***Internal– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***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***Internal– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***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 every 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 hands-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 it 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 is 

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 number 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 would 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 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 incentive to take the refresher 

with hands-on which leads to a longer, five-year certification. Thus, training providers that do not 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 training 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 for 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 course 

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 trainer 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 

course.

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 of 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 would 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 refresher 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. The 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-on 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 

although 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 requirement 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 requirements 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 Comments 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 suggested 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 student 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 trainings 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 hands-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 in 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 renovators 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 that 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 certificate 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 certificate to the training provider.

Comment: One commenter contends that training providers could have a difficult time obtaining student 

information such as pictures and proof of initial certification. The commenter claims that contractors are 

extremely busy and they do not look at sending this information as a priority. When students do not 

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 that students who take the course that do not 

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 

sense 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 all 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 model 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 visit 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 present 

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 online 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 still 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 course 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 almost 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 interim 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 covered by HUD’s 

Lead Safe Housing Rule, EPA’s Lead-based Paint Activities Regulations, or State or local regulations. 

The requirements regarding interim controls are appropriately covered in EPA’s Lead-based Paint 

Activities courses instead of the renovator courses. 

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 of 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 the refresher training. The commenter believes that 

renovators do not live in locations so remote that they cannot take a classroom training. The commenter 

points out that renovators in remote locations must travel to buy supplies and can take a training when 

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 travel 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 that renovators can simply take 

their training in the same area where they buy supplies because 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 speak 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 speaking 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 commented that if EPA removes the hands-on requirement in the 

refresher course, fees collected by the state would be reduced. The state collects fees from stateaccredited 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 incentive to take the refresher 

with hands-on which leads to a longer, five-year certification. Thus, training providers that do not teach 

the online refresher course will still see a significant number of students who will take a classroom 

training. 

Comment: 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 also 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 does 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 

will 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 commenter 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 which 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 poses 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: One 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 modifying 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 13045. According to the 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 Executive 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 applying 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, because 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 will 

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 in 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 them 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 notification, 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 compliance. 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 assumes 

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 experienced 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.

Only 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). The 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 question is which firms are subject to the requirements of a proposed or final 

rulemaking. 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 of these requirements on such 

entities would be included in a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis. If a small entity does not have 

a compliance obligation imposed on it directly by the rule, it would 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. Training 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, an 

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 onlineonly training are by definition indirect. The commenter appears to believe it will incur indirect negative 

impacts as a result of this action because some of its potential customers may choose to receive refresher 

training from other competing training providers.

While the 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 share 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.

Under the final rule, renovators will have to take refresher training with a hands-on component at least 

every other training cycle. Based 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-person refresher training. Furthermore, EPA 

estimates that 30,000 new renovators entering 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 

training 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 training providers have the 

option of becoming accredited for an online refresher training course if they wish to compete for part of 

this market.

Training providers such as the 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 providers 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 entities, 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 an 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 not result in net economic losses from 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 along 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 component. 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 certifying 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 providing 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 the 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. The 

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 is $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 ADHD or any 

health effects because EPA disagrees that the rule 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 solely to its own employees.
***Internal– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

13

will increase as a result of this rule. EPA does not believe that the amendments will result in a poorlytrained 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 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 the regulation.

Finally, the Pelham, Foster, and Robb study cited by the commenter does not estimate a lifetime cost of 

$1 million per child. While the Pelham, Foster, and Robb study estimated 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 

stated 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 treatment, 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 14- 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 commenters 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 

the 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 they 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 another 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 will opt for the online training. Yet another 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 the 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 classes 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, renovators could avoid these travel costs as a result of the changes to the refresher training 

requirements. The savings in travel costs average $144 per student. Because renovators do not accrue 

these travel cost savings if they take an e-learning version of the initial training, there is little financial 

incentive for them to take that training online. EPA’s rule allows renovators 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 

assuming 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 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 student manual, and other

supplies, costing approximately $15-$20 per student; the costs would be saved by the training provider 

and could lower student tuition. This commenter also noted that online trainers would save by eliminating 

costs of physical facilities (rent, lease, own) necessary to provide in-person training. This commenter 

stated that the costs for trainers to access and provide an accredited online training program are unknown, 

but they anticipate that the costs to supply, staff and manage an online program would be less than the 

costs for an in-person training program. This commenter also noted that 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 costs and lodging.

Yet another training provider (0304-0094) stated that training providers would incur an additional cost to 

create and/or outsource an infrastructure to provide online training, and that the additional cost would 

more than likely be passed on to the renovator. The commenter anticipates this additional cost to be 

approximately 20-30% in addition to the current cost of the course which ranges from $100-$175. This 

estimate assumes that an instructor would still be required to be a part of the training 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 

training, and estimated that the price will drop to the $30 - $40 range. According to the commenter, 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, 
***Internal– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

15

the low price point creates a barrier to entry into this new online training market for any existing 

environmental training companies.

A commenter representing renovators (0304-0136) claimed that 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. Most 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 disagrees with others.

The training cost estimates provided by commenter 0304-0113 equate to a cost savings of $40 from 

allowing online courses ($120 - $80 = $40). EPA agrees that the cost savings per individual may be 

roughly of this magnitude. Based on an initial 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 commenter’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 student 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 this commenter also noted, online trainers would save money by 

eliminating costs of physical facilities (rent, lease, own) necessary to provide in-person training. That is 

why this commenter anticipated that the costs to supply, staff and manage an online program would be 

less than the costs for an in-person training program. EPA believes that 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 webinar 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 that 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 classes. 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 not 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 classroom 

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 slightly 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.

This 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 online 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 aware 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 environmental training companies from 

offering online training.

For some students (located relatively close to a training site), the direct cost incurred to travel to an inperson training can be on the order of $10 for gas, tolls, and parking claimed by commenter 0304-0113, 

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

But for some students in remote rural areas that travel long distances to training, the estimate of $760 in 

travel costs made by commenter 0304-0062 may be valid. However, EPA believes that neither of these 

estimates represents a typical cost of travel. The estimate by commenter 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.)

Some of the cost estimates made by commenter 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. That 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 or $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 the 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 initial 

courses where the tuition data was available online, and found that tuition averaged $217. (Tuition for a 

sample of 97 refresher 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) online 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 offering both in-person and online classroom courses for renovator 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 statements by commenter #0304-

0062 (that removing the hands-on training 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 extra 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, there may be less 

incentive for training providers to offer an online option – or for renovators to take advantage of it – if 

hands-on training is always required. 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 offer 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 the 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 of the training 

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 2015-2016. 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 training 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 rule would be $35 million.

The commenter claimed 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 that 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 is $500,000. Thus the commenter claims that the rule will potentially cost taxpayers $50 billion.

Response: EPA disagrees with the estimates that the commenter made, which the commenter itself 

characterized as very amateurish. A few of the flaws in the commenter’s analysis are discussed below. 

The commenter’s cost savings estimate is incomplete since it only accounts 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 contrast, 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 with 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; the 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 the 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 the commenter cites for the benefits of lead control was published in 2009, prior to April 2010 

date when the RRP rule required renovators 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 protection 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 Optout 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% discount 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. EPA 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 increased litigation, costs for Department of health (sic) programs addressing children with blood 

lead 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 construction 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

litigation 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, claims 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 not 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 benefitcost 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.

Furthermore, renovators 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. And training providers (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 training on 

litigation risk. If the commenter were correct, it would be in renovators’ self-interest to always take a 

course with hands-on training, and 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, the commenter has not provided any evidence to support the assertion that there will be 

increased insurance costs. Given that the commenter has not demonstrated that litigation 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 even if the commenter had demonstrated that the rule would affect 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 that 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 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 

has not demonstrated that the rule will negatively affect children or increase the number of children with 

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 include 

costs for Department of Health 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 blood 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 training 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 accreditation, and paying additional web hosting fees.) However, they will also 

incur savings due to decreases in costs 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 believe 

that their savings outweigh their 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 some 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 sees no savings due to eliminating the hands-on

requirement. The commenter stated that it is highly confident that the regulated entities as a whole will 

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 substantial cost to society.

The commenter also claims that litigation is on the rise. According to the commenter, lawyers say that 

homeowners are not suing shoddy contractors who leave lead dust hazards behind because they cannot 

get a substantial amount of money from contractors for leaving lead dust hazards behind. However, now 

that the CDC has revised its reference value, the commenter assumes 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 claim that has the potential for “significant litigation” against the contractor who 

performed the work. If the contractor is not 100% compliant (and few are in the commenter’s experience), 

they will be found guilty in most cases and have to pay substantial settlements or awards. The commenter 

asks whether any of this litigation cost, insurance cost, time cost, travel cost, aggravation cost, etc. was 

considered 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 its own statement that lawyers say that homeowners do not sue contractors for leaving 

behind dust hazards.

EPA’s analysis already includes changes in time cost and travel cost, which result in much of the 

estimated savings generated by the rule. The commenter 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 practice 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 

children 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. Previously, children were identified as having a blood 
***Internal– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release***

21

lead “level of concern” if the test result was 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 have been decreasing over time. For example, according 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 95th 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 95th 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 real 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 

benefit 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, this document and others continue with the cost 

of a child with an EBL over a lifetime which can be 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 mandate 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 approximately 

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 

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 

practice requirements in the regulation. The commenter has 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 the 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 estimated that the benefits of lead control range from 

$192.38 billion 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 billion 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 $392,000 to 

$551,000 per child. But the article acknowledged that lead-based paint is not the only source of lead 

exposure among children, and reduced 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, not 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 painted 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 agrees that there are positive net benefits to lead hazard control, and that the RRP program generates 

positive net benefits. Based 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 commenter (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 considered “Significant” by EPA. The 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. According to the commenter, another way to determine the significance 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 rule.

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 not 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 natural 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 tuition 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. Furthermore, 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 as 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 estimating 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? Does 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 accurate 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-training notifications submitted by training providers. Thus, the 2014 tabulation is more accurate 

than the 2011 estimate.

There are two reasons for the 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 that 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 were 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 relevant. 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 unnecessarily, 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 approved courses 

in this 5-year renovator renewal cycle.

Response: While some training providers 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 in 

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.) The 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 Analysis 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 training 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, 

trainers 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 will be disrupted as many move to online. 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 would 

lose the RRP support infrastructure, because trainers will not 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 milk 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 renewed 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, even the IRS would call this a hobby and not a profession. 

The commenter asked how few online 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 license a third-party online course, and thus existing training providers 

will also be able to participate in the online training market. So EPA expects there to be a sufficient 

number of training providers for the RRP program.

While 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 occur 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.

Some 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 faceto-face interaction with their peers and instructors 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 factors.

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.

Under the minor amendments final rule, refresher training without a hands-on component is only valid for 

three years, and training 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 providers 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 sufficient 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 various 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 according 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 

differently 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 are 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 on 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 providers, 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 

negatively 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 (OHA) 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 

Rules5 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 offered, 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 training providers (including the five training providers located outside of Oregon 

among the 14 training providers authorized to offer RRP training in Oregon6

) 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 lead-based paint program through fees collected from Oregon accredited training 

providers for each student that completes the course and earns certification in the RRP discipline.

Comment: One commenter 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 secretary will take.”

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for submitting 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 typingor potentially

video stream: 6 (11%)

• 100% computer based curriculum slides, mandated course, time to complete, and on-line

testing with NO live interaction or communication: 13 (24%)

• Other: 4 (7%) – “Any way is good”; “All of the above”; “Computer based with some video 

(interactive not necessary)”; “Webinar based training where you can interact thru a computer via 

 5 Oregon Administrative Rules, Department Of Human Services, Public 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 Accredited 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-line course was mandated by state law who would

be the most likely person inyour 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 important?

• Yes: 53 (98%)

• No: 1 (2%)

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

• Cost: 16 (30%)

• Location: 20 (37%)

• Expertise of Trainer: 7 (13%)

• Other: 11 (20%) – “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”

The 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. Online 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 students free 24/7 consulting about RRP issues.

The responses to the other questions in the survey disprove this commenter’s claim that 98% of 

renovators do not want computer based classes. In Question #1, 43% of the students responded that they 

learn the most 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 instructional 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 courses 

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. For 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 themselves or 

their relevant staff. While 3 respondents indicated that their wives 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 survey 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. The commenter stated that if 

EPA allows these considerations to be promulgated, it would financially benefit from the switching away 

from live classes to an online platform.

According to commenter 0304-0143, many trainers are not currently set up with e-learning capabilities, 

and much more time, money, and equipment would be required to be able to effectively provide elearning. The commenter stated that big 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 smaller training providers will not be able to effectively compete in 

this marketplace, thus losing personal contact with the individuals who are out in the world doing the 

work.

Commenter #0304-0056 stated that if 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 companies. 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 knowledge 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: The commenters have not provided evidence to support their assertion that a single 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 businesses.

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’ contentions 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 inperson. And the nearly all of the training providers 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 training requirements 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 online 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 maintenance & 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 Department 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 to 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 providers, 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 data. 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

Given that the initial training and alternating cycles of refresher training will continue to require a handson 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 described 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 EPA 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 down” 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 requirements 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 amendments to the training requirements further 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 RRP 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 training 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 provider need to develop the course and pay for the 

EPA accreditation, they will also need to pay for an 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 contractors 

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 LMS9 to host an e-learning 

course. A training provider may avoid these costs if it licenses 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 is 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 Other 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 the commenter mentioned that 

it trained over 33,000 individuals from 2009 – 2015, which is an average of 5,500 individuals trained per 

year. If the $13,000 per year LMS cost was based on the commenter’s experience, then their LMS cost 

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 costs 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 per 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 training can reduce costs for staff travel, facility rental, and 

supplies. Again, it 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 training 

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 

additional 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-person 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 costs 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 software 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 because 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 the additional cost burden of offering online training.

Comment: Commenter #0304-0126 claimed that on-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, this 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 

complete 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, many 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 opportunity 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 or 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 not 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, and the one training provider that charged 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.

Comment: 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, this make for a 

very uneven playing field for the numerous persons that have 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.

Training providers that are concerned about the time and effort needed 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 providers 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 will 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 second 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 (Childhood 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 neither 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 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 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 fraud in web based training. The first link that the commenter provided was to a chapter in 

“Information Security Management Handbook” (Sixth Edition) by Harold F. Tipton and Micki Krause. 

Specifically, the link was to Chapter 42 in the book, entitled “Training Your Employees to Identify

 12 These URL links were: 

• https://books.google.com/books?id=B0Lwc6ZEQhcC&pg=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=%E2%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 chapter 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 CBT13 delivery. There are many opinions about what type of 

method is best.” 

The chapter goes on to discuss the benefits and disadvantages of different training methods. 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 participants.

• 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 training 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, anytime, 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 in 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 Education 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 under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and a discussion of the 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 absence 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) suggested 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 modify 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 hands‐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 to the clearance procedures described in the commenter’s documentation, after 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 rooms, 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 selected. 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, renovators 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 (bedroom, 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.) Therefore, 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 that 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 

commenter 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 commenter is silent about the total number of jobs 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 reliability, 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 renovator 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 idea14, 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 published 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 

2013 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 sections 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 student 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 previous 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 not 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 should 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 that 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 hands-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, at the moment, they have chosen to offer RRP refresher 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 offers 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 offers 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-It 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 Equipment

• 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 Entry

• 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

• Recordkeeping & Reporting (C)

• Struck By and Caught Between

• Struck-By and Caught In Between Hazards 

(C)

• FOCUS FOUR: Electrical Safety

HAZWOPER

• 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 online16:

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 thought 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 changing 

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 see 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 might 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 year" event - something OSHA encourages

• COMPREHENSIVE – can complete an 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 offering training online that 

also applies to allowing RRP refresher training to be taken online 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 stated 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 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 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 

discussion 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 proposed 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.