94-2281. Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan; Interim Final Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY  

  • [Federal Register Volume 59, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 1994)]
    [Unknown Section]
    [Page 0]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 94-2281]
    
    
    [[Page Unknown]]
    
    [Federal Register: February 3, 1994]
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    Part III
    
    
    
    
    
    Environmental Protection Agency
    
    
    
    
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
    
    
    40 CFR Part 763
    
    
    
    
    Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan; Interim Final Rule
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    
    40 CFR Part 763
    
    [OPPTS-62107A; FRL-4170-1]
    Rin 2070-AC51
    
     
    Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan
    
    AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    
    ACTION: Interim final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: EPA is issuing this interim final rule to revise its asbestos 
    Model Accreditation Plan (MAP) to clarify the types of persons who must 
    be accredited to work with asbestos in schools and public and 
    commercial buildings; to increase the minimum number of hours of 
    training, including additional hours of hands-on health and safety 
    training, for asbestos abatement workers and contractor/supervisors; 
    and to effect a variety of other necessary changes as mandated by 
    section 15(a)(3) of the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement 
    Reauthorization Act (ASHARA). This revised rule replaces the original 
    MAP found at 40 CFR part 763, Appendix C to Subpart E. The original MAP 
    contained six components which, taken together, comprised a model 
    asbestos accreditation plan for States and EPA-approved training 
    providers. These components included: (1) Initial training, (2) 
    examinations, (3) refresher training, (4) qualifications, (5) 
    decertification requirements, and (6) reciprocity. This revision adds 
    two new components to the original MAP; (1) definitions, which help to 
    determine the scope and applicability of the rule, and (2) new 
    recordkeeping requirements for the providers of accredited training 
    courses. The changes also specify the deadline for States to modify 
    their accreditation programs to be no less stringent than the revised 
    MAP as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) section 
    206(b)(2). Further, the revised MAP prescribes deadlines for training 
    course providers and persons who must obtain accreditation to comply 
    with new requirements; distinguishes between the training requirements 
    for each of the five accredited training disciplines; adds several new 
    topics to the project designer training curriculum; establishes new 
    enforcement criteria and Federal procedures for withdrawing approval 
    from accredited persons and training programs; and stipulates new 
    information requirements for training certificates. Because the 
    revisions expand the minimum requirements for an accreditation plan, 
    States may have to modify their programs to insure that each State has 
    a contractor accreditation plan that is at least as stringent as the 
    revised MAP as required by TSCA section 206(b). Similarly, training 
    providers may need to adjust their training course administration or 
    curricula to comply with the revised MAP. Finally, EPA has modified the 
    organization, and some of the language of the original MAP. These 
    modifications, however, are technical, and do not impose new 
    substantive requirements.
    
    DATES: This Rule is effective April 4, 1994. Because this is an interim 
    final rule, EPA is accepting further comment on this action. All 
    written comments must be received by EPA no later than March 4, 1994. 
    EPA will consider the written comments received during the 30-day 
    comment period in determining the need for any further rule amendments.
    
    ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Field Programs Branch, 
    Chemical Management Division (7404), Office of Pollution Prevention and 
    Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., Washington, 
    DC 20460. EPA does not anticipate receiving any comments that contain 
    information claimed as confidential business information (CBI). If such 
    comments are submitted, however, they must be clearly labeled as 
    containing information claimed as CBI or they will be placed in the 
    public record. CBI claims should be accompanied by statements 
    substantiating the claim as described in 40 CFR 2.204(e)(4). If 
    information is claimed as CBI, a nonconfidential version of the 
    comments should also be submitted for the public docket.
    
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director, 
    Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution 
    Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm E-543B, 401 
    M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554-1404, TDD: (202) 554-0551.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        The Agency is requesting comment on this revised MAP only to the 
    extent that it has amended or changed the original MAP. The Agency is 
    not soliciting comments on provisions of the original MAP that remain 
    unaffected by this action. Specifically, and notwithstanding the 
    inclusion of some of the existing language from the original MAP in 
    this revised MAP, the Agency will only entertain comments to the extent 
    that they address actual changes which have been incorporated. Appendix 
    C to subpart E of 40 CFR 763 is reproduced in its entirety solely for 
    clarity and to facilitate understanding of how the changes and 
    amendments fit within the existing regulatory structure.
    
    I. Background
    
        In 1986, Congress enacted the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response 
    Act (AHERA, or TSCA Title II) which mandated a regulatory program to 
    address asbestos hazards in schools. A part of AHERA (section 206; 15 
    U.S.C. 2646) dealt with the mandatory training and accreditation of 
    persons who would perform certain types of asbestos-related work in 
    schools. Subsequently, in 1990, Congress enacted ASHARA (Pub. L. 101-
    637), which amended AHERA to extend some of the training and 
    accreditation requirements to persons performing such work in public 
    and commercial buildings. Consequently, EPA is now effecting regulatory 
    changes to reflect and implement these statutory amendments.
        Originally, section 206 of AHERA required EPA to develop a MAP 
    providing for the training of certain types of persons performing 
    asbestos-related work in elementary and secondary schools (15 U.S.C. 
    2646). Persons covered by this original MAP included those who 
    inspected school buildings for asbestos-containing materials (ACM); 
    developed asbestos management plans for schools; and designed or 
    conducted response actions with respect to friable ACM, other than 
    small-scale, short-duration activities, in schools. Such persons were 
    required to obtain accreditation as a prerequisite to performing this 
    work.
        AHERA also required States to adopt a State accreditation program 
    that was no less stringent than that described in the MAP (15 U.S.C. 
    2646(b)(2)). Persons could then obtain accreditation by completing 
    either an EPA-approved training course, or a training course approved 
    by a State with a program that was at least as stringent as the MAP, 
    and by passing an examination for that course. Individual States, 
    however, could elect to impose more stringent requirements as a 
    condition of accreditation.
        The original MAP established five accredited ``disciplines'' for 
    asbestos-related activities in schools, which included: worker, 
    contractor/supervisor, inspector, management planner, and project 
    designer. For each discipline, it outlined a functional role and set of 
    job responsibilities, and stipulated minimum training, examination, and 
    continuing education requirements. It established areas of knowledge of 
    asbestos inspection, management plan development, and response action 
    technology that persons seeking accreditation must demonstrate and that 
    States must include in their accreditation programs.
        On November 28, 1990, Congress enacted ASHARA and expanded the 
    accreditation requirements to apply to persons who work with asbestos 
    in public and commercial buildings as well as schools. Specifically, 
    ASHARA expanded TSCA section 206(a)(1) and (3) to require accreditation 
    for any person who inspects for ACM in a public and commercial 
    building, or who designs or conducts a response action with respect to 
    friable ACM in such a building. As a result of this amendment, the MAP 
    accreditation requirements for inspectors, project designers, workers, 
    and contractor/supervisors now apply equally to persons in both schools 
    and public and commercial buildings. Congress, however, did not extend 
    the accreditation requirement for management planners. As a result, 
    TSCA requires accreditation for persons who prepare management plans if 
    they work in schools, but does not require such accreditation if they 
    work in public and commercial buildings (15 U.S.C. 2646(a)(2)).
        ASHARA also required EPA to revise the current MAP by increasing 
    the minimum number of hours of training, including hands-on training, 
    required for asbestos abatement workers in both schools and public and 
    commercial buildings. ASHARA, however, did not specify the amount of 
    additional training that would be required. In addition, ASHARA 
    authorized EPA to modify the MAP as necessary to implement the 
    extension of accreditation requirements to public and commercial 
    buildings.
        Finally, ASHARA amended the penalty provisions of TSCA section 207 
    (15 U.S.C. 2647). It provided for a civil penalty for contractors who 
    fail to comply with TSCA accreditation requirements by inspecting, 
    designing, or conducting a response action in a school or public or 
    commercial building without TSCA accreditation, or by employing 
    individuals to conduct response actions in such a building, and failing 
    to require or provide TSCA accreditation for the employees. A 
    contractor who commits a violation is liable for a civil penalty of 
    $5,000 for each day of a violation, except for a contractor who is a 
    direct employee of the Federal Government (15 U.S.C. 2646 (g)).
        The ASHARA accreditation provisions originally were to take effect 
    on November 28, 1991. ASHARA, however, authorized EPA's Administrator 
    to extend that effective date for one year. On January 7, 1992, the 
    Administrator took action to extend the effective date until November 
    28, 1992 (57 FR 1913, January 16, 1992). The Administrator determined 
    that accredited asbestos contractors were needed to perform school site 
    abatement required under AHERA, and that such an extension was 
    necessary to ensure effective implementation of section 203 of TSCA 
    (ASHARA section 15(c)). As a result of this extension, persons who 
    perform inspections, or plan or conduct response actions in public and 
    commercial buildings were required to obtain TSCA accreditation 
    beginning on November 28, 1992.
        EPA has decided to phase-in the other new requirements contained in 
    the revised MAP when the revision takes effect. These requirements 
    include an increase in the minimum number of hours of training, 
    including hands-on training, for asbestos abatement workers in both 
    schools and public and commercial buildings, and other necessary 
    revisions.
        EPA is promulgating the revised MAP as an interim final rule that 
    will take effect 60 days after the rule is published. The streamlined 
    procedures that EPA has utilized to revise the MAP are fully consistent 
    with the Congressional directive to EPA for developing the original 
    MAP. AHERA specifically authorized the Agency to issue the MAP ``after 
    consultation with affected parties'' (15 U.S.C. 2646(b)(1)(A)). EPA 
    issued it after a public request for information in the Federal 
    Register (51 FR 28914, August 12, 1986) and consultations with affected 
    parties, but without engaging in full-scale notice and comment 
    rulemaking. EPA has used procedures to revise the MAP that are as 
    extensive as those that were used to develop the original MAP. EPA 
    believes it is reasonable to conclude that Congress did not intend EPA 
    to engage in the redundancy of consultation with affected parties and 
    formal notice and comment rulemaking in either issuing the MAP or in 
    revising it, and therefore intended EPA to issue this revision to the 
    MAP after undertaking similar consultations with affected parties.
        EPA finds that there is good cause to issue an interim final rule, 
    without utilizing all of the notice and public comment procedures in 
    section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), because 
    those procedures are impracticable and unnecessary under the 
    circumstances (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). It is impracticable to utilize the 
    full-scale notice and comment proceedings in section 553(b) because 
    such proceedings would unjustifiably extend the rulemaking process, and 
    would further delay the implementation of the revised MAP. Congress 
    clearly intended that EPA act expeditiously to revise the MAP, and even 
    established a deadline for the EPA revisions. EPA did not meet the 
    deadline because of the time-consuming process that was necessary to 
    create an accreditation plan that would coordinate with existing, 
    diverse State accreditation programs, minimize disruption of current 
    training providers, and contain other provisions necessary to implement 
    the revisions. If EPA were to develop and publish a notice of proposed 
    rulemaking pursuant to section 553(b), the revisions would have been 
    even further delayed. The impact of such a delay would be exacerbated 
    by the additional time that is required for States to pass conforming 
    legislation and implement the revised MAP after it is issued.
        Finally, full-scale rulemaking is unnecessary because EPA has 
    communicated informally with affected parties, given notice of the 
    revisions to the public, and provided an opportunity to submit 
    information and comments prior to promulgating this interim final rule. 
    Initially, the Agency consulted with affected organizations to identify 
    revisions that were necessitated by ASHARA. These organizations 
    included schools, commercial building owners and operators, asbestos 
    abatement consultants and contractors, labor organizations, training 
    providers, and States. Subsequently, EPA published a notice in the 
    Federal Register that described the revisions that were being 
    considered, and announced a public meeting to discuss the changes (57 
    FR 20438, May 13, 1992).
        EPA also established a docket containing information which supports 
    EPA's revision of the MAP. To provide interested persons the 
    opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments 
    concerning the changes under consideration, EPA held a public meeting 
    on June 8, 1992, in Washington, DC. Twenty-three persons presented oral 
    comments for the record. A transcript of this proceeding is contained 
    in the docket. EPA also received 80 written comments in response to the 
    Federal Register announcement. These comments have also been filed in 
    the docket, and were carefully considered by the Agency in revising the 
    MAP.
    
    II. Summary of Changes
    
        The various new requirements of the MAP are described here in 
    greater detail. This summary is organized by subject area.
    
    A. Definitions
    
        The promulgated revisions establish a new definitions section for 
    the MAP. Seven terms are included to help clarify and delineate the 
    scope and applicability of the MAP to work performed in public and 
    commercial buildings. The seven terms, and their meanings, are 
    summarized below:
        1. Public and commercial building. The term ``public and commercial 
    building'' is defined in TSCA section 202(10) to mean ``any building 
    which is not a school building, except that the term does not include 
    any residential apartment building of fewer than 10 units'' (15 U.S.C. 
    2642(10)). This definition identifies those buildings where persons 
    performing certain asbestos-related work are subject to the MAP 
    training and accreditation requirements. Such buildings generally 
    include apartment complexes, condominiums and cooperatives of more than 
    10 units, office buildings, government-owned buildings, colleges, 
    museums, airports, hospitals, churches, preschools, stores, warehouses, 
    and factories. It also includes all industrial buildings, because 
    industrial buildings are included within the broad statutory definition 
    of public and commercial buildings.
        This particular term does not include elementary or secondary 
    schools as defined in section 198 of the Elementary and Secondary 
    Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 2854; 15 U.S.C. 2642(9) and (12)). The 
    definition in the revised MAP excludes all detached single family 
    homes, because they are residential buildings of fewer than 10 dwelling 
    units.
        Furthermore, consistent with the statute and EPA's regulatory 
    approach for schools, the term is interpreted to include only the 
    interiors of buildings except for exterior hallways connecting 
    buildings, porticos, and mechanical systems used to condition interior 
    space. Consequently, accredited workers are generally not required for 
    work on roofing or siding materials that are on the outside of either 
    public and commercial buildings or schools.
        2. Friable asbestos-containing material (ACM). In TSCA section 202, 
    friable asbestos-containing material means any material containing more 
    than one percent asbestos, which has been applied on ceilings, walls, 
    structural members, piping, duct work, or any other part of a building, 
    which, when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by 
    hand pressure. The term includes non-friable ACM after such previously 
    non-friable material becomes damaged to the extent that when dry it may 
    be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure'' (15 
    U.S.C. 2642(6)). At no point does the statute regulate activities that 
    involve nonbuilding materials, such as asbestos gloves or asbestos 
    brake linings, that may be either stored or used inside of a building. 
    Consequently, the use of the term ``friable ACM'' in the MAP refers 
    only to ``friable asbestos-containing building material (ACBM),'' and, 
    where the statute requires accreditation for activities associated with 
    ACM, accreditation is only required if the asbestos is part of the 
    building.
        3. Inspection. Although AHERA required that schools conduct 
    asbestos inspections, ASHARA did not extend this same requirement to 
    public and commercial buildings. Furthermore, because the Asbestos-
    Containing Materials in Schools Rule (``Schools Rule'') (40 CFR 763.80-
    763.119) simply listed the various activities required to be included 
    as a part of these mandatory school inspections (40 CFR 763.85), 
    without actually defining the term itself, a definition of 
    ``inspection'' is necessary to delineate the scope of the MAP 
    accreditation requirement as it applies to both schools and public and 
    commercial buildings. Accordingly, the term ``inspection'' is defined 
    to mean those activities undertaken to specifically determine the 
    presence or location, or to assess the condition of, friable or non-
    friable ACBM or suspected ACBM, whether by visual or physical 
    examination, or by collecting samples of such material. Similarly, the 
    term includes all ``reinspections'' of friable and non-friable known or 
    assumed ACBM which has been previously identified.
        The inclusion of a definition for the term inspection is intended 
    to clarify when a person must obtain TSCA accreditation before 
    performing an inspection. TSCA Title II, as amended by ASHARA, did not 
    define inspection. When Congress enacted ASHARA, however, the Schools 
    Rule was in effect, and it identified the activities that constituted 
    an inspection in school buildings (40 CFR 763.85 and 763.92). The 
    definition of inspection adopted in the revised MAP is based upon the 
    core inspection activities identified in the Schools Rule at 
    Sec. 763.85(a), including the visual or physical examination, and the 
    sampling of ACBM or suspected ACBM to determine its location or 
    presence or to assess its physical condition. Based upon the revised 
    MAP, a person must be accredited to engage in any one of these core 
    activities in a school or in a public and commercial building. In 
    addition, the Schools Rule continues to require accreditation for any 
    person who engages in any one of these core activities. Because the 
    Schools Rule currently requires an accredited person to conduct the 
    core inspection activities, and the revised MAP requires accreditation 
    for those same activities, the revision will not expand the need for 
    accredited inspectors in schools.
        The definition, however, also allows for three specific exceptions, 
    dealing with related activities which do not require accreditation. The 
    three excepted activities include: periodic surveillance, compliance 
    inspections, and visual inspections.
        The first exception under this term addresses periodic surveillance 
    of the type described in 40 CFR 763.92(b), which is commonly performed 
    by custodial or maintenance workers. Periodic surveillance is distinct 
    from reinspection and is limited only to visual observations. It refers 
    to a visual examination of an area in a building that previously has 
    been identified as containing ACBM, or that previously has been assumed 
    to contain ACBM, and that is undertaken to identify changes in the 
    physical condition of that ACBM. Thus, a person would not need 
    accreditation to visually survey a ceiling that had already been 
    identified in an earlier inspection or reinspection as suspected ACBM 
    to determine whether the ceiling had been damaged by a water leak. If 
    the person assessed the condition of the ceiling by collecting a 
    sample, or touched it to determine whether it had become friable, 
    however, then that person would have to be accredited as an inspector.
        The second type of activity that is excluded from the definition of 
    inspection is compliance inspections performed by Federal, State, or 
    local regulatory agencies. These are excluded from accreditation 
    because their primary purpose is to determine adherence to applicable 
    statutes or regulations, and not to locate, assess, or remedy the 
    condition of ACBM. TSCA Title II does not provide a clear definition of 
    the types of inspection activities that require training. The 
    legislative history of ASHARA, however, indicates that Congress 
    intended to require training only for those persons who actually 
    inspect for or abate asbestos in public and commercial buildings. See 
    136 Cong. Rec. S15304 (Oct. 15, 1990) (statement of Sen. Burdick). 
    Based upon the purpose of ASHARA, EPA has concluded that government 
    personnel who inspect to determine compliance with laws regulating 
    asbestos are not required to obtain accreditation.
        The third exception involves visual inspections of the type 
    referenced in 40 CFR 763.90(i). These types of activities are excluded 
    from the accreditation requirement because their purpose is to 
    determine whether a response action is complete, not to actually 
    inspect for asbestos. See 136 Cong. Rec. S15304 (Oct. 15,1990) 
    (statement of Sen. Burdick). Moreover, when Congress enacted ASHARA, it 
    was aware that AHERA required accreditation for persons who inspected 
    for asbestos in schools. Persons who conducted visual inspections in 
    schools to determine whether a response action was complete, however, 
    did not have to be accredited as inspectors. The legislative history of 
    ASHARA indicates that Congress did not intend to expand the categories 
    of persons that had to be accredited when it modified the accreditation 
    requirements to include public and commercial buildings as well as 
    schools. As noted by Senator Chafee: ``[ASHARA] does not require the 
    accreditation of any category of individuals not now required to be 
    accredited to perform asbestos abatement work [under AHERA].'' 136 
    Cong. Rec. S15309 (Oct. 15, 1990) (statement of Sen. Chafee). 
    Consequently, EPA has concluded that a person who conducts an 
    inspection in a public and commercial building to determine whether a 
    response action is complete does not have to be accredited as an 
    inspector. Of course, many persons performing such activities will 
    otherwise need accreditation as asbestos abatement workers or 
    contractor/supervisors.
        4. Response action. The term ``response action'' is defined in the 
    MAP to mean a method, including removal, encapsulation, enclosure, 
    repair, and operation and maintenance, that protects human health and 
    the environment from friable ACBM. This definition is consistent with 
    the definition of ``response action'' in TSCA section 202(11) (15 
    U.S.C. 2642(11)), and with the definition of ``response action'' in the 
    Schools Rule found at 40 CFR 763.83. Its incorporation into the revised 
    MAP will therefore ensure that it applies equally to regulated 
    activities in both schools and public and commercial buildings. 
    Consequently, those activities that are response actions in schools 
    will also now be response actions when and where they are undertaken in 
    public and commercial buildings.
        Moreover, a person planning or conducting a response action is 
    subject to the MAP accreditation requirements only if the ACBM is 
    friable (15 U.S.C. 2646(a)(3)). As defined in both the MAP and in TSCA 
    section 202(6), ``friable ACM'' refers only to ACM that ``when dry, may 
    be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure'' (15 
    U.S.C. 2642(6)). It also includes previously ``nonfriable material 
    after such previously non-friable material becomes damaged to the 
    extent that when dry, it may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to 
    powder by hand pressure'' (15 U.S.C. 2642(6)). This statutory 
    definition of friability thereby limits the scope of the accreditation 
    requirements for response actions in both schools and public and 
    commercial buildings to ACBM that is friable or expected to become 
    friable during the course of the response action.
        5. Small-scale, short-duration activities. For purposes of the 
    revised MAP, ``small-scale, short duration activities (SSSD)'' are 
    tasks such as, but not limited to: (a) Removal of asbestos-containing 
    insulation on pipes, (b) removal of small quantities of asbestos-
    containing insulation on beams or above ceilings, (c) replacement of an 
    asbestos-containing gasket on a valve, (d) installation or removal of a 
    small section of drywall, or (e) installation of electrical conduits 
    through or proximate to asbestos-containing materials.
        SSSD can be further defined by the following considerations: (a) 
    Removal of small quantities of ACM only if required in the performance 
    of another maintenance activity not intended as asbestos abatement, (b) 
    removal of asbestos-containing thermal system insulation not to exceed 
    amounts greater than those which can be contained in a single glove 
    bag, (c) minor repairs to damaged thermal system insulation which do 
    not require removal, (d) repairs to a piece of asbestos-containing 
    wallboard, or (e) repairs, involving encapsulation, enclosure, or 
    removal, to small amounts of friable ACM only if required in the 
    performance of emergency or routine maintenance activity and not 
    intended solely as asbestos abatement (such work may not exceed amounts 
    greater than those which can be contained in a single prefabricated 
    mini-enclosure. Such an enclosure shall conform spatially and 
    geometrically to the localized work area, in order to perform its 
    intended containment function).
        This definition is intended to establish a common exemption 
    threshold for both schools and public and commercial buildings that 
    limits the applicability of the MAP training and accreditation 
    requirements. All persons in schools or public and commercial buildings 
    who perform SSSD that do not otherwise meet the criteria for a major 
    fiber release episode under 40 CFR 763.91(f)(2) are exempt from the MAP 
    accreditation requirements. However, a SSSD removal of more than 3 
    square or linear feet of friable ACBM, where this amount of friable 
    ACBM either falls or is dislodged, requires the use of an accredited 
    worker.
        6. Major and minor fiber release episodes. To help clarify the 
    applicability and limits of the SSSD exemption under the MAP, EPA is 
    incorporating two additional definitions for the terms ``Minor Fiber 
    Release Episode'' and ``Major Fiber Release Episode.'' Consistent with 
    the Schools Rule (40 CFR 763.83 and 763.91(e), (f)), a minor fiber 
    release episode is ``any uncontrolled or unintentional disturbance of 
    ACBM, resulting in a visible emission'' that ``involves the falling or 
    dislodging of 3 square or linear feet or less of friable ACBM.'' A 
    major fiber release episode is ``any uncontrolled or unintentional 
    disturbance of ACBM, resulting in a visible emission'' that ``involves 
    the falling or dislodging of more than 3 square or linear feet of 
    friable ACBM.'' The Schools Rule uses these terms, in addition to SSSD, 
    as a means to distinguish between those maintenance activities that 
    require the use of accredited workers, and those that do not. These 
    terms help delineate when persons performing operation and maintenance 
    activities are subject to MAP training and accreditation requirements. 
    Like SSSD, they are basic to determining the scope of the regulation, 
    and have been added for that reason.
    
    B. Phased Implementation
    
        EPA has decided that it is necessary to phase-in the MAP revisions 
    to achieve an orderly transition to the revised plan. Additional time 
    will be needed after the revised MAP has taken effect for States to 
    adopt accreditation plans no less stringent than the revised MAP, for 
    training course providers to modify their training courses in keeping 
    with upgraded MAP standards, and for individuals to obtain new or 
    additional training where applicable. For these reasons, the revisions 
    incorporate a timetable with two distinct deadlines; one that applies 
    to States, and another for accredited persons and training course 
    providers.
        1. States. EPA believes that it is reasonable to allow States a 
    comparable amount of time to come into compliance with the revised MAP 
    as was allowed under the original MAP. Therefore, the requirement of 
    the original MAP, that each State must adopt an accreditation plan at 
    least as stringent as the EPA model plan within 180 days after the 
    commencement of the first regular session of the State's legislature 
    following EPA's adoption of the model plan, is carried over to the 
    revised MAP. When Congress originally enacted AHERA, it required States 
    to adopt such a plan, and established a deadline that was tied to the 
    timing of the first legislative session following completion of the 
    MAP. When it promulgated ASHARA, Congress did not modify TSCA section 
    206(b)(2) that requires States to have a plan at least as stringent as 
    the MAP (15 U.S.C. 2646(b)(2)). When Congress enacted ASHARA, it was 
    aware that States would need time to enact conforming State 
    legislation. It is reasonable to conclude that Congress intended to 
    allow States the same amount of time to adopt implementing legislation 
    to comply with the MAP revisions in ASHARA that it had originally 
    allowed for compliance with AHERA. The deadline for State revisions of 
    accreditation plans allows States the time that is needed to revise 
    State laws. When this deadline is combined with the other provisions to 
    phase-in the MAP revisions, EPA believes that there will be an orderly 
    transition to the expanded system of accreditation for schools, and 
    public and commercial buildings.
        Some States already will have contractor accreditation programs 
    that meet or exceed the upgraded MAP requirements when the revised MAP 
    takes effect. These States are essentially unaffected by the revisions, 
    and may continue to operate as before. A second group of States will 
    not have accreditation programs in place that are as stringent as the 
    revised MAP when it first takes effect, but will have preexisting 
    accreditation programs that are in compliance with the original MAP. 
    These State programs may or may not be approved by EPA under the 
    revised MAP. Until such a State revises its program to comply with the 
    upgraded MAP standards, it will not have the authority to approve any 
    new training courses to provide training or accreditation that 
    satisfies the requirements of TSCA section 206(a) (15 U.S.C. 2646(a)). 
    In the interim, however, the State may continue to train persons and 
    issue the accreditation required by TSCA section 206(a) if the State 
    program otherwise complies with the minimum standards of the original 
    MAP. The State also may continue its approval of training course 
    providers, if the State issued the approval before the effective date 
    of the revised MAP, and the training provider is in compliance with the 
    self-certification requirements contained in Unit V.B. of the revised 
    MAP. This allows qualified training course providers to continue to 
    train and issue accreditation that satisfies TSCA section 206(a) 
    requirements.
        Some States in the second group will revise their accreditation 
    program to be at least as stringent as the MAP within 180 days after 
    the commencement of the legislature's first regular session that is 
    convened after the effective date of the revised MAP. When such a State 
    achieves this program upgrade, it will regain the authority to approve 
    new training course providers.
        Other States in the second group, however, may fail to meet the 
    deadline for achieving the necessary program upgrade. Beginning on 
    their respective deadline dates, these States will no longer have the 
    authority to train persons or issue accreditation that satisfies the 
    requirements of TSCA section 206(a), or to approve training course 
    providers to conduct TSCA training or issue TSCA accreditation. A 
    training provider that had been approved by such a State automatically 
    loses its State approval. A training provider that loses State approval 
    in this manner, however, will become EPA-approved if the provider has 
    self-certified and is otherwise in compliance with the revised MAP. 
    Finally, such a State automatically loses any EPA approval it may have 
    had. Once lost, a State would need to reapply for such approval under 
    the procedures outlined in Unit II of the revised MAP.
        A third group of States will not have any accreditation program in 
    place when the revised MAP takes effect, or will not have a program 
    which is at least as stringent as the original or revised MAP. These 
    States are not in compliance with TSCA Title II, are not authorized to 
    train persons or issue accreditation that satisfy the requirements of 
    TSCA section 206(a), and may not approve training course providers to 
    conduct TSCA training or issue TSCA accreditation. EPA strongly 
    recommends that States apply for and retain EPA approval of their 
    accreditation programs for the purpose of substantiating their 
    compliance status under TSCA Title II. Substantiation of compliance 
    benefits all affected persons and organizations, including States that 
    may be considering reciprocal arrangements with other States.
        2. Training course providers. The revised MAP stipulates that all 
    approved training course providers, whether approved by EPA or a State, 
    must self-certify that they have upgraded their approved training 
    programs to comply with the requirements of the revised MAP within 6 
    months of the revised MAP taking effect. The certification must be 
    received by EPA on or before October 4, 1994. This requirement applies 
    across-the-board to all initial and refresher training courses in all 
    five accredited disciplines even though actual curriculum modifications 
    are only required for the initial worker, contractor/supervisor, and 
    project designer courses. Self-certification is required for all 
    courses and all disciplines because all training providers must certify 
    that they not only comply with the prescribed training course 
    curricula, but with the new recordkeeping and certificate provisions of 
    the revised MAP as well. The self-certification process is to be 
    accomplished by submitting a written assurance to EPA that courses and 
    programs have been appropriately modified. The self-certification must 
    be signed by an authorized representative of the training provider, and 
    must include the following statement: ``Under civil and criminal 
    penalties of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent 
    statements or representations (18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 2615), I 
    certify that the training described in this submission complies with 
    all applicable requirements of Title II of TSCA, 40 CFR part 763, 
    Appendix C to Subpart E, as revised, and any other applicable Federal, 
    state, or local requirements.'' The self-certification submission must 
    also include documentation adequately describing the course and program 
    modifications effected to achieve compliance with the revised MAP. 
    Training providers with multiple course approvals are encouraged to 
    certify all such courses through a single consolidated submission. 
    Complete duplicate copies of self-certifications must also be sent to 
    and received by any State approving offices as of the same deadline 
    date. Training courses that have not self-certified as of October 4, 
    1994, will no longer be approved, and must reapply through a State 
    Program which is no less stringent than the revised MAP to have their 
    approval status restored.
        As was previously announced in the Federal Register (54 FR 38802, 
    September 20, 1989), EPA stopped accepting new training course 
    applications from providers for review and contingent approval as of 
    October 15, 1989. Since that date, all training courses without 
    approval have had to apply directly to State Programs with 
    accreditation plans no less stringent than the original MAP in order to 
    obtain the necessary approval. Once a training course has been self-
    certified, a training provider may continue to offer that training 
    course pursuant to the revised MAP. If the course had initially been 
    approved by an EPA-approved State, and that State subsequently forfeits 
    its EPA-approved status, EPA will continue to recognize the training 
    course as being an approved course if it has been self-certified and 
    otherwise remains in compliance with the revised MAP.
        3. Accredited persons. The revisions grandfather all persons who 
    possess valid accreditation as of the day before the date upon which 
    the revised MAP goes into effect. A person is considered to have valid 
    accreditation if they are in possession of an accreditation certificate 
    that has not yet expired. If a State allows a person with an expired 
    certificate to reinstate accreditation by completing refresher training 
    within the 12-month grace period, then such a person will also be 
    considered to have valid accreditation for purposes of grandfathering. 
    The person must successfully complete the necessary refresher training 
    course within 12 months of the date their certificate expires. Persons 
    who do not meet either of the above conditions do not possess valid 
    accreditation, and will not be grandfathered for purposes of 
    accreditation under the revised MAP.
        Grandfathered persons will not have to repeat initial training in 
    order to perform work subject to accreditation, but will have to 
    continue to fully comply with all annual refresher training 
    requirements.
        Persons who do not possess valid accreditation as of the day before 
    the date upon which the revised MAP goes into effect have two 
    alternative means of obtaining initial accreditation. A person may take 
    an upgraded training course, and obtain accreditation that complies 
    with the revised MAP. Alternatively, a person may take a course that 
    was approved under the original MAP and obtain provisional 
    accreditation. However, this person must then also complete the 
    upgraded training course for the same discipline within 6-months of the 
    revised MAP taking effect, on or before October 4, 1994, in order to 
    obtain accreditation that complies with the revised MAP and to continue 
    working beyond that date. This mechanism will ensure that all persons 
    who become newly accredited after the revised MAP takes effect will 
    meet the upgraded training standards within 6 months, while at the same 
    time, making it possible for all persons to acquire a provisional 
    accreditation and continue to work during the 6-month transition period 
    when training providers are upgrading their courses and programs.
        From earlier consultations with training providers, EPA anticipates 
    that many, if not most, will have little or no difficulty transitioning 
    to the upgraded training course standards (OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log 
    No. B2-002). For worker and contractor/supervisor courses, this 
    involves extending hands-on training from 6 to 14 hours. For the 
    project designer course, it involves revising instructional materials 
    as necessary to accomodate curriculum changes. For the inspector and 
    management planner courses, there are no required curriculum changes 
    per se. Because many training providers already comply with the new 
    recordkeeping and certificate requirements as a matter of standard 
    business practice, these adjustments are not expected to be burdensome. 
    Development and submittal of the self-certification letter, by design, 
    should also be a relatively simple task. In addition, EPA expects that 
    once the revised MAP has gone into effect, demand for the upgraded 
    training courses in favor of the original courses will provide 
    sufficient market incentive for a significant number of training 
    providers to self-certify quickly, thereby expediting an infrastructure 
    shift from the old courses to the new.
        The examples below are intended to help illustrate how 
    accreditation will operate during the transition period.
        a. Person ``A'' obtains initial accreditation as a worker 1-month 
    before the revised MAP takes effect. This person is then grandfathered 
    in when the revised MAP goes into effect 1-month later. The person must 
    then complete worker refresher training within 11 months after the 
    revised MAP takes effect in order to continue accreditation status 
    unbroken.
        b. Person ``B'' is a non-accredited consultant who is awarded an 
    asbestos abatement contract 4 months after the revised MAP takes 
    effect. This person is able to find and quickly complete an upgraded 
    contractor/supervisor course, thereby obtaining initial accreditation. 
    This person has met the new training standards, and thus is unaffected 
    by the 6-month compliance deadline. The consultant must then satisfy 
    the refresher training requirement within 1-year of the initial 
    accreditation date in order to continue uninterrupted contractor/
    supervisor work.
        c. Person ``C'' is a non-accredited consultant who is awarded a 
    contract for project design 1-month after the effective date of the 
    revised MAP. This person is unable to find an upgraded training course, 
    so opts to take the old initial project designer training course and 
    begin contract work without undue delay. This person may begin work, 
    but must complete an upgraded project designer course within the 6-
    month compliance deadline in order to continue working in an 
    uninterrupted manner. A consultant who does not complete the upgraded 
    training course by the compliance deadline must then stop work that 
    requires TSCA accreditation until obtaining upgraded accreditation.
        The same transitional provisions apply to any person who seeks 
    initial accreditation after the revised MAP takes effect, including 
    inspectors and management planners. The revised MAP imposes certain new 
    requirements on all disciplines, specifically new recordkeeping and 
    certificate requirements. EPA has concluded that everyone who is 
    initially accredited after the revised MAP takes effect should be 
    subject to the same transitional provisions to insure that their 
    training and accreditation will be adequately documented as required by 
    the new rule, and that they will have certificates that contain all the 
    necessary information. Such uniformity will make the accreditation 
    requirements easier to comply with and enforce.
    
    C. Distinct Training Disciplines
    
        These MAP revisions reaffirm the principle that each of the five 
    accredited training disciplines in the MAP is distinct from the others. 
    Because each discipline reflects a different functional job role, 
    proficiency in any one of the five disciplines requires a different mix 
    of knowledge, skill, and ability. Even where training programs cover 
    common subjects, these same subjects need to be given a different 
    priority and emphasis depending upon the particular discipline a person 
    is being trained for. To ensure that each discipline receives adequate 
    training, the revisions have incorporated the following changed 
    requirements.
        1. Each initial and refresher training course offered for 
    accreditation must be specific to a single discipline, and not combined 
    with training for any other discipline. The past practice of training 
    providers offering combined worker and contractor/supervisor training 
    is not allowed.
        2. Workers are no longer permitted to ``upgrade'' their worker 
    accreditation to that of contractor/supervisor by completing only one 
    additional day of training. Separate initial training as a contractor/
    supervisor is now required. Accredited contractor/supervisors, however, 
    may perform as workers without obtaining separate accreditation as 
    such. This is because contractor/supervisors have received more 
    training in the aggregate than workers to ensure that they can perform 
    their more complex job functions, and they must otherwise know how to 
    perform all of the various tasks which workers are normally called upon 
    to perform.
        3. Persons completing initial training for accreditation as 
    contractor/supervisors are no longer permitted to work as accredited 
    project designers during their initial 1-year term of accreditation. 
    This dual-accreditation provision, found in section I.1.C. of the 
    original MAP, has been deleted from the revised MAP. Persons seeking 
    accreditation as contractor/supervisors must now complete the new 5-day 
    initial training for contractor/supervisors, and persons seeking 
    accreditation as project designers must now complete the new 3-day 
    initial training for project designers.
    
    D. Increased Training Requirements
    
        Section 15(a)(3) of ASHARA mandated that EPA, as a part of revising 
    its MAP, increase the minimum number of training hours, including 
    additional hours of hands-on health and safety training, required for 
    the accreditation of asbestos abatement workers in schools and public 
    and commercial buildings. EPA interprets the phrase ``asbestos 
    abatement workers'' to include both workers and contractor/supervisors. 
    These groups have the greatest need for additional hands-on training 
    because they either actually perform asbestos abatement work, or 
    directly oversee it at the job site. The revised MAP therefore 
    incorporates 1 additional 8-hour day of hands-on training for both the 
    worker and the contractor/supervisor disciplines. This has the effect 
    of increasing the worker course from a total of 3 days to 4 days of 
    training, with the hands-on training component increased from 6 hours 
    to 14 hours. Similarly, the 4-day contractor/supervisor course has been 
    upgraded to a 5-day course, with 14 hours of hands-on activity. These 
    training hour requirements not only fulfill the statutory mandate for 
    additional hands-on training for asbestos abatement workers, but also 
    ensure that training can be obtained within the practical limits of a 
    normal 40-hour, 5-day work-week.
        The minimum training hour requirements for the other three 
    accredited MAP disciplines, that of inspector, management planner, and 
    project designer have not been altered. Congress only mandated 
    increased training for asbestos abatement workers, and the only 
    accredited disciplines directly engaged in hands-on abatement work are 
    the worker and contractor/supervisor. The project designer and 
    management planner courses do not include any hands-on health and 
    safety training component. Because inspectors likewise do not 
    participate in abatement, the existing 4-hour hands-on component for 
    inspectors is unaffected by the ASHARA mandate.
    
    E. Expanded Project Designer Curriculum
    
        The MAP revisions incorporate several additions to the mandatory 
    curriculum for accredited project designer training, but do not extend 
    the required length of this initial training program. These changes 
    relate only to the scope of training; they do not require an accredited 
    project designer to perform any particular work practices. Because of 
    concerns that project designs may sometimes be either inadequately 
    prepared and/or executed, the curriculum additions are aimed at both 
    clarifying and improving the effectiveness of the project designer's 
    functional role (see OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log No. C1-030). Where no 
    written design plan exists, implementation can be prone to failure. 
    This may also occur where a project design has not adequately 
    considered all relevant facets of an abatement project. For these 
    reasons, the six new topics which have been added include: (1) The need 
    for and methods of preparing a written project design, (2) techniques 
    for completing an initial cleaning of the work area, (3) increased 
    emphasis on the rationale behind the establishment of functional 
    spaces, (4) the need for written diagrams and methods of diagraming all 
    containment barriers, (5) the need for a written sampling rationale for 
    air clearance, and (6) clarification of what constitutes a complete 
    visual inspection.
    
    F. Deaccreditation of Persons and Withdrawal of Course Approval
    
        The MAP revisions establish minimum national criteria for 
    suspending or revoking the accreditation of individuals as well as for 
    suspending or withdrawing the approval of training courses. Also 
    included are additional criteria that EPA may use, and States are free 
    to adopt, as well as the procedures that EPA will follow when 
    suspending, revoking, or withdrawing accreditation or approval. The 
    specified procedures are derived from those used for the suspension, 
    modification, or revocation of pesticide applicator certificates found 
    at 40 CFR 171.11(f). EPA believes that these procedures provide 
    adequate notice and process to affected individuals and training course 
    providers, while enabling the Agency to act more quickly than through 
    those procedures specified at 40 CFR part 22, which had also been 
    considered by the Agency. States, in initiating these kinds of actions, 
    would be bound by the requirements of their own State administrative 
    procedures.
        The enumeration of criteria for suspension, revocation, or 
    withdrawal is not meant to be a complete list of enforcement actions 
    and choices available to EPA. Since the MAP is a regulation promulgated 
    under Title II of TSCA, persons violating the MAP may also be subject 
    to assessment of civil administrative penalties. The MAP revisions also 
    clarify that EPA may take independent actions against either training 
    entities or accredited persons, without reliance upon State enforcement 
    authority or initiative.
        1. Deaccrediting persons. Four minimum criteria are established for 
    triggering deaccreditation actions by EPA or a State. They include: (1) 
    Performing work requiring accreditation at a job site without being in 
    physical possession of initial and current accreditation certificates; 
    (2) permitting the duplication or use of one's own accreditation 
    certificate by another; (3) performing work for which accreditation has 
    not been received; or (4) obtaining accreditation from a training 
    provider that does not have approval to offer training for the 
    particular discipline from either EPA or from a State that has a 
    contractor accreditation plan at least as stringent as the EPA MAP.
        EPA may also suspend or revoke a person's accreditation if such 
    person has been found in violation of other asbestos regulations 
    administered by EPA. States may wish to adopt this criterion, or modify 
    it to include their own asbestos statutes or regulations.
        In addition, the revised MAP identifies some of the situations when 
    a person who is performing an activity that requires accreditation will 
    be subject to civil penalties under TSCA. Examples include, but are not 
    limited to: (1) Obtaining accreditation through fraudulent 
    representation of training or examination documents; (2) obtaining 
    training documentation through fraudulent means; (3) gaining admission 
    to and completing refresher training through fraudulent representation 
    of initial or previous refresher training documentation; or (4) 
    obtaining accreditation through fraudulent representation of 
    accreditation requirements such as education, training, professional 
    registration, or experience. This list is not exhaustive, and there may 
    be other situations where persons may be subject to penalties under 
    TSCA by conducting work without the requisite accreditation.
        2. Withdrawal of course approval. This new provision requires that 
    States have minimum criteria and procedures for suspending or 
    withdrawing approval from approved training courses. In pursuing 
    actions for withdrawal of approval of accredited training programs, 
    States should follow their own State administrative procedures. EPA may 
    directly pursue actions for withdrawal of approval of accredited 
    training programs without reliance on State withdrawal actions or 
    enforcement authority or actions. In taking such actions, EPA will use 
    the same procedures specified for the suspension or revocation of 
    accreditation, those found at 40 CFR 171.11(f), to suspend or withdraw 
    approval of a training course.
        EPA continues to have the ability to withdraw approval of 
    accredited training programs if field site inspections indicate that a 
    training course is not conducting training that meets the requirements 
    of the EPA MAP. Similarly, the requirement that training course 
    providers permit EPA representatives to attend, evaluate, and monitor 
    any training course without charge to EPA is preserved.
        EPA believes that training providers should understand the criteria 
    that the Agency will use to trigger a withdrawal action. Minimum 
    criteria which trigger the commencement of a withdrawal action for 
    withdrawal of approval of accredited training programs have been added 
    to the MAP, including: (a) Misrepresentation of the extent of a 
    training course's approval by a State or EPA; (b) failure to submit 
    required information or notifications in a timely manner; (c) failure 
    to maintain requisite records; (d) falsification of accreditation 
    records, instructor qualifications, or other accreditation information; 
    or (e) failure to adhere to the training standards and requirements of 
    the EPA or State MAP as appropriate.
        EPA may also suspend or withdraw a training course's approval if an 
    approved training course instructor or other person with supervisory 
    authority over the delivery of training has been found in violation of 
    other asbestos regulations administered by EPA. An administrative or 
    judicial finding of violation, or execution of a consent agreement and 
    order under 40 CFR 22.18, constitutes evidence of a failure to comply 
    with relevant statutes and regulations. States may wish to adopt this 
    additional criterion, or modify it to include their own asbestos 
    statutes or regulations.
        The formal procedures for withdrawing course approval do not apply 
    to training providers that fail to comply with the self-certification 
    requirements of the revised MAP and that do not upgrade their courses 
    within 6 months of the effective date of the revised MAP. EPA is 
    provisionally allowing training providers to continue to operate during 
    that 6-month period pursuant to approval granted under the original 
    MAP. A training provider that fails to comply with the self-
    certification requirements within 6 months, however, automatically 
    loses its provisional approval by operation of law. No individual 
    notices or adjudicative process is required to effect the loss of such 
    provisional approvals pursuant to this rule.
    
    G. Recordkeeping Requirements for Training Providers
    
        The revised MAP imposes a variety of new recordkeeping requirements 
    on training providers that are necessary to strengthen compliance with 
    MAP training standards and to enable more vigorous enforcement of those 
    standards by both EPA and the States. Four different types of records 
    must be maintained: (1) Records documenting approved training course 
    materials (e.g., copies of student manuals, instructor notebooks, 
    handouts), (2) records demonstrating instructor qualifications (e.g., 
    copies of resumes, approval letters, dates and names of courses 
    taught), (3) records documenting examinations (e.g., copies of tests 
    used, individual student scores, dates and locations of exams given), 
    and (4) records documenting accreditation certificates (e.g., to whom 
    conferred, for which disciplines, dates of issuance and expiration). 
    The revisions further stipulate that all such records must be retained 
    for at least 3 years, and that reasonable access to all such records 
    must be provided upon request to either or both EPA and the States.
    
    H. Accreditation Certificates
    
        The revised MAP stipulates that each accreditation certificate 
    issued by an approved training provider must now contain certain 
    additional items of information which had not been specified in the 
    original MAP. The new minimum certificate standard is intended to 
    enable quick identification of and contact with the training provider 
    that issued the certificate. The revised MAP specifically requires the 
    inclusion of the issuing provider's name, address, and telephone 
    number. This mechanism makes it possible for training providers, 
    regulatory agencies, and the general public to verify the accreditation 
    status of persons performing work subject to the MAP.
    
    III. Responses to Comments
    
        Comments on the various MAP changes being considered by EPA were 
    received from many affected interest groups, including States, 
    commercial buildings owners and managers, labor organizations, trade 
    associations, asbestos contractors and consultants, training entities, 
    power companies, universities, and federal agencies other than EPA. 
    These written comments may be found in the docket supporting this 
    action (OPPTS-62107). This Unit discusses EPA's responses to the 
    significant issues raised in the comments received.
        Comments and responses have been organized in this Unit according 
    to the relevant sections of the May 13, 1992, Federal Register notice 
    (57 FR 20438) under which they were solicited.
    
    A. Definitions
    
        1. Public and commercial buildings. Many commenters urged EPA to 
    incorporate the NESHAP (40 CFR part 61 - National Emission Standards 
    for Hazardous Air Pollutants) definition of ``facility,'' so that 
    greater consistency might be achieved between the various EPA asbestos 
    rules. Although EPA is sympathetic to promoting regulatory integration 
    whenever feasible, the statutory language of TSCA section 202(10) 
    complicates this attempt. A regulated ``facility'' under the NESHAP 
    includes residential buildings of more than four units, whereas the 
    TSCA definition of ``public and commercial building'' includes 
    residential apartment buildings of 10 or more units. Because EPA's 
    mandate to issue and revise the MAP comes from TSCA, as amended by 
    ASHARA, the TSCA definition is controlling. EPA must use the TSCA 
    definition, even though it is less inclusive than NESHAP.
        Other commenters suggested that the definition of the term ``public 
    and commercial building'' should include ACM that is located both on 
    the insides and the exteriors of buildings. EPA had earlier examined 
    this same issue when it promulgated the Schools Rule and the original 
    MAP pursuant to AHERA. At that time, EPA concluded that when AHERA used 
    the phrase ``in a school building,'' it meant the interior of the 
    building, not the exterior (52 FR 41835, October 30, 1987). EPA adopted 
    that interpretation in the Schools Rule which was in effect when 
    Congress amended AHERA by enacting ASHARA. EPA believes that Congress 
    intended the term ``in'' a public or commercial building to be given 
    the same meaning as ``in'' a school building in the Schools Rule. 
    Consistent with the approach incorporated in the Schools Rule, training 
    is required for work in interior areas only, except for exterior 
    hallways connecting buildings, porticos, and mechanical systems used to 
    condition interior space.
        Several power companies and other industrial/manufacturing concerns 
    objected to the Agency's proposal to include ``industrial'' buildings 
    within the scope of the rule. They argued that the public generally 
    does not have access to these buildings, is therefore not exposed, and 
    that workers in these industrial buildings are already adequately 
    protected by the OSHA asbestos standards or the EPA Worker Protection 
    Rule. The accreditation requirements of the statute, however, clearly 
    extend to activities in industrial buildings. TSCA section 202(10) 
    defines ``public and commercial buildings'' expansively to mean ``any 
    building which is not a school building, except the term does not 
    include any residential apartment building of fewer than 10 units'' (15 
    U.S.C. 2642(10)) (emphasis added). The statutory definition includes 
    all buildings with only two express exclusions for school buildings and 
    residential buildings. Industrial buildings clearly do not qualify for 
    either exemption. Thus, they fall within the category of any other type 
    of building that is encompassed by the term ``public and commercial 
    building.'' Moreover, when Congress enacted ASHARA, it relied, in part, 
    upon EPA's assessment of risk in public and commercial buildings, an 
    assessment that included industrial buildings. EPA's 1988 Report to 
    Congress on Asbestos in Buildings specifically identified industrial 
    buildings as one of the types of structures included under the TSCA 
    definition of ``public and commercial buildings'' (Report to Congress, 
    page 2). Further, the inclusion of industrial buildings in the category 
    of buildings where training is required is consistent with the purpose 
    of ASHARA to protect workers as well as the public.
        In extending the MAP training and accreditation requirements to 
    public and commercial buildings under the ASHARA mandate, EPA 
    recognizes that the revised MAP will now apply to activities in 
    buildings that may be subject to the specific training requirements of 
    other Federal asbestos regulations. This includes the competent person 
    training requirements under the OSHA Asbestos Standard (29 CFR 1926.58) 
    and the EPA Worker Protection Rule (40 CFR 763.121), the on-site 
    representative training requirements under the asbestos NESHAP (40 CFR 
    61.145), and the training requirements for designated persons and 
    operations and maintenance personnel found in the Schools Rule (40 CFR 
    763.84- 763.92). EPA wishes to clarify that a person subject to the 
    accredited training requirements of the MAP will also remain subject to 
    the applicable training requirements of these other asbestos rules. 
    Compliance with the MAP does not automatically relieve a person of 
    responsibilities under other asbestos rules.
        2. Friable ACM. Several commenters, citing the need for regulatory 
    consistency between schools and public and commercial buildings, urged 
    the Agency to preserve the concept of friable ACM which had been 
    applied in the Schools Rule. EPA agrees with this approach because it 
    is consistent with the statutory mandate and because consistency 
    between the Schools Rule and the MAP is desirable. Both rules must 
    comply with the same TSCA section 202(6) definition of friable ACM. 
    Thus, the Agency has incorporated that definition into the MAP. This 
    ties the definition to ACBM that is or may become friable.
        3. Inspection. Among those commenting on this issue, most expressed 
    support for the broadest possible definition of ``inspection,'' that 
    would embrace all eight of the options outlined in the May 13, 1992 
    Federal Register notice (57 FR 20438). This expansive approach would 
    not only extend accreditation requirements to include general 
    environmental hazard assessments for insurance and real estate 
    purposes, but also would specifically extend those requirements to all 
    of the inspection-type activities required by other asbestos rules such 
    as the Schools Rule, NESHAP, the EPA Worker Protection Rule and the 
    OSHA Asbestos Standard. EPA believes that such an all encompassing 
    definition is not warranted based upon risk, and would therefore result 
    in unnecessary costs (see OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log Nos. C1-025, C1-
    035, C1-038). EPA has elected a more targeted approach which focuses on 
    both the object and the activity of inspecting for asbestos. The 
    statute limits the accreditation requirement to those persons who 
    ``inspect for ACM in school buildings...or in a public or commercial 
    building'' (15 USC 2646 (a)(1)). EPA has adhered to this statutory 
    language, and required accreditation only for those persons who inspect 
    or reinspect specifically for ACBM. This would include, however, an 
    inspection undertaken pursuant to NESHAP (40 CFR 61.145(a)) in a 
    school, or public and commercial building, where the building owner or 
    operator is required to thoroughly inspect the building for the 
    presence of asbestos prior to commencing a demolition or renovation 
    activity. Similarly, inspections required by other regulations would 
    also be subject to accreditation, if the inspection, as defined in the 
    revised MAP, included a component that was specific to ACBM, and was 
    conducted within a school, or public and commercial building subject to 
    the revised MAP. This includes more general inspection-type activities 
    (e.g., environmental assessments) where asbestos is one of several 
    potential hazards or materials that are being looked for or examined. 
    Regardless of what other activities a person may be undertaking, if the 
    person is inspecting for ACBM in a school, public, or commercial 
    building, that person must be accredited to perform the asbestos 
    inspection component of that activity. Conversely, if a person is 
    performing an environmental assessment or building inspection that does 
    not include an asbestos inspection component, that person does not 
    require asbestos accreditation to perform that activity.
        As described earlier in Unit II.A.3. of this preamble, other 
    specific exceptions to the inspection accreditation requirement 
    include; (1) persons performing periodic surveillance of the type 
    described in 40 CFR 763.92(b), (2) compliance-related inspections 
    performed by employees or agents of Federal, State or local government, 
    and (3) visual inspections of the type described in 40 CFR 763.90(i) 
    for purposes of determining the completion of a response action.
        4. Response action. Commenters overwhelmingly supported a 
    definition for response action that would treat this term the same way 
    both for schools and for public and commercial buildings. EPA agrees 
    with this approach because it provides regulatory consistency between 
    the MAP and the Schools Rule. Because many of the same contractors will 
    be performing abatement work in both schools and public and commercial 
    buildings, the use of the same standard for both will further promote 
    comprehension of and compliance with the new accreditation 
    requirements. The definition in the revised MAP is therefore the same 
    as that which appears in the Schools Rule. Consequently, if a response 
    action were undertaken in a school, and the same activity was then 
    undertaken in a public or commercial building, both activities would be 
    considered response actions, and both activities would be required to 
    engage the services of accredited workers unless specifically excluded 
    under the exemption for small-scale, short-duration activities. It 
    should be noted, however, that there are other aspects relating to the 
    conduct of response actions which may be different for schools than for 
    public and commercial buildings. One example would be the requirements 
    found at 40 CFR 763.90 for air clearance at the completion of a 
    response action which are applicable to such activities in schools but 
    not in public and commercial buildings.
        5. Small-scale, short-duration activities (SSSD). A majority of 
    commenters supported the extension of the existing Schools Rule 
    training exemption for SSSD work in schools to public and commercial 
    buildings (see 40 CFR 763, Appendix B to Subpart E). EPA agrees with 
    the use of this exemption in the revised MAP, because it both preserves 
    regulatory consistency and promotes compliance with the statute. Also, 
    absent such a threshold exemption, a great many persons involved in 
    operation and maintenance-type activities in buildings would have to be 
    specially trained, regardless of risk.
        6. Major and minor fiber release episodes. A common theme among 
    those commenting on the prospective incorporation of an SSSD exemption 
    into the MAP was that this concept lacked clarity, and was therefore 
    difficult to interpret and apply. EPA is responding to this concern in 
    two ways. First, by using the existing SSSD exemption from the Schools 
    Rule, the MAP will apply the same accreditation exemption to all 
    buildings (schools and public and commercial buildings) and thereby 
    minimize any potential confusion among the regulated community. 
    Secondly, by adding the definitions of major and minor fiber release 
    episodes, the Agency is seeking to provide the clearest possible 
    meaning to this exemption while keeping it entirely within the 
    framework established by the Schools Rule.
    
    B. Phased Implementation
    
        1. States. Several State commenters expressed concern that an 
    allowance of 180 days following their next legislative session would 
    not provide them with sufficient time to upgrade their programs in 
    keeping with the increased training requirements of ASHARA. Although 
    EPA acknowledges the difficulties inherent with transitioning 
    established State programs, the changes were mandated by Congress when 
    it enacted ASHARA. Furthermore, the relatively short timeframes 
    established in ASHARA for EPA to implement these training mandates 
    clearly communicated a desire and intent for prompt action. For these 
    reasons, EPA believes that it is reasonable to allow States a 
    comparable amount of time to come into compliance with the revised MAP 
    as had been allowed for under the original MAP. This provides each 
    State with an allowance of 180 days following the convening of their 
    next regular legislative session to adopt a State accreditation plan 
    that is no less stringent than the revised MAP. For some States with 
    legislatures that meet every year, this means they will have a period 
    of time not less than 6 months in which to implement these changes. For 
    other States whose legislatures meet every other year, it means these 
    States might have as long as 30 months to effect the changes.
        2. Training course upgrades. Most commenters supported the 6-month 
    compliance deadline for training course upgrades which EPA had 
    proposed. They also supported self-certification on the part of 
    training entities as an efficient and practical way of quickly 
    implementing the new standards. Other commenters, however, contended 
    that the 6-month deadline was either too short or too long, and 
    expressed concerns about the ability of EPA and/or the States to 
    properly audit these upgraded training programs. EPA considers the 
    course upgrades prescribed in the revised MAP to be fully achievable 
    within a 6-month timeframe. The revisions directly affect only 3 of the 
    5 basic courses, and none of the refresher courses. The initial worker 
    and contractor/supervisor training courses must each incorporate 1 
    additional day of hands-on training and the initial project designer 
    courses must expand their curriculum to incorporate the 6 additional 
    items specified in the revisions. The original training provider self-
    certifications under ASHARA will be submitted directly to EPA's 
    Headquarter's Office in Washington, DC., so that this data can be 
    quickly compiled at the national level and integrated with existing 
    data bases. This simplified and centralized process expedites course 
    upgrades to ensure that the new training courses will be widely 
    available within a short period of time. EPA and/or the States may then 
    follow-up with field audits of these training programs as resources 
    permit.
        3. Accredited persons. Most commenters expressed support for the 
    Agency's proposal to grandfather in all those persons who are in 
    possession of valid accreditation as of the day before the effective 
    date of the revised MAP. Many also suggested that everyone else should 
    be allowed more than 6 months to obtain valid accreditation based upon 
    the increased ASHARA training requirements. In contrast, a few 
    suggested that a transition period of less than 6 months would be 
    sufficient. Because of the fairly simple adjustments needed to upgrade 
    training courses, and because EPA is providing an expedited procedure 
    (through self-certification) for purposes of obtaining course provider 
    upgrade approval, the Agency considers the 6-month deadline for 
    obtaining new accreditation to be adequate. Persons who are already 
    accredited on the date the revised MAP takes effect are not directly 
    impacted by it. Upon reaching their annual expiration date, they will 
    take their annual refresher training course, as before, and their 
    accreditation will be extended for an additional year. Persons seeking 
    new accreditation on and after the effective date of the revised MAP, 
    however, will need to complete either an existing course that complies 
    with the original MAP and thereby obtain provisional accreditation, or 
    an upgraded course that complies with the revised MAP to obtain regular 
    accreditation. If a person takes an existing course, that person will 
    have to complete the upgraded training course within 6 months after the 
    revised MAP takes effect in order to sustain their accreditation and 
    continue working. This provision helps ensure that anyone needing to 
    obtain initial accreditation during the period of transition between 
    the original MAP and the revised MAP will have the opportunity to do 
    so.
        Several commenters suggested that the MAP requirements for 
    refresher training should also be increased along with the basic 
    requirements. This might be accomplished by either extending the length 
    of mandatory refresher training, or expanding its curriculum, or both. 
    EPA does not agree with this position, however, and believes that 
    actual work experience is at least equivalent to requiring additional 
    hands-on training as a basis for reaccreditation. At the time of 
    refresher training, most accredited persons should have already 
    acquired on-the-job experience at least equivalent to what this 
    refresher hands-on training might otherwise provide.
    
    C. Distinct Training Disciplines
    
        While a majority of commenters agreed with the general principle of 
    separate training courses, many also believed that an exception should 
    be made in the case of combined worker/supervisor training. These 
    parties pointed to the common elements in the prescribed training 
    curricula for these two disciplines as the primary reason for allowing 
    joint training. In this view, workers and supervisors would attend the 
    same course, with the contractor/supervisors coming back for 1 
    additional day of training after the worker curriculum had been 
    completed. Although EPA permitted this accomodation for a period of 
    time under the original MAP, the Agency has now decided that, in light 
    of the Congressional mandate to strengthen and improve asbestos-related 
    training programs, contractor/supervisors may no longer obtain 
    accreditation by attending the same training course as workers with a 1 
    day add-on. Contractor/supervisors have markedly different job 
    functions and responsibilities than workers. While many training 
    elements are common to these two disciplines, each discipline requires 
    presentation at a different degree of complexity and level of detail, 
    depending upon whether a person is in training to become a worker, or 
    in training to become a supervisor. An on-site foreman, unlike a 
    worker, must know how each of the workers should perform his/her 
    individual assigned tasks, and must also comprehend the total job to be 
    done. As a result, a contractor/supervisor requires more in-depth 
    training on each of the training elements than does a worker. By way of 
    illustration, ``regulatory review'' is one curriculum training element 
    that is common to both the worker and the supervisor courses. Where a 
    worker must have a general understanding of the bounds established by 
    asbestos regulations, the supervisor, as the on-site person responsible 
    for regulatory compliance, must have a much greater depth of knowledge 
    regarding these rules and the methods of complying. If supervisors 
    attend the same training course as workers, and are provided the same 
    lecture on ``regulatory review,'' not only is it likely that the 
    workers in this class will get more regulatory training than they need 
    (and possibly less of something else more relevant to their jobs), but 
    more importantly, the supervisors will not get the right mix of subject 
    matter depth and breadth. EPA believes, therefore, that the best way to 
    ensure that contractor/supervisors receive the specialized training 
    they need is to keep their training courses separate and distinct from 
    those of workers.
        EPA believes, however, that it is permissible to allow an 
    accredited contractor/supervisor to perform in the role of an 
    accredited worker without possessing separate worker accreditation. 
    Separate worker accreditation is unnecessary because the contractor/
    supervisor must essentially know all that the worker knows and more, 
    and the contractor/supervisor has also completed more training than the 
    worker (5 days as opposed to 4 days).
        The situation is different, however, with respect to dual 
    accreditation for contractor/supervisors and project designers. Because 
    these two training disciplines share little in common, EPA is now 
    eliminating the original MAP provision whereby persons completing 
    contractor/supervisor initial training could obtain dual accreditation 
    to work as both contractor/supervisors and project designers. After the 
    effective date of the revisions, all persons must take separate initial 
    and refresher training that is specific to their discipline in order to 
    obtain or retain valid accreditation.
    
    D. Increased Training Requirements
    
        EPA had solicited public comment on the number of additional hours 
    of training that would be appropriate for the revised MAP because 
    ASHARA had left this amount unspecified. Whereas commenters suggested a 
    variety of ways in which this might be accomplished, many expressed 
    support for EPA's proposal to require one additional 8-hour day of 
    hands-on training for the worker and the contractor/supervisor initial 
    training courses respectively. The length of all other training courses 
    is not affected by the revisions. There are a number of distinct 
    advantages to EPA's approach: (1) All MAP training courses would be 
    limited in length to no more than one 5-day business week, a period of 
    time adequate to accomplish the requisite training, (2) existing 
    training course materials would remain relevant and not require 
    extensive modifications, (3) additional hands-on training should 
    appropriately be given to those persons who actually perform hands-on 
    abatement work (i.e., workers and contractor/supervisors), and (4) the 
    addition of 8 hours of hands-on training (on top of 6 hours that are 
    already required) should be relatively simple for providers to achieve, 
    yet affords them a degree of flexibility in deciding how to go about 
    doing it (i.e., in selecting the particular hands-on activities to be 
    practiced or exercised).
        Several commenters with experience in training, representing, or 
    employing asbestos workers agreed that 8 additional hours of hands-on 
    training for workers and contractor/supervisors was advisable. They 
    noted that the additional day of training was necessary to allow 
    workers to practice their jobs under actual working conditions, to gain 
    necessary experience in performing tasks such as erecting and 
    dismantling containment barriers, glovebagging, and scaffolding, and in 
    working inside containment areas, or while wearing personal protective 
    equipment, or in other common workplace situations (see OPPTS Docket 
    No. 62107, Log Nos. C1-016 and C1-020). Commenters also noted that the 
    additional day of hands-on training would help acclimatize workers 
    without risk of exposure, and also would eliminate complaints regarding 
    the need for on-the-job training (OPPTS Docket 62107, Log Nos. C1-020 
    and C1-064).
    
    E. Expanded Project Designer Curriculum
    
        A majority of commenters agreed with EPA's proposal to broaden the 
    prescribed project designer training curriculum to include six 
    additional lecture elements without extending the minimum required 
    length of the course. The six elements have therefore been added, and 
    include: (1) The need for, and methods of preparing a written project 
    design, (2) techniques for completing an initial cleaning of the work 
    area, (3) increased emphasis on the rationale behind establishment of 
    functional spaces, (4) the need for written diagrams and methods of 
    diagraming all containment barriers, (5) the need for a written 
    sampling rationale for air clearance, and (6) clarification of what 
    constitutes a complete visual inspection. These revisions have each 
    been incorporated as additions to the initial project designer training 
    curriculum. They will improve the effectiveness of the accredited 
    training programs, and thereby help to ensure that project designers 
    will be fully prepared to perform work in both schools and public and 
    commercial buildings.
    
    F. Withdrawal of Accreditation and Course Approval
    
        Broad support also was expressed for EPA's proposal to incorporate 
    minimum Federal criteria for proceedings relating to the 
    deaccreditation of persons and the withdrawal of approval from 
    accredited training courses, and to adopt standardized procedures for 
    such actions. These changes had been proposed to: (1) Promote greater 
    consistency and predictability nationwide, and (2) clarify the manner 
    by which EPA might directly deaccredit individuals or training courses 
    without reliance upon State authority or activity. The criteria have 
    therefore been promulgated as minimum Federal criteria which the States 
    must match or exceed in their own programs. The procedures govern EPA 
    activities only; the States being left free to adhere to their own 
    internal administrative procedures pursuant to State law.
    
    G. Recordkeeping Requirements for Training Providers
    
        Several commenters stated that a records retention period longer 
    than 3 years would be preferable for compliance verification purposes. 
    EPA, however, consistent with other TSCA recordkeeping requirements 
    (i.e., 40 CFR 704.11 and 761.180), regards a minimum 3-year retention 
    period as adequate for this purpose, and appropriate when consideration 
    is given to the costs associated with records maintenance. These 3 
    years are adequate to ensure that records will be available for anyone 
    who needs to verify either initial or refesher accreditation status. 
    Even if a person obtained initial accreditation, and then took 
    advantage of a full 12-month grace period before obtaining refresher 
    training, the 3-year retention requirement would ensure that the 
    training provider has the records to verify the initial accreditation.
        A number of training providers also expressed concerns about 
    access; surmising that if their records were opened in an unrestricted 
    manner to the public, that such providers would become vulnerable to 
    burdensome or harrassing requests. They did not object, however, to 
    training provider records being open to EPA and the States (see OPPTS 
    Docket No. 62107, Log No. D1-001). EPA accepts this position, and it 
    has been incorporated into the revisions (see Unit I.F.6. of the 
    revised MAP). This would not preclude the public from seeking 
    information directly from the training provider through telephone 
    inquiries or requests, but would permit training schools to maintain a 
    measure of flexibility in responding to inquiries.
        EPA also had asked for comments about whether training providers 
    should be required to verify the accreditation status of students 
    enrolling in their courses. In reply, several training entities 
    commented that this could present a significant burden that should not 
    be imposed (OPPTS Docket 62107, Log Nos. C1-019 and C1-041). After 
    considering this information, EPA agrees, and the revised MAP includes 
    a recommendation rather than a requirement that training entities 
    verify the accreditation status of students enrolling in their courses.
        Regarding the more general question of whether or not recordkeeping 
    requirements should be imposed, many commenters acknowledged the need 
    for this action and expressed support for EPA's position.
    
    H. Accreditation Certificates
    
        While most commenters expressed support for EPA's proposal to 
    require additional training provider information on accreditation 
    certificates (i.e., issuer's name, address, and telephone number), a 
    few suggested that other items might be required as well, including the 
    name of the course instructor and the photograph, social security 
    number, and signature of the person to whom accreditation is being 
    conferred. The Agency does not consider these other items to be 
    necessary on certificates, because the same information is generally 
    available through other sources. The names of course instructors are 
    otherwise provided through the recordkeeping requirements contained in 
    the revisions, and personal identification items such as photographs, 
    social security numbers, and signatures are commonly available on the 
    professional licenses issued by State programs.
    
    I. Miscellaneous
    
        1. Project monitor training and accreditation. Several parties 
    indicated that EPA should expand the MAP to include mandatory 
    accreditation for a sixth training discipline, that of ``Project 
    Monitor.'' The functional role of a project monitor is often specific 
    to a particular response action; but generally might include: (1) 
    Monitoring a response action for compliance with contract/job 
    specifications and regulatory requirements, (2) performing visual 
    audits of a job site before, during and after a response action is 
    undertaken, and (3) performing air monitoring as a part of a response 
    action or for purposes of clearing a response action. Depending upon 
    the particular mix of activities undertaken by the project monitor, 
    this person might otherwise require accreditation, particularly if they 
    somehow become directly involved in conducting any part of the response 
    action. Typically, however, the project monitor is an agent or employee 
    representing a building owner or manager who is engaged to oversee a 
    contractor's performance of a response action in a school or public or 
    commercial building. These commenters argue that because such persons 
    are already widely used, steps should be taken to ensure a minimum 
    level of competency.
        ASHARA did not grant the Agency a clear mandate to enlarge the 
    scope of federal accreditation to include additional training 
    disciplines. Furthermore, implementing this course would necessitate 
    more extensive changes to State programs and statutes, a consequence 
    which would hinder State efforts to comply with ASHARA. For these 
    reasons, EPA has incorporated a recommended training curriculum for 
    such persons into the revised MAP and is urging States to consider 
    adopting this curriculum for purposes of requiring project monitor 
    accreditation under State law or regulation. Such State laws would not 
    mandate that project monitors be used in every instance, but rather, 
    would require their accreditation whenever a building owner or manager 
    elected to employ the services of a project monitor. This curriculum 
    was developed in 1992 through a roundtable discussion which involved 
    numerous affected interests outside of EPA. The document which emerged 
    from this process, entitled Whitepaper on the Development and 
    Implementation of Asbestos Abatement Project Monitor Training (March 
    20, 1992), outlined a recommended 5-day training program. Even where 
    States choose not to require accreditation under their State Plans for 
    such persons, EPA recommends that training entities consider offering 
    this course, and suggests that professionals working in this capacity 
    seek out and obtain this or equivalent training.
        2. Operations and maintenance training and accreditation. A few 
    commenters suggested that persons responsible for SSSD operations and 
    maintenance (O&M) activity involving ACBM should be subject to MAP 
    training and accreditation requirements. They noted that while 
    Sec. 763.92(a) of the Schools Rule requires school maintenance 
    personnel to take special ``awareness'' training, and, in some 
    instances, additional O&M training, the MAP would not require training 
    for all maintenance personnel in public and commercial buildings.
        This difference in training requirements is based upon the 
    statutory training scheme that Congress established in Title II of 
    TSCA. Both the language of the statute, and the legislative history of 
    AHERA and ASHARA support EPA's decision not to require MAP 
    accreditation for all O&M personnel in public and commercial buildings.
        When Congress enacted AHERA in 1986, it required MAP training and 
    accreditation for persons who conducted response actions, but excluded 
    certain types of O&M activities from the MAP training requirement (15 
    U.S.C. 2643(f), 2644(c), and 2646(a)(3)). It also required EPA to 
    promulgate rules to regulate O&M programs in schools, and required 
    local education agencies to develop and implement O&M plans, and to 
    provide for the education of service and maintenance personnel with 
    respect to asbestos-containing material.
        EPA promulgated the Schools Rule pursuant to AHERA. The Schools 
    Rule does not require full MAP training and accreditation for all O&M 
    workers, but does require it for any person in a school who: (a) 
    Conducts a response action other than a SSSD activity (40 CFR 
    763.90(g)); (b) performs a maintenance activity that disturbs friable 
    ACBM, other than a SSSD activity (40 CFR 763.91(e)); or (c) conducts a 
    response action for a major fiber release episode (40 CFR 
    763.91(f)(2)(iii)).
        In addition, the Schools Rule requires less extensive training for 
    O&M school employees that are not performing an activity that falls 
    within one of the three categories (40 CFR 763.92(a)). This last 
    category of O&M employee does not have to be accredited.
        Subsequently, in 1988, Congress amended AHERA, and created a new 
    provision of TSCA, section 215, specifically to codify the O&M training 
    requirements of the Schools Rule (15 U.S.C. 2655). Now, TSCA section 
    215 requires ``proper training'' for school employees who conduct O&M 
    activities in a school (15 U.S.C. 2655(b)).
        In 1990, Congress further modified TSCA asbestos training 
    requirements when it enacted ASHARA. Congress expanded the MAP training 
    requirements to cover persons working in public and commercial 
    buildings, but it did not require MAP training and accreditation for 
    all persons who perform O&M activities in such buildings. First, 
    Congress left intact the original language in TSCA section 206(a) that 
    exempts many persons who conduct O&M response actions from MAP training 
    and accreditation requirements in both schools and public and 
    commercial buildings (15 U.S.C. 2646(a)(3)). In the second place, 
    Congress chose not to expand the coverage of TSCA section 215 and 
    require limited training for O&M employees in public and commercial 
    buildings. Finally, unlike the original AHERA that governs schools, 
    Congress did not require EPA to promulgate rules regulating O&M 
    programs in public and commercial buildings, nor did it require 
    employers in such buildings to provide for the education of service and 
    maintenance personnel with respect to asbestos-containing material.
        In keeping with these Congressional actions, EPA has not required 
    MAP training and accreditation for every O&M worker in public and 
    commercial buildings. Rather, the revised MAP requires MAP 
    accreditation where O&M workers are most at risk. O&M personnel must 
    obtain MAP accreditation when conducting a response action, including a 
    maintenance activity that disturbs friable ACBM, unless that activity 
    is a SSSD activity, or when conducting a response action for a major 
    fiber release.
        3. Management plans for public and commercial buildings. A few 
    commenters, noting that ASHARA section 15(a) specifically omitted 
    management planners from the accredited disciplines being extended to 
    public and commercial buildings, suggested that management plans should 
    otherwise be required for such buildings. Although EPA, consistent with 
    its manage-in-place policy articulated in the ``Green Book'' guidance 
    (see Managing Asbestos In Place: A Building Owner's Guide to Operations 
    and Maintenance Programs for Asbestos-Containing Materials, EPA No. 
    20T-2003, July 1990), considers management plans to be helpful tools in 
    preventing asbestos exposures, the Agency is not requiring management 
    plans for regulated buildings in this revision. ASHARA did authorize 
    EPA to establish training standards for asbestos workers, but it did 
    not authorize the Agency to require public and commercial building 
    owners to conduct asbestos-related work in a particular fashion. 
    However, for those regulated public and commercial buildings where 
    asbestos-related problems are identified through inspections, EPA 
    strongly recommends that plans be prepared for how to address these 
    issues. EPA's Green Book should prove to be a useful reference in this 
    respect. The Agency would also suggest that accredited management 
    planners be engaged for purposes of developing such plans to ensure 
    their adequacy.
        4. Use of accredited laboratories. Several commenters expressed 
    concerns about the prospective quality of analytical work to be 
    performed with respect to public and commercial buildings, noting that 
    EPA's announcement of additions and changes under consideration had not 
    mentioned the use of accredited laboratories for the analysis of bulk 
    and/or air samples taken from such buildings. TSCA section 206(d) 
    provides for the establishment of the National Institute of Standards 
    and Technology National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program 
    (NVLAP), and stipulates that only laboratories accredited under this 
    program will be allowed to conduct analyses of asbestos bulk and air 
    samples taken from school buildings under the authority of local 
    education agencies (15 U.S.C. 2646(d)). But Congress did not extend 
    this same requirement to the analysis of bulk or air samples taken from 
    regulated public and commercial buildings.
        EPA strongly recommends that these samples be analyzed by NVLAP-
    accredited laboratories because these laboratories have undergone 
    Federal evaluation and testing and have met stringent performance 
    standards. Further, EPA urges that asbestos abatement site air be 
    analyzed by transmission electron microscopy (TEM) prior to building 
    reoccupancy in a manner consistent with 40 CFR 763.90 (i)(3) and (4). 
    This position is in keeping with EPA's on-going activity in schools 
    where the allowance for the use of phase contrast microscopy (PCM) has 
    been greatly diminished. EPA strongly recommends that abatement site 
    air clearance samples collected from public and commercial buildings be 
    analyzed by TEM at NVLAP-accredited laboratories. EPA now considers the 
    technically superior TEM analysis to be both economical and widely 
    available. TEM is technically superior to PCM because it is capable of 
    measuring all asbestos fibers including those thin fibers not measured 
    by PCM; therefore, TEM is the more stringent analytical tool to be used 
    for analysis of airborne asbestos during abatement site air clearance.
        5. Instructor qualifications. Some commenters were of the opinion 
    that EPA had not gone far enough in establishing minimum qualifications 
    for training course instructors. The original MAP stipulated that 
    instructors needed to have academic training or field experience in 
    asbestos abatement, yet allowed State programs to adopt their own more 
    stringent qualification standards. Since promulgation of the original 
    MAP, many States have elected to institute their own instructor 
    qualification requirements, a fact which would now complicate any 
    Federal effort to retroactively establish new minimum standards. EPA 
    considers this to be an issue best left to the States to decide. So 
    long as course instructors demonstrate relevant training and 
    experience, and the knowledge and ability to provide effective 
    instruction in the prescribed curriculum, EPA will continue to view 
    such persons as meeting minimum standards. States are encouraged, 
    however, to review this issue as they upgrade their programs in keeping 
    with ASHARA.
        A related issue had also been raised independently by the General 
    Accounting Office (GAO) in a May 1991, Report to Congress entitled 
    ``EPA's Asbestos Accreditation Program Requirements Need 
    Strengthening.'' In this report, GAO had recommended that EPA assess, 
    in conjunction with its MAP revision, the need for requiring 
    individuals working in the asbestos professions to meet 
    prequalification and experience standards. Although EPA responded to 
    this comment by reevaluating this issue and discussing it with affected 
    organizations, the fact that at least 17 States had already adopted 
    widely varying prequalification standards posed a potentially 
    significant obstacle (Source: State Asbestos Programs Related to AHERA; 
    A Survey of State Laws and Regulations. National Conference of State 
    Legislatures. September, 1992) (OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log No. B1-
    024). These States had established their own prequalification standards 
    for asbestos control professionals in response to EPA's earlier 
    recommendation (contained in the original MAP) that they should 
    consider doing so. Consequently, any action by EPA to retroactively 
    impose new Federal minimum standards would add to the cost and 
    difficulty of transitioning these State Programs into compliance with 
    the revised MAP. Such an outcome would not be helpful in promoting 
    ASHARA's objective to achieve a decentralized program administered by 
    the 50 States. For this reason, EPA decided not to require new minimum 
    prequalification standards in the revised MAP. Nonetheless, in support 
    of this goal, EPA has increased its experience requirements through 
    incorporation of an additional day of hands-on training in both the 
    initial worker and contractor/supervisor training programs, and is 
    renewing/continuing its recommendation that States adopt other 
    appropriate prequalification standards of their own.
        6. Foreign language courses. Several commenters suggested the need 
    for specific requirements or accomodations for foreign language 
    courses, citing the significant numbers of non-English speaking persons 
    who are now seeking accredited training. EPA policy permits approved 
    worker training courses in languages other than English so long as the 
    course instruction, all of the course materials, and the course 
    examination are each presented in the same foreign language. Given the 
    lack of a uniform distribution of non-English speaking persons 
    nationwide, with different languages prevailing in different regions of 
    the country, the MAP will continue to allow States to adopt their own 
    standards and procedures in this regard to address their individual and 
    unique circumstances. EPA does, however, urge States to address these 
    issues, and to accomodate the needs of their respective non-English 
    speaking populations.
        7. Standard forms. Some commenters remarked that the use of 
    standardized forms for purposes of inspection reports and management 
    plans would not only contribute to greater consistency and 
    professionalism among accredited persons working with these tools, but 
    might also facilitate the development of reciprocal arrangements 
    between State programs. EPA agrees with these comments, and has 
    incorporated specific recommendations into the training curricula for 
    both inspectors and management planners which are aimed at promoting 
    greater usage of standardized forms. EPA recommends that States 
    consider the utility of adopting requirements for the use of 
    standardized forms as an integral part of their asbestos regulatory 
    programs.
        8. Federal recognition of State programs. Several State commenters 
    indicated that it is beneficial for a State to formally apply for and 
    obtain Federal recognition of its accreditation plan. TSCA Title II 
    specifically requires States to adopt accreditation plans that are no 
    less stringent than the MAP, but does not require them to obtain formal 
    EPA approval. Even though EPA approval is not statutorily required, it 
    is beneficial. Where a State adopts and implements an accreditation 
    program but does not obtain EPA approval, it is difficult for the 
    industry and other States to determine whether such a State program 
    complies with minimum Federal requirements and thus has the authority 
    to issue TSCA accreditation. Where a person obtains a license from an 
    unrecognized State, that person's credentials may not be readily 
    accepted by an employer, a contractor, or another State in which the 
    person might seek to find work, because absent EPA's approval, there is 
    uncertainty about whether such a person is properly accredited. In 
    contrast, EPA's approval of a State effectively resolves all of this 
    uncertainty. EPA agrees with these comments, and strongly recommends 
    that all States seek formal EPA approval of their accreditation 
    programs.
        9. Grace period for accreditation reinstatement. Other comments 
    were received regarding whether there should be a ``grace period'' 
    during which a person can complete refresher training within 12 months 
    of their certificate expiration date and have their accreditation 
    reinstated. Such a person would not be required to retake the full 
    initial training program for that discipline. Some States expressed 
    support for this approach, while one suggested there should be a 
    penalty for persons who fail to obtain their refresher training on-time 
    (i.e., before the certificate expiration date). EPA believes that the 
    12-month grace period is appropriate. If a person takes their refresher 
    training too early in their accreditation year, they are penalized 
    through a shortening of what would otherwise be a 12-month period. If 
    they are unable to enroll in a refresher course precisely when they 
    need it, at a location which is convenient, the grace period allows 
    them the opportunity to take the course at a later, more convenient 
    time. During the 12-month grace period, however, it should be 
    emphasized that the person is not accredited, and may not otherwise 
    perform the work that requires accreditation until they complete their 
    refresher training. EPA views this as being a sufficient penalty for 
    not obtaining the required refresher training in a timely manner. 
    Because the 12-month grace period has proven helpful to the industry, 
    and effective in preserving a sizeable, accredited workforce 
    nationwide, the Agency plans to not only continue this procedure, but 
    also to encourage States to adopt it for their programs as well. 
    Consequently, the revised MAP now contains a formal recommendation that 
    State programs take this approach.
        10. Accreditation program adoption by the U.S. Department of 
    Defense. In commenting on EPA's proposed changes to the MAP, the 
    Department of the Navy noted that it operates its own in-house asbestos 
    training program which it believes complies with the accreditation 
    requirements of the MAP. For this reason, the Navy suggested that EPA 
    might formally review and approve the Navy's training program so that 
    Defense Department employees could become accredited through the 
    Defense program, and therefore not need separate accreditation from a 
    State.
        ASHARA requires accreditation for all persons who perform certain 
    types of asbestos-related work in public and commercial buildings, and 
    defines that type of building very broadly. As a result, EPA has 
    concluded that Federal employees who perform inspections or design or 
    conduct response actions in government buildings must be accredited.
        Under section 203(l) of TSCA, the Secretary of Defense is 
    authorized to act in lieu of a State Governor with respect to any 
    school operated under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20 
    U.S.C. 921 et seq.). This authority allows the Secretary of Defense the 
    opportunity to adopt its own accreditation program no less stringent 
    than the EPA MAP for the purpose of accrediting Defense Department 
    employees performing asbestos-related work in these schools. Although 
    this might be accomplished in cooperation with EPA, the statute does 
    not make the validity of the Defense Department's plan for schools 
    contingent upon EPA approval.
        ASHARA, however, did not extend this accreditation authority given 
    to the Secretary of Defense to cover Defense Department employees 
    performing asbestos-related work in public and commercial buildings.
        With respect to the Navy's in-house training courses, the Navy may 
    apply for approval of its training courses in the same manner as any 
    other training provider. This would permit the Navy to accredit any of 
    its employees who might complete these approved training courses. 
    However, because EPA is no longer accepting new courses for review and 
    contingent approval (see 54 FR 38802), only those States with 
    accreditation programs no less stringent than the MAP are in a position 
    to grant approval for such courses.
    
    IV. Economic Impact
    
        The regulatory impact analysis estimates the costs and benefits 
    attributable to this regulation. Because this regulation is an 
    amendment to a current regulation, the costs and benefits are 
    incremental, estimating the additional effect of the regulation with 
    respect to the current regulation.
        The costs associated with this regulation are quantified; the 
    benefits are discussed in qualitative terms and are expected to be of 
    significant importance. EPA believes this rule achieves the benefits 
    mandated by Congress at a modest cost. The rule affects training 
    providers, asbestos workers, asbestos abatement and inspection 
    companies, building owners, general building workers and occupants, 
    State governments, and the Federal government.
        The benefits associated with this rule involve reductions in 
    exposure to asbestos fibers due to the use of knowledgeable individuals 
    to work with asbestos and the use of safer work practices. The 
    increased training requirements are expected to increase the knowledge 
    of the trained individuals. The population most affected by this 
    regulation is the asbestos professionals engaged in inspections and 
    abatements, of which there are about 200,000 individuals who are 
    required to be trained under this regulation for work in public and 
    commercial buildings. These individuals are expected to benefit the 
    most from this regulation due to the amount of time spent working with 
    ACBM. EPA estimates that there are 0.4 to 1.2 million public and 
    commercial buildings with ACBM, in which there are between 14 and 43 
    million employees and workers who will gain a greater degree of 
    protection either through the use of trained contractors or their own 
    education. Other employees and building occupants will gain a greater 
    degree of protection through the use of appropriate and correctly 
    applied work practices.
        The costs associated with this rule are well documented. Upgrading 
    courses, retaining records, and allowing access to records increase 
    costs for training providers. Most of these costs are passed through in 
    the form of higher charges for the courses that are offered. In the 
    first year, EPA estimates that the overall increase in course costs 
    would be between $2.3 million and $14.2 million. Training provider 
    burden for recordkeeping and allowing access to their records would be 
    $200,000 to $250,000 for the first year.
        Training providers estimate that 70 percent of the asbestos-related 
    abatement work done in public and commercial buildings already uses 
    trained individuals. An analysis of the supply and demand of accredited 
    asbestos professionals in each of the four disciplines extended to 
    public and commercial buildings illustrates that the national supply is 
    sufficient to accommodate the anticipated demand. Early estimates of 
    supply and demand for project designers suggested a potential for 
    shortfall, and this conclusion provided a basis for delaying 
    implementation of this rule (57 FR 1913, January 16, 1992).
        This rule requires the owners of public and commercial buildings to 
    utilize accredited workers to inspect for ACBM, and to design and 
    carry-out response actions with respect to friable ACBM, unless 
    exempted under the SSSD threshold. EPA believes that most building 
    owners will elect to hire outside contractors rather than train their 
    own people to comply with this requirement, resulting in an annual cost 
    of $2 million to $45 million for the estimated 374,000 to 1.23 million 
    buildings which will be affected.
        Both State and Federal governments incur costs due to this rule. 
    For the first year, State governments incur a cost of just under $4 
    million, while EPA incurs a cost of between $70,000 and $130,000. These 
    costs are due to updating and reviewing State programs and reapproving 
    training courses.
        Overall costs for the first year for this rule are estimated to be 
    between $8 million and $64 million. These costs are summarized below. 
    Discounting over a 20-year period at 7 percent yields a present value 
    cost estimate between $33 million and $458 million. 
    
             First Year Costs of the MAP Revision Interim Final Rule        
                            (millions 1991 dollars)                         
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Low            
                        Cost Category                     Estimate    High  
                                                                    Estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Incremental Course Costs                                  2.3      14.2 
    Building Owner Costs over SSSD Threshold                  2.2      45   
    Training Provider Burden                                  0.2       0.3 
    State Regulatory Burden                                   3.6       3.9 
    EPA Regulatory Burden                                     0.1       0.1 
    TOTAL                                                     8.4      63.5 
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        The Agency's complete economic analysis is available in the public 
    record for this rule (OPPTS Docket No. 62107, Log No. B1-001).
    
    V. Administrative Record
    
        EPA has established an administrative record for this rule which 
    has been designated OPPTS Docket No. 62107, and is located at the 
    following address: Environmental Protection Agency, Rm E-G102, 401 M 
    St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. This record is available for review and 
    copying from 8 a.m. to noon and 1 to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, 
    excluding legal holidays.
        The record includes public comments and other information 
    considered by EPA in developing this rule. Any new comments received as 
    a result of this notice will be added to the existing docket for this 
    action.
    
    VI. References
    
        The following references have been included in the record:
        (1) USEPA. ``Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for 
    Friable Surfacing Materials,'' EPA/5-85-030a. October 1985.
        (2) USEPA. Friable Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools: 
    Identification and Notification (40 CFR Part 763 Subpart F).
        (3) USEPA. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
    Pollutants: Amendments to Asbestos Standard; Final Rule (40 CFR Part 61 
    Subpart M).
        (4) USDOL. OSHA. Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Final Rule (29 
    CFR 1926.58).
        (5) USEPA. Toxic Substances; Asbestos Abatement Projects; Final 
    Rule (40 CFR Part 763 Subpart G).
        (6) USDOL. OSHA. Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Subpart 
    I, Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910.134).
        (7) USEPA. ``Managing Asbestos in Place: A Building Owner's Guide 
    to Operations and Maintenance Programs for Asbestos-Containing 
    Materials,'' EPA/20T-2003. July 1990.
        (8) USEPA. ``EPA Study of Asbestos-Containing Materials in Public 
    Buildings: A Report to Congress.'' February 1988.
        (9) USEPA. ``Interim Rule to Revise the Asbestos Model 
    Accreditation Plan: Draft Regulatory Impact Analysis.'' July, 1993.
    
    VII. Regulatory Assessment Requirements
    
    A. Executive Order 12866
    
        Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the 
    Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
    and therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
    (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines a ``significant 
    regulatory action'' as an action that is likely to result in a rule (1) 
    Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or 
    adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, 
    productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
    safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities (also 
    referred to as ``economically significant''); (2) creating serious 
    inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned 
    by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of 
    entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and 
    obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy 
    issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or 
    the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
        Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, it has been 
    determined that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not 
    subject to OMB review.
    
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the 
    Administrator certifies that this revised rule will not have a 
    significant impact on a substantial number of small businesses. 
    Virtually all of the States already have some type of asbestos 
    certification program now in effect. Nationwide, many thousands of 
    persons are presently completing accredited training programs each 
    year. A discussion of EPA's analysis of the economic consequences of 
    this interim final rule appears in Unit IV. of this notice.
    
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    
        OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained 
    in the existing rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 
    Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), and assigned OMB control number 2070-
    0091. The information collection requirements included in this rule 
    that differ from those previously approved, have been submitted to OMB 
    as an amendment to OMB control number 2070-0091. Upon OMB's approval of 
    this amendment to the existing approval, EPA will publish a notice in 
    the Federal Register announcing such approval.
        This collection of information requires training providers and 
    States to respond. For training providers, public reporting for this 
    collection of information is estimated to average 42 hours per 
    response. This includes the time for reviewing the regulation, making 
    required changes to training programs, preparing and submitting a self-
    certification package, maintaining records, and providing access to 
    those records. There is no recordkeeping burden associated with 
    maintaining the records as their maintenance is usual and customary 
    business practice.
        For States, public reporting for this collection of information is 
    estimated to average 402 hours per response. This includes the time for 
    reviewing the regulation, comparing the new requirements with the 
    current State program, completing any necessary regulatory or 
    legislative analysis, adopting new legislation or regulations, 
    preparing and submitting an application for program approval, and 
    implementing an updated State program. For States, there is no 
    recordkeeping burden associated with this collection of information.
        Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of 
    this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
    burden, to Chief, Information Policy Branch (2136); U.S. Environmental 
    Protection Agency; 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 20460; and to the 
    Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 
    Budget, Washington, DC 20503, marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for 
    EPA.''
    
    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 763
    
        Environmental protection, Asbestos, Hazardous substances, 
    Incorporation by reference, Occupational health and safety, 
    Recordkeeping, Schools.
    
        Dated: January 24, 1994.
    Carol M. Browner,
    Administrator.
    
        Therefore, 40 CFR part 763 is amended as follows:
    
    PART 763--[AMENDED]
    
        1. The authority citation for part 763 continues to read as 
    follows:
    
        Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605 and 2607(c). Revised subpart E also 
    issued under 15 U.S.C. 2641, 2643, 2646, and 2647.
    
        2. Appendix C to subpart E, is revised to read as follows:
    Subpart E--Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools
          *  *  *  *  *
    
    Appendix C to Subpart E - Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan
    
    I. Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan for States
    
        The Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan (MAP) for States has eight 
    components:
        (A) Definitions
        (B) Initial Training
        (C) Examinations
        (D) Continuing Education
        (E) Qualifications
        (F) Recordkeeping Requirements for Training Providers
        (G) Deaccreditation
        (H) Reciprocity
    A. Definitions
        For purposes of Appendix C:
        1. ``Friable asbestos-containing material (ACM)'' means any 
    material containing more than one percent asbestos which has been 
    applied on ceilings, walls, structural members, piping, duct work, 
    or any other part of a building, which when dry, may be crumbled, 
    pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. The term includes 
    non-friable asbestos-containing material after such previously non-
    friable material becomes damaged to the extent that when dry it may 
    be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure.
        2. ``Friable asbestos-containing building material (ACBM)'' 
    means any friable ACM that is in or on interior structural members 
    or other parts of a school or public and commercial building.
        3. ``Inspection'' means an activity undertaken in a school 
    building, or a public and commercial building, to determine the 
    presence or location, or to assess the condition of, friable or non-
    friable asbestos-containing building material (ACBM) or suspected 
    ACBM, whether by visual or physical examination, or by collecting 
    samples of such material. This term includes reinspections of 
    friable and non-friable known or assumed ACBM which has been 
    previously identified. The term does not include the following:
        a. Periodic surveillance of the type described in 40 CFR 
    763.92(b) solely for the purpose of recording or reporting a change 
    in the condition of known or assumed ACBM;
        b. Inspections performed by employees or agents of Federal, 
    State, or local government solely for the purpose of determining 
    compliance with applicable statutes or regulations; or
        c. visual inspections of the type described in 40 CFR 763.90(i) 
    solely for the purpose of determining completion of response 
    actions.
        4. ``Major fiber release episode'' means any uncontrolled or 
    unintentional disturbance of ACBM, resulting in a visible emission, 
    which involves the falling or dislodging of more than 3 square or 
    linear feet of friable ACBM.
        5. ``Minor fiber release episode'' means any uncontrolled or 
    unintentional disturbance of ACBM, resulting in a visible emission, 
    which involves the falling or dislodging of 3 square or linear feet 
    or less of friable ACBM.
        6. ``Public and commercial building'' means the interior space 
    of any building which is not a school building, except that the term 
    does not include any residential apartment building of fewer than 10 
    units or detached single-family homes. The term includes, but is not 
    limited to: industrial and office buildings, residential apartment 
    buildings and condominiums of 10 or more dwelling units, government-
    owned buildings, colleges, museums, airports, hospitals, churches, 
    preschools, stores, warehouses and factories. Interior space 
    includes exterior hallways connecting buildings, porticos, and 
    mechanical systems used to condition interior space.
        7. ``Response action'' means a method, including removal, 
    encapsulation, enclosure, repair, and operation and maintenance, 
    that protects human health and the environment from friable ACBM.
        8. ``Small-scale, short-duration activities (SSSD)'' are tasks 
    such as, but not limited to:
        a. Removal of asbestos-containing insulation on pipes.
        b. Removal of small quantities of asbestos-containing insulation 
    on beams or above ceilings.
        c. Replacement of an asbestos-containing gasket on a valve.
        d. Installation or removal of a small section of drywall.
        e. Installation of electrical conduits through or proximate to 
    asbestos-containing materials.
        SSSD can be further defined by the following considerations:
        f. Removal of small quantities of ACM only if required in the 
    performance of another maintenance activity not intended as asbestos 
    abatement.
        g. Removal of asbestos-containing thermal system insulation not 
    to exceed amounts greater than those which can be contained in a 
    single glove bag.
        h. Minor repairs to damaged thermal system insulation which do 
    not require removal.
        i. Repairs to a piece of asbestos-containing wallboard.
        j. Repairs, involving encapsulation, enclosure, or removal, to 
    small amounts of friable ACM only if required in the performance of 
    emergency or routine maintenance activity and not intended solely as 
    asbestos abatement. Such work may not exceed amounts greater than 
    those which can be contained in a single prefabricated mini-
    enclosure. Such an enclosure shall conform spatially and 
    geometrically to the localized work area, in order to perform its 
    intended containment function.
    
    B. Initial Training
    
        Training requirements for purposes of accreditation are 
    specified both in terms of required subjects of instruction and in 
    terms of length of training. Each initial training course has a 
    prescribed curriculum and number of days of training. One day of 
    training equals 8 hours, including breaks and lunch. Course 
    instruction must be provided by EPA or State-approved instructors. 
    EPA or State instructor approval shall be based upon a review of the 
    instructor's academic credentials and/or field experience in 
    asbestos abatement.
        Beyond the initial training requirements, individual States may 
    wish to consider requiring additional days of training for purposes 
    of supplementing hands-on activities or for reviewing relevant state 
    regulations. States also may wish to consider the relative merits of 
    a worker apprenticeship program. Further, they might consider more 
    stringent minimum qualification standards for the approval of 
    training instructors. EPA recommends that the enrollment in any 
    given course be limited to 25 students so that adequate 
    opportunities exist for individual hands-on experience.
        States have the option to provide initial training directly or 
    approve other entities to offer training. The following requirements 
    are for the initial training of persons required to have 
    accreditation under TSCA Title II.
        Training requirements for each of the five accredited 
    disciplines are outlined below. Persons in each discipline perform a 
    different job function and distinct role. Inspectors identify and 
    assess the condition of ACBM, or suspect ACBM. Management planners 
    use data gathered by inspectors to assess the degree of hazard posed 
    by ACBM in schools to determine the scope and timing of appropriate 
    response actions needed for schools. Project designers determine how 
    asbestos abatement work should be conducted. Lastly, workers and 
    contractor/supervisors carry out and oversee abatement work. In 
    addition, a recommended training curriculum is also presented for a 
    sixth discipline, which is not federally-accredited, that of 
    ``Project Monitor.'' Each accredited discipline and training 
    curriculum is separate and distinct from the others. A person 
    seeking accreditation in any of the five accredited MAP disciplines 
    cannot attend two or more courses concurrently, but may attend such 
    courses sequentially.
        In several instances, initial training courses for a specific 
    discipline (e.g., workers, inspectors) require hands-on training. 
    For asbestos abatement contractor/supervisors and workers, hands-on 
    training should include working with asbestos-substitute materials, 
    fitting and using respirators, use of glovebags, donning protective 
    clothing, and constructing a decontamination unit as well as other 
    abatement work activities.
    
    1. Workers
    
        A person must be accredited as a worker to carry out any of the 
    following activities with respect to friable ACBM in a school or 
    public and commercial building: (1) A response action other than a 
    SSSD activity, (2) a maintenance activity that disturbs friable ACBM 
    other than a SSSD activity, or (3) a response action for a major 
    fiber release episode. All persons seeking accreditation as asbestos 
    abatement workers shall complete at least a 4-day training course as 
    outlined below. The 4-day worker training course shall include 
    lectures, demonstrations, at least 14 hours of hands-on training, 
    individual respirator fit testing, course review, and an 
    examination. Hands-on training must permit workers to have actual 
    experience performing tasks associated with asbestos abatement. A 
    person who is otherwise accredited as a contractor/supervisor may 
    perform in the role of a worker without possessing separate 
    accreditation as a worker.
        Because of cultural diversity associated with the asbestos 
    workforce, EPA recommends that States adopt specific standards for 
    the approval of foreign language courses for abatement workers. EPA 
    further recommends the use of audio-visual materials to complement 
    lectures, where appropriate.
        The training course shall adequately address the following 
    topics:
        (a) Physical characteristics of asbestos. Identification of 
    asbestos, aerodynamic characteristics, typical uses, and physical 
    appearance, and a summary of abatement control options.
        (b) Potential health effects related to asbestos exposure. The 
    nature of asbestos-related diseases; routes of exposure; dose-
    response relationships and the lack of a safe exposure level; the 
    synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure; 
    the latency periods for asbestos-related diseases; a discussion of 
    the relationship of asbestos exposure to asbestosis, lung cancer, 
    mesothelioma, and cancers of other organs.
        (c) Employee personal protective equipment. Classes and 
    characteristics of respirator types; limitations of respirators; 
    proper selection, inspection; donning, use, maintenance, and storage 
    procedures for respirators; methods for field testing of the 
    facepiece-to-face seal (positive and negative-pressure fit checks); 
    qualitative and quantitative fit testing procedures; variability 
    between field and laboratory protection factors that alter 
    respiratory fit (e.g., facial hair); the components of a proper 
    respiratory protection program; selection and use of personal 
    protective clothing; use, storage, and handling of non-disposable 
    clothing; and regulations covering personal protective equipment.
        (d) State-of-the-art work practices. Proper work practices for 
    asbestos abatement activities, including descriptions of proper 
    construction; maintenance of barriers and decontamination enclosure 
    systems; positioning of warning signs; lock-out of electrical and 
    ventilation systems; proper working techniques for minimizing fiber 
    release; use of wet methods; use of negative pressure exhaust 
    ventilation equipment; use of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) 
    vacuums; proper clean-up and disposal procedures; work practices for 
    removal, encapsulation, enclosure, and repair of ACM; emergency 
    procedures for sudden releases; potential exposure situations; 
    transport and disposal procedures; and recommended and prohibited 
    work practices.
        (e) Personal hygiene. Entry and exit procedures for the work 
    area; use of showers; avoidance of eating, drinking, smoking, and 
    chewing (gum or tobacco) in the work area; and potential exposures, 
    such as family exposure.
        (f) Additional safety hazards. Hazards encountered during 
    abatement activities and how to deal with them, including electrical 
    hazards, heat stress, air contaminants other than asbestos, fire and 
    explosion hazards, scaffold and ladder hazards, slips, trips, and 
    falls, and confined spaces.
        (g) Medical monitoring. OSHA and EPA Worker Protection Rule 
    requirements for physical examinations, including a pulmonary 
    function test, chest X-rays, and a medical history for each 
    employee.
        (h) Air monitoring. Procedures to determine airborne 
    concentrations of asbestos fibers, focusing on how personal air 
    sampling is performed and the reasons for it.
        (i) Relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, 
    procedures, and standards. With particular attention directed at 
    relevant EPA, OSHA, and State regulations concerning asbestos 
    abatement workers.
        (j) Establishment of respiratory protection programs.
        (k) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training 
    course.
    
    2. Contractor/Supervisors
    
        A person must be accredited as a contractor/supervisor to 
    supervise any of the following activities with respect to friable 
    ACBM in a school or public and commercial building: (1) A response 
    action other than a SSSD activity, (2) a maintenance activity that 
    disturbs friable ACBM other than a SSSD activity, or (3) a response 
    action for a major fiber release episode. All persons seeking 
    accreditation as asbestos abatement contractor/supervisors shall 
    complete at least a 5-day training course as outlined below. The 
    training course must include lectures, demonstrations, at least 14 
    hours of hands-on training, individual respirator fit testing, 
    course review, and a written examination. Hands-on training must 
    permit supervisors to have actual experience performing tasks 
    associated with asbestos abatement.
        EPA recommends the use of audiovisual materials to complement 
    lectures, where appropriate.
        Asbestos abatement supervisors include those persons who provide 
    supervision and direction to workers performing response actions. 
    Supervisors may include those individuals with the position title of 
    foreman, working foreman, or leadman pursuant to collective 
    bargaining agreements. At least one supervisor is required to be at 
    the worksite at all times while response actions are being 
    conducted. Asbestos workers must have access to accredited 
    supervisors throughout the duration of the project.
        The contractor/supervisor training course shall adequately 
    address the following topics:
        (a) The physical characteristics of asbestos and asbestos-
    containing materials. Identification of asbestos, aerodynamic 
    characteristics, typical uses, physical appearance, a review of 
    hazard assessment considerations, and a summary of abatement control 
    options.
        (b) Potential health effects related to asbestos exposure. The 
    nature of asbestos-related diseases; routes of exposure; dose-
    response relationships and the lack of a safe exposure level; 
    synergism between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure; and 
    latency period for diseases.
        (c) Employee personal protective equipment. Classes and 
    characteristics of respirator types; limitations of respirators; 
    proper selection, inspection, donning, use, maintenance, and storage 
    procedures for respirators; methods for field testing of the 
    facepiece-to-face seal (positive and negative-pressure fit checks); 
    qualitative and quantitative fit testing procedures; variability 
    between field and laboratory protection factors that alter 
    respiratory fit (e.g., facial hair); the components of a proper 
    respiratory protection program; selection and use of personal 
    protective clothing; and use, storage, and handling of non-
    disposable clothing; and regulations covering personal protective 
    equipment.
        (d) State-of-the-art work practices. Proper work practices for 
    asbestos abatement activities, including descriptions of proper 
    construction and maintenance of barriers and decontamination 
    enclosure systems; positioning of warning signs; lock-out of 
    electrical and ventilation systems; proper working techniques for 
    minimizing fiber release; use of wet methods; use of negative 
    pressure exhaust ventilation equipment; use of HEPA vacuums; and 
    proper clean-up and disposal procedures. Work practices for removal, 
    encapsulation, enclosure, and repair of ACM; emergency procedures 
    for unplanned releases; potential exposure situations; transport and 
    disposal procedures; and recommended and prohibited work practices. 
    New abatement-related techniques and methodologies may be discussed.
        (e) Personal hygiene. Entry and exit procedures for the work 
    area; use of showers; and avoidance of eating, drinking, smoking, 
    and chewing (gum or tobacco) in the work area. Potential exposures, 
    such as family exposure, shall also be included.
        (f) Additional safety hazards. Hazards encountered during 
    abatement activities and how to deal with them, including electrical 
    hazards, heat stress, air contaminants other than asbestos, fire and 
    explosion hazards, scaffold and ladder hazards, slips, trips, and 
    falls, and confined spaces.
        (g) Medical monitoring. OSHA and EPA Worker Protection Rule 
    requirements for physical examinations, including a pulmonary 
    function test, chest X-rays and a medical history for each employee.
        (h) Air monitoring. Procedures to determine airborne 
    concentrations of asbestos fibers, including descriptions of 
    aggressive air sampling, sampling equipment and methods, reasons for 
    air monitoring, types of samples and interpretation of results.
        EPA recommends that transmission electron microscopy (TEM) be 
    used for analysis of final air clearance samples, and that sample 
    analyses be performed by laboratories accredited by the National 
    Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) National Voluntary 
    Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP).
        (i) Relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, 
    procedures, and standards, including:
        (i) Requirements of TSCA Title II.
        (ii) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 
    (40 CFR part 61), Subparts A (General Provisions) and M (National 
    Emission Standard for Asbestos).
        (iii) OSHA standards for permissible exposure to airborne 
    concentrations of asbestos fibers and respiratory protection (29 CFR 
    1910.134).
        (iv) OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard (29 CFR 1926.58). 
    (v)EPA Worker Protection Rule, (40 CFR part 763, Subpart G).
        (j) Respiratory Protection Programs and Medical Monitoring 
    Programs.
        (k) Insurance and liability issues. Contractor issues; worker's 
    compensation coverage and exclusions; third-party liabilities and 
    defenses; insurance coverage and exclusions.
        (l) Recordkeeping for asbestos abatement projects. Records 
    required by Federal, State, and local regulations; records 
    recommended for legal and insurance purposes.
        (m) Supervisory techniques for asbestos abatement activities. 
    Supervisory practices to enforce and reinforce the required work 
    practices and discourage unsafe work practices.
        (n) Contract specifications. Discussions of key elements that 
    are included in contract specifications.
        (o) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training 
    course.
    
    3. Inspector
    
        All persons who inspect for ACBM in schools or public and 
    commercial buildings must be accredited. All persons seeking 
    accreditation as an inspector shall complete at least a 3-day 
    training course as outlined below. The course shall include 
    lectures, demonstrations, 4 hours of hands-on training, individual 
    respirator fit-testing, course review, and a written examination.
        EPA recommends the use of audiovisual materials to complement 
    lectures, where appropriate. Hands-on training should include 
    conducting a simulated building walk-through inspection and 
    respirator fit testing. The inspector training course shall 
    adequately address the following topics:
        (a) Background information on asbestos. Identification of 
    asbestos, and examples and discussion of the uses and locations of 
    asbestos in buildings; physical appearance of asbestos.
        (b) Potential health effects related to asbestos exposure. The 
    nature of asbestos-related diseases; routes of exposure; dose-
    response relationships and the lack of a safe exposure level; the 
    synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure; 
    the latency periods for asbestos-related diseases; a discussion of 
    the relationship of asbestos exposure to asbestosis, lung cancer, 
    mesothelioma, and cancers of other organs.
        (c) Functions/qualifications and role of inspectors. Discussions 
    of prior experience and qualifications for inspectors and management 
    planners; discussions of the functions of an accredited inspector as 
    compared to those of an accredited management planner; discussion of 
    inspection process including inventory of ACM and physical 
    assessment.
        (d) Legal liabilities and defenses. Responsibilities of the 
    inspector and management planner; a discussion of comprehensive 
    general liability policies, claims-made, and occurrence policies, 
    environmental and pollution liability policy clauses; state 
    liability insurance requirements; bonding and the relationship of 
    insurance availability to bond availability.
        (e) Understanding building systems. The interrelationship 
    between building systems, including: an overview of common building 
    physical plan layout; heat, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) 
    system types, physical organization, and where asbestos is found on 
    HVAC components; building mechanical systems, their types and 
    organization, and where to look for asbestos on such systems; 
    inspecting electrical systems, including appropriate safety 
    precautions; reading blueprints and as-built drawings.
        (f) Public/employee/building occupant relations. Notifying 
    employee organizations about the inspection; signs to warn building 
    occupants; tact in dealing with occupants and the press; scheduling 
    of inspections to minimize disruptions; and education of building 
    occupants about actions being taken.
        (g) Pre-inspection planning and review of previous inspection 
    records. Scheduling the inspection and obtaining access; building 
    record review; identification of probable homogeneous areas from 
    blueprints or as-built drawings; consultation with maintenance or 
    building personnel; review of previous inspection, sampling, and 
    abatement records of a building; the role of the inspector in 
    exclusions for previously performed inspections.
        (h) Inspecting for friable and non-friable ACM and assessing the 
    condition of friable ACM. Procedures to follow in conducting visual 
    inspections for friable and non-friable ACM; types of building 
    materials that may contain asbestos; touching materials to determine 
    friability; open return air plenums and their importance in HVAC 
    systems; assessing damage, significant damage, potential damage, and 
    potential significant damage; amount of suspected ACM, both in total 
    quantity and as a percentage of the total area; type of damage; 
    accessibility; material's potential for disturbance; known or 
    suspected causes of damage or significant damage; and deterioration 
    as assessment factors.
        (i) Bulk sampling/documentation of asbestos. Detailed discussion 
    of the ``Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials 
    (EPA 560/5-85-030a October 1985)''; techniques to ensure sampling in 
    a randomly distributed manner for other than friable surfacing 
    materials; sampling of non-friable materials; techniques for bulk 
    sampling; inspector's sampling and repair equipment; patching or 
    repair of damage from sampling; discussion of polarized light 
    microscopy; choosing an accredited laboratory to analyze bulk 
    samples; quality control and quality assurance procedures. EPA's 
    recommendation that all bulk samples collected from school or public 
    and commercial buildings be analyzed by a laboratory accredited 
    under the NVLAP administered by NIST.
        (j) Inspector respiratory protection and personal protective 
    equipment. Classes and characteristics of respirator types; 
    limitations of respirators; proper selection, inspection; donning, 
    use, maintenance, and storage procedures for respirators; methods 
    for field testing of the facepiece-to-face seal (positive and 
    negative-pressure fit checks); qualitative and quantitative fit 
    testing procedures; variability between field and laboratory 
    protection factors that alter respiratory fit (e.g., facial hair); 
    the components of a proper respiratory protection program; selection 
    and use of personal protective clothing; use, storage, and handling 
    of non-disposable clothing.
        (k) Recordkeeping and writing the inspection report. Labeling of 
    samples and keying sample identification to sampling location; 
    recommendations on sample labeling; detailing of ACM inventory; 
    photographs of selected sampling areas and examples of ACM 
    condition; information required for inclusion in the management plan 
    required for school buildings under TSCA Title II, section 203 
    (i)(1). EPA recommends that States develop and require the use of 
    standardized forms for recording the results of inspections in 
    schools or public or commercial buildings, and that the use of these 
    forms be incorporated into the curriculum of training conducted for 
    accreditation.
        (l) Regulatory review. The following topics should be covered: 
    National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 
    CFR part 61, Subparts A and M); EPA Worker Protection Rule (40 CFR 
    part 763, Subpart G); OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard (29 CFR 
    1926.58); OSHA respirator requirements (29 CFR 1910.134); the 
    Friable Asbestos in Schools Rule (40 CFR Part 763, Subpart F); 
    applicable State and local regulations, and differences between 
    Federal and State requirements where they apply, and the effects, if 
    any, on public and nonpublic schools or commercial or public 
    buildings.
        (m) Field trip. This includes a field exercise, including a 
    walk-through inspection; on-site discussion about information 
    gathering and the determination of sampling locations; on-site 
    practice in physical assessment; classroom discussion of field 
    exercise.
        (n) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training 
    course.
    
    4. Management Planner
    
        All persons who prepare management plans for schools must be 
    accredited. All persons seeking accreditation as management planners 
    shall complete a 3-day inspector training course as outlined above 
    and a 2-day management planner training course. Possession of 
    current and valid inspector accreditation shall be a prerequisite 
    for admission to the management planner training course. The 
    management planner course shall include lectures, demonstrations, 
    course review, and a written examination.
        EPA recommends the use of audiovisual materials to complement 
    lectures, where appropriate.
        TSCA Title II does not require accreditation for persons 
    performing the management planner role in public and commercial 
    buildings. Nevertheless, such persons may find this training and 
    accreditation helpful in preparing them to design or administer 
    asbestos operations and maintenance programs for public and 
    commercial buildings.
        The management planner training course shall adequately address 
    the following topics:
        (a) Course overview. The role and responsibilities of the 
    management planner; operations and maintenance programs; setting 
    work priorities; protection of building occupants.
        (b) Evaluation/interpretation of survey results. Review of TSCA 
    Title II requirements for inspection and management plans for school 
    buildings as given in section 203(i)(1) of TSCA Title II; 
    interpretation of field data and laboratory results; comparison of 
    field inspector's data sheet with laboratory results and site 
    survey.
        (c) Hazard assessment. Amplification of the difference between 
    physical assessment and hazard assessment; the role of the 
    management planner in hazard assessment; explanation of significant 
    damage, damage, potential damage, and potential significant damage; 
    use of a description (or decision tree) code for assessment of ACM; 
    assessment of friable ACM; relationship of accessibility, vibration 
    sources, use of adjoining space, and air plenums and other factors 
    to hazard assessment.
        (d) Legal implications. Liability; insurance issues specific to 
    planners; liabilities associated with interim control measures, in-
    house maintenance, repair, and removal; use of results from 
    previously performed inspections.
        (e) Evaluation and selection of control options. Overview of 
    encapsulation, enclosure, interim operations and maintenance, and 
    removal; advantages and disadvantages of each method; response 
    actions described via a decision tree or other appropriate method; 
    work practices for each response action; staging and prioritizing of 
    work in both vacant and occupied buildings; the need for containment 
    barriers and decontamination in response actions.
        (f) Role of other professionals. Use of industrial hygienists, 
    engineers, and architects in developing technical specifications for 
    response actions; any requirements that may exist for architect 
    sign-off of plans; team approach to design of high-quality job 
    specifications.
        (g) Developing an operations and maintenance (O&M) plan. Purpose 
    of the plan; discussion of applicable EPA guidance documents; what 
    actions should be taken by custodial staff; proper cleaning 
    procedures; steam cleaning and HEPA vacuuming; reducing disturbance 
    of ACM; scheduling O&M for off-hours; rescheduling or canceling 
    renovation in areas with ACM; boiler room maintenance; disposal of 
    ACM; in-house procedures for ACM--bridging and penetrating 
    encapsulants; pipe fittings; metal sleeves; polyvinyl chloride 
    (PVC), canvas, and wet wraps; muslin with straps, fiber mesh cloth; 
    mineral wool, and insulating cement; discussion of employee 
    protection programs and staff training; case study in developing an 
    O&M plan (development, implementation process, and problems that 
    have been experienced).
        (h) Regulatory review. Focusing on the OSHA Asbestos 
    Construction Standard found at 29 CFR 1926.58; the National Emission 
    Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) found at 40 CFR part 
    61, Subparts A (General Provisions) and M (National Emission 
    Standard for Asbestos); EPA Worker Protection Rule found at 40 CFR 
    part 763, Subpart G; TSCA Title II; applicable State regulations.
        (i) Recordkeeping for the management planner. Use of field 
    inspector's data sheet along with laboratory results; on-going 
    recordkeeping as a means to track asbestos disturbance; procedures 
    for recordkeeping. EPA recommends that States require the use of 
    standardized forms for purposes of management plans and incorporate 
    the use of such forms into the initial training course for 
    management planners.
        (j) Assembling and submitting the management plan. Plan 
    requirements for schools in TSCA Title II section 203(i)(1); the 
    management plan as a planning tool.
        (k) Financing abatement actions. Economic analysis and cost 
    estimates; development of cost estimates; present costs of abatement 
    versus future operation and maintenance costs; Asbestos School 
    Hazard Abatement Act grants and loans.
        (l) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training 
    course.
    
    5. Project Designer
    
        A person must be accredited as a project designer to design any 
    of the following activities with respect to friable ACBM in a school 
    or public and commercial building: (1) A response action other than 
    a SSSD maintenance activity, (2) a maintenance activity that 
    disturbs friable ACBM other than a SSSD maintenance activity, or (3) 
    a response action for a major fiber release episode. All persons 
    seeking accreditation as a project designer shall complete at least 
    a minimum 3-day training course as outlined below. The project 
    designer course shall include lectures, demonstrations, a field 
    trip, course review and a written examination.
        EPA recommends the use of audiovisual materials to complement 
    lectures, where appropriate.
        The abatement project designer training course shall adequately 
    address the following topics:
        (a) Background information on asbestos. Identification of 
    asbestos; examples and discussion of the uses and locations of 
    asbestos in buildings; physical appearance of asbestos.
        (b) Potential health effects related to asbestos exposure. 
    Nature of asbestos-related diseases; routes of exposure; dose-
    response relationships and the lack of a safe exposure level; the 
    synergistic effect between cigarette smoking and asbestos exposure; 
    the latency period of asbestos-related diseases; a discussion of the 
    relationship between asbestos exposure and asbestosis, lung cancer, 
    mesothelioma, and cancers of other organs.
        (c) Overview of abatement construction projects. Abatement as a 
    portion of a renovation project; OSHA requirements for notification 
    of other contractors on a multi-employer site (29 CFR 1926.58).
        (d) Safety system design specifications. Design, construction, 
    and maintenance of containment barriers and decontamination 
    enclosure systems; positioning of warning signs; electrical and 
    ventilation system lock-out; proper working techniques for 
    minimizing fiber release; entry and exit procedures for the work 
    area; use of wet methods; proper techniques for initial cleaning; 
    use of negative-pressure exhaust ventilation equipment; use of HEPA 
    vacuums; proper clean-up and disposal of asbestos; work practices as 
    they apply to encapsulation, enclosure, and repair; use of glove 
    bags and a demonstration of glove bag use.
        (e) Field trip. A visit to an abatement site or other suitable 
    building site, including on-site discussions of abatement design and 
    building walk-through inspection. Include discussion of rationale 
    for the concept of functional spaces during the walk-through.
        (f) Employee personal protective equipment. Classes and 
    characteristics of respirator types; limitations of respirators; 
    proper selection, inspection; donning, use, maintenance, and storage 
    procedures for respirators; methods for field testing of the 
    facepiece-to-face seal (positive and negative-pressure fit checks); 
    qualitative and quantitative fit testing procedures; variability 
    between field and laboratory protection factors that alter 
    respiratory fit (e.g., facial hair); the components of a proper 
    respiratory protection program; selection and use of personal 
    protective clothing; use, storage, and handling of non-disposable 
    clothing.
        (g) Additional safety hazards. Hazards encountered during 
    abatement activities and how to deal with them, including electrical 
    hazards, heat stress, air contaminants other than asbestos, fire, 
    and explosion hazards.
        (h) Fiber aerodynamics and control. Aerodynamic characteristics 
    of asbestos fibers; importance of proper containment barriers; 
    settling time for asbestos fibers; wet methods in abatement; 
    aggressive air monitoring following abatement; aggressive air 
    movement and negative-pressure exhaust ventilation as a clean-up 
    method.
        (i) Designing abatement solutions. Discussions of removal, 
    enclosure, and encapsulation methods; asbestos waste disposal.
        (j) Final clearance process. Discussion of the need for a 
    written sampling rationale for aggressive final air clearance; 
    requirements of a complete visual inspection; and the relationship 
    of the visual inspection to final air clearance.
        EPA recommends the use of TEM for analysis of final air 
    clearance samples. These samples should be analyzed by laboratories 
    accredited under the NIST NVLAP.
        (k) Budgeting/cost estimating. Development of cost estimates; 
    present costs of abatement versus future operation and maintenance 
    costs; setting priorities for abatement jobs to reduce costs.
        (l) Writing abatement specifications. Preparation of and need 
    for a written project design; means and methods specifications 
    versus performance specifications; design of abatement in occupied 
    buildings; modification of guide specifications for a particular 
    building; worker and building occupant health/medical 
    considerations; replacement of ACM with non-asbestos substitutes.
        (m) Preparing abatement drawings. Significance and need for 
    drawings, use of as-built drawings as base drawings; use of 
    inspection photographs and on-site reports; methods of preparing 
    abatement drawings; diagramming containment barriers; relationship 
    of drawings to design specifications; particular problems related to 
    abatement drawings.
        (n) Contract preparation and administration.
        (o) Legal/liabilities/defenses. Insurance considerations; 
    bonding; hold-harmless clauses; use of abatement contractor's 
    liability insurance; claims made versus occurrence policies.
        (p) Replacement. Replacement of asbestos with asbestos-free 
    substitutes.
        (q) Role of other consultants. Development of technical 
    specification sections by industrial hygienists or engineers; the 
    multi-disciplinary team approach to abatement design.
        (r) Occupied buildings. Special design procedures required in 
    occupied buildings; education of occupants; extra monitoring 
    recommendations; staging of work to minimize occupant exposure; 
    scheduling of renovation to minimize exposure.
        (s) Relevant Federal, State, and local regulatory requirements, 
    procedures and standards, including, but not limited to:
        (i) Requirements of TSCA Title II.
        (ii) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 
    (40 CFR part 61) subparts A (General Provisions) and M (National 
    Emission Standard for Asbestos).
        (iii) OSHA Respirator Standard found at 29 CFR 1910.134.
        (iv) EPA Worker Protection Rule found at 40 CFR part 763, 
    subpart G.
        (v) OSHA Asbestos Construction Standard found at 29 CFR 1926.58.
        (vi) OSHA Hazard Communication Standard found at 29 CFR 1926.59.
        (t) Course review. A review of key aspects of the training 
    course.
    
    6. Project Monitor
    
        EPA recommends that States adopt training and accreditation 
    requirements for persons seeking to perform work as project 
    monitors. Project monitors observe abatement activities performed by 
    contractors and generally serve as a building owner's representative 
    to ensure that abatement work is completed according to 
    specification and in compliance with all relevant statutes and 
    regulations. They may also perform the vital role of air monitoring 
    for purposes of determining final clearance. EPA recommends that a 
    State seeking to accredit individuals as project monitors consider 
    adopting a minimum 5-day training course covering the topics 
    outlined below. The course outlined below consists of lectures and 
    demonstrations, at least 6 hours of hands-on training, course 
    review, and a written examination. The hands-on training component 
    might be satisfied by having the student simulate participation in 
    or performance of any of the relevant job functions or activities 
    (or by incorporation of the workshop component described in item 
    ``n'' below of this unit).
        EPA recommends that the project monitor training course 
    adequately address the following topics:
        (a) Roles and responsibilities of the project monitor. 
    Definition and responsibilities of the project monitor, including 
    regulatory/specification compliance monitoring, air monitoring, 
    conducting visual inspections, and final clearance monitoring.
        (b) Characteristics of asbestos and asbestos-containing 
    materials. Typical uses of asbestos; physical appearance of 
    asbestos; review of asbestos abatement and control techniques; 
    presentation of the health effects of asbestos exposure, including 
    routes of exposure, dose-response relationships, and latency periods 
    for asbestos-related diseases.
        (c) Federal asbestos regulations. Overview of pertinent EPA 
    regulations, including: NESHAP, 40 CFR part 61, subparts A and M; 
    AHERA, 40 CFR part 763, subpart E; and the EPA Worker Protection 
    Rule, 40 CFR part 763, subpart G. Overview of pertinent OSHA 
    regulations, including: Construction Industry Standard for Asbestos, 
    29 CFR 1926.58; Respirator Standard, 29 CFR 1910.134; and the Hazard 
    Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1926.59. Applicable State and local 
    asbestos regulations; regulatory interrelationships.
        (d) Understanding building construction and building systems. 
    Building construction basics, building physical plan layout; 
    understanding building systems (HVAC, electrical, etc.); layout and 
    organization, where asbestos is likely to be found on building 
    systems; renovations and the effect of asbestos abatement on 
    building systems.
        (e) Asbestos abatement contracts, specifications, and drawings. 
    Basic provisions of the contract; relationships between principle 
    parties, establishing chain of command; types of specifications, 
    including means and methods, performance, and proprietary and 
    nonproprietary; reading and interpreting records and abatement 
    drawings; discussion of change orders; common enforcement 
    responsibilities and authority of project monitor.
        (f) Response actions and abatement practices. Pre-work 
    inspections; pre-work considerations, precleaning of the work area, 
    removal of furniture, fixtures, and equipment; shutdown/modification 
    of building systems; construction and maintenance of containment 
    barriers, proper demarcation of work areas; work area entry/exit, 
    hygiene practices; determining the effectiveness of air filtration 
    equipment; techniques for minimizing fiber release, wet methods, 
    continuous cleaning; abatement methods other than removal; abatement 
    area clean-up procedures; waste transport and disposal procedures; 
    contingency planning for emergency response.
        (g) Asbestos abatement equipment. Typical equipment found on an 
    abatement project; air filtration devices, vacuum systems, negative 
    pressure differential monitoring; HEPA filtration units, theory of 
    filtration, design/construction of HEPA filtration units, 
    qualitative and quantitative performance of HEPA filtration units, 
    sizing the ventilation requirements, location of HEPA filtration 
    units, qualitative and quantitative tests of containment barrier 
    integrity; best available technology.
        (h) Personal protective equipment. Proper selection of 
    respiratory protection; classes and characteristics of respirator 
    types, limitations of respirators; proper use of other safety 
    equipment, protective clothing selection, use, and proper handling, 
    hard/bump hats, safety shoes; breathing air systems, high pressure 
    v. low pressure, testing for Grade D air, determining proper backup 
    air volumes.
        (i) Air monitoring strategies. Sampling equipment, sampling 
    pumps (low v. high volume), flow regulating devices (critical and 
    limiting orifices), use of fibrous aerosol monitors on abatement 
    projects; sampling media, types of filters, types of cassettes, 
    filter orientation, storage and shipment of filters; calibration 
    techniques, primary calibration standards, secondary calibration 
    standards, temperature/pressure effects, frequency of calibration, 
    recordkeeping and field work documentation, calculations; air sample 
    analysis, techniques available and limitations of AHERA on their 
    use, transmission electron microscopy (background to sample 
    preparation and analysis, air sample conditions which prohibit 
    analysis, EPA's recommended technique for analysis of final air 
    clearance samples), phase contrast microscopy (background to sample 
    preparation, and AHERA's limits on the use of phase contrast 
    microscopy), what each technique measures; analytical methodologies, 
    AHERA TEM protocol, NIOSH 7400, OSHA reference method (non 
    clearance), EPA recommendation for clearance (TEM); sampling 
    strategies for clearance monitoring, types of air samples (personal 
    breathing zone v. fixed-station area) sampling location and 
    objectives (pre-abatement, during abatement, and clearance 
    monitoring), number of samples to be collected, minimum and maximum 
    air volumes, clearance monitoring (post-visual-inspection) (number 
    of samples required, selection of sampling locations, period of 
    sampling, aggressive sampling, interpretations of sampling results, 
    calculations), quality assurance; special sampling problems, crawl 
    spaces, acceptable samples for laboratory analysis, sampling in 
    occupied buildings (barrier monitoring).
        (j) Safety and health issues other than asbestos. Confined-space 
    entry, electrical hazards, fire and explosion concerns, ladders and 
    scaffolding, heat stress, air contaminants other than asbestos, fall 
    hazards, hazardous materials on abatement projects.
        (k) Conducting visual inspections. Inspections during abatement, 
    visual inspections using the ASTM E1368 document; conducting 
    inspections for completeness of removal; discussion of ``how clean 
    is clean?''
        (l) Legal responsibilities and liabilities of project monitors. 
    Specification enforcement capabilities; regulatory enforcement; 
    licensing; powers delegated to project monitors through contract 
    documents.
        (m) Recordkeeping and report writing. Developing project logs/
    daily logs (what should be included, who sees them); final report 
    preparation; recordkeeping under Federal regulations.
        (n) Workshops (6 hours spread over 3 days). Contracts, 
    specifications, and drawings: This workshop could consist of each 
    participant being issued a set of contracts, specifications, and 
    drawings and then being asked to answer questions and make 
    recommendations to a project architect, engineer or to the building 
    owner based on given conditions and these documents.
        Air monitoring strategies/asbestos abatement equipment: This 
    workshop could consist of simulated abatement sites for which 
    sampling strategies would have to be developed (i.e., occupied 
    buildings, industrial situations). Through demonstrations and 
    exhibition, the project monitor may also be able to gain a better 
    understanding of the function of various pieces of equipment used on 
    abatement projects (air filtration units, water filtration units, 
    negative pressure monitoring devices, sampling pump calibration 
    devices, etc.).
        Conducting visual inspections: This workshop could consist, 
    ideally, of an interactive video in which a participant is ``taken 
    through'' a work area and asked to make notes of what is seen. A 
    series of questions will be asked which are designed to stimulate a 
    person's recall of the area. This workshop could consist of a series 
    of two or three videos with different site conditions and different 
    degrees of cleanliness.
    
    C. Examinations
    
        1. Each State shall administer a closed book examination or 
    designate other entities such as State-approved providers of 
    training courses to administer the closed-book examination to 
    persons seeking accreditation who have completed an initial training 
    course. Demonstration testing may also be included as part of the 
    examination. A person seeking initial accreditation in a specific 
    discipline must pass the examination for that discipline in order to 
    receive accreditation. For example, a person seeking accreditation 
    as an abatement project designer must pass the State's examination 
    for abatement project designer.
        States may develop their own examinations, have providers of 
    training courses develop examinations, or use standardized 
    examinations developed for purposes of accreditation under TSCA 
    Title II. In addition, States may supplement standardized 
    examinations with questions about State regulations. States may 
    obtain commercially developed standardized examinations, develop 
    standardized examinations independently, or do so in cooperation 
    with other States, or with commercial or non-profit providers on a 
    regional or national basis. EPA recommends the use of standardized, 
    scientifically-validated testing instruments, which may be 
    beneficial in terms of both promoting competency and in fostering 
    accreditation reciprocity between States.
        Each examination shall adequately cover the topics included in 
    the training course for that discipline. Each person who completes a 
    training course, passes the required examination, and fulfills 
    whatever other requirements the State imposes must receive an 
    accreditation certificate in a specific discipline. Whether a State 
    directly issues accreditation certificates, or authorizes training 
    providers to issue accreditation certificates, each certificate 
    issued to an accredited person must contain the following minimum 
    information:
        a. A unique certificate number
        b. Name of accredited person
        c. Discipline of the training course completed.
        d. Dates of the training course.
        e. Date of the examination.
        f. An expiration date of 1 year after the date upon which the 
    person successfully completed the course and examination.
        g. The name, address, and telephone number of the training 
    provider that issued the certificate.
        h. A statement that the person receiving the certificate has 
    completed the requisite training for asbestos accreditation under 
    TSCA Title II.
        States or training providers who reaccredit persons based upon 
    completion of required refresher training must also provide 
    accreditation certificates with all of the above information, except 
    the examination date may be omitted if a State does not require a 
    refresher examination for reaccreditation.
        Where a State licenses accredited persons but has authorized 
    training providers to issue accreditation certificates, the State 
    may issue licenses in the form of photo-identification cards. Where 
    this applies, EPA recommends that the State licenses should include 
    all of the same information required for the accreditation 
    certificates. A State may also choose to issue photo-identification 
    cards in addition to the required accreditation certificates.
        Accredited persons must have their initial and current 
    accreditation certificates at the location where they are conducting 
    work.
        2. The following are the requirements for examination in each 
    discipline:
        a. Worker:
        i. 50 multiple-choice questions
        ii. Passing score: 70 percent correct
        b. Contractor/Supervisor:
        i. 100 multiple-choice questions
        ii. Passing score: 70 percent correct
        c. Inspector:
        i. 50 Multiple-choice questions
        ii. Passing score: 70 percent correct
        d. Management Planner:
        i. 50 Multiple-choice questions
        ii. Passing score: 70 percent correct
        e. Project Designer:
        i. 100 multiple-choice questions
        ii. Passing score: 70 percent correct
    
    D. Continuing Education
    
        For all disciplines, a State's accreditation program shall 
    include annual refresher training as a requirement for 
    reaccreditation as indicated below:
        1. Workers: One full day of refresher training.
        2. Contractor/Supervisors: One full day of refresher training.
        3. Inspectors: One half-day of refresher training.
        4. Management Planners: One half-day of inspector refresher 
    training and one half-day of refresher training for management 
    planners.
        5. Project Designers: One full day of refresher training.
        The refresher courses shall be specific to each discipline. 
    Refresher courses shall be conducted as separate and distinct 
    courses and not combined with any other training during the period 
    of the refresher course. For each discipline, the refresher course 
    shall review and discuss changes in Federal, State, and local 
    regulations, developments in state-of-the-art procedures, and a 
    review of key aspects of the initial training course as determined 
    by the State. After completing the annual refresher course, persons 
    shall have their accreditation extended for an additional year from 
    the date of the refresher course. A State may consider requiring 
    persons to pass reaccreditation examinations at specific intervals 
    (for example, every 3 years).
        EPA recommends that States formally establish a 12-month grace 
    period to enable formerly accredited persons with expired 
    certificates to complete refresher training and have their 
    accreditation status reinstated without having to re-take the 
    initial training course.
    
    E. Qualifications
    
        In addition to requiring training and an examination, a State 
    may require candidates for accreditation to meet other qualification 
    and/or experience standards that the State considers appropriate for 
    some or all disciplines. States may choose to consider requiring 
    qualifications similar to the examples outlined below for 
    inspectors, management planners and project designers. States may 
    modify these examples as appropriate. In addition, States may want 
    to include some requirements based on experience in performing a 
    task directly as a part of a job or in an apprenticeship role. They 
    may also wish to consider additional criteria for the approval of 
    training course instructors beyond those prescribed by EPA.
        1. Inspectors: Qualifications - possess a high school diploma. 
    States may want to require an Associate's Degree in specific fields 
    (e.g., environmental or physical sciences).
        2. Management Planners: Qualifications - Registered architect, 
    engineer, or certified industrial hygienist or related scientific 
    field.
        3. Project Designers: Qualifications - registered architect, 
    engineer, or certified industrial hygienist.
        4. Asbestos Training Course Instructor: Qualifications - 
    academic credentials and/or field experience in asbestos abatement.
        EPA recommends that States prescribe minimum qualification 
    standards for training instructors employed by training providers.
    
    F. Recordkeeping Requirements for Training Providers
    
        All approved providers of accredited asbestos training courses 
    must comply with the following minimum recordkeeping requirements.
        1. Training course materials. A training provider must retain 
    copies of all instructional materials used in the delivery of the 
    classroom training such as student manuals, instructor notebooks and 
    handouts.
        2. Instructor qualifications. A training provider must retain 
    copies of all instructors' resumes, and the documents approving each 
    instructor issued by either EPA or a State. Instructors must be 
    approved by either EPA or a State before teaching courses for 
    accreditation purposes. A training provider must notify EPA or the 
    State, as appropriate, in advance whenever it changes course 
    instructors. Records must accurately identify the instructors that 
    taught each particular course for each date that a course is 
    offered.
        3. Examinations. A training provider must document that each 
    person who receives an accreditation certificate for an initial 
    training course has achieved a passing score on the examination. 
    These records must clearly indicate the date upon which the exam was 
    administered, the training course and discipline for which the exam 
    was given, the name of the person who proctored the exam, a copy of 
    the exam, and the name and test score of each person taking the 
    exam. The topic and dates of the training course must correspond to 
    those listed on that person's accreditation certificate. States may 
    choose to apply these same requirements to examinations for 
    refresher training courses.
        4. Accreditation certificates. The training providers or States, 
    whichever issues the accreditation certificate, shall maintain 
    records that document the names of all persons who have been awarded 
    certificates, their certificate numbers, the disciplines for which 
    accreditation was conferred, training and expiration dates, and the 
    training location. The training provider or State shall maintain the 
    records in a manner that allows verification by telephone of the 
    required information.
        5. Verification of certificate information. EPA recommends that 
    training providers of refresher training courses confirm that their 
    students possess valid accreditation before granting course 
    admission. EPA further recommends that training providers offering 
    the initial management planner training course verify that students 
    have met the prerequisite of possessing valid inspector 
    accreditation at the time of course admission.
        6. Records retention and access. (a) The training provider shall 
    maintain all required records for a minimum of 3 years. The training 
    provider, however, may find it advantageous to retain these records 
    for a longer period of time.
        (b) The training provider must allow reasonable access to all of 
    the records required by the MAP, and to any other records which may 
    be required by States for the approval of asbestos training 
    providers or the accreditation of asbestos training courses, to both 
    EPA and to State Agencies, on request. EPA encourages training 
    providers to make this information equally accessible to the general 
    public.
        (c) If a training provider ceases to conduct training, the 
    training provider shall notify the approving government body (EPA or 
    the State) and give it the opportunity to take possession of that 
    providers asbestos training records.
    
    G. Deaccreditation
    
        1. States must establish criteria and procedures for 
    deaccrediting persons accredited as workers, contractor/supervisors, 
    inspectors, management planners, and project designers. States must 
    follow their own administrative procedures in pursuing 
    deaccreditation actions. At a minimum, the criteria shall include:
        (a) Performing work requiring accreditation at a job site 
    without being in physical possession of initial and current 
    accreditation certificates;
        (b) Permitting the duplication or use of one's own accreditation 
    certificate by another;
        (c) Performing work for which accreditation has not been 
    received; or
        (d) Obtaining accreditation from a training provider that does 
    not have approval to offer training for the particular discipline 
    from either EPA or from a State that has a contractor accreditation 
    plan at least as stringent as the EPA MAP.
        EPA may directly pursue deaccreditation actions without reliance 
    on State deaccreditation or enforcement authority or actions. In 
    addition to the above-listed situations, the Administrator may 
    suspend or revoke the accreditation of persons who have been subject 
    to a final order imposing a civil penalty or convicted under section 
    16 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2615 or 2647, for violations of 40 CFR part 
    763, or section 113 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413, for 
    violations of 40 CFR part 61, subpart M.
        2. Any person who performs asbestos work requiring accreditation 
    under section 206(a) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2646(a), without such 
    accreditation is in violation of TSCA. The following persons are not 
    accredited for purposes of section 206(a) of TSCA:
        (a) Any person who obtains accreditation through fraudulent 
    representation of training or examination documents;
        (b) Any person who obtains training documentation through 
    fraudulent means;
        (c) Any person who gains admission to and completes refresher 
    training through fraudulent representation of initial or previous 
    refresher training documentation; or
        (d) Any person who obtains accreditation through fraudulent 
    representation of accreditation requirements such as education, 
    training, professional registration, or experience.
    
    H. Reciprocity
    
        EPA recommends that each State establish reciprocal arrangements 
    with other States that have established accreditation programs that 
    meet or exceed the requirements of the MAP. Such arrangements might 
    address cooperation in licensing determinations, the review and 
    approval of training programs and/or instructors, candidate testing 
    and exam administration, curriculum development, policy formulation, 
    compliance monitoring, and the exchange of information and data. The 
    benefits to be derived from these arrangements include a potential 
    cost-savings from the reduction of duplicative activity and the 
    attainment of a more professional accredited workforce as States are 
    able to refine and improve the effectiveness of their programs based 
    upon the experience and methods of other States.
    
    II. EPA Approval Process for State Accreditation Programs
    
        A. States may seek approval for a single discipline or all 
    disciplines as specified in the MAP. For example, a State that 
    currently only requires worker accreditation may receive EPA 
    approval for that discipline alone. EPA encourages States that 
    currently do not have accreditation requirements for all disciplines 
    required under section 206(b)(2) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2646(b)(2), to 
    seek EPA approval for those disciplines the State does accredit. As 
    States establish accreditation requirements for the remaining 
    disciplines, the requested information outlined below should be 
    submitted to EPA as soon as possible. Any State that had an 
    accreditation program approved by EPA under an earlier version of 
    the MAP may follow the same procedures to obtain EPA approval of 
    their accreditation program under this MAP.
        B. Partial approval of a State Program for the accreditation of 
    one or more disciplines does not mean that the State is in full 
    compliance with TSCA where the deadline for that State to have 
    adopted a State Plan no less stringent than the MAP has already 
    passed. State Programs which are at least as stringent as the MAP 
    for one or more of the accredited disciplines may, however, accredit 
    persons in those disciplines only.
        C. States seeking EPA approval or reapproval of accreditation 
    programs shall submit the following information to the Regional 
    Asbestos Coordinator at their EPA Regional office:
        1. A copy of the legislation establishing or upgrading the 
    State's accreditation program (if applicable).
        2. A copy of the State's accreditation regulations or revised 
    regulations.
        3. A letter to the Regional Asbestos Coordinator that clearly 
    indicates how the State meets the program requirements of this MAP. 
    Addresses for each of the Regional Asbestos Coordinators are shown 
    below:
    EPA, Region I, (ATC-111) Asbestos Coordinator, JFK Federal Bldg., 
    Boston, MA 02203-2211, (617) 565-3836.
    EPA, Region II, (MS-500), Asbestos Coordinator, 2890 Woodbridge 
    Ave., Edison, NJ 08837-3679, (908) 321-6671.
    EPA, Region III, (3AT-33), Asbestos Coordinator, 841 Chestnut Bldg., 
    Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-3160.
    EPA, Region IV, Asbestos Coordinator, 345 Courtland St., N.E., 
    Atlanta, GA 30365, (404) 347-5014.
    EPA, Region V, (SP-14J), Asbestos Coordinator, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., 
    Chicago, IL 60604-3590, (312) 886-6003.
    EPA, Region VI, (6T-PT), Asbestos Coordinator, 1445 Ross Ave. 
    Dallas, TX 75202-2744, (214) 655-7244.
    EPA, Region VII, (ARTX/ASBS), Asbestos Coordinator, 726 Minnesota 
    Ave., Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7020.
    EPA, Region VIII, (8AT-TS), Asbestos Coordinator, 1 Denver Place, 
    Suite 500 999 - 18th St., Denver, CO 80202-2405, (303) 293-1442.
    EPA, Region IX, (A-4-4), Asbestos Coordinator, 75 Hawthorne St., San 
    Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1128.
    EPA, Region X, (AT-083), Asbestos Coordinator, 1200 Sixth Ave., 
    Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-4762.
        EPA maintains a listing of all those States that have applied 
    for and received EPA approval for having accreditation requirements 
    that are at least as stringent as the MAP for one or more 
    disciplines. Any training courses approved by an EPA-approved State 
    Program are considered to be EPA-approved for purposes of 
    accreditation.
    
    III. Approval of Training Courses
    
        Individuals or groups wishing to sponsor training courses for 
    disciplines required to be accredited under section 206(b)(1)(A) of 
    TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2646(b)(1)(A), may apply for approval from States 
    that have accreditation program requirements that are at least as 
    stringent as this MAP. For a course to receive approval, it must 
    meet the requirements for the course as outlined in this MAP, and 
    any other requirements imposed by the State from which approval is 
    being sought. Courses that have been approved by a State with an 
    accreditation program at least as stringent as this MAP are approved 
    under section 206(a) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2646(a), for that particular 
    State, and also for any other State that does not have an 
    accreditation program as stringent as this MAP.
    
    A. Initial Training Course Approval
    
        A training provider must submit the following minimum 
    information to a State as part of its application for the approval 
    of each training course:
        1. The course provider's name, address, and telephone number.
        2. A list of any other States that currently approve the 
    training course.
        3. The course curriculum.
        4. A letter from the provider of the training course that 
    clearly indicates how the course meets the MAP requirements for:
        a. Length of training in days.
        b. Amount and type of hands-on training.
        c. Examination (length, format, and passing score).
        d. Topics covered in the course.
        5. A copy of all course materials (student manuals, instructor 
    notebooks, handouts, etc.).
        6. A detailed statement about the development of the examination 
    used in the course.
        7. Names and qualifications of all course instructors. 
    Instructors must have academic and/or field experience in asbestos 
    abatement.
        8. A description of and an example of the numbered certificates 
    issued to students who attend the course and pass the examination.
    
    B. Refresher Training Course Approval
    
        The following minimum information is required for approval of 
    refresher training courses by States:
        1. The length of training in half-days or days.
        2. The topics covered in the course.
        3. A copy of all course materials (student manuals, instructor 
    notebooks, handouts, etc.).
        4. The names and qualifications of all course instructors. 
    Instructors must have academic and/or field experience in asbestos 
    abatement.
        5. A description of and an example of the numbered certificates 
    issued to students who complete the refresher course and pass the 
    examination, if required.
    
    C. Withdrawal of Training Course Approval
    
        States must establish criteria and procedures for suspending or 
    withdrawing approval from accredited training programs. States 
    should follow their own administrative procedures in pursuing 
    actions for suspension or withdrawal of approval of training 
    programs. At a minimum, the criteria shall include:
        (1) Misrepresentation of the extent of a training course's 
    approval by a State or EPA;
        (2) Failure to submit required information or notifications in a 
    timely manner;
        (3) Failure to maintain requisite records;
        (4) Falsification of accreditation records, instructor 
    qualifications, or other accreditation information; or
        (5) Failure to adhere to the training standards and requirements 
    of the EPA MAP or State Accreditation Program, as appropriate.
        In addition to the criteria listed above, EPA may also suspend 
    or withdraw a training course's approval where an approved training 
    course instructor, or other person with supervisory authority over 
    the delivery of training has been found in violation of other 
    asbestos regulations administered by EPA. An administrative or 
    judicial finding of violation, or execution of a consent agreement 
    and order under 40 CFR 22.18, constitutes evidence of a failure to 
    comply with relevant statutes or regulations. States may wish to 
    adopt this criterion modified to include their own asbestos statutes 
    or regulations. EPA may also suspend or withdraw approval of 
    training programs where a training provider has submitted false 
    information as a part of the self-certification required under Unit 
    V.B. of the revised MAP.
        Training course providers shall permit representatives of EPA or 
    the State which approved their training courses to attend, evaluate, 
    and monitor any training course without charge. EPA or State 
    compliance inspection staff are not required to give advance notice 
    of their inspections. EPA may suspend or withdraw State or EPA 
    approval of a training course based upon the criteria specified in 
    this Unit III.C.
    
    IV. EPA Procedures for Suspension or Revocation of Accreditation or 
    Training Course Approval.
    
        A. If the Administrator decides to suspend or revoke the 
    accreditation of any person or suspend or withdraw the approval of a 
    training course, the Administrator will notify the affected entity 
    of the following:
        1. The grounds upon which the suspension, revocation, or 
    withdrawal is based.
        2. The time period during which the suspension, revocation, or 
    withdrawal is effective, whether permanent or otherwise.
        3. The conditions, if any, under which the affected entity may 
    receive accreditation or approval in the future.
        4. Any additional conditions which the Administrator may impose.
        5. The opportunity to request a hearing prior to final Agency 
    action to suspend or revoke accreditation or suspend or withdraw 
    approval.
        B. If a hearing is requested by the accredited person or 
    training course provider pursuant to the preceding paragraph, the 
    Administrator will:
        1. Notify the affected entity of those assertions of law and 
    fact upon which the action to suspend, revoke, or withdraw is based.
        2. Provide the affected entity an opportunity to offer written 
    statements of facts, explanations, comments, and arguments relevant 
    to the proposed action.
        3. Provide the affected entity such other procedural 
    opportunities as the Administrator may deem appropriate to ensure a 
    fair and impartial hearing.
        4. Appoint an EPA attorney as Presiding Officer to conduct the 
    hearing. No person shall serve as Presiding Officer if he or she has 
    had any prior connection with the specific case.
        C. The Presiding Officer appointed pursuant to the preceding 
    paragraph shall:
        1. Conduct a fair, orderly, and impartial hearing, without 
    unnecessary delay.
        2. Consider all relevant evidence, explanation, comment, and 
    argument submitted pursuant to the preceding paragraph.
        3. Promptly notify the affected entity of his or her decision 
    and order. Such an order is a final Agency action.
        D. If the Administrator determines that the public health, 
    interest, or welfare warrants immediate action to suspend the 
    accreditation of any person or the approval of any training course 
    provider, the Administrator will:
        1. Notify the affected entity of the grounds upon which the 
    emergency suspension is based;
        2. Notify the affected entity of the time period during which 
    the emergency suspension is effective.
        3. Notify the affected entity of the Administrator's intent to 
    suspend or revoke accreditation or suspend or withdraw training 
    course approval, as appropriate, in accordance with Unit IV.A. 
    above. If such suspension, revocation, or withdrawal notice has not 
    previously been issued, it will be issued at the same time the 
    emergency suspension notice is issued.
        E. Any notice, decision, or order issued by the Administrator 
    under this section, and any documents filed by an accredited person 
    or approved training course provider in a hearing under this 
    section, shall be available to the public except as otherwise 
    provided by section 14 of TSCA or by 40 CFR part 2. Any such hearing 
    at which oral testimony is presented shall be open to the public, 
    except that the Presiding Officer may exclude the public to the 
    extent necessary to allow presentation of information which may be 
    entitled to confidential treatment under section 14 of TSCA or 40 
    CFR part 2.
    
    V. Implementation Schedule
    
        The various requirements of this MAP become effective in 
    accordance with the following schedules:
    
    A. Requirements applicable to State Programs
    
        1. Each State shall adopt an accreditation plan that is at least 
    as stringent as this MAP within 180 days after the commencement of 
    the first regular session of the legislature of the State that is 
    convened on or after April 4, 1994.
        2. If a State has adopted an accreditation plan at least as 
    stringent as this MAP as of April 4, 1994, the State may continue 
    to:
        a. Conduct TSCA training pursuant to this MAP.
        b. Approve training course providers to conduct training and to 
    issue accreditation that satisfies the requirements for TSCA 
    accreditation under this MAP.
        c. Issue accreditation that satisfies the requirements for TSCA 
    accreditation under this MAP.
        3. A State that had complied with an earlier version of the MAP, 
    but has not adopted an accreditation plan at least as stringent as 
    this MAP by April 4, 1994, may:
        a. Conduct TSCA training which remains in compliance with the 
    requirements of Unit V.B. of this MAP. After such training has been 
    self-certified in accordance with Unit V.B. of this MAP, the State 
    may issue accreditation that satisfies the requirement for TSCA 
    accreditation under this MAP.
        b. Sustain its approval for any training course providers to 
    conduct training and issue TSCA accreditation that the State had 
    approved before April 4, 1994, and that remain in compliance with 
    Unit V.B. of this MAP.
        c. Issue accreditation pursuant to an earlier version of the MAP 
    that provisionally satisfies the requirement for TSCA accreditation 
    until October 4, 1994.
        Such a State may not approve new TSCA training course providers 
    to conduct training or to issue TSCA accreditation that satisfies 
    the requirements of this MAP until the State adopts an accreditation 
    plan that is at least as stringent as this MAP.
        4. A State that had complied with an earlier version of the MAP, 
    but fails to adopt a plan as stringent as this MAP by the deadline 
    established in Unit V.A.1., is subject to the following after that 
    deadline date:
        a. The State loses any status it may have held as an EPA-
    approved State for accreditation purposes under section 206 of TSCA, 
    15 U.S.C. 2646.
        b. All training course providers approved by the State lose 
    State approval to conduct training and issue accreditation that 
    satisfies the requirements for TSCA accreditation under this MAP.
        c. The State may not:
        i. Conduct training for accreditation purposes under section 206 
    of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2646.
        ii. Approve training course providers to conduct training or 
    issue accreditation that satisfies the requirements for TSCA 
    accreditation; or
        iii. Issue accreditation that satisfies the requirement for TSCA 
    accreditation.
        EPA will extend EPA-approval to any training course provider 
    that loses State approval because the State does not comply with the 
    deadline, so long as the provider is in compliance with Unit V.B. of 
    this MAP, and the provider is approved by a State that had complied 
    with an earlier version of the MAP as of the day before the State 
    loses its EPA approval.
        5. A State that does not have an accreditation program that 
    satisfies the requirements for TSCA accreditation under either an 
    earlier version of the MAP or this MAP, may not:
        a. Conduct training for accreditation purposes under section 206 
    of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2646;
        b. Approve training course providers to conduct training or 
    issue accreditation that satisfies the requirements for TSCA 
    accreditation; or
        c. Issue accreditation that satisfies the requirement for TSCA 
    accreditation.
    
    B. Requirements applicable to Training Courses and Providers
    
        As of October 4, 1994, an approved training provider must 
    certify to EPA and to any State that has approved the provider for 
    TSCA accreditation, that each of the provider's training courses 
    complies with the requirements of this MAP. The written submission 
    must document in specific detail the changes made to each training 
    course in order to comply with the requirements of this MAP and 
    clearly state that the provider is also in compliance with all other 
    requirements of this MAP, including the new recordkeeping and 
    certificate provisions. Each submission must include the following 
    statement signed by an authorized representative of the training 
    provider: ``Under civil and criminal penalties of law for the making 
    or submission of false or fraudulent statements or representations 
    (18 U.S.C. 1001 and 15 U.S.C. 2615), I certify that the training 
    described in this submission complies with all applicable 
    requirements of Title II of TSCA, 40 CFR part 763, Appendix C to 
    Subpart E, as revised, and any other applicable Federal, state, or 
    local requirements.'' A consolidated self-certification submission 
    from each training provider that addresses all of its approved 
    training courses is permissible and encouraged.
        The self-certification must be sent via registered mail, to EPA 
    Headquarters at the following address: Attn. Self-Certification 
    Program, Field Programs Branch, Chemical Management Division (7404), 
    Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection 
    Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. A duplicate copy of 
    the complete submission must also be sent to any States from which 
    approval had been obtained.
        The timely receipt of a complete self-certification by EPA and 
    all approving States shall have the effect of extending approval 
    under this MAP to the training courses offered by the submitting 
    provider. If a self-certification is not received by the approving 
    government bodies on or before the due date, the affected training 
    course is not approved under this MAP. Such training providers must 
    then reapply for approval of these training courses pursuant to the 
    procedures outlined in Unit III.
    
    C. Requirements applicable to Accredited Persons.
    
        Persons accredited by a State with an accreditation program no 
    less stringent than an earlier version of the MAP or by an EPA-
    approved training provider as of April 3, 1994, are accredited in 
    accordance with the requirements of this MAP, and are not required 
    to retake initial training. They must continue to comply with the 
    requirements for annual refresher training in Unit I.D. of the 
    revised MAP.
    
    D. Requirements applicable to Non-Accredited Persons.
    
        In order to perform work requiring accreditation under TSCA 
    Title II, persons who are not accredited by a State with an 
    accreditation program no less stringent than an earlier version of 
    the MAP or by an EPA-approved training provider as of April 3, 1994, 
    must comply with the upgraded training requirements of this MAP by 
    no later than October 4, 1994. Non-accredited persons may obtain 
    initial accreditation on a provisional basis by successfully 
    completing any of the training programs approved under an earlier 
    version of the MAP, and thereby perform work during the first 6 
    months after this MAP takes effect. However, by October 4, 1994, 
    these persons must have successfully completed an upgraded training 
    program that fully complies with the requirements of this MAP in 
    order to continue to perform work requiring accreditation under 
    section 206 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. 2646.
    
    [FR Doc. 94-2281 Filed 2-2-94; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
4/4/1994
Published:
02/03/1994
Entry Type:
Uncategorized Document
Action:
Interim final rule.
Document Number:
94-2281
Dates:
This Rule is effective April 4, 1994. Because this is an interim final rule, EPA is accepting further comment on this action. All written comments must be received by EPA no later than March 4, 1994. EPA will consider the written comments received during the 30-day comment period in determining the need for any further rule amendments.
Pages:
0-0 (1 pages)
Docket Numbers:
Federal Register: February 3, 1994
CFR: (2)
40 CFR 763.85(a)
40 CFR 763.92(a)