1

Richmond, Jonah

From: Richmond, Jonah

Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 4:36 PM

To: 'Jones, Danielle'

Cc: Hofmann, Angela; Smith, Peterj

Subject: RE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Lead-Based Paint Program; Amendment to 

Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070-AK02)

Attachments: EO12866_Rin2070-AK02_LRRP Minor Amendments_FRM_Passback Response_

2016-01-07.pdf

Danielle,

Here is EPA’s response to the January 5 interagency passback comments.

Jonah Richmond

Regulatory Coordination Staff

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Mailcode: 7101M, WJC East Room 3379H

Phone number:  202‐564‐0210

From: Jones, Danielle [mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov]  

Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2016 11:39 AM

To: Richmond, Jonah <Richmond.Jonah@epa.gov>

Cc: Hofmann, Angela <Hofmann.Angela@epa.gov>; Smith, Peterj <Smith.Peterj@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Lead‐Based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and

Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070‐AK02)

Jonah,

Please find the attachment with interagency passback to EPA’s responses to comments.

Thanks,

Danielle

From: Richmond, Jonah [mailto:Richmond.Jonah@epa.gov]  

Sent: Monday, January 04, 2016 12:47 PM

To: Jones, Danielle <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Cc: Hofmann, Angela <Hofmann.Angela@epa.gov>; Smith, Peterj <Smith.Peterj@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Lead‐Based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and

Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070‐AK02)

Danielle,

Here are EPA’s responses to both the 12/17 and 12/21 interagency comments combined into a single response

document, as well as a redline markup of the final rule document reflecting changes made in response to interagency

comments.
2

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Jonah Richmond

Regulatory Coordination Staff

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Mailcode: 7101M, WJC East Room 3379H

Phone number:  202‐564‐0210

From: Jones, Danielle [mailto:Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov]  

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 12:03 PM

To: Richmond, Jonah <Richmond.Jonah@epa.gov>

Cc: Hofmann, Angela <Hofmann.Angela@epa.gov>; Smith, Peterj <Smith.Peterj@epa.gov>

Subject: RE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Lead‐Based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and

Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070‐AK02)

Jonah,

Some additional comments for the Lead rule came in this morning. Please find the attached comments.

Best,

Danielle

From: Jones, Danielle  

Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 3:02 PM

To: 'Richmond, Jonah' <Richmond.Jonah@epa.gov>

Cc: hofmann.angela@epa.gov; Smith, Peterj (Smith.Peterj@epa.gov) <Smith.Peterj@epa.gov>

Subject: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: Lead‐Based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovator

Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070‐AK02)

Jonah,

Please find the attachment with the interagency reviewer comments on the Lead‐Based Paint Program; Amendment to

Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements final rule.  

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Danielle Y. Jones

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: (202) 395‐1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov
*** EO 12866 Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

January 7, 2016

Page 1 of 3

EO 12866/13563 Review of RIN 2070-AK02

FRM; Lead-based Paint Program; Amendments to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and 

Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements

EPA Response to OMB Passback

EO12866_Rin2070-AK02_LRRP Minor Amendments_FRM_Passback Response_2016-01-07.docx

This document provides EPA responses to the interagency passback follow-up comments 

received by EPA on January 5, 2016. The comments are repeated verbatim for context, with 

the original comment and response included for reference.

ORIGINAL COMMENT 10: Another generic issue with online training is the difficulty associated with ongoing 

course changes and maintenance of the material and format presented that will eventually need to be changed 

over time. EPA should consider developing a model online curriculum for the 3-year refresher course that can be 

modified to include state and/or local requirements. This will keep changes to a minimum to minimize the 

difficulty when verifying which version of an online curriculum a student used and what the course content 

included. For example, this commenter realizes that, should federal or state lead-based paint and/or lead-based 

paint hazard standards change in the future, courses would have to be modified (one real purpose of refresher 

training) to reflect regulatory updates. This can be expensive when changing online presentations for training 

providers not having made significant investments in Information Technology support staff. Again, EPA’s 

experience with the online initial RRP training would be helpful in this regard.

EPA RESPONSE 10: EPA has already developed a model e-learning course for the training that does not 

include hands-on learning. If the course needs to be modified due to future programmatic changes, the Agency 

will update the model course accordingly. Training providers that wish to teach the e-learning course can request 

a copy of the model from EPA’s webpage www.epa.gov/lead/forms/model-e-learning-curriculum.

INTERAGENCY PASSBACK 10: In EPA response 10, it may be helpful for the response to 

interagency comments to note the webpage at which an accredited lead training provider can 

request the EPA’s model e-learning curricula for the Renovator Initial, Renovator Refresher, 

and Dust Sampling Technician Initial courses, www.epa.gov/lead/forms/model-e-learningcurriculum.

EPA PASSBACK RESPONSE 10: EPA has updated the response by including the URL for 

the webpage where a training provider can request the model e-learning courses.

ORIGINAL COMMENT 12: Specific comments: 

a. How will the instructor verify who is:

i. Attending; lines 192-196 just says student will be present in 2 years.

ii. Participating throughout the presentation.

iii. Paying for, and getting, the certificate

iv. Able to change the name or dates on the certificate?

b. How will the instructor ensure that the language of the presentation is appropriate for each of the 

attendees?

c. How will the instructor deal with multiple platforms, software versions, and varying internet 

speeds?
*** EO 12866 Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

January 7, 2016

Page 2 of 3

d. Will online recertification training be available to the EPA-authorized states if they amend their 

agreement?

e. If online recertification training is allowed by an EPA-authorized state, will that recertification be 

recognized as well: throughout the US? only in EPA-run states? only in other EPA-authorized 

states? nowhere else?

f. Lines 201 – 202: Refresher training cannot produce more renovators than are already certified. 

Please check the wording.

g. Lines 313 – 320: Is not the main purpose of scheduled training notification is to enable to monitor 

for quality? Please check the wording.

h. Lines 333 – 336: Should not training providers be submitting students' names every 10 days, not 

30? Please check the wording.

EPA RESPONSE 12: Several of the questions below deal with the responsibilities of a training program. In 

regard to these responsibilities, the Agency would like to note that it has the authority under 40 CFR 

745.225(c)(12) and (f)(4) to audit a training program to verify its compliance with the requirements for the

accreditation of training programs (40 CFR 745.225(c)) and accreditation of refresher training programs (40 CFR 

745.225(e)). 

a. How will the instructor verify who is: 

i. Attending; lines 192-196 just says student will be present in 2 years. 

RESPONSE: It is up to the training provider to determine how to verify the identity of the student taking their 

training course. 

ii. Participating throughout the presentation. 

RESPONSE: The training provider must track each student's course log-ins, launches, progress, and completion 

of the course. In addition, the course must include periodic knowledge checks equivalent to the number and 

content of the knowledge checks contained in EPA's model course. EPA has modified the regulations at 

745.225(e)(4) and (e)(5)(viii) to emphasize these requirements.

ii. Paying for, and getting, the certificate 

RESPONSE: It is up to the training provider to determine how to collect money for the course and deliver the 

certificate. 

iv. Able to change the name or dates on the certificate? 

RESPONSE: It is up to the training provider to determine how to change the name on a certificate. With regard 

to dates, there is no need to change a date on the course completion certificate. Even in a situation where EPA 

extends the expiration date of certifications, as it did in April 2015 (80 FR 20444) the certificate does not need to 

be modified and reissued (See EPA’s Frequent Questions database).

b. How will the instructor ensure that the language of the presentation is appropriate for each of the attendees? 

RESPONSE: It is up to the training provider to determine how to verify the language that is appropriate for a 

particular student. 

c. How will the instructor deal with multiple platforms, software versions, and varying internet speeds? 

RESPONSE: It is up to the training provider to determine how to deal with these circumstances. 

d. Will online recertification training be available to the EPA-authorized states if they amend their agreement?

RESPONSE: Yes, authorized states may also allow online training without hands-on learning.

e. If online recertification training is allowed by an EPA-authorized state, will that recertification be recognized as 

well: throughout the US? only in EPA-run states? only in other EPA-authorized states? nowhere else?
*** EO 12866 Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During the Review ***

January 7, 2016

Page 3 of 3

RESPONSE: A certification or recertification from an authorized state is recognized in that state and all EPAadministered states. Other authorized states may recognize the certification if they chose to do so. 

f. Lines 201 – 202: Refresher training cannot produce more renovators than are already certified. Please check 

the wording. 

RESPONSE: The wording has been edited for clarity. 

g. Lines 313 – 320: Is not the main purpose of scheduled training notification is to enable to monitor for 

quality? Please check the wording. 

RESPONSE: Pre-training notifications are used to enable EPA to monitor a training course. Because there is no 

live training with a course taught entirely online there is no need to require a pre-training notification. With regard 

to the quality of the course, the Agency will review each training provider’s course before accrediting the trainer. 

h. Lines 333 – 336: Should not training providers be submitting students' names every 10 days, not 30? Please 

check the wording. 

RESPONSE: This paragraph was worded correctly. EPA is requiring the post-training notifications for this 

course one per month. It must be submitted by the 10th day of the month covering the previous month. 

INTERAGENCY PASSBACK 12: In EPA responses 12a, b, and c, some of the compliance 

responsibilities of the training provider are described, but not EPA’s authority and responsibility 

to ensure compliance in regard to those matters. It would be helpful for the response to 

interagency comments to note that EPA has the authority (in 40 CFR 745.225(f)(4) and 

(f)(3)(vi)(A) (cited by par. (f)(4))) to audit the training provider for compliance with paragraphs 

(c) and (e), on the accreditation of initial and refresher training programs, respectively.

EPA PASSBACK RESPONSE 12: EPA added an introductory paragraph to response 12 

explaining that it has the authority to audit the training program to verify compliance with the 

accreditation requirements.