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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA response:

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

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

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

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

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

EPA response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA response:

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

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

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

EPA response:

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

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

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

EPA response:

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

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

1( h) Emergency Notification Requirements Comments:

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

EPA response:

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

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

EPA response:

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

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

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

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

EPA response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

2( d) Need for Emergency Training Notification Comments:

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

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

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

businessday notification is allowed when accompanied by a student roster.

EPA Response:

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

2( f) Student Information Comments:

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

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

3( b) E mail Satisfying Time Requirements Comments:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

Comments:

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

° Ensuring a secure electronic environment.

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

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

° Confirming EPA's receipt of their data.

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

CDX Helps EPA By:

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

distribution and related user support services for incoming data.

° Eliminating redundant infrastructure and its associated cost.

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

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

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

EPA Response:

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

4. Terminology Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Imposition of fees Comments:

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

for the same reason.

EPA Response:

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

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

6. Lead Based Paint Abatement Exemptions Comments:

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

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

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

7. Applicability to Property Owners Comments:

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

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

8. Paperwork Burden Comments:

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

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

EPA Response:

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

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

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

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