of
the
terms
of
any
action;
(
2)
To
compel
agency
action
unlawfully
withheld
or
unreasonably
delayed
and
(
3)
To
hold
unlawful
and
set
aside
any
action
or
findings
and
conclusions
found
to
be:
(
A)
Arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law;
(
B)
Contrary
to
constitutional
right,
power,
privilege,
or
immunity;
(
C)
In
excess
of
statutory
jurisdiction,
authority,
or
limitations
or
short
of
statutoryjurisdiction,
authority,
or
limitations
or
short
of
statutory
rights;
(
D)
Without
observance
of
procedure
required
by
law,
including
any
applicable
procedure
provided
by
this
subchapter;
or
(
E)
Unsupported
by
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
of
the
proceedings
before
the
Court.
(
b)
In
reviewing
administrative
orders
and
decisions,
the
Court
shall
review
such
portions
of
the
exclusive
record
as
may
be
designated
by
any
party.
The
Court
may
invoke
the
rule
of
prejudicial
error.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
82
Stat.
1209,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
3
11;
July
29,1970,84
Stat.
582,
Pub.
L.
91­
358,
title
I,
0
162;
1973
Ed.,
Q
1­
1510;
Oct.
8,
1975,
D.
C.
Law
1­
19,
title
I,
P
102(
11),
22
DCR
2055;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
§
3(
a),
(
c),
23
DCR
9532b.
l
I
229
(
5
1­
1510
ADMINISTRATION
Cross
references.
­
As
to
provisions
for
appeals
under
Funeral
Directors
Act,
see
5
2­
2810.
As
to
other
provisions
for
appeals
from
certain
administrative
orders
and
decisions
see
5
11­
722.
Section
references.
­
This
section
is
referred
to
in
§
§
1­
2554,
2­
606,
2­
2309,
2­
2731,
2­
2810,
2­
3305.20,
3­
412,
3­
606,
3­
703,
3­
1032,
6­
3421,
11­
722,
11­
1525,
17­
303,
17­
305,
26­
804,
26­
806.1,
26­
904,
26­
905,
28­
3905,
29­
817,
32­
1443,
35­
1908,
35­
2103,
36­
209.
36­
412,
36­
1014,
36­
1216,
36­
1217,
36­
1309,
40­
404,
40­
507,
40­
635,
42­
227,
43­
1655,
45­
1658,
45­
1659,
and
45­
3225.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
19.
­
See
note
to
5
1­
1501.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
98.
­
See
note
to
8
1­
1521.
Subchapter
expands
and
centralizes
review
of
administrative
action.
­
This
sub­
chapter
was
an
effort
not
only
to
expand
rights
to
review
the
administrative
action
in
the
District
of
Columbia
but
also
to
centralize
such
review
in
1
place,
to
eliminate
disorderliness
and
lack
of
uniformity
of
decision
inherent
in
multiple
tribunals.
Cheek
v.
Washington,
333
F.
Supp.
481
(
D.
D.
C.
1971).
Trial­
typehearing
before
agency
is
prerequisiteto
review.
­
In
order
for
the
Court
of
Appeals
to
have
jurisdiction
to
review
an
agency
decision,
the
casemust
be
one
that
requires
a
trial­
type
hearing
before
the
agency
either
by
statute
or
by
constitutional
right.
Rones
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Hous.
&
Community
Dev.,
App.
D.
C.,
500
A.
2d
998
(
1985).
The
D.
C.
Court
of
Appeals
has
jurisdicticn
to
review
orders
or
decisions
of
District
of
Columbia
government
agencies
only
in
 
contested
cases. 
The
proceedings
to
which
this
definition
refers
are
 
trial­
type 
hearings,
which
are
 
statutorily
or
constitutionally
compelled. 
Singleton
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Cors.,
App.
D.
C.,
596
A.
2d
56
(
1991).
Standard
for
review
same
as
for
Federal
Administrative
ProcedureAct.
­
The
legislative
history
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
party,
is
in
a
tribunal
other
than
the
District
of
Columbia
Court
of
Appeals.
Debruhl
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
384
A.
2d
421
(
1978).
Court
has
jurisdiction
despite
claim
that
administrative
remedies
not
exhausted.
­
The
Court
of
Appeals
has
jurisdiction
to
review
an
order
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Commission
where
the
Commission
violated
petitioners 
rights
under
this
subchapter
by
failing
to
hold
a
hearing
in
compliance
therewith
despite
a
claim
that
the
order
was
nor
the
final
step
in
the
administrative
process
and
there
had
been
no
exhaustion
of
administrative
remedies.
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
Soc y
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
287
A.
2d
101
(
1972).
Court
of
Appeals
not
bound
by
constitutional
mandates.
­
The
District
of
Columbia
Court
of
Appeals
is
not
bound
by
the
mandates
of
article
I11
of
the
US.
Constitution,
since
it
was
created
by
Congress
as
an
article
I
court.
Lee
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
423
A.
2d
210
(
1980).
Section
provides
for
exclusive
appellate
review
of
administrative
action
in
contested
cases,
and
thereby
precludes
concurrent
jurisdiction
in
the
Superior
Court.
District
of
Columbia
v.
Douglass,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
329
(
1982).
**
contestedcase 
meam
a
proceeding
in
which
the
legal
rights,
duties,
or
privileges
of
specific
parties
are
required
by
law
or
by
constitutional
right,
to
be
determined
after
a
trial­
type
hearing.
Jones
&
Artis
Constr.
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Contract
Appeals
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
549
A.
2d
315
(
1988).
 
Contestedcase 
construed.­
Where
the
court
concluded
that
neither
the
District
of
Columbia
Historic
Landmark
and
Historic
District
Preservation
Act
nor
the
federal
Constitution
entitled
petitioner
to
a
trial­
type
hearing
prior
to
the
designation
of
plaintiffs
properties
as
historic
landmarks,
the
case
was
not
a
 
contested
case 
and,
therefore
the
District
of
Columbia
Court
of
Appeals
had
no
jurisdiction.
Donnelly
Assocs.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hietoric
Preservation
Review
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
520
4
9d
37(\
(
lop?)
M
Cc
isi
.
no
cc
de
Str
on
A 
AI
tlth
tic
de
tr
fo
UI
9(
(
2
Act
shows
a
clear
congressional
intent
that
the
District
of
Cnlilmhia
Court
of
Anopals
­
wvlnv
the
same
standards
for
judicial
review
as
other
federal
courts
employ
for
the
Federal
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Wallace
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
294
A.
2d177
(
1972);
Bender
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
562
A.
2d
1205
(
1989).
Review
of
agency
decision
is
in
Court
of
Appeals.
­
The
fact
that
an
administrative
agency
may
be
without
authority
to
invalidate
the
statutory
or
regulatory
scheme
under
which
it
operates
does
not
mean
that
the
review
of
such
agency
decision,
including
resolution
of
the
constitutional
questions
raised
by
a
CAction
which
is
not
contested
case
not
reviewable.
­
Where
the
Zoning
Commission.
sits
in
a
legislative
capacity,
making
a
policy
 
akision
directed
toward
the
general
public,
ib
proceeding
is
without
the
 
contested
mas?  
PrO.
vision
of
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
8,

regards
judicial
review.
Citizens
of
Georgetown
Ass n,
Inc.
v.
Washington,
App.
D.
C.,
291
A.
M
699
(
1972).
When
the
Zoning
Commission
acts
legislatively
it
is
not
subject
to
the
 
contested
caw 
provisions
of
this
chapter,
with
the
result
Mt
any
decision
it
makes
is
not
subject
did
review
by
the
Court
of
Appeals.
W.
C.
A*
N.
..
+
Bv.
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
m n,
App.
D.
C.,
340
A.
2d
420
(
1975).
ant
 
contestedcase  
status
under
Admin
ive
Procedure
Act,
Court
of
Appeals
does
 
wbve
jurisdiction
to
directly
review
Zoning
­
mimion s
order,
as
this
section
does
not
.
t.&
ment
of
scope
ofjudlcial
review
,..
r.
I
2.
D.
C.,
343
A.
2d
296
(
1975).
$
*­
r
A 
order
of
the
Minimum
Wage
and
Indus­
Safety
Board
which
is
enforceable
only[.
through
criminal
prosecution
or
civil
litiga
ban,
in
which
issues
of
fact
or
law
would
be
&
bmined
entirely
upon
the
pleadings
and
trial
record,
and
not
upon
the
proceedings
bep
fore
the
Board,
is
not
an
 
appealable
order 
,.....
1:
...
!
C..
.
Afl!,?:..:
cty,?
ti,.(.
p~,>
r~,>.~;!.
c/
IC
nderling
Broadcasting
Corp.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Minimum
Wage
&
Indus.
Safety
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
315
A.
2d
828
(
19741.
A
discriminatory
employment
practices
pro­
ding
brought
by
a
District
of
Columbia
employee
is
not
a
 
contested
case 
within
the
meaning
of
this
subchapter
and,
hence,
is
not
subject
to
direct
review
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
@
Neil1
et
ano.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Wice
of
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
355
A.
2d
805
(
1976).
A
proceeding
before
the
Metropolitan
Police
"
rial
Board
which
resulted
in
a
recommendation
of.
dismissal
of
an 
officer
for
malingering
involves
the
tenure
of
an
employee
of
the
District
of
Columbia
such
that
it
is
not
a
 
contestedcase
under
8
1­
1502(
8)(
B)
and
is
therefore
not
directly
reviewable
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
Bany
v.
Wilson,
App.
D.
C.,
448
A.
2d
244
(
1982).
The
award
of
a
contract
for
an
on­
line
lottery
system
is
not
a
contested
case
and
a
direct
appeal
from
the
District
of
Columbia
Lottery
and
Charitable
Control
Board 
s
decision
to
the
court
of
Appeals
will
not
lie.,
Network
Technical
Sews.,
Inc.
v.
D.
C.
Data
Co.,
App.
D.
C.,
464
A.
2d
133
(
1983).
Approval
by
Zoning
Commission
ofpreliminary
application
for
planned
unit
development
is
contested
case
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
and
is
properly
before
an
appellate
court
as
a
final
order
entitled
to
review.
DuPont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
426
A.
2d
327
(
1981).
Section
inapplicable
to
Housing
Rent
Commission.
­
Congress,
by
vesting
review
of
Housing
Rent
Commission
decisions
in
the
Superior
Court,
intended
that
the
review
provisions
of
this
section
not
apply
to
the
Commission
Columbia
Realty
Venture
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
350
A.
2d
120
(
1975).
Personsuffering
a
legal
wrong.
­
An
uninsured
motorist
who
posted
the
administratively
required
security
following
involvement
in
automobile
mishap
and
who
did
not
seek
review
of
order
by
the
Mayor
of
the
District
of
Columbia
could
nevertheless
be
considered
a
person
suffering
3
legal
wrong,
or
adversely
affected
or
aggrieved
by
order
or
decision
of
the
Mayor
within
the
meaning
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Smith
v.
Murphy,
App.
D.
C.,
294
A.
2d
357
(
1972).
Standing
to
seek
review.
­
An
advisory
neighborhood
commission
has
no
capacity
to
seek
court
review
of
action
of
District
of
Columbia
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Board
in
issusiquor
license;
area
residents
who
were
commission
members,
however,
have
standing
to
initiate
such
review
and
to
assert
rights
of
.~.
­...
J....:.
L~.
Aicac!
f.
ILpX
i .
 
ib,
iliuillbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
381
A.
2d
1372
(
1977),
affd,
App.
D.
C.,
413
A.
2d
152
(
1980).
One
who
fails
to
aseert
legal
rights
but
later
decides
to
appeal
a
decision
he
could
have
challenged
­
and
arguably
prevented
­
cannot
reasonably
be
called
 
aggrieved, 
let
alone
a
 
party. 
DeLevay
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Accommodations
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
411
A.
2d
354
(
1980).
Because
Congress
has
so
restricted
the
class
of
persons
who
may
appeal
an
administrative
decision
to
the
Court
of
Appeals,
appellate
jurisdiction
over
the
subject
matter
on
review
is
contingent
upon
petitioners 
right
to
prosecute
the
appeal.
Therefore,
the
appellate
court
is
obligated
to
raise
the
issue
of
petitioners 
standing
sua
sponte.
Lee
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
423
A.
2d
210
(
1980).
In
order
to
seek
review
of
an
administrative
agency s
decision:
(
1)
The
petitioner
must
allege
that
the
challenged
action
has.
caused
him
injury
in
fact;
(
2)
the
interest
sought
to
be
protected
by
the
petitioner
must
be
arguably
within
the
zone
of
interests
to
be
protected
or
regulated
by
the
statute
or
constitutional
guarantee
in
question;
and
(
3)
there
must
be
no
clear
legislative
intent
to
withhold
judicial
review
either
from
the
class
of
persons
or
in
the
type
of
case
involved.
Lee
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
423
A.
2d
210
(
1980);
Dupont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
Barry,
App.
D.
C.,
455
A.
2d
417
(
1983).
CourtofAppeals
lacksjurisdiction
to
review
a
challenge
to
an
agency s
assertion
ofjurisdiction
under
subsection
(
a)
except
in
the
extraordinary
situation
where
the
agency
has
plainly
exceeded
or
clearly
contravened
its
statutory
authority.
Bender
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews.,
App.
D.
C.,
562
A.
2d
1205
(
19891.
Immediate
judicial
review.
­
Where
petitioner
did
not
file
his
first
petition
for
review
for
five
months,
petitioner
cannot
maintain
231
0
1­
1510
ADMINISTRATION
that
he
sought
the
 
immediatejudicial
review 
provided
for
in
subsection
(
a).
Kennedy
v.
Barry,
App.
D.
C.,
516
A.
2d
176
(
1986).
Exhaustion
of
administrative
remedies
generally.
­­
The
judicial
review
available
in
accordance
with
this
section
applies
only
to
orders
or
decisions
in
 
contested
cases. 
Petitioners
failure
to
exhaust
administrative
remedies
by
his
fiilure
to
challenge
the
preliminary
determination
through
administrative
channels
leaves
the
court
with
no
contested
case
in
which
to
review
his
claim.
Siler
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
525
A.
2d
620
(
1987).
Adequacy
ofnotice
form.
­
Form
of
notice
of
time
to
appeal
ineligibility
for
unemployment
benefits
was
defective
for
failure
to
specify
whether
10­
day
appeal
period
consisted
of
calendar
days
or
working
days.
Cob0
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
501
A.
2d
1278
(
1985).
Date
of
mailing.
­
Where
the
only
evidence
of
the
date
of
mailing
was
the
date
of
the
cover
letter,
this
did
not
constitctc
reliable,
probative
and
substantial
evidence
of
the
date
of
mailing.
District
of
Columbia
Pub.
Employee
Relations
Bd.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Metro.
Police
Dep t,
App.
D.
C.,
593
A.
2d
641
(
1991).
Federal
court
interpretations
of
federal
standing
requirements
provide
guidance,
­
The
legislative
history
of
this
subchapter
indicates
that,
although
there
are
slight
differences
in
language
between
the
federal
Administrative
Procedure
Act
standing
provision
(
5
U.
S.
C.
8
702)
and
its
District
of
Columbia
counterpart,
the
2
provisions
were
intended
to
be
interpreted
virtually
identically.
Thus,
it
is
appropriate
to
seek
guidance
from
federal
court
interpretations
of
the
@
A s
standing
requirements
Lee
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
423
A.
2d
210
(
1980).
Issues
not
urged
at
administrative
level
may
not
form
the
basis
for
overturning
a
decision
on
appeal.
John
D.
Neumann
Properties
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Ap3
P 
.
7
 
...­.
......
 
.
I
...
,:
c.
i,
.
q *.
I,. .,.)
a,>
A.
Ai
6U2
i1970).
Court s
review
of
an
agency
decision
must
be
made
upon
the
exclusive
record
for
decision&..
fore
the
agency.
Scott
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
447
A.
2d
447
(
1982),.
On
review
of
a
decision
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
the
Court
of
Appeals
could
not
consider
new
issues
raised
by
petitioners,
but
would
look
to
the
exclusive
record
or
portions
of
it
designated
by
parties.
Dietrich
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
320
A.
2d
282
(
1974).
Nature
of
injury
necessary
to
support
appellate
court
jurisdiction.
­
Although
an
injury
in
fact
need
not
be
a
particularly
substantial
one
to
support
appellate
court
jurisdiction
over
a
petition
for
review,
the
injury
must
be
one
which
petitioners
have
suffered
or
afe,
in
immediate
danger
of
sustaining.
Lqe
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
423
A.
2d
210
(
1980).
Function
of
Court
of
Appeals
in
reviewing
administrative
action
is
to
assure
that
the
agency
has
given
full
and
reasoned
consideration
to
all
material
facts
and
issues.
There
must
be
a
demonstration
of
a
rational
connection
between
the
facts
found
and
the
choice
made.
The
findings
must
support
the
end
result
in
a
discernible
manner.
Tenants
Council
v.
,
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Accommcdations
Comrn n,
App.
D.
C.,
426
A.
2d
868
(
1981).
The
scope
of
judicial
review
is
limited
by
this
section
to
a
determination
whether
the
findings
of
fact,
upon
which
the
authorities
based
their
decision,
are
supported
by
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
and
whether
the
ultimate
decision
is
in
accordance
with
law.
Gomillion
V.

District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
447
A.
2d
449
(
1982).
The
review
function
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
is
to
determine
whether
the
agency s
findings
of
fact
are
supported
by
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
considered
as
a
whole
and
whether
its
conclusions
of
law
flow
rationally
from
those
findings.
Greater
Washington
Bus.
Center
v.
D.
C.
Comrn n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
454
A.
2d
1333
i1982).
When
an
agency
doesnot
exceed
the
authority
vested
in
it
by
statute,
the
court s
sole
task
is
to
examine
the
record
and
then
determine
whether
the
findings
upon
which
its
order
is
based
are
supporkd
by
substantial
evidence.
Dowd
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firefighters
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
485
A.
2d
212
(
1984).
The
Court
of
Appeals 
review
of
administrative
proceedings
is
limited;
and
it
will
not
disturb
a
decision
if
it
rationally
flows
from
the
facts
relied
upon
and
those
facts
or
findings
are
substantially
supporbd
by
the
evidence
of
record.
Selk
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
LliLp.
&
IVc..,
App.
U.
G.,
4Y)
r
A.
2il
lUlt0
\
AJO*
JJ.

Claim
barred
by
laches.
­
Laches
will
bar
the
claim
of
petitioners
if
they
delayed
unreasonably
in
bringing
their
appeal
to
the
administrative
agency
or
board,
to
respondent s
prejudice
Goto
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
423
A.
2d
917
(
1980).
Reviewing
court
must
determine:
(
1)
Whether
the
agency
has
made
a
finding
of
fact
on
each
material
contested
issue
of
fact;
(
2)
whether
substantial
eyidence
of
record
SUP
ports
each
finding;
and
(
3)
whether
the
conclusions
of
law
follow
rationally
from
the
findine
George
Washington
Univ.
v.
District
OfColUmbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
APP.
D.
C.?
4zs
4
3
J
 
ADMINISTRATI
DU 
RE
§
1­
1510VE
PROCE
(
1984).
Prejudice
might
occur
to
a
petitioner
who
.~
li
to
.­
hl­
In
n
1;
rpnsp
from
an
administrative
board
and
is
prevented
from
practicing
his
profession
by
the
board 
s
failure
to
act
promptly.
Vann
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
 .:
Funeral
Dirs.
&
Embalmers,
App.
D.
C.,
441
A.
2d
246
11982),
ad.
App.
D.
C.,
480
A.
2d
688
(
1984).
Review
of
action
alleged
to
be
constitutional
violation.
­
A
practitioner
of
14
years,
who
subsequent
to
the
passage
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Practice
of
Psychology
Act
(
8 
2­
1704.1et
seq.,
now
repealed)
applied
for
a
license,
and
whose
application
was
denied
by
the
Board
of
Psychologist
Examiners
because
of
his
lack
of
required
academic
degrees,
can
properly
avail
himself
of
the
statutory
review
procedure
outlined
in
this
section
in
order
to
prosecute
his
constitutional
challenge
that
the
Board s
refusal
to
test
his
professional
competence
by
some
standard
other
than
his
academic
credentials
constituted
a
violation
of
fundamental
due
process.
Berger
v.
Board
of
Psychologist
Exmrs.,
521
F.
2d
1056
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1975).
Agency s
decision
presumed
to
be
correct
­
In
determining
whether
there
is
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
to
support
an
agency
decision,
or
whether
it
is
in
any
way
arbitrary,
capricious,
or
an
abuse
of
discretion,
the
court
starts
from
the
premise
that
the
agency s
decision
is
presumed
to
be
correct,
so
that
the
burden
of
demonstrating
error
is
on
the
appellant
or
petitioner
who
challenges
the
decision.
Cohen
v.
Rental
How.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
496
A.
2d
603
(
1985).
Agency
decision
upheld
unlessit
is
arbitrary
capricious,
etc.
­
A
court
will
uphold
the
agency s
interpretation
of
an
act
unless
the
interpretation
is
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion,
or
otherwise
not
in
accordance
with
law.
Smith
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
548
A.
2d
95
(
1988).
Court
must
overturn
arbitrary
or
capriciousdecision
­
In
the
exercise
of
its
review
function,
the
District
of
Columbia
Court
of
Appeals
is
obliged
to
overturn
a
decision
of
the
District
Unemployment
Compensation
Board
when
it
is
found
to
be
arbitrary
and
capricious
or
not
in
accordance
with
law.
Carpenter
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
409
A.
2d
175
(
1979).
Agency
findings
must
be
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
­
A
finding
that
an
employee
has
violated
company
policy,
by
itself
is
not
enough
to
sustain
a
conclusion
that
the
employee
was
fired
for
misconduct.
Among
other
things,
the
agency
must
make
findings,
supported
by
substantial
record
evidence,
as
to
whether
the
employee
was
aware
of
the
policy,
wheihe­
it
was
consistently
enforced,
id.,
and
whether
the
employee s
violation
was
deliberate
and
claims
examiner s
determination
that
petitioner
was
fired
for
misconduct
was
not
supported
by
substanuai
evidence.
IvicLa6kiii
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs,,
App.
D.
C.,
572
A.
2d
443
(
1990).
Commission
on
Human
Rights 
findings
in
sex
discrimination
case
based
solely
on
documentary
evidence
were,
necessarily,
arbitrary
and
capricious
where
the
docupentation
provided
in
the
case
was
without
accompanying
testimony
at
an
evidentiary
hearing,
and
thus
the
examiner
had
no
reliable
basis
for
assessing
credibility.
Garzon
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
578
A.
2d
1134
(
1990).
Agency 
s
findings
of
fact
are
conclusive
on
Court
ofAppeals,
unless
unsupprted
by
substantial
evidence
in
the
record.
hulx
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
430
A.
2d
34
(
1981).
Court
may
not
disturb
action
unless
plainly
wrong
or
without
support.
­
On
petition
for
review
of
order
of
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Board,
the
Court
of
Appeals
may
not
disturb
any
action
of
the
Board
in
exercise
of
its
statutory
powers
unless
such
action
is
plainly
wrong
or
without
support
by
substantial
evidence
in
administrative
record.
Schiffmann
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
302
A.
2d
235
(
1973).
Review
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
of
a
decision
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
is
limited
to
a
determination
of
whether
the
decision
reached
follows
as
a
matter
of
law
fhm
facts
stated
as
its
basis,
and
also
whether
facts
so
stated
have
any
substantial
support
in
the
evidence
If
the
Board s
decision
follows
from
its
findings
and
those
findings
are
supported
by
substantial
evidence,
the
Court
of
Appeals
must
affirm
even
though
it
might
have
reached
another
result.
Stewart
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
305
A.
2d
516
(
1973).
The
Court s
review
of
decision
of
the
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Board
is
limited
to
de233
I
5
1­
1510
 
ADMINISTRATION
termination
of
whether
the
Board
decision
is
supported
by
Substantial
evidence
which
is
more
than
a
mere
scintilla,
and
is
such
rele
vant
evidence
as
reasonable
minds
might
ac
cept
as
adequate
to
support
conclusion.
Vestry
I1
 
H
of
Grace
Parish
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
366
A.
2d
1110
(
1976).
In
reviewing
a
decision
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment
the
Court
requires
that
there
I
be
a
rational
connection
between
the
facts
~

,
a
found
by
the
Board
and
its
decision.
Dupont
Circle
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
390
A.
2d
1009
(
1978).
When
the
findings
of
basic
facts
are
each
supported
by
sufficient
evidence
and,
when
taken
together,
rationally
lead
to
conclusions
of
law
and
an
agency
decision
consistent
with
the
governing
statute,
the
Court
of
Appeals
shall
affirm
that
decision.
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
402
A.
2d
36
(
1979);
Draude
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
527
A.
2d
1242
(
1987).
The
District
of
Columbia
Court
of
Appeals
may
overturn
an
agency s
decision
only
if
the
findings
are
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
as
a
whole,
or
if
it
is
grounded
on
a
faulty
legal
premise.
Neer
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
415
A.
2d
523
(
1980);
Woody
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
441
A.
2d
987
(
1982).
Administrative
determinations
regarding
an
J.
agency s
internal
procedures
are
entitled
to
due
respect
and
should
not
be
reversed
unless
Wearly
wrong. 
Goto
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C..
423
A.
2d
917
(
1980).
In
deciding
questions
of
law,
a
reviewingL/ 
court
must
give
due
consideration
of
the
administrative
agency s
interpretation
of
its
substantive
regulation,
and
should
uphold
that
in111
RR
  
tervrotntinyr
1:
nlosc.
it
ic
nl?
in!
v
ermnPniiS
pr
inconsistent
with
the
regulation.
George
Washington
Univ.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
429­..
A.
2d
1342
(
1981).
Unless
unreasonable,
an
appellate
court
should
defer
to
the
agency s
construction
of
a
1
IF11 !,
controlling
statute
or
regulation.
Kramer
v.
D.
C.
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
447
A.
2d
28
(
1982).
Under
this
subchapter,
agency
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law
must
be
affirmed
if
~

.
I
I.
,:
supported
by
and
in
accordance
with
reliable,
Jil!
l
probative
and
substantive
evidence
in
the./
I;#!
record.
Barry
v.
Wilson,
App.
D.
C.,
448
A.
2d
~

244
(
1982).
llI(
l1
A
reviewing
court
must
give
great
weight
toL/
any
reasonable
construction
of
a
regulatory
statute
that
has
been
adopted
by
the
agency
charged
with
its
enforcement.
Lee
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
509
A.
2d
100
(
19%).
Director
of
agency
without
authority
to
review
de
novo
the
evidence.
­
It
was
not
within
the
authority
ot 
the
Director
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Department
of
Employment
Services
to
review
de
novo
the
evidence
concerning
factual
issue;
and
Director s
decision
to
ignore
Substantial
evidentiary
support
was
reversible
error.
Santos
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
536
A.
2d
1085
(
1988).
Court
may
not
substitute
its
judgment.
­
If
there
is
Substantial
evidence
to
support
the
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Board s
finding,
then
the
mere
existence
of
Substantial
evidence
contrary
to
that
finding
does
not
allow
the
Court
of
Appeals
to
substitute
itsjudgment
for
that
of
the
Board.
Spevak
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
407
A.
2d
549
(
1979).
In
applying
the
substantial
evidence
test,
the
District
of
Columbia
Court
of
Appeals
may
not
substitute
its
judgment
for
that
of
the
agency.
Liberty
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
191
(
1979),
afYd,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
1187
(
1982).
The
reviewing
court
is
not
empowered
to
substitute
its
judgment
for
that
of
the
agency;
rather,
it
must
determine
whether
a
rational
basis
existed
for
the
decision.
Spivey
v.
Barry,
501
F.
Supp.
1093{
D.
D.
C.
1980i,
rev d
on
other
grounds,
665
F.
2d
1222
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1981).
If
there
is
Substantial
evidence
to
support
the
agency s
finding,
the
mere
existence
of
substantial
evidence
to
the
contrary
does
not
allow
the
reviewing
court
to
substitute
its
judgment
for
that
of
the
Board.
Scott
v.
Police
&
Firemens
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
447
A.
2d
447
(
1982).
On
judicial
review,
it
is
not
the
province
of
the
court
to
substitute
its
judgment
for
that
of
the
administrative
agency,
provided
the
w­
niind=
iinnyr
which
the
aepnrv
nrtd
wprc
clearly
disclosed
and
adequately
sustained.
Kegley
v.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
440
A.
2d
1013
(
1982).
The
scope
of
review
of
the
Court
of
Appeals
as
to
contested
cases,
as
provided
by
this
ation
prohibits
the
substitution
of
the
court s
judgment
in
areas
of
expertise
reserved
for
the
agency.
Barry
v.
Wilson,
App.
D.
C.,
448
A.
2d
244
(
1982).
Court
of
Appeals
will
assume
the
validity
of
findings
and
conclusions
which
pedtioner
does
not
challenge.
First
Baptia
Church
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
432
A.
2d
695
(
1981)­
Standards
for
contested
cases
apply
,
administrative
decision
appeals
in
SUPS
,!
rior
Court.
­
The
scope
of
review
ir.
the
SUpb
rior
Court
of
a
decision
made
by
the
Metropdi
I
Q
ADMINISTRATI
;
p~
li@
Department
Police
Trial
Board
is
85
that
of
the
Court
of
Appeals
in
a
contested
case
under
this
section.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
440
(
1982);
Barry
v.
Wilson,
App.
D.
C.,
244
(
1982).
ency
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
br
mmt
be
affrmed
by
the
Superior
Court
if
u~&
dby
and
in
accordance
with
reliable,
ipDbativt!
and
substantive
evidence
in
the
md
as
a
whole.
Kegley
v.
Distri$
of
Columbi
App.
D.
C.,
440
A.
2d
1013
(
1982).
Review
of
Superior
Court s
administrative
appeal
decision
by
Court
of
Appeals.­
When
a
decision
of
the
Superior
Court
reviewing
an
action
of
the
Metropolitan
Pdice
Department
Police
Trial
Board
is
appealed,
the
Court
of
Appeals
should
use
the
precise
scope
of
review
employed
in
reviewing
contested
cases:
A
review
of
the
administrative
record
to
determine
if
there
has
been
procedural
error,
if
there
is
substantial
evidence
in
the
record
to
.,.).
..
I
(
1
..,.
i;.,
n
,
f
tho
 
P,.;
nl
RP,.
J
fir
;
f
th<.,..,
, 
action
is
in
some
manner
otherwise
arbitrary,
capricious
or
an
abuse
of
discretion.
Kegley
v.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
440
A.
2d
1013
(
1982);
Barry
v.
Holderbaum,
App.
D.
C.,
454
A.
2d
1328
(
1982).
Act
of
compiling
and
preserving
a
factual
record
enables
the
reviewing
court
to
determine
whether
the
decision­
maker 
s
choice
was
both
reasonable
and
proper
in
the
specific
factual
context.
Johnson
v.
United
States,
App.
D.
C.,
398
A.
2d
354
(
1979).
Review
of
designated
portions
of
record
todeterminefindings.
­
On
appeal
of
a
decision
of
an
agency,
the
reviewing
court
must
review
the
portions
of
the
record
designated
by
the
parties
to
determine
whether
the
agency
could
fairly
and
reasonably
find
the
facts
as
it
did.
Liberty
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
191
(
1979),
aff d,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
1187
(
1982).
Requirements
for
upholding
order
on
review
­
On
review
of
an
order
of
the
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
Court
of
Appeals
must
determine
whether
findings
made
are
supported
and
in
accordance
with
reliable,
probative,
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
whole
administrative
record
and
whether
conclusions
of
Board
flow
rationally
from
­
these
findings.
Dietrich
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
320
A.
2d
282
(
1974).
The
Court
of
Appeals
must
review
the
record
as
a
whole
to
determine
whether
the
agency
could
fairly
and
reasonably
find
the
facts
as
it
did,
and
to
assure
that
the
agency s
decision
did
not
rely
on
unsupported
findings.
Proulx
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
430
A.
2d
34
(
1981).
Substantial
evidence
is
 
more
than
a
mere
scintilla 
of
evidence;
it
is
 
such
relevant
evidence
as
a
reasonable
mind
might
accept
as
VE
PRoCEDURE
0
1­
1510
adequate
to
support
a
conclusion. 
Liberty
V.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
191
11979);
Proulx
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
430
A.
2d
34
(
19811;
Le
Jimmy,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
433
A.
2d
1090
(
1981);
Jadallah
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
476
A.
2d
671
(
1984).
The
appellate
court s
role
is
only
to
examine
contested
issues
and
to
determine
whether
the
Zoning
Commission s
conclusions
meet
the
test
of
substantial
evidence.
DuF ont
Circle
Citizens
.4ss n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
426
A.
2d
327
(
1981).
Substantial
evidence
test
requires:
(
1)
That
the
agency
make
findings
of
basic
facts
on
all
material
contested
issues;
(
2)
that
these
findings,
taken
together,
must
rationally
lead
to
bGZisions
of
law
which
are
legally
SUEcient
to
support
the
decision;
and
(
3)
that
each
basic
finding
is
supported
by
substantial
evi
ncn
n..~+
t
pi+,,
p:
t:­,
nnc4??~­,,,
nirtrict
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
426
A.
2d
327
(
1981).
Findings
held
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
­
See
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
280
A.
2d
309
(
1971t
Johnson
v.
Board
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
282
A.
2d
566
(
1971).
cert.
denied,
405
US.
955,92
S.
Ct.
1175,31L.
Ed.
2d
232
(
1972);
Wheeler
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
395
A.
2d
85
(
1978);
Seabolt
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
413
A.
2d
908
(
1980);
Barry
v.
Wilson,
App.
D.
C.,
448A.
2d
244
(
19FC2);
Arthur
v.
District
of
Columbia
Nurses Examining
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
459
A.
2d
141
(
1983);
Grant
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
490
A.
2d
1115(
1985);
Draude
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
582
A.
2d
949
(
1990);
RafFerty
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
583
A.
2d
169
(
1990).
Uncontroverted
testimony
that
old
hot
and
cold
water
risers
were
rotten
and
were
replaced
in
a
particular
manner
in
order
to
minimize
the
cost
and
inconvenience
to
the
tenants
was
sufficient
evidence
to
sustain
the
examiner s
conclusion
that
the
expenditures
would
enhance
and
protect
the
health,
safety,
and
security
of
the
tenants,
which
is
substantially
in
compliance
with
the
requirement
of
a
determination
that
the
interests
of
the
affected
tenants
are
being
protected
under
§
45­
2520(~)(
2).
Columbia
Realty
Venture
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Corn.,
App.
D.
C.,
590
A.
2d
1043
(
1991).
Court
need
not
reverse
for
unsupported
subsidiary
finding.
­
A
reviewing
court
need
not
reverse
when
a
board
has
made
an
unsupported
finding
if
the
finding
is
demon235
32
5
1­
1510
ADMINISTRATION
strably
subsidiary
and
the
agency
does
not
purport
to
rely
on
the
finding.
Liberty
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
191
(
1979),
affd,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
1187
(
1982).
But
remand
necessary
where
agency
may
have
relied
on
erroneous
findings.
­
Remand
of
an
agency
decision
is
necessary
if
the
court
is
in
substantial
doubt
whether
the
administrative
agenry
would
have
made
the
same
ultimate
finding
with
the
erroneous
findings
or
inferences
removed
from
the
picture.
Liberty
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
191
(
1979),
afl d,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
1187
(
1982).
Reversal
and
remand
is
required
only
if
substantial
doubt
exists
whether
the
agency
would
have
made
the
same
ultimate
finding
with
the
error
removed.
Arthur
v.
District
of
Columbia
Nurses 
Examining
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
459
A.
2d
141
(
1983);
King
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
1067
(
1989).
Reliance
oninformation
not
in
iecord.
­
Where
the
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Board
may
have
relied
upon
information
from
staff
investigative
reports
not
made
a
matter
of
record,
the
case
would
be
remanded
to
the
Board
for
further
proceedings.
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
288
A.
2d
666
(
1972),
Bd,
App.
D.
C.,
305
A.
2d
861
(
1973).
Findings
set
aside
as
unsupported
by
substantial
evidence.
­
See
Sophia s,
Inc.
v.
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
268
A.
2d
799
(
1970);
Miller
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
294
A.
2d
365
(
1972);
Liberty
v.
Police
&
Firernen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
191
(
1979),
affd,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
1187
(
1982);
American
Univ.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Labor,
App.
D.
C.,
429
A.
2d
1374
(
1981);
Le
Jimmy,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
433
A.
2d
1090
(
1981);
Jadallah
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Ernp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
476
A.
2d
671
(
1984);
Selk
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Ernp.
Servs..
Apo.
D.
C
497
A
Zd
1056
(
1995)

Kemand
required
in
absence
of
finding.
­
If
the
agency
fails
to
make
a
finding
on
a
material,
contested
issue
of
fact,
the
court
cannot
fill
the
gap
by
making
ita
own
det@
fl!
lEktion
from
the
record,
but
must
remand
the
case
for
findings
on
that
issue.
Colton
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
484
A.
2d
550
(
1984).
The
finding
that
a
claimant
exercised
reasonable
diligencein
seeking
alternative
employment
following
a
discriminatory
discharge
is
anissue
of
fact
subject
to
determination
upon
review,
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
of
whether
it
was
supported
by
substantial
evidence
Wisconsin
Ave.
Nursing
Home
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
an
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
527
A.
2d
282
(
1987).
Failure
to
show
prejudiced
error.
­
Error
in
refusing
timely
request
to
examine
for
impeachment
purposes
certain
material
evidence
was
not
sufficiently
prejudicial
to
require
reversal
where
testimony
based
upon
such
evidence
was
corroborated
by
several
other
witnesses.
K.
G.
S.,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
531
A.
2d
1001
(
1987).
Failure
to
appear
at
hearing.
­
Claimants
failure
to
appear
at
hearing
may
have
waived
his
right
to
present
testimony,
but
because
the
burden
was
still
on
the
employer
to
prove
misconduct,
it
did
not
waive
his
appeal,
and
agency s
dismissal
of
claimant s
timely
appeal
was
not
legitimized
by
the
fact
that
the
 
Notice
of
Hearing 
stated
that
failure
to
appear
at
the
hearing
 
may
result
in
denial
of
benefits
of
the
appeal. 
Claimant s
failure
to
appear
at
a
hearing
where
the
employer
had
the
burden
of
proof
was
no
different
from
appearing
and
declining
to
testify.
The
employer
still
had
to
introduce
evidence
proving
misconduct
and
the
examiner
had
to
make
particular
factual
findings
and
legal
conclusions
based
on
that
evidence.
McCaskill
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
572
A.
2d
443
(
1990).
Prisoner s
hearing
before
transfer
from
St.
Elizabeths
Hospital
reviewed
as
agency
action.
­
A
judicially­
mandated
hearing
before
transferring
a
prisoner
from
st.
Elizabeths
Hospital
to
the
Department
of
Corrections
is
a
review
of
the
equivalent
of
agency
action,
and
the
appropriate
inquiv
is
whether
the
decision
was
arbitrary,
capricious,
an
abuse
of
discretion
or
without
substantial
evidence
to
support
it.
In
re
Hurt,
App.
D.
C.,
437
A.
2d
590
(
1981).
Prison
discipline
cases.
­
There
is
no
constitutional
right
to
a
full
trial­
type
hearing
in
prison
discipline
cases.
Prisoners
are
entitled
to
some
due
process
protections,
such
as
the
right
to
receive
notice
of
the
charges
against
them
and
a
written
statement
of
reasons
for
,
­.
1:.
. ..
I:
LuL
di.:~
e<
Loii.>
Lii,.­..,
­!...
r.,..
dz.,
­~>
iv&
i,
tionai
rights
must
generally
be
balanced
against
the
correctional
goals
of
the
prison
au.
thorities.
Singleton
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Cors.,
App:
D.
C.,
596
A.
2d
56
(
19913.
Workers 
compensation
case.
­
In
a
workers 
compensation
case,
an
order
by
the
Director
to
remand
a
case
to
the
Hearing
Ex
aminer
for
further
findings
was
not
a
find
Or
der
because
the
remand
order
only
decided
On*
of
two
claims.
Warner
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
567
A.
2d
1091
(
1991).
Superior
Court
may
consider
appfi­
u.
ity
of
8
5­
513
to
DHCD
enforcement
ad*
but
not
whether
property
owner s
Wb
;
r.
ADMINISTRATI
ted
thereby.
­
A
real
property
k
declaratory
and
injunctive
re­
Superior
Court
as
to
the
applica
5­
513
to
a
Department
of
Housing
unity
Development
(
DHCD)
en­
action
(
subject
to
review
by
the
&&
of
Appeals);
however,
since
the
 
show
cBu~  
provision
of
§
5­
513
requires
a
 
con
case  
hearing
under
the
Administrative
Mure
Act,
the
Superior
Court
may
not
mmider
whether
the
owner 
s
rights
were
violated
by
DHCD s
particular
use
of
5
5­
513
as
to
him.
Auger
v.
D.
C.
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
~
pp.
D.
C.,
477
A.
2d
196
(
1984).
Decisions
of
Board
of
Elections
and
Ethics
under
§
1­
131Ma)
are
reviewable
by
the
Court
of
Appeals
­
under
this
section.
Pendleton
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Elections
&
Ethics,
App.
D.
C.,
449
A.
2d
301
(
1982).
Court
of
Appeals
lacks
jurisdiction
to
review
decisions
ui
doinb
Cumiiiitae
UIL
Landmarks
of
National
Capitol
inasmuch
as
the
Joint
Committee
is
not
a
District
of
Col.
umbia
agency.
A
&
G
Ltd.
Partnership
v.
Joint
Comm.
on
Landmarks
of
Nat l
Capital,
App.
D.
C.,
449
A.
2d
291
(
1982).
Court
of
Appeals
has
exclusive
jurisdiction
over
claim
against
Districtbased
on
the
refusa!
of
District
of
Columbia
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
to
accept
and
process
applications
for
registration.
Brenneman
Assocs.
v.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
466
A.
2d
459
(
1983).
Court
of
Appeals
has
jurisdiction
to
review
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Board
ruling
affiing
denial
of
license
to
a
parolee
becauseit
arises
from
a
 
contested
case 
as
defined
under
I
1­
1502(
8).
Allen
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
471
A.
2d
271
(
1984).
Court
of
Appeals
may
not
review
agency
revocation
of
sign
permit
not
appealed
to
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review.
­
Where
petitioner
did
not
appeal
his
sign
permit
revocation
by
District
agency
with
the
Board
of
Ap
peals
and
Review,
the
Court
of
Appeals
does
not
have
jurisdiction
to
review
the
agency s
revocation
of
the
permit
because
petitioner
failed
to
create
a
 
contested
case. 
Auger
v.
D.
C.
Bd.
of
Appeals
6Review,
App.
D.
C.,
477
A.
2d
196
(
1984).
Property
owner
may
seekreview
of
find
DHCD
action
by
Court
of
Appeals.
­
Because
§
5­
513
authorizes
the
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
(
DHCDI,
an
administrative
agency
of
the
District
to
deprive
the
owner
of
his
property,
and
because
the
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review
does
not
have
appellate
jurisdiction
over
an
enforcement
order,
due
process
entitles
the
owner
to
a
 
contested
case 
hearing
at
DHCD
if
he
elects
to
show
cause
why
he
should
not
be
required
to
correct
such
condition;
whether
DHCD
grants
.
YE
PROCEDURE
§
1­
1510
or
refuses
such
a
hearing,
the
owner
can
seek
review
of
DHCDs
final
action
directly
by
the
Court
of
Appeals.
Auger
v.
D.
C.
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
477
A.
2d
196
(
1984).
Human
Rights
Law
does
not
expand
the
scope
of
appeal
court s
jurisdiction
beyond
that
conferred
by
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act.
Lamont
v.
Rogers,
App.
D.
C.,
479
A.
2d
1274
(
1984).
Office
of
Human
Rights
findings.
­
An
OEce
of
Human
Rights 
finding
of
no
probable
cause
is
subject
to
judicial
reivew.
Simpson
v.
District
of
Cohmbia
OEce
of
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
597
A.
2d
392
(
1991).
District
courts
do
not
have
exclusive
jurisdiction
over
decisions
of
rental
accom
tion
office.
­
Administrative
Procedure
Act
does
not
grant
District
of
Columbia
courts
exclusivejurisdiction
to
review
decisions
of
the
D.
C.
rental
accommodation
office.
District
Pri,
pc,~
ies.
LULL.,,
3istriLt
,
r?
;::
x?
L:,
7
i?
F.
2d
21
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1984).
Showing
held
insufficient
for
review
of
denial
of
Department
of
Housing
and
Community
Development
housing
loan
award.
­
See
Rones
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Hous.
&
Community
Dev.,
App.
D.
C.,
500A.
2d
998
(
1985).
Cited
in
Murphy
v.
Heath,
App.
D.
C.,
256
A.
2d
421
(
1969);
Gunnel1
Constr.
Co.
v.
Contract
Appeals
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
282
A.
2d
556
(
1971);
Basiliko
v.
Government
of
D.
C.,
App.
D.
C.,
283
A.
2d
816
(
1971);
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
287
A.
2d
87
(
1972);
Citizens
Ass n
of
Georgetown,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
AFE
Bd..
App.
D.
C.,
305
A.
2d
861
(
1973);
Chevy
Chase
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Council,
App.
D.
C.,
327
A.
2d
310
(
1974);
Dillard
v.
Yeldell,
App.
D.
C.,
334
A.
2d
578
(
1975);
C
&
P
Tel.
Co.
v.
Public
Serv.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
339
A.
2d
710
(
1975);
Latimer
v.
Joint
Comm.
on
Landmarks,
App.
D.
C.,
345
A.
2d.
484
(
1975);
Hanke
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Elections
&
Ethics,
App.
D.
C.,
353
A.
2d
301
(
1976);
Thomas
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Appeals
&
Review,
App.
D.
C.,
355
A.
2d
789
(
1976);
Richards
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
357
A.
2d
439
(
1976);
Barber
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Human
Resources,
App.
D.
C.,
361
A.
2d
194
(
1976);
Palisades
Citizens
Ass n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
368
A.
2d
1143
(
1977);
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
Wy
v.
Zoning
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
380
A.
2d
174
(
1977);
Jacobs
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
382
A.
2d
282
(
1978);
Cumming
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
382
A.
2d
1010
(
1978);
Wieck
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
383
A.
2d
7
(
1978);
Arellano
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
G.,
384
A.
2d
29
237
I
§
1­
1510
ADMINISTRATION
(
1978);
Jameson s
Liquors,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
384
A.
2d
412
(
1978);
Kober
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
384
A.
2d
633
(
1978);
Association
for
Preservation
of
1700
Block
of
N.
St.,
N.
W.,
&
Vicinity
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
384
A.
2d
674
(
1978);
Haugness
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
386
A.
2d
700
(
1978);
Wells
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Educ.,
App.
D.
C.,
386
A.
2d
703
(
1978);
Babazadeh
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
390
A.
2d
1004(
1978);
Lechter­
Siege1
v.
District
Unemployment
Comp.
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
395
A.
2d
57
(
1978);
Carr
v.
Brown,
App.
D.
C.,
395
A.
2d
79
(
1978);
Silverstone
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
396
A.
2d
992
(
1979);
In
re
Dwyer,
App.
D.
C.,
399
A.
2d
1
(
1979);
Fesjian
v.
Jefferson
App.
D.
C.,
399
A.
2d
861
(
1979);
American
Univ.
Park
Citizens
Ass n
v.
Burka,
App.
D.
C.,
400
A.
2d
737
(
1979);
Russell
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
402
A.
2d
1231
(
1979);
In
re
Smith,
App.
D.
C.,
403
A.
2d
296
(
1979);
Dupont
Circle
Citizens
h n
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment
App.
D.
C.,
403
A.
2d
314
(
1979);
Citizens
Mn
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
403
A.
2d
737
(
1979);
Rorie
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Human
Resources,
App.
D.
C.,
403
A.
2d
1148
(
1979);
Taylor
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
AccommodationsComm n,
App.
D.
C.,
404
A.
2d
173
(
1979);
Sherman
v.
Commission
on
Licensure
to
Practice
Healing
Art,
App.
D.
C.,
407
A.
2d
595
(
1979);
D.
T.
Corp.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
407
A.
2d
707
(
1979);
Thomas
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Labor,
App.
D.
C.,
409
A.
2d
164
(
1979);
Capitol
Hill
Restoration
My,
Inc.
v.
Moore,
App.
D.
C.,
410
A.
2d
184
(
1979);
Echard
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
422
A.
2d
1275
(
1980);
Spivey
v.
Barry,
665
F.
2d
1222
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1981);
Kea
v.
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
i.&
A.
Zd
ii4
clkiij;
Fkepecki
Y.
I&
ce
&
Firemens
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
429
A.
2d
1388
(
1981);
900
G
St.
Assocs.
v.
Department
of
How.
&
Community
Dev.,
App.
D.
C.,.
430
A.
2d
1387
(
1981);
District
of
Columbia
v.
Sullivan,
App.
D.
C.,
436
A.
2d
364
(
1981);
Haight
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
439
A.
2d
487
(
1981);
Dankman
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Elections
&
Ethics,
App.
D.
C.,
443
A.
2d
507
(
1981);
Interstate
Gen.
Corp.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Accommodations
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
441
A.
2d
252
(
1982);
American
Combustion,
Inc.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
441
A.
2d
660
(
1982);
Hockaday
v.
D.
C.
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
443
A.
2d
8
(
1982);
Barber
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
449
A.
2d
332
(
1982);
Muir
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
450
A.
2d
412
(
1982);
Donnelly
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
364
(
1982);
Hobson
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
452
A.
2d
1182
(
1982);
MB
Assocs.
v.
D.
C.
Dep t
of
Licenses
Investigation
&
Inspection,
App.
D.
C.,
456
A.
2d
344
(
1982);
Williams
v.
Barry,
708
F.
2d
789
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1983);
NBC
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
463
A.
2d
657
(
1983);
Dunn
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
S~
NS.,
App.
D.
C.,
467
A.
2d
966
(
1983);
Kirkwood
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firemen s
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
468
A.
2d
965
(
1983);
Brice
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
472
A.
2d
406
(
1984);
Bealer
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
How.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
472
A..
2d
901
(
1984);
Hager
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Consumer
RE
Regulatory
Affairs
App.
D.
C.,
475
A.
2d
367
(
1984);
Wire
hp­
ties,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
How.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
476
A.
2d
679
(
1984);
Harris
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews.,
App.
D.
C.,
476
A.
2d
1111
(
1984);
Gopstein
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Se~
s.,
App.
D.
C.,
479
A.
2d
1278
(
1984);
Vann
v.
District
of
Columbia
Ekl.
of
Funeral
Dirs.
&
Embalmers,
App.
D.
C.,
480
A.
2d
688
(
1984);
National
Black
Child
Dev.
Inst.,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
483
A.
2d
687
(
1984);
Pmctor
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
How.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
484
A.
2d
542
(
1984);
Humbles
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
484A.
2d
586
(
1984);
Rap,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
485
A.
2d
173
(
1984);
Anthony
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Ernp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
485
A.
2d
605
(
1984);
Barnett
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
491
A.
2d
1156
(
1985);
Weinberg
v.
Barry,
604
F.
Supp.
390
(
D.
D.
C.
1985);
George
Hyman
Constr.
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Ernp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
497
A.
2d
103
(
1985);
Phu1^
2
\.
5;
ati­
ici
0;
C]
V;
LiilIi)
ld
i;
cp, ~
dL
Xi;+.

Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
497
A.
2d
464
(
1985);
Dell
v.
Department
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
499
&&
i102
(
1985);
Gerber
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
499
A.
2d
1193
(
1985);
Bailey
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Erne.
Se~
s.,
App.
D.
C.,
499
A.
2d
1223
(
1985);
Shaw
Project
Area
Comm.,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
500
A.
2d
251
(
1985);
McEvily
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Serv.,
App.
D.
C.,
500
A.
2d
1022
(
1985);
Strand
v.
Frenkel,
App.
D.
C.,
500
A.
2d
1368
(
1985);.
Feldman
v.
District
of
COlumbia
Rental
How.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
501
A.
2d
781
(
1985);
Inte&
tate
Gen.
Cop.
v.
Dietrict
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
APP­
D.
C.,
501
A.
2d
1261
(
1985);
Stokes
v.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
502
A.
2d
1006
(
1985);
.­.­
y
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews.,
D.
C.,
503
A.
2d
684
(
1986);
Afshar
v.
Distria
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
504
A.
2d
1105
(
1986);
Harris
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
505
A.
2d
66
(
1986);
Washington
Metro.
Area
Transit
Auth.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
J&
lations
Bd.
v.
Washington
Teachers 
Union
Sews.,
App.
D.
C.,
551
A.
2d
90
(
1986);
Lyonsgl
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
551
A.
2d
1345
(
1988);
Spiegler
v.
District
of
Columbia,
866
F.
2d
461
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1989);
Park
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
555
A.
2d
1029
(
1989);
Public
Employee
App.
D.
C.,
506
A.
2d
1127
(
1986); 
Local
6,
App.
D.
C.,
556
A.
2d
206
(
1989);
Emp.
Sews.,
McLean
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Mannan
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Medi
sews.,
App.
D.
C.,
506
A.
2d
1135
(
1986);
Madi­
cine,
App.
D.
C.,
558
A.
2d
329
(
1989);
Wright
v.
T.,<:>!?
voir!
­.
n;
r :
4r~
7ffc!
LL:;>
iL
zcp :,!:
c~,,~,
ulaLriCL
uLCuiuniola
Liep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
509
(
1989);
Parodi
v.
District
ofSrvs.,
App.
D.
C.,
512
A.
2d
303
(
1986);
Atlantic
Richfield
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
515
A.
2d
1095
(
1986);
Becker
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Consumer
&
Regulatory
Mairs,
App.
D.
C.,
518
A.
2d
93
(
1986);
Yirenkyi
v.
District
of
Columbia
Hackers 
License
Appeal
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
520
A.
2d
328
(
1987);
Walsh
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firefighters
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
523
A.
2d
562
(
1987);
New
Travel,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Office
of
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
530
A.
2d
217
(
1987);
United
Planning
Org.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
530
A.
2d
674
(
1987);
Martin
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firefighters 
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
532
A.
2d
102
(
1987);
Tenley
&
Cleveland
Park
Emergency
Comm.
v.
District
of
Columbia,
115
WLR
1973
(
Super.
Ct.);
Gilles
v.
Touchstone,
676
F.
Supp.
341
(
D.
D.
C.
1987);
Franks
v.
Office
of
Employee
Appeals,
App.
D.
C.,
533
A.
2d
250
(
1987);
Embassy
of
People s
Republic
of
Benin
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment
App.
D.
C.,
534
A.
2d
310
(
1987);
Revithes
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
How.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
536
A.
2d
1007
(
1987);
White
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rd.
of
Elections
&
Ethics,
App.
D.
C.,
537
A.
2d
1133
(
1988);
Nwankwo
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Housing
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
542
A.
2d
827
(
1988);
Snipes
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Employ.
S~
NS.,
App.
D.
C.,
542
A.
2d
832
(
1988);
Communication
Workers,
Local
2336
v.
District
of
Columbia
Taxicab
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
542
A.
2d
1221
(
1988);
Price
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
524
(
1989);
Donahue
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Psychology,
App.
D.
C.,
562
A.
2d
116
(
1989);
Harrisv.
District
of
Columbia
Comm n
on
Human
Rights,
App.
D.
C.,
562
A.
2d
625
(
1989);
Mason
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Sews.,
App.
D.
C.,
562
A.
2d
644
(
1989);
Superior
Beverages,
Inc.
v.
District
of
Columbia
ABC
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
567
A.
2d
1319
(
1989);
Levy
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment
App.
D.
C.,
570
A.
2d
739
(
1990);
Committee
of
100
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Consumer
&
Regulatory
Affairs,
App.
D.
C.,
571
A.
2d
195
(
1990);
Lyles
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
S~
NS.,
App.
D.
C.,
572
A.
2d
81
(
1990);
Beins
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
572
A.
2d
122
(
1990);
Edward
M.
Crough,
Inc.
v.
Department
of
Gen.
S~
NS.,
App.
D.
C.,
572
A.
2d
457
(
1990);
Murray
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
572
A.
2d
1055
(
1990);
Bublis
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
Servs.,
App.
D.
C.,
575
A.
2d
301
(
1990);
Tenants
of
738
Longfellow
St.,
N.
W.
v.
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Hous.
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
575
A.
2d
1205
(
1990);
Robertsv.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Medicine,
App.
D.
C.,
577
A.
2d
319
(
1990);
Salama
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Medicine,
App.
D.
C.,
578
A.
2d
693
(
1990);
Holderbaum
v.
District
of
Columbia
Police
&
Firefighters 
Retirement
&
Relief
Bd.,
App.
D.
C.,
579
A.
2d
213
(
1990);
Teal
v.
District
of
Columbia
Dep t
of
Emp.
S~
NS.,
App.
D.
C.,
580
A.
2d
647
(
1990);
Kennedy
v.
Dixon,
119
WLR
2637
(
Super.
Ct.
1991).

239
§
1­
1511
ADMINISTRATION
0
1­
1511.
Interpreters
for
the
deaf.

Repealed.
Jan.
28,
1988,
D.
C.
Law
7­
62,
§
14(
b),
34
DCR
7426.

Legislative
history
of
Law
7­
62.
­
See
Application­
of
Law
7­
62.
­
See
note
to
note
to
8
1­
1509.
§
1­
1509.

Subchapter
II.
Freedom
of
Information.

0
1­
1521.
Public
policy.

Generally
the
public
policy
of
the
District
of
Columbia
is
that
all
persons
are
entitled
to
full
and
complete
information
regarding
the
affairs
of
government
and
the
official
acts
of
those
who
represent
them
as
public
officials
and
employees.
To
that
end,
provisions
of
this
subchapter
shall
be
construed
with
the
view
toward
expansion
of
public
access
and
the
minimization
of
costs
and
time
delays
to
persons
requesting
information.
(
Oct.
21,1968,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
title
II,
§
201;
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1521;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
§
2,23
DCR
9532b.
l
Section
references.
­
This
section
is
referred
to
in
8
28­
4505.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
Law
1­
96
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
1­
119,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
the
Judiciary
and
the
Committee
on
Criminal
Law.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
September
15,
1976
and
October
12,
1976,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
November
19,
1976,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
1­
178
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Delegation
of
authority
under
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
the
 
Freedom
of
Information
Act
of
1976. 
­
See
Mayor s
Order
91­
36,
March
7,
1991.
Freedom
of
information
Act
patterned
~

after
federal
Act.
­
F rovisions
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Freedom
of
Information
Act
are
patterned
after,
and
many
substantially
parallel
those
contained
in
the
federal
Freedom
of
;
i&
L ,&
31i
.:.&
3
Z.
Z.?.
:
i53!%.:.
P­.:?
b,!! 
1 

Director,
D.
C.
Dep t
of
Transp.,
App.
D.
C.,
416
A.
2d
244
(
1980).
Files
of
Executive
Oflice
of
Mayor
gene:­
ally
are
not
protected
from
disclosurexer
any
exemption
of
this
chapter.
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Barry,
115
WLR
2249
(
Super.
Ct.).
Mayor 
s
ceremonial
funds.
­
Documents
related
to
the
expenses
of
the
Mayor
from
the
discretionary
and
ceremonial
funds
are
public
records
and
are
not
exempt
from
production
under
D.
C.
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA).
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Barry,
115
WLR
2249
(
Super.
Ct.).
Mayor 
s
security
personnel.
­
Mayor
has
certain
privacy
interests
regarding
security
personnel
assigned
to
the
Mayor
and,
in
producing
the
records
related
to
the
expenses
for
the
Mayor s
security,
appropriate
steps
shall
be
taken
so
as
not
to
disclose
the
names,
addresses
telephone
numbers
or
other
identifying
information
regarding
security
personnel
which
may
appear
in
the
documents
produced.
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Barry,
115
WLR
2249
(
Super.
Ct.).
Policy
favors
disclosure
of
information.
­
The
general
policy
underlying
the
District
of
Columbia
Freedom
of
Information
Act
favors
the
disclosure
of
information
about
govemmental
affairs
and
the
acts
of
public
officials,
and
includes
a
narrow
reading
of
exemptions
from
disclosure.
Dunhill
v.
Director,
D.
C.
Dep t
of
Transp.,
App.
D.
C.,
416
A.
2d
244
(
1980).
The
Freedom
of
Information
Act,
like
its
federa1
counterpart,
is
designed
to
promote
the
disclosure
of
information,
not
to
inhibit
it;
it
was
designed
to
pierce
the
veil
of
administrati
wcrwj
and
tn
npen
apwy
action
to
the
light
of
public
scrutiny.
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
517
(
1989).
Useasprivate
discovery
tool.
­
The
basic
purpose
of
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
w88
to
ensure
an
informed
citizenry,
vital
to
the
functioning
of
a
democratic
society,
and
the
act
was
not
intended
to
function
as
a
private
diacovery
tool.
Accordingly,
salutary
legislation
enacted
in
the
public
interest
is
not
to
be
converted
into
a
vehicle
for
commercial
espionage.
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Minority
Bus.
OPPOrtunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
517
(
1989).
Cited
in
M.
B.
E.,
Inc.
v.
Minority
Bus.
*
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE
9
1­
1522
omm n,
App.
D.
C.,
485
A.
2d
152
Ct.);
Newspapers,
Inc.
v.
Metropolitan
Police
th
v.
Department
of
Consumer
&
Dep t,
App.
D.
C.,
546
A.
2d
990
(
19881;
Wolf
V.
Affairs,
115
WLR
2281
(
Super.
Regardie,
App.
D.
C.,
553
A.
2d
1213
(
1989).

8
1­
1522.
Right
of
access
to
public
records;
allowable
costs;
time
limits.

(
a)
Any
person
has
a
right
to
inspect,
and
at
his
or
her
discretion,
to
copy
any
public
record
of
the
Mayor
or
an
agency,
except
as
otherwise
expressly
provided
by
§
1­
1524,
in
accordance
with
reasonable
rules
that
shall
be
issued
by
the
Mayor
or
an
agency
after
notice
and
comment,
concerning
the
time
and
place
of
access.
.


b)
The
Mayor
or
an
agency
may
establish
and
collect
fees
not
to
exceed
the
actual
cost
of
searching
for
or
making
copies
of
records,
but
in
no
instance
>~
I~
IIL.
IIc:
t,
uA
IW
Li
bedidmg
exLeed
SAU
iur
edch
request.
or
purposes
oi
this
subsection,
 
request 
means
a
single
demand
for
any
number
of
documents
made
at
1
time
to
an
individual
agency.
Documents
may
be
furnished
without
charge
or
at
a
reduced
charge
where
the
Mayor
or
agency
determines
that
waiver
or
reduction
of
the
fee
is
in
the
public
interest
because
furnishing
the
information
can
be
considered
as
primarily
benefiting
the
general
public.
Notwithstanding
the
foregoing,
fees
shall
not
be
charged
for
examination
and
review
by
the
Mayor
or
an
agency
to
determine
if
such
documents
are
subject
to
disclosure.
(
c)
The
Mayor
or
an
agency,
upon
request
reasonably
describing
any
public
record,
shall
within
10
days
(
except
Saturdays,
Sundays,
and
legal
public
holidays)
of
the
receipt
of
any
such
request
either
make
the
requested
public
record
accessible
or
notify
the
person
making
such
request
of
its
determination
not
to
make
the
requested
public
record
or
any
part
thereof
accessible
and
the
reasons
therefor.
(
d)
In
unusual
circumstances,
the
time
limit
prescribed
in
subsection
(
c)
uf
this
section
may
be
extended
by
written
notice
to
the
person
making
such
request
setting
forth
the
reasons
for
extension
and
expected
date
for
determination
Such
extension
shall
not
exceed
10
days
(
except
Saturdays,
Sundays,
and
legal
public
holidays).
For
purposes
of
this
subsection,
and
only
to
the
extent
necessary
for
processing
of
the
particular
request,
 
unusual
circumstances
are
limited
to:
(
1)
The
need
to
search
for,
collect,
and
appropriately
examine
a
voluminous
amount
of
separate
and
distinct
records
which
are
demanded
in
a
single
request;
or
(
2)
The
need
for
consultation,
which
shall
be
conducted
with
all
practicable
speed,
with
another
agency
having
a
substantial
interest
in
the
determination
of
the
request
or
among
2
or
more
components
of
the
agency
having
substantial
subject­
matter
interest
therein.
(
e)
Any
failure
on
the
part
of
the
Mayor
or
an
agency
to
comply
with
a
request
under
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
within
the
time
provisions
of
subsections
(
c)
and
(
d)
of
this
section
shall
be
deemed
a
denial
of
the
request,
and
the
person
making
such
request
shall
be
deemed
to
have
exhausted
his
administrative
remedies
with
respect
to
such
request,
unless
such
person
241
§
1­
1523
ADMINISTRATION
chooses
to
petition
the
Mayor
pursuant
to
5
1­
1527
to
review
the
deemed
denial
of
the
request.
(
Oct..
21,
1968,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
title
11.
5
202;
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1522;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
§
2,
23
DCR
9532b.)

Section
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
records 
within
the
meaning
of
this
section
and
ferred
to
ih
85
1­
1527
and
1­
1528.
are
subject
to
the
presumption
of
disclosure.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
Belth
v.
Department
of
Consumer
&
Regulanote
to
8
1­
1521.
tory
Affairs,
115
WLR
2281
(
Super.
Ct.).
hsurance
InfOrmation
SYS­
Cited
in
Washington
Post
CO.
V.
Ram,
115
=
PO&.
­
Possession
and
Ownership
in­
WLR
2249
(
Super.
Ct.);
Newspapers,
Inc.
v.
dicates
that
Insurance
&
dabW
Information
Metropolitan
Police
Dep t,
App.
D.
C.,
546
A.
2d% 
stem
repoh
are
withinthe
the
D.
C.
Department
Of
Consumer
and
controi
990
(
1988);
Hines
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
latory
Affairs
and
are,
therefore,
 
agency
Parole,
App.
D.
C..
567
A.
2d
909
(
1989).

0
1­
1523.
Letters
of
denial.

(
a)
Denial
by
the
Mayor
or
an
agency
of
a
request
for
any
public
record
shall
contain
at
least
the
following:
(
1)
The
specific
reasons
for
the
denial,
including
citations
to
the
particular
exemption(
s)
under
§
1­
1524
relied
on
as
authority
for
the
denial;
(
2)
The
name(
s)
of
the
public
officisl(
s)
or
employee(
s1responsible
for
the
decision
to
deny
the
request;
and
(
3)
Notification
to
the
requester
of
any
administrative
or
judicial
right.
to
appeal
under
§
1­
1527.
(
b)
The
Mayor
and
each
agency
of
the
District
of
Columbia
shall
maintain
a
file
of
all
letters
of
denial
of
requests
for
public
records.
This
file
shall
be
made
available
to
any
person
on
request
for
purposes
of
inspection
and/
or
copying.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
title
11,
§
203;
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1523;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
§
2,
23
DCR
9532b.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
note
to
5
1­
1521.

0
1­
1524.
Exemptions
from
disclosure.

(
a)
The
following
matters
may
be
exempt
from
disclosure
under
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter:
(
1)
Trade
secrets
and
commercial
or
financial
information
obtained
from
outside
the
government,
to
the
extent
that
disclosure
would
result
in
substantial
harm
to
the
competitive
position
ot the
person
from
whom
the
inlorrnaLid11
was
obtained;
(
2)
Information
of
a
persezlsll
nature
where
the
public
disclosure
thereof
would
constitute
a
clearly
unwarranted
invasion
of
personal
privacy;
(
3)
Investigatory
records
compiled
for
law­
enforcement
purposes,
but
only
to
the
extent
that
the
production
of
such
records
would:
?'

ii.'<
(
D)
Disclose
the
identity
of
a
confidential
source
and,
in
the
case
of
a
lLrd
compiled­
by
a
law­
enforcement
authority
in
the
course
of
a
criminal
investigation,
or
by
an
agency
conducting
a
lawful
national
security
intelli
gence
investigation,
confidential
information
furnished
only
by
the
confiden­

F
tial
source;
F
(
E)
Disclose
investigative
techniques
and
procedures
not
generally
i
known
outside
the
government;

I
(
F)
Endanger
the
life
or
physical
safety
of
law­
enforcement
personnel;

i!
(
4)
Inter­
agency
or
intra­
agency
memorandums
or
letters
which
would
:.
i
not
be
available
by
law
to
a
party
other
than
an
agency
in
litigation
with
the
agency;
.­­
c.

(
5)
Test
questions
and
answers
to
be
used
in
future
license,
employment,
K
or
academic
examinations,
but
not
previously
administered
examinations
or
allswers
LU
questiutis
~
iiereuii;
(
6)
Information
specifically
exempted
from
disclosure
by
statute
(
other
than
this
section),
provided
that
such
statute:
(
A)
Requires
that
the
matters
be
withheld
from
the
public
in
such
a
.
manner
as
to
leave,
no
discretion
on
the
issue;
or
L
(
B)
Establishes
particular
criteria
for
withholding
or
refers
to
particut
lar
types
of
matters
to
be
withheld;
(
7)
Information
specifically
authorized
by
federal
law
under
criteria
es
tablished
by
a
presidential
executive
order
to
be
kept
secret
in
the
interest
of
national
defense
or
foreign
policy
which
is
in
fact
properly
classified
pursuant
to
such
executive
order;

*
(
8)
Information
exempted
fkom
disclosure
by
§
28­
4505;
and
(
9)
Information
disclosed
pursuant
to
§
4­
317.
(
b)
Any
reasonably
segregable
portion
of
a
public
record
shall
be
provided
to
any
person
requesting
such
record
after
deletion
of
those
portions
which
may
be
withheld
from
disclosure
under
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section.
(
c)
This
section
does
not
authorize
withholding
of
information
or
limit
the
availability
of
records
to
the
public,
except
as
specifically
stated
in
this
section
This
section
is
not
authority
to
withhold
information
from
the
Council
of
the
District
of
Columbia.
This
section
shall
not
operate
to
permit
nondisclosure
of
information
of
which
disclosure
is
authorized
or
mandated
by
other
law.
(
d)
The
provisions
of
this
subchapter
shall
not
apply
to
the
Vital
Records
Act
of
1981.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
title
11,
§
204;
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1524;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
§
2,
23
DCR
9532b;
Mar.
5,
1981,
D.
C.
Law
3­
169,
§
3(
c),
27
DCR
5368
Oct.
8,1981,
D.
C.
Law
4­
34,
§
29(
i),
28DCR
3271;
June
19,
1982,
D.
C.
Law
4­
119,
9
2(
0,
29
DCR
1952.)

Section
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
mittee
on
the
Judiciary.
The
Bill
was
adopted
ferred
to
in
$$
1­
1522,1­
1523,1­
1527,1­
1528,
on
first
and
second
readings
on
October
28,
6­
737,
and
6­
959.
1980
and
November
12,
1980,
respectively.
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­<
See
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
November
25,
1980,
it
note
to
§
1­
1521.
was
assigned
Act
No.
3­
300and
transmitted
to
Legislative
history
of
Law
3­
169.
­
Law
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
3­
169
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Legislative
history
of
Law
4­
34.­
Law
Bill
No.
3­
107,
which
was
referred
to
the
Com­
4­
34was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
243
Bill
No.
4­
161,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
Human
Services.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
June
16,
1981,
and
June
30,
1981,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
July
20,
1981,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
4­
58
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legislative
history
of
Law
4­
119.
­
Law
4­
119
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
4­
135,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
the
Judiciary.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
March
23,
1982,
and
April
6,
1982,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
May
4,
1982,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
4­
182
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
References
in
text.
­
The
 
Vital
Records
Act
of
1981 ,
referred
to
in
subsection
(
d),
is
D.
C.
Law
4­
34.
Construction.
­
Just
as
the
provisions
of
the
act
giving
citizens
the
right
of
access
are
to
be
generously
construed,
so
the
nine
statutory
exemptions
must
be
approached
with
a
jaundiced
eye.
Indeed,
these
exemptions
are
to
be
narrowly
construed,
with
ambiguities
resolved
in
favor
of
disclosure.
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Com n,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
517
(
1989).
Policy
favors
disclosure
of
information.
­
The
general
policy
underlying
the
District
of
Columbia
Freedom
of
Information
Act
favors
disclosure
of
information
about
governmental
affairs
and
the
acts
of
public
officials,
including
a
narrow
reading
of
exemptions
from
disclosure
Dunhill
v.
Director,
D.
C.
Dep t
of
Transp.,
App.
D.
C.,
416
A.
2d
244
(
1980);
Newspapers,
Inc.
v.
Metropolitan
Police
Dep t,
App.
D.
C.,
546
A.
2d
990
(
1988).
Subsection
(
a)(
l)
differs
from
the
corresponding
Frovision
in
the
federal
Freedom
of
Information
Act,
which
exempts
 
trade
secrets
and
commercial
or
financial
information
obtained
from
a
person
and
privileged
or
confidential
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
517
(
1989).
Subsection
(
a)(
Z)
does
not
prevent
disclo
ure
w1ier­
e
sunsection
(
c/
applies.
­
Although
it
is
true
that
paragraph
(
2)
of
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section
expressly
exempts
from
dgulatory
AfTairs,
D.
C.
Dep t
of
Transp.,
App.
D.
C.,
416
A.
2d
244
(
1980).
Ordinance
not
a
statute
under
subs­.
, 
tion
(
af(
6).­
The
Duncan
Ordinance.
which­..
provides
that
unexpurgated
adult
arrest
records
can
only
be
obtained
by
law
enforce.
ment
agents
for
legitimate
law
enforcement
purposes,
is
not
a
statute
within
the
meaning
of
subsection
(
aI(
6)
of
this
section;
thus,
although
the
Duncan
Ordinance
continues
to
have
the
full
force
and
effect
of
law,
it
is
not
a
statute
authorizing
the
Metropolitan
Police
Department
to
withhold
the
disclosure
of
arrest
records
otherwise
available
under
the
FOJA.
Newspapers,
Inc.
v.
Metropolitan
Police
Dep t,
App.
D.
C.,
546
A.
2d
990
11988).
Voluntary,
nonprofit
organization
can
suffer
no
competitive
injury
or
economic
harm
and
therefore
may
not
claim
protection
from
disclosure
under
subsection
(
a)(
l).
Belth
v.
Department
of
Consumer
&
Regulatory
Affairs,
115
WLR
2281
(
Super.
Ct.).
Application
of
subsection
(
a)(
3).­
Subsection
(
aJ(
3)
is
designed
to
protect
a
governmental
interest
and
applies
only
to
documents
which
have
been
compiled
for
investigation
of
specific,
suspected
violations
of
law,
and
not
to
documents
generated
in
the
routine
administration
surveillance
or
oversight
of
governmental
programs.
Belth
v.
Department
of
Consumer
&
Regulatory
Affairs,
115
WLR
2281
(
Super.
Ct.).
Mayor s
security
expenses.
­
Documents
relating
to
expenses
for
the
Mayor s
security
were
not
exempt
from
disclosure
as
investigatory
records
compiled
for
law
enforcement
purposes
Barry
v.
Washington
Post
Co.,
,
App.
D.
C.,
529
A.
2d
319
(
1987).
Inter­
agency
or
intra­
agency
memorandums
­
Independently
initiated,
prepared
and
funded
reports
of
a
private
organization
which
are
not
generated,
initiated,
solicited,
contracted
for,
paid
for,
or
supervised
by
a
government
agency
or
whose
ultimate
contents
are
not
controlled
by
such
agency,
but
which
are
used
by
such
agency
as
the
basis
for
important
public
policv
decisions
are
nnt
Yrlbragency
or
 
intra­
agency 
memorandums
immunized
from
disclosure
under
subsection
(
a)(
4).
Belth
v.
Department
of
Consumer
&

nature, 
this
exemption,
as
well
as
the
others
in
subsection
(
a),
may
not
be
invoked
io
prevent
disclosure
when
subsection
(
c)
of
this
section
applies.
Dunhill
v.
Director,
D.
C.
Dep t
of
Transp.,
App.
D.
C.,
416
A.
2d
244
(
1980).
Where
the
information
sought
is
available
without
limitation
under
a
District
of
Columbia
regulation,
disclosure
is
 
authorized
or
mandated
by
other
law 
under
subsection
(
c)
of
this
section,
and
the
Department
of
Transportation
cannot
deny
disclosure
based
on
paragraph
(
2)
of
subsection
(
a).
Dunhill
v.
Director,
disclosure
certain
 [
ilnformation
of
a
persona&
115­
WLR
2281
(
Super.
Ct.).
Mayor s
ceremonial
funds.
­
Documents
relating
to
the
discretionary
and
ceremonial
funds
for
the
Mayor
were
not
exempt
under
subsection
(
a)(
6)
of
this
section
since
the
statutes
authorizing
the
discretionary
and
ceremonial
funds,
I
§
1­
355
and
1­
356,
do
not
specifically
exempt
anything
from
disclosure.
Barry
v.
Washington
Post
Co.,
App.
D.
C.,
529
A.
2d
319
(
1987).
Burden
of
proof.
­
One
who
seeks
to
invoke
one
of
these
exemptions
must
prove
that
244
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
§
1­
1526
it
applies;
the
burden
is
on
the
agency
to
susbin
its
action.
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C..
560
A.
2d
517
(
1989).
Trade
secrets,
etc.
­
The
party
seeking
to
invoke
the
paragraph
(
a)(
l)
exemption
must
show
that:
(
1)
the
party
from
whom
the
information
was
obtained
faces
actual
competition,
and
(
2)
disclosure
will
cause
substantial
competitive
injury.
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
511
(
1989).
Inmate
records.
­
Pre­
sentence
reports,
mental
health
assessments,
academic
records,
and
records
concerning
Inmates 
institutional
adjustment
and
progress
are
exempt
from
disclosure
under
this
section.
Hines
v.
District
of
Cnlrrmhia
Rd
nf
Parnlo
9pp
n
c?
5F7
A
 ?
J
909
(
1989).
Public
disclosure
of
psychologicalreports
forwarded
to
the
Board
of
Parole
by
the
Department
of
Corrections
is
prohibited
under
the
District
of
Columbia
Mental
Health
Information
Act,
§
6­
2001
et
seq.
Hines
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Parole,
App.
D.
C.,
567
A.
2d
909
(
1989).
Production
of
non­
exempt
materials.
­
In
the
sensitive
area
of
national
security
information
an
agency
must
produce
any
reasonably
segregable
non­
exempt
parts
of
classified
documents.
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Minority
Bus.
Opportunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
517
(
1989).
Requirements
on
appellate
review.
­
Appellate
courts
are
ill­
equipped
to
conduct
their
own
investigation
into
the
validity
of
specific
claims
of
exemption,
and
the
trial
judge
3%
ijId
therefore
articulate
the
precise
relationship
between
each
such
claim
and
the
contents
of
specific
documents
held
to
be
exempt.
nr.
I:­.­,
c...,.
2aIbtL.,.
Pu~;
Cu.,.
XiwriLb
Guh.
dpputtunity
Comm n,
App.
D.
C.,
560
A.
2d
517
(
1989).
Cited
in
Washington
Post
Co.
v.
Barry,
115
WLR
2249
(
Super.
Ct.);
Marrow
v.
United
States,
App.
D.
C.,
592
A.
2d
1042
(
1991).

§
1­
1525.
Recording
of
final
votes.

Each
agency
having
more
than
1member
shall
maintain
and
make
available
for
public
inspection
a
record
of
the
final
votes
of
each
member
in
each
proceeding
of
that
agency.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
title
II,
§
205;
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1525;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
P
2,
23
DCR
9532b.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
note
to
§
1­
1521.

9
1­
1526.
Information
required
to
be
made
public.
Without
limiting
the
meaning
of
other
sections
of
this
subchapter,
the
following
categories
of
information
are
specifically
made
public
information:
(
1)
The
names,
salaries,
title,
and
dates
of
employment
of
all
employees
and
of iclers
of
the
Mayor
and
an
agency;
(
2)
Administrative
staff
manuals
and
instructions
to
staff
that
affect
a
member
of
the
public;
(
3)
Final
opinions,
including
concurring
and
dissenting
opinions,
as
well
as
orders,
made
in
the
adjudication
of
cases;
(
4)
Those
statements
of
policy
and
interpretations
of
policy,
acts,
and
rules
which
have
been
adopted
by
the
Mayor
or
an
agency;
(
5)
Correspondence
and
materials
referred
to
therein,
by
and
with
the
Mayor
or
an
agency,
relating
to
any
regulatory,
supervisory,
or
enforcement
tesponsibiilities
of
the
agency,
whereby
the
agency
determines,
or
states
an
opinion
upon,
or
is
asked
to
determine
or
state
an
opinion
upon,
the
rights
of
the
District,
the
public,
or
any
private
party;
(
6)
Information
in
or
taken
from
any
account,
voucher,
or
contract
dealing
with
the
receipt
or
expenditure
of
public
or
other
funds
by
public
bodies;
and
245
5
1­
1527
ADMINISTRATION
(
7)
The
minutes
of
all
proceedings
of
all
agencies.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
pub.
90­
614,
title
IT,
9
206;
1973
Ed.,
9;
1­
1526;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
p
y
23
DCR
9532b.
l
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
note
to
I
1­
1521.

8
1­
1527.
Administrative
appeals.

(
a)
Any
person
denied
the
right
to
inspect
a
public
record
of
a
public
My
may
petition
the
Mayor
to
review
the
public
record
to
determine
whether
it
may
be
withheld
from
public
inspection.
Such
determination
shall
be
made
ip
writing
with
a
statement
of
reasons
therefor
in
writing
within
10
days
(
a.
cluding
Saturdays,
Sundays,
and
legal
holidays)
of
the
submission
of
the
ptj.
tion.
(
1)
If
the
Mayor
denies
the
petition
or
does
not
make
a
determination
within
the
time
limits
provided
in
this
subsection,
or
if
a
person
is
deem4
have
exhausted
his
or
her
administrative
remedies
pursuant
to
subsection
(
e)
of
§
1­
1522,
the
person
seeking
disclosure
may
institute
proceedings
for
in.
junctive
or
declaratory
relief
in
the
Superior
Court
for
the
District
of
CoIum.
bia.
(
2)
If
the
Mayor
decides
that
the
public
record
may
not
be
withheld,
he
shall
order
the
public
body
to
disclose
the
record
immediately.
If
the
public
body
continues
to
withhold
the
record,
the
person
seeking
disclosure
may
bring
suit
in
the
Superior
Court
for
the
District
of
Columbia
to
enjoin
the
public
body
from
withholding
the
record
and
to
compel
the
production
of
the
requested
record.
(
b)
In
any
suit
filed
under
subsection
(
a)
of
this
section,
the
Superior
Courl
'.
for
the
District
of
Columbia
may
enjoin
the
public
body
from
withholding
records
and
order
the
production
of
any
records
improperly
withheld
from
the
'
person
seeking
disclosure.
The
burden
is
on
the
Mayor
or
the
agency
to
sustain
its
action.
In
such
cases
the
court
shall
determine
the
matter
de
novo,
and
may
examine
the
contents
of
such
records
in
camera
to
determine
whether
11
such
records
or
any
part
thereof
shall
be
withheld
under
any
of
the
exemptions
set
forth
in
0
1­
1524.
(
p\
Tf
1
narcnr
snnl*
iFg
the
~
­:
mk'
t;;
ic,­\'
6....
ptct
to
i'eceibt:
it
copy
ul
a
pubiic
record
prevails
in
whole
or
in
part
in
such
suit,
he
or
she
may
be
awarded
reasonable
attorney
fees
and
other
costs
of
litigation.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
title
11,
§
207;
1973.
m1
1527;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
Ei
2,
23
DCR
9532b.
l
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
note
to
I
1­
1521.
Redelegation
of
Authority
Under
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
Section
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
g
,.
ferred
to
in
$
5
1­
1522,
1­
1523,
and
1­
1528.
')

11
of
1976;
Rescission
of
Mayor's
Order
878.
­
See
Mayor's
Order
89­
188,
August
30,
1989.
Cited
in
Dunhill
v.
Director,
D.
C.
Dep't
of
Transp..
App.
D.
C.,
416A.
2d
244
(
1980);
Hines
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Parole,
App.
D.
C.,
567
A.
2d
909
(
1989).
I
;
8,
Pub.
L.
1­
96,
P
,2,

iblic
body
vhether
it
e
made
in
days
(
exf
the
petirmination
ieemed
to
;
ection
(
e)
gs
for
in­
Df
Columhheld
he
he
public
jure
may
 
njoin
the
ion
of
the
ior
Court
thholding
from
the
:
y
to
susnovo
and
whether
e
exempa
public
awarded
;,
Pub.
L.
1­
96?
§
2,

kder
874.
;
t
30,
1989.
C.
Dep t
of
980);
Hines
(
role,
App.
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
§
1­
1529
0
1­
1528.
Oversight
of
disclosure
activities.

On
or
before
the
30th
day
of
June
of
each
calendar
year,
the
Mayor
shall
compile
and
submit
to
the
Council
of
the
District
of
Columbia
a
report
covering
the
public­
record­
disclosureactivities
of
each
agency
and
of
the
executive
branch
as
a
whole
during
the
preceding
calendar
year.
The
report
shall
include
(
1)
The
number
of
determinations
made
by
each
agency
not
to
comply
with
requests
for
records
made
to
such
agency
under
this
subchapter
and
the
reasons
for
each
such
deternation;
(
2)
The
number
of
appeals
made
by
persons
under
0
1­
1527(
a),
the
result
of
such
appeals,
and
the
reason
for
the
artion
1iy­
m
web
qp;
7paJ
+
bat
­
PPL~!~
Sin
a
denial
of
information;
(
3)
The
names
and
titles
or
positions
of
each
person
responsible
for
the
denial
of
records
requested
under
this
subchapter,
and
the
number
of
instances
of
participation
for
each
such
person;
(
4)
A
copy
of
the
fee
schedule
and
the
total
amount
of
fees
collected
by
each
agency
for
making
records
available
under
this
subchapter;
(
5)
Such
other
information
as
indicates
efforts
to
administer
fully
this
subchapter;
and
(
6)
For
the
prior
calendar
year,
a
listing
of
the
total
number
of
cases
arising
under
this
subchapter,
the
total
number
of
cases
in
which
a
request
was
denied
in
whole
or
in
part,
the
total
number
of
times
in
which
each
exemption
provided
under
0
1­
1524
was
cited
as
a
reason
for
denial
of
a
request,
and
the
total
amount
of
fees
collected
under
0
1­
1522@).
Such
report
shall
also
include
a
description
of
the
efforts
undertaken
by
the
Mayor
to
encourage
agency
compliance
with
this
subchapter.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
title
11,
§
208;
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1528;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
8
2,
23
DCR
9532b.
l
Legislative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
note
to
§
1­
1521.

8
1­
1529.
Definitions.
For
purposes
of
this
subchapter,
the
terms
 
Mayor, 
 
Council, 
 
District, 
 
agency, 
 
rule, 
 
rulemaking, 
 
person, 
 
party, 
 
order, 
 
relief, 
 
proceeding
 
public
record, 
and
 
adjudication 
shall
have
the
meaning
as
provided
in
8
1­
1502.
(
Oct.
21,
1968,
Pub.
L.
90­
614,
title
11,0
209;
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1529;
Mar.
29,
1977,
D.
C.
Law
1­
96,
§
2,
23
DCR
9532b.)

Le%
eIative
history
of
Law
1­
96.
­
See
note
to
§
1­
1521.
6
1­
1531
ADMINISTRATION
Subchapter
III.
Legal
Publication.

15
1­
1531.
Definitions.
For
purposes
of
this
subchapter:
(
lr
The
terms
 
Mayor, 
 
Council, 
 
District,,  
agency, 
 
rule, 
 
rulemak.
ing, 
 
person, 
 
licensing, 
and
 
regulation 
(
except
when
used
in
the
term
 
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulation )
shall
have
the
meaning
provided
in
§
1­
1502.
(
2)
The
terms
 
Commissioner, 
 
District
of
Columbia
Council, 
 
Chairman
 
act, 
and
 
District
of
Columbia
COU~~
S 
shall
have
the
meaning
provided
in
§
1­
202.
(
3)
The
term
 
Administrator 
means
the
person
appointed
by
the
Mayor
to
supervise
and
control
the
District
of
Columbia
Office
of
Documents
in
accordance
with
§
1­
1611.
(
4)
The
phrase
 
D.
C.
Code 
means
the
Code
of
the
District
of
Columbia
laws
as
provided
for
in
Chapter
3
of
Act
of
July
30,1947
(
61Stat.
636)
and
any
continuations,
supplements,
or
revisions
thereof
authorized
by
act,
congressional
resolution,
or
act.
(
5)
The
phrase
 
document
having
general
applicability
and
legal
effect 
means
any
document
issued
under
lawful
authority
prescribing
a
sanction
or
course
of
conduct,
conferring
a
right,
privilege,
authority,
or
immunity
or
imposing
an
obligation,
and
applicable
to
the
general
public,
members
of
a
class
or
persons
in
a
locality,
as
distinguished
from
named
individuals
or
organizations.
The
phrase
 
document
having
general
applicability
and
legal
effect 
does
not
include
any
act
to
be
codified
in
the
D.
C.
Code
or
a
personnel
manual
or
internal
staff
directive
solely
applicable
to
employees
or
agents
of
the
District
of
Columbia.
(
1973
Ed.,
0
1­
1531;
Mar.
6,
1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
§
4(
301),
25
DCR
6960.)

Cross
references.
­
As
to
public
records
Cited
in
In
re
O.
M.,
117
WLR
1253
(
Super.
management,
see
Chapter
29
of
this
title.
Ct.).
Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
8
1­
1505.

0
1­
1532.
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations.

(
a)
The
District
of
Columbia
Office
of
Documents.
estahlishd
pu,.
rsuant
ti.
9
l­
ioll,
shall
supervise,
manage,
and
direct
the
preparation,
editing,
publishing
and
supplementation
of
an
official
legal
compilation
entitled
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal,
 &&
ations
(
DCMR).
The
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
shall
be
published
in
a
manner
to
promote
efficient
public
access
to
all
current
District
of
Columbia
rules
and
regulations.
(
b)
Except
as
otherwise
provided
by
law,
the
following
documents
shall
be
accurately
compiled
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations:
(
1)
Every
rule,
regulation,
and
document
having
general
applicability
and
legal
effect
adopted
by
the
Commissioner,
the
Mayor,
the
District
of
Columbia
Council,
and
each
agency;

248
trict
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations.
(
b)
The
District
of
Columbia
Register
shall
contain
the
entire
text
of
the
following:
(
1)
Every
rule,
regulation,
and
document
having
general
applicability
and
legal
effect
required
to
be
but
not
yet
published
and
integrated
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
as
provided
in
this
subchapter;
(
2)
Every
notice
of
public
hearing
issued
by
an
agency;
(
3)
Every
notice
of
proposed
agency
rulemaking
or
repeal
and
every
other
document
required
to
be
published
under
the
District
of
Columbia
Administrative
Procedure
Act
(
D.
C.
Code
Q
1­
1501
et
seq.);
and
(
4)
Every
act,
resolution,
and
notice
of
the
Council
and
any
other
document
requested
to
be
published
by
the
Chairman
of
the
Council
or
his
or
her
designee.
(
c)
The
Administrator
is
authorized
to
publish
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register:
(
1)
Any
document
requested
to
be
published
by
the
Joint
Committee
on
Judicial
Administration
in
the
District
of
Columbia;
(
2)
Information
on
changes
in
the
organization
of
the
District
of
Columbia
government;
(
3)
Notices
of
public
hearings
not
published
under
authority
of
subsection
(
b)
of
this
section;
and
(
4)
Such
other
matters
as
the
Mavor
mav
from
time
to
time
determino
to
be
of
general
public
interest.
(
d)
The
Administrator
may
exercise
the
discretion
of
omitting
from
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
thqmblication
of
the
entire
text
of
a
document
iE
(
1)
Such
publication
would
be
unduly
cumbersome
or
expensive;
and
(
2)
If,
in
lieu
of
such
publication,
there
is
included
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
a
notice
stating
the
general
subject
matter
of
any
document
so
omitted
and
the
specific
manner
in
which
a
copy
of
such
document
may
be
obtained.

250
Y
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
§
1­
1534
(
e)
If
the
text
of
an
adopted
act
or
rule
is
the
same
as
the
text
of
the
previously
published
proposed
act
or
rule,
the
Administrator
may
insert
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
a
notation
to
this
effect,
giving
the
publication
date
of
and
citation
to
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
issue
containing
the
proposed
act
or
rule.
(
0
If,
after
a
proposed
rule
has
been
published
initially
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register,
an
agency
decides
to
alter
the
initial
text
so
that
the
proposed
rule
is
substantially
different
from
the
initial
text,
the
agency
shall
submit
the
altered
text
as
though
for
initial
publication.
The
alterations
shall
be
indicated
by
the
use
of
symbols.&
ermined
by
the
Administrator.
(
g)
The
District
of
Columbia
Register
shall
be
published
on
at
least
each
Friday,
or,
if
Friday
is
a
legal
holiday,
on
the
next
working
day.
Each
year
the
Administrator
shall
y!
hlish
quarterly
;
iLliiil&
Libe
index
of
a11matters
published
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
during
the
year.
(
h)
On
each
document
published
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
there
shall
appear
the
date
upon
which
such
document
was
filed
with
the
Administrator
pursuant
to
§
1­
1534.
On
each
issue
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
there
shall
appear
on
its
cover
the
actual
date
such
issue
was
generally
circulated
to
the
public
for
review
and
comment:
Provided,
that
should
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
be
generally
circulated
after
the
cover
date
shown,
a
notice
stating
the
correct
date
shall
be
attached
thereto.
All
time
computations
based
upon
publication
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
shalt
commence
from
the
cover
date,
or,
if
corrected,
the
date
of
notice
thereof.
The
provisions
of
this
subsection
shall
apply
to
any
and
all
supplemental
editions
to
the
District
of
Columbia
Register.
(
1973
Ed.,
0
1­
1533;
Mar.
6,
1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
§
4(
303),
25
DCR
6960.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
8
1­
1505.

§
1­
1534.
Documents
to
be
filed
inthe
District
of
Columbia
Office
of
Documents.

Any
document
required
or
authorized
to
be
published
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
or
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
shall
be
filed
with
the
District
of
Columbia
Office
of
Documents.
If
a
document
has
been
published
pursuant
to
subchapter
I
of
this
chapter
and
forwarded
to
the
Ofice
of
the
Secretariat
prior
to
March
6,
1979,
such
document
need
not
be
filed
with
the
District
of
Columbia
OEce
of
Documents,
unless
the
Administrator
otherwise
notifies
the
person
responsible
for
filing
the
document.
(
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1534;
Mar.
6,
1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
§
4(
304),
25
DCR
6960.)

Section
references.
­
This
section
is
re­
Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
ferred
to
in
$
6
1­
1533and
1­
1536.
note
to
3
1­
1505.

251
4%
­­
§
1­
1535
ADMINISTRATION
6
1­
1535.
Permanent
supplements
to
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations.
At
least
once
each
year,
every
document
required
to
be
compiled
pursuant
to
§
1­
1532
shall
be
permanently
integrated
into
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
by
publication
of
loose­
leaf
pages
or
other
appropriate
 

permanent
supplements
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations.
The
index,
of
the
DCMR
shall
be
similarly
supplemented
or
reissued.
(
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1535;
Mar.
6,
1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
§
4(
305),
25
DCR
6960.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
8
1­
1505.

6
1­
1536.
Documents
to
be
filed
with
Administrator.

Except
as
provided
in
§
1­
1534,
2
copies
of
any
document
to
be
published
pursuant
to
this
subchapter
shall
be
filed
with
the
Administrator.
The
Administrator
shall
immediately
review
filed
documents
to
determine
their
conformity
to
the
provisions
of
this
subchapter
and
to
editorial
standards
promulgated
by
the
Administrator.
Upon
the
Administrator s
determination
of
a
document s
conformity
with
this
section,
1
copy
of
each
document
shall
be
prepared
for
publication
and
1
copy
kept
for
permanent
historic
preservation.
(
1973
Ed.,
0
1­
1536;
Mar.
6,
1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
P
4(
306),
25
DCR
6960.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
8153.
See
note
to
8
1­
1506.

6
1­
1537.
Publication,
specifications,
and
distribution
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
(
a>
The
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
and
its
permanent
supplements
shall
be
published
pursuant
to
typographical
and
contractual
arrangements
which
ensure
that
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
can
be
purchased
at
a
reasonable
cost
in
its
entirety
or
in
portions
of
related
rules,
regulations,
or
documents
having
general
applicability
and
legal
effect.
ib)
Copies
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
shall
be
avail
k:~
LGpi&&
LLL
ed&
Irgular
branch
ot
the
District
of
Columbia
iibrarycy
system
and
to
each
Advisory
Neighborhood
Commission
established
by
the
Council.
(
1973
Ed.,
9
1­
1537;
Ma­
1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
l53,
0
4(
307),
25
DCR
6960.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
8
1­
1505.

252
4v
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
§
1­
1538
9
1­
1538.
Legal
effectiveness
of
documents.

(
a)
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
subchapter,
any
rule,
regulation
or
document
having
general
applicability
and
legal
effect
which
has
been
adopted
or
enacted
by
the
Commissioner,
the
Mayor,
the
District
of
Columbia
Council,
an
agency,
or
other
instrumentality
of
the
District
before
March
6,
1979,
and
which
is
not
published
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
on
or
before
June
30,
1984,
shall
not
be
in
effect
thereafter.
(
b)
Except
in
the
case
of
emergency
rules
or
acts,
no
rule
or
document
of
general
applicability
and
legal
effect
ad­
d
or
enacted
on
or
after
March
6,
1979,
shall
become
effective
until
after
its
publication
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Register,
nor
shall
such
rule
or
document
of
general
applicability
and
IPeal
effwt
hrmrne
PffPctiw
if
:
t
is
rquired
bj­:, 
VI
uihar
tlia
subcnapter
1
of
this
chapter
or
this
subchapter,
to
be
otherwise
published,
until
such
rule
or
document
of
general
applicability
and
legal
effect
is
also
published
as
required
by
such
law.
(
1973
Ed.,
§
1­
1538;
Mar.
6,
1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
§
4(
308),
25
DCR
6960;
July
1,1980,
D.
C.
Law
3­
75,
§
2,27
DCR
2277;
Oct.
17,1981,
D.
C.
Law
4­
41,
§
2,28
DCR
3423;
May
20,1983,
D.
C.
Law
5­
10,
§
2,30
DCR
1793;
Aug.
2,
1983,
D.
C.
Law
5­
22,
§
2,
30
DCR
3337.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
8
1­
1505.
Jegislative
history
of
Law
3­
75.­
Law
3­
75
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill No.
3­
253,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
Government
Operations.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
April
22,
1980
and
May
6,
1980,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
May
14,
1980,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
3­
184and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legislative
history
of
Law
441.
­
Law
4­
41
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
4­
266,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
Government
Operations
and
the
Committee
on
the
Judiciary.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
July
1,
1981
and
July
14,1981,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
July
23,
1981,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
4­
70
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Legislative
history
of
Law
5­
10.
­
Law
5­
10
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
5­
150,
which
wasretained
by
Council.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
March
15,
1983
and
March
29,
1983,
respectively.
Signed
by
the
Mayor
on
April
6,
1983,
it
was
assigned
Act
No.
5­
24
and
transmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review
Legislative
history
of
Law
5­
22.
­
Law
5­
22
was
introduced
in
Council
and
assigned
Bill
No.
5­
151,
which
was
referred
to
the
Committee
on
the
Judiciary.
The
Bill
was
adopted
on
first
and
second
readings
on
May
10,
1983
and
May
24,
1983,
respectively.
Signedby
the
Mayor
on
June
9,1983,
it
was
assigned
Act
NO.
5­
39
and
tranqmitted
to
both
Houses
of
Congress
for
its
review.
Regulation
not
rendered
ineffective
by
failure
to
meet
original
deadbe
as
to
defendants
arrested
prior
to
extension.
­
Where
the
July
1,
1981,
deadline
had
been
extended
to
December
31,
1982,
before
defendants
were
arrested
under
a
District
of
Colum­ 
bia
police
regulation,
the
police
regulation
was
not
rendered
ineffective
by
failure
to
meet
the
original
July
1deadline.
Green
v.
District
of
Columbia,
710
F.
2d
876
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1983).
Claim
must
first
be
decided
by
local
courts
of
District
of
Columbia
­
Claim
that
failure
of
District
of
Columbia
Department
of
Corrections
ta
comply
with
the
public
notice
and
comment
requirements
.
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Administrative
Procedure
Act,
D.
C.
Code
8
1­
1501
et
seq.,
and
the
publication
requirement
of
subsection
(
b)
of
thissection
rendered
prison
visitation
regulations
invalid
must
be
decided
in
the
first
instance
by
the
local
courts
of
the
District
of
Columbia.
Robinson
v.
Palmer,
841
F.
2d
1151
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1988).
Cited
in
Hutchison
Bros.
Excavating
Co.
v.
District
of
Columbia,
App.
D.
C.,
511
A.
2d
3
(
1986);
Draude
v.
District
of
Columbia
Bd.
of
Zoning
Adjustment,
App.
D.
C.,
527
A.
2d
1242
(
1987);
Committee
of
Blind
Vendors
v.
District
253
­­
§
1­
1539
ADMINISTRATION
of
Columbia,
695
F.
Supp.
1234
(
D.
C.
1988);
In
re
O.
M.,
117
WLR
1253
(
Super.
Ct.).

0
1­
1539.
Correction
of
errors
in
documents.
The
Administrator
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Office
of
Documents
shall
correct
grammatical
or
typographical
errors
in
the
printing
of
the
text
of
a
document
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Statutes­
at­
Large,
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
or
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
by
the
publication
of
an
errata
list
or
by
publication
of
the
entire
document
or
the
affected
part
of
the
document
in
its
corrected
form
so
as
to
indicate
the
actual
corrections
which
were
made.
(
1973Ed.,
§
1­
1539;
Mar.
6,1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,8
4(
309),
25
DCR
6960.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
§
1­
1505.

0
1­
1540.
Certification.
Each
part
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Statutes­&
Large,
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations,
each
permanent
supplement
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations,
and
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
shall
contain
a
certificate
by
the
Administrator
stating
that
such
part
contains
all
documents
required
to
be
published
pursuant
to
this
subchapter
as
of
the
date
of
such
certificate.
(
1973Ed.,
§
1­
1539.1;
Mar.
6,1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
4(
310),
25
DCR
6960.)

Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
§
1­
1505.

0
1­
1541.
Presumption
created
by
publication.
The
publication
of
any
document
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Statutes­
at­
Large,
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations,
or
the
District
of
Columbia
Register
creates
a
rebuttable
presumption:
(
1)
That
it
was
duly
issued,
prescribed,
adopted,
or
enacted;
and
(
2)
That
all
requirements
of
this
subchapter
have
been
complied
with.
 
1973
Ed,
?
1
1539.2;
5kr.
5,
1979,
E.
C.
!
a~
2
153,
:$.
?!
311),
25
DCR
5Yn
1
Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
§
1­
1505.

0
1­
1542.
Penalties.

Any
person
who
knowingly
and
willfully
causes
any
document
not
to
be
published
in
the
District
of
Columbia
Statutes­
at­
Large,
the
District
of
Columbia
Register,
or
the
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
which
is
required
to
be
so
published
pursuant
to
this
subchapter
shall
be
guilty
of
a
254
I
ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEDURE
§
1­
1542
misdemeanor
and
shall
be
fined
not
more
than
$
100,
or
imprisoned
not
more
than
30
days,
or
both.
(
1973
Ed.,
0
1­
1539.3;
Mar.
6,
1979,
D.
C.
Law
2­
153,
0
4(
312),
25
DCR
6960.)

ments
shall
Legislative
history
of
Law
2­
153.
­
See
note
to
8
1­
1505.

he
text
of
a
strict
of
Co­
t
Lions
by
the
ment
or
the
,
e
the
actual
9,
D.
C.
Law
J
District
of
'
the
District
bia
Register
ch
part
con­
chapter
as
of
9,
D.
C.
Law
Statutes­
ate
District
of
ed;
and
mplied
with.
j
DCR
6960.)

:
nt
not
to
be
istrict
of
Coions
which
is
)
e
guilty
of
a
255
DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA
MUNICIPAL
REGULATIONS
TITLE
16
CONSUMERS,
COMMERCIAL
PRACTICES,
&
CML
INFRACTIONS
D.
C.
OFFICEOF
DOCUMENTS
AND
ADMINISTRATIVE
ISSUANCES
SEPTEMBER
1997
­
Certified
and
published
under
the
authority
of
the
Office
of
Documents
UcL.
!­­
and
Administrative
Issuances
=
a
g
crt
a
Q
N
Bertrand
S.
Thomas
Administrator
Copyright
*
1997
Office
of
Documents
and
Administrative
Issuances
Room
520
­
441
4th
Street,
N.
W.
Washington,
D.
C.
20001
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
Secs.
3100
3101
3102
3103
3104
3105
3106
3107
3108
3109
3110
3111
3112
3113
3114
3115
3116
3117
3118
3119
3120
3121
3199
3100
3100.1
3101
3101.1
3101.2
3101.3
CHAPTER
31
CML
INFRACTIONS:
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES
General
Provisions
Notice
of
Infraction
Service
of
the
Notice
of
Infraction
Answering
the
Notice
of
lnfraction
Abatement
of
Infractions
Failure
to
Answer
the
Notice
of
Infraction
Adjudication
by
Mail
Pre­
Hearing
Filings
Motions
Conduct
of
Hearings
Amendments
to
the
Notice
of
Infaction
Record
of
Proceedings
Failure
to
Appear
at
a
Hearing
Fiat
Deckion
Costs
and
Penahs
Installment
Agreements
and
Payment
PaymCnt
Cokctkn
Proceedings
Admmktrative
Appeak
Stay
Pending
Appeal
Transcripts
of
Hearings
Computation
of
Time
Definitions
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
.

Thischapter
shall
set
forth
the
administrative
procedures
implementing
the
Act.
The
Schedule
of
Fines,
which
establishes
the
civil
penalties
for
specific
infractions
subject
to
administrative
adjudication
under
the
Act,
is
in
Chapter
32
of
this
title.

AUTHORITY:
Unkss
otherwise
noted,
the
authority
for
this
chapter
k
§
lo5
of
the
Deparbnent
of
Consumer
and
Reguhtory
Affairs
Civil
Infractions
Act
of
1985,
D.
C.
law
6­
42,
D.
C.
Code
96701
etseq.
(
1986
Supp.),
and
Mayor',
Order
w,
issued
March
4,1986.33
DCR
1823
(
March
21.1986).

SOURCE:
Fval
Rukmaking
publkhed
at
34DCR
5718
(
September
4,1987).

NOTICE
OF
INFRACTION
A
Notice
of
Infkaction
(
NOI)
shall
be
in
a
form
prescribed
by
the
Director.

A
properly
completed
NO1
signed
by
the
issuing
agent
shallbe
prima
facie
evidence
of
the
validity
of
the
issuance
and
the
truth
of
the
facts
alleged
in
the
NOI.

An
NO1
shall
include
the
following:

(
a)
The
n'ame
and
address
of
the
respondent;

31­
1
2#
Title
16
3101.4
3101.5
3101.6
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
(
b)
A
citation
to
the
law
or
rule
that
the
respondent
allegedly
violated;

(
c)
The
nature,
time,
and
place
of
the
infraction:

(
d)
The
amount
of
the
fine
applicable
to
the
infraction;

(
e)
Notification
of
the
following:

That
the
fine
must
be
paid
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
of
the
date
the
NO1
is
served
on
the
respondent;

That,
if
the
respondent
fails
to
pay
the
he
or
request
a
hearing
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
of
the
date
the
NO1
is
served
on
the
respondent,
a
penalty
equal
to
the
amount
of
the
fine
may
be
imposed
and
the
respondent s
license
or
permit
may
be
suspended
until
the
fine
and
penalty
have
been
paid;

That
the
respondent
has
the
right
to
request
a
hearing
on
the
infkaction
charged
in
the
NOI,
and
the
procedure
for
requesting
a
hearing;

That
the
acceptable
forms
of
payment
are
as
follows:

(
A)
Cash,
which
is
not
acceptable
by
mail;
or
(
B)
A
personal
check,
company
check,
certified
check,
cashier s
check,
postal
money
order,
or
bank
money
order
payable
to
the
order
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Treasurer;
and
That,
if
the
respondent
admits
the
infraction
or
admits
the
infraction
with
explanation,
the
respondent
is
required
to
certlfy
that
each
infraction
on
the
NO1
has
been
abated;
and
(
0
Any
other
information
that
the
Director
may
require.

When
the
fine
appearing
on
the
NO1
is
inconsistent
with
the
applicable
fine
listed
on
the
approved
schedule
of
fines,
the
respondent
shall
be
subject
to
liability
only
for
the
lesser
fine.

The
Director
may
issue
and
serve
an
amended
NO1
for
a
repeat
inhaction
at
any
time
prior
to
the
decision
of
the
administrative
law
judge
(
ALJ)
on
the
infraction,
or
the
respondent s
admission
of
the
infraction
and
payment
of
the
fine
indicated
on
the
NOI.
The
respondent
shall
answer
an
amended
NO1
pursuant
to
$
3103.

Unless
otherwise
prescribed
by
law,
an
NO1
shall
be
issued
by
the
Director
upon
observance
of
an
infraction.
When
applicable
provisions
of
law
require
that
a
respondent
be
given
a
certain
period
of
time
to
abate
a
violation,
an
NO1
shall
not
be
issued
until
that
period
of
time
has
elapsed.

SOURCE:
Fmal
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718
(
September
4,
1987).

31­
2
 
3
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3102
SERVICE
OF
THE
NOTICE
OF
INFRACTION
3102.1
The
Director
shall
effect
service
of
an
NO1
on
a
respondent
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

(
a)
Personal
service
on
the
respondent
or
respondent s
agent;

(
b)
Delivering
the
NO1
to
the
last
known
home
or
busir?
ess
address
of
the
respondent
or
respondent s
agent
and
leaving
it
with
a
person
over
the
age
of
sixteen
(
16)
years
old
residmg
or
employed
therein;
or
(
e)
Mailing
the
NO1
to
the
last
known
home
or
business
address
of
the
respondent
or
respondent s
agent.

3102.2
Proof
of
service
shall
state
the
name
and
address
of
the
person
on
whom
service
is
made
and
the
manner
and
date
of
service.

3102.3
Proof
of
service
includes
any
of
the
following:

(
a)
The
certificate
of
service
signed
by
the
issuing
agent;

(
b)
A
return
receipt
or
certificate
of
mailing,
if
service
is
by
mail;
or
(
c)
A
written
acknowledgementby
the
respondent
or
respondent s
agent.

3102.4
For
purposes
of
this
section,
 
respondent sagent 
means
a
general
agent,
employee
.
or
attorney
of
the
respondent.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,5720
(
September
4,1987).

3103
ANSWERING
THE
NOTICE
OF
INFRACTION
3
103.1
A
respondent
shall
answer
an
NO1
in
accordance
with.
this
section
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
from
the
date
ofservice
of
the
NOI.

3103.2
In
response
to
an
NOI,
a
respondent
shall
do
the
following:

(
a)
Answer
the
NO1
in
one
of
the
following
ways:

(
1)
Admit
the
infraction;

(
2)
Admit
the
infraction
with
explanation;
or
(
3)
Deny
the
commission
of
the
infraction;
and
(
b)
Otherwise
complete,
sign,
and
date
the
answer
form
on
the
back
of
the
NOI.

3103.3
If
a
respondent
admits
an
infraction,
the
respondent
shall
include
payment
of
the
fine
with
the
respondent s
answer.

,
31­
3
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3103.4
Payment
of
a
fine
shall
not
relieve
the
respondent
of
the
obligation
to
abate
an
infraction
cited
in
the
NOI.

3
103.5
Ifa
respondent
admits
an
infraction
with
explanation,'
therespondent
shall
indxate
on
the
back
of
the
NO1
whether
respondent
requests
a
hearing
or
adjudication
by
mail.
If
a
respondent
fails
to
indicate
whether
a
hearing
or
adjudication
by
mail
is
requested,
the
Director
shall
schedule
a
hearing
and
send
the
respondent
a
notice
of
hearing.

3
103.6
If
a
respondent
denies
an
infraction,
the
Director
shall
schedule
a
hearing
and
send
the
respondent
a
notice
of
hearing.

3
103.7
A
notice
of
hearing
sent
pursuant
to
ths
chapter
shall
inform
the
respondent
of
the
following:

(
a)
The
fact
that
a
hearing
has
been
scheduled;

(
b)
The
time,
date,
and
location
of
the
hearing;
and
(
c)
The
respondent's
rights
at
the
hearing.

3103.8
A
respondent
may
answer
an
NO1
in
person
or
by
mail.

3103.9
To
answer
an
NO1
in
person,
a
respondent
shall
appear
at
the
following
address
between
the
hours
of
8:
30
a.
m.
­
4:
OO
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
except
on
legal
holidays:

Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Office
of
Civil
Infractions
613
G
Street,
N.
W.,
7th
floor
Washington,
D.
C.
20001
3103.10
To
answer
an
NO1
by
mail,
a
respondent
shall
md
the
completed
NOI,
postmarked
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
from
the
date
of
service,
to
the
following
address:

Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Office
of
Civil
Infractions
P.
O.
Box
37140
Washington,
D.
C.
20013­
7200
3103.11
If
a
respondent
responds
to
an
NO1
and
pays
the
stated
he,
but
fails
to
indicate
an
answer,
the
respondent
shall
be
deemed
to
have
admitted
the
infraction.

3103.12
If
a
respondent
responds
to
an
NO1
but
does
not
pay
the
stated
fine,
and
fails
to
indicate
an
answer,
the
respondent
shall
be
deemed
to
have
denied
the
infraction,
and
the
Director
shall
schedule
a
hearing.

3
103.13
If
a
respondent
fads
to
answer
an
NO1
in
a
timely
manner,
the
respondent
shall
not
have
a
right
to
a
hearing
on
the
NO1
or
adjudication
of
the
NO1
by
mail,
unless
the
respondent
shows
good
cause
for
the
failure
to
answer
the
NO1
in
a
timely
manner.

314
s
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3103.14
If
a
respondent
challenges
an
NO1
as
defective
on
its
face,
anALJ
may
review
the
NO1
prior
to
a
hearing
and,
if
the
ALJ
determines
that
the
NO1
is
defective
on
its
face,
dismiss
the
NOI.
If
the
ALJ
does
not
dismiss
the
NOI,
the
respondent
shall
be
deemed
to
have
denied
the
infraction
and
the
Director
shall
schedule
a
hearing.
The
respondent s
evidence
presented
in
support
of
the
deniaI
may
include
evidence
on
whether
the
NO1
is
defective.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,5721
(
September
4,
1987).

3104
ABATEMENT
OF
INFRACTIONS
3104.1
The
Director
shall
monitor
and
verify
the
abatement
of
all&
actions.

3104.2
The
requirements
of
this
section
shall
apply
to
respondents
who
have
admitted
an
infraction,
admitted
an
infraction
with
explanation,
or
were
found
to
have
committed
an
infraction
in
a
decision
of
an
ALJ.

3104.3
.
A
respondent
subject
to
this
section
shall
be
required
to
certify
that
each
i&
action
listed
on
the
NO1
has
been
abated,
subject
to
penalties
for
false
statements
under
$
404of
the
D.
C.
Theft
and
White
Collar
Crimes
Act
of
1982,
D.
C.
Code
922­
2514
(
1996Repf.
Vol.).

3104.4
The
Director
may
request
a
respondent
subject
to
this
section
to
complete
and
submit
to
the
Director
a
Notice
of
Verification
certifying
that
an
infraction
has
been
abated.

3104.5
A
Notice
of
Verification
certifying
abatement
of
an
infraction
shall
include
the
following:

(
a)
A
list
of
all
infractions
cited;

(
b)
The
name
of
the
person
in
violatioc;

(
c)
The
respondent s
license
or
permit
number;

(
d)
A
complete
description
of
the
actions
taken
to
abate
the
infraction;

(
e)
The
respondent s
signature;
and
(
0
Any
other
information
that
the
Director
may
require.

3104.6
The
Director
may,
at
any
time,
request
that
a
respondent
provide
adhtional
information
pertaining
to
the
verification
of
an
abated
Saction.

3104.7
The
Director
shall
issue
an
additional
NO1
after
reinspection,
if
the
Director
determines
that
the
cited
infraction
continues
to
exist.

3104.8
A
respondent s
failure
to
certify
that.
an
infraction
has
been
abated
as
required
in
the
decision
of
the
ALJ
may
be
referred
to
the
Officeof
Compliance
for
appropriate
action.

313
Title
16
3105
3
105.1
3105.2
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regula  
dons
SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5722
(
September
4,
1987).

FAILURETO
ANSWER
THE
NOTICE
OF
INFRACTION
If
a
respondent
fails
to
answer
an
NO1
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
of
date
of
service,
the
Directos
shall
issue
and
serve
upon
respondent
a
second
NOI,
in
a
form
prescribed
by
the
Director,

A
second
NO1
shall
include
the
following:

(
a)
The
name
and
address
of
the
respondent;

(
b)
An
identification
of
the
NO1
to
which
the
respondent
has
failed
to
respond
in
a
timely
manner,
and
the
amount
of
the
fine
and
penalty
for
such
failure
to
respond;
(
c)
Notification
of
the
following:

(
1)
That
the
respondent
is
subject
to
a
penalty
equal
to
the
amount
of
the
fine
because
of
the
respondent s
fdure
to
respond
to
the
initial
NO1
in
a
timely
manner,
unless
the
respondent
shows
good
cause
for
the
failure
to
respond
to
the
NO1
in
a
timely
manner;

(
2)
That
the
respondent
has
a
right
to
a
hearing
to
show
good
cause
for
the
failure
to
respond
to
the
NO1
in
a
timely
manner
and
that,
if
the
AkT
determines
that
there
is
good
cause,
the
respondent
has
a
right
to
a
.
hearing
on
the
infraction;

(
3)
That,
if
the
respondent
fails
to
pay
the
fine
and
penalty
or
request
a
hearing
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
of
the
date
of
service
of
the
second
NO1
the
following
shall
occur:

(
A)
The
penalty
for
failure
to
answer
in
a
timely
manner
shall
increase
to
twice
the
amount
of
the
initial
fine
and
the
respondent s
license
or
permit
may
be
suspended;
and
(
 3)
The
respondent
shall
be
required
to
appear
at
a
hearing
to
show
cause
why
the
respondent s
license
or
permit
should
not
be
suspended
for
such
failure
to
make
timely
payment
or
request
a
hearing:

(
4)
That
the
respondent
has
no
right
to
adjudication
of
the
infraction
by
mail;
and
(
5)
That
the
acceptable
forms
of
payment
are
as
follows:

(
A)
Cash,
which
is
not
acceptable
by
mail;
or
(
J3)
A
personal
check,
company
check,
certified
check,
cashier s
check,
postal
money
order,
or
bank
money
order
payable
to
the
order
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Treasurer;
and
31­
6
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
(
d)
Any
other
information
that
the
Director
may
require.

3105.3
A
second
NO1
signed
by
the
Director
shall
be
prima
facie
evidence
that
the
respondent
has
not
answered
the
initial
NO1
in
a
timely
manner,

3105.4
A
second
NO1
shall
be
served
and
answered
in
the
same
manner
as
an
initial
NOI,
with
the
following
exceptions:

(
a)
If
a
respondent
admits
the
infraction,
the
respondent
is
required
to
include
payment
of
the
penalty,
in
addition
to
the
fine,
with
the
answer;

(
bj
Respondent
has
no
right
to
adjudication
of
the
infraction
by
mail;
and
(
c)
Respondent
has
no
right
to
a
hearing
on
the
infraction
unless
the
respondent
shows
good
cause
for
the
failure
to
timely
answer
the
initial
NOI.
To
show
good
cause,
a
respondent
shall
request
a
hearing
in
the
manner
provided
by
$
3103
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
of
the
date
the
second
NO1
is
served.
Upon
a
showing
of
good
cause,
an
ALJ
may
either
proceed
to
consider
the
infraction
or
require
the
respondent
to
request
another
hearing
on
the
infraction.

3105.5
A
respondent
who
fails
to
answer
a
second
NO1
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
of
service:

(
a)
Shall
have
no
right
to
a
hearing
on
the
infraction
unless
the
respondent
establishes
good
cause
for
the
failure
to
answer;
and
(
b)
 
Shall
be
required
to
appear
at
a
hearing
to
show
cause
why
the
respondent s
license
or
permit
should
not
be
suspended
for
such
failure
to
answer.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5723
(
September
4.
1987).

3106
ADJUDICATION
BY
MAIL
3106.1
Adjudication
by
mail
shall
be
available
only
to
a
respondent
who
answers
an
initial
NO1
in
a
timely
manner
and
admits
the
infraction
with
explanation.
.

3106.2
A
respondent
who
admits
an
infraction
with
explanation
shall
submit
with
the
NO1
all
evidence
of
mitigating
circumstances
or
other
evidence
relevant
to
the
respondent s
explanation.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5725
(
September
4,
1987).

3107
PRE­
HEARING
FILINGS
3107.1
The
Director
may
require
that
the
parties
file,
at
least
five
(
5)
clays
prior
to
the
hearing
and
on
a
form
approved
by
the
Director,
the
following
information:

(
a)
The
name
and
address
of
each
witness
who
may
be
called
to
testify
during
the
hearing;

(
b)
The
name
and
address
of
each
expert
witness
who
may
be
called
to
testify,
together
with
a
copy
of
any
written
report
prepared
by
that
expert
witness;

31­
7
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3
107.2
3
107.3
3
107.4
3
108
3
108.1
3
108.2
3108.3
3
108.4
3108.5
3108.6
3109
3
109.1
3
109.2
(
c)
The
approximate
length
of
time
required
by
each
party
to
present
its
case
during
the
hearing;

(
d)
A
certfication
by
the
person
filing
that
a
true
copy
of
the
filed
document
has
been
served
on
allparties;
and
(
e)
Any
other
information
that
the
Director
may
determine
to
be
necessary
for
the
more
efficient
scheduling
and
operation
of
the
hearing
process.

The
parties
may
enter
stipulations
into
the
record.

No
pre­
hearing
fihg
shall
be
accepted
within
five
(
5)
days
prior
to
the
scheduled
hearing
date
without
the
authorization
of
the
ALJ.

A
request
for
continuance
shall
be
submitted
in
writing.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,5726
(
September
4,
1987).

MOTIONS
Parties,
witnesses,
and
other
persons
may
file
appropriate
motions,
including
motions
to
intervene
or
to
join
another
party
to
the
action.

A
party
filing
a
motion
shall
serve
it
on
all
parties
to
the
hearing.

A
party
opposing
a
motion
shall
respond
to
the
motion
filed
by
hand
delivering
the
response
to
the
address
set
forth
at
53103.9
within
five
(
5)
days
of
the
date
the
motion
was
served,
or
by
mailing
the
response
to
the
address
set
forth
at
$
3103.10
postmarked
within
five
(
5)
days
of
the
date
the
motion
was
served.

Failure
to
respond
to
a
motion
within
the
time
provided
in
$
3
108.3
shall
constitute
sufficient
grounds
for
the
ALJ,
in
the
Aw's
hscretion,
to
grant
the
original
motion
as
being
unopposed.

Unless
a
party
requests
oral
argument
on
a
motion
and
the
ALJ
grants
the
request,
the
ALJ
may
dispose
of
the
motion
on
written
submissions.

The
AkJ
may
schedule
a
separate
hearing
on
a
motion
or
may
consider
it
at
the
time
of
the
hearing
on
the
NOI.

SOURCE:
Fiflal
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5726
(
September
4,
1957).

CONDUCT
OF
HEARINGS
A
general
partner
may
represent
the
partnership
at
a
hearing.

A
director
or
oficer
of,
or
attorney
for,
a
corporation
may
represent
the
corporation
at
a
hearing.

37­

89
Title
16
3
109.3
3109.4
3109.5
3109.6
09.7
09.8
3110
3110.1
31lO;
Z
3110.3
3111
3111.1
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
A
respondent
shall
have
the
following
rights
at
a
hearing:

(
a)
To
appear
and
be
heard
in
person
or
be
represented
by
counsel:

(
b)
To
examine
the
respondent s
own
witnesses
and
cross­
examine
opposing
witnesses;
(
c)
To
present
all
relevant
evidence;
and
(
d)
To
have
subpoenas
issued
to
compel
the
attendance
of
witnesses
and
the
production
of
relevant
documents
upon
submission
of
a
written
request
to
an
ALJ
at
least
five
(
5)
days
prior
to
the
hearing.

If
a
respondent
denies
an
infraction,
the
Director
shall
have
the
burden
of
proving
the
infraction
by
a
preponderance
of
the
evidence.

All
testimony
shall
be
given
under
oath
or
affirmation.

Parties
at
a
hearing
shall
make
objections
in
a
timely
manner
and
shall
briefly
state
the
grounds
relied
upon.

At
the
conclusion
of
a
hearing,
the
ALJ
may
hold
open
the
hearing
record
for
an
appropriate
period
of
time
to
allow
for
the
production
of
addtional
documentary
evidence
or
submission
of
briefs
by
the
parties.

A
party
filing
documentary
evidence
after
the
hearing
but
before
the
record
has
closed,
shall
serve
a
copy
of
the
evidence
on
the
opposing
party.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5727
(
September
4,
1987).

AMENDMENTS
TO
THE
NOTICE
OF
INFRACTION
If,
during
a
hearing,
the
Director
has
cause
to
believe
that
the
respondent
committed
an
additional
infraction
for
which
the
respondent
has
not
been
charged,
the
Director
may
move
to
amend
the
NO1
during
the
hearing
to
add
the
new
infraction.

If
the
Director
moves
to
amend
a
NO1
pursuant
to
$
3110.1,
the
ALJ
shall
grant
a
continuance
when
necessary
for
the
respondent
to
defend
,
adequately
against
the
amended
NOI,
unless
the
respondent
waives
the
right
to
a
continuance.

IE
during
a
hearing,
the
Director
proves
that
a
respondent
is
a
repeat
violator
of
a
rule,
regulation,
or
law
cited;
the
Director
may
move
to
amend
the
NO1
consistent
with
this
section.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5728
(
September
4,
1987).

RECORD
OF
PROCEEDINGS
An
official
record
of
the
hearing
shall
be
maintained
in
each
case,
including.
but
not
limited
to,
testimony
and
exhibits.
A
transcription
of
the
hearing
shall
not
be
made
unless
requested
pursuant
to
$
3120.
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3111.2
The
testimony
and
exhibits,
together
with
a11
papers
filed
in
the
proceedmgs,
and
materialsor
facts
with
respect
to
which
official
notice
is
taken,
shall
constitute
the
exclusive
record
of
the
hearing.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,5728
(
September
4,
1987).

3112
FAILURETO
APPEAR
AT
A
HEARING
3112.1
If
a
respondent
fads
to
appear
for
a
scheduled
hearing,
and
the
hearing
has
not
been
continued,
postponed,
or
rescheduled,
the
ALJ
may
receive
evidence
and
hear
testimony
of
witnesses
who
have
appeared
and
render
a
final
decision
based
on
the
evidence
or
may
issue
a
default
judgment
against
the
respondent.

3112.2
A
respondent
who
has
failed
to
appear
at
a
scheduled
hearing
may,
before
the
ALJ
issues
a
decision,
make
a
request
in
writing
to
the
ALJ
that
the
hearing
be
reopened
for
good
cause
shown.

SOURCE:
Final
Rolemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5728
(
September
4,
1987).

3113
FINAL
DECISION
3113.1
A
decision
of
an
ALJ
sha!!
be
final
upsii
issuance.

3113.2
A
decision
of
an
ALJ
shall
be
in
writing
and
must
be
issued
within
ninety
(
90)
days
of
the
date
the
hearing
is
concluded
or
the
request
for
an
adjudxation
by
mail
is
.
received.

3113.3
A
decision
of
an
Awshall
contain
findings
of
fact,
conclusions
of
law,
an
order,
and
a
statement
which
informs
the
respondent
of
the
right
to
an
appeal.

3113.4
The
decision
shall
be
served
in
accordance
with
93
10'
2.

3113.5
A
decision
of
an
Aw
finding
that
the
respondent
committed
an
infraction
may
notify
the
respondent
that
!
f
the
respondent
fails
to
pay
the
fine,
penalty,
or
costs
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
(+
A
the
date
of
service
of
the
decision,
the
respondent's
license
or
permit
shall
be
suspended
until
the
respondent
pays
the
fine,
penalty,
or
costs,

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718.
5729
(
September
4,
1987).

3114
COSTSAND
PENALTIES
3114.1
A
respondent
may
be
subject
to
one
or
more
of
the
following
penalties
and
costs:

(
a)
A
penalty
equal
to
the
amount
of
the
fine,
if
a
respondent
fails
to
answer
an
NO1
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
from
the
date
of
service;

(
b)
A
penalty
equal
to
twice
the
amount
of
the
fine;
if
a
respondent
fails
to
answer
a
second
NO1
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
from
the
date
of
service;

31­
10
//
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3115
3115.1
31
15.2
3115.3
3115.4
3115.5
31
15:
6
(
c)
An
inspection
fee
of
fifty
dollars
($
50)
for
all
reinspections
and
reinvestigations
conducted
by
the
Director
in
connection
with
an
infraction;

(
d)
A
hearing
fee
of
forty
dollars
($
40),
if
the
respondent
is
found
fully
liable
for
an
infraction;

(
e)
A
witness
fee
of
thirty­
one
dollars
and
fifty
cents
($
31.50)
for
each
witness
subpoenaed
on
behalf
of
the
respondent:
and
(
0
A
fee
of
one
percent
(
1%)
per
month
of
the
outstanding
amount
sowed
by
a
respondent
for
the
installment
senice.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,5729
(
September
4,1987);
as
amended
by
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
42
DCR
6224
(
November
10,
1995),
effective
December
8,
1995..

INSTALLMENT
AGREEMENTS
AND
PAYMENT
No
person
shall.
be
eligible
to
apply
for
an
'
installment
agreement
except
as
provided
in
this
section.

A
respondent
who
has
been
served
a
decision
in
which
monetary
sanctions
of
fifty
dollars
($
50)
or
more
have
been
imposed
may,
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
after
the
date
of
service,
request
permission
to
make,
paymerits
pursuant
to
an
installment
agreement.

A
respondent
who
has
been
served
an
NO1
or
second
NOI,
and
who
admits
to
'
infractions
and
penalties
of
fifty
dollars
($
50)
or
more
may,
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
after
the
date
of
service,
request
permission
to
make
payments
pursuant
to
an
installment
agreement.
'

Installment
applications
shall
be
submitted
on
a
form
prescribed
by
the
Director.

Failure
to
submit
a
completed
installment
application
along
with
all
required
documentation
in
a
timely
manner
shall
bar
the
respondent
from
receiving
an
installment
agreement.

An
installment
agreement
shall
inform
the
respondent
of
the
respondent's
obIigations
and
shall
contain
the
following
information:

(
a)
The
duration
of
the
agreement,
which
shall
be
six
(
6)
months
or
less;

(
b)
The
due
date
for
each
installment
payment:

(
c)
The
terms
and
conditions
of
the
agreement:

(
d)
That
collection
proceedmgs
shall
be
initiated
to
collect
the
amount
owed
for
respondent's
failure
to
comply
with
the,
terms
and
condltions
of
the
instalIment
agreement;

(
e)
That
the
acceptable
forms
of
payment
are
as
follows:

31­
11
/
z
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3116
3116.1
3116.2
3116.3
3117
3117.1
3117.2
(
1)
Cash,
which
is
not
acceptable
by
mail;
or
(
2)
A
personal
check,
company
check,
certified
check,
cashier s
check,
postal
money
order,
or
bank
money
order
payable
to
the
order
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Treasurer:
and
(
0
That
the
respondent s
license
or
permit
may
be
suspended
for
failure
to
make
timely
payments.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
publiihed
at
34
WR
5718,5730
(
September
4,
1987).

PAYMENT
The
following
shall
be
the
only
acceptable
forms
of
payment
of
a
fine,
penalty,
cost,
or
other
charge
imposed
under
this
chapter
or
the
Act:

(
a)
Cash;
or
(
b)
A
personal
check,
company
check,
certified
check,
cashier s
check,
postal
money
order,
or
bank
money
order
payable
to
the
order
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Treasurer.

A
payment
in
the
form
of
cash
shall
not
be
accepted
by
mail.

A
respondent s
submission
of
a
personal
check,
company
check,
certified
check,
cashier s
check,
postal
money
order,
or
bank
money
order
that
is
returned
due
to
insufficient
funds
or
for
any
other
reason,
shall
constitute
a
failure
to
pay
and
a
failure
to
respond
properly
to
an
NOI,
second
NOI,
or
decision.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718.
5731
(
September
4.
1987).

COLLECTION
PROCEEDINGS
The
failbe
of
a
respondent
to
pay
monetary
sanctions
imposed
by
an
ALJ
or
to
comply
with
a
decision
of
an
ALJ
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
of
the
date
of
service
of
the
decision
shall
subject
the
respondent
to
suspension
of
the
respondent s
license
or
permit.

The
Director
may
refer
to
a
collection
agency
or
the
Corporation
Counsel
cases
which
involve
a
respondent s
failure
to
make
timely
payment
for
the
initiation
of
civil
proceedings
to
collect
fines,
penalties,
and
costs
owed
by
the
respondent.
The
civil
proceedings
may
result
in
garnishment
of
wages,
attachment
of
property,
and
liens
and
foreclosures
against
property.

SaURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5731
(
September
4,
1987).
z .
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3118
ADMINISTRATIVE
APPEALS
3118.1
Thissection
shall
apply
to
all
appeals
from
decisions
of
Us
issued
pursuant
to
the
Act,
except
for
appeals
made
to
the
District
of
Columbia
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review.

3118.2
A
notice
of
appeal
from
a
decision
issued
by
an
ALJ
shall
be
submitted
in
person
or
postmarked
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
from
the
date
of
service
of
the
final
decision.

3118.3
A
notice
of
appeal
of
a
decision
shall
include
the
following
information.

'(
a)
That
an
appeal
is
taken;

(
b)
A
copy
or
identification
of
the
final
decision
from
which
the
appeal
is
taken;

(
c)
A
concise
statement
indicating
why
the
respondent
believes
the
final
decision
is
wrong;
c
(
d)
The
full
name,
street
address,
and
telephone
number
of
the
respondent
and
the
respondent's
attorney
or
agent,
if
any;
and
(
e)
The
signature
of
the
respondent,
an
officer
of
the
respondent
corporation,
a
partner
of
the
respondent
partnership,
or
respondent's
attorney
or
agent.

3118.4
A
notice
of
appeal
may
be
submitted
in
person
to
the
following
address
between
the
hours
of
8:
30a.
m.
to
4:
OO
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
except
legal
holidays:

Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Office
of
Civil
Infractions
613
G
Street,
N.
W.,
7th
floor
Washington,
D.
C.
20001
3
118.5
A
notice
of
appeal
may
be
mailed
to
the
following
address:

Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
Office
of
Civil
Infractions
P.
O.
Box
37140
Washington,
D.
C.
20013­
7200
3118.6
The
Director
shall
transmit
a
notice
of
appeal,
within
one
week
of
its
receipt,
to
the
appropriate
board
or
commission
along
with
a
copy
of
the
decision
from
which
the
appeal
is
taken.

3118.7
Appeals
involving
infractions
of
the
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Act,
D.
C.
Code
825­
101
et
seq.,
or
des
issued
pursuant
thereto
shall
be
heard
by
the
District
of
Columbia
Alcoholic
Beverage
Control
Board.

'
3
118.8
Appeals
involving
infractions
of
laws
or
rules
governing
occupations
or
professions
shall
be
heard
by
the
appropriate
occupational
or
professional
board
or
commission.

31­
13
N
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
3118.9
Appeals
involving
infractions
of
the
Rental
Housing
Act
of
1985,
D.
C.
Code
§
§
45­
2501et
seq.,
or
rules
issued
pursuant
thereto
shall
be
heard
by
the
District
of
Columbia
Rental
Housing
Commission.

3118.10
Appeals
involving
infractions
of
laws
relating
to
zoning,
D.
C.
Code
$
85­
601et
seq.,
and
rules
issued
pursuant
thereto,
shall
be
heard
by
the
District
of
Columbia
Board
of
Zoning
Adjustment.

3118.11
Appeals
involving
infractions
of
law
and
rules
not
within
the
scope
of
$
93118.7to
3118.10shall
be
with
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Board
of
Appeals
and
Review.

3118.12
A
respondent
shall
pay
a
filing
fee
of
ten
dollars
($
10)
plus
the
cost
of
preparing
a
transcript
at
the
time
a
notice
of
appeal
is
filed.
.

3118.13
An
administrative
appeal
filed
by
a
respondent
who
has
admitted
an
infraction
with
explanation
shall
be
limited
in
scope
to
a
determination
of
whether
the
monetary
sanctions
imposed
were
within
the
limitations
prescribed
by
law.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,5731
(
September
4.
1987).

3119
STAY
PENDING
APPELS
 
3119.1
The
timely
filing
of
a
notice
of
appeal
shall
not
operate
to
stay
the
final
decision
of
an
Aw.

3119.2
Upon
motion
of
the
respondent,
an
ALJ
may
stay
the
imposition
of
any
sanction
imposed
pendmg
appeal.

3119.3
A
respondent
who
submits
a
motion
pursuant
to
this
section
shail
state
the
reasons
supporting
the
motion
and
the
facts
relied
upon.
If
the
facts
are
subject
to
dispute,
the
motion
must
be
supported
by
affidavits
or
other
documents
the
veracity
of
which
is
sworn
to
by
the
respondent
or
other
person
submitting
such
facts.

3119.4
A
respondent
who
submits
a
motion
pursuant
to
this
section
shall
attach
a
copy
of
the
final
decision
sought
to
be
stayed.

3119.5
A
motion
submitted
pursuant
to
this
section
shall
be
delivered
in
person
or
postmarked
within
fifteen
(
15)
days
of
the
date
of
service
of
the
final
decision
to
the
address
set
forth
in
$
3118.4or
3118.5.

SOURCE:
Fmal
Rulemakingpublished
at
34
DCR
5718,
5733JSeptember
4,
1987).

3120
TRANSCRIPTSOF
HEZARINGS
3120.1
Transcripts
of
hearings
may
be
ordered
from
the
Director
on
a
form
prescribed
by
the
Director.

31­
14
/!
Title
16
3
120.2
3
120.3
3
120.4
3120.5
3
120.6
3121
3121.1
3121.2
'
3199
3
199.1
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
The
fee
for
transcripts
shall
be
three
dollars
and
fifty
cents
($
3.50)
per
page.

A
person
ordering
a
transcript
shall
submit
a
deposit
of
fifty
dollars
($
50)
with
the
order.

When
the
cost
of
a
transcript
has
been
determined
to
be
less
than
the
amount
of
the
transcript
deposit,
the
Director
shall
refund
the
amount
by
which
the
deposit
exceeds
the
cost
of
the
transcript.

When
the
cost
of
a
transcript
is
determined
to
exceed
the
amount
of
the
transcript
deposit,
the
person
ordering
the
transcript
shall
pay
the
balance
prior
to
the
issuance
of
the
transcript.

The
Director
may
waive
all
or
part
of
the
cost
of
a
transcript
in
cases
of
financial
hardship
or
other
appropriate
circumstances,
as
determined
by
the
Director.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,5733
(
September
4.
1987).

COMPUTATION
OF
TIME
In
computing
any
period
of
time
specified
in
ths
chapter,
the
day
of
the
act,
event,
or
default
shall
not
be
counted,
and
the
last
day
of
the
period
shall
be
counted
unless
it
is
a
Saturday,
Sunday,
or
legal
holiday,
in
which
event
the
time
period
shall
continue
until
the
next
day
that
is
not
a
Saturday,
Sunday,
or
legal
holiday.

An
AL,
J
may
waive
any
of
the
prescribed
time
periods
established
in
this
chapter
or
the
Act,
if
the
respondent
requests
a
waiver
in
writing
within
one
year
of
the
date
of
service
of
the
infraction,
and
shows
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
ALJ
why
the
time
period
should
be
waived.

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
DCR
5718,
5734
(
September
4,
1987).

DEFINITIONS
When
used
in
this
chapter,
the
following
terms
and
phrases
shall
have
the
meanings
ascribed
Act
­
the
Department
of
Consumer­
andRegulatory
Affairs
Civil
Infractions
Act
of
1985,
D.
C.
Law
6­
45.
D.
C.
Code
§
§
6­
2701et
seq.

Administrative
Law
Judge
(
ALJ)
­
a
hearing
examiner
licensed
to
practice
law
in
the
District
of
Columbia
and
authorized
to
hear
cases
pursuant
to
the
Act.

Day
­
a
calendar
day.

Director
­
the
Director
of
the
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
or
a
designee.

Legal
holiday
­
one
of
the
following
days:
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
New
Year s
Day;

Martin
Luther
King,
Jr. 
s
Birthday;

Washington s
Birthday;

Memorial
Day;

Independence
Day;

Labor
Day;

Columbus
Day;

Veterans
Day;

Thanksgiving
Day;

Christmas
Day;.

Any
other
day
designated
as
a
legal
holiday
by
the
President,
the
Congress,
the
Mayor
or
the
Council
of
the
District
of
Columbia,
on
the
actual
day
the
legal
holiday
is
celebrated
by
the
government
of
the
District
of
Columbia;
and
Any
other
day
on
which
the
Department
of
Consumer
and
Regulatory
Affairs
is
officially
closed.

Date
of
service
­
date
on
which
a
notice
or
order
is
personally
served
or
delivered
pursuant
to
53
102.1(
a)
or
3
102.
l(
b),
or
five
(
5)
days
after
the
date
on
which
a
notice
or
order
is
mailed
pursuant
to
83
102.1(
c).

SOURCE:
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
34
OCR
5718,
5734
(
September
4,
1987).

31­
16
/
7
z,
16
DCMR,
Section
3226.1
(
X)

Civil
Infraction
Schedule
for
14DCMR
Section
707.3
M
w
z
­­
c­

Tie
16
3225.4
3226
3226.1
\
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
(
j)
20
DCMR
$
1111.7
(
fdure
to
have
pesticide
labels
at
job
site);

(
k)
20
DCMR
53200.6
(
failure
to
surrender
a
pesticide
operator s
credentials
and
license
within
ten
(
10)
days
of
termination);
or
(
l)
20
DCMR
83202.4
(
fdure
to
note
tire
Director
when
supervision
by
a
licensed
certlfied
applicator
is
not
available).

Violation
of
any
provision
of
the
District
of
Columbia
Pesticide
Operations
Act
of
1977,
20
DCMR,
Chapters
10­
13,
which
provision
is
not
cited
elsewhere
in
this
section,
shall
be
a
Class
5
infitaction.

SOURCE:
Fnrl
Rukrruking
publiihed
at
34
DCR
5736.
5766
(
September
4,
1987);
as
amended
by
Final
Rulemaking
publi.
had
8t
38DCR
1,4
(
January
4.1991);
and
by
Final
Rulemaking
published
at
44DCR
1950,
1960
(
April
7.1997).

DCRA
HOUSING
INSPECTION
DIVISION
INFRACTIONS
Violation
of
any
of
the
following
provisions
shall
be
a
Class
2
infraction:

D.
C.
Code
$
5­
601(
failure
to
secure
or
repair
an
unsafe
structure);

D.
C.
Code
55­
603
(
attempting
to
repair
after
expiration
of
allowed
period,
or
interfering
with
authorized
agents);

D.
C.
Code
55­
604
(
allowing
a
nuisance
to
exist
on
any
lot
or
parcel
of
land
in
the
District
of
Columbia
which
affects
the
public
health,
comfort,
safety
and
welfare
of
citizens);

14
DCMR
5103.2
(
removal
of
placard
by
an
unauthorized
person);

14
DCMR
5103.3
(
permitting
the
occupancy
of
an
apartment
or
tenement
thirty
(
30)
days
or
more
after
the
posting
of
a
placard);

14
DCMR
5104.1
(
refusal
to
permit
any
designated
agent
of
the
District
entry
into
the
premises);

14
DCMR
$
104.4
(
refusal
to
permit
inspection
of
premises);

14
DCMR
5400.1
(
permitting
the
occupancy
of
any
habitation
in
violation
of
14
DCMR,
Chapter
4);

14
DCMR
$
400.7
(
renting
a
habitation
in
a
buildmg
in
which
noxious
gases
or
offensive
odors
are
generated
by
a
commercial
activity);

14
DCMR
$
402.4(
permitting
a
sleeping
facility
to
be
located
in
a
room
with
a
furnace,
open
flame,
space
heater,
domestic
water
heater,
or
gas
meter);

14
DCMR
3403.1
(
unlawful
use
of
uninhabitable
rooms);
­­
Title
16
District
of
Columbia
Municipal
Regulations
14
DCMR
6500.1
(
failure
to
provide
adequate
heating,
ventilating,
or
lighting
facility);

14
DCMR
5501.2
(
failure
to
provide
and
maintain
a
heating
facility
capable
of
maintaining
a
temperature
of
seventy
degrees
Fahrenheit
(
70"
F.)
in
a
budding
or
part
of
a
budding
used
for
habitation):

14
DCMR
5501.4
(
failure
to­
supply
sufficient
heat);

14
DCMR
5501.6
or
501.7
(
failure
to
comply
with
the
inspection,
correction
of
defects
and
certification
requirements);

14
DCMR
8510
(
fdure
to
comply
with
a
requirement
concerning
air
conditioning
maintenance);

14
DCMR
5600.1
(
failure
to
provide
required
facilities,
utilities
and
fixtures):

14
DCMR
5600.3
(
failure
to
provide
utility
service);

14
DCMR
5606.3
or
606.4
(
failure
to
comply
with
the
inspection,
correction
of
defects
and
certlfication
requirements);
~

14
DCMR
8701.3
(
failure
to
use
a
repair
material
of
suitable
kind
or
quality,
or
to
perform
or
repair
in
a
workmanlike
manner);

14
DCMR
5702.2
(
failure
to
maintain
smoke
pipe
or
chimney
which
is
adequately
supported
and
free
from
leakage
or
obstruction);

14
DCMR
5702.4
(
permitting
to
exist
on
premises
a
chimney
on
which
the
total
area
of
all
flue
openings
exceeds
the
net
area
of
the
flue);

14
DCMR
5704.1
(
permitting
to
exist
on
premises
a
foundation
or
structural
member
that
fails
to
provide
a
safe,
firm
and
substantial
base
and
support
for
the
structure
at
all
points);

14
DCMR.
8707.3
(
permitting
an
unlawful
quantity
of
bad
to
be
present
on
an
interior
or
exterior
surface
of
a
residential
premise);­
14
DCMR
5708.5
(
failure
to
install
or
maintain
required
porch
balustrade
or
other
guard);

14
DCMR
8901.1
(
failure
to
maintain
fire
extinguishing
equipment
in
an
operable
condition);
­

14
DCMR
5901.2
(
failure
to
maintain
fire
proofing
or
fire
protective
construction
id
a
good
state
of
repair);

14
DCMR
8902.1
(
failure
.
tomaintain
an
egress
facility
in
a
good
state
of
repair);

3240
