[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