A
SUMMARY
OF
THE
PUBLIC'S
COMMENTS
AND
EPA'S
RESPONSES
40
CFR
745
Subpart
L
Sections
223,
225,
227
Notification
Requirements
for
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
Activities
and
Training;
Final
Rule
Docket
Number
OPPTS­
62165
July
17,
2002
Page
1
of
24
Introduction
The
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
issued
a
proposal
in
the
January
22,
2001
FEDERAL
REGISTER
to
modify
40
CFR
part
745,
to
include
notification
requirements
for
leadbased
paint
abatement
activities
and
training.
The
proposal
would
have
made
amendments
to
40
CFR
part
745,
sections
223,
225,
and
227.
Section
225
would
add
notification
procedures
for
accredited
training
programs
providing
lead­
based
paint
activities
courses,
while
section
227
would
add
notification
procedures
for
lead
abatement
professionals
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activities.
The
proposed
revisions
to
section
223
would
add
new
definitions
to
add
clarity
to
the
rule
provisions.
The
proposed
rule
would
have
applied
only
to
States
and
Indian
Tribes
that
do
not
have
authorized
programs
pursuant
to
40
CFR
745.324.

In
response
to
the
proposal
EPA
received
11
letters
from
the
public
during
the
comment
period.
The
Notification
Requirements
for
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
Activities
and
Training
proposal
docket
(
OPPTS­
62165)
contains
the
proposal,
public
comments
on
the
proposal,

material
EPA
has
added
in
response
to
the
public
comments,
and
the
amended
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
proposed
and
the
final
rules.

After
a
careful
review
and
analysis
of
the
comments
and
data
in
the
record,
EPA
is
revising
40
CFR
part
745
sections
223,
225,
and
227.

This
document
summarizes
the
public's
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
and
presents
EPA's
response.
Page
2
of
24
Outline
of
Contents
As
an
aid
to
the
reader,
the
following
is
an
outline
of
the
contents
of
this
document:

1.
Abatement
notification:
a.
Purpose
of
abatement
notification
requirements
b.
Time
period
for
initial
abatement
notification
c.
Time
period
for
notification
of
delayed
start
date
d.
Time
period
for
notification
of
cancellation
or
other
significant
changes
e.
Who
must
notify
EPA
of
the
commencement
of
abatement
activities
f.
The
notification
requirements
target
only
those
firms
that
comply
g.
Certified
supervisors
signature
on
the
notification
h.
Emergency
notification
requirements
2.
Training
program
notification:
a.
How
will
course
information
provided
by
training
programs
be
used
b.
Time
period
for
initial
training
notification
c.
Time
period
for
updated
training
notification
d.
Need
for
emergency
training
notification
e.
Request
that
certification
information
be
provided
to
trainers
f.
Student
information
i.
Social
security
number
vs.
birth
date
ii.
Need
for
exam
scores
to
be
provided
g.
Alternatives
for
training
program
notification
3.
How
notification
is
provided:
a.
Requirement
to
follow
e­
mail
notification
with
written
notification
b.
E­
mail
satisfying
time
requirements
c.
Use
of
the
central
data
exchange
d.
Ability
to
use
other
forms
if
information
is
the
same
4.
Terminology:
a.
Clarification
of
target
audience
b.
Start
date
in
updated
notification
5.
Imposition
of
fees
6.
Lead­
based
paint
abatement
exemptions
7.
Applicability
to
property
owners
8.
Burden
9.
Commenters
Comments
and
Response
Page
3
of
24
1.
Abatement
Notification
1(
a)
Purpose
of
Abatement
Notification
Requirements
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
1)
which
questions
whether
pre­
abatement
notification
is
necessary
considering
there
is
no
pre­
approval
requirement
and
the
only
purpose
of
such
notification
is
to
document
abatement
activities.

EPA
response:

The
proposal
does
not
include
pre­
approval
requirements
for
lead­
based
paint
abatement
activities
or
certification
training.
However,
as
discussed
in
the
proposal,
EPA
sought
to
establish
notification
provisions
to
provide
EPA
compliance
monitoring
and
enforcement
personnel
with
information
necessary
not
only
to
track
compliance
activities
but
also
to
prioritize
inspections.

The
requirements
of
the
proposal
were
designed
to
assist
in
the
prioritization
of
inspections
by
providing
EPA's
enforcement
and
compliance
monitoring
personnel
with
adequate
time
and
information
needed
to
thoroughly
review,
select,
and
prepare
for
inspections.

1(
b)
Time
Period
for
Initial
Abatement
Notification
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
1
and
#
6)
expressing
concern
regarding
the
proposed
ten­
business­
day
initial
notification.
The
commenters
believe
that
this
may
hamper
some
abatement
processes,
including
the
ability
of
lead
abatement
firms
to
respond
quickly
to
work
demands.
Commenter
#
1
also
believes
that
any
such
notification
would
be
impossible
when
hidden
conditions
or
other
changes
in
a
non­
abatement
project
reveal
lead
and/
or
lead
hazards.

Commenter
#
1
suggests
that
notification
be
sent
within
two
working
days
of
abatement
Page
4
of
24
work
being
initiated,
while
Commenter
#
6
suggests
EPA
pursue
a
five
business
day
notification
period.

EPA
response:

The
initial
notification
period
for
lead­
based
paint
abatement
activities
presents
two
competing
interests:
1)
EPA's
need
to
provide
enforcement
and
compliance
monitoring
personnel
with
adequate
time
to
thoroughly
review,
select,
and
arrive
on
site
for
inspections;
and
2)
the
need
of
the
lead­
based
paint
activities
firm
to
promptly
respond
to
the
demands
of
the
lead­
based
paint
abatement
marketplace.
The
commenters
indicate
that
the
proposed
ten­
business­
day
notification
period
could
hamper
some
abatement
processes.
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
and
has
reevaluated
the
initial
notification
period.
The
final
rule
includes
a
five­
business­
day
initial
notification
period
for
lead­
based
paint
abatement
activities.
EPA
believes
that
the
five­

businessday
notification
period
adequately
addresses
the
concerns
of
the
commenters
while
providing
EPA
with
enough
time
for
enforcement
and
compliance
assistance
personnel
to
adequately
oversee
the
program.

A
commenter
spoke
of
possible
difficulties
fulfilling
notification
requirements
should
hidden
conditions
reveal
lead
or
lead
hazards
during
a
non­
abatement
project.
EPA
would
like
to
make
clear
that,
where
the
intent
of
the
project
is
something
other
than
the
permanent
elimination
of
lead­
based
paint
hazards,
such
as
renovation
or
restoration,
finding
lead
or
lead
hazards
does
not
necessarily
change
the
project
to
an
abatement.
Where
such
a
finding
occurs
and
the
owner
or
property
manager
determines
that
he/
she
wishes
to
pursue
the
permanent
elimination
of
leadbased
paint
hazards,
then
that
portion
of
the
project
would
require
the
use
of
a
certified
leadbased
paint
abatement
firm.
Page
5
of
24
1(
c)
Time
Period
for
Notification
of
Delayed
Start
Date
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
3
and
#
11)
regarding
the
proposed
requirement
that,
if
the
project
start
date
was
to
be
delayed,
notification
would
have
to
be
provided
to
EPA
two
business
days
prior
to
the
original
start
date.

Commenter
#
3
believes
that
it
would
be
impossible
to
provide
notification
to
EPA
two
business
days
prior
to
the
original
start
date
because
issues
regarding
commencement
of
work
typically
do
not
arise
until
the
day
that
work
begins
(
e.
g.,
lack
of
access
to
the
work
site).
The
commenter
suggests
that
updated
notification
be
given
on
the
day
that
work
actually
commences,

similar
to
existing
requirements
of
the
New
York
City
Health
Code
where
notification
of
such
changes
must
be
filed
prior
to
commencement
of
work.

Commenter
#
11
believes
that
EPA
should
always
have
at
least
ten
business
days
notification
and
is
concerned
that
the
proposed
requirements
for
notification
of
a
project
delay
would
allow
an
abatement
to
begin
with
as
little
as
3
days
notice
(
if
notification
of
a
one
day
delay
was
provided
to
EPA
two
days
prior
to
the
original
start
date).

EPA
response:

From
an
enforcement
standpoint,
it
is
preferable
that
EPA
receive
notification
of
delayed
start
dates
prior
to
the
commencement
of
work.
In
considering
the
comments
regarding
this
issue,
EPA
agrees
that
there
are
circumstances
which
could
arise
on
the
scheduled
project
start
date
which
could
delay
work.
In
such
cases,
a
requirement
that
notification
of
delayed
start
date
be
provided
before
the
project
start
date
would
be
impractical.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
requires
that
notification
of
delayed
lead­
based
paint
abatement
start
dates
be
received
by
EPA
on
or
Page
6
of
24
before
the
original
start
date.

One
commenter
indicated
that
EPA
should
receive
a
ten
business
day
notification
following
notification
of
an
updated
start
date.
EPA
disagrees
with
this
comment
because
in
all
cases,
with
the
exception
of
emergencies,
EPA
will
be
provided
at
least
a
five
business
day
notification
(
based
on
discussion
in
section
1(
b))
from
the
date
of
initial
notification.
During
this
period
EPA
performs
many
activities
such
as
processing
the
notification,
making
a
determination
of
whether
a
compliance
inspection
is
needed,
preparing
a
travel
authorization,
providing
a
preinspection
notification,
performing
a
preliminary
compliance
review,
and
completing
travel
arrangements.
Most
of
these
activities
need
not
be
repeated
if
the
start
date
of
a
project
is
delayed;
therefore,
it
would
be
redundant
to
require
an
additional
five­
business­
day
notification
following
a
submission
of
a
delayed
start
date.

1(
d)
Time
Period
for
Notification
of
Cancellation
or
Other
Significant
Changes
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
1
and
#
3)
regarding
the
proposed
requirement
that,
where
abatement
activities
are
canceled
or
other
significant
changes
occur,
EPA
be
notified
two
business
days
prior
to
the
original
start
date.

The
commenters
both
point
out
that
it
is
impossible
to
update
EPA
regarding
significant
changes
to
the
abatement
project
two
days
before
the
start
date
when
the
changes
occur
during
the
project.
Commenter
#
3
suggests
EPA
model
their
requirements
after
similar
requirements
in
New
York
City
where
notification
of
any
changes
must
be
filed
prior
to
commencement
of
work,

or
if
work
has
begun,
within
24
hours
of
any
change.

EPA
response:
Page
7
of
24
EPA
agrees
with
the
commenters
that
providing
cancellation
or
updated
information
two
business
days
prior
to
the
original
start
date
in
many
cases
would
be
impossible.
Therefore,
the
final
regulation
requires
that
notification
of
cancellation
of
lead­
based
paint
activities
be
received
by
EPA
on
or
before
the
original
start
date.
In
addition,
any
other
required
information
updates
will
be
required
to
be
received
by
EPA
on
or
before
the
original
start
date,
and
where
work
has
begun,
within
24
hours
of
any
change.

1(
e)
Who
must
Notify
EPA
of
the
Commencement
of
Abatement
Activities
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
1)
requesting
clarification
as
to
who
is
responsible
for
notifying
EPA.
To
clarify,
the
commenter
provided
two
possible
scenarios.

Scenario
1:
If
I
complete
an
abatement
scope
of
work
but
the
abatement
is
conducted
by
another
contractor,
is
it
my
responsibility
or
his
to
notify
EPA?

Scenario
2:
If
I
manage
a
contractor
in
safe
workplace
practices
during
abatement
I
would
imagine
I
would
notify
EPA,
but
if
the
contractor
performing
the
work
is
a
certified
firm,
who
should
have
the
notification
responsibility?

EPA
response:

Notification
of
lead­
based
paint
abatement
activities
is
the
responsibility
of
the
certified
lead
abatement
firm
that
is
under
contract
to
perform
lead
abatement
activities.
Therefore,
a
contractor
who
simply
completes
the
scope
of
work
for
an
abatement
project
but
does
not
perform
the
abatement
activities
is
not
responsible
for
reporting
to
EPA.
Similarly,
in
the
second
example,
a
contractor
who
is
hired
to
oversee
safe
work­
practices
on
a
job
site
but
does
not
perform
the
abatement
activities
is
not
responsible
for
reporting
to
EPA.
Page
8
of
24
1(
f)
Notification
Requirements
Target
Only
Those
Firms
That
Comply
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
7
and
#
8)
which
indicate
that
the
notification
procedure
will
target
compliant
contractors
and
have
little
impact
on
those
companies
that
proceed
with
lead­
based
paint
abatement
activities
without
notifying
the
government.
Therefore,

inspections
will
be
scheduled
on
projects
that
the
government
is
made
aware
of
via
the
notification
process
while
projects
where
no
notice
has
been
sent
in
will
proceed
without
government
scrutiny.

EPA
response:

The
notification
provisions
of
this
regulation
will
assist
EPA
compliance
monitoring
and
enforcement
personnel
by
providing
them
with
information
necessary
to
monitor
compliance
and
prioritize
inspections.
While
EPA
believes
that
lead
activities
firms
who
comply
with
the
notification
provisions
of
this
regulation
are
more
likely
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
the
leadbased
paint
activities
regulations,
EPA
is
still
responsible
for
monitoring
the
performance
of
these
activities.
This,
however,
only
encompasses
one
aspect
of
EPA's
multifaceted
approach
for
monitoring
and
enforcing
the
requirements
of
the
lead­
based
paint
activities
regulations.
In
addition
to
inspections
prompted
by
notification,
EPA
will
use
a
number
of
different
tools
at
its
disposal
to
review
the
compliance
of
firms
conducting
lead­
based
paint
activities.
These
tools
may
include,
among
other
things,
response
to
tips
and
complaints
and
records
review.

1(
g)
Certified
Supervisor's
Signature
on
the
Notification
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
7)
regarding
the
requirement
in
the
proposal
that
a
certified
Page
9
of
24
supervisor
sign
abatement
notifications.
The
commenter
questions
why
the
government
wants
the
notification
for
lead
abatement
activities
signed
by
a
certified
supervisor.
The
commenter
suggests
that,
because
the
firm
is
certified
to
perform
lead
abatement
activities,
notice
from
the
certified
firm
should
be
sufficient.

EPA
response:

EPA
has
an
interest
in
verifying
that
the
project
will
be
overseen
by
a
certified
supervisor
as
required
by
the
regulation;
however,
on
re­
examination
in
light
of
the
commenter's
question,

EPA
believes
that
the
notification
need
not
be
signed
by
a
certified
supervisor.
EPA
has
modified
the
requirement
in
the
final
rule
to
indicate
that
a
representative
of
the
firm
may
sign
the
document,
and
EPA
will
also
add
a
requirement
that
the
name
and
certification
number
of
the
supervisor
overseeing
the
project
be
included
in
the
notification.

1(
h)
Emergency
Notification
Requirements
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
1)
requesting
clarification
regarding
the
proposed
emergency
notification
provisions.
The
commenter
asks
if
previously
hidden
conditions
qualify
as
a
response
to
an
emergency,
such
as
when
a
rehabilitation
is
being
conducted
and
lead
is
identified
after
the
start
of
work.

EPA
response:

No,
previously
hidden
conditions
are
not
emergencies
for
the
purposes
of
this
regulation
and
do
not
qualify
for
abbreviated
notification
time
periods.
In
the
proposed
regulation
EPA
identified
two
instances
for
which
an
abbreviated
notification
time
period
was
appropriate:
1)

response
to
a
determination
that
a
child
has
an
elevated
blood
lead
level
(
EBL);
or
2)
response
to
Page
10
of
24
a
Federal,
State,
Tribal,
or
local
emergency
abatement
order.
In
these
instances
EPA
indicated
that
notice
must
be
received
by
EPA
as
early
as
possible
before,
but
not
later
than
the
day
leadbased
paint
abatement
activities
begin.
In
addition,
documentation
showing
evidence
of
an
EBL
determination
or
a
copy
of
the
Federal/
State/
Tribal/
Local
emergency
abatement
order
must
be
included
in
the
written
notification
to
take
advantage
of
this
abbreviated
notification
period.

EPA
would
like
to
make
clear
that,
where
the
intent
of
the
project
is
something
other
than
the
permanent
elimination
of
lead­
based
paint
hazards,
such
as
rehabilitation,
finding
lead
or
lead
hazards
does
not
necessarily
change
the
project
to
an
abatement.
Where
such
a
finding
occurs,

and
the
owner
or
property
manager
determines
that
he/
she
wishes
to
pursue
the
permanent
elimination
of
lead­
based
paint
hazards,
then
that
portion
of
the
project
would
require
the
use
of
a
certified
lead­
based
paint
abatement
firm
and
compliance
with
the
this
rule's
initial
notification
requirements.

2.
Training
Program
Notification
2(
a)
How
Will
Course
Information
Provided
by
Training
Programs
Be
Used?

Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
7)
asking
whether
finalization
of
this
rule
would
mean
that
training
courses
could
be
inspected
by
the
federal
government
at
any
time.

EPA
response:

Yes,
as
discussed
in
the
proposal
EPA
sought
to
establish
notification
provisions
to
provide
EPA
compliance
monitoring
and
enforcement
personnel
with
information
necessary
to
not
only
track
compliance
activities,
but
also
to
prioritize
inspections.
The
requirements
of
the
proposal
were
designed
to
assist
in
the
prioritization
of
inspections
by
providing
EPA's
Page
11
of
24
enforcement
and
compliance
monitoring
personnel
with
adequate
time
and
information
needed
to
thoroughly
review,
select,
and
prepare
for
inspections.

2(
b)
Time
Period
for
Initial
Training
Notification
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
6)
regarding
the
time
period
for
initial
training
notification.

The
commenter
expressed
concern
that
a
ten­
business­
day
notification
could
hamper
the
ability
of
firms
and
individuals
in
the
lead­
based
paint
abatement
field
to
obtain
training
quickly.
The
commenter
recommends
that
EPA
pilot
test
a
five­
business­
day
notification
period
and,
if
successful
reflect
the
change
in
a
future
rulemaking.

EPA
response:

EPA
is
concerned
that
the
proposed
ten­
business­
day
notification
period
could
prevent
individuals
from
obtaining
timely
lead­
based
paint
activities
training.
The
final
rule
is,

therefore,
modified
to
include
a
seven­
business­
day
initial
notification
period
for
lead­
based
paint
activities
training.
EPA
considered
the
commenter's
recommendation
of
a
five­
business­
day
notification
period,
but
instead
chose
a
seven­
business­
day
period.
During
this
period
EPA
performs
many
activities
such
as
processing
the
notification,
making
a
determination
of
whether
a
compliance
inspection
is
needed,
preparing
a
travel
authorization,
providing
a
pre­
inspection
notification,
performing
a
preliminary
compliance
review,
and
completing
travel
arrangements.

Seven
business
days
was
determined
to
be
the
minimum
time
required
by
EPA
enforcement
and
compliance
assistance
personnel
to
ensure
their
arrival
for
the
start
of
training.
The
inspector's
arrival
at
the
beginning
of
training
is
critical
because
the
entire
course
is
often
observed.
This
is
different
from
an
abatement
inspection
where
the
inspector
will
routinely
monitor
only
a
portion
Page
12
of
24
of
the
project.

2(
c)
Time
Period
for
Updated
Training
Notification
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
4
and
#
11)
regarding
the
time
period
for
updated
training
notification.

Commenter
#
4
believes
that
providing
a
two
business
day
notification
for
course
cancellation
is
impractical
because
training
programs
often
must
cancel
training
courses
for
lack
of
enrollment.
Often
such
cancellation
will
occur
on
the
date
of
training
because
the
training
program
cannot
guarantee
attendance,
and
(
according
to
the
commenter)
only
about
80%
of
students
actually
attend
the
courses.
Other
situations,
such
as
dropouts
after
the
first
day
of
class,

may
force
the
training
director
to
cancel
the
class
during
the
actual
dates
of
training,
making
a
two­
business­
day
notification
impossible.

Commenter
#
11
believes
that
EPA
should
always
have
at
least
ten­
business­
days
notice
and
is
concerned
that
the
proposed
requirements
for
notification
of
a
course
delay
would
allow
lead­
based
paint
activities
training
to
begin
with
as
little
as
3
days
notice
(
if
notification
of
a
oneday
delay
was
provided
to
EPA
two
days
prior
to
the
original
start
date).

EPA
Response:

EPA
believes
that
a
two­
business­
day
notification
for
updated
training
is
necessary
to
prevent
EPA
enforcement
and
compliance
assistance
personnel
from
unnecessarily
wasting
EPA's
time
and
funding
by
arriving
at
canceled
training.
Many
training
programs
already
have
procedures
in
place
to
ensure
attendance
at
scheduled
training
courses.
For
example,
many
training
programs
contact
trainees
to
verify
their
attendance
prior
to
the
course
offering.
Page
13
of
24
One
commenter
indicated
that
EPA
should
receive
a
ten­
business­
day
notification
following
notice
of
an
updated
start
date.
EPA
disagrees
with
this
comment
because
in
all
cases,

EPA
will
be
provided
at
least
a
seven­
business­
day
notice
(
based
on
discussion
in
section
2(
b))

from
the
date
of
initial
notification.
During
this
period
EPA
performs
many
activities
such
as
processing
the
notification,
making
a
determination
of
whether
a
compliance
inspection
is
needed,

preparing
a
travel
authorization,
providing
a
pre­
inspection
notification,
performing
a
preliminary
compliance
review,
and
completing
travel
arrangements.
Most
of
these
activities
need
not
be
repeated
if
the
start
date
of
a
project
is
delayed,
therefore,
it
would
be
redundant
to
require
an
additional
seven
business
day
notification
following
a
submission
of
a
delayed
start
date.

2(
d)
Need
for
Emergency
Training
Notification
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
2
and
#
6)
regarding
the
lack
of
emergency
training
provisions
in
the
proposed
regulation.
Commenter
#
6
explains
that
in
areas
of
the
country
having
shortages
of
certified
persons,
it
may
be
necessary
to
provide
emergency
training
and,

accordingly,
recommends
an
emergency
exception
similar
to
that
provided
for
abatement.

Commenter
#
2
points
out
that
companies
often
request
training
at
the
last
minute,
and
suggests
emergency
requirements
similar
to
the
New
York
City
asbestos
program
where
a
three­

businessday
notification
is
allowed
when
accompanied
by
a
student
roster.

EPA
Response:

EPA
has
no
evidence
to
suggest
that
an
emergency
training
provision
is
necessary
or
would
be
helpful
for
lead­
based
paint
activities
training.
However,
as
indicated
in
section
2(
c)
of
this
document,
EPA
has
reduced
the
initial
notification
time
period
from
10
to
7
business
days.
Page
14
of
24
This
reduction
should
provide
some
relief
where
training
is
needed
quickly.

2(
e)
Request
that
Certification
Information
be
Provided
to
Trainers
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
5)
requesting
that
training
programs
be
provided
with
a
list
of
the
students
they
have
trained
that
have
received
certification.
The
commenter
explains
that
it
is
understood
that
accredited
training
providers
are
responsible
for
notifying
the
certified
individuals
they
have
trained
in
the
past
when
their
refreshers
are
due,
or
when
new
information
regarding
the
lead
program
needs
to
reach
them.

EPA
Response:

EPA
believes
such
notification
would
be
redundant,
as
EPA
currently
notifies
certified
individuals
several
months
before
their
certification
expiration,
informing
them
of
the
steps
necessary
to
renew
their
certification.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
that
through
the
course
of
initial
and
refresher
training
a
mechanism
is
in
place
to
provide
information
to
certified
individuals
related
to
regulatory
and
technological
changes
associated
with
the
industry.
When
appropriate
EPA
may
also
provide
written
notification
to
certified
individuals,
firms,
and/
or
training
programs
indicating
important
changes.

2(
f)
Student
Information
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
6
and
#
10)
regarding
student
information
which
the
proposal
would
require
training
programs
to
provide
to
EPA.

Commenter
#
6
believes
the
requirement
for
the
student
information
should
be
broadened
to
allow
the
date
of
birth
of
the
student
to
be
provided
instead
of
their
social
security
number.
Page
15
of
24
The
commenter
states
that
trainees
are
often
reluctant
to
provide
valid
social
security
numbers
and
believes
that
a
date
of
birth
would
be
as
reliable
an
indicator
of
the
student's
identity
as
an
incorrect
or
missing
social
security
number.

Commenter
#
10
does
not
believe
that
student
test
scores
should
be
included
in
the
notification
to
EPA.
The
commenter
states
that
most
training
providers
do
not
provide
test
scores
to
anyone
except
the
student,
and
believes
that
the
student's
final
score
is
not
important,

only
whether
they
pass
or
fail.
The
commenter
believes
that
providing
student
exam
scores
to
a
regulatory
agency
could
be
intimidating
and
embarrassing
for
the
students.
Also,
the
commenter
notes
that
no
State
in
EPA
Region
4
requires
scores;
these
states
supply
only
a
list
of
students
with
pass/
fail
information.

EPA
Response:

EPA
agrees
that
a
student's
date
of
birth
in
conjunction
with
other
required
information
is
a
reliable
indicator
of
the
student's
identity.
Therefore,
the
final
regulation
eliminates
the
requirement
that
training
programs
provide
a
student's
social
security
number
and,
instead,

requires
that
the
student's
date
of
birth
must
be
reported.

The
final
rule
retains
the
requirement
that
the
training
program
provide
EPA
with
student
test
score
information.
Training
program
record­
keeping
requirements
at
40
CFR
745.225(
i)(
iv)

require
that
trainers
maintain
and
make
available
to
EPA
upon
request
the
results
of
student
course
tests.
These
test
scores
provide
useful
information
in
the
evaluation
of
training
program
performance.
EPA's
use
of
these
test
scores
will
be
confined
to
training
program
performance
evaluation
activities.
Any
publication
of
the
results
would
not
identify
students
by
name.

2(
g)
Alternatives
for
Training
Program
Notification
Page
16
of
24
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
7)
offering
an
alternative
to
training
program
notification.

The
commenter
suggests
that
lead
abatement
workers
be
required
to
provide
proof
of
their
training
via
license
card
or
certificate
maintained
by
their
employer,
rather
than
requiring
notification
of
every
training
course
offered.

EPA
Response:

Presently,
certified
lead
abatement
firms
are
required
to
maintain
information
regarding
the
certification
of
their
workers,
but
this
requirement
only
ensures
that
the
employees
of
a
certified
firm
conducting
lead­
based
paint
abatement
activities
are
certified.
The
purpose
of
the
training
program
notification
described
in
the
proposal
is
to
monitor
and
ensure
the
quality
of
the
training
the
individuals
received.
EPA
will
use
the
training
program
information
provided
in
accordance
with
these
notification
requirements
to
give
Agency
enforcement
and
compliance
assistance
staff
the
opportunity
to
attend
and
evaluate
lead­
based
paint
activities
training
courses.

3.
How
Notification
is
Provided
3(
a)
Requirement
to
Follow
E­
mail
Notification
with
Written
Notification
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
2
and
#
7)
regarding
the
requirement
to
follow
e­
mail
notification
with
written
notification.
Both
commenters
indicate
e­
mail
notification
should
be
sufficient,
and
that
a
follow­
up
written
notification
would
be
redundant
and
increase
the
paperwork
burden
of
both
government
and
industry.

EPA
Response:

Beginning
January
1,
2003
EPA
plans
to
use
it's
Central
Data
Exchange
(
CDX)
to
receive
Page
17
of
24
electronic
notification
submitted
to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
this
regulation.
One
of
the
basic
purposes
of
the
CDX
system
is
to
provide
a
method
of
electronic
signature
verification
which
would
eliminate
the
need
for
written
notification
following
an
electronic
submission.

3(
b)
E­
mail
Satisfying
Time
Requirements
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
7)
which
states
that
allowing
the
original
e­
mail
to
satisfy
the
applicable
notification
time
requirements
is
a
good
idea.

EPA
Response:

EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
will
clarify
in
the
final
rule
that
the
date
which
the
electronic
submission
was
made
will
apply
to
the
applicable
notification
time
period.

3(
c)
Use
of
the
Central
Data
Exchange
(
CDX)

Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
7)
on
the
use
of
CDX.
The
commenter
believes
that
the
development
of
the
"
Central
Data
Exchange"
(
CDX)
for
reporting
and
notification,
should
the
rule
go
into
effect,
is
an
excellent
idea.

EPA
Response:

EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
and
beginning
January
1,
2003
will
accept
abatement
and
training
program
notifications
through
the
CDX
system.
CDX
offers
a
faster,
easier,
more
secure
reporting
option,
and
provides
built­
in
data
quality
checks,
web
forms,
standard
file
formats,
and
a
user
friendly
approach
to
reporting
data.

CDX
Helps
Reporting
Entities
By:
Page
18
of
24
°
Reducing
their
reporting
burden
and
associated
costs.

°
Enabling
automated,
machine
to
machine
transactions
eliminating
tedious
paper
forms
and
redundant
data
entry.

°
Ensuring
a
secure
electronic
environment.

°
Improving
data
quality
through
built­
in
edit
and
data
quality
checks.

°
Offering
faster,
easier
click­
and­
send
reporting
with
one
consistent
point
of
entry
for
reporting,
one
streamlined
set
of
procedures,
and
one
password.

°
Confirming
EPA's
receipt
of
their
data.

°
Translating
and
distributing
incoming
data
to
the
appropriate
data
system.

CDX
Helps
EPA
By:

°
Centralizing
receipt,
security,
user
authentication,
archiving,
translation,

distribution
and
related
user
support
services
for
incoming
data.

°
Eliminating
redundant
infrastructure
and
its
associated
cost.

°
Enabling
the
Agency
to
streamline
and
simplify
compliance
reporting
for
everyone.

3(
d)
Ability
to
Use
Other
Forms
If
Information
Is
the
Same
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
3
and
#
6)
regarding
the
use
of
other
forms
containing
the
information
required
in
the
proposal.
Both
commenters
suggest
EPA
minimize
respondent
burden
by
allowing
the
use
of
other
forms
as
long
as
they
provide
the
same
information
required
under
the
EPA
rule.
Commenter
#
3
currently
provides
notification
to
the
City
of
New
York
and
states
that
being
able
to
continue
to
use
the
existing
forms
would
reduce
confusion
and
minimize
Page
19
of
24
additional
paperwork
for
lead
abatement
contractors
complying
with
both
the
City
and
EPA
notification
requirements.

EPA
Response:

EPA
understands
that
allowing
alternative
forms
can
reduce
respondent
burden
and
agrees
that
other
forms
may
be
used
if
they
contain
the
information
required
by
EPA.
EPA's
proposed
regulation
allowed
the
use
of
alternative
forms,
and
the
final
regulation
allows
the
use
of
alternative
forms
which
contain
the
information
required
by
EPA.

4.
Terminology
Comments:

EPA
received
two
comments
(#
6
and
#
11)
regarding
terminology
used
in
the
proposed
regulation.

Commenter
#
6
believes
the
use
of
the
phrase
"
lead­
based
paint
activities"
encompasses
too
broad
a
range
of
activities
for
this
rulemaking,
which
addresses
only
certification
training
and
abatement.
The
commenter
suggests
that
EPA
clarify
that
the
rule
establishes
notification
procedures
for
certified
lead
abatement
professionals
conducting
lead­
based
paint
certification
training
or
abatement.

Commenter
#
1
states
that
40
CFR
745.227(
b)(
v)
reads:
".
.
.
prior
to
the
project
start
date.",
when
it
should
read:
".
.
.
prior
to
the
original
start
date."
The
commenter
believes
that
the
effect
of
the
way
it
currently
reads
is
that
you
could
update
the
notification
after
the
original
date
has
long
passed,
as
long
as
you
give
notification
at
least
two
days
before
the
revised
project
start
date.

EPA
Response:
Page
20
of
24
"
Lead­
based
paint
activities,"
as
defined
at
40
CFR
745.223,
includes
inspection,
risk
assessment,
and
abatement
in
target
housing
and
child
occupied
facilities.
With
regards
to
abatement
notification,
EPA
agrees
that
"
lead
based
paint
activities"
is
too
broad
a
term
because
notification
is
not
required
when
lead­
based
paint
inspection
or
risk
assessments
are
conducted.

Therefore,
lead­
based
paint
abatement
activities
are
specified
in
the
final
rule
to
prevent
any
confusion.
Regarding
training
program
notification,
EPA
believes
that
the
training
courses
requiring
notification
are
properly
defined.
A
definition
of
lead­
based
paint
activities
courses
was
introduced
in
the
notification
proposal
and
includes
abatement
training
courses
(
worker,

supervisor,
inspector,
risk
assessor,
and
project
designer)
provided
by
an
accredited
training
program.
The
commenter's
suggestion
that
only
certification
training
requires
notification
is
wrong
because
EPA
accredits
training
programs
to
provide
abatement
training
and
requires
notification
of
all
instances
of
this
training
regardless
of
the
intent
of
the
student(
s)
to
seek
certification
at
a
later
date.

EPA
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
interchanging
the
terms
"
original
start
date"
and
"
project
start
date"
is
confusing
and
potentially
problematic.
In
the
final
rule
EPA
will
standardize
this
language
and
refer
to
these
dates
consistently
to
prevent
such
confusion.

5.
Imposition
of
fees
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
6)
regarding
fees
associated
with
the
notification
requirements
of
the
proposal.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
preamble
and
proposed
rule
are
silent
on
fees,
but
believes
that
no
additional
cost
burden
should
be
imposed
because
lead
abatement
firms
pay
a
certification
fee
intended
to
cover
EPA's
compliance
costs,
and
because
Page
21
of
24
such
a
fee
would
deter
compliance
with
the
rule.
The
commenter
also
believes
that
EPA
should
recommend
that
States
with
authorized
programs
should
not
impose
an
additional
cost
burden,

for
the
same
reason.

EPA
Response:

Congress
directed
EPA
to
recover
the
costs
of
administering
and
enforcing
the
lead­
based
paint
activities
regulations,
and
in
doing
so
EPA
developed
and
published
fees
for
the
certification
of
individuals
and
firms
and
the
accreditation
of
training
programs
(
see
40
CFR
745­
238).
These
fees
were
developed
separately
from
this
rulemaking
and
the
initial
fees
established
were
meant
to
include
the
costs
associated
with
Agency
notification.
However,
EPA
has
made
it
clear
that
it
will
periodically
evaluate
the
fees
in
light
of
changing
economic
conditions
to
ensure
that
administrative
and
enforcement
costs
are
recovered.
EPA
does
not
establish
fees
associated
with
the
notification
provisions
of
this
regulation,
but
will
not
rule
out
the
future
introduction
of
such
fees
if
deemed
necessary
to
recover
the
costs
of
administering
and
enforcing
the
program.

Regarding
State
fees,
EPA,
by
direction
of
Congress,
is
responsible
for
recovering
the
cost
of
administering
and
enforcing
the
Federal
lead­
based
paint
activities
program.
EPA's
authorized
State
and
Tribal
programs
address
program
costs
and
fee
collection
based
on
the
legislative
and/
or
regulatory
requirements
of
the
particular
State
or
Tribe.

6.
Lead­
Based
Paint
Abatement
Exemptions
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
8)
regarding
the
lead­
based
paint
abatement
exemptions.

The
commenter
states
that
the
Act
(
Title
X)
seems
to
have
inherent
deficiencies
providing
cracks
in
the
law
that
are
large
and
forgiving
to
violators.
Page
22
of
24
EPA
Response:

EPA
believes
this
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
and
the
Agency
declines
to
respond
to
this
comment
at
this
time.

7.
Applicability
to
Property
Owners
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
8)
regarding
the
applicability
of
the
proposal
to
property
owners.
The
commenter
notes
that
the
proposal
carries
no
force
to
bring
compliance
by
the
owners
of
targeted
residences,
and
suggests
that
the
rule
should
place
some
burden
on
the
property
owner
to
comply
EPA
Response:

EPA
believes
this
is
beyond
the
scope
of
the
proposed
rule
and
the
Agency
declines
to
respond
to
this
comment
at
this
time.

8.
Paperwork
Burden
Comments:

EPA
received
one
comment
(#
7)
regarding
the
paperwork
burden
of
the
proposed
rule.

The
commenter
believes
that
the
proposed
notification
requirements
are
an
unwarranted
paperwork
burden
(
time
and
cost
of
compliance)
for
the
industry
and
the
government.
The
commenter
also
believes
that,
when
one
considers
the
number
of
workers
that
might
be
trained
on
a
national
level,
requiring
training
program
notification
would
represent
an
undue
paperwork
burden
for
both
the
trainers
and
the
government.

EPA
Response:

This
proposal
does
introduce
notification
requirements
which
increase
the
paperwork
Page
23
of
24
burden
associated
with
lead­
based
paint
activities
firms
and
training
programs.
However,
EPA
does
not
agree
that
this
burden
presents
an
"
incredible"
paperwork
burden
or
that
the
requirements
are
unwarranted.

First,
while
EPA
acknowledges
that
this
regulation
institutes
additional
paperwork
burden,

it
does
not
believe
that
the
rule
is
overly
burdensome,
and
EPA
has
done
much
to
minimize
burden.
EPA
has
reduced
respondent
burden
by
allowing
notification
delivery
methods
other
than
traditional
mail
delivery,
such
as:
using
fax,
electronic
submission
with
signature
verification
through
the
Agency's
Central
Data
Exchange
(
CDX);
and
by
reducing
notification
time
periods
originally
introduced
in
the
proposal.

Second,
it
is
important
to
note
that
EPA
is
responsible
for
ensuring
that
persons
engaged
in
lead­
based
paint
activities
are
adequately
trained,
and
that
work
practice
standards
which
ensure
the
safety
of
the
occupants
of
target
housing
and
child
occupied
facilities
are
protected
from
the
adverse
affects
of
exposure
to
lead
contaminates.
Through
these
notification
requirements
will
be
better
able
to:
1)
ensure
quality
training
through
review
of
training
presentations
and
auditing
of
training
program
records,
2)
verify
that
contractors
are
adequately
trained
by
ensuring
their
training
and
certification
credentials
are
genuine,
and
3)
ensure
contractors
adhere
to
appropriate
work
practice
standards
to
protect
occupants
by
assisting
in
the
prioritization
and
scheduling
of
work
area
inspections
and
audits
of
lead
activities
firms
records.
Page
24
of
24
9.
Commenters
#
Commenter
1
Anonymous
2
Joseph
A.
Syracuse,
Ph.
D.
Director,
Hazardous
Materials
Education
State
University
of
New
York
at
Buffalo
3
Harold
Shultz
Special
Counsel
Department
of
Housing
Preservation
and
Development
New
York
City
4
Juan
Herrera
Director
Senagryph
Training
Facilities
5
Kathy
Lauckner
Training
Manager
University
of
Nevada,
Las
Vegas
6
Warren
Friedman,
Ph.
D.
Office
of
Healthy
Homes
and
Lead
Hazard
Control
U.
S.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
7
Michael
R.
Taylor
Executive
Director
National
Association
of
Demolition
Contractors
8
Patrick
Halnon
Orwell,
Vermont
9
Tom
Gabriel
10
Vicki
Hanrahan
Ainslie
Senior
Research
Scientist
Georgia
Tech
Research
Institute,
Atlanta
11
Michael
Gieryic
U.
S.
EPA
Region
7
