***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

1 RIN2070

- AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments _FRM_RTC_2015

- 10

- 20.docx


# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lead

- based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction

- Specific Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements

Response to Public Comments

October 2015***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

2 Hands

- on Training

Comment : Several commenters stated that many renovators have not had hands

- on training in using the D

- lead test kit or paint chip sampling because they took their initial training before these paint

- testing options were allowed under the RRP program. One commenter contends that without hands

- on training some renovators will never have a chance to perform these tasks in a training course.

Response: EPA modified its proposed rule to require hands

- on training every other certification instead of eliminating it completely as had been proposed. By requiring hands

- on training eve ry other certification renovators will have a chance to practice these hands

- on skills during their training. For trainings that are taken online without hands

- on learning, renovators will see videos demonstrating how to test for lead

- based paint and other work practices.

Comment : One commenter asked why the hands

- on training in the renovator refresher course could be eliminated while trainings for the other lead

- based paint program disciplines such as risk assessor and abatement worker still include han ds

- on learning. The commenter stated that the program requirements should be uniform because the hazards from lead are the same. Another commenter stated that if hands

- on learning is required for the refresher trainings for other lead professionals, then i t should be required for renovators as well.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters. The work performed by risk assessors, inspectors, abatement workers, supervisors and dust sampling technicians involves highly specialized skills which individuals must learn in training courses accredited by EPA or authorized States, territories, and Tribes. For example, a significant portion of an abatement worker's training is focused on abatement techniques and selection of the appropriate course of action for a variety of hazards. Renovators, on the other hand, do not seek to permanently eliminate lead hazards; instead they perform maintenance and improvement tasks as directed by the consumer. Thus, the goal of EPA's renovator training and certification program i s not to update the methodology a renovator uses to accomplish these tasks ( i.e., how to be painters, plumbers, or carpenters), but rather to ensure that persons who already know how to perform renovations perform their typical work in a lead

- safe manner. Because of the technical nature of the work performed by risk assessors, inspectors, supervisors, abatement workers and dust sampling technicians, the Agency believes that it is important for their refresher training courses to include hands

- on learning.

Comment : Several commenters stated that removing the hands

- on requirement in the renovator refresher training would result in a major decrease in the number of accredited RRP training providers. A common concern among these commenters was that a small num ber of training providers would get most of the business for the online trainings and the training providers who were left out would stop teaching both the initial and refresher courses. One training provider stated that an online course could be provided by one entity which would negate the investments in staff, facilities and materials that many accredited training providers have made. Another training provider said that it would not be able to make enough money by teaching only the initial course and wou ld therefore stop teaching both the initial and refresher courses.

Response: EPA does not believe that the rule will lead to a reduction in the number of accredited training providers

. Under the final rule, renovators must take a training that includes h ands

- on learning every other certification. These trainings cannot be taught entirely online. Further, the certification for the online training will be good for only three years which will give renovators incentive to take the refresher with hands

- on whic h leads to a longer, five

- year certification. Thus, training providers that do no t teach the online refresher course will still have a significant number of students who will take a classroom training which should preserve the infrastructure of RRP trainin g providers.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

3 Comment : One commenter who supported removing the hands

- on training in the refresher believes that the hands

- on learning is not time well spent. This training provider notes that the hands

- on portion of the course is the least challenging f or students and that more time should be spent learning how to interpret the requirements of the regulations and stay up to date on changes to the RRP program.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The hands

- on learning portion of the refresher cour se makes up only 25% of the time needed of the entire course. EPA believes that the time remaining to teach the lecture portion of the course is sufficient. If this training provider needs more time to teach students about the RRP requirements, then the tr ainer may make the course longer. The regulations at 40 CFR § 745.225 (e)(i)(2) requires that the renovator refresher course last a minimum of 4 hours. There is no limit on the number of hours the course should take so if a training provider needs to take more than 4 hours to teach the course it may do so.

Comment : One commenter suggested that EPA allow students to watch a demonstration of the hands

- on activities instead of having students perform them individually when taking the renovator refresher

cour se.

Response: EPA has incorporated videos into its model e

- learning renovator refresher course that demonstrate the hands

- on activities. Renovators who take the online refresher training without hands

- on learning will be able to watch the videos instead o f performing the activities.

Comment : One commenter states that renovators may or may not be involved with lead

- safe work practices on a daily basis and therefore need to have hands

- on in a class room setting when they take the refresher training.

Response: To address concerns like the one raised by this commenter, EPA is requiring renovators to take a refresher training that includes hands

- on learning every other certification.

Comment : One commenter asserts that removing the hands

- on learning w ould penalizes renovators who took the training early, before this rule was finalized. The commenter states that the renovators were taking the refresher course early to avoid the tidal wave of renovators that would take the refresher training

Response: EPA does not believe that renovators who took the refresher training before this rule was promulgated have been penalized. These renovators will still be able to take advantage of the burden savings of this final rule when they take their next renovator re fresher training.

Comment : One commenter, a training provider, contends that the hands

- on training is not needed in the refresher course. The commenter states that students do not forget how to use the test kit, even if they test rarely or not at all. Th e commenter further states that cleaning verification does not need to be performed via hands

- on in the refresher training. According to the commenter, the information can be easily refreshed in a lecture or e

- learning format without hands

- on retraining.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

4 Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter. EPA believes that the hands

- on training should be performed periodically although not necessarily every 5 years as was the previous requirement. Under the final rule, hands

- on training is effectively required every 8 years.

Comment : Several commenters contend that hands

- on training can be performed via online learning. For example, an online training could allow students to select pieces from a test kit or move objects on a screen simulating hands

- o n activities while recording the activities.

Response: At this time a virtual hands

- on training has not been developed by EPA or a training provider. Training providers may incorporate a virtual hands

- on training in their online courses if they chose alt hough it will not meet the requirements of the hands

- on training that leads to a 5

- year certification. The course must be submitted to EPA for review with the trainer provider’s application.

Comment : One commenter stated that eliminating the hands

- on re quirement does not meet the statutory standard under TSCA that requires lead

- based paint regulations to be safe, reliable, and effective and requires renovators to be properly trained.

Response: The Agency believes that the refresher course meets the req uirements of TSCA mentioned by the commenter. Hands

- on learning is still required in the renovator refresher course once every 8 years. The course that does not include hands

- on learning will still include demonstrations of those activities.

General Comm ents Regarding Trainings

Comment : Several commenters stated that EPA should increase or eliminate the student instructor ratio during the hands

- on training. One commenter suggested student instructor ratios of 24 to 1 or 30 to 1. Another commenter suggest ed a ratio of 15 students to 1 instructor. This commenter believes that instructors will have continuing opportunities during the refresher course to test student’s understanding of the hands

- on activities. Another commenter stated that increasing the stud ent instructor ratio would result in more instructors being available to conduct the course, possibly in different locations, and the cost of the course would decrease.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters. The Agency believes that the hands

- on tra inings should be done at a six to one student to instructor ratio. At a higher ratio, such as 15 to 1 like one commenter suggests, the instructor would not have time to assess how each student performs the activities during the time allotted for the hand s

- on learning.

Comment : One commenter noted that the dangers of lead

- based paint are more effectively communicated via face to face instruction. The commenter contends that convincing and motivating people is much more effective in a classroom setting.

Response: EPA believes that the dangers of lead

- based paint can be effectively taught via online learning. Training providers are not required to use EPA’s model renovator course. Therefore, trainers that want to emphasize the dangers of lead

- based paint i n an online course may do so by creating their own course.

Comment : One commenter stated that renovators are not good candidates for online learning without giving a reason why.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

5 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The Agency believes that renov ators would be able to effectively learn material presented in an online format.

Comment : One commenter asked how trainers will be able to verify a student’s eligibility for the refresher via the online training course. The comment appears to believe th at the verification must be done during the online course.

Response: Per 40 CFR § 745.225(i)(viii), training providers must verify whether a student is eligible to take the refresher course by obtaining a copy of the student’s prior course completion cer tificate showing that each trainee was eligible to take the course. This may be done at any time prior to the student taking the course and does not need to be done online. For example, the student may email a copy of their previous course completion certi ficate to the training provider.

Comment : One commenter contends that training provide r s could have a difficult time obtaining student information such as pictures and proof of initial certification. The commenter claims that contractors are extremely bu sy and they do no t look at sending this information as a priority. When students do no t submit the proper information, the training provider will have to spend time following up with the student to get the needed information. The commenter further states t hat students who take the course that do no t give the trainer the required information do not receive a certification and are therefore not certified. These students may forget that they never obtained their certificate providing the student with a false

s ense of compliance.

Response: Training providers must submit certain information to EPA regarding the students who they train. It is up to the training provider to decide how and when it collects this information from students. Trainers may want to get a ll the required information up front before the student begins the training. This would give students incentive to give the information to the training provider in a timely manner and would prevent students from believing they are certified when they have not received a certificate from the training provider.

Comment : One commenter pointed out that EPA had not developed a model course for the online renovator refresher training.

Response: Since the publication of the proposed rule, EPA has published a m odel course for the online renovator refresher training. Training providers may use the model course or develop their own online refresher course and submit the alternative course with their application for review. Accredited training providers should visi t EPA’s Lead Program website at www.epa.gov/lead for information on how to request a copy of the model refresher course.

Comment : One commenter contended that renovators who got their initial certification before October 2011 will not have to opportunity to conduct paint chip sampling in front of an instructor which could negatively impact their ability to test for lead

- based paint

. Response: EPA developed a model refresher course that training providers can use to teach the online training. This course contains instructional videos on methods for testing paint including paint chip sampling. Students who take the online refresher training without hands

- on learning will see the video demonstration of how to properly conduct paint chip sampling. If a renovator prefers not to do paint chip***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

6 sampling, he or she may use one of the EPA

- recognized test kits or assume lead

- based paint is pr esent and not conduct any testing.

Comment : A comment by a training provider states that renovators would prefer in

- class training over training conducted on

- line. The commenter claims that students who have taken both his in

- class and on

line training prefer the in

- class training.

Response: EPA understands that some renovators may prefer classroom training over online training. However, the Agency received many comments from firms and individuals stating that they prefer online training. In addition, under the final rule, hands

- on training is st ill required every 8 years. Renovators who prefer hands

- on training may take the classroom training for every certification if they wish.

Comment : A training provider commented that live, in

- class trainings are better than online trainings because they can be tailored to the audience mix. The commenter contends that online trainings are not as effective because they are the same for everyone.

Response: Training providers, at their discretion, may tailor a renovator course to a specific audience. The co urse must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR § 745.225 but the training provide may add information in addition to those requirements that it finds helpful to its audience.

Comment : One commenter was concerned that the renovator course contained alm ost nothing on interim controls, adding that interim control provisions are more stringent than RRP regulation but are barely discussed in the training course. The commenter believes that the renovator course should include more information regarding inter im controls.

Response: Renovations and interim controls are performed for different reasons. Interim controls are temporary measures to reduce exposure to lead

- based paint hazards such as specialized cleaning, temporary containment or ongoing monitoring of lead

- based paint hazards, are most often performed in response to a child with an elevated blood lead level. Renovations are performed for reasons other than to eliminate lead

- based paint or lead

- based paint hazards. Interim controls are generally cover ed by HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule, EPA’s Lead

- based Paint Activities Regulations, or State or local regulations. The requirements regarding interim controls a re appropriately covered in EPA ’s Lead

- based Paint Activities courses instead of the renovator co urses.

Comment : One training provider asked if the hands

- on training is eliminated, do training providers have to maintain the 6 to 1 student instructor ratio.

Response: The 6 to 1 student to instructor ratio is specifically for the hands

- on portion o f the training course. This ratio does not apply to trainings that do not include hands

- on learning.

Comment : One commenter disagrees with EPA’s assertion that an online training will make it easier for renovators who live in remote locations to take th e refresher training. The commenter believes that renovators do not live in lo cations so remote that they canno t take a classroom training. The commenter points out that renovators in remote locations must travel to buy supplies and can take a training whe n they travel to these areas.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

7 Response: EPA does not believe that all renovators who live far from an RRP training location will not take the training. Rather, these renovators are less likely to take the training due to the inconvenience of having to tra vel long distances. To address this, the Agency is allowing renovators to take the refresher training online every other time they get certified. EPA does not believe t hat renovators can simply take their training in the same area where they buy supplies b ecause stores selling renovation supplies are much more prevalent than RRP training providers.

Comment : One comment submitted by a training provider stated that online training is not suitable for renovators who are not computer literate or those who sp eak English as a second language. The commenter did not give specific reasons why. A different commenter stated that many contractors in her area do not use technology well or have adequate access to a computer. Another commenter stated that Spanish speaki ng individuals would be at a disadvantage because EPA has not created an e

- learning model course in Spanish thus requiring Spanish speakers to take a classroom training.

Response: Renovators who are not computer literate or do not have a computer can take the training in a classroom instead of online if they wish. Renovators are not required to take the refresher training online. With regard to language, if a training provider believes that there are renovators who would benefit from an online training in a language other than English, the trainer may develop a course in that language and submit it to EPA with its application for accreditation.

Comment : An authorized state comment ed that if EPA removes the hands

- on requirement in the refresher cours e, fees collected by the state would be reduced. The state collects fees from state

accredited training providers for each student trained. If the refresher course is allowed to be taught completely online, then it is possible that training providers from outside of the state will conduct most of the trainings causing a reduction in the fees collected by the state.

Response: EPA does not believe that the rule will lead to a reduction in the number of accredited training providers. Under the final rule, renovators must take a training that includes hands

- on learning every other certification. These trainings cannot be taught entirely online. Further, the certification for the online training will be good for only three years which will give renovators inc entive to take the refresher with hands

- on which leads to a longer, five

- year certification. Thus, training providers that do no t teach the online refresher course will still see a significant number of students who will take a classroom training.

Comme nt : One commenter suggested that EPA review data on the effectiveness of the initial refresher training to determine the impact of the time interval between the initial and refresher trainings in terms of renovator performance on the job. The commenter als o suggested that EPA review data on the effectiveness of e

- learning courses for teaching subject matter such as provisions added to the RRP program for 2011 (e.g. paint chip sampling). The commenter did not provide any data.

Response: At this time, EPA d oes not have the data discussed by the commenter and therefore will not change the 5

- year certification period of the training that includes hands

- on learning

. EPA chose to shorten the certification period for training without hands

- on learning to 3 years to address commenters’ concerns that renovators may not learn as much in this type of training.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

8 Comment : One commenter stated that if the hands

- on requirement is retained, training providers would be overwhelmed by the large number of renovators that need to be retrained around the same time.

Response: EPA believes that this should not be a concern for two reasons. First, the final rule allows renovators to take the training online and EPA believes many renovators will take advantage of this which

w ill reduce the number of renovators seeking a classroom training. Second, when EPA extended the certifications of certain renovators, the expirations were spread out over a year which will spread out the demand for training over that time.

Comment : One c ommenter claimed that a benefit of an online training is that students can learn at their own pace. Online training allows students review concepts over and over if necessary.

Response: EPA agrees that this is one benefit of online training. Students can view the course at their own pace which cannot be done in a classroom training.

Comment : One commenter contends that paint chip testing hands

- on exercise in the RRP training takes longer that the time allotted in EPA’s model training course.

Response: EPA understands that not all training providers will be conduct the hands

- on training in the exact time alloted to it in the model training course. If the training provider wants to conduct the hands

- on training in less time, it may use more instructors w hich should result in a faster hands

- on training. The hands

- on portion of the course can be taught by principal instructors or guest instructors as defined in the regulations at 40 CFR § 745.223.

Comment : One commenter, who feels that paint chip sampling should be eliminated from the hands

- on activities, claims that the equipment used to conduct paint chip sampling are sharp and cumbersome, posing a safety risk.

Response: EPA does not believe the equipment used during the hands

- on activities pos es a risk to students. Many renovators safely use this type of equipment on the job and would, therefore, be able to use it during the hands

- on training. If a student does not know how to use the equipment properly, the instructor should teach the student how to do so.

Comment : One commenter stated that pre

- training notifications for refresher courses taught entirely online should be submitted as one notice at the time of accreditation.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The application for accreditation informs the Agency of the training provider’s intent to conduct the online training. Submitting a pre

- training notification in addition to the application would not be useful.

Comment : O ne commenter states that acceptance of online training for the refresher course would send a negative message to renovators that the course is not important to the public interest.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. One reason the Agency is modify ing the requirements for the refresher course is to get more renovators to take the training leading to a higher number of certified renovators resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead

- safe manner.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

9 Economic Analysis

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) stated that the rule was potentially in violation of Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

. The commenter claims that the proposed rule did not mention Executive Order 130 45. According to t he commenter

, this is a covered regulation because lead paint creates a disproportionate risk to children. The commenter also claims that the rule is economically significant, with an impact well above $100 million per year. The
commenter estimates the impact at $50 billion.

Response : The commenter’s statement that the proposed rule did not mention Ex ecutive Order 13045 is inaccurate

. EPA addressed Executive Order 13045 in the Federal Register at 80 FR 1879 , stating that :

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as ap plying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5

- 501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, beca use it would not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

EPA reiterates that this rulemaking does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. These amendments do not change the work practice requirements under the RRP
program. Furthermore, renovators must still take refresher training, and under the final rule they must take refresher training with a hands

- on component every other training cycle. Therefore, the RRP program wi ll continue to protect children from exposure to lead.

Finally , this action is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866

. The impact is well below $100 million per year, as demonstrated in EPA’s Economic Analysis, which was placed i n the docket and summarized in the Federal Register notice

. EPA addresses the commenter’s claim that the rule has $50 billion in impacts elsewhere in this response to comments document.

The commenter’s claim are incorrect, and EPA’s actions with respect to this rule did not violate Executive Order 13045.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that the rule would not have a direct negative impact on any small entities. While it would relieve regulatory burden for many small renovation firms, the rule will negatively affect many small training providers nationally and potentially put th em out of the training business.

Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter ’s claim that the rule will have direct negative impacts on many training providers that will potentially put them out of business. The rule requires training providers to include the expiration date of the renovator’s certification in the post

- training no tification, but the time required to do this is negligible. The rule also clarifies the requirements for post

- training notifications for in

- person training courses. Training providers are already required to submit post

- training notifications for renovator training. The rule’s correction to the regulatory text (clarifying that the notifications must be submitted no later than ten business days following course completion) may affect the timing of when the notifications are submitted, but not the cost of com pliance. Lastly, the rule adds clarifying language explaining that training providers must follow the regulations. This does not affect the cost of compliance***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

10 because it does not change any requirements for accredited training providers, and the analysis a ssumes that training providers already comply with the regulations. These changes to the rule will not create a significant impact on training providers.

Any hypothetical impact experience d by training providers that do not offer online training would be indirect because it would not be due to a regulatory requirement

– it would be due to loss of business to other firms that take advantage of the opportunities under the amendments to compete more effectively in the marketplace

.

O nly rules that will have a direct significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that are subject to the rule require an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( IRFA ) or Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( FRFA )

. T he purpose of both analyses is to identify adverse impacts on small entities subject to the rule, and to discuss regulatory alternatives that minimize significant economic impacts on small entities (see 5 U.S.C. section 603

- 604). 1

The determinative ques tion is which firms are subject to the requirements of a proposed or final rule making

. If a small entity will have compliance obligations imposed on it directly by the rule, then the small entity is subject to the requirements of the rule and the impacts o f these requirements on such entities w ould be included in a R egulatory F lexibility A ct (RFA) analysis. If a small entity does not have

a compliance obligation imposed on it directly by the rule, it w ould not be included in an RFA analysis.

The commenter was objecting to the proposed revision to the hands

- on requirement for renovator refresher training

. Neither the proposed rule nor the final rule require training providers to offer online training

. T raining providers can continue offering in

- person training including a hands

- on component, as they have in the past

. Although training providers that voluntarily choose to offer online refresher training are subject to certain requirements (such as becoming accredited to teach an online course and submitting training notifications to EPA via CDX ), the rule amendments do not mandate that training providers offer online training.

The commenter appears to misunderstand the terminology in the RFA

. In the context of the RFA, a n entity is "directly" impacted by an EPA regulation when that entity will have obligations imposed on it directly by the rule and will be liable to Federal enforcement if it does not comply. That is not the case here. Because training providers are not required to offer online training, any impacts of allowing online

only training are by definition indirect. The commenter appears to believe it will incur indirect negative impact s as a result of this action because some of its potential customers may choose to receive refresher
t raining from other competing training providers

.

While t he commenter states that small training providers may potentially go out of the training business

, this same commenter submitted data that undermines its claim

. The commenter variously stated that 57% of renovators who responded to a survey it conducted would like a live class, and 98% do not want a computer

- based class

. 2 If this is true

, then many renovators will continue to take in

- person refresher

1 According to section 603(b)(4) and section 604(a)(4), these analyses shall contain “a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the ... rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record” (emphasis added).

2 For example, the commenter stated that “More than half of the students blindly surveyed (57.4% see attached) specifically stated they would like a live class with interactive instructor discussion”, “Ninety Eight (98%) percent of the trades DO NOT WANT OR LIKE A computer based class, but to the contrary, 57.4% of those blindly surveyed (1000 surveys were sent, those received attached) want a LIVE instructor and resource!” “Since we provide both webinar based training and live instruction, I wanted to shar e a situation that literally occurred two***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

11 classes even if they have the option of taking online training

. That calls into question that magnitude of indirect impacts for any training providers that do not wish to offer online training

.

U nder the final rule, renovators will have to take refresher training with a hands

- on component at least

ev ery other training cycle. B ased on statements such as the comments noted above, EPA assumes that some renovators will take a class with a hands

- on component every time they are trained

. EPA estimates that 43,000 to 55,000 renovators per year will take in

- p erson refresher training. Furthermore, EPA estimates that 30,000 new renovators enter ing the industry each year will take initial training, which also includes a hands

- on component. These 73,000 to 85,000 renovators will continue to provide business for
tr aining providers that offer in

- person training. There will also be an estimated 25,000 to 44,000 renovators per year taking online refresher training. Currently accredited t raining providers have the option of becoming accredited for an online refresher tr aining course if they wish to compete for part of this market.

T raining providers such as t he commenter may or may not incur indirect negative impacts, depending on the business decisions that they make

. But the magnitude of potential indirect impacts are not only speculative, they are not part of EPA’s determination under the RFA of whether there is a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Revising the requirements to allow renovators to take refresher training without a hands

- on component every other training cycle does not impose new mandatory obligations on training providers such as the commenter because these training providers are not required to offer online courses

. Therefore, any potential indirect impacts on training pro viders from these amendments are outside the scope of EPA’s RFA determination

. Online training has always been allowed under the RRP program for the classroom portion of the course, although relatively few training providers have chosen to offer it thus far

. Those training providers that only offer in

- person training have made a choice not to enter the online market. Revising the requirements for the hands

- on component of the refresher training allows an additional option for how the training is presented

. EPA is not restricting the training that will be accredited, as in

- person training will still be allowed. Training providers still have the choice of whether to offer in

- person training, online training, or both. The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is indeed to create flexibility in regulations, and this rulemaking amendment does just that. The fact that some training providers feel they will be outcompeted in the market does not mean that this action violates the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

It is EPA's policy to make an assessment of the rule’ s direct adverse impact on any small enti ties, and to minimize the impact of the rule on small entities to the extent feasible while remaining consistent with applicable statutory requirements. While EPA has concluded that this rulemaking does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has still taken steps to minimize adverse impacts on training providers, including removing the requirement for pre

- training notifications for online training courses, reducing the frequency of post

- training notifications for online training courses, and not charging a n accreditation fee for training providers that qualify for the expedited approval process for online training courses.

weeks ago. A student was registered to take the web based Training course, when he arrived and saw the course was going to be presented on a computer, he unhappily stated, he thought our class was live and did NOT want to take a computer based class and expected, wanted and learned better from a live class. Fortunately, we had a live class on the same subject the next day, so he returned and took the live class and all were happy.”***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

12 Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) stated that EPA’s estimate of 9 million dollars in savings to the regulated entities clearly does not reflect any economic loss to those small business who were going to provide the training.

Response : EPA disagrees that revising the requirements for training providers will necessarily cause economic losses to training providers. However, even if some renovators choose to receive refresher training from other competing training providers, this would no t result in net economic losses f rom the social cost perspective of a benefit cost analysis, since the loss to one firm would be offset by the gain to another firm

. Furthermore, any competing firms that gain business may also be small businesses

. 3

Comment: Commenter 0304

- 0049 stated that an online Refresher Course, which could be provided by a single entity, would negate the investments in staff, facilities and materials that the certified trainers have made in support of the EPA RRP Program. This a long with the potential loss of employment by trainers goes against EPA’s assertion that there will be no impact on small business.

Response: Contrary to the commenter 0304

- 0049’s claim, EPA did not assert that there will be no impact on small businesses due to the rule

. In fact, in the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule, EPA acknowledged that “Individual training providers offering RRP training courses could be negatively impacted by the proposed rule if (1) their profit margins are lower for the e

- learning course, or (2) they lose market share with the introduction of the e

- learning course.”

The commenter is alluding to potential indirect impacts on training providers because the rule allows some refresher training to be taken without a hands

- on co mponent

. As explained in the response to another comment, these do not qualify as direct adverse impacts for purposes of EPA’s RFA determination. Therefore, EPA is certify ing that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the provisions of the RFA.

EPA addresses elsewhere in this response to comments document the claims that the rule may result in a single entity prov iding all training, and that the rule will result in a loss of training providers’ investments.

Comment: Commenter #0304

- 0060 states that the EPA’s cost analysis for this decision does not seem to include the cost of illness. EPA’s reason for changing t he regulation appears to be a $10 million annual cost savings to the industry. The EPA’s analysis, however, does not address the cost

- benefit to the general public who would suffer even more economic loss at the hands of a poorly

- trained RRP work force. Th e Centers for Disease Control links even low levels of lead childhood exposure to an increased risk of ADHD, this has been reinforced by several other studies. According to Pelham, Foster, and Robb, the annual cost of illness for a single child with ADHD i s $14,576.00, or about $1.0 million in a lifetime. (“The Economic Impact of Attention

- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology, vol.32, no. 6, 2007, pp. 711

- 727). The EPA numbers also appear to ignore the psychological and social costs that go along with having children and adults sickened by lead poisoning.

Response: EPA’s economic analysis does not include an estimate of a cost of illness for ADH D or any health effects because EPA disagrees that the ru le will increase the prevalence of these adverse health effects

. Neither this nor any other commenter has provided evidence to demonstrate that blood

- lead levels

3 For example, of the 18 training providers accredited for online RRP training prior to the finalization of the rule amendments, there was a single firm that could clearly be identified as a large business, and it is a window and door manufacturer that appears to offering the training sole ly to its own employees.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

13 will in crease as a result of this rule

. EPA does not believe that the amendments will result in a poorly

trained RRP work force. Renovators will still be required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands

- on component ; they will still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training will have to include a hands

- on com ponent every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands

- on component will only be valid for three years; and renovators will still have to comply with the work practice requirements in the regulation.

Finally

, the Pelham, Foster, and Robb s tudy cited by the commenter does not estimate a lifetime cost of $1 million per child

. While t he Pelham, Foster, and Robb study estimate d that the annual cost of illness for a single child with ADHD is $14,576, the study did not derive a lifetime value. In fact, the authors
state d that “For this study, our time frame is childhood and adolescence. We do not capture the costs of ADHD extending into adulthood.” The commenter appears to have derived the $1.0 million value by multiplying the annual childhood and adolescence cost of $14,576 by a 68 year lifespan

. If this is indeed what the commenter did, that is an inappropriate calculation

. The Pelham et al. annual cost estimate is comprised of $2,636 for health and mental health services (pharmacological treatme nt, psychosocial mental health treatments, etc.) ; $4,900 for education (i.e., special educational services provided in schools for children kindergarten through grade 12); and $7,040 for crime and delinquency. The $4,900 in additional classroom education costs is not applicable to individuals outside of kindergarten through grade 12. And most of the $7,040 crime and delinquency cost is due to an estimate of $6,600 for the cost to victims of crimes committed by 1 4

- to 17

- year olds. It is not appropriate to apply this to very young children, such as kindergarteners , as they are not committing such crimes

. Therefore, the $14,576 annual cost should not be applied to an individual’s entire lifetime, and the Pelham et al. study does not indicate that the lifetime cost of a child with ADHD is $1.0 million.

Comment : Several c ommenters disagreed with the assumption in EPA’s Economic Analysis that 98% of renovators would take the online training if the hands

- on requirement is removed. One training provider (0304

- 0113) surveyed students who took its RRP training course; 31 of 43 respondents (57%) indicated that they learned the most through live instructional interactive training with hands

- on exercises , leading
t he commenter to assert that 57 % of renovators would prefer to take a course in person

. Another training provider (0304

- 0094) stated that many individuals enjoy coming to class and having a face

- to

- face interaction with their peers and instructors where the y are able to participate in group discussions, and receive clarifications on confusing requirements. This commenter felt that even if the class was offered online , more than 2% of individuals would take the course in person. Yet a nother commenter (0304

- 0053) stated that only a few renovators would opt for e

- training due to language, educational, accessibility and computer intimidation factors. A different training provider (0304

- 0140) stated that approximately 90% of the students w ill opt for the online training. Yet a nother commenter (0304

- 0053) questioned whether EPA’s 98% assumption was supported by any empirical data, and (although not totally analogous), asked whether EPA knows how many renovators received initial RRP training via e

- learning

. Response: EPA’s 98% assumption in the analysis of the proposed rule was not based on any empirical data. The number was an assumption, chosen because many renovators would likely take online refresher training if the hands

- on requirement were removed, but the number would be less than 100%.

The number of renovators that received their initial training via e

- learning is not indicative of the number that may be expected to take the refresher training online after the hands

- on requirement is revised

. The baseline e

- learning rate would not provide useful information about the post

- rule adoption of e

- learning because there is a fundamental difference between t he cost of taking an initial course online compared to taking refresher training online under the amended rule. Since the initial course includes hands

- on training

, renovators incur costs to travel to the training site whether they take the classroom component in person or online. Given that most training providers offering online clas ses in the baseline charge the***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

14 same tuition as they do for their in

- person classes , there is not a particularly large financial incentive for renovators to take their training online when the hands

- on component is required.

By contrast, r enovators could a void these travel costs as a result of the changes to the refresher training requirements

. The savi ngs in travel costs average $144 per student. Because renovators do not accrue these travel cost s avings if they take an e

- learning version of the initial tr aining, there is little financial incentive for them to take that training online. EPA’s rule allows r enovators to avoid these travel costs for some of their refresher training

, so more renovators can be expected to take online refresher training when they are eligible to do so

. Given that commenters differed as to whether the number of students that would continue to take training in person would be more than 2%, 10%, 57% , or all but a few , EPA has revised its economic analysis to consider several different scenarios for the number of renovators assumed to take refresher training online after revisions to the hands

- on requirement

. Specifically, the analysis includes separate scenarios

assum ing that 50%, 75%, and 90% of the students will opt for the online refresher training when they are eligible to take it

. That means that under these scenarios, 10%, 25%, or 50% of students are assumed to take all of their refresher training in person. Even renovators taking an online course will have to take a hands

- on class every other training cycle.

Comment : Several commenters provided their estimates of the cost savings per student that would result from removing the hands on training requirement. One training provider (0304

- 0113) stated that the tuition for a live course is $120 and claimed that the tuition for an online course would be $80. This same commenter also stated that expenses needed to travel to a training site would be $10 for gas, tolls, and parking.

Another training provider (0304

- 0062) estimated that the cost for the online refresher class would be similar to the standard refresher class ($150 to $250). This same commenter stated that r emoving the hands

- on training requirement would re duce the cost of in

- person refresher training by eliminating the need for disposable supplies such as test kits, wipes, gloves, paper

- format student manual, and other supplies, costing approximately $15

- $20 per student ; t he costs would be saved by the trai ning provider and could lower student tuition. This commenter also noted that on line trainers would save by eliminating costs of physical facilities (rent, lease, own) necessary to provide in

- person training. This commenter stated that the c osts for trainers to access and provide an accredited on line training program are unknown

, but they anticipate that the costs to supply, staff and manage an on line program would be less than the costs for an in

- person training program. This commenter also noted tha t removing the hands

- on requirement would reduce travel costs for students. The commenter estimated that students traveling 50 miles each way to the training would save $165 in travel costs, while students traveling 300 miles would save $760 in travel cost s and lodging.

Yet another training provider (0304

- 0094) stated that t raining providers would incur an additional cost to create and/or outsource an infrastructure to provide online training , and that t he additional cost would more than likely be passed on to the renovator. The commenter anticipate s this additional cost to be approximately 20

- 30% in addition to the current cost of the course which ranges from $100

- $175. This estimate assum es that an instructor would still be required to be a part of the t raining course. If the need for an instructor is eliminated altogether, this estimate could change and lessen or remove the additional cost burden.

And another training provider (0304

- 0140) stated that EPA under

- estimated the drop in price for online trai ning, and estimated that t he price will drop to the $30

- $40 range. According to the commenter, t here is a significant level of effort and expense required for developing online training , and very few existing trainers will have the know

- how and cash avai lable to create online training. According to the commenter,***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

15 t he low price point creates a barrier to entry into this new online training market for any existing environmental training companies.

A c ommenter representing renovators (0304

- 0136) claimed tha t the savings could be substantial. According to the commenter, estimated costs to obtain certification for a remodeler are at least $300 and at least $550 for a painter or painter/remodeler. Initial courses are $300 to $500. The refresher course is a four

- hour course every five years. However, in reality, if the employee has to travel to a location, it will end up as a full “lost work day.” The employer is required to pay every employee for the day they spend at the course. Mos t of these employees are paid $30 to $40 an hour.

Response: The commenters provided diverse opinions about the costs of training and the savings that would result from the minor amendments rule. Based on the data it has collected, EPA agrees with some of these comments and disagree s with others.

The training cost estimates provided by commenter 0304

- 0113 equate to a cost savings of $40 from allowing online cour s es ($120

- $80 = $40). EPA agrees that the cost savings per individual may be roughly of this magnitude. Based on a n initi al sample of training provider tuition data, EPA’s estimate for the proposed rule was that the savings would be $36.97

. For the final rule, EPA expanded the sample size of the tuition data, and re

- estimated the savings to be $45.36

. Therefore, the commente r’s estimate of the savings per student for the classroom portion of the training is in the same range as EPA’s estimate

. EPA disagrees with the estimate by commenter 0304

- 0062 that the cost for the online refresher class would be similar to the standard refresher class

. As this same commenter stated

, removing the hands

- on training requirement would reduce the cost of in

- person refresher training by eliminating the need for disposable supplies such as test kits, wipes, gloves, paper

- format stu dent manual, and other supplies ; the costs would be saved by the training provider and some portion of these savings may be passed along to students in the form of lower tuition. As t his commenter also noted

, on line trainers would save money by eliminating costs of phy sical facilities (rent, lease, own) necessary to provide in

- person training. That is why t his commenter anticipated that the costs to supply, staff and manage an on line program would be less than the costs for an in

- person training program. EPA believes th at these very reasons demonstrate why the costs for an online course may be similar to those for an in

- person class.

EPA disagrees with the statement by commenter 0304

- 0094 that online training would increase the cost of training by 20

- 30%. Training providers offering the classroom component both in person and online tend to charge the same tuition for both types of courses, suggesting that the cost of offering both types is similar. Training providers are not required to offer online courses as a web inar taught by a live instructor. So EPA agrees with this commenter ’s statement that the cost savings from not having a live instructor could offset the additional cost to create and/or outsource an infrastructure to provide online training.

EPA notes th at some commenters (including 0304

- 0035,

- 0062, and

- 0127) supported removing the hands

- on refresher training requirement, since they believed it reduces the cost of providing the training.

EPA based its cost estimates on the price of tuition for existing RRP training classe s. The available data indicates that the cost of training is generally the same regardless of whether the classroom component is provided in

- person or online. So EPA has n ot assumed that the price of tuition will drop to the $30 to $40 range suggested by commenter 0304

- 0140

. EPA is aware of one training provider (Public Health and Safety, Inc.) offering the classroom component of refresher training (the current 3 hours of c lassroom training) online for $25, which is $8.33 per hour. This is equivalent to EPA’s estimate that the cost of the classroom component is $8.67 per hour. And the same training provider is offering the 1 hour hands

- on***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

16 component for $100

, which is only sl ightly less than the sum of EPA’s estimate that the cost of hands

- on training is $54.04 per hour and the additional fixed cost of offering a training class is $56.93 (yielding a total of $110.97). In this case, the training provider appears to be recouping all of its fixed costs through the hands

- on component rather recovering some or all of it through the tuition for the online component. T his training provider charges $25 for the online component and $100 for the hands

- on component , which is identical to the $125 this same training provider charges for an in

- person refresher class containing both the classroom and hands

- on components

. This is further validation for EPA’s assumption that training providers tend to charge the same amount for in

- person and on line classroom training

. EPA provides model online refresher renovator training, which decreases the cost of developing such a

course. Furthermore, training providers can license an online course without having to develop the course themselves. (EPA is aw are of one firm that licenses training providers with an online refresher course at a cost of $49.95 per student.) So EPA does not agree with commenter 0304

- 0140 that the price of online training will create a barrier to entry that will prevent existing en vironmental training companies from offering online training.

For s ome students (located relatively close to a training site) , the direct cost incurred to travel to an in

person training can be on the order of $10 for gas, tolls, and parking claimed by co mmenter 0304

- 0113, although EPA notes that this commenter did not include the cost of the time that students spend traveling

. But f or some students in remote rural areas that travel long distances to training, the estimate of $760 in travel costs made by c ommenter 0304

- 0062 may be valid. However, EPA believes that neither of these estimates represents a typical cost of travel. T he estimate by c ommenter 0304

- 0062 that some students would travel 50 miles each way to training at a cost of $165 is closer to a typical value, and it is very similar to the value EPA is using its analysis

. (In the analysis of the final rule, EPA estimated the average travel distance to be 39 miles each way at a total average cost of $144.)

S ome of the cost estimates made by comme nter 0304

- 0136 are supported by independent data and some
are not. EPA ’s economic analysis for the proposed rule used mean wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of $31.12 per hour , which is at the lower end of the $30 to $40 per hours range claimed by the
commenter. Th at commenter’s allusion to certification costs appear to represent the fees that EPA charges to certify firms. The cost of firm certification in the RRP program is $300. The commenter’s reference to a certification cost of $550 appears to be referring to the cost of certification in the lead

- based paint activities program (which is required to conduct abatements), or a joint certification in the RRP program and the lead

- based paint activities program (which represents a savings compared to the cost of the two individual certifications)

. However, the abatement fee is not germane to this rulemaking. Moreover, the number of certified lead

- based paint activity firms is an order of magnitude less than the number of RRP firms, and not all abatement firms have a dual certification. So the $550 applies to a small subset of RRP firms, and it is not dependent on whether the renovator is a painter or a remodeler. Whether the applicable certification fee is $300 o r $550 , the certification cost is applicable to the entire firm not each renovator, and it is irrelevant to the cost savings due to revising the hands

- on requirements for refresher training

. The cost of initial training is also irrelevant to revisions to t he refresher training requirements. Furthermore, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s claim that the cost of an initial course is $300 to $500. As described in the Economic Analysis for the final rule, EPA reviewed the tuition data for a sample of 138 initia l

courses where the tuition data was available online, and found that tuition averaged $21 7

. ( Tuition for a sample of 9 7 refr esher courses averaged only $137

. ) Therefore, the commenter is significantly overstating the typical cost of training.

Comment: Commenter #0304

- 0022 stated that on

- line learning costs have historically been comparable to in person training.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

17 Response: EPA is not assuming that it costs less to offer the classroom portion of the training (i.e., the portion that is not hands

- on) onlin e instead of in

- person. In fact, EPA is assuming that the cost for online classroom courses will be the same as in

- person classroom courses, based on tuition data from several training providers offer ing both in

- person and on line classroom courses for reno vator training. The estimated cost savings result from revising the hands

- on requirement because training providers would
save money on materials and supplies. The assumption is supported in statement s by commenter #0304

- 0062 ( that removing the hands

- on tr aining requirement would reduce the cost of disposable supplies such as test kits, wipes, gloves, paper

- format student manual, and other supplies ) and commenter #0304

- 0035 (that the hands

- on portion greatly increases the cost to run a class by requiring ex tra instructors and costly materials)

. Therefore, EPA continues to account for a cost saving for revising the hands

- on requirement.

While EPA assumes the same cost for online and in

- person classroom training, t here may be less incentive for training prov iders to offer an online option

– or for renov ators to take advantage of it

– if hands

- on training is always require d . If the renovator and/or the instructor are traveling to the training site for the hands

- on portion , they are incurring the travel costs whether or not the classroom portion is taken in

- person or online. By revising the hands

- on requirement travel costs are eliminated for those training cycles where the renovator chooses to take the entire refresher course online

. This makes online training more attractive to both the renovator and the training provider.

Comment: Several commenters (0304

- 0143, 0304

- 0046) disagreed that contractors have to travel long distances to take a classroom course, and noted that they and other training providers off er the training in various locations in order to minimize contractor traveling expenses.

Response: EPA agrees that there are numerous training providers that offer traveling training, which does reduce the distance that students have to travel to take th e training. Nonetheless, there are still renovators who are distant from even these traveling training sites , or who cannot attend traveling training on the dates when it is offered near them

. EPA believes that the opportunity to take some cycles o f the tr aining entirely online will be particularly beneficial to such renovators.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) submitted what it termed a very amateurish cost savings/expense spreadsheet. To estimate cost savings from the rule, the commenter assumed that 500,000 certified renovators will be trained in 2015

- 2 016. The commenter also assumed that in

- person refresher training with a hands

- on component costs $120 per person, and that online refresher training would cost $50 per person. Thus, online traini ng is estimated to save $70 per renovator

. When this $70 in savings is combined with the assumption that 500,000 renovators will be trained, the commenter estimated that the total cost savings due to the proposed r ule would be $35 million.

The commenter claim ed that the proposed rule would result in a multi

- billion dollar current and long

- term expense to the country. According to the commenter, there are 500,000 children with a blood lead level at or above the CDC reference level. The commenter assumes th at the number of children above the CDC reference level will increase 20% due to EPA’s rule. And based on a paper on the benefits of lead hazard control, the commenter asserts that the cost of a child with a blood lead level above the CDC reference level i s $500,000. Thus the commenter claims that the rule will potentially cost taxpayers $50 billion.

Response: EPA dis agrees with the estimates that the commenter made, which the commenter itself characteriz ed as very amateurish. A few of the flaws in the com menter’s analysis are discussed below.

The commenter’s cost savings estimate is incomplete since it only account s for the savings in the cost of offering a class, and does not address any savings in travel costs, which are a significant portion of the***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

18 total savings. In fact, EPA’s analysis indicates that the average savings in travel cost is significantly larger than the average savings in the cost of the class itself. Furthermore, the commenter’s estimates appear to be based solely on opinion. By contr ast, EPA’s estimates of the unit costs of in

- person training, online training, and travel are based on samples of data about actual renovators and RRP training courses

.
EPA notes that elsewhere in its comments, the commenter stated that an online course would cost $80, for a savings of $40 compared to an in

- person class costing $120. So the commenter is inconsistent in its claims about the costs and savings from an online course.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assumption that the number of children w ith blood lead levels above the CDC reference level will increase by 20% due to this rule. Renovators will still be required to take an 8 hour initial training, that includes a hands

- on component; they will still have to take regular refresher training; th e refresher training will have to include a hands

- on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands

- on component will only be valid for three years; and renovators will still have to comply with the work practice requirements in t he regulation. The commenter has not demonstrated that there will be any increase in the number of children with blood lead levels at or above the CDC reference level , much less a 20% increase

.

The study t he commenter cites for the benefits of lead control was published in 2009, prior to April 2010 date when the RRP rule required renovator s to be trained and to follow work practices that contain and control lead dust from renovations

. So the study did not reflect any of the protectio n offered to children by the RRP program. The commenter’s baseline estimate could only be correct if the RRP program had no effect on reducing blood lead levels or the number of children with elevated blood lead levels

. EPA does not believe that to be the case.

To put the commenters claims about the health impacts of the rulemaking into context, EPA’s Economic Analysis for the 2008 RRP rule estimated the quantified benefits of reducing lead exposure to children under the age of 6 to be $681 million to $1, 670 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $725 million to $1,778 million per year using a 7% discount rate. EPA’s Economic Analysis for the 2010 Opt

out rule estimated the quantified benefits for children under the age of 6 to be $90.5 million to $315.6 million per year using a 3% discount rate, and $96.3 million to $335.9 million per year using a 7% discount rate. Thus, EPA’s combined estimated of the quantified benefits to children 6 and under is as high as $1,986 million per year using a 3% disc ount rate, or $2,114 million per year using a 7% discount
rate. These benefits represent additional lifetime earnings from avoiding IQ loss in children. EPA agrees that the RRP program generates additional unquantified benefits to children ( and individuals over the age of 6 ) aside from the lifetime earnings value from avoided IQ loss

. But for the commenter’s estimate of $50 billion in impacts from children under the age of 6 to be correct, the benefit of the hands

- on refresher training component alone would have to be 25 times higher than EPA’s quantified estimates of the benefits of the entire RRP program, including classroom training, hands

- on training, certification, restricted and prohibited practices, containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification. EP A does not consider this to be likely

.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) stated that EPA’s economic analysis should incorporate various additional costs, including litigation costs for contractors performing renovation work , insurance costs due to incre ased litigation, costs for Department of health ( sic ) programs addressing children with blood lea d levels of 5 ug/dL and above, the lifetime costs for these children (which the commenter claims is $1 million), costs to training providers and the constructi on trades, and employment in the training industry.

Response: EPA does not agree that it should revise its economic analysis as suggested by the commenter. The commenter did not provide any evidence to support the assertion that there will be increased***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

19 li tigation against contractors as a result of the rule. EPA notes that when it promulgated the 2008 RRP rule and the 2010 Opt

- out rule, there were also claims from the construction industry that those rules would increase the level of litigation. That is, cl aims have been made that litigation will increase when EPA has imposed new regulatory requirements and now when it creates additional flexibility in the requirements. In none of these cases have commenters demonstrated an actual change in the level of litigation. In fact, in another portion of its comments, the same commenter stated that lawyers say that homeowners are no t suing contractors for leaving lead hazards behind. The commenter has provided no factual basis to support its claim that litigation will increase due to this rule. Furthermore, from a benefit

cost perspective, litigation awards represent a transfer, not a cost. EPA disagrees that its economic analysis should incorporate costs for a hypothetical and unlikely increase in litigation.

Fu rthermore, renovator s who believes that taking a refresher course without a hands

- on training course would increase their risk of litigation are free to take hands

- on training every time they take refresher training, thus avoiding such a perceived risk. An d training provider s (such as the commenter) who believe that hands

- on training should be taken every training cycle are free to advertise and promote their courses on that basis. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s presumption about the effect of online tr aining on litigation risk. I f the commenter were correct, it would be in renovators ’ self

- interest to always take a course with hands

- on training , a nd under the rule they retain the freedom to do so. If renovators choose to take an online course, then they obviously do not agree with the commenter’s claims about litigation risk.

Similarly, t he commenter has not provided any evidence to support the assertion that th ere will be increased insurance costs

. Given that the commenter has no t demonstrated that lit igation is likely to increase as a result of the rule , there is no reason to conclude that insurance costs will increase

. Moreover, insurance payments are a transfer, not a social cost, so it would not be appropriate to include them in the
cost estimate ev en if the commenter had demonstrated that the rule would a ffect insurance markets. And the commenter’s suggestion to include litigation and insurance as costs would double count those transfers, since insurance premiums pay for litigation. EPA disagrees th at it should include changes in costs for insurance in its economic analysis for this rule.

Renovators are still required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands

- on component; they still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training has to include a hands

- on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a ha nds

- on component is only valid for three years; and renovators still have to comply with the work practice requirements in the regulation. The commenter has not demonstrated that the rule will negatively affect children or increase the number of children w ith blood lead levels above 5 ug/dL. Neither this nor any other commenter has provided evidence to demonstrate that blood

- lead levels will increase as a result of this rule.

Given this, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s suggestion that its economic analysis should i nclude costs for Department of He alth programs addressing children with blood lead levels of 5 ug/dL and above, or the lifetime costs for these children. EPA notes that the lifetime costs the commenter cited for children with elevated bloo d lead levels include health care costs, so that the commenter’s suggestion to include both lifetime costs and health care costs would double

- count the latter.

EPA disagrees that its benefit

- cost analysis should include additional cost estimates for trai ning providers

. The rule does not require training providers to offer online training. Training providers that decide to offer online training may incur some additional costs (such as developing or licensing online training, obtaining an additional accredi tation, and paying additional web hosting fees.) However, they w ill also incur savings due to decreases in cost s such as supplies for the hands

- on component, staff time, facility rental, and travel for trainers. Training providers will only choose to offer online training if they belie ve that their savings outweigh the ir additional costs , or if they can recover any additional costs through tuition increases or other means

. Counting the number of jobs lost or gained in a particular firm as a result***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

20 of a regulation has no meaning in the context of a benefits cost analysis. If so me training providers increase their market share or employment at the expense of their competitors, this represents a transfer
not a social cost, and there would not be a long term net loss to the economy.

EPA’s economic analysis already reflect the impact of the rule on the construction trades, and the result was an estimate that these firms would save money as a result of the rule. EPA does not believe that further revisions to its estimates are warranted based on these comments.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) stated that it see s no savings due to eliminating the hands

- on requirement

. The commenter stated that it is highly confident that the regulated entities as a whole wi ll not be 100% compliant with the rule ; that it is confident that 30% or greater of disturbed painted surfaces will have dust lead levels of greater than 40ug/ft2 ; and that based on the new CDC new reference value of 5ug/dl

, substantially more children will be identified as exceeding the reference value

. Accordingly, more children will be identified as having an elevated blood lead level, which has a s ubstantial cost to society

. The commenter also claims that litigation is on the rise

. According to the commenter, lawyers say that homeowners are no t suing shoddy contractors who leave lead dust hazards behind because they canno t get a substantial amount of money from contractor s for leaving lead dust hazards behind. H owever, now that the CDC has revised its r eference value, the commenter a ssume s with confidence that a substantially larger population of kids will be identified with blood leads of equal to or greater than 5ug/dl and now there is a personal injury cla im that has the potential for “s ignificant litigation” against the contractor who performed the work. If the contractor is not 100% compliant ( and f ew are in the commenter’s experience), they will be found guilty in most cases and have to pay substantial settlements or aw ards. The commenter asks whether any of this litigation cost, insurance cost, time cost, travel cost, aggravation cost, etc. was

c onsidered by EPA when formulating their 9 million dollar savings versus a billion dollars in expense and costs to the country for the regulated entities failure to potentially comply.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. As described elsewhere in this document, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to include litigation cost or insurance cost in its analysis. The commenter does not offer any factual support for the contention that litigation is currently on the rise, or that litigation will increase further if the refresher training requirement is revised. The commenter’s assertions in this regard are undercut by i ts own statement that lawyers say that homeowners do no t sue contractors for leaving behind dust hazards.

EPA’s analysis already include s changes in time cost and travel cost, which result in much of the estimated savings generated by the rule. The commen ter does not provide details on what costs it foresees due to aggravation , and EPA sees no reason to revise its analysis on this account.

As described in more detail in the response to another comment, the information submitted by the commenter does not demonstrate that 30% or greater of disturbed painted surfaces will have dust lead levels of greater than 40ug/ft2 as a result of this rule. Renovators are still required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands

- on component; they still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training has to include a hands

- on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands

- on component is only valid for three years; and renovators still have to comply with the work pra ctice requirements in the regulation.

The CDC reference value ( 5 micrograms per deciliter ) is intended to identify children with blood lead levels that are much higher than most children’s levels. This new level is based on the U.S. population of childre n ages 1

- 5 years who are in the highest 2.5% of children when tested for lead in their blood. This reference value is based on the 97.5th percentile of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)’s blood lead distribution in children. Pre viously, children were identified as having a blood***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

21 lead “level of concern” if the test result wa s 10 or more micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood. Setting the reference level at 5 micrograms per deciliter does not mean that more children are suffering negative health effects from lead exposure than when the level was 10 or more micrograms per deciliter , or that cost to society of these blood lead levels will increase (as the commenter seems to imply).

In fact, children’s blood lead levels ha ve been decreasing over time

. For example, a ccording to NHANES data from 2009 to 2010, the geometric mean blood lead level for children ages 1 to 5 was 1.17 ug/dL, and the 95 th percentile level was 3.37 ug/dL. According to the 2011 to 2012 NHANES data , the geometric mean was 0.970 ug/dL, and the 95 th percentile was 2.91 ug/dL.

The commenter has not justified its statement that the rule will result in a billion dollars in expenses and costs to the country, and EPA does not agree with the commenter’s claims

.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) claimed that it was providing r eal data to support a proper economic potential outcome, not “presumed” data, the very well documented and researched Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control (3/31/09 P. 7) clearly states; “The net benefit of lead hazard control ranges from $181 to $269 billion, resulting in a return of $17

– $221 for each dollar invested in lead hazard control. ..... This leads to a net ben efit ranging from $124 to $188 billion, resulting in a return of $12

– $155 for each dollar invested in lead paint hazard control”. According to the commenter, t his document and others continue with the cost of a child with an EBL over a lifetime which can b e millions , while EPA’s 9 million dollars in

‐ accurately calculated savings to the regulated entities clearly does not reflect the cost to society and families of blood lead levels greater than 5ug/dl (CDC Reference value) which has been estimated at $1,000 ,000 per child over a lifetime. The commenter said that EPA’s mandat e that refresher courses have hands

‐ on was prior to CDC lowering its reference value which should only raise the importance of Paint assessment and Cleaning verification/clearance and the need for hands

‐ on! The commenter requested that EPA incorporate into the economic analysis Department of health ( sic ) programs time and expense addressing 5ug/dl and above, and most importantly, the cost of $1,000,000 per lifetime on average for approximat ely 1:53 (CDC children > Reference value) children under 6 (Census 26 million kids under 6).

Response: EPA does not agree that its economic analysis should be revised based on the comment. Neither this nor any other commenter has provided evidence to demonstrate that children’s blood

- lead levels will increase as a result of this rule. Renovators are still required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands

- on component; they still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher
tra ining has to include a hands

- on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands

- on component is only valid for three years; and renovators still have to comply with the work practice requirements in the regulation. The commenter ha s not demonstrated that the rule will negatively affect children or increase the number of children with blood lead levels above 5 ug/dL.

The 2009 article cited by the commenter (Elise Gould, Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control , Environmental Health Perspectives, 2009) was published prior to the date that the training and work practice requirements in the RRP rule became mandatory. Data from the CDC indicates that the average blood lead level in children has decreased since then. So the article does not reflect the advances that have been made in protecting children from exposure to lead

- based paint since 2009

.

EPA notes that t he commenter’s claim that the cost to society and families of blood lead levels greater than the CDC Reference value of 5ug/dl is $1,000,000 per child is not supported by the information that the commenter provided

. The 2009 Gould article e stimated that the benefits of lead control range from $192.38 bil lion to $270.45 billion. The commenter states that there are 26 million children under the age***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

22 of 6, and that 1 out of 53 of them exceed the CDC reference value

. This is equivalent to 491,000 children. Assuming that all of the $192.38 billion to $270.45 bi llion in benefits are due to the 491,000 children that

were above the CDC reference value, then the average the benefit per child ranged from $3 9 2,000 to $551 ,000 per child

. But t he article acknowledged that lead

- based paint is not the only source of lead exposure among children, and reduce d net benefits by 30% to account for other sources of lead exposure. Applying this adjustment factor yields of estimated benefit of controlling exposures to lead from paint of $274,000 to $386,000 per child

. Even adjusting for inflation from the 1996 dollars in the Gould paper to 2015 dollars yields an estimate of $416,000 to $587,000 per child, which is well below the $1 million the commenter claimed

.
Furthermore, n ot all cases of elevated blood lead levels from lead paint are due to renovation, repair, or painting work. Exposure to lead from paint can be caused through other mechanisms, such as dust generated through friction surfaces (such as opening or closing paint ed windows or doors), or paint that is chipping or peeling. Moreover, only renovations for compensation in residences and child

- occupied facilities are currently covered by the RRP program. Therefore, even if current data were available on children whose blood lead levels are elevated due to lead

- based paint, the RRP program could not address all of these exposures, not matter what type of refresher training is required for renovators

. EPA agree s that there are positive net benefits to lead hazard control , and that the RRP program generates positive net benefits. B ased on the evidence it has reviewed, EPA has concluded that the program will continue to have positive net benefits after the minor amendments in this rulemaking take effect.

Comment : One comm enter (0304

- 0113) objected to EPA’s characterization that removing the hands

- on requirement would result in “significant” cost savings. According to the commenter, Air Force One costs $228,288 per hour (Washington Examiner 2/28/14), so if the president did not use Air Force One for ONLY ONE week, our country would save 9 million. 9 million dollars, or one week of use of Air Force One is cons idered “Significant” by EPA. T he agency would be better off advising the President, that for the sake of our children and our countries ( sic ) future to refrain from using Air Force One for one week so EPA can subsidize the regulated entities the 9 million dollar supposed savings and then no change is needed. A ccording to the commenter, an other way to determine the signifi cance of 9 million is to compare it to the Regulated industries 2014 Gross Revenue, which happen to be one of the best years in a decade for the Regulated Entities. Last year according to Statista.com the value of the construction industry was $3.6 Billion . If we divide $3.6 billion by 9 million we get .0025 or .25%. The commenter asks whether EPA is comfortable with making a statement that a Quarter ( sic ) of a percent savings (.25% not even 1%) to an industry is, “Significant” as suggested in the proposed ru le.

Response: EPA does not find the cost of Air Force One to be relevant to this rule. EPA does however note that the article the commenter referenced was referring to the cost of Air Force One per hour of flight time. The article did not state, as the commenter assumes, that Air Force One is in the air flying 40 hours per week. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect that Air Force One costs $9 million per week.

Nor is the commenter’s data on the construction industry relevant. The $3.6 billion figure the commenter uses is the value of the U.S. construction industry as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The construction industry is a very broad category that includes non

- residential construction and heavy and civil engineering construction, as well as residential construction. And the residential construction industry includes firms that only perform new construction and do no t engage in renovation, repair, or painting , as well as firms that do not engage in activities that disturb lead

- based paint. The Statista.com web site that the commenter mentions states that Bechtel is currently the largest U.S.

- based construction firm. Bechtel engages in projects such as extending the Washington Metrorail system to Dulles airport,***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

23 and building a liquefied natu ral gas plant in Louisiana. The commenter ’s comparison to gross revenues from the construction industry is not relevant to this rule.

Regarding the significance of the cost savings, EPA’s analysis for the final rule estimates that the average baseline tu ition for a refresher class with a hands

- on component is $137, and that the average travel cost is $144, for a total cost of $281. (The estimates for the proposed rule were similar.) Renovators can save the travel costs by taking training online. Furthermo re, training providers may pass along to their students some or all of the $45 reduction in costs they reap by not including a hands

- on component to the refresher training. So the average tuition for an online refresher class could be from $92 to $137 , and the renovator will save the cost of traveling to the training site

. Thus, the average renovator taking an online refresher class could save $144 to $189 compared to the baseline costs of $281

. This is a 51% to 67% cost savings. EPA believes that a cost saving of that magnitude can accurately be characterized as significant.

Comment: One commenter (0304

- 0110) questioned EPA estimate of the number of renovators expected to take refresher training. According to the commenter, EPA ’s 2011 website said that an estimated 743,000 people had been trained a s of October 26, 2011, while EPA stated in August, 2014 that there were 510,000 Renovators certified. Whether we trained 743,000 or 510,000 Renovators in initial courses, why is EPA es timating only 168,000 of those certified renovators to return for recertification? On what justification does EPA estimate that only ~23% or ~33% will return? Does EPA believe more than a quarter to half a million renovators were trained unnecessarily? Doe s EPA feel there are more than a quarter to half a million violators of the RRP rule? Only 14 States have implemented their own RRP program, does EPA believe these 14 states account for a quarter to half a million renovators under the state’s jurisdiction? Does EPA believe the program is collapsing and unenforceable because of this dropout rate? Does the number change from 2011 to 2014 reflect the a ccurate readjustment of the EPA’ s database?

Response: The 743,000 estimate from 2011 was calculated based on data on the number of classes taught and an assumption about the average number of students per class. The 2014 figure was derived from the number of trained individuals in EPA’s Federal Lead Paint Program (FLPP) database, which is based on the post

- train ing notifications submitted by training providers. Thus, the 2014 tabulation is more accurate than the 2011 estimate.

There are two reasons for t he difference between the 510,000 initially trained renovators and the 168,000 recertified renovators

. First, some individuals who took the initial training are no longer working as renovators, and thus have no need to take the refresher training. As explained in EPA’s Economic Analysis for the proposed rule (EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2014

- 0304

- 0014) :

Each year, some certified individuals exit the industry and are replaced by new entrants who seek initial training and certification. Due to this turnover, the number of individuals seeking renovator refresher training and recertification will be less than the numbers of individuals with expiring certifications (which represents the total number of individuals assumed to be trained each year).

Second, the 510,000 represents the cumulative number of renovators trained over a five year period (2010 through 2014), while the 168,000 represents the renovators from a single year (2010) expected to take refresher training in the future.

Approximately 357,000 renovators were trained in 2010

, and EPA’s analysis for the proposed minor amendments rule estimated tha t 168,000 of the renovators trained in 2010 would seek recertification in***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

24 2015. The difference ( 357,000

– 168,000 = 189,000 ) were assumed to have left the industry between 2010 and 2015 , and thus would not take refresher training

. Additional renovators wer e trained in 2011, 2012, 2013, etc., and those that have not left the industry will also return for refresher training in future
years.

While EPA has revised its estimates of the turnover in the industry for the final rule, the same factors are still rele vant. Namely, the number of renovators seeking refresher training in any one year is less than the total stock of renovators trained over the life of the RRP program

. And some renovators who take the initial training will exit the industry before they are due to be recertified. So not all of the renovators in an initial training cohort will receive refresher training. However, the renovators exiting the industry are replaced by new entrants, who take the initial training.

In answer to the commenter’s other questions, the difference between the number of individuals receiving initial training and the number predicted to take refresher training does not represent the number of renovators in authorized states, nor does it mean that renovators were trained unne cessarily, or that violations of the RRP program are increasing. EPA does not believe the program is collapsing or unenforceable

.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0110) stated that EPA underestimated costs because training providers would require a new accreditation in order to offer a new web

- based refresher course, and EPA did not account for the $340 fee each training provider would pay in order to teach an e

- leaning approve d courses in this 5

- year renovator renewal cycle.

Response: While some training p roviders may pay an accreditation fee in order to teach an online course, EPA disagrees that it has underestimated costs due to accreditation fees

. EPA estimated the change i n social costs based on the tuition that training providers currently charge. (And the evidence described in the Economic Analysis indicates that training providers are likely to charge the same tuition for the classroom component of the course whether it is offered online or in

- person.) Th e tuition for the in

- person class recoups the costs that training providers incur ( including the accreditation fee that they currently
pay ), and the tuition for the online class will do the same

. Were EPA ’s Economic Analy sis to include a separate line

- item for an additional accreditation fee in its cost estimate, it would double

- count the cost of accreditation

.

EPA notes that t raining providers using an online curriculum that EPA has already reviewed and approved may qualify for an expedited accreditation process. There is no fee charged for such an expedited accreditation. Many training providers may choose to license a currently approved online course instead of developing a new course themselves , in which case they will not pay an additional accreditation fee

.

Comment : One training provider (0304

- 0110) stated that removing the hands

- on refresher training requirement would cause the training provider infrastructure to collapse. According to the commenter, t rainers have already renewed and planned their training schedules for the expected training load of 5

- year renovator returns. The schedules were based on the peak load starting in March and slowing down after June. The commenter stated that its class schedules wil l be disrupted as many move to on line . If the hands

- on elimination is successful, it will be easier for the trainees and kill the trainers. Trainers are on a 4

- year renewal cycle but a 5

- year peak training revenue cycle. The commenter claimed that EPA woul d lose the RRP support inf rastructure, because trainers will no t make sufficient revenue to support the
program

— they'll collapse. Only a few training providers offered certification programs continuously over the last five years, after the peak land of mil k and honey five years ago. According to the commenter, it***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

25 offers classes even if only one person has signed up , and has cancelled a large number of classes for want of trainees. This program runs on a five year tsunami of activity, with a great dead lull for four years and then another tsunami. The commenter stated that a five year training revenue cycle is part of why it believed EPA’s Mark Henshall’s remarks at the Colorado lead conference in August 2014 that less than half of the RRP trainers had renewe d their accreditation. The commenter asked how they can stay in business as a trainer, supporting childhood lead poisoning prevention, if they only make money every fifth year

. According to the commenter, e ven the IRS would call this a hobby and not a profession.

The commenter asked h ow few on line programs it will take to train the outstanding folks vs. how many training providers it will take to maintain training support for the program with hands

- on components

. The commenter predicts the financial collapse of the non

- online trainers, resulting in a loss of training provider support for the initial certification program training, since training providers can't make money on the program at a low return level. The commenter envisages that if the number of training providers decreases, renovators with questions will contact the EPA Lead hotline and EPA officials. The commenter asks whether EPA is planning to increase staffing to meet such increased demand for answers from renovators who current ( sic ) call the training providers for answers.

Response: EPA does not agree that revising the hands

- on refresher training requirement will cause the training provider infrastructure to collapse. There will continue to be renovators needing initial training, as well as those that need to take refresher training. And since several training providers that commented on the proposal claimed that many students prefer in

- person training, it is reasonable to assume that some fraction of renovators will continue taking refresher training in person. All of this activity will generate revenue for training providers offering in

- person training. However, it is not expected to be difficult or expensive for training providers to lic ense a third

- party online course, and thus existing training providers will also be able to participate in the online training market. S o EPA expects there to be a sufficient number of training providers for the RRP program.

W hile many renovators were trained in the first year of the program, EPA expects that the five year peak in the training cycle will dampen over time due to turnover in the stock of renovators. Therefore, there will continue to be renovators needing initial training each year, and the annual number of individuals seeking refresher training will gradually even out over time. Therefore, the wave of refresher training the
commenter mentions will cease being what it refers to as a tsunami. This dampening will occ ur regardless of any changes made to the refresher training requirements. EPA’s estimate for the final rule is that the steady state average will be 30,000 renovators receiving initial training and 70,000 renovators receiving refresher training each year.

S ome of the commenters on the rule have claimed that students prefer in

- person training instead of online training. Commenter #0304

- 0094 stated that many individuals enjoy coming to class and having a face

to

- face interaction with their peers and instruc tors where they are able to participate in group discussions, and receive clarifications on confusing requirements. Commenter #0304

- 0053 stated that only a few would opt for e

- training due to language, educational, accessibility and computer intimidation f actors. According to commenter # 0304

- 0113

, 57% of the respondents to their survey indicated that they learned the most through live instructional interactive training with hands

- on exercises. EPA’s rule allows training providers to continue to present in

- person training. To the extent that these commenters are
correct about students’ preferences , then the demand for in

- person refresher training would continue to provide business for trainers.

U nder the minor amendments final rule, refresher training w ithout a hands

- on component is only valid for three years , and t raining with a hands

- on component must be taken every

- other training cycle. While the steady state average number of renovators taking in

- person refresher training is expect to decline from 70 ,000 per year to 43,000 to 55,000 per year, the number taking either in

- person or online training is***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

26 predicted to increase by 10,000 to 18,000 students per year, to a total of 80,000 to 88,000 per year. This provides a growth opportunity for training provi ders that choose to offer online training.

The market for training, like the markets for other goods, operates based on supply and demand. Commenters have not provided any evidence of market failures that prevent training providers from offering sufficien t training courses to meet the needs of the students , nor does EPA believe that such impediments exist

. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be a sufficient supply of trainers to meet the demand of students needing training.

As EPA has described elsewhere in this response to comments document, training providers can license an online course from a third

- party vendor at a flat rate per student, which makes it more likely that they will choose to offer online training. And there are vario us other programs (such as OSHA training) where training providers make extensive use of online courses, and no evidence has been provided that this has resulted in insufficient numbers of training providers

.

So EPA does not agree that the training provider market will collapse as a result of this rule

.

EPA notes that a ccording to the IRS, income from hobbies (including stamp or coin collecting, craft making and horse breeding) must be reported on tax returns, although hobby income is reported diff erently than business income. 4 A key feature of a business is that the activity is done to make a profit, which differs from a hobby that is done for sport or recreation. There are nine factors to consider when determining if an activity is done to make a profit:

• Whether you carry on the activity in a businesslike manner.

• Whether the time and effort you put into the activity indicate you intend to make it profitable.

• Whether you depend on income from the activity for your livelihood.

• Whether your losses ar e due to circumstances beyond your control (or are normal in the startup phase of your type of business).

• Whether you change your methods of operation in an attempt to improve profitability.

• Whether you or your advisors have the knowledge needed to carry o n the activity as a successful business.

• Whether you were successful in making a profit in similar activities in the past.

• Whether the activity makes a profit in some years and how much profit it makes.

• Whether you can expect to make a future profit from the appreciation of the assets used in the activity.

While EPA does not have all the facts and circumstances with respect to individual training provider s , it does not appear that the IRS would generally consider them to be engaged in a hobby.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0144) stated that the proposed revisions have the potential to negat ively impact authorized states. The State of Oregon is authorized by EPA to administer and enforce the RRP Rule, jointly implemented by the Oregon Health Authority (OH A) and the Oregon Construction Contractors Board (CCB). OHA collects fees from accredited training providers for each student that completes the course and earns certification in the RRP disciplines. These student fees comprise the majority of fee dollars used to support the Oregon Lead

- based Paint Program. If the hands

- on requirement is removed, EPA estimates that 98% of renovators will take the refresher course online. Large national

4 Five Tax Tips about Hobbies that Earn Income

, IRS Summertime Tax Tip 2015

- 08, July 20, 2015, http://www.irs.gov/uac/Five

- Tax

- Tips

- about

- Hobbies

- that

- Earn

- Income1***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

27 companies able to offer the online course at a reduced cost may undercut businesses and organizations in our state that offer these courses, thereby resulting in the loss of significant fees for Oregon and loss of business for Oregon accredited training providers.

Response: EPA does not believe that the revisions it is making will negatively impact authorized states. The changes that EPA is making do not pre

- empt state requirements in authorized states , so those states can continue to require training providers to provide a hands

- on component in renovator refresher training

. It appears that Oregon already has such a requirement. According to the Oregon Administrative Rules 5 333

- 070

- 0135 (18)(a) :

(D) Refresher courses for renovator and dust sampling technician must last a minimum of four training hours. (E) For each course offe red, the training program shall conduct a hands

- on assessment (if applicable), and at the completion of the course, a course test.

Therefore, it does not appear that the changes that EPA is making will result in a loss of business for Oregon accredited tr aining providers (including the five training providers located outside of Oregon among the 14 training providers authorized to offer RRP training in Oregon 6 ) or a loss of fees for the State of Oregon. So it does not seem that Oregon will need to make any changes to its program in order to continue funding its l ead

- based paint p rogram through fees collected from Oregon accredited training providers for each student that completes the course and earns certification in the RRP discipline.

Comment : One comm enter that is a training provider (0304

- 0113) presented the responses to a survey it conducted of its students. According to this commenter, “I have attached REAL DATA that supports the EXACT OPPOSITE of what EPA is “Presuming”. Ninety Eight (98%) percent of the trades DO NOT WANT OR LIKE A computer based class, but to the contrary, 57.4% of those blindly surveyed (1000 surveys were sent, those received attached) want a LIVE instructor and resource! That’s reality!!!! Several openly admitted their wife or s ecretary will take.”

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for submitt ing this information, but the Agency disagrees with the conclusions that the commenter has drawn from the survey responses. In fact, the survey data provides support for the action that EPA is taking.

The specific survey questions that the commenter asked and the distribution of the 54 total responses are shown below.

1

. What type of training do you feel you learn the most through?

• Live instructional interactive training with hands on exercises: n = 31 ( 57% )

• Webinar based training where you can interact through a computer via typing or potentially video stream: 6 ( 11% )

• 1 00% computer based curriculum slides, mandated course, time to complete, and on

- line testi ng with NO live interaction or communication: 13 ( 24% )

• Other: 4 ( 7% )

– “Any way is good” ; “All of the above”; “Computer based with some vi deo (interactive not necessary ) ”; “Webinar based training where you can interact thru a computer via

5 Oregon Administrative Rules, Department Of Human Services, Publi c Health Division, Chapter 333 Division 70, Pre

- Renovation Education and Renovation, Repair and Painting Activities Involving Lead

- Based Paint, 333

- 070

- 0135, Minimum Curriculum Requirements for Training Program Accreditation. July 1, 2014 Edition. http:/ /www.oregon.gov/CCB/Documents/pdf/oar.pdf

. 6 Oregon RRP Accred ited Training Providers

- Wednesday, March 04, 2015. http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/HealthyNeighborhoods/LeadPoisoning/TrainingProviders/Doc uments/acctrainprovlist.pdf

.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

28 typing or potentially video stream”

2. How many times do you typically need to SEE (NOT PHYSICALLY DO, BUT SEE) something to truly feel comfortable performing a particular task?

• 1 times: 24 ( 44% )

• 2 times: 24 ( 44% )

• 3 times: 6 ( 11% )

• 5 times: 0 ( 0% )

3. If a 4 hour administrative regulatory on - l i ne course was mandated by state law who would be the most likely person i n your organization to take it?

• Assistant: 0 ( 0% )

• Wife: 3 ( 6% )

• Myself: 49 ( 91% )

• Other: 2 ( 4% )

– “Myself and my foreman” ; “All applicable staff”

4. Do you believe having a relationship and access to professional service providers and subject expert resources in related fields to your particular trade is i mportant?

• Yes: 53 ( 98% )

• No: 1 ( 2% )

5. What is your most i mportant criteria when selecting training providers?

• Cost: 16 ( 30% )

• Locati on: 20 ( 37% )

• Expertise of Trai ner: 7 (13 % )

• Other: 11 (2 0% )

– “All of the above” ; “All three items listed above” ; “Cost and location” ; “Location and reputation of firm/trainer” ; “Cost ; location ; and time at training is time lose on job which is loos of money” ; “Combination of Cost and Location. Online training is great and preferred unless the course requires hands on exercises as with RRP” ; “Cost and Location” ; “Convenience” ; “Location/Cost are about equal depending on the distance of the actual course and if an overnight stay is required” ; “All of the above” ; “All of the above”

T he respondents were not blindly surveyed, contrary to the commenter’s assertion, since the responses include the respondent’s name, email address, and phone number. Since EPA does not know whether this lack of anonymity influenced the information that the respondents provided , the Agency will use these survey results to respond to the claims of this and other commenters

.

The commenter’s claim that 98% of renovators do not want or like a computer based class appears to be based on the responses to Question #4. However, that question did not ask about training at all, and it certainly did not ask about computer based training. O nline training providers can offer their students access to professional service providers and subject experts, as the respondents to Question #4 wanted. For example, one commenter (0304

- 0063) stated that it offers online RRP training with a live principal instructor present, and that it provides its stud ents free 24/7 consulting about RRP issues.

The responses to the other questions in the survey disprove t h is commenter’s claim that 98% of renovators do not want computer based classes. In Q uestion #1, 43% of the students responded that they learn the m ost through webinars, computer slides, or via any method (which includes online training)

. EPA’s rule is allowing training providers the option of providing the class online , not mandating online training

. Training providers can continue to offer live in structional interactive training with hands

- on exercises for students who feel that they learn best that way. But training providers will also be able to apply to EPA to offer the training via interactive Webinars or computer slides, so that approved cours es can be offered to students who feel that they learn best through one of those methods.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

29 In Question #2, 56% of respondents indicated that they need to see a task two or more times (but not physically do it) in order to feel comfortable performing it. Fo r such students, online training can offer the opportunity to watch the training multiple times , which may not be possible in live training

. The responses to Question #5 indicate that students varied in terms of whether cost, location, expertise, or other factors were most important in selecting a training provider. Again, EPA’s rule allows training providers to offer various options that appeal to different students.

In Question #3, 94% of respondents indicated that mandatory training would be taken by t hemselves or their relevant staff. While 3 respondents indicated that their wi ves would take the training, the question was ambiguous because it could be interpreted to mean that having a spouse take the training would be allowable under this hypothetical mandatory training program. It is important that training providers offering online training make clear that the certified renovator must take the refresher training themselves, rather than delegating it to some other person.

In summary, the commenter’s s urvey shows that different students have different wishes about training

. As Commenter #0304

- 0046 noted, “Online training will work for certain individuals

– not for all. The same can be said for live classes. Is there really one answer that fits all here? ” EPA’s rule allows training providers the flexibility to tailor the way that training is offered to meet various students ’ preferences.

Comment: Several commenters (0304

- 0046,

- 0049,

- 0056,

- 0113,

- 0140,

- 0143, and

- 0149) stated that if the hands

- on requirement is removed from the refresher training, the market will be dominated by a few large training providers

.

Commenter 0304

- 0046 claimed that most of the smaller trainers will lack the assets required to create and offer their online training. The commenter felt that the rule will open up the industry of wholesale online providers forcing these trainers to become re

- sellers of these watered down generic trainings , and that there would be a thinning of the herd where only the largest will survive. T he commenter stated that i f EPA allows these considerations to be promulgated, it would financially benefit from the switching away from live classes to an online platform.

According to c ommenter 0304

- 0143 , m any trainers are not currently set up with e

- learning capabilities

, and m uch more time, money, and equipment would be required to be able to effectively provide e

learning. The commenter stated that b ig national companies and schools will be at distinct advantage over the smaller training providers because adding another e

- learning class to an established set up will not be a problem. The commenter felt that s maller training providers will not be able to effectively compete in this marketplace , thus losing personal contact with the individuals who ar e out in the world doing the work.

Commente r #0304

- 0056 stated that i f the hands

- on portion of the RRP Refresher class is eliminated, it will hand this class over to the large national companies with their on

- line, impersonal, cheap trainings. The commenter claimed that this would effectively put small, loyal, mission driven providers such as itself out of business.

Commenter # 0304

- 0140 stated that there is a significant level of effort and expense required for developing online training, and very few existing trainers will have the know

- how and cash available to create online training. According to the commenter, the low price point creates a barrier to entry into this new online training market for any existing environmental training companie s. The market for online training will be dominated by 2

- 3 companies that already offer online training. The companies offering that training might not even be in the environmental training field at this time

– hence they will have no***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

30 subject matter knowle dge regarding construction and the issues renovators face. They will certainly not be able to answer any questions IF they give out their phone numbers to students.

Response: T he commenters have not provided evidence to support their assertion that a sin gle entity (or two or three large entities) will offer all of the online refresher training. Instead, there is evidence from the RRP program as well as other training programs that markets can support numerous online training providers, including small bus inesses

. The evidence from the current RRP program refutes the contention that training is likely to be offered by a single firm. Online training has always been allowed for the classroom portion of the RRP training curriculum. If the commenters’ content ions were correct then all

, or nearly all

, of the baseline RRP classroom training would be conducted online ; in

- person training would be limited to the hands

- on portion of the curriculum; and the online training would be offered by a single national firm that would drive small competitors out of business

. Instead, many renovators take the classroom portion of the training in person, instead of online. The classroom portion of the training is offered online by a dozen and a half training providers , compared to approximately four hundred training providers offering it in

person. And the nearly all of the training prov iders offering online classes appear to be small businesses. 7 Although the number of firms offering online training is expected to increase post

- rule, the types and sizes of firms may be similar to the current make

- up.

As another example of how online training is not limited to a single entity or a small number of entities

, computer

- based training may be used to meet some of the t raining require ments under OSHA’ s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) standard. Yet there are dozens of training providers that offer this online training, instead of a single entity offering all of the training. Similarly, some states allow onli ne training in order for individuals to receive a license, and there are multiple competing providers for such training, instead of a single provider. In Michigan, for example, individuals who are applying for a license as a residential builder or as a mai ntenance & alteration contractor must complete 60 hours of approved prelicensure education prior to taking an examination or submitting a license application (unless they are grandfathered in). All prelicensure education courses must be approved by the Dep artment of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs. The Department’s web site lists six approved providers of online courses, and five of them are located in Michigan. 8 Michigan also requires individuals to take 90 hours of approved prelicensure education prior t o submitting an application to become a real estate broker, and to take continuing education. There are 17 providers approved to offer online courses, and 11 of them are located in Michigan. Although this is far fewer than the number of RRP training provid ers, Michigan is a single state. If these numbers were to be extrapolated nationally, the result would be a similar order of magnitude as the number of RRP training providers.

7 Based on information in the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) database, there was a single firm offering online RRP training that clearly does not qualify as a small business under the Small Business Administration’s size standards. (That large business is a window and door manufacturer, and no evidence was found that it offers training services to the public. So it may be offering training solely to its own employees.) A number of providers offering online RRP training qualify as small business based on the D&B dat a. While there was insufficient information in the D&B database to determine the size status of some firms, many of them appear to be small businesses. The NAICS codes reported for most of these training providers have SBA size standards that are revenue based (generally with a threshold of $11 million or $15 million in revenue). D&B does not report revenue data for many of these firms, but it does have employment data for most of them. With one exception, these training providers had anywhere from 1 to 30 employees, with most of them at the low end of that range. So there is a good chance that many of them are small businesses.

8 https://www.lara.michigan.gov/colaCourses/***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

31 G iven that the initial training and alternating cycles of refresher training will continue to require a hands

on component, EPA expects that there will continue to be demand for numerous training providers, particularly if many renovators choose to take refresher training from the provider of their initial training. And as describe d elsewhere in this document, several commenters claimed that students prefer to take training in person. That is yet another reason that there will continue to be numerous training providers.

All classes, including online training, must be approved by EP A as part of the training provider accreditation process. Therefore, EPA will have determined that any online courses meet the needs of the
program. So EPA disagrees with the contention that training that is licensed from a third party will be “watered dow n” or otherwise inadequate.

EPA cannot guarantee that there will not be changes in the universe of training providers. But while EPA does not believe that the rule will cause the training provider infrastructure to collapse

, the purpose of the training re quirements is not to provide business or generate revenues for training providers. Instead, the purpose is to efficiently and effectively train renovators to comply with the requirements of the RRP
program. The amend ments to the training requirements furth er that goal.

Comment: Commenter 0304

- 0049 stated that an online Refresher Course, which could be provided by a single entity, would negate the investments in staff, facilities and materials that the certified trainers have made in support of the EPA RR P Program. Commenter 0304

- 0113 also stated that online training could in theory be provided nationally by one entity, and claimed that numerous training providers will lose substantial investments in the preparation and presentation of these classes, most likely in millions as well.

Response: The commenters have not provided any evidence of investments in staff, facilities and materials relating to the preparation and presentation of these classes. EPA has developed model training courses for both initial and refresher renovator training, for both the in

- person and online classes. The availability of these EPA model courses means that training providers do not need to incur substantial costs to develop courses and get accredited by EPA. The commenters have not shown that they invested millions of dollars in these classes in the first place, much less that they will lose millions of dollars in investments. Moreover, training providers can continue to use any investments they have made to teach the initial tr aining course to new entrants to the industry , renovators who are in the hands

- on training cycle, or those who choose to take all of their training in person.

Comment : Commenter #0304

- 0130 stated that she is a training provider that has taken over the management of an RRP Training Network that trained over 33,000 individuals from 2009

– 2015. According to the commenter, offering of e

- learning courses is extremely expensive and is cost prohibitive for many training providers. Not only does a training pro vider need to develop the course and pay for the EPA accreditation, they will also need to pay for a n LMS to host the e

- learning course. Selecting a LMS site to host the e

- learning course, which would be able to support even a small percentage of contracto rs needing renewal

, will cost on average $13,000 per year. With the limited advanced knowledge of this proposal, many training providers will not have the available capital to provide this training, thereby greatly effecting the yearly business plan of the training provider.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

32 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s contention that a training provider will necessarily need to develop an online course, pay for the EPA accreditation, and pay for an LMS 9 to host an e

- learning

course. A training provider ma y avoid these costs if it license s an existing online course from a third

- party vendor. If a training provider is using an already approved course and is not making any changes to the information that they submitted with their first refresher accreditation , they are eligible to use EPA’s expedited accreditation process. There i s no EPA accreditation fee for the expedited accreditation.

If a training provider licenses an existing course, then they would not incur costs to develop an online course, and they may not need to pay for an LMS either. EPA is aware of at least one third party offering an online RRP course that training providers can purchase for $49.95 per student and then market to their
own customers , avoiding the need for the training provider to pay for their own LMS. 10 O ther companies may begin offering similar services to training providers.

For those companies that choose to develop their own online course, EPA does not have independent information to verify the commenter’s estimate that the average cost of LMS services will be $13,000 per
year. But the commenter may be able to afford such a cost. EPA notes that t he commenter mentioned that it trained over 33,000 individuals from 2009

– 2015, which is an average of 5,500 individuals trained pe r year. If the $13,000 per year LMS cost was based on the commenter’s experience, then the ir LMS c ost would be $2.37 per student

. This is only 1.7% of the average refresher training tuition of $137.

EPA also notes that it calculated training provider cos ts based on an estimated loaded wage rate of $53.66 per hour for professional staff at training providers. At that wage rate, the $13,000 cost mentioned by the commenter is equivalent to 242 hours of staff time. Thus, if offering online training saved more than 242 hours of instructor time per year, these labor savings would pay for the LMS cost

. Based on EPA’s FLPP database, the average class size for an RRP class is 7 students. So 5,500 students is equivalent to 785 average sized classes. And at 4 hours p er refresher class, more than 3,140 hours of instructor time would be needed to teach 785 classes. 11 242 hours of staff time is a small fraction of 3,140 hours

. To look at it another way, at $53.66 per hour, the staff cost of 3,140 hours is $168,492 per year, which is significantly more than $13,000 per year. So the savings to training providers from offering online training may more than offset the costs they may incur in order to offer e

- learning courses.

In addition to saving staff time

, online traini ng can reduce costs for staff travel, facility rental, and supplies. Again, i t does not seem unreasonable that these costs alone could be more than $13,000 per
year

. So even if an LMS system would cost the commenter $13,000 per year, offering online traini ng could still be profitable for them.

EPA notes that it found that training providers offering both online and in

- person renovator training generally charge the same tuition for the classroom portion of both types of courses. This suggests that the addit ional costs of offering online training (such as an LMS site) are offset by reductions in other costs (such as travel, facilities, supplies, and instructor time), so that the total cost per student of offering online training is similar to the cost of in

- p erson training. This conclusion is reinforced by statement made by other commenters. For example, commenter 0304

- 0062 stated that the costs for trainers to access and provide an accredited online training program are unknown, but they anticipate that the c osts to supply, staff and manage an online program would be less than the costs for an in

- person training program. And

9 The commenter is referring to a learning management system (LMS), which is a softw are application for the administration, documentation, tracking, reporting and delivery of online training courses.

10 ProTech Training and Consulting, LLC: http://protechtrainingonline.com.

11 More than 3,140 hours of instruction time would be required b ecause the student

- teacher ratio for the hands

- on component must be 6

- to

- 1 or less. Since the average class size is 7 students, some of the classes involve more than one instructor.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

33 commenter 0304

- 0094 stated that if the need for an instructor is eliminated altogether, this estimate could change and lessen or remove t he additional cost burden of offering online training.

Comment: Commenter #0304

- 0126 claimed that o n

- line courses typically take longer than face to face instruction, and most employers will only pay for the first 4 hours. According to the commenter, t his will not encourage employees to take the extra time to fully understand the subject matter.

Response: EPA has designed the model online refresher course so that it can be completed in 4 hours. The commenter does not provide any evidence to support its claims that online courses take longer to comple te than those offered in

- person

. EPA is not aware of evidence that the online versions of the initial renovator training take more than 8 hours to complete. Nor has the commenter provided evidence that
most employers will only pay for the first 4 hours of training

. Commenter #0304

- 0136 claimed that employers pay their employees for the full day they are at training, even if the training only takes 4 hours. Moreover, m any renovators are self

- employed, in which case there is not an issue of what their employer will pay for. In any event, taking the training online avoids the time spent traveling to and from a training facility , and it allows students to take the class at their convenience , and can provide an opp ortunity to take the training at their own pace, or to watch a segment more than once (which would increase the time spent on an online class)

. In the survey responses provided by commenter #0304

- 0013, 55% of respondents said they need to see something 2 o r more times in order to feel comfortable performing a particular task. EPA does not see it as a downside that online training can allow them to do this.

Comment: Commenter #0304

- 0126 claimed that e

- learning actually increases administrative costs, as there is more data to track.

Response: The commenter has no t explained why it believes there is more data to track for an e

- learning

course. In any event, an e

- learning course offers the opportunity to reduce costs for instructor time, instructor travel, supplies for the hands

- on portion, etc. Furthermore, the available data indicated that the cost of initial training is generally the same regardless of whether the classroom component is provided in

- person or online , a nd the one training provider that char ged different tuition charged less for the online training than the in

- person course. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the overall cost to training providers of offering refresher training online is higher than the cost of offering it in person.

Com ment: Commenter #0304

- 0126 stated that the lack of an implementation period between the passing of any changes and the date they take effect is a concern

. According to the commenter, t his make for a very uneven playing field for the numerous persons that h ave made the effort and taken the time to become accredited Lead RRP instructors. Large firms and corporations can afford to have an e

- class in the can before the amendments are finalized. Small business and single person entities cannot.

Response: While the commenter believes that small business and single person entities will be at a disadvantage, it is not clear that that this commenter can speak from experience about what small businesses are capable of. According to the commenter’s web site, it has 40 ,000 employees and operates in over 50 countries.

T raining providers that are concerned about the time and effort n eeded to accredit a course have alternatives open to them. EPA has developed model courses for online versions of the refresher***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

34 renovator course

. Using the model course reduces the time and cost for training providers to develop a

course and get it approved by EPA. Alternatively, training providers can license an existing online course that EPA has already reviewed and approved

. Training pro viders that are using an approved online curriculum, and that are not making any changes to the information they submitted with their first refresher accreditation, are eligible for EPA’s expedited accreditation process.

Comment : One training provider (Commenter #0304

- 0056) states that it is a non

- profit housing rehabilitation organization, and that removing the hands

- on portion of the refresher class will put it out of the training business because large national companies that offer cheap training wil l take over the training business. According to the commenter, it just had 500 Refresher books printer ( sic ) for the anticipated classes at a cost of $2,000. The commenter notes that this may seem like a small amount of money, but it is enough for them to build a ramp for a wheelchair user.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter providing this information. Under the final rule, refresher training without a hands

- on component is only valid for 3 years, and hands

- on refresher training is required every seco nd time that a renovator is trained. Therefore, EPA believes that there will still be an opportunity for training providers such as the commenter to offer in

- person refresher training and to use the books it had printed

.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113 ) stated EPA’s 9 million dollars in

‐ accurately calculated savings to the regulated entities clearly does not reflect the loss in tax revenues and employment that will result.

Response: The commenter appears to be referring to estimates in a study ( Childho od Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control ) included with its
comments. That study estimated the loss in government tax revenues due to the loss in lifetime earnings due to IQ point loss resulting from lead exposure. But n either this nor any other commenter has provided evidence to demonstrate that blood

- lead levels will increase as a result of this rule. Renovators are still required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands

- on compo nent; they still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training has to include a hands

- on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands

- on component is only valid for three years; and renovators still have to com ply with the work practice requirements in the regulation. Therefore, EPA does not believe that it should assume that the rule will result in increases in lead poisoning, or losses in tax revenue and employment.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) opposed to allowing online training suggested that EPA review what it termed “articles on web based training fraud” and provided two URLs. 12

Response : EPA has reviewed the information at the links referenced by the commenter. They are not studies of fr aud in web based training. The first link that the commenter provided was to a chapter in

“ Informati on Security Management Handbook” ( Sixth Edition ) b y Harold F. Tipton and Micki Krause

. Specifically, the link was to Chapter 42 in the book, entitled “ Tra ining Your Employees to Identify

12 These URL links were:

• https://books.google.com/books?id=B0Lwc6ZEQhcC&p g=PA517&lpg=PA517&dq=web+based+training+stud ent+fraud&source=bl&ots=_lHIvJjtp&sig=cc8P9YeCLvvDPwBSQKDmsXoQL8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O962VJf HDYyUNqWrhNgD&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=web%20based%20training%20student%20fraud& f=false

• http://findit.ed.gov/search?utf8=%E 2%9C%93&affiliate=ed.gov&query=web+based+training+student+fraud***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

35 Potential Fraud and How to Encourage Them to Come Forward ” by Rebecca Herold. The discussion in the chapter is not about individuals fraudulently claiming to have completed mandatory online training, as the commenter seems to believe. Instead, it deals with training employees to prevent theft and fraud. For instance, the suggestions include the following:

Train appropriate personnel with related job responsibilities in how to select, test, operate, and maintain security, fraud prevention, and fraud detection devices. Such devices may include the following:

• Mechanisms to protect cash and other liquid assets, such as a vault, safe, or other secure
spaces

• A lighting system for illuminating the area around the vault, if the vault is visible from outside the facilities

• Tamper

- resistant locks on publicly accessible doors and windows

• Alarm systems or devices to immediately notify the nearest law enforcement officers of an attempted or perpetrated robbery or burglary...

The chapte r does indicate that online training can be useful in training employees to prevent fraud, stating

“ Consider time constraints. If the audience is large and geographically dispersed, a technology

- based solution, such as Web

- based, CD, or satellite learning, may work best”, and “ Some topics are better suited for instructor

- led, video, Web

- based, or CBT 13 delivery. There are many opinions abo ut what type of method is best.”

The chapter goes on to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of different training m ethods. It lists the following disadvantages of instructor

- led classroom training:

• May be costly with regard to time and resources necessary.

• Can train only a relatively small number of participants at a time.

• Often requires a large time investment for p articipants.

• Takes participants away from their work area.

The chapter also discusses the following benefits of online training methods:

• Computer

- Based Training or CD

- ROM Training This type of training is recommended for general audiences and training remote participants.

o Allows participants to remain in their work areas.

o Costs less overall than most other methods.

o Can be taken in modules.

o Allows participants to be widely dispersed geographically.

o Allows a large number of participants to undergo trainin g in a short amount of time.

• Web

- Based Live Training ("Webinars," Net Meetings)

o Can reach a large number of participants in a short amount of time.

o Accommodates participants in many different locations.

o Can be recorded and subsequently viewed anywhere, an ytime, anyplace.

o Offers the option of on

- line support.

o Is cost effective.

• Videos

13 Computer

- based training.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

36 o Can be shown anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

o Typically does not require any instructor

- student interaction.

o Can be viewed by a large number of participants in a short period of time.

• Satellite Presentations

o Allows for live interactions.

o Is more timely and up

- to

- date than videos and computer

- based training.

o Is interactive.

o Reaches a large number of participants.

The chapter states that “The students (employees and other applicable personnel) all have their own unique learning styles, and what works well for one person will not necessarily be effective for others.”

EPA has considered the benefits and disadvantages of different training methods (including those discussed i n this reference). As described in the preamble, EPA has concluded that the final rule appropriately balances the various considerations.

The second link that the commenter provided was to the search results from an online query of a Department of Educ ation web site, generated by searching on the phrase “web based train”. The results include a case study on “Discovering the Meaning of Community In An Online Master’s Degree Program”, a description of the application process for fiscal year 2013 grants u nder the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and a discussion of t he Magnet Schools Assistance program grants

. EPA does not find this material to be relevant to online renovator refresher training under the RRP program, especially in the a bsence of any specification or elaboration in the comment.

In conclusion, the information in the links provided by the commenter does not indicate that online training is impractical for RRP refresher training.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) su ggested that EPA should review EPA FAQ

– 23002

‐ 14757 & 23002

‐ 18088

. Response: EPA is well aware of the FAQs that the Agency developed and posted to its web site. The FAQs referenced by the commenter describe the existing training requirements prior to this rulemaking. These FAQs do not limit or constrain EPA’s abilities to modif y the training requirements as it is doing with these rule amendments.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) provided data that it claims documents greater than 30% of RRP regulated activities, the same students who already once did cleaning verification h ands

‐ on, are leaving lead

‐ dust hazards behind. According to the commenter, this rule amendment will further reduce the regulated entities skills and accountability is going to decrease reliability, effectiveness AND safety!

Response: It is not possible to determine from the information that the commenter submitted whether any of these jobs left behind lead

- dust hazards as a result of RRP regulated activities, much less that exceedances of the hazard standard occur in 30% of RRP activities.

According t o the clearance procedures described in the commenter’s documentation, a fter conducting renovation or lead hazard reduction activities with containment between treated and untreated areas, two dust samples were to be taken from each of no less than four ro oms, hallways or stairwells within the containment area. One dust sample was to be taken from one interior window sill and window trough***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

37 (alternating between rooms) and one dust sample was to be taken from the floors of each room, hallway or stairwell sele cted. In addition, one dust sample was to be taken from the floor outside the containment area. If there were less than four rooms, hallways or stairwells within the containment area, then all rooms, hallways or stairwells were to be sampled.

This means that some of the dust samples could have been taken from outside the work area, in which case the lead levels detected in the wipe sampling could have been due to pre

- existing conditions instead of the renovation activities. Under the RRP program, renovat ors are required to clean objects and surfaces in the work area and within 2 feet of the work area, and to perform cleaning verification in the work area. While the information submitted by the commenter indicates where the wipe samples were taken (bedroo m, kitchen, porch, etc.) and the results of the lab testing of the wipe samples, there is no indication of where the renovation work was performed. (For example, whether the renovation was performed in the bedroom, the bathroom, or the living room.) Ther efore, based on the information submitted by the commenter, it is impossible to know whether the dust lead levels above the hazard standard were due to the RRP work, or whether they came from pre

- existing conditions in spaces outside the work area.

Since the commenter provides no indication of how many renovations were tested for lead dust, it is not possible to verify the commenter’s claim that lead hazards remain after 30% of RRP regulated activities. The commenter provided data indicating that 4 jobs t hat occurred between 2012 and 2014 had one or more wipe samples that exceeded the applicable hazard standard. For the 30% figure to be valid, the

comm enter would have had to collect sampling data for no more than 13 RRP jobs during this time period. But if, for example, the commenter took samples from 100 RRP jobs during this time period, then the 4 jobs that had lead levels exceeding a hazard standard would represent 4% of RRP activities not 30%. Since the commen ter is silent about the total number of j obs tested, it is not possible to determine the percentage of RRP jobs where lead levels exceeded the hazard standard.

Even if the 30% figure claimed by the commenter were accurate for the current regulation, that does not mean that this rule will reduce renovators’ skills and accountability , or decrease reliab ility, effectiveness or safety. These amendments do not change the work practice requirements under the RRP program , and the hands

- on component is still required for initial re novator training and every other time a renovator takes refresher training. EPA believes that allowing online training will lead to more renovators taking the refresher training and becoming recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training will lead to a higher number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead

- safe manner.

Comment : One commenter (0304

- 0113) suggested that EPA should review a commentary from a training provider on why online RRP training is a bad idea 14 , and what the commenter terms an “ Article on Web Based Learning concerns and support of not practical for this application .”

Response: The commenter did not enclose any article on Web

- based learning concerns, or provide a citation, so it is not clear what the commenter was referring to. But since the commenter referenced the online commentary by Zach Rose opposing the proposed rule, the commenter may have meant a study mentioned in the Rose commentary. That study was p ublished in 2013 in The Journal of Public Affairs

14 “Why Online RRP Training Is a Bad Idea; Commentary: You need in

- person classes to deliver vital information about lead paint” by Zachary Rose, Remodeling , June 23 , 2014. http://www.remodeling.hw.net/business/regulations/why

- online

- rrp

- training

- is

- a

- bad

- idea_o***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

38 Education (JPAE). 15 According to the commentary by Zachary Rose, the 2013 JPAE study “ suggested that certain types of courses are better taught in person rather than online .” However, the details of the 20 13 JPAE study do not indicate that RRP refresher training would necessarily be better taught in person rather than online.

The JPAE study compared student performance measures and assessments of learning experience from both online and traditional section s of a required graduate public administration research methods course taught by the same instructor as part of a master’s program in public administration (MPA) at the California State University

– San Bernardino. The paper provides evidence that studen t performance as measured by grade is independent of the mode of instruction. Furthermore, the study author noted that participation may be less intimidating in online classes, and the quality and quantity of interaction may be increased.

The JPAE study did find that a higher percentage of students failed the online course than the classroom version, but stated that students who failed the class were often those who discontinued their study, and noted that this result is in agreement with findings from pr evious research results that the online classroom experiences a higher dropout rate as compared to face

- to

- face classroom. The study notes that this result can be attributed to demographics (since that distance education students are frequently older and have more life obligations), and to the mode of instruction itself (because online classes are often viewed as easier to drift away from or sever ties with).

Since refresher training is mandatory for renovators that disturb lead

- based paint, EPA does no t believe that demographic factors are an issue for the RRP program. Furthermore, since refresher training is one 4

- hour class rather than a set of classes over a semester, EPA does not expect RRP students to drift away or sever ties during the course of the training.

The JPAE study also noted that difference in failure rates for online students in the research methods course was not seen in all the other MPA core courses (including Public Administration Theory and Practice, Public Financial Management, Public Management Information Systems, Human Resource Management, Public Budgeting and Finance, Management of Public Organizations, Administrative Regulation, and Public Policy Analysis). The author stated that “It seems that students are more likely to fail in online research methods classes.”

The commenter did not indicate why it thinks RRP refresher training is more like the research methods class than it is like all the other public administration core courses, or why the experience with any of these MPA courses is relevant to RRP training. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the information in the JPAE study indicates that online training is impractical for RRP refresher training.

In response to the general conclusion of the Rose commentary that renovators can only truly grasp all of the concepts present in the RRP rule through live in

- person training, one online comment on the web site where the Rose commentary was posted ( www.remodeling.hw.net ) stated that

I agree that the initial class shoul d be done in person. This is due to the fact that there are certain "hands on" activities that need to be done as far as setting up site containment etc. As far as the recertification I see no reason why that can't be done on line.

Another commenter on th at web site responded to the Rose commentary as follows:

15 Anna Ya Ni, “Comparing the Effectiveness of Classroom and Online Learning: Teaching Research Methods”, The Journal of Public Affairs Education , 2013, 19(2) , 199

- 215.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

39 I think allowing both types (in classroom and online) is the best option. As stated there are many different learning styles for each individual so pick the method that will be most informative to that person.

I for one have a much higher comprehension rate by reading, watching online, etc than I do when I have to sit in a classroom for 8 hours. There are others who's learning style is better suited to being in the classroom. So have both and let each person decide which is the best fit for the.

I will agree that maybe there are. certain aspects of the training, at least for the first time through, that may be better served by being in a classroom setting. As an example, how to properly prep the area, or tricks of the trade to make the prep area even better, etc

In conclusion, I would like the option to be trained the way I want to learn. Remember if I do not learn it correctly it can be very, very costly.

EPA agrees that the training should include a hands

- on component the first time through, so that continues to be required for initial renovator training. And the requirement to take the hands

- on component every other time a renovator takes refresher training will continue to reinforce the h ands

- on skills. This way, renovators who may learn more through hands

- on training will not be able to take the online course perpetually without ever having classroom refresher training, while renovators who prefer to take online training will be able to do so periodically.***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

40 Comment: Commenter #0304

- 0046 is a training provider that opposes the proposed rule but stated they would financially benefit from the switching away from live classes to an online platform. The commenter indicated that

, a t the moment

, they have chosen to offer RRP r efresher training only in live classes due to the importance of the subject matter. According to the commenter, they only offer less intense subject matter such as office skills, business management and career skills online

. Response : This commenter indicated that it offer s online courses in business skills and in career training. However, the commenter fails to mention that in addition to office skills, business management and career skills, it also offer s dozens of online courses in Environmental Health and Safety topics

. According to this commenter’s web site

, it offers the following courses online:

SAFETY BASICS

• Accidents

- I t Can't Happen to Me

• Basic Safety Orientation

• General Safe Work Practices

• Lifting Safely in Construction

• Basic Electrical Safety in the Workplace

• Bloodborne Pathogens Construction

• Slips and Falls in Construction

• Supervisor Safety Responsibilities

• Safety is Your Responsibility

• Preventing Injury Incidents

• Safe Operations of Motor Vehicles

• First Responder Awareness Level 1

HEALTH HAZARDS

• Health Hazards in Construction

• Hazardous Materials (C)

• Hazardous Communications Your Right to Know

• Globally Harmonized System (GHS) FAQ

• GHS Hazardous Communication Training

• Identifying Your Hazardous Wastes

• Hazardous Material Spill

- Clean Up

• Health Effects of Asbestos

• Lead Safety in the Workplace (C)

• Personal Protective & Lifesaving Equipment (C)

• Personal Protective Equipme nt

• Respirators and How to Use Them C005P

• Testing and Monitoring for Hazardous Gases

• Hearing Conservation

• Health and Safety Factors in Welding Operations

• Heat Stress Awareness and Prevention

CONSTRUCTION

• Confined Space Entry Training

• Confined Space Entr y

• Confined Space Entry Training 8

- Hour

• Concrete and Masonry Construction (C)

• Cranes and Rigging (C)

• Vehicle Mounted Aerial Lift

• Pedestal Mounted Crane

• Overhead Crane

• Utility Truck Crane

• Telescopic Handler

• Stand Up Forklift • Sit Down Forklift

• Materials Handling (C)

• Materials Handling and Storage for Construction

• Excavation Safety (C)

• Flagger Safety

• Trenching

- Shoring

• Backhoe

- Loader Operations

• Dump Truck Safety New Update

• Fall Protection for Construction

• Employee Fall Protection

• Stairway and Ladder Safety (C)

• Ladder Safety

• Scaffolding Safety (C)

• Scaffolding Safety for Employees

• Articulated Boom Truck

• Aerial Lift/Scissor Lift

• Rough Terrain Crane

• Boom Truck

• Electrical Safety

• Electrical Safety (C)

• Hand and Power Tools (C)

• Hand and Power Tools

• Hand and Power Tool Safety

• Material Handling and Storage

• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

• Fire Safety (C)

• Fire Extinguisher

• Use of Explosives in the Workplace(C)

• Welding and Cutting (C)

• Portable Grinders and Abrasive Wheels

OSHA

• Introduction to OSHA and the OSH Act

• R ecordkeeping & Reporting (C)

• Struck By and Caught Between

• Struck

- By and Caught In Between Hazards (C)

• FOCUS FOUR: Electrical Safety

HAZWO PER

• OSHA

- HAZWOPER: Basic

• 24 HR HAZWOPER

• HAZWOPER 40 HR

• HAZWOPER 8 hr Annual Refresher***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

41 The commenter’s statements to this rulemaking docket do not provide a sufficient basis to indicate why it believes all of these other Environmental Health and Safety courses can be successfully taught online but the RRP refresher course cannot be. Moreover, the commenter’s web site goes on to provide the following justifications for offering courses online 16 :

WHO SAYS YOU CAN'T TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS?? THE 5 C'S: WHY ONLINE TRAINING MIGHT BE FOR YOU... From An Old Dog

I’m the old dog, the one who never thou ght he’d be offering online classes and even argued against them. I still believe our live classes taught by experienced contractors who have been in the field are the most effective. But after seeing so many crews out there in need of training, I’m changi ng my ways. My goal is to educate as many workers as possible so they will be safe on their jobs, and go home to their families each night. I recognize that one training session may not impact dangerous worker habits that were years in the making, and I se e smaller companies who may not be able to afford a private training or the lost production time. I’ve also met a new generation of workers who want to train digitally, as they were raised.

So, here I am offering a few good reasons why online classes mig ht be a great addition to your training strategy:

• COSTS

– far less expensive than private training

• CONVENIENT

– train without losing PRODUCTION TIME

• CONCENTRATED

– you decide who needs which topic and when

• CONTINUAL

– ongoing training and not a "once a y ear" event

- something OSHA encourages

• COMPREHENSIVE

– can complete a n individuals’ training when combined with live trainings

THE MORE WE SEE HOW TO BE, THE MORE WE LEARN TO BE

Take a look at the course offerings as we teamed up with a leading online training provider to give YOU another tool to use in keeping your crew sharp and safe.

EPA believes that this commenter’s web site offers compelling rationales for offe ring training online that also applies to allowing RRP refresher training to be taken o nline every other training cycle

.

Miscellaneous Comments

Comment : One commenter stated that, in order to comply with Executive Order 13045, EPA must evaluate the effects of this rule on children and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives.

Response: As stat ed in the preamble to the final rule, the action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it would not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. Furthermore, the requirements in the lead program will continue to protect children, since renovators will still be required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands

- on component; they will still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training will have to include a hands

- on component ev ery other training cycle; refresher training without a hands

- on component will only be valid for three years; and renovators will still have to comply with the work practice requirements for renovation, repair or painting activities that disturb lead

- based paint.

Comment : One commenter disagrees with EPA’s assertion that renovation work is not technical. The commenter states that skills required by a renovator are technical to the common contractor.

16 http://www.leadsmarttraining.com/online

- safety

- training

- online

- osha

- training

- osha

- training

- safety

- training***Internal

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

42 Response: In a discussion about removing the hands

- on requirement, EPA referred to renovation work as “less technical” compared to abatement work. The Agency did not say that renovation work is not technical but merely that it is less technical than work done during an abatement. The purpose of the discussio n was to point out that hands

- on learning should take place more often in the abatement trainings.

Comment : One commenter stated that states authorized to implement the RRP program may turn the program back over to EPA rather than comply with EPA’s propo sed changes to the hands

- on requirement. Another commenter asked if state programs will have to eliminate their hands

- on training requirements.

Response: The Agency disagrees with the first commenter. Authorized states are not required to make conforming changes to the hands

- on requirement because of this rulemaking.