[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 45 (Friday, March 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13170-13171]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04591]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3768]

Best Practices in Drug and Biological Product Postmarket Safety
Surveillance for Food and Drug Administration Staff; Draft Document;
Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
reopening the comment period for the notice entitled ``Best Practices
in Drug and Biological Product Postmarket Safety Surveillance for FDA
Staff; Draft Document; Availability; Establishment of Public Docket;
Request for Comments'' that appeared in the Federal Register of
November 7, 2019. The Agency is taking this action to allow interested
persons additional time to submit comments.

DATES: FDA is reopening the comment period for the notice published on
November 7, 2019 (84 FR 60094). Submit either electronic or written
comments by May 5, 2020, to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft document before it begins work on the final
version.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-3768 for ``Best Practices in Drug and Biological Product
Postmarket Safety Surveillance for FDA Staff.'' Received comments will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft document to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eileen Wu, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 22, Rm. 3472, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of November 7, 2019 (84 FR 60094), FDA
published a notice with a 60-day comment period to request comments on
the draft document entitled ``Best Practices in Drug and Biological
Product Postmarket Safety Surveillance for FDA Staff.'' FDA is
reopening the comment period until May 5, 2020. The Agency believes
that an additional 60 days will allow adequate time for interested
persons to submit comments without compromising the timely publication
of the final version of the draft document.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft document
``Best Practices in Drug and Biological Product Postmarket Safety
Surveillance for FDA Staff'' at https://www.fda.gov/media/130216/download.

    Dated: March 2, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-04591 Filed 3-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44121-44123]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0211]
RIN 2105-AE07

Notice of Submission of Proposed Information Collection to OMB
Agency Request for Renewal of a Previously Approved Information
Collection Request: Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving
Animals During Air Transport

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(Department or DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
this notice announces that the request to renew the previously approved
information collection request (ICR) OMB No. 2105-0552, ``Reports by
Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport,'' has
been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
current ICR approved by OMB expires August 31, 2018. DOT published a
Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the collection of information on May 21, 2018.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by September 28, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. DOT-OST-
2010-0211) through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590,

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal
Holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vinh Q. Nguyen, Senior Trial Attorney,
Office of the General Counsel, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, 20590,
202-366-9342 (Voice),<PHONE_NUMBER> (Fax), or [email protected]
(Email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA and its implementing regulations, 5
CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking
public comment on information collection activities before OMB may
approve paperwork packages. On May 21, 2018, the Department published a
60-day notice in the Federal Register \1\ soliciting comment on the
renewal of the previously approved ICR OMB No. 2105-0552, ``Reports by
Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport.'' \2\
The Department received two comments in response to the notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 83 FR 23524 (May 21, 2018).
    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) states that the
current reporting requirements should be retained and renewed. PIJAC
explains that there are an increased number of people traveling with,
or shipping, their pets. PIJAC states even though the number of
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal is small,
the publicity of such incidents is growing. PIJAC believes that
transparency is the best method for confirming that incidents involving
the loss, injury, or death of an animal are in fact extremely rare.
    The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) also supports
the renewal of the ICR. AVMA states that the information collected and
provided in the reports is vital for ongoing analysis of adverse events
and effective identification of areas of focus for prevention of future
incidents. AMVA states that public access to these reports is important
for animal owners researching and deciding whether air travel is a
responsible option for their animal, as well as for veterinarians whose
clients often approach them for recommendations regarding
transportation options. AVMA suggests expanding the reporting
requirement to include the following information: incidents involving
the loss, injury, or death of an animal transported within the cabin;
standard names for dog breeds; results of internal investigations and
necropsies; and additional details on the nature, extent, and
conditions of the animal's travel. AVMA also suggests a number of ways
the reporting burden could be minimized, such as a creating a
simplified reporting interface with drop-down selections, allowing an
option to import veterinary health certificate information, reducing
the frequency of the reports from monthly to quarterly, and providing
covered carriers an option to update records with pertinent information
after the filing deadline.
    We carefully considered all of the comments filed in response the
notice requesting the renewal of the previously approved ICR OMB No.
2105-0552, ``Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport.'' Accordingly, the Department announces that this
ICR has been re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and
forwarded to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment.\3\ Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published.\4\ OMB believes that the
30-day notice informs the regulated community to file relevant comments
and affords the agency adequate time to digest public comments before
it renders a decision.\5\ Therefore, respondents should submit their
respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure
their full consideration. The summaries below describe the nature of
the ICR and the expected burden. The unchanged requirements are being
submitted for clearance by OMB as required by the PRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d).
    \4\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d).
    \5\ 60 FR 44978, 44983 (August 29, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0552.
    Type of Request: Renewal of currently approved Information
Collection Request.
    Background: The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act
for the 21st Century or ``AIR-21'' (Pub. L. 106-181), which was signed
into law on April 5, 2000, includes section 710, ``Reports by Carriers
on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport.'' This provision
was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41721. The statute requires air carriers that
provide scheduled passenger air transportation to submit monthly to the
Secretary of Transportation a report on any incidents involving the
loss, injury, or death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of
Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier.
    On August 11, 2003, DOT, through its Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), issued a final rule implementing section 710 of
AIR-21.\6\ The rule required air carriers that provide scheduled
passenger air transportation to submit a report to APHIS on any
incident involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air
transportation provided by the air carrier. Due to issues regarding
whether APHIS had the capability to accept such information directly
from the carriers, DOT made a technical change in the rule on February
14, 2005, to require air carriers to submit the required information
directly to DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division (ACPD) rather
than APHIS and to make the rule part of DOT's economic regulations.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Reporting Directive Regarding Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport, 68 FR 47798 (August 11, 2003).
    \7\ Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport, 70 FR 7392 (February 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 3, 2014, DOT published a final rule amending the
requirement that air carriers file reports with DOT on the loss,
injury, or death of animals during air transport.\8\ The rule (1)
expanded the reporting requirement from the largest U.S. carriers
(i.e., U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenue) to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled
service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than
60 seats; (2) expanded the definition of ``animal'' from only a pet in
a family household to include all cats and dogs transported by covered
carriers, regardless of whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet
by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment (e.g., shipped by a
breeder); (3) required covered carriers to file a calendar-year report
in December, even if the carrier did not have any reportable incidents
during the calendar year; (4) required covered carriers to provide in
their December reports the total number of animals that were lost,
injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year; and (5)
required covered carriers to provide in their December reports the
total number of animals transported in the calendar year. On August 25,
2015, OMB approved the information collection request, ``Reports by Air

Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport,'' through
August 31, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals
During Air Transport, 79 FR 37938 (July 3, 2014) (codified at 14 CFR
part 235).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted earlier, on May 21, 2018, DOT published a Federal Register
notice with a 60-day comment period to renew this ICR. The comment
period closed July 20, 2018.
    In order to reduce burden to covered carriers, the ACPD established
a website and online system for filing the required reports, http://animalreport.ost.dot.gov. This system enables covered carriers to
easily and efficiently submit their reports through the internet rather
than sending the reports to the Department by mail or email.
    Respondents: U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service
with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more
than 60 seats.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 32.
    Frequency: For each respondent, one information set for the month
of December, plus one information set during some other months (1 to
12).
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: (1) Monthly reports of
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of animals during air
transport: 0 to 384 hours (Respondents [32] x Time to Prepare One
Monthly Report [1 hour] x Frequency [0 to 12 per year]). (2) December
report containing the total number of animals that were lost, injured,
or died during air transport in the calendar year and the total number
of animals that were transported in the calendar year: 16 hours
(Respondents [32] x Time to Prepare One December Report [0.5 hour] x
Frequency [1 per year]).
    Public comments invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. All comments
will become a matter of public record.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.27(n).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 23, 2018
Blane A. Workie,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings.
[FR Doc. 2018-18730 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


From:
Kiechle, Fredric S<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Thursday, August 4, 2016 2:29 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Zavoda, Rich<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Hill, John R<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Coke MACT ICR submittal, ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor LLC sections I-III attachments only, email #4-14

Dr. Jones, find attached in email #4-14 ICR requested reports for Q4 2014.

F. Scott Kiechle  Sr. Engineer-Environmental
ArcelorMittal Burns Harbor
Maintenance, Environmental & Utilities | 250 W. U.S. Highway 12 Burns Harbor, IN 46304-9745
T +219 787 4968 | F +219 787 4973  | M +219 313 2661  | www.arcelormittal.c
 Qapla'!

<< Q4 14  IDEM 4th Qtr_#1_ COMS.pdf >>
<< Q4 14 2H14 Coke Semiannual MACT Report.pdf >>
<< Q4 14 2H14 Semiannual Compliance Cert  CO Bleeders 2S14.pdf >>
<< Q4 14 Benzene_FF.pdf >>
<< Q4 14 Benzene_L_2S14.pdf >>
<< Q4 14 Benzene_L_2S14_Attach.pdf >>
<< Q4 14 COB2_Att5_VEE.pdf >>
<< Q4 14 FINAL   IDEM 4th Qtr #2_ COMS.pdf >>
<< Q4 14 MACT COMS.pdf >>


 [Federal Register Volume 84, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2019)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 9243] [FR Doc No: 2019-04792]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 1065

Engine-Testing Procedures

CFR Correction

0 In Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1060 to End,  revised as of July 1, 2018, on page 230, in Sec.  1065.670, paragraph  (a) introductory text is reinstated to read as follows:

 Sec.  1065.670  NOX intake-air humidity and temperature corrections.

* * * * *     (a) For compression-ignition engines, correct for intake-air  humidity using the following equation: * * * * * [FR Doc. 2019-04792 Filed 3-13-19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20528-20530]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1386; Airspace Docket No. 11-ANE-11]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification, Revocation and Establishment of Air Traffic Service
Routes; Windsor Locks Area; CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies four VOR Federal airways, revokes one VOR
Federal airway, and establishes three area navigation (RNAV) routes in
the vicinity of Windsor Locks, CT. The FAA is taking this action to
adjust the airway route structure due to the planned decommissioning of
the Bradley VHF omnirange/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) aid located
on Bradley International Airport, Windsor Locks, CT. This action also
adjusts the termination point of V-203 due to Canadian airspace
reconfiguration.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, May 31, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace, Regulations
and ATC Procedures Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On January 24, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to modify certain VOR Federal airways

and establish RNAV routes in the vicinity of Windsor Locks, CT, due to
the planned decommissioning of the Bradley VORTAC (77 FR 3415).
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. One comment was
received from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association which
expressed support for the proposal.

Differences From NPRM

    Since publication of the NPRM, Canada put into effect a
reconfiguration of airway structure that affects the segment of V-203
that lies within Canadian airspace. Currently, that segment extends
between the Massena, NY, 047[deg] radial and the Montreal, Canada,
188[deg] radial, to Montreal. Due to the reconfiguration, V-203 no
longer terminates at Montreal. The new termination point is the FRANX
fix, which is defined by the intersection of the Massena, NY, 047[deg]
and the St Jean, Canada 270[deg] radials. This change lies entirely
within Canadian airspace.
    A number of points were removed from the descriptions of T-212, T-
255 and T-300 because the points are not needed to form the alignment
of the routes.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulation (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying VOR Federal airways V-130, V-203, V-405 and V-419;
revoking V-205; and establishes RNAV routes T-212, T-255, and T-300.
These changes are required due to the planned decommissioning of the
Bradley VORTAC in 2012.
    V-130, currently extending from the Albany, NY, VORTAC, through the
Bradley VORTAC, to the Martha's Vineyard, MA, VOR/DME, this action is
modified by eliminating the segment that extends from the Albany, NY,
VORTAC, to the Bradley VORTAC, to the Norwich, CT, VOR/DME. The
modified V-130 originates at the Norwich VOR/DME and follows the
existing route to the Martha's Vineyard, MA, VOR/DME.
    V-203 is extended to encompass a part of V-130 that is being
removed as described above. V-203 currently begins at the Albany, NY,
VORTAC and ends at the Montreal, Canada, VOR/DME. The extended segment
of V-203 runs southeast from the Albany VORTAC to the existing STELA
intersection (formed by the intersection of the Albany 134[deg] and the
Chester, MA, VOR/DME 266[deg] radials). At that point, flights may link
with other VOR Federal airways. In addition, the termination point of
V-203 is modified to match the Canadian airway changes (noted above),
and now terminates at the FRANX fix, located in Canadian airspace,
instead of the Montreal VOR/DME.
    V-205 is removed in its entirety because other existing airways are
available that provide for navigation to and from Putnam (V-205
currently extends from the COATE intersection 8 NM northwest of the
Sparta, NJ, VORTAC to the Putnam, CT, VOR/DME.) In addition, a new RNAV
route (T-212) overlies part of the V-205 route and terminates at
Putnam.
    V-405 is realigned to bypass the Bradley VORTAC and is routed
through the Barnes, MA, VORTAC (located approximately 13 NM north of
Bradley). The airway then proceeds through the Putnam, CT, VOR/DME to
the Providence, RI, VORTAC and resumes the currently published route to
Martha's Vineyard, MA.
    V-419, currently extending between the Westminster, MD, VORTAC, and
the Boston, MA, VOR/DME, now extends between Westminster, MD and the
existing BRISS intersection (formed by the intersection of the Carmel,
NY, VOR/DME 045[deg] and the Madison, CT, 328[deg] radials). The route
segments between the BRISS intersection and Boston are eliminated.
Alternative routing to Boston is available using other existing airways
and/or via the new RNAV routes.
    The FAA is also establishing three new RNAV routes, designated T-
212, T-255 and T-300. T-212 extends between the WEARD, NY, fix and the
Putnam, CT, VOR/DME. T-212 overlies V-205, which is removed.
    T-255 extends between the NELIE, CT, waypoint (WP) and the Martha's
Vineyard, MA, VOR/DME. It overlies that portion of V-405 that is being
removed as described above.
    T-300 extends between the Albany, NY, VORTAC and the Martha's
Vineyard, MA, VOR/DME. This route overlies another portion of V-130
that is removed under this action.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010, and RNAV
routes are published in paragraph 6011, respectively, of FAA Order
7400.9V dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
and RNAV routes listed in this document will be subsequently published
in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation because the anticipated impact
is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
because it amends the airway structure to ensure the continuity of air
navigation capability in the Windsor Locks, CT, area and expands the
availability of RNAV routes within the NAS.
    Radials listed in this rule are expressed in degrees relative to
True North.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action is categorically excluded
from further environmental documentation according to FAA Order
1050.1E, paragraph 311a, 311b, and 311i. The implementation of this
action will not result in any extraordinary circumstances in accordance
with paragraph 304 of Order 1050.1E.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9V,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011 and
effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010 VOR federal airways.

* * * * *

V-130 [Amended]

    From Norwich, CT; INT Norwich 114[deg] and Martha's Vineyard, MA
267[deg] radials; to Martha's Vineyard.

V-203 [Amended]

    From INT Chester, MA 266[deg] and Albany, NY 134[deg] radials;
Albany; Saranac Lake, NY; Massena, NY; to INT Massena 047[deg] and
St. Jean, Canada 270[deg] radials. The airspace within Canada is
excluded.

V-205 [Removed]

V-405 [Amended]

    From INT Pottstown, PA, 222[deg] and Baltimore, MD, 034[deg]
radials; Pottstown; INT Pottstown 050[deg] and Solberg, NJ, 264[deg]
radials; Solberg; INT Solberg 044[deg] and Carmel, NY, 243[deg]
radials; Carmel; INT Carmel 344[deg] and Pawling, NY, 204[deg]
radials; Pawling; Barnes, MA; Putnam, CT; Providence, RI; INT
Providence 151[deg] and Martha's Vineyard, MA, 267[deg] radials; to
Martha's Vineyard.

V-419 [Amended]

    From Westminster, MD to Modena, PA; Solberg, NJ; INT Solberg
044[deg] and Carmel, NY 243[deg] radials; Carmel; to INT Carmel
045[deg]and Madison, CT 328[deg] radials.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States area navigation routes.

* * * * *

T-212 WEARD, NY to Putnam, CT (PUT) [New]

WEARD, NY                         Fix                    (lat. 41[deg]45'44'' N., long. 74[deg]31'30'' W.)
WEETS, NY                         Fix                    (lat. 41[deg]51'27'' N., long. 74[deg]11'52'' W.)
NELIE, CT                         INT                    (lat. 41[deg]56'28'' N., long. 72[deg]41'19'' W.)
Putnam, CT (PUT)                  VOR/DME                (lat. 41[deg]57'20'' N., long. 71[deg]50'39'' W.)

T-255 NELIE, CT to Martha's Vineyard, MA (MVY) [New]

NELIE, CT                         INT                    (lat. 41[deg]56'28'' N., long. 72[deg]41'19'' W.)
Providence, RI (PVD)              VORTAC                 (lat. 41[deg]43'28'' N., long. 71[deg]25'47'' W.)
FALMA, RI                         Fix                    (lat. 41[deg]22'22'' N., long. 71[deg]10'16'' W.)
Martha's Vineyard, MA (MVY)       VOR/DME                (lat. 41[deg]23'46'' N., long. 70[deg]36'46'' W.)

T-300 Albany, NY (ALB) to Martha's Vineyard, MA (MVY) [New]

Albany, NY (ALB)                  VORTAC                 (lat. 42[deg]44'50'' N., long. 73[deg]48'11'' W.)
NELIE, CT                         INT                    (lat. 41[deg]56'28'' N., long. 72[deg]41'19'' W.)
Norwich, CT (ORW)                 VOR/DME                (lat. 41[deg]33'23'' N., long. 72[deg]59'58'' W.)
MINNK, RI                         Fix                    (lat. 41[deg]21'41'' N., long. 71[deg]25'27'' W.)
FALMA, RI                         Fix                    (lat. 41[deg]22'22'' N., long. 71[deg]10'16'' W.)
Martha's Vineyard, MA (MVY)       VOR/DME                (lat. 41[deg]23'46'' N., long. 70[deg]36'46'' W.)

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 28, 2012.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Regulations and ATC Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2012-8183 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7987-7996]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03216]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 745

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304; FRL-9941-61]
RIN 2070-AK02

Lead-Based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific
Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher
Training Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair,
and Painting (RRP) rule, and the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities
rule. The revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of
these programs by reducing burdens to industry and EPA, and by
clarifying language for training providers, while retaining the
protections provided by the original rules. First, EPA is modifying the
requirement that the renovator refresher training for individuals have
a hands-on component. Second, the Agency is removing jurisdiction-
specific certification and accreditation requirements under the LBP
Activities program in States where EPA administers the program.
Previously, this program required that training providers, firms and
individuals seek certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a State)
where the organization or person wanted to work. Third, EPA is adding
clarifying language to the requirements for training providers under
both the RRP and LBP Activities programs.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number HQ-OPPT-2014-0304, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Marc Edmonds, National Program Chemicals Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
202-566-0758; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a
training program required to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you
are a firm or individual who must be certified to conduct lead-based
paint activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you are an
individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in
accordance with 40 CFR 745.90. This rule applies only in States,
territories, and tribal areas that do not have authorized programs
pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the
authorization status of States, territories, and Tribes, contact the
National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-LEAD (5323).
    The following list of North American Industrial Classification
System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document
applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-
family housing construction, multi-family housing construction,
residential remodelers.
     Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g.,
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning contractors, painting and wall
covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish carpentry
contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors,
tile and terrazzo contractors, glass and glazing contractors.
     Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential
buildings and dwellings, residential property managers.
     Child day care services (NAICS code 624410).
     Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110),
e.g., elementary schools with kindergarten classrooms.
     Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519),
e.g., training providers.

     Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building
inspection services (NAICS code 541350), e.g., dust sampling
technicians.
     Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g.,
firms and supervisors engaged in lead-based paint activities.

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

    This final rule is being issued under the authority of Sections
402(a) and 402(c)(3) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15
U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3).

C. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is making minor revisions to the RRP rule that published in the
Federal Register on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 1) and the Lead-based Paint
Activities rule that published in the Federal Register on August 29,
1996 (Ref. 2). EPA is modifying the requirement that the renovator
refresher training for individuals have a hands-on component. The
Agency is also removing jurisdictions under the LBP Activities program
in States where EPA administers the program. Previously, this program
required that training providers, firms and individuals seek
certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a State) where the
organization or person wanted to work. In addition, EPA is adding
clarifying language to the requirements for training providers under
both the RRP and LBP Activities programs.

D. Why is the agency taking this action?

    The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day
function of these programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA
and by clarifying language for training providers, while retaining the
benefits of the original rules.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts of this action?

    EPA has prepared an economic analysis (EA) of the potential
incremental impacts associated with this rulemaking (Ref. 3). This
analysis, which is available in the docket, is discussed in more detail
in Unit III. The following is a brief outline of the estimated
incremental impacts of this rulemaking.
    [ssquf] Overall costs. This rule is estimated to result in cost
savings of $1.8 million to $3.4 million per year.
    [ssquf] Paperwork burdens. The rule affects information collection
activities by training providers that wish to offer e-learning
refresher training and is estimated to have an incremental total
estimated annual burden of 2,656 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
    [ssquf] Small entity impacts. This rule does not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    [ssquf] Effects on State, local, and Tribal governments. This rule
does not have an intergovernmental mandate, any significant or unique
effects on small governments, or Federalism or Tribal implications.

II. Discussion of Comments on the Proposal and the Final Rule

    This unit discusses the final rule, including what was proposed and
the public comments received on the proposed rule. A separate document
that summarizes the comments received that were relevant to the
proposal and EPA's responses has been prepared and is available in the
docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 4).

A. Hands-On Training

    To become certified as a renovator, a person must successfully
complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or by a State,
territorial, or tribal program authorized by EPA. To gain initial
certification, individual renovators must complete an 8-hour training
course. People who had taken an EPA, Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovation training course could
take the 4-hour refresher renovator training in lieu of the 8-hour
initial course. Trainings are taught either in a classroom or via
electronic learning (e-learning). E-learning is a web-based training
that is not lead by an instructor where the student can take the
training at his or her own pace. Requirements specific to e-learning
are found at 40 CFR 745.225. To maintain certification, renovators must
complete a renovator refresher course before their certification
expires. If the renovator does not complete the course within the
required timeframe, the individual must retake the initial 8-hour
course to become certified again.
    The 8-hour initial training includes hands-on training in testing
for lead in paint, methods for minimizing the creation of dust and
lead-based paint hazards, interior and exterior containment and cleanup
methods, and cleaning verification. Activities covered include the use
of EPA-recognized test kits, setting up barriers, covering furniture,
ducts, and carpeted floors with plastic, mopping floors, bagging waste,
and determining that the work area has been adequately cleaned. Each
student performs these activities in front of an instructor who
determines if the student is proficient in each one. Students must be
deemed proficient in order to pass the class and become a certified
renovator. The current version of the renovator refresher course
includes hands-on training in testing paint for lead and cleaning
verification.
    On January 15, 2015, EPA proposed to eliminate the hands-on
requirement in the renovator refresher course. Over 140 comments on its
proposal were received. Comments both supported and opposed the
proposed change. After carefully weighing the issues at stake and
considering the concerns raised by commenters, the Agency is
promulgating a modified version of the proposal. Specifically, EPA will
allow renovators to take a refresher course without hands-on training
once every other certification. Once a renovator takes the refresher
course without the hands-on training, their next refresher training
must include hands-on training. The certification from the refresher
course without hands-on training will last for 3 years. Taking the
course without hands-on training is optional but once a renovator takes
the course, their next refresher course must include hands-on training
and be taken within 3 years of their previous certification. The
certification from taking a course with hands-on training will last for
5 years.
    Many commenters stated that allowing the refresher course to be
taught entirely via e-learning would result in more trained
contractors. One commenter stated the e-learning course would allow for
wider adoption of the rule resulting in higher compliance. Another
commenter stated that this will benefit homeowners by having more
trained renovators in the field. One commenter who is in favor of e-
learning training stated that when he took his initial renovator
training, he spent 2 days traveling to and from the training and
another day taking the class. E-learning training would have saved this
person travel costs and time away from work. EPA agrees that a
refresher training taught entirely online via e-learning would result
in more renovators taking the training. Without the hands-on
requirement, renovators seeking recertification would be able to take
the course entirely via e-learning without having to travel to a
training location to perform the hands-on activities. This change will
make it easier for renovators to take the refresher training,
especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Renovators
will save time and travel costs by taking the course from a single
location, possibly their own home. Although the e-learning training
will only be allowed for every other refresher

training, EPA believes that the associated burden and cost savings will
lead to more renovators taking the refresher training and becoming
recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training will
lead to a higher number of certified renovators, resulting in a
workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead-safe manner.
    Many commenters believe that an in-class course provides better
training than an e-learning course. One commenter stated that students
learn more when they can interact with other students and share
information. Many commenters stated that students learn better by
performing hands-on activities. One commenter stated that it is
important for students to practice what they learn and get immediate
feedback from instructors. Another commenter stated that people who
work with their hands, such as renovators, learn better from doing
rather than watching. While EPA believes that renovators can
sufficiently learn the RRP requirements via e-learning training, the
Agency understands the commenters' concerns about students missing out
on potential benefits of hands-on training and interaction with
trainers and students when they take an e-learning course. These
concerns are another reason EPA shortened the certification period for
the renovator course that does not include hands-on training to 3 years
and required in-class training every other certification. This way,
renovators who may learn more in a classroom setting will not be able
to take the e-learning course perpetually without ever having classroom
refresher training. Further, they will have to take the in-class
training sooner, after only 3 years from when they completed the e-
learning course.
    Many commenters were concerned that training providers would have
difficulty verifying the identity of the person taking the course. One
commenter stated that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to
verify that the person taking the training is, in fact, the individual
who receives certification. Another commenter pointed out that a
classroom-based course reduces the potential for misrepresentation and
fraud that can take place in an online learning situation. As one
training provider explained, there are measures that it takes to verify
student identity in an e-learning course but admitted that there is no
guarantee that the person taking the course is who they claim to be.
Several commenters suggested possible solutions, such as tracking IP
addresses or taking a picture of the student without notice to verify
their identity. These commenters' suggestions, as well as others, do
not appear to be practical methods to verify student identity. EPA has
already employed more practical methods of verifying student
participation when accrediting a training program to offer these
refresher training courses for renovation: Each student is assigned a
unique identifier to launch and re-launch the course, each student
completes periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the number and
content of those in EPA's model course, and each student is tested with
at least 20 questions and scores at least 80% for successful
completion. EPA recognizes the possibility that someone could have
another person take the course for him or her; however, there are
potential penalties for those who do this. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1001,
it is a criminal violation to knowingly and willfully make a false or
fraudulent statement in any matter within EPA's jurisdiction.
Furthermore, if a renovator is tempted to have someone else take the
course for them, they will know that they will have to take the course
in person for their next certification, ensuring that their identity
can be verified, because the e-learning course can only be taken once
every other certification.
    EPA understands that there may be disadvantages to e-learning
training. However, the Agency expects that the associated burden and
cost savings of the rule will lead to more renovators taking the
refresher training and becoming recertified than would have done so
otherwise. The Agency believes the benefits of having more renovators
take the refresher training, leading to a higher number of certified
renovators, will outweigh any disadvantages of the final rule.

B. Jurisdictions

    On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, was amended to include
a fee schedule for training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for
individuals and firms seeking EPA certification (Ref. 5). These fees
were established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which requires
EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the LBP
Activities requirements in States without authorized programs. The fee
schedule created a multi-jurisdiction registration fee which applies to
individuals, firms and training programs that provide training or
perform lead-based paint activities in more than one State administered
by the EPA program. This fee is applied per discipline for each
additional EPA-administered State in which the applicant seeks
certification/recertification or accreditation/reaccreditation. An EPA-
administered jurisdiction is either an individual State without an
authorized program or all Tribes without authorized programs in a given
EPA Region.
    The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 was based on the estimated
burdens required for Agency clerical, technical, and managerial staff
to perform tasks associated with adding jurisdictions to a
certification or accreditation. Tasks include entering the information
into a database, approving or disapproving the application and
generating and mailing a certificate to the applicant. After years of
implementing the LBP Activities Program, the Agency believes that
separate certifications for each EPA-administered State jurisdiction
are not necessary. In particular, EPA does not believe it is necessary
for the Agency to certify or accredit the same applicant multiple
times; certification in one EPA-administered State jurisdiction should
be sufficient to perform work in any other EPA-administered State.
Accordingly, the Agency is eliminating the requirement for separate
certifications in each EPA-administered State jurisdiction in the LBP
Activities Program. Regulated entities will no longer have to send an
application and fees to EPA for the purpose of adding additional EPA-
administered State jurisdictions to their certification or
accreditation. Now when a regulated entity applies to EPA and receives
certification in the LBP Activities Program, they will be able to work
in any EPA-administered State.
    EPA received many comments on its proposal to remove jurisdictions
from the LBP Activities Program. Most comments were in support of
eliminating jurisdictions. Commenters who opposed the proposed removal
were confused about what EPA was proposing, believing that the Agency
was going to change the requirements for States to become authorized to
implement the LBP Activities Program. The Agency is not changing the
State authorization requirements, nor did it propose to do so. EPA is
promulgating the revisions as proposed by eliminating jurisdictions in
the LBP Activities Program administered by EPA.
    Now that jurisdictions in EPA's LBP Activities Program have been
removed, firms, individuals and training providers will receive one
certificate that will allow them to work in all EPA-administered States
instead of one certificate per State. Certificates issued before this
final rule are still valid until their expiration and regulated
entities will not need their certificates replaced

because of this rule. In addition, a previous certification in a single
EPA-administered jurisdiction allows firms, individuals and training
providers to perform lead-based paint activities in all EPA-
administered jurisdictions until the expiration of that certification.

C. Clarification Regarding Training Provider Application Requirements

    EPA is clarifying the application regulations for accredited
training providers under the RRP rule (Ref. 1) and LBP Activities rule
(Ref. 2). It was brought to the Agency's attention that the regulations
did not specifically state what constituted a violation of the
regulations at 40 CFR 745.225. For example, some other regulatory
provisions, such as 40 CFR 745.87, specifically list various activities
that are considered a violation of TSCA. Accordingly, the Agency
proposed to add clarifying language explaining that training providers
must follow the requirements in that section. EPA believes that
accredited training providers already understand this, but EPA proposed
to add the clarifying language to ensure understanding of the
requirements--similar to what has been done in other regulations. This
clarifying language does not change any requirements for accredited
training providers.
    The Agency received few comments on the clarification. Most of the
comments expressed general support for the proposed change. One
commenter said that the current requirements are specific and the
clarification is not necessary. EPA disagrees with this comment. The
language in 40 CFR 745.225 did not specifically say that a failure to
follow the requirements of that section was a violation. While it is
likely that many training providers already understand that, EPA
believes it is important to make it clear in the regulations in order
to eliminate any confusion about what constitutes a violation.
Therefore, EPA is finalizing the changes as proposed by adding the
clarifying language to 40 CFR 745.225.

D. Correction to Training Notification Requirements

    The regulatory text of the final RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1)
inadvertently omitted a requirement for accredited providers of
renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training
course the provider delivers. The provision was designed to supply
important information regarding certified renovators for EPA's
compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, EPA issued a rule (Ref. 6) to
correct this omission by amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to require
post-course notifications from accredited providers of renovator or
dust sampling technician training. The 2009 rule also included
conforming changes to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct
name of the sample post-course notification form and to make it clear
that all methods of post-course notification are available to both
renovation training providers and LBP Activities training providers. As
amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) required renovation training providers
to notify EPA no later than 10 business days following course
completion. Although EPA identified this requirement in its cost
estimates in 2008, the regulatory provision was subsequently
overwritten by another rulemaking. Specifically, in a 2011 rule (Ref.
7), the regulatory language inadvertently removed the regulatory text
that was added to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009 rule. In January
2015, EPA proposed to add the same language back to 40 CFR
745.225(c)(14)(i) that was included in the 2009 rule.
    EPA received several comments about the correction to the
notification regulations. Two commenters said they had no objection to
the correction. Another commenter said simply that he supported the
proposed change. No commenters opposed making the correction. EPA is
promulgating the revision as proposed.

E. Notifications for E-Learning Trainers

    As explained in the preamble to the proposed rule, EPA considered
modifying the requirements regarding online training notifications by
requiring training providers that teach the e-learning refresher course
to submit notifications via the internet. For years, training providers
have had the option of submitting notifications electronically via
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX). The CDX system is designed to
streamline the notification process for training providers and EPA
alike, and to perform basic validations of electronic submissions that
reduce common errors in notifications otherwise submitted on paper.
Submitting notification via the internet reduces the burden on the
training providers and the Agency, as well as saving taxpayer dollars.
    The Agency requested comment on whether it should require training
providers to submit online notifications for the refresher course that
does not include hands-on training. EPA received one comment submitted
by a training provider who supported the requirement. No commenters
opposed the change. Based on the benefits of online notifications, EPA
is promulgating a requirement that training providers that teach the
renovator refresher course without hands-on training must submit their
post-training notifications via the internet. Most, if not all, of the
refresher courses without hands-on training will be taught via e-
learning since there will be no need for students to take the course in
person. EPA believes that trainers who teach an e-learning course
clearly have the technical knowledge and ability to submit their post-
training notifications via the internet and it is therefore appropriate
to promulgate this requirement. As stated later in this Unit, these
trainers will not have to submit pre-training notifications; therefore,
this requirement only applies to post-training notifications.
    EPA also requested comment on how it should modify the notification
requirements to accommodate training taught entirely via e-learning.
Training providers submit both a pre-training and post-training
notification for each course that they teach. Now that the renovator
refresher training can be taught entirely online via e-learning, there
will be no classroom session for which to notify EPA for the e-learning
class. Consequently, pre-training notifications will not be required
for such courses. Because the training provider will still need to send
to EPA the names of the students who completed the e-learning course,
post-training notifications are still required.
    EPA received several comments regarding how it should modify the
post-training notification requirements. One commenter said that EPA
should be notified as soon as the student completes the course. Another
commenter stated that post-training notifications should be sent
quarterly, or at most monthly. EPA believes that submitting
notifications at the time the student finishes the course would be too
burdensome for training providers. Furthermore, it is not necessary for
student information to be submitted the same day the course is
completed. On the other hand, with quarterly notifications, information
for some students would not be submitted to EPA for almost three months
after the training was completed. There are times when EPA uses the
information from notifications to verify whether a certain person is a
certified renovator. A delay of three months increases the likelihood
of this information not being available when the Agency needs it. As a
compromise, and as one of the commenters suggested, the Agency is
requiring the notifications to be

submitted every month. Specifically, for renovator refresher courses
without hands-on training, training providers must submit post-training
notifications to EPA anytime from the first to tenth day of the month
that includes the required information on students who completed the
course in the previous month.
    The Agency is requiring training providers that teach the refresher
training entirely online via e-learning to include the expiration of
the renovator's certification in the post-training notification. Now
that renovator certifications can be either 3 or 5 years, it is
important to have the expiration date on the notification so EPA can
tell when the renovator's certification expires and whether he or she
took the course that is taught entirely online via e-learning. The
Agency is also requiring course completion certificates for all
renovator courses to include the expiration of the certification.
Because of the two different certification timeframes, it is important
for the certificate to clearly state when the certification expires.
This information may be of help to various parties including homeowners
and training providers. Homeowners may want to verify that the
certified renovators working in their homes are currently certified.
Training providers who teach the refresher training are required to
verify whether the student is eligible to take the refresher training
which would be difficult to do without knowing when the renovator's
certification expires.

F. Grandfathering

    In the 2008 RRP rule (Ref. 1), EPA created a grandfather provision
that allowed renovators who have taken an EPA, Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovation training
course, to take the 4-hour refresher renovator training in lieu of the
8-hour initial course to receive their initial certification. In a
subsequent rulemaking, the regulations were changed (Ref. 7) to allow
renovators to take advantage of the provision only if they had taken
the prerequisite course before October 4, 2011. Now that the Agency is
allowing a refresher course that does not have a hands-on requirement,
the grandfather provision would have allowed a student to receive
initial renovator certification by taking an e-learning refresher
course that does not have hands-on training. EPA received several
comments about the grandfather provision. Commenters were concerned
that, under the proposal, renovators would be able to take the
refresher course without hands-on training as their initial renovator
training.
    EPA believes that it is important for renovators to have hands-on
training when they receive their initial certification. To address
commenters' concerns, EPA will ensure that all renovators have hands-on
training when they get their initial certification, by requiring
renovators who take advantage of the grandfather provision to take a
refresher training that includes hands-on training. Therefore, only
renovators that have received their initial certification under the RRP
program may take the renovator refresher course that does not include
hands-on training.

III. Economic Analysis

    EPA's economic analysis of the potential costs and savings
associated with this action (Ref. 3), is available in the docket and is
briefly summarized in this Unit.
    The rule amendments do not preempt regulations by states,
territories, or tribal governments that have their own authorized lead
programs, so these estimates only reflect changes in EPA-administered
jurisdictions.
    Over 500,000 renovators have been trained and certified under the
federal RRP program since renovator training became mandatory in 2010.
Since a large number of renovators received their initial certification
in the first year of the program, there will be some initial
cyclicality in the annual number of renovators recertified. However,
this cyclicality will decrease over time as trained renovators exit the
industry and are replaced by new entrants. EPA's analysis makes the
simplifying assumptions that under the existing regulation (where all
refresher training is valid for 5 years) there will be a steady state
average of 100,000 renovators per year with expiring certifications,
and 30,000 renovators per year will leave the industry and be replaced
by new entrants who must take the initial training course. So an
average of 70,000 renovators per year would take the refresher course
in the baseline.
    In the baseline, both initial and refresher renovator training must
have a hands-on component, and renovator certification and
recertification are both valid for 5 years. EPA considered several
options for revising the hands-on requirement for renovator refresher
training. The options differed in terms of the length of time for which
recertification based on refresher training without a hands-on
component would be valid, as well as the number of training cycles in
which hands-on refresher training would have to be taken (i.e., every
other time, every third time, or never). The options that EPA analyzed
are summarized in Table 1. The final rule reflects the refresher
training requirements in Option 4(c).

               Table 1--Options for Renovator Refresher Training Analyzed in the Economic Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                               Period for which            Period for which          training
                                           recertification is valid    recertification is valid      cycles in
                 Option                       based on refresher          based on refresher      which hands-on
                                           training with a hands-on    training without a hands-     refresher
                                                   component                 on component          training must
                                                                                be taken
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing rule...........................  5 years...................  Not allowed...............               1
Option 1................................  5 years...................  5 years...................               0
Option 2................................  5 years...................  5 years...................               2
Option 3(a).............................  5 years...................  2 years...................               0
Option 3(b).............................  5 years...................  3 years...................               0
Option 4(a).............................  5 years...................  2 years...................               2
Option 4(b).............................  5 years...................  2 years...................               3
Option 4(c).............................  5 years...................  3 years...................               2
Option 4(d).............................  5 years...................  3 years...................               3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Final Rule Is Option 4(c)
    Allowing refresher training to be taught without the hands-on
component will reduce costs for training providers because they will no
longer have to purchase the supplies required for hands-on training. As
a result, the average cost per student of providing such a course is
expected to be $45 less than the baseline cost. Some or all of these
savings may be passed on to the students in the form of lower tuition.
    Refresher training without a hands-on component can be taken
entirely online via e-learning. Most training providers currently
offering the classroom portion of a renovator training course online
charge the same tuition whether the class is taken in person or online,
suggesting that the costs of providing e-learning and in-person
training are similar. But renovators taking a course entirely via e-
learning will avoid the time and associated expenses needed to travel
to a training site, at an average savings of $144 per person.
    Due to the cost savings, as many as 400 training providers might
offer refresher training via e-learning if the hands-on requirement is
revised, and many renovators will take their training via e-learning.
But some renovators will still choose to take their training in person
even when they are eligible for an e-learning class. EPA considered
three different scenarios for how renovators might respond if the
hands-on requirement is modified, assuming that 50%, 75%, or 90% of
renovators would choose to take their training online if they are
allowed to do so. This means that at least 10%, 25%, or 50% of
renovators would choose to take all of their training in person under
each option. And under Options 2 and 4, renovators who chose to take
training without a hands-on component would have to take hands-on
training in a subsequent training cycle. So under these options, the
number of renovators being trained in person in any given year exceeds
10%, 25%, or 50% of the total number of renovators trained that year.
Table 2, lists the annual number of renovators trained under each
option. To simplify the analysis, renovators are assumed to take
training without a hands-on component via e-learning, although the rule
would also allow such training to be taken in person. The range in the
results for each option reflects the different scenarios for the number
of renovators electing to take e-learning training.

                         Table 2--Average Annual Number of Renovators Trained by Option
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   New renovators   Renovators taking    Renovators taking     Total renovators
              Option               taking initial  in-person refresher      online-only        taking refresher
                                      training           training        refresher training        training
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing rule....................          30,000  70,000.............  0..................  70,000.
Option 1.........................          30,000  7,000 to 35,000....  35,000 to 63,000...  70,000.
Option 2.........................          30,000  33,000 to 49,000...  21,000 to 37,000...  70,000.
Option 3(a)......................          30,000  7,000 to 35,000....  88,000 to 158,000..  123,000 to 165,000.
Option 3(b)......................          30,000  7,000 to 35,000....  58,000 to 105,000..  93,000 to 112,000.
Option 4(a)......................          30,000  50,000 to 59,000...  27,000 to 49,000...  86,000 to 100,000.
Option 4(b)......................          30,000  39,000 to 53,000...  43,000 to 78,000...  96,000 to 117,000.
Option 4(c)......................          30,000  43,000 to 55,000...  25,000 to 44,000...  80,000 to 88,000.
Option 4(d)......................          30,000  31,000 to 48,000...  36,000 to 65,000...  84,000 to 96,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Final Rule Is Option 4(c)
    The rule amendments also change the notification requirements for
training courses. Post-training notifications will have to include the
expiration date for each renovator's certification, but it takes a
negligible effort for the training provider to submit this information.
Training providers will not be required to submit pre-notifications for
e-learning courses that have no in-person component, which will reduce
the total number of submissions by between 4,000 and 7,000 per year.
The amendments also allow training providers to submit post-
notifications once a month for e-learning courses that have no in-
person component, instead of no later than ten business days following
course completion. Such monthly notifications would have to be
submitted though EPA's CDX system, but approximately 92% of
notifications are already submitted via CDX. Assuming that 400 training
providers offer e-learning refresher training, up to 4,800 post-
training notifications could be submitted for e-learning training each
year. This is a reduction compared to the number of post-training
notifications that would be submitted if the amendments did not allow
monthly reporting for e-learning training, and it is partially offset
by a reduction in the number of post-training notifications for in-
person classes.
    And the rule removes the $35 multi-jurisdiction registration fee
that individuals, firms, and training providers currently pay when they
apply to perform lead-based paint activities or provide training for
that program in additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. In a typical
year, these entities apply to work in a total of 431 additional
jurisdictions.
    The rule requires training providers to include the expiration date
of the renovator's certification in the post-training notification, but
the time required to do this is negligible. The rule also clarifies the
requirements for the time-frame to submit post-training notifications
for in-person training courses. The burden and cost of this activity
were already accounted for in previous economic analyses and ICRs for
the lead program, and are not repeated here in order to avoid double-
counting these costs. Another revision adds clarifying language
explaining that training providers must follow the regulations. This
does not affect the estimated cost of compliance because it does not
change any requirements for accredited training providers.
    Table 3, presents the total cost savings of the rule options,
including modifying the notification requirements for training
providers, and removing the multi-jurisdiction fee. The final rule,
which is Option 4(c), is estimated to result in cost savings of $1.8
million to $3.4 million per year (in 2014 dollars). The rule reduces
the cost of providing and taking refresher training enough that
compliance costs decrease even though reducing the certification period
to 3 years for renovators taking refresher training without a hands-on
component is projected to increase the total number of renovators
trained per year.

     Table 3--Total Annualized Cost Savings of Minor Amendments Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Description of
                                modifications to
           Option              refresher training    Total cost  savings
                                 recertification    ($ million per year)
                                  requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1....................  Training without      $8.2 to $12.4.
                               hands-on valid for
                               5 years.
Option 2....................  Training without      $3.9 to $7.0.
                               hands-on component
                               valid for 5 years.
                               Hands-on training
                               required every
                               other
                               recertification
                               period.
Option 3(a).................  Training without      $1.8 to $3.4.
                               hands-on valid for
                               2 years.
Option 3(b).................  Training without      $4.5 to $8.2.
                               hands-on valid for
                               3 years.
Option 4(a).................  Training without      $0.5 to $1.0.
                               hands-on valid for
                               2 years. Hands-on
                               training required
                               every 2 cycles.
Option 4(b).................  Training without      $0.9 to $1.6.
                               hands-on valid for
                               2 years. Hands-on
                               training required
                               every 3 cycles.
Option 4(c)--Final Rule.....  Training without      $1.8 to $3.4.
                               hands-on valid for
                               3 years. Hands-on
                               training required
                               every 2 cycles.
Option 4(d).................  Training without      $2.7 to $5.0.
                               hands-on valid for
                               3 years. Hands-on
                               training required
                               every 3 cycles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost savings for all options reflect revisions to the renovator
refresher training requirements, changes to the pre- and post-training
notifications, and the removal of the multi-jurisdiction registration
fee. Recertification based on refresher training with a hands-on
component is valid for 5 years under all of the options.

IV. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    1. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule.
Federal Register April 22, 2008 (73 FR 21692) (FRL-8355-7).
    2. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target
Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register
August 29, 1996 (61 FR 45778) (FRL-5389-9).
    3. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor
Amendments Final Rule (Economic Analysis). October 2015.
    4. EPA. Response to Public Comments; Lead-based Paint Programs;
Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation
Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements
Rulemaking. October 2015.
    5. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and
Certification of Lead-based Paint Activities Contractors; Final
Rule. Federal Register June 9, 1999 (64 FR 31091) (FRL-6058-6).
    6. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and
Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register July 15, 2009 (74 FR
34257) (FRL-8422-7).
    7. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal
Register August 5, 2011 (76 FR 47918) (FRL-8881-8).
    8. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA sections
402 and 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for
Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting.
EPA ICR No. 2502.02 and OMB No. 2070-0192. October 2015.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive
Orders 12866, October 4, 1993 (58 FR 51735) and 13563, January 21, 2011
(76 FR 3821) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations
are documented in the docket.
    EPA prepared an economic analysis of the potential cost savings
associated with this action (Ref. 3), which is available in the docket
and is briefly summarized in Unit III.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted to OMB for review and approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq. The ICR document prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No.
2502.02 and the OMB Control No. 2070-0192 (Ref. 8). The ICR document
provides a detailed presentation of the estimated burden and costs
predicted as a result of this action. You can find a copy of the ICR in
the docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: The rule affects information
collection activities by training providers that wish to offer e-
learning refresher training and by renovators that attend training.
    Respondent's Obligation to Respond: Although training providers
have the option of choosing whether to offer such training, once an
entity chooses to do so, the information collection activities
contained in this rule become mandatory.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 25,048 per year, of which 400 are
training providers, 9,859 are renovators who take refresher training
more frequently because their previous training did not include a
hands-on component, and 14,789 are renovators who do not travel to
refresher training because they utilize e-learning.
    Frequency of Response: 1, on occasion.
    Total Estimated Burden: 15,472 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total Estimated Burden Cost: $724,073 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Change in Approved Burden: The total burden in OMB's inventory for
the existing, approved ICR for the lead paint program is 6,463,297
hours (OMB Control No. 2070-0195, EPA ICR No. 2507.01). With the
addition of the 15,472 hours related to this rule amendments (which
qualifies as a program change), the total annual burden for the lead
paint program is estimated to be 6,478,769 hours. This is comprised of
a reduction of 26,620 hours for renovators that take e-learning
training and thus do not travel to a training site, an increase of
39,436 hours for more frequent training of renovators

who took their previous training without a hands-on component, and
2,656 hours due to additional training provider activities.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, the impact of concern
is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency
may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory
burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on the small entities subject to the rule.
    Eliminating multi-jurisdiction registration fees saves money for
entities that wish to perform LBP activities in multiple jurisdictions.
The rule also allows training providers (many of which are small
businesses) additional flexibility in how they offer training. E-
learning training is already allowed for the classroom component of
both initial and refresher training, and training providers can choose
whether or not to offer it. The amended rule still allows training
providers to choose what type of training to offer because they can
continue to offer refresher training with a hands-on component, begin
offering e-learning training without the hands-on component, or offer
both types of training.
    Training providers that voluntarily choose to start offering e-
learning refresher training without a hands-on component would incur
costs for some activities (e.g., applying for a new accreditation) but
they would reduce other expenses (e.g., supplies for the hands-on
training). See the Economic Analysis (Ref. 3) for additional
information on the potential costs and savings of these activities.
Because there is no requirement mandating that training providers offer
an e-learning refresher course, training providers will not choose to
offer e-learning training unless the savings from doing so exceed the
costs, or if they can recover their costs through tuition charges,
increased volume of business, or other means. The rule requires
training providers to include the expiration date of the renovator's
certification in the post-training notification, but the time required
to do this is negligible.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The rule amendments
do not preempt regulations by states, territories, or tribal
governments that have their own authorized lead programs, so those
jurisdictions are not required to change their programs.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132, August 10, 1999 (64 FR 43255). It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175, November 9, 2000 (65 FR 67249). The rule
amendments do not preempt regulations by tribal governments that have
their own authorized lead programs, so those jurisdictions are not
required to adopt these amendments. Tribal governments can serve as
training providers, and those training providers that choose to offer
e-learning refresher renovator training would incur costs for some
activities (such as applying for a new accreditation) but they would
reduce other expenses (such as supplies for the hands-on training).
However, there is no requirement mandating that training providers
offer an e-learning refresher course. So training providers will not
choose to offer e-learning training unless the savings of doing so
exceed the costs, or if they can recover their costs through tuition
charges or other means. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, April 23, 1997
(62 FR 19885) because it is not an economically significant regulatory
action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because EPA interprets
Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under
section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action does not establish an environmental standard
intended to mitigate health or safety risks. Furthermore, the
requirements in the lead program will continue to protect children,
since renovators will still be required to take an 8 hour initial
training that includes a hands-on component; they will still have to
take regular refresher training; the refresher training will have to
include a hands-on component every other training cycle; refresher
training without a hands-on component will only be valid for 3 years;
and renovators will still have to comply with the work practice
requirements for renovation, repair or painting activities that disturb
lead-based paint.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a significant energy action as defined in
Executive Order 13211, May 22, 2001 (66 FR 28355), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to
have any adverse energy effects because it does not require any action
related to the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rule does not involve technical standards and is therefore not
subject to considerations under section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272
note.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA has determined that this action will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations as specified in Executive
Order 12898, February 16, 1994 (59 FR 7629). This action does not
directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the

environment. The rule removes multi-jurisdiction fees for the LBP
Activities program, revises the hands-on requirement for refresher
renovator training, and changes the notification requirements for
training providers. However, renovators will still be required to take
an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands-on component; they
will still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher
training will have to include a hands-on component every other training
cycle; refresher training without a hands-on component will only be
valid for 3 years; and renovators will still have to comply with the
work practice requirements for renovation, repair or painting
activities that disturb lead-based paint.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

    Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation.

    Dated: February 10, 2016.
Gina McCarthy
Administrator.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 745--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d.

0
2. In Sec.  745.90:
0
a. Revise paragraph (a)(2).
0
b. Revise paragraph (a)(4).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.90  Renovator certification and dust sampling technician
certification.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Individuals who have successfully completed an accredited
abatement worker or supervisor course, or individuals who successfully
completed an EPA, HUD, or EPA/HUD model renovation training course
before October 4, 2011 may take an accredited refresher renovator
training course that includes hands-on training in lieu of the initial
renovator training course to become a certified renovator.
* * * * *
    (4) To maintain renovator certification or dust sampling technician
certification, an individual must complete a renovator or dust sampling
technician refresher course accredited by EPA under Sec.  745.225 or by
a State or Tribal program that is authorized under subpart Q of this
part within 5 years of the date the individual completed the initial
course described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the individual
does not complete a refresher course within this time, the individual
must re-take the initial course to become certified again. Individuals
who complete a renovator course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized
program on or before March 31, 2010, must complete a renovator
refresher course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized program on or
before March 31, 2016, to maintain renovator certification. Individuals
who completed a renovator course accredited by EPA or an EPA authorized
program between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2011, will have one year
added to their original 5-year certification. Individuals who take a
renovator refresher course that does not include hands-on training will
be certified for 3 years from the date they complete the training.
Individuals who take a refresher training course that includes hands-on
training will be certified for 5 years. Individuals who take the
renovator refresher without hands-on training must, for their next
refresher course, take a refresher course that includes hands-on
training to maintain renovator certification.
* * * * *

0
3. In Sec.  745.225:
0
a. Add paragraph (a)(4).
0
b. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (c).
0
c. Add paragraph (c)(8)(viii).
0
d. Revise paragraph (c)(13)(i).
0
e. Revise paragraph (c)(14)(i).
0
f. Add new paragraph (c)(14)(ii)(D)(7).
0
g. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (d) and (e).
0
h. Revise paragraphs (e)(2), (3), and (4), and (e)(5)(viii).
    The additions and revisions read as follows:

Sec.  745.225  Accreditation of training programs: target housing and
child occupied facilities.

    (a) * * *
    (4) Accredited training programs, training program managers, and
principal instructors must comply with all of the requirements of this
section including approved terms of the application and all of the
requirements and limitations specified in any accreditation documents
issued to training programs.
* * * * *
    (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. A
training program accredited by EPA to offer lead-based paint activities
courses, renovator courses, or dust sampling technician courses must
meet the following requirements:
* * * * *
    (8) * * *
    (viii) For renovator course completion certificates, the expiration
date of certification.
* * * * *
    (13) * * *
    (i) The training manager must provide EPA with notification of all
renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint activities
courses offered except for any renovator course without hands-on
training delivered via electronic learning. The original notification
must be received by EPA at least 7 business days prior to the start
date of any renovator, dust sampling technician, or lead-based paint
activities course.
* * * * *
    (14) * * *
    (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the
completion of any renovator, dust sampling, or lead-based paint
activities course. This notification must be received by EPA no later
than 10 business days following course completion. Notifications for
any e-learning renovator refresher course that does not include hands-
on training must be submitted via the Central Data Exchange no later
than the 10th day of the month and include all students trained in the
previous month.
    (ii) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (7) For renovator refresher courses, the expiration date of
certification.
* * * * *
    (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. A training program
accredited by EPA to offer lead-based paint courses in the specific
disciplines listed in this paragraph (d) must ensure that its courses
of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics.
* * * * *
    (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training
programs. A training program may seek accreditation to offer refresher
training courses in any of the following disciplines: Inspector, risk
assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator,
and dust sampling technician. A training program accredited by EPA to
offer refresher training must meet the following minimum requirements:
* * * * *
    (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and
abatement worker must last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher
courses for

project designer, renovator, and dust sampling technician must last a
minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all disciplines
except renovator and project designer must include a hands-on
component. Renovators must take a refresher course that includes hands-
on training at least every other recertification.
    (3) Except for renovator and project designer courses, for all
other courses offered, the training program shall conduct a hands-on
assessment. With the exception of project designer courses, the
training program shall conduct a course test at the completion of the
course. Renovators must take a refresher course that includes hands-on
training at least every other recertification.
    (4) A training program may apply for accreditation of a refresher
course concurrently with its application for accreditation of the
corresponding training course as described in paragraph (b) of this
section. If so, EPA shall use the approval procedure described in
paragraph (b) of this section. In addition, the minimum requirements
contained in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5), (c)(6)(viii) and (c)(7)
through (14), and (e)(1) through (3) of this section shall also apply.
    (5) * * *
    (viii) The requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5),
(c)(6)(viii) and (c)(7) through (14) of this section apply to refresher
training providers.
* * * * *

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

Sec.  745.238  Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based
paint activities.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) Certification and re-certification-- (i) * * *
    (2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. * * *
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Submit application and payment in the amount specified in
paragraph (c)(3) of this section in accordance with the instructions
provided with the application package.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-03216 Filed 2-12-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P