[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17215-17218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05354]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430; FRL-10784-01-OAR]


Notice of Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation and Indoor 
Air.

ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of a 60-day public comment 
period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks input on 
criteria to help align and ensure consistency across radon service 
provider credentialing programs operated by certification bodies and 
states. The criteria reflect stakeholder feedback received in response 
to a 2017 Federal Register Notice on the same subject and consideration 
of conformity assessment practices in place across the federal 
government. The EPA is soliciting comment on these criteria. The 
comments will inform development of the final version of the criteria.

DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before May 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2017-0430 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Email: [email protected]. Include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2017-0430 in the subject line of the message.
     U.S. Postal Service Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Air and Radiation Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., 
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430. Comments received may be posted without 
change to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal 
information provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments, 
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrin Kral, Indoor Environments 
Division, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air 6609T, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460; 
202-343-9454; [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submit your comments, identified by Docket 
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430, at https://www.regulations.gov (our 
preferred method), or the other methods identified in the ADDRESSES 
section. The

[[Page 17216]]

KEY QUESTIONS section includes specific areas on which the EPA is 
seeking comment.
    Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the 
docket. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. 
Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. The written comment is considered 
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you 
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment 
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, 
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission 
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or 
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective 
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, 
remember to:
     Identify the notice by docket number, subject heading, 
Federal Register date, and page number.
     Provide a brief description of yourself and your role or 
organization before addressing the questions.
     Identify the question(s) you are responding to from the 
KEY QUESTIONS section by question number when submitting your comments. 
You do not need to address every question.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow it to be 
reproduced.
     Illustrate your concerns with specific examples and 
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the 
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period 
deadline identified.
    Public Information Session. The EPA will also host a public 
information session during the comment period. Additional details about 
timing and the registration process for the information session webinar 
will be shared on the EPA's radon website at https://www.epa.gov/radon/epas-draft-criteria-radon-credentialing-organizations. The information 
session will cover the EPA's role in overseeing the quality of radon 
service providers as well as conformity assessment and application of 
voluntary consensus standards within federal programs, including the 
proposed criteria. Participants will have an opportunity to ask 
clarifying questions via the webinar chat function. The EPA will not 
accept comments on the criteria during the information session.

I. Background

    Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United 
States and responsible for an estimated 21,000 deaths each year. One in 
15 U.S. homes is estimated to have elevated radon levels. Radon-induced 
lung cancer is highly preventable and may be addressed by testing and 
mitigating homes when necessary. Professionals who provide radon 
testing and mitigation services play a key role in public health 
protection efforts. Because of the substantial risk resulting from 
exposure to radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas, it is 
critical for radon service providers to possess the necessary skills to 
provide quality services, ensure consumer protection, and protect 
public health.
    Since 1988, the EPA has administered a non-regulatory program under 
the Indoor Radon Abatement Act of 1988 (IRAA) \1\ to reduce exposure to 
indoor radon by promoting awareness, testing, installation of radon 
mitigation systems in existing homes, and the use of radon-resistant 
new construction techniques in new buildings. The EPA works with state 
and tribal programs, industry, and the public to reduce human exposure 
to radon, thereby reducing deaths due to lung cancer. Essential to this 
mission is access to quality service providers who possess the skills 
required to measure indoor radon levels and conduct mitigation when 
necessary. Historically, the EPA has played a key role in establishing 
a standard of quality for radon service providers, including 
development and maintenance of a provider credentialing program (or 
provider proficiency program) and a one-time evaluation of two 
certification bodies in 2001, the National Radon Proficiency Program 
(NRPP) and the National Radon Safety Board (NRSB). Since then, the EPA 
has maintained oversight of radon credentialing systems, provided an 
associated national radon reference, and supported the development of 
and access to radon measurement and mitigation standards of practice. 
Taken together, these activities align with the EPA's authority to 
operate a proficiency program designed to rate the effectiveness of 
radon measurement and mitigation service providers and radon 
measurement devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 100-551, Title III--Indoor Radon Abatement, 
enacted October 28, 1988 (also known as the Indoor Radon Abatement 
Act of 1988 or ``IRAA'') (15 U.S.C. 2661, et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An August 2017 Federal Register Notice \2\ outlined proposed non-
regulatory criteria aimed at establishing consistency across radon 
credentialing programs. These criteria included a third-party process 
for accrediting radon professional credentialing organizations to an 
international standard for certification bodies (International 
Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical 
Commission; ISO/IEC 17024:2012). The Agency requested comment on the 
proposed approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA. ``Notice of Intent to Establish Voluntary Criteria for 
Radon Credentialing Organizations; Notice of Availability; Opening 
of a 60-Day Public Comment Period.'' Federal Register (82 FR 39993, 
August 23, 2017) (FRL-9966-07-OAR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria document \3\,which is the 
subject of this notice and is included in the docket, reflects 
stakeholder feedback received through the 2017 Federal Register Notice. 
The criteria outlined in this document remain grounded in third-party 
accreditation to ISO/IEC 17024:2012,\4\ and are intended to support 
establishment and maintenance of a base level of organizational and 
program-specific competencies as well as maintain flexibility for 
state-run programs. The Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria document 
contains four sections: I--Executive Summary; II--Discussion of 
Stakeholder Input on 2017 Federal Register Notice and EPA Responses; 
III--Evaluation Framework; IV--Implementation Approach. The EPA is 
particularly interested in feedback on Sections III and IV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA. ``Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria.'' U.S. EPA, 
Washington DC, EPA 402/D-22/001, December 2022. Available in the 
Docket: EPA-HQ-OAR-2017-0430.
    \4\ ISO, IEC. Conformity Assessment--General Requirements for 
Bodies Operating Certification of Persons. ISO/IEC 17024:2012(E). 2 
ed. July 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Evaluation Framework is grounded in conformity assessment 
practices designed to promote consistency across credentialing programs 
operated by certification bodies and states. This is accomplished 
through specifications for the maintenance of credentialing programs 
and radon measurement and mitigation service provider job categories, 
including identification of radon service provider competencies and 
assessment methods. Service providers who achieve

[[Page 17217]]

and maintain credentials from certification bodies and/or state-run 
programs that meet the Evaluation Framework specifications will have 
demonstrated and be required to maintain comparable knowledge, skills, 
and abilities to perform radon services.
    The Implementation Approach will facilitate identification of 
qualified radon service providers meeting a standardized set of 
specifications outlined within the Evaluation Framework. The 
Implementation Approach outlines the EPA's planned activities to 
facilitate adoption of the Evaluation Framework specifications:
     Develop and maintain a process by which credentialing 
organizations (certification bodies and state-run programs) can 
annually attest that they meet the Evaluation Framework specifications.
     Maintain a public list of credentialing organizations and 
accreditation bodies that meet the framework (see TSCA Sec.  305(a)).
     Establish conditions for the State and Tribal Indoor Radon 
Grants (SIRG) program. It is important to note that IRAA does not 
provide the EPA with authority to require actions on the part of state 
or tribal governments. Nonetheless, the EPA may set conditions for 
receiving funding as part of the SIRG Program, which is authorized 
under IRAA, that are consistent with the purpose of the Act.
    Taken together, the Evaluation Framework and Implementation 
Approach will help standardize program-specific competencies for 
credentialing radon service providers and facilitate access to and 
identification of a skilled and qualified workforce demonstrating a 
consistent set of competencies to perform radon testing and mitigation.

II. Request for Comments

    Comments will inform development of a final version of the Radon 
Credentialing Criteria to help align and ensure consistency across 
credentialing programs operated by certification bodies and states. 
Widespread adherence to the Evaluation Framework as reinforced by the 
Implementation Approach will support standardization of quality among 
radon service provider credentials and credentialing organizations, 
help maximize the utility of the SIRG program by providing assistance 
to states in a manner that will facilitate access to--and 
identification of--radon service providers credentialed by 
organizations meeting a consistent set of specifications, and support 
streamlined approaches to addressing provider credentials within radon 
testing/mitigation polices. This in turn may lead to increased consumer 
confidence in, and demand for, radon service providers, as well as 
expanded markets for radon service providers.
    As mentioned previously, the EPA is particularly interested in 
feedback on Sections III (Evaluation Framework) and IV (Implementation 
Approach) of the Proposed Radon Credentialing Criteria document, which 
is available in the docket. The KEY QUESTIONS section contains specific 
information requests on these two sections (III and IV).
    The Agency is seeking comment from stakeholders working to reduce 
exposure to indoor radon. This includes stakeholders involved with 
promoting and/or conducting testing and installation of radon 
mitigation systems, such as:

 Organizations credentialing radon service providers and other 
building construction and/or maintenance related providers
 Radon service providers
 Organizations who provide third-party accreditation to the 
ISO/IEC 17024:2012
 Organizations representing state health and environmental 
programs, green building initiatives, and the radon services industry
 State radon programs
 Federal agencies who own, influence, or control housing

III. Key Questions

    These questions pertain to Sections III and IV of the Proposed 
Radon Credentialing Criteria document. In addition to responding to 
specific requests for comments below, commenters are welcome to share 
any overarching feedback.
    Key Questions 1-4. These questions address the Evaluation Framework 
which outlines a set of specifications in three areas (Accreditation, 
Examination, and Maintenance) that will help promote consistency across 
credentialing programs operated by certification bodies and states. 
Service providers who achieve and maintain credentials from 
certification bodies and/or state-run programs that meet the Evaluation 
Framework will have demonstrated and be required to maintain comparable 
knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform radon services.
    1. Do you have any general feedback on the Evaluation Framework 
(Accreditation, Examination and Maintenance)?
    2. What features of the Evaluation Framework may positively and/or 
negatively impact a state's ability to make any necessary modifications 
within their organizational structures to ensure adherence of the 
state-run program to the Evaluation Framework specifications?
    3. Will creation of certifications and examinations for the 
measurement and mitigation service provider categories be sufficient 
for state-run programs seeking to meet the Evaluation Framework?
    4. Should independent certification bodies that meet the Evaluation 
Framework be required to create certifications and examinations for two 
job categories (measurement and mitigation) and two job sub-types 
distinguishing roles for an entry-level technician position and a more 
senior/supervisory specialist position?
    Key Questions 5-6. These questions cover the Examination component 
of the Evaluation Framework which includes specifications and standards 
that pertain to determining service provider mastery of competencies 
necessary to perform a specific job. Specifications for state-run 
programs that embed third-party examinations within their credentialing 
programs are also included.
    5. Is the proposed stakeholder representation on the expert panel 
adequate? Stakeholders identified to serve on a panel responsible for 
developing a job task analysis are considered essential to ensure 
appropriate representation of the entire population of stakeholders 
that contribute to, and/or participate in, the credentialing of radon 
service providers. Additional stakeholder groups (e.g., home 
inspectors, builders) may be included as part of an expert panel at the 
certification body's discretion.
    6. Should radon service providers be required to complete a device 
performance test as a requirement to receiving a credential for radon 
measurement service provider job categories?
    These performance tests are designed to evaluate a provider's 
proficiency using an analytical device. This type of performance test 
would be incorporated into the Evaluation Framework as part of the 
``Examination'' component. Credentialing organizations would be 
required to verify and validate how the performance test accurately and 
reliably assesses the task(s) identified in the job task analysis, as 
well as how it aligns with the applicable American National Standard 
which specifies minimum performance criteria and testing procedures for 
instruments and/or systems designed to quantify the concentration of 
radon-222 gas in air (MS-PC, Performance Specifications for 
Instrumentation Systems Designed to Measure Radon Gas in Air).
    Key Question 7. This question covers the Maintenance component of 
the

[[Page 17218]]

Evaluation Framework which includes specifications that help ensure 
continued adherence by certification bodies to third-party 
accreditation requirements and consistency across credentialing program 
requirements. The specifications addressing credentialing program 
requirements will help assure that radon service providers are equipped 
with knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to maintain 
credentials issued by certification bodies and state-run programs. This 
element also includes a specification for credentialing organizations 
to verify the use of approved devices and maintenance of a Quality 
Assurance Plan in accordance with the most current American National 
Standards.
    7. How frequently should providers be required to verify use of 
approved testing devices (when applicable) and maintenance of a Quality 
Assurance Plan?
    Key Questions 8-15. These questions address the Implementation 
Approach which outlines the EPA's planned activities to facilitate 
adoption of the Evaluation Framework and outlines elements for three 
time periods (while the Evaluation Framework is being finalized, once 
the Evaluation Framework is finalized and during the 3-year phase-in 
period, after the 3-year phase-in period):
     Annual Attestation Process: Develop and maintain a process 
by which credentialing organizations (certification bodies and state-
run programs) can annually attest they meet the Evaluation Framework 
specifications.
     Public List: Maintain a public list of credentialing 
organizations and accreditation bodies that meet the Evaluation 
Framework (see TSCA Sec.  305(a)).
     Conditions for the EPA's SIRG Program.
    8. Do you have any general feedback on the Implementation Approach?
    9. Will a 3-year phase-in period will be sufficient for 
certification bodies to prepare for and achieve third-party 
accreditation and meet the Evaluation Framework and for state-run 
programs to meet the Evaluation Framework?
    10. Do you have feedback on the size and impact of the costs 
associated with third-party accreditation to ISO/IEC 17024:2012?
    11. Do you have feedback regarding the proposed annual attestation 
process?
    12. What reporting mechanisms should the EPA consider for state-run 
programs to provide annual progress updates and attestations once the 
Evaluation Framework has been met?
    13. Do you have feedback regarding the proposal for the EPA to 
maintain a public list?
    14. Should the EPA identify on its website the credentialing 
organizations that have declared their intent, but do not yet meet, the 
Evaluation Framework? In this case credentialing organizations that do 
not meet all the requirements at the end of the 3-year phase-in period 
would be removed from the website until such time as they can 
demonstrate their ability to meet all the requirements of the 
Evaluation Framework.
    15. Do you have feedback regarding the proposal to establish 
conditions for the SIRG program?

Jonathan D. Edwards,
Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
[FR Doc. 2023-05354 Filed 3-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P