Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act 1 IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title and Number of the Information Collection Title: TSCA Sections 402/ 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead Based Paint Activities EPA ICR No.: 1715.06 OMB Control No: 2070 0155 1( b) Short Characterization This information collection request ( ICR) updates two existing ICRs covering the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of the final rulemaking addressing lead based paint activities under the authority of sections 402 and 404 of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA). The first of these is identified as EPA ICR No. 1715.02 and OMB Control No. 2070 0155, and covers the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for lead based paint professionals conducting lead based paint activities, and training programs providing lead based paint activities courses, which were promulgated under the authority of sections 402, 404, and 407 of TSCA. The second of these, identified as EPA ICR 1715.05, amends the original ICR to include the burden associated with notification provisions recently promulgated under the final rule entitled " Lead: Notification Requirements for Lead based Paint Activities and Training."

The Agency requests a three year renewal approval for the information collection requirements contained in the final rule addressing training, certification, accreditation, standards, and notification for lead based paint ( LBP) activities in target housing and child occupied facilities ( hereafter, the " training rule"). The Agency has promulgated this rule pursuant to sections 402 and 404 of TSCA. Section 404 allows any State that seeks to administer and enforce standards and regulations as protective as those developed under section 402 to submit an application to EPA for authorization of a State program ( Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages may also submit such applications).

The final training, certification, accreditation and standards regulation requires reporting and/ or recordkeeping from four entities: States/ Tribes/ Alaskan Native Villages ( hereafter, the term " States" includes Tribes and Villages); training providers; and firms and individuals engaged in LBP activities. The following sections provide a general overview of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements for each entity, discussed in more detail in section 4( b). 2 States. Under TSCA section 404, EPA must review and assess State submissions to determine whether to grant authorization to administer a program addressing training, certification, accreditation and standards for LBP activities. A State seeking authorization will need to provide information to EPA so the Agency may determine whether its program is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal program and whether it provides adequate enforcement. Authorized States need to provide a report to EPA on their activities.

Training providers. Training programs seeking to offer training in LBP activities must receive EPA/ State accreditation. In order for EPA/ States to have the information necessary to evaluate and accredit the training programs, training providers need to prepare and submit application packages. Training programs also must retain certain records related to their students and training personnel qualifications. Training programs must notify the Agency 1) prior to providing lead based paint activities training courses, and 2) following completion of lead based paint activities training courses. Training programs must apply for re accreditation every three years. These notification requirements are necessary to provide EPA compliance monitoring and enforcement personnel with information necessary to track compliance activity and to prioritize inspections.

Individuals/ Firms. Individuals and firms seeking to engage in LBP activities must receive certification from EPA/ States. To gain certification, an individual must complete an accredited training course and receive a course completion certificate, pass a thirdparty certification exam, meet specific education/ experience requirements, and demonstrate this to EPA/ States. A firm must submit a letter to EPA/ States certifying that it will employ only certified individuals and conduct LBP activities according to the work practice standards. Individuals/ firms must apply for re certification every three years. The rule also requires that individuals/ firms develop and retain records of the LBP activities they undertake to demonstrate compliance with standards and provide a written record for future reference. Firms must notify the Agency prior to commencement of lead based paint abatement activities. These notification requirements are necessary to provide EPA compliance monitoring and enforcement personnel with information necessary to track compliance activity and to prioritize inspections.

2 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection Under section 402( a)( 1) of TSCA, the Agency must "... promulgate final regulations governing lead based paint activities to ensure that individuals engaged in such activities are properly trained; that training programs are accredited; and that contractors engaged in such 3 activities are certified. Such regulations shall contain standards for performing lead based paint activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness and safety."

Section 402( a)( 2) states that " Final regulations promulgated under [ section 402( a)] paragraph ( 1) shall contain specific requirements for the accreditation of ... training programs ... including, but not limited to:

 Minimum requirements for the accreditation of training providers;  Minimum training curricula requirements;  Minimum training hour requirements;  Minimum hands on training requirements;  Minimum training competency and proficiency requirements;  Minimum requirements for training program quality."

Section 404( a) of TSCA states that "[ a] ny State which seeks to administer and enforce the standards, regulations, or other requirements established under section 402 may... develop and submit to the Administrator an application, in such form as the Administrator shall require, for authorization of such a State program." The Agency shall approve such an application, if it finds that "... the State program is at least as protective of human health and the environment as the Federal program under section 402... and such State program provides adequate enforcement." The statute also requires the Agency to implement the program in States that do not receive authorization within two years after the effective date of the rule.

Section 407 of TSCA states that regulations shall include such recordkeeping and reporting requirements as may be necessary to ensure effective implementation. EPA regulations under Subchapter IV of TSCA include lead based paint activities regulations, codified at 40 CFR Part 745.

The Agency's final training rule fulfills these statutory mandates.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data EPA This information collection will provide EPA with the materials necessary to authorize State programs for the training rule, as TSCA Title IV directs, and to serve as the accrediting and certifying body in States without authorized programs, discussed further below.

EPA/ States This collection will enable EPA/ States to determine compliance with and enforce the requirements for training, certification, accreditation, and work practice standards. Without this collection, there would be no meaningful way of ensuring the implementation of the statutory 4 objective: to ensure that trained individuals perform all LBP activities to minimize harm to occupants of structures and other parties. The work practice standards in the rule rely on reporting and recordkeeping as a check on proper performance of activities; the Agency chose this approach over promulgating prescriptive standards for the conduct of LBP activities. The rulemaking provides flexibility for individuals performing the activities, by relying on guidance and training to help individuals determine the best approaches and on documentation as a " standard of performance." The Agency believes this is the best method for accommodating a variety of LBP hazards and site specific conditions.

It is the nature of certification and accreditation that an entity seeking such must provide materials to the certifying or accrediting body. The materials the Agency/ State requires for these activities are central to the activity.

It is also important to note that the re certification and re accreditation requirements for individuals and training programs are meant to ensure that training programs incorporate new developments and technologies in their courses and that individuals receive training in them. The Agency believes this ensures that individuals/ firms perform LBP activities in the safest and most effective manner possible.

The specific data elements in the reports individuals/ firms conducting LBP activities must compile and retain are necessary as a reference for building owners/ residents, EPA or authorized entities. The records demonstrate that individuals conducting the activities do so in a safe and effective manner, according to the minimum work practice standards established by the rule. This also EPA's enforcement activities.

The notification requirement is necessary to permit the Agency to target its enforcement activities and to ensure compliance within the contracting and training community.

3 NON DUPLICATION, CONSULTATION AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Non Duplication The Agency's collection pursuant to the TSCA 402/ 404/ 407 regulations does not duplicate any other collection. There is no other model program for LBP activities or associated State program approval process, and there are currently no other Federal requirements for the training and certification of individuals engaged in these activities, for the accreditation of LBP training programs, or required standards for the conduct of these activities. 5 3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made available to the public for comment through a Federal Register notice. The public will have 60 days to provide comments. Any comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement that is submitted to OMB.

3( c) Consultation To be completed.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Due to the nature of this regulation and its collection, less frequent collection is not feasible. In particular, each individual and firm must obtain certification and re certification, each training program must obtain accreditation and re accreditation as well as specific notification and documentation prior to commencement and upon completion of each lead based paint activity course, and each LBP activity is a separate and unique event requiring specific notification and documentation. Program approval for States is a one time activity, although there is ongoing reporting.

3( e) General Guidelines This ICR is consistent with OMB's general guidelines. The Agency is requiring that individuals and firms maintain records for three years. Authorized States report once a year for the first three years, and biannually thereafter.

Training programs must maintain records for three and one half years. This is due to the interim certification period of six months following an individual completing training, which allows the individual time to apply to EPA/ States to receive official certification. At such time, the individual remains certified for three years ( or 5 years for individuals who have passed a proficiency test as part of their training) before he or she must obtain refresher training and recertification EPA wishes training providers to maintain records on a particular student for as long as the individual is certified following training. Therefore, the Agency believes the three and one half years is an appropriate period for the retention of such records.

3( e) Confidentiality This information collection does not include questions of a confidential nature.

3( f) Sensitive Questions This information collection does not include questions of a sensitive nature. 6 4 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes The respondents to this rule include: 1) Training providers for LBP activities; 2) Individuals and firms engaged in LBP activities; and 3) State agencies.

Specific NAICS codes include: 23321 Single Family Housing Construction 23331 Manufacturing and Industrial Building Construction 23332 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction 23521 Painting and Wall Covering Contractors 23542 Drywall, Plastering, Acoustical, and Insulation Contractors 23551 Carpentry Contractors 23561 Roofing, Siding, and Sheet Metal Contractors 23594 Wrecking and Demolition Contractors 23599 All Other Special Trade Contractors 611513 Apprenticeship Training 611519 Other Technical and Trade Schools 611699 All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction 92312 Administration of Public Health Programs 92411 Administration of Air and Water Resource and Solid Waste Management Programs 92511 Administration of Housing Programs 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items In order to obtain authorization from EPA to administer and enforce a program under section 404, States must prepare:

 a notice of intent to seek authorization, and  an application for authorization identifying the agencies responsible for implementation, administration, and enforcement of the program, and a description of the authority and responsibilities vested in such agencies.

States authorized for the lead based paint training rule must submit to EPA a report summarizing implementation and enforcement activities, including a list of enforcement actions taken and any changes in content, administration, or enforcement of the State program. 7 To gain accreditation, training providers must submit the following documents to EPA/ State:

 an accreditation statement that clearly indicates how the training program meets the minimum requirements for accreditation, and  a quality control plan, which outlines procedures for periodic revision of training materials and exams, annual review of instructors, and adequacy of the training facilities.

To gain certification, individuals engaged in LBP activities are required to submit specific materials to EPA/ State:

 Inspectors, Risk Assessors, Supervisors: accredited training course completion certificate, statement certifying the individual meets the education/ experience prerequisites proof of passage of the third party exam;  Project Designers: statement certifying individual meets the education/ experience requirements, accredited training course completion certificate; and  Workers: accredited training course completion certificate.

In the performance of LBP activities, the firms and/ or individuals must complete and retain a number of reports ( contingent on the activity conducted), including:

 an inspection report describing the surfaces sampled for LBP and the sampling results;  a lead hazard screen report, which includes an accounting of any paint or dust sampling results;  a risk assessment report, which includes an accounting of paint, dust, or soil sampling results and existing hazards;  an occupant protection plan identifying the measures that will be taken to protect building occupants from LBP hazards, and  an abatement report detailing the activities undertaken to eliminate the hazard.

Prior to giving a lead based paint activity training course, training providers must provide notification to the Agency, using either the sample form entitled " Lead Based Paint Activities Training Course Schedule" or a similar form containing the required information. Training providers may provide electronic submissions using the Agency's Central Data Exchange ( CDX) ( secure internet based electronic submission of data). The initial notice must include the following:

 Notification type ( Original, Updated, Cancellation);  Training program name, EPA accreditation number, address, and phone number;  Course discipline, type ( initial/ refresher), and the language in which instruction will be given; 8  Date( s) and time( s) of training;  Training location( s) phone number, and street address;  Principal instructor's name; and  Training manager's name and signature.

Training providers must update the Agency regarding any changes to training dates, course locations, course cancellations, or other changes made to the original notice.

Following completion of lead based paint activities courses, training providers must provide notice using either the sample form, entitled " Lead Based Paint Activities Training Course Follow Up" or a similar form containing the required information. Training providers may provide electronic submissions using the Agency's Central Data Exchange ( CDX). The notice must include the following:

 Training program name, EPA accreditation number, address, and phone number;  Course discipline and type ( initial/ refresher);  Date( s) of training;  The following information for each student who took the course:  Name  Address  Date of birth  Course completion certificate number  Student test score; and  Training manager's name and signature.

Certified firms must notify EPA prior to beginning lead based paint abatement activities ( except in emergency situations) and provide an updated notice if needed, using either the sample form entitled " Notification of Lead Based Paint Abatement Activities" or a similar form containing the required information. Certified firms may provide electronic submissions using the Agency's CDX. Notices should include the following information:

 Notification type ( Original, Updated, Cancellation);  Date when lead based paint abatement activities will start;  Date when lead based paint abatement activities will end ( approximation using best professional judgement);  Firm's name, EPA certification number, address, and phone number;  Type of building ( e. g. single family dwelling, multi family dwelling, child occupied facilities) on/ in which abatement work will be performed;  Property name ( if applicable);  Property address including apartment or unit number ( if applicable) for abatement work;  Documentation showing evidence of an EBL determination or a copy of the Federal/ State/ Tribal/ Local emergency abatement order, if applicable; 9  Name and EPA certification number of the project supervisor;  Approximate square footage/ acreage to be abated;  Brief description of abatement activities to be performed; and  Name, title, and signature of the representative of the certified firm who prepared the notification.

( ii) Respondent Activities.

The rule specifies reporting and recordkeeping for authorized States, training providers, and individuals/ firms undertaking LBP activities. The rule does not require specific forms or applications for submissions.

States seeking authorization for the training rule perform the following activities:  read the regulations;  compare any existing State program requirements to the minimum requirements of the Federal regulation;  develop and adopt new legislation as necessary;  develop and promulgate new regulations as necessary;  publish a notice of intent to seek authorization and provide an opportunity for public hearing;  prepare and submit to EPA an application for program approval;  maintain program application availability for public inspection for up to one year after submission; and  submit an annual report to EPA.

Training providers perform the following activities:  read the regulation;  prepare and submit an accreditation application to accrediting entity;  submit an initial and, if needed, amended notification of courses to be given;  provide notice of completion of all lead based paint activities courses offered;  retain records; and  provide accrediting entity access to records as requested.

Individuals seeking certification perform the following activities:  read the regulation;  submit a proof of passage of third party exam and/ or course completion certificate, and statement certifying individual meets education/ experience requirements; and  retain records, if individual is incorporated or acting as a firm.

Firms perform the following activities:  read the regulation;  submit an application for certification;  submit notification of abatement work, and 10  retain records.

5 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED  AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Agency Activities EPA performs the following activities in order to authorize States:  receives applications;  reviews applications and compares them with the Federal program at 40 CFR part 745;  provides applicants with notification of approval/ disapproval.

EPA performs the following activities in response to notifications:  Receives, reviews and files initial notices and updates received from training providers;  Receives, reviews and files course completion notices received from training providers; and  Receives, reviews and files notices of abatement activities from lead abatement firms.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management This section details the data elements for each type of respondent and for each reporting or recordkeeping activity. Note that EPA is cited as the accrediting and certifying body, as State programs may not necessarily adopt a program requiring the submission or retention of exactly the same materials as in the Federal program. For the purposes of estimating burden in Section 6 of this ICR, however, the Agency assumes that States adopt the Federal program requirements for reporting and recordkeeping. In States without authorized programs, EPA is the accrediting and certifying body.

The rule provides general instructions to States seeking EPA authorization under this regulation. A State may submit an application to EPA any time. The elements necessary for application are as follows:

 a public notice of intent to seek authorization, with an opportunity for public hearing;  a transmittal letter from the Governor or Tribal equivalent requesting program approval;  an Attorney General or Tribal equivalent statement certifying the adequacy of the State's program authority;  copies of all applicable State statutes and regulations; 11  the name of the primary agency that is or will be responsible for administering and enforcing the program and functions of any other agencies involved in administering the program;  a description of the program elements and an analysis of how these elements relate to the Federal program elements under section 402; and  a description of the resources the State intends to devote to the administration and enforcement of the program.

States authorized for this rules will need to provide a report ( or separate reports) to EPA describing any significant changes in the programs and enforcement activities.

The rule instructs training programs seeking accreditation for initial training programs to submit a one time application to EPA covering the following elements:

 the training program's name, address, and telephone number;  a list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation;  a statement, signed by the training program manager, that certifies that the training program meets the minimum requirements ( e. g., training hours) established in the rule;  a copy of the test blueprint, which describes the proportion of test questions devoted to each major course topic;  a detailed description of the facilities and equipment available for lecture and hands on training;  a detailed description of the procedures for conducting the assessment of hands on skills;  a copy of the program's quality control plan; and  for programs that do not adopt the EPA model curriculum, the program must submit, in addition to the above materials, a copy of the student manuals and instructor notebooks to be used for each course, and a copy of the course agenda, which includes the time allocated for each course topic.

Training programs must submit the following information to seek accreditation for refresher training courses ( note that applications for refresher training may be simultaneously submitted with applications for full length training programs):

 the training program's name, address, and telephone number;  a list of refresher courses for which it is seeking accreditation;  a copy of student manuals and instructor notebooks; and  a statement signed by the training manager certifying compliance with rule provisions.

Training programs must also seek re accreditation from EPA every four years. In order to receive re accreditation, the training program must submit: 12  the training program's name, address, and telephone number;  a list of courses for which it is applying for re accreditation;  a description of any changes or updates to the training facility or equipment that would adversely affect a students ability to learn, since its last application was approved; and  a statement from the training program manager that the training program complies at all times with all rule requirements.

The rule specifies that training programs must retain the following records for three years and six months and make them available upon EPA request:

 qualifications of training managers and work practice instructors;  current curriculum/ course materials, and documents reflecting any changes made to these materials;  the course test blueprint;  information on how the hands on assessment is conducted;  the quality control plan;  results of the students' hands on skills assessments and course tests, and a copy of each student's course completion certificate; and  any other material the program submitted to EPA as part of its accreditation application.

The rule provides general instructions to individuals seeking certification to perform LBP activities. Individuals must submit a one time application to EPA, including the following elements:

 proof of training ( for all individuals);  evidence that the individual meets the education or experience prerequisites ( applicable to all but workers and inspectors); and  proof of completing the standardized certification exam ( applicable to all but workers and project designers).

Under the rule's provisions, individuals must seek re certification every three years ( 5 years for individuals who have passed a proficiency test as part of their training), submitting to EPA a copy of the refresher course completion certificate.

The rule provides specific requirements for firms seeking certification. A firm must submit to EPA a letter indicating that the firm will employ only certified individuals to conduct LBP activities and follow the work practice standards.

The rule requires that individuals/ firms prepare reports during the conduct of LBP activities and maintain the reports for no fewer than three years. The requirements are specific to the disciplines. 13 Following the conduct of an inspection, the inspector must prepare a report documenting the following:

 date of inspection;  address of building and units;  date of construction of building and units;  unit numbers ( if applicable);  name, address, and telephone number of the owner of building and units;  name, signature, and certification number of each certified inspector and/ or risk assessor conducting testing;  name, address and telephone of the certified firm employing the individual ( if applicable);  each testing method and device and/ or sampling procedure employed, including quality control data, and, if used, the serial number of the XRF device;  specific locations of each painted component tested for LBP; and  result of the inspection expressed according to the particular sampling method.

For a risk assessment:

 date of risk assessment;  address of residences and buildings;  date of construction of residences and buildings;  unit numbers ( if applicable);  name, address and telephone number of the owner of residences and buildings;  name, signature, and certification number of risk assessor conducting the assessment,  name, address, and telephone number of certified firm employing the risk assessor ( if applicable);  results of visual inspection;  name, address, and telephone of each recognized laboratory conducting analyses of samples;  testing methods and sampling procedures for paint analysis employed;  specific locations of each painted component tested for the presence of LBP;  all data collected from on site testing;  all results of laboratory analyses on samples;  any other sampling results;  any background information collected prior to the activity;  an evaluation of any previous inspections, analyses, or assessments of LBP, if applicable;  description of the location and type of identified LBP hazards; and  description of options for addressing any LBP hazards. 14 For a lead hazard screen:

 first 15 items on the risk assessment list above; and  recommendations concerning desirability of follow up risk assessment.

For an abatement resulting from a State or local order or taking place in a child occupied facility or multi family dwelling, the individual/ firm must first submit to EPA prior notification of abatement activities.

Before an abatement, the individual/ firm must prepare an occupant protection plan describing the measures that the individual/ firm will take during the abatement to protect building occupants from exposure to lead contaminated dust and debris.

Following the abatement, the individual or supervisor must prepare a report detailing the following:

 start and completion dates;  name and address of each individual or firm conducting the abatement( s) and each supervisor assigned to the project;  the occupant protection plan;  name, address, and signature of each certified risk assessor or inspector conducting sampling and the date of clearance testing;  results of clearance testing and all soil analyses, and name of laboratory conducting them; and  a detailed description of the abatement, including method employed, locations of rooms and/ or components, reasons for selecting abatement methods for particular components.

The Agency will make use of existing technology to simplify the lead based paint abatement and training notification process. Therefore, in addition to the more traditional notification methods ( mail, commercial delivery service, or hand delivery) the Agency will allow fax, and internet based submission of notifications via the Agency's Central Data Exchange ( CDX). The Environmental Protection Agency is establishing a single portal on the Web for environmental data entering called CDX. The Agency will accept abatement and training program notifications through this system. CDX offers a faster, easier, more secure reporting option. CDX provides built in data quality checks, web forms, standard file formats, and a user friendly approach to reporting data.

CDX helps reporting entities by:

 Reducing their reporting burden and associated costs.  Enabling automated, machine to machine transactions eliminating tedious paper forms and redundant data entry. 15  Ensuring a secure electronic environment.  Improving data quality through built in edit and data quality checks.  Offering faster, easier click and send reporting with one consistent point of entry for reporting, one streamlined set of procedures, and one password.  Confirming EPA's receipt of their data.  Translating and distributing incoming data to the appropriate data system.

CDX helps EPA by:

 Centralizing receipt, security, user authentication, archiving, translation, distribution and related user support services for incoming data.  Eliminating redundant infrastructure and its associated cost.  Enabling the Agency to streamline and simplify compliance reporting for everyone.

The Agency also considered telephone notification and found it inappropriate because it would increase administrative burden, and would be less reliable due to inherent problems associated with transcribing verbal information. Therefore, the Agency does not intend to allow telephone notification.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The Agency has attempted to ensure that its regulatory requirements do not unduly burden small business. The certification requirements are very simple. A firm need only certify to the accrediting authority that it is employing certified individuals and that it will comply with the required standards. Individuals must take a refresher training course every three years, or five years for individuals who have passed a proficiency test as part of their training. The Agency also permits flexibility in the way information is prepared and presented ( e. g., there are no forms to complete). Post certification and accreditation, firms and training providers need only notify the Agency that it is commencing lead based paint abatement activities or providing a lead based paint activity training course ( with relevant information), and that it will comply with the required standards.

5( d) Collection Schedule For authorization, certification, and accreditation, collection activities will occur according to the following schedule:

 States/ Tribes may submit an application for program authorization at any time;  training programs may apply to become accredited at any time;  training programs must seek re accreditation at four year intervals following initial accreditation;  individuals and firms may apply for certification at any time; 16  individuals and firms must seek re certification at three year intervals ( five year intervals for individuals who have passed a proficiency test as part of their training) following initial certification.

The Agency believes that receipt of notification five and seven business days respectively prior to conducting lead based paint abatement activities or training courses is necessary to facilitate the inspection of abatement and training locations. The regulation also includes provisions for updating the original notification. The Agency determined that the time periods for initial notification will also apply to a change in course location, or if the course is to be presented earlier than described in the original notification. Other changes, including cancellation of courses or abatement projects, need only be received by the Agency at least two business days before a training course is scheduled to begin, or by the start date of an abatement activity. Such notification periods are appropriate to allow proper allocation of EPA compliance monitoring and enforcement resources, and to prevent the arrival of Agency personnel at the wrong location or time.

6 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION This section estimates the incremental burden and cost associated with the reporting and recordkeeping requirements of sections 402 ( a) and 404 of TSCA, and also with the notification requirements recently promulgated, as discussed earlier. The burden estimates provided in this analysis are primarily based on the cost estimates developed in the Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402 ( a)( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule ( Fees Rule EA), a data summary from the nine State lead accreditation and certification program survey, and the level of certification and accreditation and renewal activity observed over the first five years of the program. Burden and cost estimates are provided for three years running roughly from July to July: 2004/ 05, 2005/ 06, and 2006/ 07. These burden and cost estimates cover both initial accreditations and certifications and also re accreditation and re certification, as well as the associated notifications.

Sections 6( a) and 6( b) discuss the respondents' burdens and costs, respectively. Section 6( c) reports EPA burdens and costs, and sections 6( d) through 6( f) provide summaries of the respondents' burdens, and provide the Federal Register burden statement. Each of sections 6( a), 6( b), and 6( c) include two parts. The first parts of each section consist of the analysis of the reporting and recordkeeping and training program elements of burden and cost that were previously covered in EPA ICR No. 1715.02. The second parts cover the notification provisions that were previously covered in EPA ICR 1715.05. The first parts will be referred to as Accreditation and Certification. The second parts will be referred to as Notification. The burden and cost calculations in the Notification sections are based on the numbers of entities and events that are developed in the Accreditation and Certification sections, as well as on estimates included in the previous ICR and in the Fees Rule EA. The estimates from both parts of sections 6( a), 6( b), and 6( c) are brought together in the summaries in sections 6( d) through 6( f). 1 U. S. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402( a)( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule. February 26, 1999. ( Hereafter referred to as the Fees Rule EA.)

17 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden Accreditation and Certification Introduction Four types of respondents will be affected by this information collection request ( ICR): 1) training providers, 2) firms performing lead based paint activities, 3) individual lead based paint professionals, and 4) States. The burdens and costs fall into one of the following categories: 1) applying for authorization/ certification/ accreditation, 2) applying for renewal of certification/ accreditation, 3) annual reporting ( or reporting during the course of the year), and 4) annual recordkeeping ( or recordkeeping during the course of the year). The reporting and recordkeeping burden estimates include the time associated with completing and sending the reports to the appropriate authority, as well as the time required to collect the information needed to complete the report. The recordkeeping burden estimates include the time associated with copying, filing and maintaining the records. In addition, some States and the Federal government will be affected in their role as administrators of the programs.

Sections 402/ 404 allow training providers, firms, and individuals to apply for accreditation/ certification simultaneously in multiple States. Some entities file multi State applications, but this is unlikely to have a significant effect on the estimate of the burden. To the extent that applicants take advantage of the relatively low cost of applying in additional States, this analysis may have overestimated the burden to these entities.

Projected Activities Previous Method of Projections The previous ICR was based on projections, since data on the rate of activities were not available. Those projections involved the following steps1:

( a) Use a variety of data sources to project the number of housing units with damaged lead based paint in each of the fifty States and in Tribal areas.

( b) Collect data on the numbers of accredited training providers and certified firms and individuals in those States that had accreditation and certification programs.

( c) Use the relationship between ( a) and ( b) to estimate a general relationship between the number of housing units and the numbers of accredited and certified entities, and use that relationship to project the expected numbers of accredited and certified entities in each State and in Tribal areas. 2 Fees Rule EA.

18 ( d) Partition the numbers derived in ( c) among States that were expected to administer their own programs and those that were expected to be administered by EPA. This generated estimates of the expected steady state numbers for each type of entity, and produced the number of entities expected to be accredited or certified in the first year of the program. These projections were in two parts: the EPA administered universe, and the universe of authorized States and Tribal areas.

( e) Use estimates of expected turnover rates to project both the numbers of new accreditations and certifications in future years and the number of re accreditations and recertifications for both the EPA administered universe and for the universe of authorized States and Tribal areas.

Those procedures were used to develop the following projections for the total number of entities in the national universe, and also the total number of entities in the EPA administered universe over a period of five years2. The changes in the EPA administered universe reflect the progress expected over time in the number of approved State and Tribal area programs. The projections suggested that the increase in approved State programs would reduce the size of the EPA administered universe by 13 percent from the first year to the third year, by 27 percent from the first year to the fourth year, and by 40 percent from the first year to the fifth year.

Type of Entity National Universe EPA Administered Universe Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Accredited Training Providers 177 51 51 44 37 30 Certified Firms 4,069 1,167 1,167 1,011 856 700 Certified Individuals 17,249 4,948 4,948 4,287 3,628 2,969 Total Number of Entities 21,495 6,166 6,166 5,342 4,521 3,699 These projections in turn were used to produce estimates of activity in the EPAadministered universe that was assumed to occur because of turnover ( the exit of some firms and individuals over time and their replacement by others) and because of the periodic need for renewal for existing entities. The assumption was made that the number of entities would be constant over time ( except for the movement of activities from EPA administration to State or Tribal administration), so that each exiting entity would be replaced by a corresponding new entry. The rates of exit and entry were assumed to be as follows:

2 percent per year for training providers 10 percent per year for certified firms 30 percent per year for certified workers 20 percent per year for supervisors and other certified professionals 19 Those estimates of the level of accredited and certified entities and those estimated rates of turnover were then used to produce these estimates of activity in the EPA universe:

Type of Activity EPA Administered Universe Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Training Programs  New Accreditations  Re accreditations 320 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 184 Firms  New Certifications  Certification Extensions 1,167 0 117 0 101 0 86 624 70 51 Individuals  New Certifications  Re certifications 4,948 0 1,104 0 956 0 809 0 664 692 Totals 6,435 1,225 1,061 1,519 1,661 Data on EPA Administered Activities Those projections can be compared to data on the level of activity actually observed by EPA. The data are in a form that is not in exact alignment with the structure of the projections, due to the way the program has been administrated. The program began on March 1, 1999. EPA subsequently made arrangements to have a contractor handle the program. That contractor's work began on July 1, 1999 and the contract has been renewed annually since then. As a result, data are available on the basis of contract years, spanning the period from July 1 to the following June 30. Data are also available for the first four months of the program, from March 1 to June 30, 1999. Data have also been obtained for the most recent six months, from July 1, 2003 to January 30, 2004. One difficulty with the available data is that individual certifications are not all broken down by categories. The data on observed activities in the EPA administered universe are shown below: 20 EPA Administered Activities, March 1 1999 through January 30 2004 Data are from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the following year, unless otherwise specified March through June 1999 1999/ 2000 2000/ 01 2001/ 02 2002/ 03 July 2003 through January 2004 New training program accreditations 34 120 50 11 28 7 Training program reaccreditations 88 95 New firm certifications 1 358 342 242 175 88 Firm certification extensions 293 92 New individual certifications 21 2,426 2,466 1,801 1,274 689 Individual re certifications 505 511 Totals 56 2,904 2,858 2,054 2,363 1,482 In comparing the initial projections to the observed activity, two things are clear. There was substantially less activity in the initial year than was projected, and there has been substantially more activity than projected in the later years, at least with regard to first time accreditations and certifications. The first point suggests either that the steady state number of entities may be lower than anticipated, or that it took more than one year to reach that anticipated steady state. The second point suggests that the rates of entry and exit are higher than anticipated. These observations are especially apparent with respect to the entry rate of new training providers. The number of new training programs accredited over the past thirty months is substantially higher than would be expected based on the projected total number of training providers and based on both the projected and observed renewal rates. This strongly suggests that the number of accredited training programs in EPA administered areas is rising, rather than reaching a stable plateau as was assumed in earlier analyses.

Projections of EPA Administered Activities The evidence of the data on the first four or five years of the program shows that the actual pattern of activities does not agree closely with the initial projections. The procedures for projecting future activities for the purpose of this ICR are similar to the methods in the initial projections, but are based on the observed data. The pattern of new accreditations and certifications will be based on observations of new activities over the most recent thirty months. The pattern of renewals or extensions of accreditations and certifications will be based on the number of expiring accreditations and certifications, and on the proportion of expiring accreditations and certifications that have been renewed in the past. These means will be used to project EPA administered activities over the six month period of February to June 2004, and then to the three years covered by this ICR. 21 Another shortcoming here is that our projections do not distinguish among the different categories of individual certifications. A later section of the analysis will estimate the breakdown of the projected totals to those professional categories.

The method used for new first time accreditations and certifications is simply to estimate the rate of these activities over the last thirty months of data, and then project that future activities will occur at that same rate.

There were a total of 46 new training accreditations over the last 30 months of data, or an average of 1.53 per month or 18.4 per year. Based on that, we project that there will be 18 new training accreditations each coming year. That means there will be 11 more accreditations in the next six months and then 18 in each subsequent year.

There were a total of 505 new firm certifications over the last 30 months of data, or an average of 16.83 per month or 202 per year. Based on that, we project that there will be 200 new firm certifications each coming year. That means there will be 112 more firm certifications in the next six months and then 200 in each subsequent year.

There were a total of 3764 new individual certifications over the last 30 months of data, or an average of 125.47 per month or 1505.6 per year. Based on that, we project that there will be 1500 new individual certifications each coming year. That means that there will be 811 new individual certifications in the next six months and then 1500 in each subsequent year.

The projections of training renewals are made by multiplying the rate of renewals that we see to date by the number of expiring accreditations and certifications.

Training certification must be renewed every four years. Over the past 18 months we have observed a total of 183 training renewals. These renewals must be associated with the training programs that were accredited in the first burst of activity, which would include the first four months of the program and the subsequent two years. There were a total of 204 training programs that were accredited in that initial period. That suggests that 183 out of 204 initial accreditations have been renewed. That represents a renewal rate of roughly 90 percent. There might be some additional renewals in the next six months, but 90 percent is already a high percentage and it seems unlikely that the renewal percentage could be much higher than that. So for the purposes of these projections we assume a 90 percent rate of training renewals, with no additional training renewals occurring in the next six months. Since there were 50 new training programs accredited in year two of the program, we project that 45 ( 90 % of 50) will renew in year six of the program. Similarly, we project 10 training renewals in year seven ( 90% of 11) and 104 renewals in year eight ( 90% of 28 + 88).

Firm certification must be renewed every three years. In the first 16 months of the program we observed 359 new certifications. Three years later, in the July 2002 to June 2003 period, we have observed 293 renewals. That is a renewal rate of 81.6 percent. Therefore we estimate a renewal rate of 82 percent in subsequent periods. Since 82 percent of 342 is 280, we 22 project 188 renewals over the next six months ( 280  92). Since 242 new firm certifications occurred in year 3, we project 198 renewals in year six. Since there was a total of 468 new and renewed certifications in year four, we project 384 firm renewals in year seven. Since we project a total of 200 new firm certifications and 280 firm renewals in year five, we project 394 firm renewals in year eight.

Individual certifications must be renewed every three years ( unless they do the 5 year plan, which apparently has not been utilized). There were 2447 individual certifications in the first 16 months of the program, and then 505 renewals in the year from July 2002 to June 2003. That suggests a renewal rate of about 21 percent. But in only the first six months of the July 2003 to June 2004 period we already see 511 renewals in comparison to 2466 individual certifications in year two of the program. That is a renewal rate of about 21 percent, with just the first six months of renewals. Either there will be no more individual renewals over the next six months, or the renewal rate observed from program year 2000/ 2001 to program year 2003/ 04 will be higher than the rate from year 1999/ 2000 to year 2002/ 03. There is no way to know what we will observe over the next six months, but it seems extreme to assume absolutely no more renewals. This analysis assumes that there will be some additional renewals, so that the observed renewal rate in year five will be greater than observed in year four. For the sake of simplicity, this analysis assumes a renewal rate of 25 percent for individual certifications for purposes of these projections. That means that the analysis projects a total of 616 individual renewals in the period from July 2003 to June 2004 ( 25 % of 2466), so that one can expect to see an additional 105 renewals in the six months from February to June 2004 ( 616  511). Then the analysis projects 450 individual renewals in the 2004/ 05 year ( 25% of 1801); 445 renewals in the 2005/ 06 year ( 25% of 1274 + 505); and 529 renewals in the 2006/ 2007 year ( 25% of 1500 + 616).

The following table includes both the data on activities up through January 2004 and projections from February 2004 through June 2007. 23 EPA Administered Accreditation and Certification and Renewal Activities Data from March 1999 to January 2004 and Projections from February 2004 to June 2007 Data are from July 1 of one year to June 30 of the following year, unless otherwise noted . Data on EPA Administered Activities Projections of EPA Administered Activities March through June 1999 1999/ 2000 2000/ 2001 2001/ 2002 2002/ 2003 July 2003 through January 2004 February 2004 through June 2004 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 New training accreditations 34 120 50 11 28 7 11 18 18 18 Training renewals 88 95 0 45 10 104 Firm new certifications 1 358 342 242 175 88 112 200 200 200 Firm renewals 293 92 188 198 384 394 New individual certifications 21 2,426 2,466 1,801 1,274 689 811 1,500 1,500 1,500 Individual renewals 505 511 105 450 445 529 Totals 56 2,904 2,858 2,054 2,363 1,482 1,227 2,411 2,557 2,745 These projections show a substantially greater rate of activity than was initially projected, particularly in regard to the high rate of first time accreditations and certifications. In the case of certifications, this probably reflects a higher rate of turnover rather than a higher stock of certified firms and individuals. As discussed earlier, the unexpectedly high rate of new training program accreditations in combination with the high rate of accreditation renewals suggests that the number of such programs is rising. The methods used in making these projections assumes that the trends of the recent past continue over the next few years. If this assumption is incorrect and the number of training programs reaches a plateau, then this analysis will have overestimated the burden associated with training program accreditations.

It may be helpful in understanding these projections to look at the relationships between the turnover rate and the renewal rate that would exist if the total numbers of accredited and certified entities were to remain constant. For example, if we start with 100 training providers who are accredited in year one, and if 2.5 percent of them leave the business each year, then after four years there will be 90 entities who remain in business and therefore renew their accreditation. This means that a turnover rate of 2.5 percent per year is consistent with a renewal rate of 90 percent. Through a similar calculation, we find that a renewal rate of 82 percent for certified firms is consistent with a turnover rate of 6.4 percent. This is because 93.6% x 93.6% 93.6% = 0.82. Similarly, a renewal rate of 25 percent for certified individuals is consistent with a turnover rate of 37 percent per year. We can compare these turnover rates that have been derived from the 24 data on observed activities to the turnover rates that were estimated in the Fees Rule EA. The comparison is not exact because the Fees Rule EA separately estimated the turnover rates for lead paint abatement workers and for the other categories of professionals.

Turnover Rate Estimates for EPA Administered Activities Estimates from the Fees Rule EA Estimates Based on Observed Data 1999 to January 2004 Accredited training providers 2 percent 2.5 percent Certified firms 10 percent 6.4 percent Certified workers 30 percent 37 percent Other certified workers 20 percent It is not clear from the data whether the assumption of a steady state number of accredited and certified entities is accurate. But in the absence of better information, these estimates can be used not only in projections of activities in the EPA administered areas, but also in projections of activities in State and Tribal administered areas.

The available data represent not only the pattern of activities in EPA administered areas, but also the reduction in those activities due to the transfer of some States and/ or Tribes from EPA administration to their own programs. Making adjustments to the data to account for the changing size of the EPA administered universe might improve the accuracy of the projection. But it would be difficult to separate out the portion of activity transferred from EPA to State or Tribal administration. For example, the Fees Rule EA estimated that by the fourth year the number of certified firms would fall by 27 percent due to State program approvals. But the renewal rate of firms observed in the fourth year was 81.6 percent. Those two numbers are clearly inconsistent. For simplicity and in the absence of a better alternative, this analysis disregards these changes in administration and assumes that the scope of EPA administration is constant over both the time represented by the data and the time period of projections. It is not clear how this assumption would bias the estimates of the level of activities under EPA administration, and thus our projections could be either an under or over estimate of the burden and costs of the program in those areas.

The methods for projecting EPA administered activities have focused on the numbers of renewals and on the numbers of new entries each year. For some purposes in this analysis, it will be helpful to also have an estimate of the total numbers of entities that are active and accredited or certified in a given year. These numbers can be calculated based on the already developed numbers of activities in conjunction with the estimates of the turnover rates. The method for these calculations starts with the numbers in the first year cohorts that have already been identified in the data ( through January 2004) or projected. The size of these cohorts is then tracked over time based on the estimated turnover rates. 25 The method proceeds in the manner illustrated in this example. The first year cohort of certified firms in the year July 2003 to June 2004 consists of the number of firms that either renew their certifications or are certified for the first time. From the earlier table the number of newly certified firms in that year is estimated to be 200 and the number of renewals is estimated to be 280, for a total cohort size of 480 certified firms. The turnover rate for firms is estimated to be 6.4 percent. We then calculate the size of that cohort in 2004/ 05 will be 449 ( 480  31), and during that year that group will be the second year cohort. In 2005/ 06 it will be the third year cohort and will include 420 firms ( 449  29). The firms in the third year cohort will be due for renewal of their certifications, so in the following year ( 2006/ 07) the firms that do renew will be a part of the first year cohort.

Estimated Numbers of Certified Firms in EPA Administered Areas ( turnover rate of 6.4 %, fractions in overall totals only rounded to whole numbers)

First year numbers taken from earlier table 2002/ 2003 2003/ 2004 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 First year cohort New 175 200 200 200 200 Renewed 293 280 198 384 394 First year totals 468 480 398 584 594 Second year cohort   438.05 449.28 372.53 546.62 Third year cohort     410.01 420.53 348.69 Total n/ a n/ a 1,257 1,377 1,489 For clarity in subsequent calculations, the numbers of projected certified firms are rounded to whole numbers, and cohort numbers are adjusted if necessary to preserve the overall totals.

Estimated Numbers of Certified Firms in EPA Administered Areas ( all fractions rounded to whole numbers and adjusted to preserve totals)

2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 First year cohort New 200 200 200 Renewed 198 384 394 First year totals 398 584 594 Second year cohort 449 372 546 Third year cohort 410 421 349 Total 1,257 1,377 1,489 26 Estimated Numbers of Accredited Training Providers in EPA Administered Areas ( turnover rate of 2.5 %, fractions in overall totals only rounded to whole numbers)

First year numbers taken from earlier table 2001/ 2002 2002/ 03 2003/ 04 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 First year cohort New 11 28 18 18 18 18 Renewed 0 88 95 45 10 104 First year totals 11 116 113 63 28 122 Second year cohort   8.25 87.00 84.75 47.25 21.00 Third year cohort     6.19 65.25 63.56 35.44 Fourth year cohort       4.64 48.94 47.67 Overall totals n/ a n/ a n/ a 218 188 226 For clarity in subsequent calculations, the numbers of projected accredited training providers are rounded to whole numbers.

Estimated Numbers of Accredited Training Providers in EPA Administered Areas ( all fractions rounded to whole numbers)

2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 First year cohort New 18 18 18 Renewed 45 10 104 First year totals 63 28 122 Second year cohort 85 47 21 Third year cohort 65 64 35 Fourth year cohort 5 49 48 Overall totals 218 188 226 27 Estimated Numbers of Certified Individuals in EPA Administered Areas ( turnover rate of 37 %, fractions in overall totals only rounded to whole numbers)

First year numbers taken from earlier table 2002/ 2003 2003/ 2004 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 First year cohort New 1,274 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 Renewed 505 616 450 445 529 First year totals 1,779 2,116 1,950 1,945 2,029 Second year cohort   1,120.77 1,333.08 1,228.50 1,225.35 Third year cohort     706.09 839.84 773.95 Total n/ a n/ a 3,989 4,013 4,028 For clarity in subsequent calculations, the numbers of projected certified individuals are rounded to whole numbers, and then cohort numbers are adjusted if necessary to preserve the overall totals.

Estimated Numbers of Certified Individuals in EPA Administered Areas ( all fractions rounded to whole numbers and adjusted to preserve totals)

2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 First year cohort New 1,500 1,500 1,500 Renewed 450 445 529 First year totals 1,950 1,945 2,029 Second year cohort 1,333 1,228 1,225 Third year cohort 706 840 774 Total 3,989 4,013 4,028 It may be interesting to compare these projections to the estimates that were included in prior analyses. The Fees Rule EA provided estimates of the numbers of entities in the fifth year of the program. The following table reproduces those numbers next to the estimates above. 3 U. S. EPA. Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402( a)( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule. February 26, 1999.

28 Comparison of Estimates of Numbers of Accredited or Certified Entities Previous estimate from 1999 Fees Rule EA Estimates used in this analysis 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Accredited training providers 30 218 188 226 Certified firms 700 1,257 1,377 1,489 Certified individuals 2,969 3,989 4,013 4,028 Total number of entities 3,699 5,464 5,578 5,743 It is apparent from this table that the estimates made in this analysis suggest a much larger number of entities in the EPA administered areas than were projected in the earlier analysis. In particular, the predicted number of certified firms is much larger, and the predicted number of accredited training programs is very much larger. There is little reason to doubt the current estimates and to prefer the 1999 estimates, since we know from the data on activities that a total of 218 training providers has either been accredited or renewed their accreditation in the last eighteen months, in comparison to the 1999 estimate of a total of 30 training providers under EPA administration.

Projections of State and Tribal Administered Activities The projections for EPA administered areas in this analysis draw on data available to the Agency on the pattern of activities observed in those areas over the past five years. Those data were used not only to estimate the number of accredited and certified entities, but also the yearto year pattern of new entry, exit, and renewals of accreditations and certifications.

EPA does not have similar data from the State and Tribal programs. In the Fees Rule Economic Analysis3, EPA estimated the numbers of entities and activities in non EPA areas based on estimates of the number of States and Tribes that would be approved to manage their own programs, estimates of the number of housing units with damaged lead based paint in those areas, and the estimated relationship between those housing numbers and the number of abatement firms and workers. The Fees Rule EA included estimates for the total number of accredited and certified entities in the entire U. S. It also assumed that this numbers would be constant over time. The share of those totals under EPA administration was expected to diminish over time as more State programs were approved. As the totals under EPA administration declined, similar totals in State and Tribal areas would increase.

The Fees Rule EA estimated that number of State approved programs would reach 39 in year five of the program. As of January 2004, there are 39 authorized State programs and three authorized Tribal programs. These numbers are sufficiently close to the earlier estimate that, in 29 the absence of any additional information, this analysis will use those year five estimates for the number of accredited and certified entities in the non EPA areas. The information available to the Agency on the pattern of activities in EPA administered areas is used in conjunction with the previous estimates of the number of entities to project the pattern of activities in the State and Tribal administered areas over the next three years. Thus, while the method of projection in the non EPA areas is quite different from the method used for the EPA areas, this non EPA area method has relied as much as possible on the same data that were used to project activities in the EPA areas.

Estimates of the Total Numbers of Accredited and Certified Entities in Year Five of the Program from the 1999 Fees Rule EA Type of Entity National Universe EPA Administered Non EPA Administered Accredited Training Providers 177 30 147 Certified Firms 4,069 700 3,369 Certified Individuals 17,249 2,969 14,280 Total Number of Entities 21,495 3,699 17,796 For the numbers of accredited and certified entities to be constant, the numbers of new entries must equal the number of exits. In addition, the number of renewals should equal the total number of new and renewing entities either three or four years earlier, adjusted downward to reflect the number of exiting entities from that cohort. The projection method used to estimate future activities in State and Tribal administered areas is based on the mathematical relationships defined by those two conditions. A short explanation of the mathematical derivation follows.

Assume that some constant fraction of entities leaves the business and drops out from each cohort each year. That is the turnover rate. Let that fraction equal  . Then the fraction that remain in the business is 1   . Define   = 1    as the retention rate. Now let the total number of entities be at a steady state, constant from period to period, with a total of T entities. So in any given cycle we find that  T entities drop out, and there will be  T new entities to replace them, as well as  T that remain in business.

Assume that each cohort must renew their certification after three years, if they have not dropped out of the business. Define each cohort by the number of years remaining before they need to be recertified. The largest cohort will include some entities that have just been certified for the first time and some other entities that have just renewed their certification. As each year passes these two groups progress together in the same cohort. In this way, each cohort will be a mixture of firms that entered the business in different cycles, but all will have the same number of years remaining before they need to renew their certification.

The largest cohort will include entities who have just been accredited for the first time and entities who have just renewed their accreditation. Both groups will have three years till they 30 need recertification. Call this group " A," and let the term A also represent the number of entities in that cohort. Since the population is in a steady state, there will be a cohort " A" in every period that is the same size. In the following period the cohort will be reduced by attrition to a size  A. Call this second year cohort B, and again let the term B also represent the number of entities remaining in that cohort in the second year, so that B =  A. Then the third year cohort ( referred to as " C") will again be reduced by attrition by the factor  , so that C =  B =   2A. The total is simply the sum of the cohorts, so that T = A + B + C, or T = A ( 1 +   +   2). In other words, A = T/( 1 +   +   2). For a given retention rate   and a given total number of entities T, we can now calculate the size of each of the cohorts. In addition, we can project that  C will be the portion of entities that renew their accreditation each period. Since A is the cohort that is either new or has renewed their certification, we know that the number of new entities each period will be A   C. But we know that C =   2A, so that the number of new entities in any period will be A ( 1    3). This allows us to project both the number of new entities and the number of renewals each period, based on our estimate of the turn over rate and the steady state number of entities.

The calculation process can be summarized in three equations:

2 T First year cohort = A = 1     + +

3 2 1 New certifications per year = T 1

     + +   3 2 Certification renewals per year = T 1

   + +   This process must be modified to project the number of newly accredited training programs and the number of program accreditation renewals each period. The training programs need to be reaccredited every four years rather than three, resulting in slightly different equations.

4 2 3 1 New training providers per year = T 1

     + + +   4 2 4 Training program reaccreditations per year = T 1

   + + +   In estimating the number of activities in the non EPA universe, we use the previous estimates from the Fees Rule EA to get estimates of the total number of entities in each group. 31 The Fees Rule estimated a growth in the State and Tribal administered programs, and the fifth year data best reflect the current number of approved programs.

Numbers of Entities in the Non EPA Universe, as Estimated in the Fees Rule EA Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Accredited Training Providers 126 126 133 140 147 Certified Firms 2902 2902 3058 3213 3369 Certified Individuals 12301 12301 12962 13621 14280 Total Number of Entities 15329 15329 16153 16974 17796 We use the fifth year estimates of numbers of entities, and the turn over rates estimated from the EPA universe data. These data and formulas yield the following projections:

Projections of Activities in the Non EPA Universe Training providers renew after 4 years; certified entities renew after 3 years Total number of entities 3 or 4 year renewal rate Annual turnover rate (  ) Annual retention rate (  ) Annual number of new entities Annual number of renewals Training providers 147 90 % 2.6 % 97.4 % 4 34 Firms 3,369 82 % 6.4 % 93.6 % 216 982 Individuals 14,280 25 % 37.0 % 63.0 % 5,284 1,761 These are the estimated annual numbers of activities in the non EPA universe that will be used in this analysis. Since it is expected that a large proportion of accredited and certified entities entered the program within the first year or two, the actual pattern of new and renewal actions probably varies substantially from year to year. But the numbers generated in this steadystate analysis are expected to be a good representation of the average level of activity over time.

The formulas that were used in deriving those projections can also be used to divide the total numbers of accredited and certified entities into year class cohorts. 4 Personal Communication, Doreen Cantor, National Program Chemicals Division, EPA.

32 Estimates of the Numbers of Accredited and Certified Entities in Non EPA Administered Areas By Year class Cohorts ( rounded to whole numbers so that totals agree)

Type of Entity Totals Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Accredited Training Providers 147 38 37 36 36 Certified Firms 3,369 1,198 1,121 1,050 n/ a Certified Individuals 14,280 7,045 4,439 2,796 n/ a Proportions of Certified Individuals The projections above do not distinguish among the the five professional classifications for which EPA provides certification. A time series break down of all the data on activities by discipline was not available. However, we do have data on 5815 certifications and renewals by discipline4. We assume that all individual certification and renewal activity is divided among these disciplines in the same proportions as in that set of 5815 activities. We expect that the renewal rate for abatement workers will be lower than for the other professions, and that consequently the estimates will be biased. The number of renewals by abatement workers will be overestimated and the number of first time certifications for abatement workers will be underestimated. Conversely, the number of renewals by the other categories will be underestimated and the number of first time certifications for the other categories will be overestimated. The estimates of burden hours per individual differ across professions, but the burden hours per individual are the same for first time and renewals, so on balance the biases in estimates produced with this approach will cancel out and produce an estimate of the total burden hours and costs that is more accurate than the estimates broken down by categories.

Numbers and Proportions of Certification Activities by Discipline National Universe of Certified Individuals as Estimated in the Fees Rule EA Observed Numbers of Certifications and Renewals in the Available Data ( Under EPA Administration)

Discipline Numbers Proportions Numbers Proportions Inspectors 5,175 30.0 % 688 11.8 %

Risk Assessors 4,140 24.0 % 1,287 22.1 %

Supervisors 3,795 22.0 % 1,299 22.3 %

Workers 3,967 23.0 % 2,462 42.4 %

Project Designers 172 1.0 % 76 1.4 % 33 As seen in that table, the proportions of risk assessors, supervisors and project designers observed in the data are very close to those predicted in the Fees Rule EA. However, we see a substantially smaller proportion of inspectors and a much larger proportion of workers in the data.

The proportions that we obtained from the available data, broken down by discipline, can be combined with previous estimates of individual accreditation activities to give estimates of activities by year and by discipline.

Numbers of Certification Activities by Discipline and by Year ( estimates rounded to whole numbers so that totals agree)

EPA Administered Areas State and Tribal Areas 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 New inspectors 177 177 177 624 624 624 Inspector renewals 53 53 63 208 208 208 New risk assessors 331 331 331 1168 1168 1168 Risk assessor renewals 100 98 117 389 389 389 New supervisors 335 335 335 1178 1178 1178 Supervisor renewals 100 99 118 393 393 393 New abatement workers 636 636 636 2240 2240 2240 Abatement workers renewals 191 189 224 747 747 747 New project designers 21 21 21 74 74 74 Project designer renewals 6 6 7 24 24 24 Training Providers Initial Accreditation A training program may seek accreditation to offer courses in any of the following disciplines: inspector, risk assessor, project designer, supervisor, or worker. However, before training providers can apply for accreditation, they must familiarize themselves with the specific requirements of the rule, as well as compare the contents of their current training courses ( if any) to the requirements specified in the rule. Included in this burden estimate is the managerial time spent in deciding if the training provider should offer lead based paint training. Based on estimates provided in the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Interim Rule to Revise the Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan ( MAP) ( EPA, 1993), this analysis assumes a total burden of 8 hours associated with rule familiarization and determination of applicability. 34 If the training provider decides to apply for accreditation, an application must be submitted to EPA containing the following information:

the training provider's name, address, and telephone number,

a list of courses for which it is applying for accreditation,

a statement signed by the training program manager that clearly indicates how the training program meets the minimum requirement for accreditation, or a statement that indicates that the training program will use the EPA developed curriculum if available,

a copy of the course test blueprint, a description of the activities and procedures for conducting the assessment of hands on skills, and a description of the facilities and equipment for lecture and hands on training, and

a quality control plan, which outlines procedures for periodic revision of training materials and exams and annual reviews of instructors.

The burden of completing the accreditation statement varies depending on whether the training provider adopts the EPA developed curriculum or chooses to use their own training curriculum. The burden associated with implementing a non EPA curriculum, and providing documentation demonstrating that the curriculum meets certain minimum requirements, is significantly greater than adopting the EPA curriculum. Given the similarity between requirements, data collected to assess the burden of preparing an accreditation statement for training approval under the Asbestos MAP were used to estimate the burden of the training provider approval process required by this rule. Based on the Asbestos MAP, the burden associated with adoption of the EPA curriculum is estimated to be 4 hours, or 40 hours if training providers use their own curriculum. At this time, there is no firm basis for estimating the proportion of training providers that will adopt the EPA curriculum versus those that will use their own. This analysis assumes that most training providers ( 90 percent) will adopt the EPA curriculum, resulting in an average burden of 7.6 hours (( 0.90* 4 hours) + ( 0.10* 40 hours)) of professional time for completion of the accreditation statement. The analysis further assumes two hours of clerical time required for completion of the accreditation statement.

The burden associated with developing the quality control plan is the same for all training providers whether they adopt the EPA curriculum or develop their own. Similar data for estimating the quality control plan burden were not available in the Asbestos MAP. Due to data limitations, this analysis assumes that the preparation of the quality control plan will take 8 hours of professional time and 2 hours of clerical time.

Quadrennial Reporting Training provider accreditations are valid for a period of 4 years. Training providers seeking re accreditation are required to submit an application to the approving authority containing: 35

the training provider's name, address, and telephone number,

a list of courses for which it is applying for re accreditation,

a description of any changes or updates to the training facility, equipment, or course materials that would adversely affect the students' ability to learn,

a statement signed by the program manager certifying that the program complies with all of the requirements of this rule including recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Limited data are available regarding the burden of re accreditation. Therefore, this analysis makes the simplifying assumption that it will take one half of the time it took to apply for initial certification ( i. e., 4.8 hours). An audit may also be performed by the approving authority to verify the certification statement and the contents of the application. At this time, the proportion of applicants audited is unknown. This analysis assumes that 10 percent of all programs applying for re accreditation will be audited in a given year. Total burden for a training provider to prepare for and participate in an audit is assumed to be 2 hours professional and 4 hours of clerical time because much of the work will be assembling files for the auditor.

Annual Recordkeeping There are significant first year and subsequent year recordkeeping requirements burdens for training providers. Sections 402( a) and 404 of TSCA require that training providers keep records on:

qualifications of the training manager and principal instructors,

curriculum/ course materials, and documents reflecting any changes made to these materials,

course test blueprint,

hands on skills assessment methodology,

quality control plan,

student files ( including hands on skills assessments, course test results), and

any other materials that were submitted to the EPA as part of the program's application for accreditation.

These reports must be held for a minimum period of three and one half years. Chapter 9 of the TSCA Title IV Sections 402( a) and 404: Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities Final Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis estimates that, in total, training provider records will be 11 pages plus two pages for each of their students. The filing burden is calculated as a per report/ file burden, and is not affected by the number of pages in the report; the number of pages only affects the cost of materials. Therefore, the recordkeeping burden estimates for training providers include labor associated with the filing and maintenance of the records only ( one hour of clerical time).

This analysis estimates the burden for all training providers in the year 2004/ 05 to be 413 hours for training providers in State administered programs and 916 hours for training providers 36 in EPA administered programs. The total reporting and recordkeeping burden for all training providers in year 2004/ 05 is estimated to be 1,329 hours. Similarly, the burden for all training providers in the year 2005/ 06 is 413 hours in State programs and 703 hours under EPA administration, for a total of 1,116 hours. The burden for training providers in 2006/ 07 is 413 hours in State programs and 1,241 hours under EPA administration, for a total of 1,654 hours. These estimates all assume that the burden per entity and per activity is the same in both EPA and State administered programs, so that the burden in any area for a given year depends only on the estimated numbers of entities and activities in that area for that year. Exhibit 6.1. below summarizes the burden of reporting and annual recordkeeping requirements for training providers. 37 Exhibit 6.1. Training Providers: Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Estimates Burden Element Professional Hours Clerical Hours Burden Hours Per Training Provider Accreditation Rule Familiarization 8.00 0.00 8.00 Accreditation Statement 7.60 2.00 9.60 Quality Control Plan 8.00 2.00 10.00 Annual Burden Recordkeeping 0.00 0.81 0.81 Reaccreditation Burden ( In Addition to the Annual Burden) Re accreditation 3.80 1.00 4.80 Audit* 0.20 0.40 0.60 Burden Per Training Provider Year of Initial Accreditation 28.41 Second, Third, and Fourth Year of Operation 0.81 Year of Accreditation Renewal 6.21 Training Providers Per Year Number of State Administered Entities Number of EPA Administered Entities 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 New Accreditations 4 4 4 18 18 18 Second Year Cohort 37 37 37 85 47 21 Third Year Cohort 36 36 36 65 64 35 Fourth Year Cohort 36 36 36 5 49 48 Accreditation renewals 34 34 34 45 10 104 Burden Per Year State Administered Entities EPA Administered Entities 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Burden in Hours 413 413 413 916 703 1241 Burden Summary Per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Total Burden in Hours 1329 1116 1654 * This analysis assumes that 10 percent of all programs applying for re accreditation will be audited. Estimates of burden hours per event taken from the Fees Rule EA and the previous ICR renewal.

Firms Performing Lead based Paint Activities Initial Certification In order to perform the lead based paint activities that are regulated under sections 402( a) and 404, firms performing lead based paint activities, such as inspections and abatements, 38 are required to seek certification from the approving authority. Similar to training providers, these firms must first familiarize themselves with the specific requirements of the rule. They must also determine if it is profitable to enter the market for lead based paint activities. This analysis assumes that it will take only 6 hours for firms, as opposed to 8 hours for training providers, for rule familiarization because firms do not need to compare and contrast as much information. If a firm decides to enter the market, a certification letter must be sent to the approving authority indicating that the firm will follow the standards set forth in the rule and will employ only certified employees. The cost of certifying individuals is discussed in a later section. The professional burden estimate of one hour and the clerical burden estimate of 0.5 hours for initial certification are taken from Chapter 9 of TSCA Title IV Sections 402( a) and 404: Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities Final Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping While performing lead based paint activities, firms are required to complete and maintain a number of reports including:

inspection report describing the areas inspected and the results of the inspection,

risk assessment/ lead hazard screen report, which includes the sampling results and the associated hazards,

occupant protection plan identifying the areas requiring abatement and the methods that will be employed to remediate the hazard and protect workers, and

abatement report detailing the activities undertaken to eliminate the hazard.

This analysis adopts the estimates of events per firm developed in the previous ICRs. The total numbers of events are calculated by multiplying those numbers of events per firm by the number of firms estimated in this ICR. The estimates for the burden per event and burden per firm are those developed in the previous ICRs.

The analysis in the TSCA Title IV Sections 402( a) and 404: Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities Final Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis makes two assumptions about the certification and reporting requirements of firms performing lead based paint activities. First, because it is current industry practice to report and maintain the records from a lead inspection, there is no incremental reporting/ recordkeeping burden associated with this activity. Additionally, there are no incremental costs associated with the reporting and recordkeeping of lead hazard screens as defined by this rule. Second, since the various reports will be completed by the inspector, risk assessor, project designer, or supervisor, no clerical support will be required for the reporting requirements; clerical support will be needed for the recordkeeping requirements.

The burden of completing the reports mentioned above varies by report and is indicated in Exhibit 6.2. The reporting burden estimates include the time associated with collecting the information needed to complete the reports. In the upper portions of that exhibit, the professional burden per firm is the reporting burden per event multiplied by the estimated 39 average number of each particular event per firm. Similarly, the clerical burden per firm is the recordkeeping burden per report multiplied by the number of events per firm. The burden hours per firm is then the sum of the profession and clerical burdens.

This analysis estimates the total reporting and recordkeeping burden to all firms in year 2004/ 05 to be 374,519 hours. The burden for 2005/ 06 is estimated at 383,384 hours, and for 2006/ 07 to be 392,563 hours. In each year the share of that burden in EPA administered areas is about 30 percent of the total, with 70 percent in non EPA administered areas. Exhibit 6.2. below summarizes the burden of the reporting and annual recordkeeping requirements to firms.

Exhibit 6.2. Firms: Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Estimates Category Number of Events per Firm Reporting Burden per Event Professional Burden per Firm Recordkeeping Burden Per Report Clerical Burden per Firm Burden Hours Per Firm Certification Rule familiarization 1.00 6.00 6.00 0.000 0.000 6.00 Certification letter 1.00 1.5* 1.50 0.008 0.008 1.51 * Includes 0.5 hours clerical time.

Target Housing ( including soil abatements) Risk assessment and lead hazard screen reports 16.11 1.86 29.96 0.008 0.134 30.09 Pre abatement notifications 4.51 0.50 2.25 0.008 0.037 2.29 Occupant protection plan 13.97 1.00 13.97 0.008 0.116 14.08 Post abatement reports 13.97 2.00 27.94 0.008 0.000 27.94 Child Occupied Facilities ( including soil abatements) Risk assessment reports 0.12 1.09 0.14 0.008 0.001 0.14 Pre abatement notifications 0.12 0.50 0.06 0.008 0.001 0.06 Occupant protection plan 0.12 1.00 0.12 0.008 0.001 0.13 Post abatement reports 0.12 2.00 0.25 0.008 0.001 0.25 Burden per Firm Firms in year of initial certification 82.49 Firms in second year cohort 74.98 Firms in third year cohort 74.98 Firms in year of recertification 76.49 40 Firms per Year Number of State Administered Entities Number of EPA Administered Entities 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Initial certification year 216 216 216 200 200 200 Second year cohort 1121 1121 1121 449 373 547 Third year cohort 1050 1050 1050 410 421 349 Recertifying firms 982 982 982 198 384 394 Burden per Year State Administered Entities EPA Administered Entities Burden in hours 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Initial certification year 17,818 17,818 17,818 16,498 16,498 16,498 Second year cohort 84,053 84,053 84,053 33,666 27,968 41,014 Third year cohort 78,729 78,729 78,729 30,742 31,567 26,168 Recertifying firms 75,113 75,113 75,113 15,145 29,372 30,137 Total burden per year 255,713 255,713 255,713 96,051 105,405 113,817 Burden Summary by Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Total Burden in hours 351,764 361,118 369,530 Individual Abatement Professionals Burden Initial Certification In order to become certified to perform lead abatement activities, individuals must apply to the certifying authority. The reporting requirements for certification are the same for inspectors, risk assessors, and supervisors; and for workers and project designers. Certifications are generally valid for a period of three years. In the fourth year, individuals trained in the first year who are still active will need to take refresher training and get recertified. The time associated with re certification is the same as initial certification.

The requirements for certification for inspectors, risk assessors, and supervisors include submitting proof of:

completion of a training course,

passing the course test,

meeting the educational and/ or experience requirements ( if applicable), and

passing the third party exam.

It is estimated that it will take one hour to gather and send these documents per individual. 41 The requirements for project designers and workers include proof of:

completion of a training course, and

meeting the educational and/ or experience requirement ( if applicable)

It is estimated that it will take one half hour to gather and send this document per individual.

This analysis estimates the total reporting and recordkeeping burden to all certified individuals in each year covered by this ICR to be about 7,000 hours. Approximately 20 percent of this total burden is incurred by individuals in EPA administered programs. Exhibit 6.3. details the total reporting and recordkeeping burden to the individual subgroups ( e. g. inspectors, risk assessors, and workers) and summarizes the individual burden. 42 Exhibit 6.3. Individual: Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Estimates Burden per Individual Inspectors, Risk Assessors, and Supervisors Workers and Project Designers Year of Initial Certification 1.0 0.5 Second and Third Year of Operation 0.0 0.0 Year of Certification Renewal 1.0 0.5 Individuals per Calender Year Number of State Administered Entities Number of EPA Administered Entities 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 Inspectors Initial certification 624 624 624 177 177 177 Year 2 cohort 524 524 524 157 145 145 Year 3 cohort 330 330 330 83 99 91 Certification 208 208 208 53 53 63 Risk Assessors Initial certification 1,168 1,168 1,168 331 331 331 Year 2 cohort 981 981 981 295 272 271 Year 3 cohort 618 618 618 156 186 171 Certification 389 389 389 100 98 117 Supervisors Initial certification 1,178 1,178 1,178 335 335 335 Year 2 cohort 990 990 990 297 274 273 Year 3 cohort 624 624 624 157 187 173 Certification 393 393 393 100 99 118 Workers Initial certification 2,240 2,240 2,240 636 636 636 Year 2 cohort 1,882 1,882 1,882 565 521 520 Year 3 cohort 1,186 1,186 1,186 299 356 328 Certification 747 747 747 191 189 224 Project Designers Initial certification 74 74 74 21 21 21 Year 2 cohort 62 62 62 19 17 17 Year 3 cohort 39 39 39 10 12 11 Certification 24 24 24 6 6 7 Burden per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Inspectors 1062 1062 1072 Risk Assessors 1988 1986 2005 Supervisors 2006 2005 2024 Workers 1907 1906 1923.5 Project Designers 62.5 62.5 63 Total Individual Burden in Hours 7025.5 7021.5 7087.5 43 State Burden Initial Authorization As of January 2004 there are 39 authorized State programs and three authorized Tribal programs. This analysis assumes that no additional States or Tribes will request authorization during the period covered by this ICR. Based on this assumption, any burden associated with obtaining authorization has already been incurred. While additional States may seek authorization in the future, information is not available at this time upon which to estimate how many and which States may seek authorization. Thus, the number of entities to be administered in these States is also not known.

Reporting and Recordkeeping The previous version of this ICR estimated the burden to States of program authorization, but did not assume administration of entities to be a burden of this rule. However, this revised version does include a burden estimate for the State and Federal administration of training providers, firms and individuals by using State level survey data collected for the Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402( a)( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule.

The State level survey data provide burden hours for the following activities for both the certification and re certification of State administered training providers, firms, and individuals:

° Application processing and recordkeeping ° Certification exam processing and recordkeeping ° Training course audits ° Fee transactions and waivers ° Issuance of certification documents ° Public assistance/ outreach ° Reporting ( to overseeing agencies) ° Other management This analysis multiplied these State level survey data burden hours by the number of Stateadministered training providers, firms, and individuals found in the Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402( a)( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule in order to estimate the total burden to all States of administering training providers, firms, and individuals.

The total reporting and recordkeeping burden to all States with authorized programs is estimated to be 48,813 hours in each year covered by this analysis. This estimate should be regarded as the average burden over those three years. It is likely that the burden will vary from year to year due to the fluctuating pattern of new entries, exits, and renewals. This analysis does not capture that fluctuation, but it does represent our best estimate of the average burden over this period. Exhibit 6.4 details the total reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with each 44 type of State and Tribal administered entity ( e. g., training provider, firm, and individual) and summarizes the burden to States and Tribes for program administration.

Exhibit 6.4. State: Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Estimates State Program Administration Burden per Entity Type Clerical Hours Technical Hours Managerial Hours Certify Re certify Certify Re certify Certify Re certify Training Providers 3.36 1.40 28.37 10.13 8.93 7.63 Firms 0.61 0.44 4.73 4.25 2.90 2.90 Individuals 1.56 1.36 3.15 1.80 1.32 0.76 Entities per Year Number of Activities in State and Tribal Administered Areas 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 Training Providers Accreditations 4 4 4 Re accreditations 34 34 34 Firms Initial certifications 216 216 216 Renewals 982 982 982 Individuals Initial certifications 5,284 5,284 5,284 Renewals 1,761 1,761 1,761 State Program Administration Burden per Year State Burden by Entity Type 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Training Providers 814 814 814 Firms 9,233 9,233 9,233 Individuals 38,766 38,766 38,766 Total State Burden in Hours 48,813 48,813 48,813 Notification Introduction Three types of respondents will be affected by this ICR: 1) training providers, 2) firms performing lead based paint activities, and 3) States. The burden and cost associated with notification are: 1) reporting during the course of the year and 2) recordkeeping during the course of the year. The reporting and recordkeeping burden estimates include the time associated with completing and sending the notification forms to the appropriate authority, as well as the time required to collect the information needed to complete the form. The recordkeeping burden estimates include the time required for the respondent to copy and file a record of the notification form. In addition some States and the Federal government will be affected in their role as administrators of the notification requirement. 5Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402 ( a) ( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule 6 Personal communications with Training Providers. 45 Training Providers Under the rule, pre course notification is required at least 7 business days prior to the start of a lead based paint activities course. Re notification is required if the course date changes. Within 10 days of course completion, training providers are required to submit a post course notification. The information training providers are required to submit during pre course and post course notification is detailed in section 4 of this document. The following sections discuss how the reporting and recordkeeping burden estimates in this analysis were developed. Exhibit 6.5. presents the estimation of training provider burden for the proposed notification rule.

Reporting This analysis assumes that training providers will complete a separate notification form for each lead based paint activity course conducted. The number of pre course and post course notification events was estimated by dividing the total number of students in a given year5 by an estimated average class size6 to obtain the estimated number of courses. According to training providers and abatement firms contacted during the data collection phase of this analysis, currently some notification programs require pre course notification for each individual course, while other programs allow training providers to submit a list of the courses they plan to offer during the coming year. This analysis conservatively assumes one pre course and one post course notification for each training course. In addition, some courses may require re notification. Training providers and State program representatives contacted said that re notification does occur. However, they were not able to estimate a re notification rate. Therefore, this analysis has adopted a re notification rate of 10 percent. An estimate of the amount of time required to complete the pre course and post course notification forms, described in section 4 of this document, was determined by calling a sample of training providers distributed across the U. S. The number of training providers and their levels of activity were estimated in the Accreditation and Certification sections of this analysis.

Recordkeeping The training provider burden estimates described above include the burden associated with filing a one page record of the notification form sent to the administering agency. An estimate of the amount of time needed to file a record was adopted from Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402 ( a) ( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule. 46 Annual Burden Hours As presented below in Exhibit 6.5., this analysis estimates the notification burden for all training providers to be 1,351 hours in the year 2004/ 05, 1,350 hours in the year 2005/ 06, and 1361 hours in 2006/ 07.

Exhibit 6.5. Training Providers: Notification Burden Estimates Category Events per Training Provider Reporting Hours/ Event Recordkeeping Hours/ Event Total Hours/ Event 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Notification Pre notification 2.16 2.35 2.13 0.15 0.01 0.16 Re notification .19 .21 .19 0.15 0.01 0.16 Post notification 2.16 2.35 2.13 1.54 0.01 1.54 Annual Total 4.51 4.91 4.45 Burden Hours per Training Provider 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 3.70 4.03 3.65 Training Providers per Year State Administered EPA Administered 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 147 147 147 218 188 226 Total Burden Hours per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 1,351 1,350 1,361 Firms Under the rule, pre abatement notification is required at least 5 business days prior to the start of lead based paint abatement activities. Re notification is required if the start date or end date of the abatement activity changes. Firms are not required to provide notification after the completion of an abatement project. The information firms are required to submit during preabatement notification is detailed in section 4 of this document. The following sections discuss how the reporting and recordkeeping burden estimates in this analysis were developed. Exhibit 6.6. presents the estimation of firm burden for the proposed notification rule.

Reporting This analysis assumes that firms will complete a separate notification form for each leadbased paint abatement activity conducted. The number of pre abatement notification events per firm was adopted from the TSCA Title V Sections 402( a) and 404: Target Housing and Child Occupied Facilities Final Rule Regulatory Impact Analysis. The number of firms was estimated in the Accreditation and Certification section of this analysis. The number of re notifications was 7 Personal communications with Massachusetts firms. 47 calculated using a re notification rate of 9 percent7. An estimate of the amount of time required to complete the pre abatement notification form, described in section 4 of this document, was determined by calling a sample of firms in the State of Massachusetts.

Recordkeeping The firm burden estimates described above include the burden associated with filing a one page record of the notification form sent to the administering agency. An estimate of the amount of time needed to file a record was adopted from Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402( a)( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule.

Annual Burden Hours As presented below in Exhibit 6.6., this amendment estimates the notification burden for all firms to be 16,284 hours in the year 2004/ 05, 16,709 in 2005/ 06, and 17,104 in 2006/ 07.

Exhibit 6.6. Firms: Notification Burden Estimates Category Events per Firm Reporting Hours/ Event Record keeping Hours/ Event Hours per Firm Notification Pre notification 14.09 0.22 0.01 3.23 Re notification 1.27 0.22 0.01 0.29 Annual Total 15.36 0.22 0.01 3.52 Firms per Year State Administered EPA Administered 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 3,369 3,369 3,369 1,257 1,378 1,490 Total Burden Hours per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 16,284 16,709 17,104 State Burden Under the proposed rule, notifications submitted by training providers and abatement firms would be used by States with authorized programs in support of compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, and to prioritize inspections. The administrative management of information collected under this proposed rule is detailed in section 4 of this document. The following sections discuss how the recordkeeping burden estimates were developed. Exhibit 6.7. presents the estimation of State burden for the proposed notification rule. 48 Recordkeeping The number of notification events per entity are the sum of pre course, post course, and re notifications submitted by training providers, and the sum of pre abatement and re notifications submitted by firms. The sources of this information are discussed in detail in the respective training provider and firm sections of this analysis. The State recordkeeping burden per notification event is estimated at 0.11 hours for training providers and 0.09 hours for abatement firms. Both estimates were obtained by contacting two State agencies, which currently operate similar lead based paint training programs, and maintain lead based paint activity notification records in both electronic and hard copy forms.

Annual Burden As presented below in Exhibit 6.7., this analysis estimates the notification recordkeeping burden for all States in the year 2004/ 05 to be 4,730 hours. The notification recordkeeping burden for all States is estimated to be 4,736 hours in 2005/ 06 and 4,729 hours in 2006/ 07.

Exhibit 6.7. States: Notification Burden Estimates Category Notifications per Entity Clerical Hours/ Notification 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Firms 15.36 15.36 15.36 0.09 Training Providers 4.51 4.91 4.45 0.11 Entities per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Firms 3,369 3,369 3,369 Training Providers 147 147 147 Notification Burden Hours per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Firms 4,657 4,657 4,657 Training Providers 73 79 72 Total Burden 4,730 4,736 4,729 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs Introduction The cost estimates addressed in this section are based on the burden estimates discussed in section 6( a). Wage rates for each category of personnel are derived with methods and from sources either identical to or very similar to those used in the Fees Rule EA and the previous ICR.

The following fringe and overhead factors from the Fees Rule EA and the Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule ( CAIR) were applied: 49  Government Employees 1.6 ( fees rule)  Managerial Non government 1.64 ( CAIR)  Technical Non government 1.65 ( CAIR)  Clerical Non government 1.66 ( CAIR).

Non governmental wages are drawn from the full time mean hourly earnings data in the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, July 2002, Table 2 2 ( Private industry, selected occupations, mean hourly earnings). Those hourly wages are adjusted upward by 4.7 percent to account for inflation from July 2002 to July 2004. The BLS Consumer Price Index for February 2002 ( 1982  84 = 100) was 177.8. The same index was 186.2 in February 2004, for a two year increase of 4.7 percent. It is assumed that this is a reasonable representation of the inflation adjustment for wages from July 2002 to July 2004. The BLS occupational categories used here may in some cases be somewhat different from the categories used in the previous ICR. An attempt was made to match those categories as closely as possible to the ICR labor categories.

Wage Rate Calculations for Non Government Workers ICR Labor Category BLS Occupation Category 2002 Wage Rate Wage Inflated by 4.7% Wage with Fringe and Overhead Non government professional Professional specialty and technical $ 29.34 $ 30.72 $ 50.59 Non government clerical Administrative support, including clerical $ 13.64 $ 14.28 $ 23.71 Inspector Construction inspectors $ 23.45 $ 24.55 $ 40.51 Risk Assessor Chemical technicians $ 20.35 $ 21.31 $ 35.16 Project designer Designers $ 22.88 $ 23.96 $ 39.53 Supervisor Supervisors, painters, paperhangers, and plasterers $ 19.86 $ 20.79 $ 34.10 Abatement worker Painters, construction and maintenance $ 13.30 $ 13.93 $ 22.98 The wage rates for State and Federal government employees are taken from the Federal Government's GS Salary Table for hourly wages, effective January 2004. The wages for EPA headquarters workers are taken from the table including locality pay for the Washington Baltimore area. The wages for all others are taken from table including locality pay for " Rest of US." 50 Wage Rate Calculations for Government Workers Labor Category Wage Rate Source Hourly Wage Rate Wage with Fringe and Overhead States Managerial GS 13, step 1 $ 33.43 $ 53.49 States Technical GS 11, step 1 $ 23.45 $ 37.52 States Clerical GS 6, step 1 $ 14.26 $ 22.82 EPA Headquarters Managerial GS 13, step 1; Washington DC area $ 34.55 $ 55.28 EPA Headquarters Technical GS 11, step 1; Washington DC area $ 24.24 $ 38.78 EPA Headquarters Clerical GS 6, step 1; Washington DC area $ 14.74 $ 23.58 EPA Regional Managerial GS 13, step 1; " Rest of US" area $ 33.43 $ 53.49 EPA Regional Technical GS 11, step 1; " Rest of US" area $ 23.45 $ 37.52 EPA Regional Clerical GS 6, step 1; " Rest of US" area $ 14.26 $ 22.82 Accreditation and Certification Training Providers Based on the burden estimates provided in section 6( a) and the wage rates discussed above, this analysis estimates the cost to training providers in the year 2004/ 05 at $ 15,988 for training providers in State administered programs and $ 37,985 for those in EPA administered programs. The total reporting and recordkeeping cost for all training providers in the year 2004/ 05 is estimated to be $ 53,972.82. In the year 2005/ 06 the total reporting and recordkeeping cost for all training providers drops to $ 45,152, and then rises to $ 68,024 in 2006/ 07. The main factor in this year to year variation is the number of program re accreditations in the EPAadministered areas. Exhibit 6.8. below summarizes the cost of the reporting and annual recordkeeping requirements for training providers. 51 Exhibit 6.8. Training Providers: Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Estimates Cost Element Professional ($ 50.59/ hr) Clerical ($ 23.71/ hr) Burden Hours Cost ($) Per Training Provider Accreditation Rule Familiarization 8.00 0.00 8.00 $ 404.72 Accreditation Statement 7.60 2.00 9.60 $ 431.90 Quality Control Plan 8.00 2.00 10.00 $ 452.14 Annual Cost Recordkeeping* 0.00 0.81 0.81 $ 19.21 Quadrennial Cost ( In Addition to Annual Cost) Re accreditation 3.80 1.00 4.80 $ 215.95 Audit** 0.20 0.40 0.60 $ 19.60 Cost Per Training Provider Year of Initial Accreditation $ 1307.97 Second, Third and FourthYear of Operation $ 19.21 Year of Re accreditation $ 254.76 Cost Per Year State Administered Entities EPA Administered Entities 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 New accreditations 5,231.88 5,231.88 5,231.88 23,543.46 23,543.46 23,543.46 Second year cohort 710.77 710.77 710.77 1,632.85 902.87 403.41 Third year cohort 691.56 691.56 691.56 1,248.65 1,229.44 672.35 Fourth year cohort 691.56 691.56 691.56 96.05 941.29 922.08 Re accreditations 8,661.84 8,661.84 8,661.84 11,464.20 2,547.60 26,495.04 Cost for all training providers $ 15,987.61 $ 15,987.61 $ 15,987.61 $ 37,985.21 $ 29,164.66 $ 52,036.34 Cost Summary Per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Total Cost $ 53,972.82 $ 45,152.27 $ 68,023.95 * Recordkeeping burden estimate adopted from the previous ICR. ** This analysis assumes that 10 percent of all programs applying for re accreditation will be audited.

Costs for Firms Performing Lead based Paint Activities The recordkeeping costs fall under two categories: labor and materials. The cost estimates used in this analysis rely heavily on the burden estimates developed for the analysis of section 406 ( USEPA, 1993c). Recordkeeping labor costs consist of the time associated with the actual filing of the records. The analysis of section 406 estimates that the time associated with filing each report, regardless of size, is 0.5 minutes or 0.0083 hours. Copying costs are calculated based on $ 0.06 per copy multiplied by the total number of pages to be copied; only one copy is required. 52 As detailed in section 6( a), the total number of events are based on the prior ICR. The wage rates used to represent professional and clerical labor costs are the same as those detailed above for training providers.

Based on the burden estimates provided in section 6( a) and the professional and clerical wage rates described earlier, this analysis estimates the cost to all firms in the year 2004/ 05 at $ 9,157,863 for firms in State administered programs and $ 3,449,384 for firms in EPAadministered programs. The total reporting and recordkeeping cost to all firms for the year 2004/ 05 is estimated to be about $ 12 million. In years 2004/ 05 and 2005/ 06, the total annual reporting and recordkeeping cost for all firms is estimated to be somewhat higher, around $ 13 million. Exhibit 6.9. below summarizes the cost of the reporting and annual recordkeeping requirements for firms. 53 Exhibit 6.9. Firms: Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Estimates Category Discipline ( for wage rate determination) Average Reporting Cost Per Firm Average Recordkeeping Cost Per Firm* Total Number of Pages Per Firm Material cost (@ $ 0.06per page) Average Cost Per Firm Certification Rule Familiarization ($ 50.59/ hr) professional $ 303.54 0 $ 303.54 Certification letter ($ 50.59/ hr) professional $ 75.89 $ 0.09 1.39 $ 0.08 $ 76.15 Target Housing ( including Soil Abatements) Risk Assessment and lead hazard screen reports ($ 35.16/ hr) risk assessor $ 1,053.39 $ 3.18 64.43 $ 3.87 $ 1,060.44 Pre Abatement Notifications ($ 34.10/ hr) supervisor $ 76.73 $ 0.88 9.03 $ 0.54 $ 78.14 Occupant Protection Plan ($ 39.53/ hr) designer $ 552.23 $ 2.75 41.86 $ 2.51 $ 557.49 Post Abatement Reports ($ 34.10/ hr) supervisor $ 952.75 0 41.86 $ 2.51 $ 955.26 Child Occupied Facilities ( including Soil Abatements) Risk Assessment and lead hazard screen reports ($ 35.16/ hr) risk assessor $ 4.92 $ 0.02 0.49 $ 0.03 $ 4.98 Pre Abatement Notifications ($ 34.10/ hr) supervisor $ 2.05 $ 0.02 0.25 $ 0.01 $ 2.08 Occupant Protection Plan ($ 39.53/ hr) designer $ 4.74 $ 0.02 0.25 $ 0.01 $ 4.78 Post Abatement Reports ($ 34.10/ hr) supervisor $ 8.53 $ 0.02 0.25 $ 0.01 $ 8.56 Cost Per Year Year of Initial Certification $ 3,051.43 Second and Third Year of Operation $ 2,671.73 Year of Certification Renewal $ 2,747.89 Cost Per Year State Administered Entities EPA Administered Entities 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 2004/ 2005 2005/ 2006 2006/ 2007 Cost $ 9,157,863 $ 9,157,863 $ 9,157,863 $ 3,449,384 $ 3,786,829 $ 4,086,825 Cost Summary Per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Total Cost $ 12,607,247 $ 12,944,692 $ 13,244,687 * .0083 hours of non governmental clerical burden per report @ $ 23.71/ hr 54 Individuals Performing Lead Abatement Based on the cost estimates provided in section 6( a) and the wage rates developed earlier, this analysis estimates the total reporting and recordkeeping cost to all individuals in year 2004/ 05 to be $ 227,618. Approximately 22 percent of this total cost is incurred by individuals in EPAadministered programs. Both the total cost and the distribution of costs between EPA and non EPA areas are very similar in each of the three years under analysis. Exhibit 6.10. details the total reporting and recordkeeping cost to the individual subgroups ( e. g., inspectors, risk assessors, and workers) and summarizes the individual cost.

Exhibit 6.10. Individuals: Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Estimates/ Cost per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Inspectors ($ 40.51/ hr.) $ 43,022 $ 43,022 $ 43,427 Risk Assessors ($ 35.16/ hr.) $ 69,898 $ 69,828 $ 70,496 Supervisors ($ 34.10/ hr.) $ 68,405 $ 68,371 $ 69,018 Abatement Workers ($ 22.98/ hr.) $ 43,823 $ 43,800 $ 44,202 Project Designers ($ 39.53/ hr.) $ 2,471 $ 2,471 $ 2,490 Total Individual Cost $ 227,618 $ 227,490 $ 229,633 State Costs The reporting/ recordkeeping requirement costs include the wages associated with the burden estimated in Section 6( a). The methods used to establish wage rates are covered earlier in this analysis. Those wage rates are $ 53.49 for managerial staff, $ 37.52 for technical staff and $ 22.82 for clerical staff.

The total reporting and recordkeeping cost to all States with authorized programs in each year of the analysis is estimated to be $ 1,858,856. As discussed earlier, each year in State and Tribal administered areas is assumed to be identical, for ease of modeling. It is likely that the actual costs will vary from year to year. These estimates are intended to represent the average annual costs. Exhibit 6.11. details the total reporting and recordkeeping cost to each type of Stateadministered entity ( e. g., training provider, firm, and individual).

Exhibit 6.11. States: Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Estimates 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Training Providers $ 34,360 $ 34,360 $ 34,360 Firms $ 393,625 $ 393,625 $ 393,625 Individuals $ 1,430,871 $ 1,430,871 $ 1,430,871 Total State Cost $ 1,858,856 $ 1,858,856 $ 1,858,856 55 Notification The cost estimates addressed in this section are based on the burden estimates discussed in section 6( a).

Training Providers The fully loaded wage rate used to estimate training providers' notification costs is the nongovernment clerical rate, $ 23.71 per hour. Additionally, training provider costs include a $ 0.37 postage stamp for mailing the notification and $ 0.06 for a one page copy of the notification for the firm's records.

Annual Costs As presented below in Exhibit 6.12., based on the burden estimates provided in section 6( a) and the wage rates discussed above, this analysis estimates the notification costs for all training providers in the year 2004/ 05 at $ 32,936. The total notification cost for all training providers in 2005/ 06 is $ 32,893, and $ 33,194 in 2006/ 07.

Exhibit 6.12. Training Providers: Notification Cost Estimates Category Events per Training Provider Reporting Cost/ Event Recordkeeping Cost/ Event Materials Cost/ Event Total Cost/ Event ($ 23.71/ hr) 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Notification Pre notification 2.16 2.35 2.13 $ 3.56 $ 0.24 $ 0.43 $ 4.22 Re notification .19 .21 .19 $ 3.56 $ 0.24 $ 0.43 $ 4.22 Post notification 2.16 2.35 2.13 $ 36.51 $ 0.24 $ 0.43 $ 37.18 Cost per Training Provider 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 $ 90 $ 98 $ 89 Training Providers per Year State Administered EPA Administered 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 147 147 147 218 188 226 Total Cost per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 $ 32,936 $ 32,893 $ 33,194 56 Firms Performing Lead based Paint Activities Costs The fully loaded wage rate used to estimate certified firms' notification costs is the nongovernment clerical rate, $ 23.71 per hour. Additionally, training provider costs include a $ 0.37 postage stamp for mailing the notification and $ 0.06 for a one page copy of the notification for the firm's records.

Annual Costs As presented below in Exhibit 6.13., based on the burden estimates provided in section 6( a) and the wage rates discussed above, this analysis estimates the costs associated with notification for all firms in the year 2004/ 05 at $ 428,516. The notification cost for all firms is estimated to be $ 429,373 in 2005/ 06 and $ 439,505 in 2006/ 07.

Exhibit 6.13. Firms: Notification Cost Estimates Cost Element Events per Firm Reporting Cost/ Event Recordkeeping Cost/ Event Materials Cost/ Event Cost per Firm ($ 23.71/ hr)

Notification Pre notification 14.09 $ 5.22 $ 0.24 $ 0.43 $ 82.99 Re notification 1.27 $ 5.22 $ 0.24 $ 0.43 $ 7.48 Annual Total 15.36 $ 90.47 Firms per Year State Administered EPA Administered 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 3,369 3,369 3,369 1,257 1,377 1,489 Total Cost per Calender Year 2000 2001 2002 $ 428,516 $ 429,373 $ 439,505 State Costs As indicated above, the fully loaded wage rate for State government clerical staff is $ 22.82.

Annual Costs As presented below in Exhibit 6.14., this analysis estimates the notification cost for all States combined in the year 2004/ 05 to be $ 107,944. The notification cost for all States is estimated to be $ 108,192 in 2005/ 06, and $ 107,922 in 2006/ 07. 57 Exhibit 6.14. States: Notification Cost Estimates for All States Combined Category Notifications per Entity Clerical Cost/ Notification ($ 22.82/ hr) 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Firms 15.36 15.36 15.36 $ 2.05 Training Providers 4.51 4.91 4.45 $ 2.51 Entities per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Firms 3,369 3,369 3,369 Training Providers 147 147 147 Cost per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Firms $ 106,280 $ 106,280 $ 106,280 Training Providers $ 1,664 $ 1,812 $ 1,642 Total Burden $ 107,944 $ 108,092 $ 107,922 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost Accreditation and Certification EPA Burden Although sections 402( a) and 404 do not require that States develop a lead program, it is encouraged. As discussed in section 6( a) of this ICR, 39 States and three Tribal areas have sought and been granted authorization to administer their own programs under TSCA Section 402. This ICR assumes that programs for the remaining States will be administered by EPA. Thus the burden on EPA due to reviewing and approving State applications to administer their own programs has already been incurred. If additional States seek authorization, the cost to EPA of reviewing and approving these applications will be offset by the reduction in EPA hours used to administer the programs.

This analysis estimates the agency burden of administering training providers, firms, and individuals in unauthorized States by using State level survey data collected for the Economic Analysis of the Final TSCA Section 402( a)( 3) Lead Based Paint Accreditation and Certification Fee Rule and assumes that the EPA Regional Offices will play the major role in administering the Section 402 requirements in States without their own programs, while EPA Headquarters will coordinate the regional activities, provide public assistance and perform other activities.

Based on these assumptions and data, the total burden to EPA regions in year 2004/ 05 is estimated to be 6,509 hours. In 2005/ 06 the total reporting and recordkeeping burden to EPA regions is estimated to be 7,230, and 9,437 in 2006/ 07. Exhibit 6.15. details the total reporting and recordkeeping burden to each type of EPA administered entity ( e. g., training provider, firm, and individual). 58 In addition the annual burden to EPA Headquarters is estimated to be 728 hours for each calender year of the analysis ( See Exhibit 6.16.). Thus the total EPA burden in the year 2004/ 05 is 6,237, then 7,958 in 2005/ 06 and 10,165 hours in 2006/ 07.

Exhibit 6.15. EPA Regions: Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Estimates for Accreditation and Certification Activities EPA Region Burden per Entity Type Clerical Hours Technical Hours Managerial Hours Certify Re certify Certify Re certify Certify Re certify Training Providers 3.36 1.40 28.37 10.13 8.93 7.63 Firms 0.61 0.44 4.73 4.25 2.90 2.90 Individuals 1.56 1.36 3.15 1.80 1.32 0.76 Entities per Year Number of EPA Administered Entities 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Training Providers New accreditations 18 18 18 Second year cohort* 85 47 21 Third year cohort* 65 64 35 Fourth year cohort* 5 49 48 re accreditations 45 10 104 Firms New certifications 200 200 200 Second year cohort* 449 372 546 Third year cohort* 410 421 349 Re certifications 198 384 394 Individuals New certifications 1500 1500 1500 Second year cohort* 1,333 1,228 1,225 Third year cohort* 706 840 774 Re certifications 450 445 529 Burden per Year 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Training Providers 1,594 923 2,725 Firms 3,151 4,563 4,638 Individuals 1,764 1,744 2,074 Total EPA Regional Burden 6,509 7,230 9,437 * No reporting and recordkeeping burden/ cost incurred. 59 Exhibit 6.16. EPA Headquarters: Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden Estimates for Accreditation and Certification Activities Annual EPA Headquarters Burden Hours Clerical Burden Technical Burden Managerial Burden Coordinate with Regions* 0.00 104.00 0.00 Public Assistance* 104.00 104.00 0.00 Other* 104.00 104.00 208.00 Annual Burden to Headquarters 728 * HQ administrative burden from the Fees Rule EA; for all EPA administered States EPA Cost The burden on EPA associated with the administration of the States and Tribal areas that have not been approved to administer their own programs were estimated above. The labor rates and overhead and fringe loadings were discussed earlier. Based on these estimates, the reporting and recordkeeping cost to EPA regions in year 2004/ 05 is estimated to be $ 598,864. In 2005/ 06 the total reporting and recordkeeping cost to EPA regions rises to $ 629,842, and then rises again to $ 721,877. These increases are due to the year to year variability in accreditation and certification activities, and do not necessarily represent a trend. Exhibit 6.17. details the total reporting and recordkeeping cost to each type of EPA administered entity ( e. g., training provider, firm, and individual). The annual cost to EPA Headquarters is estimated to be $ 28,501 for each year of the analysis ( See Exhibit 6.18.). Thus the total EPA cost in year 2004/ 05 is $ 627,365, $ 658,343 in year 2005/ 06, and $ 750,378 in year 2006/ 07.

There will be additional costs involved in transitioning from an existing Federal program to an authorized State program in States that receive authorization after the Federal program has been fully established. Currently, we do not have a way of estimating the additional burden, nor the number of State programs potentially affected. Such changes would also reduce the annual burden on EPA. No such transitions are anticipated during the period of this ICR.

Exhibit 6.17. EPA Regions: Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Estimates for Accreditation and Certification Activities 2004/ 05 2005/ 06 2006/ 07 Training Providers $ 66,045 $ 37,340 $ 114,434 Firms $ 133,577 $ 193,957 $ 197,203 Individuals $ 399,242 $ 398,545 $ 410,240 Total EPA Regional Cost $ 598,864 $ 629,842 $ 721,877 60 Exhibit 6.18. EPA Headquarters: Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Estimates for Accreditation and Certification Activities Annual EPA Headquarters Cost Clerical ($ 23.58/ hr.) Technical ($ 38.78/ hr.) Managerial ($ 55.28/ hr.) Coordinate with Regions $ 0.00 $ 4,033 $ 0.00 Public Assistance $ 2,452 $ 4,033 $ 0.00 Other $ 2,452 $ 4,033 $ 11,498 Annual Cost to Headquarters $ 28,501 Notification Agency Burden Under the rule, notifications submitted by training providers and abatement firms will be used by EPA regions in support of compliance monitoring and enforcement activities, and to prioritize inspections. The administrative management of information collected under this proposed rule is detailed in section 4 of this document. The following sections discuss how the recordkeeping burden estimates were developed. Exhibit 6.19. presents the estimation of EPA burden for the notification rule.