1 

### Smith, Peterj

From: Smith, Peterj Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 2:33 PM To: Danielle Jones - OMB/OIRA (Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov) Cc: Hofmann, Angela; Edmonds, Marc; Mottley, Tanya; Gilbreath, Jan; Anderson, Steve; Jutras, Nathaniel Subject: REVISED DOCUMENTS: EO 12866/13563 Inter agency Review: EPA's Lead-Based Paint Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovat or Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070-AK02) Attachments: RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_ NPRM_EA_Redline_Revisions_ 2014-12-10.docx; RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_Mi norAmendments_NPRM_EA_Revised_ 2014-12-10.docx; RIN2070-AK02_EO12866 _Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_FRdocument _Redline_Revisions_2014-12-15.docx; RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendment s_NPRM_FRdocument_Revised_ 2014-12-15.docx Importance: High Categories: TSCA 411 Docket

Hi Danielle,

As promised last week, I am pleased to provide (attached) the markup and revised clean copies of: 1. The draft Federal Register document. 2. The draft Economic Analysis.

Please let me know if you have any other questions or comments about the revisions. EPA looks forward to confirming next steps. Thank you!

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Peter J. Smith | US EPA | Office of Chemical Safety and Pollu tion Prevention | Regulatory Coordination Staff 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW | Washington, DC 20460 | phone: 202/564-0262 | e-mail: smith.peterj@epa.gov

*************************************************************************************************** NOTICE: Section 411 of the Toxic Substances Control Act established special docketing requirements for draft regulations subject to an interagency review. Under the law, EPA must include in the rulemaking docket: (1) the draft of any proposed rule under TSCA Title IV and all supporting documents that were submitted to OMB for an interagency review process; (2) all written comments received by EPA from all of the reviewing agencies regarding those documents; and, (3) EPA’s written responses thereto. Similar requirements also apply at the final rule stage. If you have any questions about this requirement, please contact Angela Hofmann (564

‐ 0258) or Peter Smith (564

‐ 0262) for more information.

REMINDER: If this electronic communication explains, justifies, or documents an official action or decision, it may be subject to federal records requirements. Please evaluate the contents of this message before deleting it. ****************************************************************************************************** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendment s_NPRM_EA_Redline_Revisions_2014- 1 12-10.docx 2

3 4 5 

## Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program 6 

## Minor Amendments Proposed Rule 7 8 9 

## RIN 2070-AK02 10 11 12 13 

# EO 12866 REVIEW DRAFT 14 15 16 17 18 July 23 December 10 , 2014 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 34 Economics, Exposure and Technology Division 35 Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics 36 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 37 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 38 Washington, DC 20460 39i This Page Intentionally Left Blank*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

ii 

### Acknowledgement Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP-W-08-0100.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

iii 

### Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. .................... ES-1 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. .................... 1-1 1.1 Regulatory and Programma tic Background ............................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Summary of Analytic Approach .............................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Organization of This Report.................................................................................................... . 1-2 2. Affected Entities ............................................................................................................. ................... 2-1 2.1 Regulated Community ........................................................................................................... .. 2-1 3. Industry Cost Savings ......................................................................................................... ............. 3-1 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ............ 3-1 3.2 Abatement Multi-jurisdiction Registration Fee Amendment ................................................... 3-1 3.3 Renovator Refresher Training Course Amendment ................................................................. 3-2 3.4 Total Industry Cost Savings ................................................................................................... .. 3-9 3.5 Other Industry Costs .......................................................................................................... ...... 3-9 4. Agency Costs .................................................................................................................. ................... 4-1 5. Social Cost Savings ........................................................................................................... ................ 5-1 6. Small Entity Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. ........ 6-1 7. Other Impact Analyses ......................................................................................................... ............ 7-1 7.1 Paperwork Reduction Act ....................................................................................................... . 7-1 7.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ............................................................................................. 7-3 7.3 Executive Order 13132 – Federalism ....................................................................................... 7-4 7.4 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordina tion with Indian Tribal Governments ... 7-4 7.5 Executive Order 13045 - Children’s Health ............................................................................. 7-4 7.6 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ............................................... 7-4 7.7 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ............................................................. 7-4 7.8 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 7-5 8. References .................................................................................................................... ..................... 8-1 Appendix A. Training Courses Tuition Data ..................................................................................... ..... A-1*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

iv 

### List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES-1: Total and Annualized Social Cost Savi ngs of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (millions 2014$) .............................................................................................................. ........................... ES-2 Exhibit 2-1: Lead-based Paint Activities Individuals a nd Firms Applying for (Re)certification and Training Providers Applying for (R e)accreditation from 2011-2013 ....................................................................... ... 2-1 Exhibit 2-2: Renovator Initial Certifications under the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Rule from 2010 through 2013. ............................................................................................................ ........................... 2-1 Exhibit 3-1: Annual Multi-jurisdiction Registrati on Fees for Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification, and Training Providers Applying for (Re)accreditation ................................................... 3- 1 Exhibit 3-2: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost Savings for Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification, and Training Providers Applying for (Re)accreditation (2014$) ................................ 3-2 Exhibit 3-3: Procedure to estimate in-person classroom refresher training course tuition ........................... 3-4 Exhibit 3-4: Estimated refresher training tuition summary ..................................................................... ...... 3-4 Exhibit 3-5: Total Renovator Travel Cost ...................................................................................... ............... 3-5 Exhibit 3-6: Incremental Renovator Training Co st Savings under the Proposed Rule ................................. 3-5 Exhibit 3-7: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking Training ................................................................. 3 -7 Exhibit 3-8: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking In-person and E-learning Refresher Training Options ....................................................................................................................... ................................... 3-7 Exhibit 3-9: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annuali zed Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking In-person Classroom Training Under the Proposed Rule (2014$) ............................................................................ .... 3-8 Exhibit 3-10: Fifty Year Net Present Value and A nnualized Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking E-learning Classroom Training Under the Proposed Rule (2014$) .............................................................. 3- 8 Exhibit 3-11: Combined Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Renovator Recertification Cost Savings Under the Proposed Rule (thousands 2014$) ............................................................................. ..... 3-9 Exhibit 3-12: Total and Annualized Industry Cost Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (thousands 2014$) ............................................................................................................. ............................ 3-9 Exhibit 4-1: EPA Wage Rate .................................................................................................... .................... 4-1 Exhibit 4-2: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost to EPA Under the Proposed Rule (2014$) 4- 1 Exhibit 5-1: Total and Annualized Social Cost Savi ngs of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (thousands 2014$) ............................................................................................................. ............................ 5-1 Exhibit 7-1: Incremental RRP Training Provider Hour Burden ................................................................... 7-2 Exhibit 7-2: Loaded RRP Training Provider Wage Rates .......................................................................... .. 7-3 Exhibit 7-3: RPP Incremental Training Provider Cost (2014$) ................................................................... . 7-3 Exhibit A-1: Sample of Renovation (Re)certification Training Courses ..................................................... A-1*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

ES-1 

## Executive Summary The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) is considering two cost saving amendments to the regulations for Lead-based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential Structures, codified at 40 CFR part 745 and promulgated under TSCA §402(a) a nd §402(c). This report estimates the cost savings from the proposed rule that includ es these amendments to the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule for lead abatement and the Residential Property Renova tion rule for renovation, repair and painting (RRP). The first amendment removes the multi-jurisdiction registration fee that individuals and firms pay for (re)certification and that training programs pay for (r e)accreditation in the lead abatement program. Under the existing regulations, there is a $35 fee for each additional EPA-administered jurisdiction for which organizations apply to perform LBP abatement activities or to provide lead abatement training. In a typical year, individuals, firms, and training providers appl y to perform lead-based paint activities or provide training in a total of 431 additi onal EPA-administered jurisdictions. Removing the $35 fee will result in total estimated cost savings of approxima tely $15,000 per year to these entities. The second amendment removes the hands-on training requirement from the lead renovation refresher training course. Under the existing rule, both the initial and refresher renovator training courses must include a classroom component (which may be take n in person or online) and a hands-on component (which must be taken in person). Removing the hands- on training requirement is estimated to reduce the tuition for refresher training courses by an average of $37. Removing the hands-on requirement is also expected to make online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. If renovators become recertified solely by taking an e- learning course (i.e., without an in-person component) they are estimated to save an additional $165 by avoi ding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. Renovator training and certification became mandatory in 2010 and a large number of renovators were trained that year, with smaller numbers becomi ng trained in each subsequent year. Training and certification are valid for five years, and many renova tors will need to be recertified over the next few years. The largest number of recertifications is expect ed in 2015, when 168,000 renovators are expected to seek refresher training. Over time, the number of re novators seeking refresher training is predicted to equilibrate to approximately 48,000 per year. Nearly all of these renovators are assumed to choose to receive their refresher training online if the hands-on requirement is removed, thus reducing travel costs. Removing the hands-on requirement fo r renovator refresher training is estimated to save over $9 million per year. If the hands-on requirement is rem oved, training providers currently accredited for the renovator refresher training course are expected to apply for an e-l earning refresher training accreditation to accommodate the high demand for the course. EPA will incur additional costs because the Agency must review and process applications submitted by training providers to become accredited for an e-learning course. An estimated 275 training providers would apply for an e-learni ng refresher course accreditation if the rule is promulgated. Reviewing and processing the additional accr editation applications is estimated to cost the EPA over $80,000. The rule includes a correction to the training notifica tion requirements to add back regulatory text on posttraining notifications that was inadvertently overw ritten in a 2011 rulemaking (although most training providers are continuing to provide post-training no tifications to EPA in a timely manner). EPA has*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

ES-2 already accounted for the burden and cost of requi ring accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training course the provider delivers. Fo r example, the currently approved Information Collection Request for the RRP program 1 estimates that 600 renovation training providers will submit an average of 14 post-training notifi cations per year. This yields a total of 8,400 posttraining notifications per year at an average burden of 1.6 hours per response, resulting in a total burden for this activity of 13,440 hours at a cost of $339,578. In order to avoid double-counting cost that has already been accounted for, the current analysis does not include the burden and cost of reinstating the post-training notification requirements. The rule also adds clarifying language explaining that training providers must follow the regulations. This does not affect the cost of compliance because it does not change any requirements for accredited training providers, and the analysis assumes that training pr oviders already comply with the regulations. Exhibit ES-1 presents estimates for the total and an nualized industry cost savings and Agency costs associated with the enactment of the proposed amendm ents, as well as the total and annualized social cost savings. Estimates are discounted at 3 and 7 percent. The cost savings to society is estimated to be between $9.6 and $9.8 million per year with the passage of the proposed amendments to the LBP activities and renovation regulations (see Exhibit ES-1).

Exhibit ES-1: Total and Annualized Social Co st Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (millions 2014$) 1

Category Net Present Value Annualized Cost Savings 3% 7% 3% 7% Total Industry Cost Savings $246.551 $134.938 $9.583 $9.777 Multi-jurisdiction Amendment $0.388 $0.208 $0.015 $0.015 Refresher Training Amendment $246.163 $134.730 $9.568 $9.762 Total Agency Costs $0.083 $0.080 $0.003 $0.006 E-learning Application Processing $0.083 $0.080 $0.003 $0.006 Social Cost Savings $246.468 $134.858 $9.580 $9.771

1 A fifty year analytical period is selected to be cons istent with economic analyses of prior Lead-based Paint Activities program rules and RRP program rules.

1 Information Collection Request for the TSCA Sections 402 and Section 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting (EPA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0155).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

1-1 

## 1. Introduction This report assesses the cost savings expected to resu lt from amendments to EPA’s Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule and to the Residential Property Ren ovation rule. These amendments would eliminate EPA’s multi-jurisdiction registration fee in the abatement pr ogram and remove the hands-on requirement from the renovator refresher training course curriculum. This chapter provides background information on EPA’s lead-based paint (LBP) regulations, a brief summary of the methodology used in the analysis, and a description of the organization of the remainder of this report. 

### 1.1 Regulatory and Programmatic Background 1.1.1 Abatement Multi-jurisdiction Registration Fee In 1996 EPA promulgated final regulations for Lead-based Paint Activities under TSCA §402(a) that govern LBP inspections, lead hazard scr eens, risk assessments, and lead ab atements in target housing and child-occupied facilities (61 FR 45778, codified at 40 CFR part 745). On June 9t h, 1999, EPA amended the regulations (64 FR 31092) to include a fee schedule for individuals and firms seeking EPA (re)certification and for training programs seeking EPA (re)accreditation. The fee schedule created a multi-jurisdiction registration fee of $35 per discipline for each additiona l EPA-administered jurisdiction (e.g., a state) in which an individual, firm, or tr aining program applies for (re)certification or (re)accreditation (40 CFR §745.238 (c)(3)). For purposes of this multi-jurisdiction registration fee, an EPA-administered jurisdiction is an individual state without an authorized program or all tribes without authorized programs in a given EPA Region. The EPA-administered jurisdictions for the lead abatement program are:

 States – Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming;

 U.S. territories – American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marianas; and

 Tribal lands – tribal lands except the Cherok ee Nation, Lower Sioux Nation, and Upper Sioux Community. All other states, U.S. territories, as well as the Cherokee Nation, Lower Sioux Nation, and Upper Sioux Community, have EPA-authorized LBP abatement programs (U.S. EPA 2014b).

1.1.2 Hands-on Refresher Training for Renovators In 2008, EPA issued a final rule for Residential Pr operty Renovations under the authority of §402(c)(3) of TSCA to address LBP hazards created by Renovation, Re pair, and Painting (RRP) activities that disturb LBP in target housing and child-occupied facilities ( 73 FR 21692). To become a certified renovator, an individual must successfully complete an appropria te training course accredited by EPA (40 CFR §745.90). Individuals who have not previously been trained must complete an initial training course lasting a minimum of eight hours, including a minimum of tw o hours of hands-on training. To maintain renovator certification, an individual must complete a refresh er course from an accredited training provider within five years of completing the initial course. The rule requires renovator refresher training courses to last a minimum of four hours (40 CFR §745.225 (e)(2)) and include a hands-on component (40 CFR §745.225 (e)(3)). EPA manages the RRP program in most areas of the country. However, the states of Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mi ssissippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin are authorized to administer their own programs in lieu of the federal program. The proposed rule, and this analysis, apply only in states that do not have authorized programs.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

1-2 

### 1.2 Summary of Analytic Approach This analysis seeks to quantify, to the extent possible, the cost savings to society of the two amendments. The costs to industry associated with the multi-juri sdiction registration fee include a $35 fee for each additional EPA-administered jurisdiction for which organizations apply to perform lead-based paint abatement activities or to provide lead abatement training. The cost savings to industry for eliminating the fee is the amount in fees that they would no longer be required to pay.

Costs to renovators associated with the refresher trai ning course currently include course tuition and travel cost to a training site to receive hands-on training. Tuition costs are estimated to decrease if the hands-on requirement is removed. For those renovators choosi ng to take the refresher course online, there is an additional cost savings because there is no travel co st. The cost savings from eliminating the hands-on requirement for renovator refresher training includes reductions in both average tuition cost and average travel cost. 

### 1.3 Organization of This Report Regulated entities are characterized in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 includes the economic analysis of cost savings to regulated entities. The small entity impacts are di scussed in Chapter 4. Several additional impacts are described in Chapter 7. Cited references are listed in Chapter 8. The Appendix contains the tuition data for renovator initial and refresher training courses that were u sed in the analysis. Note that all dollar values in this analysis are reported in 2014 dollars.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

2-1 

## 2. Affected Entities 2.1 Regulated Community The multi-jurisdiction registration fee amendment may a ffect individuals, firms, and training providers regulated by the Lead-based Paint Activities rule, with the exception of non-profit training providers (which are exempt from the fee). The renovator refresher training course amendment directly affects individuals who must take a training course to comp ly with the Residential Property Renovation rule. The number of entities affected under both amendments is estimated from data in EPA’s Federal Leadbased Paint Program (FLPP) database (U.S. EPA 2014a). Exhibit 2-1 presents the number of all applications submitted by individuals and firms engaging in leadbased paint activities, and all training providers o ffering lead-based paint activities training courses, from 2011 through 2013 (not just those applying to work in additional jurisdictions). Exhibit 2-1 also presents the number of additional jurisdictions in which i ndividuals and firms are sought (re)certification and training providers are sought (re)accreditation.

Exhibit 2-1: Lead-based Paint Activities Indivi duals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification and Training Providers Applying fo r (Re)accreditation from 2011-2013 Applicant Total Number of Applications Additional Jurisdictions Sought Individuals 5,127 864 Firms 1,780 403 Training Providers (for-profit) 23 27 The RRP rule required that, starting in 2010, all regul ated renovations disturbing lead-based paint must be performed by renovators who have taken an 8 hour training course (including 2 hours of hands-on training). Renovators must take a 4 hour refresher training class (which currently includes a required hands-on component) every five years. Exhibit 2-2 presents the number of renovator certifications from 2010 through 2013. Column 1 of Exhibit 2-2 lists the year the certification was issued, and Column 2 lists the year the certification expires. The number of cer tifications was highest in 2010 because that was the year that the renovator training requirement became effective. Consequently, the number of refresher trainings is expected to be highest five years la ter (in 2015), and decline for several years at a rate analogous to the rate of decline observed in certifications from 2011 to 2013.

Exhibit 2-2: Renovator Initial Cert ifications under the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Rule from 2010 through 2013. Year Certified Expiration Year Number of Initial Certifications 2010 2015 357,500 2011 2016 52,800 2012 2017 38,800 2013 2018 29,300*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-1 

## 3. Industry Cost Savings 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents estimates of the cost savings associated with the amendments. Section 3.2 presents estimates for the multi-jurisdiction registration fee am endment and Section 3.3 presents estimates for the renovator refresher training course amendment. Total co st savings of both amendments are summarized in Section 3.4. A fifty year analytical period is used in this to be consistent with prior economic analyses of abatement and RRP program rules. Net present value and annualized savings are presented for this time period using 3 and 7 percent discount rates. 

### 3.2 Abatement Multi-jurisdicti on Registration Fee Amendment If jurisdictions are eliminated, regulated entities will no longer have to send an application and fees to EPA for the purpose of adding additional EPA-administe red state jurisdictions to their certification or accreditation. Once a regulated entity applies and is approved in the Lead-based Paint Activities program, it will be able to work in any EPA-administered stat e. EPA’s multi-jurisdiction registration fee data for 2011 through 2013 are presented in Ex hibit 3-1. Column 2 and Column 3 of Exhibit 3-1 present the total and annual average number of add itional EPA-administered jurisdictions for which organizations applied to perform lead-based paint activities or provide trai ning from 2011 through 2013, respectively. Note thatnon-profit training programs are excluded from the analysis because they are exempt from the multijurisdiction registration fee. The average annual cost s borne by regulated entities are summarized in the last column of Exhibit 3-1 and are calculated by applying the $35 multi-jurisdiction registration fee to Column 3. Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee would save individuals, firms, and training providers a combined $15,085 per year. Exhibit 3-1: Annual Multi-jurisdiction Re gistration Fees for Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification, and Training Providers Applying for (Re)accreditation

Applicant Additional Jurisdictions Total Annual Fees 2011 - 2013 Average Annual Individuals 864 288 $10,080 Firms 403 134 $4,690 Training Providers (for-profit) 27 9 $315 Total 431 $15,085 Exhibit 3-2 presents the fifty year net present value and annualized cost savings under the proposed rule for individuals and firms applying for (re)certif ication, and training providers applying for (re)accreditation (2014$). The cost savings are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-2 Exhibit 3-2: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost Savings for Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification, and Training Pr oviders Applying for (R e)accreditation (2014$)

Period Additional Jurisdictions Unit Incremental Cost Savings Incremental Cost Savings Discounted Incremental Cost Savings 3% 7% 2015 431 $35 $15,085 $14,646 $14,098 2016 431 $35 $15,085 $14,219 $13,176 2017 431 $35 $15,085 $13,805 $12,314 2018 431 $35 $15,085 $13,403 $11,508 2019 431 $35 $15,085 $13,012 $10,755 2020 431 $35 $15,085 $12,633 $10,052



# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 431 $35 $15,085 $3,441 $512 Net Present Value $388,133 $208,184 Annualized Cost Savings $15,085 $15,085 

### 3.3 Renovator Refresher Training Course Amendment Incremental training cost savings associated with the proposed amendment include tuition and travel cost. The cost of the time spent on training activities is not affected because the proposed rule does not change the duration of the refresher training course.

3.3.1 Tuition Under the existing rule, both the initial and refr esher renovator training courses consist of both a classroom and a hands-on component. The classroom co mponent can be taken in-person or online, whereas the hands-on component must be taken in -person. Under the proposed rule, the hands-on requirement would be rescinded from the refresher training course, allowing renovators to become recertified remotely solely by taking an e-learning course. Traveling to a training provider’s facility, or contracting a traveling training provider, would no longer be obligatory. The refresher training course tuition is estimated under both the existing rule (with a hands-on training requirement) and the proposed rule (no hands-on training requirement). Estimates are based on tuition data collected from the websites of a sample of training providers offering refresher a nd/or initial renovator trai ning. The tuition data and summary statistics can be found in Appendix A. A renovator is currently able to enroll in an in-p erson classroom and hands-on refresher training course. (The current rule would allow a renovator to take an e-learning classroom and hands-on refresher training course, but no training providers currently offer re fresher training courses with an e-learning classroom component. 2 ) The mean tuition for an in-person classroom and hands-on refresher training course is

2 The number and variety of refresher training courses has been more limited than initial training courses because

renovators will not need to be recertif ied until 2015. The refresh er course has so far only been offered to renovators with prior lead-safety traini ng in order to receive certification un der the RRP rule. In 2015, when the refresher training course is in its highest demand, traini ng providers will offer the course more frequently and may offer an e-learning option as well.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-3 $134.65 (see Appendix A). Based on data from initial renovator training courses 3 , it appears that training providers tend to charge the same tuition whether th e classroom component is taught in-person or online. From the sample of training provider course tuiti ons, four training providers listed tuitions for both options on their websites. Three of the four training providers offered both options for the same tuition. Accordingly, it is assumed that if a refresher training course with an e-learning classroom component and a hands-on component were offered, the mean tuition would also be $134.65 (identical to the tuition for a course with an in-person classroom component). As shown in Appendix A, the mean tuition for the 8 hour initial renovator training course (which includes 2 ho urs of hands-on training) is $214.86. The mean tuition for the 2 hour hands-on training component by itself is estimated to be $150.02. Removing the hands-on requirement is expected to make online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. 4 Under the proposed rule, a renovator can enroll in an in-person or an e-learning classroom refresher training course. While the tuition for an e-learning classroom refresher training course is assumed to be th e same as for an in-person class, it is worth noting that the e-learning classroom refresher training course tuition could be less expensive than the in-person option. For example, lower overhead costs may allo w training providers to offer the course at a lower price, or new firms that have a competitive advant age in providing e-learning courses may begin offering the renovator refresher training course. 5 The procedure to estimate the tuition for the classroo m portion of a refresher course relies on the mean tuition for an initial and refresher training course, a nd the mean tuition for the hands-on component of an initial training course. The estimated tuition for an in-person classroom refresher training course is $97.68. The steps taken to produce this estimate are detailed in Exhibit 3-3. The difference between the tuition of $134.65 (for an in-person refresher course with a hands-on component) and $97.68 (for an in-person refresher co urse without a hands-on component) is $36.97. This $36.97 in savings results from decreases in the co st of supplies and instruction if the hands-on requirement is removed. 6

3 Unlike for refresher training, there are training provide rs currently offering the classroom portion of the initial renovator course online.

4 There may be less incentive for training providers to o ffer an e-learning option – or for renovators to take advantage of it – if there is a hands-on training requirement. If the renovator and/or the in structor are traveling to the training site, they are incurring the trav el costs whether or not the classroom portion is taken in-person or online. If the hands-on requirement is removed the renovator can ta ke the entire refresher course online, eliminating these travel costs. This makes e-learning more attractiv e to both the renovator and the training provider.

5 Currently, many e-learning courses for initial training are developed by third party firms and are offered by

training providers who package the course with their hands-on training course.

6 The cost of providing instruction decreases if the hands-on component is removed because the recommended student teacher ratio is 6-to-1 for the hands-on component of the course, compar ed to 25-to-1 for the rest of the inperson classroom course. The tuition for the hands-on component also covers the cost of various supplies (such as EPA-recognized test kits, disposable plastic drop cloths, tape, electrostatically charged cleaning cloths, disposable wet cleaning wipes, garbage bags, and so on) for each student.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-4 Exhibit 3-3: Procedure to estimate in-p erson classroom refresher training course tuition Estimation Steps Value Formula Tuition data (mean) (A) Initial Course $214.86 (B) Refresher Course $134.65 (C) Hands-on Training (2 hours) $150.02 Derived estimates (D) Cost of 3 classroom hours and 1 hands-on training hour $80.21 (A) - (B) (E) Fixed cost of Initial Course $54.44 (B) - (D) (F) Incremental costs of 2 hours of hands-on training $95.58 (C) - (E) (G) Hands-on training cost per hour $47.79 (F) ÷ 2 (H) Cost of 3 classroom hours $32.42 (D) - (G) (I) Classroom cost per hour $10.81 (H) ÷ 3 In-person classroom refresher training course, 4 hours $97.68 (E) + [4 * (I)] Note: Unlike the initial training course, there is no ma ndatory duration for the hands-on component of the refresher course. The ha nds-on portion of the initial course must be at least 2 hours, which is 25% of the total 8 hours of training. So for the refresher course, the hands-on component is assumed to be 1 hour, which is 25% of the 4 hour duration of the refresher course. Exhibit 3-4 presents a summary of the estimated re fresher training course tuitions under the existing and proposed rule. Exhibit 3-4: Estimated refresher training tuition summary Existing Rule

In-person classroom and in-person hands-on $134.65 E-learning classroom and in-person hands-on $134.65 Proposed Rule removing hands-on requirement

In-person classroom (no hands-on) $97.68 E-learning classroom (no hands-on) $97.68

3.3.2 Travel Cost Travel cost consists of the cost for a renovator to tr avel to the training site, incidental expenses, and the value of the time spent traveling to and from the trai ning site. The estimated cost of travel relies on the Standard Mileage Rates published by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS published a rate of $0.56 per mile, effective January 1 st , 2014 (IRS 2013). The travel distance is assumed to be 100 miles (50 miles each way), as in the 2008 economic analysis of the RRP program rule (U.S. EPA 2008). The total cost of travel is estimated to be $56. Expenses co mprise the cost of lunch and are estimated using the Meals and Incidental Expenses Breakdown published by the General Services Administration. These expenses are estimated to be $14.17 and are calculated by averaging the six tiers of lunch reimbursement rates representing the lower 48 states (GSA 2014). The travel duration and the average renovator wage rate are used to estimate the cost of renovators’ time to travel to a training site. Travel duration is assume d to be two hours, as in the 2008 economic analysis of the RRP program rule (U.S. EPA 2008). The wage ra te assigned to renovators is derived with methods*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-5 and from sources identical to or similar to those used in previous Information Collection Request renewals and economic analyses for EPA’s RRP pr ogram. A renovator’s fully loaded wage rate incorporates wages and salaries, benefits, and overh ead. A renovator’s wages and salaries are represented by the mean hourly wage rate of First-Line Superv isors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) - Occupational Employment Statistics (OES). The mean hourly wage rate inflated to 2014 dollars is $31.12 for First Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers (BLS 2012; BLS 2014). The base wage rate is inflated to 2014 dollars by applying the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2014). The September 2013 release of the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data indicates that wages a nd salaries constitute 69.1% of total employee compensations for civilian workers, implying a wa ge multiplier of 1.45 to account for benefits (BLS 2013). An overhead of 8.3% is derived from the 2012 publication of the Cost of Doing Business (NAHB Business Management & Information Technology 2012) . By combining 1.45 and 8.3%, a multiplier of 1.53 is used to estimate a fully loaded hourly wage rate of $47.61 for renovators. Taking into account the total travel duration of two hours, the cost of travel time for a renovator attending training is estimated to be $95.22. Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the components of the travel cost to attend in-person training.

Exhibit 3-5: Total Renovator Travel Cost Category Cost Mileage Cost $56.00 Expenses (lunch) $14.17 Cost of Travel Time $95.22 Travel Cost $165.39

3.3.3 Incremental Training Cost Savings per Renovator Exhibit 3-6 presents the incremental training cost savings per renovator seeking recertification under the proposed rule. The cost savings includes reduced tu ition and avoided travel co sts. Renovators switching to the e-learning course realize the greatest cost sav ings because they avoid the costs associated with traveling to a training provider’s facility.

Exhibit 3-6: Incremental Renovator Tr aining Cost Savings under the Proposed Rule Training Course Existing Rule Costs Proposed Rule Costs Cost Savings In-person classroom Tuition $134.65 $97.68 $36.97 Travel Cost $165.39 $165.39 0 Total $300.04 $263.07 $36.97 E-learning classroom Tuition $134.65 $97.68 $36.97 Travel Cost $165.39 0 $165.39 Total $300.04 $97.68 $202.36*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-6 3.3.4 Number of Individuals Seeking Renovator Recertification Renovator training and certification for persons conducting covered renova tion activities became mandatory in 2010, and a large number of renovators were trained that year. There was a decrease in the number of individuals trained in 2011, and a furt her decrease in 2012 and 2013. The total number of renovators expected to seek refresher training in 2015 through 2018 is estimated using certification expiration data for the current stock of trained a nd certified renovators (see Exhibit 3-7) and an assumed turnover rate for renovators exiting the industry. The total number of renovators expected to seek training in 2019 is assumed to equal the total in 2018 because e xpiration data is not yet available for that year. Beyond 2019, it is assumed that the total number of renovators expected to seek training each year will stabilize. Exhibit 3-7 presents the total number of re novators expected to seek training from 2015 through 2064, as well as the subset expected to seek refresher training. The number of expired certifications presented in Colu mn 2 of Exhibit 3-7 is equal to the number of initial certifications attained five years earlier. 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 an d recertification will be less than the numbers of individuals with expiring certifica tions (which represents the total number of individuals assumed to be trained each year). It is assumed that 53 percent of the stock of renova tors seeking training exits the industry during the five year certification period. This turnover rate is b ased on the average percent of Abatement Supervisor applications that are for initial certification, reco rded in the FLPP database between 2007 and 2009 (U.S. EPA 2010). Therefore, the number of renovators seeking re fresher training in a given year is equal to the number of renovators that remained active throughout the certification period, which is 47 percent of the number of renovators trained five years earlier (see Column 2 of Exhibit 3-7). The other 53 percent are assumed to exit the industry and be replaced by new entrants who take the initial training course. Because renovators were required to be trained and certified starting in 2010 and because renovator training and certification is valid for five years, a large number of renovators are expected to seek refresher training in 2015, with a decrease in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Beginning in 2020, the number of renovators seeking training each year is assumed to equ ilibrate to 101,540, one fifth of the total stock of certified renovators. The total stock of certified renovators is equal to the sum of expiring certifications from 2015 through 2019 (507,700 renovators). The number of renovators receiving initial training decreased each year from 2010 through 2013. One might expect a spike in refresher training starting in 2015 followed by a decrease for the next four years, followed by another spike in 2020, with a repeating patte rn every five years. That is, one might expect a cyclical pattern of retraining to emerge. However, ove r time the original cohort of trained individuals will retire or leave the market and be replaced by new renova tors whose training cycle is not tied to the start of the RRP program in 2010. So the cycle will be damp ened and eventually disappear. Trying to model such a trend in the declining cycli cality would add litt le to the analysis while significantly increasing the complexity of the calculations. Instead, the analysis uses a declining level for the first cycle of refresher training (because this mirrors the histori cal data on initial training shown in Exhibit 3-7 ). Then, in order to simplify the calculations, the analysis assumes a consta nt average number of individuals receive refresher training each year starting in 2020.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-7 Exhibit 3-7: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking Training

Year 1 Number of Renovators Seeking Initial or Refresher Training 1 Renovators Seeking Refresher Training 2 2015 357,500 168,025 2016 52,800 24,816 2017 38,800 18,236 2018 29,300 13,771 2019 29,300 13,771 Average for 2015-2019 101,540 47,723 2020 101,540 47,723



# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 101,540 47,723

1 The number of renovators seeking training in 2019 is assumed to equal the number in 2018.

2 Each year 47 percent of renovators with expiring certifications are expected to seek refresher training. The other

53 percent are assumed to exit the industry, and be replaced by new entrants who take the initial training course. If the refresher hands-on training requirement is re moved, renovators seeking refresher training would have the option to become recertified by enrolling in an in-person course or an e-learning course. Ninety-eight percent of renovators seeking training are assumed to enroll in an e-learning course due to the convenience of taking the course online and the savings in travel costs. 7 The remaining 2 percent of renovators are assumed to continue taking in-person tr aining after the amendment because they prefer to take their training in class rather than online. Enro llment expectations are summarized in Exhibit 3-8. Exhibit 3-8: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking In-person and E-learning Refresher Training Options Year 1 In-person E-learning 2015 3,361 164,665 2016 496 24,320 2017 365 17,871 2018 275 13,496 2019 275 13,496 Average for 2015-2019 954 46,769 2020 954 46,769



# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 954 46,769

1 The number of renovators seeking training in 2019 is assumed to equal the number in 2018.

7 The 98% value is a demonstrative assu mption for analytical purposes. It is not based on experience with any other training programs, such as the initial renovator training. (Because the initial renovator training requires hands-on training, as well as travel expenses, th at online training does not result in comparable cost savings or adoption rates.)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-8 3.3.5 Total Renovator Training Costs Savings Exhibit 3-9 and Exhibit 3-10 present the net present valu e and annualized cost savings under the proposed rule, over a fifty year period from 2015 through 2064, for the in-person and e-learning classroom refresher training courses, respectively. The cost savi ngs are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent.

Exhibit 3-9: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annua lized Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking In-person Classroom Training Under th e Proposed Rule (2014$)

In-person classroom training Recertifications Unit Incremental Cost Savings Incremental Cost Savings

(1,000$) Discounted Incremental Cost Savings (1,000$) 3% 7% 2015 3,361 $36.97 $124 $121 $116 2016 496 $36.97 $18 $17 $16 2017 365 $36.97 $13 $12 $11 2018 275 $36.97 $10 $9 $8 2019 275 $36.97 $10 $9 $7 2020 954 $36.97 $35 $30 $24 

# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 954 $36.97 $35 $8 $1 Net Present Value $914 $500 Annualized Cost Savings $36 $36

Exhibit 3-10: Fifty Year Net Present Value and An nualized Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking E-learning Classroom Training Under the Proposed Rule (2014$)

E-learning classroom training Recertifications Unit Incremental Cost Savings Incremental Cost Savings

(1,000$) Discounted Incremental Cost Savings (1,000$) 3% 7% 2015 164,665 $202.36 $33,322 $32,351 $31,142 2016 24,320 $202.36 $4,921 $4,639 $4,298 2017 17,871 $202.36 $3,616 $3,310 $2,952 2018 13,496 $202.36 $2,731 $2,426 $2,083 2019 13,496 $202.36 $2,731 $2,356 $1,947 2020 46,769 $202.36 $9,464 $7,926 $6,306 

# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 46,769 $202.36 $9,464 $2,159 $321 Net Present Value $245,249 $134,230 Annualized Cost Savings $9,532 $9,726 Exhibit 3-11 presents the combined net present value and annualized incremental cost savings accrued by renovators over a fifty year period from 2015 through 2064, under the proposed rule. Costs are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-9 Exhibit 3-11: Combined Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Renovator Recertification Cost Savings Under th e Proposed Rule (thousands 2014$)

Category Net Present Value Annualized Costs 3% 7% 3% 7% Proposed Rule Cost Savings $246,163 $134,730 $9,568 $9,762



### 3.4 Total Industry Cost Savings The net present value and annualized industry co st savings for both proposed amendments are summarized in Exhibit 3-12. These savings reflect a 50 year period from 2015 through 2064, and are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. The net present value of the industry cost savings ranges from $134,938 thousand to $246,551 thousand, in 2014$. Annualized industry cost savings are expected to range from $9,583 thousand to $9,777 thousand per year, in 2014$.

Exhibit 3-12: Total and Annualiz ed Industry Cost Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (thousands 2014$)

Category Net Present Value Annualized Cost Savings 3% 7% 3% 7% Multi-jurisdiction Amendment $388 $208 $15 $15 Refresher Training Amendment $246,163 $134,730 $9,568 $9,762 Total Industry Cost Savings $246,551 $134,938 $9,583 $9,777



### 3.5 Other Industry Costs 3.5.1 Abatement Multi-jurisdiction Registration Fee Amendment EPA does not anticipate other direct or indirect im pacts resulting from the proposed rule that would cause entities regulated under the abatement program to ex perience increases or reductions in their costs.

3.5.2 Renovator Refresher Training Course Amendment Individual training providers offering RRP training c ourses could be negatively impacted by the proposed rule if (1) their profit margins are lower for the e-l earning course, or (2) they lose market share with the introduction of the e-learning course. Under the proposed rule, a much larger portion of re novators are expected to enroll in the e-learning refresher training course than the e-learning componen t of the initial training course. This is because renovators would not have to travel to a training f acility in the absence of a hands-on refresher training requirement. (By contrast, renovators taking the initial tr aining course will still have to travel to take the hands-on portion.) If training providers do not develop their own e-learning course, they must contract a third-party firm to offer the course online. In this scen ario, training providers will incur costs in the form of fees paid to the third-party firms to develop and administer the e-learning courses. At the same time other training provider costs, such as classroom space and faculty costs, will decrease. In addition, tuition is expected to be lower if the hands-on requirement is removed. Thus, tuition is expected to decrease*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-10 while some costs are expected to increase and others are expected to decrease. Many uncertainties and data gaps exist about the extent to which individua l training provider profit margins might change. Some training providers may exit the market, others may a dd market share, and new entrants might also seek training provider accreditation. Alternatively, if many renovators choose to take refresher training from the provider of their initial training, there may be little change in market shares. Third-party firms developing renovator e-learning re fresher training courses could decide to become accredited RRP training providers. In this scenario, th ird-party firms could gain a large portion of the market share due to their competitive advantage gain ed by experience and economies of scale. Assuming there are relatively few third-party firms developing e-learning courses, the proposed rule could result in the consolidation of the market of training prov iders offering refresher training courses. While there would not be a net loss to the economy, training provide rs unable to compete with third-party firms that might attain accreditation would likely experience redu ced profits or exit the refresher training market (although they might continue to offer initial certification training).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

4-1 

## 4. Agency Costs EPA will incur costs resulting from the new rule asso ciated with reviewing the expedited e-learning applications submitted by training provi ders to attain accreditation. It is estimated to take an average of 4 hours apiece for an Agency employee to review each of the 275 applications. The base wage rate of the federal government employee review ing applications is taken from the 2014 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Table for Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). A loaded wage rate of $78.13 is then derived by applying a 1.6 fringe benefits and overhead multiplier to the base wage rate of a GS- 13 Step 5 government employee (see Exhibit 4-1) (OPM 2014). The 1.6 fringe benefits a nd overhead multiplier is taken from the ICR Handbook- EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests , published in 2009 (U.S. EPA 2009). Exhibit 4-1: EPA Wage Rate

Labor Category Date Base Wage 1 Fringe Benefits and Overhead Multiplier 2 Loaded Wages (a) (b) (c)=(a)*(b) GS-13 Step 5 1/14 $48.83 1.6 $78.13

1 Office of Personal Management (2014). 2014 General Schedule (GS) Locality PayTables: WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE-NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DC-MD-VAWV-PA. SALARY TABLE 2014-DCB .

2 U.S. EPA (2009). "ICR Handbook- EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection

Requests." Exhibit 4-2 presents net present value and annualized cost accrued by EPA over a fifty year period from 2015 through 2064, under the proposed rule. Costs are di scounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. It is not known how many training providers will only offer refr esher training online and how many will maintain dual accreditations (one for in-person training and one for online training). Therefore, it is unknown whether there will be a change in the number of r eaccreditation applications af ter 2015. If most training providers begin offering refresher training only on line, EPA’s work load for reviewing accreditation applications would not change much in future year s since the training providers would be substituting an online accreditation for one that is in-person. As a result, the analysis only considers EPA’s costs for reviewing additional accreditati on applications in 2015. Exhibit 4-2: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost to EPA Under the Proposed Rule (2014$) Application Review Costs Hours per Application Cost per Application ($78.13/hour) Applications Reviewed Total Cost Discounted Total Cost 3% 7% 2015 4.00 $312.52 275 $85,943 $83,440 $80,321 Net Present Value $83,440 $80,321 Annualized Cost $3,243 $5,820*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

5-1 

## 5. Social Cost Savings The estimated total social cost savings of the proposed rule is equal to the sum of industry cost savings less Agency costs. Exhibit 5-1 presents the net present value and annualized equiva lent value of expected cost savings to society over a fifty year period ranging from 2015 to 2064. Estimates are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. Exhibit 5-1: Total and Annualized Social Cost Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (thousands 2014$)

Category Net Present Value Annualized Cost Savings 3% 7% 3% 7% Industry Cost Savings $246,551 $134,938 $9,583 $9,777

Multi-jurisdiction Amendment $388 $208 $15 $15 Refresher Training Amendment $246,163 $134,730 $9,568 $9,762 Total Agency Costs $83 $80 $3 $6

E-learning Application Processing $83 $80 $3 $6 Social Cost Savings $246,468 $134,858 $9,580 $9,771*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

6-1 

## 6. Small Entity Impact Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, amen ded by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of regulations on small entities including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and govern ments. In some instan ces, agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. The RFA requires agencies to prepare an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless the Agen cy certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would eliminate multi-jurisdiction registration fees and eliminate the hands-on training requirement from the lead renovation refresher training course, resulting in cost savings for entities that no longer would pay the multi-jurisdiction registra tion fees and renovators that would have a less expensive refresher training option available to th em. Training providers might incur costs associated with accrediting e-learning courses. However, it is exp ected that only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. Therefore, there would be no direct negative cost impacts on small entities as a result of the proposed rule.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-1 

## 7. Other Impact Analyses Several statutes and executive orders (EOs) pertain to the proposed rule. This chapter presents statements discussing unfunded mandates, envi ronmental justice, children’s health, and paperwork burden, among others. 

### 7.1 Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (supers eding the PRA of 1980), as implemented by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requires that agencies submit a supporting statement to OMB for any information collection th at solicits the same data from more than nine parties. The PRA seeks to ensure that Federal ag encies balance their need to collect information with the paperwork burden imposed on the pub lic by the collection. The definition of “information collection” includes activities require d by regulations such as permit development, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The term “burden” refers to the “time, effort, or financial resources” the public expends to provide in formation to or for a Federal agency, or to otherwise fulfill statutory or regulatory require ments. PRA paperwork burden is measured in terms of annual time and financial resources th e public devotes to meet one-time and recurring information requests (44 U.S.C. 3502(2); 5 C.F.R. 1320.3(b)). Information collection activities may include:

 reviewing rule requirements;

 using technology to collect, process, and disclose information;

 adjusting existing practices to comply with requirements;

 searching data sources;

 completing and reviewing the response; and

 transmitting or disclosing information. Agencies must provide information to OMB on th e parties affected, the annual reporting burden, and the annual cost of responding to the information collection. 7.1.1 Industry Burden RPP Training Provider Burden Currently accredited training providers that wish to add an already reviewed and accepted RRP e-learning course from another training provider to their training curriculum are eligible for an expedited e-learning course approval. All requ ests to add an already-reviewed e-learning curriculum to an already-accredited training provi ders' record must include a cover letter; a training provider application to amend their accred itation; and an e-learning quality control (QC) plan. The e-learning QC plan must address is sues such as how the trainer will ensure that students successfully complete the e-learning modules and the e-learning module final assessment. Training providers that are already accredited are not charged a fee when adding an already-reviewed e-learning curriculum. Training providers currently accredited for the renova tor refresher training course are expected to apply for an e-learning refresher training accredita tion if the hands-on requi rement is removed. Therefore they would incur an incremental pape rwork burden. Training providers applying for accreditation incur a one-time burden associated w ith becoming familiar with the new rule’s requirements, as well as the burden of completing the accreditation application. Recordkeeping burdens and reporting burdens associated with notification are not incorporated into the incremental burden because they are incurre d with or without this proposed rule.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-2 There are 275 training providers with accredited renovator refresher training programs. It is estimated that renovation training providers will spend half as long on becoming accredited for an e-learning refresher training course as on initial accr editation for an initial training course. (Less information needs to be provided for an expedite d e-learning application, given that the training provider has already been accredite d for an in-person course.) Bu rden for the initial accreditation of an initial renovation training course is take n from the previously approved ICR (EPA No. 1715.13). Burden hour estimates were rounded to one decimal place for this ICR. The resulting burden is estimated to be 4 hours for training provi ders to familiarize themselves with the rule requirements; 4.8 hours to complete the accredita tion statement; and 5 hours to complete the Quality Control Plan (see Exhibit 7-1). Wage rates for each category of personnel are derived with methods and from sources either identical or very similar to those used in prev ious ICRs and economic analyses. Loaded wage rates of $53.66 and $26.79 represent training provider wages for professional and clerical workers, respectively. Wage and fringe benefits data are taken from the Employer Cost for Employee Compensation data series published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2013). Both the professional and clerical base wage rates are inflated to 2014 dollars by applying the CPI for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2014). The overhead data is taken from Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of The Toxics Release Inventory Program (U.S. EPA 2002). The overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to deri ve the fully loaded wage. See Exhibit 7-2 for a detailed derivation of the training provider loaded wage rates.

Exhibit 7-1: Incremental RRP Trai ning Provider Hour Burden

Activity Professional Hours 1 Clerical Hours 1 Burden Hours Per Activity 1 Number of Training Providers Number of Events Per Provider 2 Total Burden Hours E-learning Accreditation

Rule Familiarization 4.00 0.00 4.00 275 1 1,100 Accreditation Statement 3.80 1.00 4.80 275 1 1,320 Quality Control Plan 4.00 1.00 5.00 275 1 1,375 Total Reporting 11.80 2.00 13.80 275 1 3,795

1 Burden hour estimates per activit y for an expedited e-learning application are assu med to be half the burden in the previously

approved ICR EPA No. 1715.13. The hour estimates we re rounded to one decimal place for this ICR.

2 Number of events are from the previously approved ICR EPA No. 1715.13.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-3 Exhibit 7-2: Loaded RRP Training Provider Wage Rates

Labor Category Occupation Category (BLS) 1 Date Base Wage 1 Fringe Benefits Benefits (% of Wage) 1 Overhead (% of Wage) 2 Wage Multiplier Loaded Wages 3 (a) (b) (c) =(b)/(a) (d) (e) =1+(c)+(d) (f) =(a)*(e)

Professional Professional and related 9/12 $33.96 $13.92 41% 17% 1.58 $53.66

Clerical Office and administrative support 9/12 $16.64 $7.32 44% 17% 1.61 $26.79

1 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2013, Dec. 11). "Employe r Costs for Employee Compensa tion - September 2013." Private

industry workers, goods-producing and service-producing.

2 U.S. EPA (2002). Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of The Toxi cs Release Inventory Program, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Environm ental Analysis Division, Analytical Support Branch.

3 Wage rates are rounded to the closest penny. As shown in Exhibit 7-1, training providers woul d incur an incremental burden of 3,795 hours. Exhibit 7-3 presents the incremental costs to training providers associated with new training program accreditation, which are estimated to be $188,861. 8 Wage rates of $53.66 and $26.79 are applied to the professional and clerical hour burdens, respectively, to calculate costs.

Exhibit 7-3: RPP Incremental Tr aining Provider Cost (2014$)

Cost Element Professional Costs ($53.66/hour) Clerical Costs ($26.79/hour) Costs per Activity Number of Training Providers Events per Training Provider Total Cost 1 E-learning Accreditation

Rule Familiarization $214.64 $0.00 $214.64 275 1 $59,026 Accreditation Statement $203.91 $26.79 $230.70 275 1 $63,442 Quality Control Plan $214.64 $26.79 $241.43 275 1 $66,393 Total Reporting $633.19 $53.58 $686.77 275 1 $188,861

1 Wage rates of $53.66 and $26.79 are applied to the pr ofessional and clerical hour burdens, respectively. 

### 7.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Ac t of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, directs agencies to assess the effects of significant regulatory actions that impose Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments, and the pr ivate sector. This proposed rule would not impose an enforceable duty on any State, local or tr ibal governments or the private sector, nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Training providers (both those in the private sector as well as local or tribal

8 The cost of training providers becoming accredited is incorporated in to the tuition they charge their students, so the labor cost of the accreditation is not listed separately in the social cost estimate for the rule. But since the activity involves disclosing informati on, it is accounted for separately as part of the paperwork burden analysis.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-4 governments) that choose to offer e-learning refr esher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning cour ses. However, only trai ning providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. 

### 7.3 Executive Order 13132 – Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) applies to policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship be tween the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities am ong the various levels of government. This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Local govern ments can serve as training providers, and thus might incur costs associated with accrediting their e-learning courses as a result of this action. However, only training providers that anticip ate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additiona l accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. 

### 7.4 Executive Order 13175 – Consultati on and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) directs agencies to consult and collaborate with tribal officials in Federal policy decisions that have tribal implications. This proposed rule would not have tribal implicati ons. Tribal governments can serve as training providers, and thus might incur costs associa ted with accrediting their e-learning courses. However, only training providers that anticip ate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additiona l accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. 

### 7.5 Executive Order 13045 - Children’s Health Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to rules that are economically significant and that concern health or safet y risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. This action is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of $10 0 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities. 

### 7.6 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001 ) addresses actions that effect the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

### 7.7 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-5 or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consen sus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. 

### 7.8 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision di rects federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make envi ronmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, dispropor tionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, polici es, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. This proposed rule does not directly affect the le vel of protection provided to human health or the environment. This is a rule amendment that removes multi-jurisdiction fees for lead-based paint activities and removes the hands-on requirement fo r refresher renovator training. However, it does not change the work practice requirement s for lead-based paint activities or renovation, repair or painting activities disturbing lead-based paint.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

8-1 

## 8. References Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2012, Mar. 29, 2013). "Occupational Employment Statistics - Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2 012, 47-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Worker s." Retrieved Jan. 30, 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes471011.htm#(2)

. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2013, Dec. 11). "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - September 2013." Retrieved Jan. 30, 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12112013.pdf

. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2014). "Consum er Price Index - All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average (2004 to 2014)." CUSR0000SA0 Retrieved Mar. 21, 2014. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (2013, Dec. 6). " 2014 Standard Mileage Rates." Retrieved Mar. 19, 2014, from http://www.irs.gov/2014-Standard-Mil eage-Rates-for-Business,-Medicaland-Moving-Announced

. NAHB Business Management & Information Technol ogy (2012). Cost of Doing Business Study, 2012 Edition, NAHB BuilderBooks.com®. Office of Personal Management (OPM) (2014) . 2014 General Schedule (GS) Locality PayTables: WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE-NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DC-MD-VA-WVPA. SALARY TABLE 2014-DCB U.S. EPA (2002). Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of The Toxics Release Inventory Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Analysis Division, Analytical Support Branch. U.S. EPA (2008). Economic Analysis for th e TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. U.S. EPA (2009). "ICR Handbook- EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests." U.S. EPA (2010). "Federal Lead-Based Paint Program (FLPP) Database 2007-2009." U.S. EPA (2014a). "Federal Lead-Based Paint Program (FLPP) Database 2010-2013." U.S. EPA. (2014b, Jan. 15). "Lead-Based Paint Activ ities Professionals." Retrieved Mar. 7, 2014, from http://www2.epa.gov/lead/lead-based-p aint-activities-professionals#map

. U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). (2014, Jan. 14). "Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) Breakdown." Retrieved Jan. 30, 2014, from www.gsa.gov/mie

.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

A-1 

### Appendix A. Training Courses Tuition Data Exhibit A-1: Sample of Renovation (Re)certification Training Courses

Company Initial Refresher Complete Hands-on Complete Access Training $195.00 $150.00 AEHS, Inc. $200.00 $140.00 Analytical Testing and C onsulting Services, Inc. $150.00 Benchmark Envir onmental Training $165.00 Benchmark Envir onmental Training $200.00 Cardno ATC $225.00 $135.00 CEI CNY Environmental Institute $150.00 $135.00 CEI CNY Environmental Institute $175.00 Chem Scope $180.00 $125.00 Contractor Training 1 $160.04 Environmental Education $145.00 Environmental Management Institute $280.00 $180.00 GEBCO Associates, LP $220.00 $200.00 Greenville Technical College $215.00 $150.00 LEW Corporation $200.00 $120.00 Lianna Development Corporation Training Program $190.00 $100.00 Midwest Environmental Consulting, LLC $195.00 $95.00 Midwest Training Institute $175.00 $100.00 National Econ Corporation $185.00 $135.00 Northwest Independent C ontractors Association $250.00 $200.00 Northwest Independent C ontractors Association $295.00 Northwest Independent C ontractors Association $300.00 Public Health and Safety Inc. $260.00 Resolution, Inc. $225.00 $95.00 The Environmental Institute $250.00 $125.00 The Western Regional Lead Training Center $217.00 The Westside Environmental Pl an of Action Committee, LLC $225.00 TORF Environmental Management $250.00 Weecycle Environm ental Consulting $200.00 Weecycle Environm ental Consulting $250.00 Wunderlin Environmental Training Services LLC $209.00 $99.00 Number of Courses 29 2 17 Mean $214.86 $150.02 $134.65 Median $209.00 $150.02 $135.00 Minimum $150.00 $140.00 $95.00 Maximum $300.00 $160.04 $200.00 Standard Deviation $39.52 $14.17 $33.91

1 Initial hands-on training course tuition is derived by taking the tuition for the initial e-learning cl assroom and hands-on training course and subtracting the e-learning classr oom component ($160.04 = $199.99 - $39.95). The e-learning component was developed by a thir d-party firm, Contractor Harbor.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_EA_Revised_2014-12-10.docx 1

2 3 4 

## Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program 5 

## Minor Amendments Proposed Rule 6 7 8 

## RIN 2070-AK02 9 10 11 12 

# EO 12866 REVIEW DRAFT 13

14 15 16 17 December 10, 2014 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 33 Economics, Exposure and Technology Division 34 Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics 35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 36 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 37 Washington, DC 20460 38i This Page Intentionally Left Blank*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

ii 

### Acknowledgement Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP-W-08-0100.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

iii 

### Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. .................... ES-1 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. .................... 1-1 1.1 Regulatory and Programma tic Background ............................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Summary of Analytic Approach .............................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Organization of This Report.................................................................................................... . 1-2 2. Affected Entities ............................................................................................................. ................... 2-1 2.1 Regulated Community ........................................................................................................... .. 2-1 3. Industry Cost Savings ......................................................................................................... ............. 3-1 3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. ............ 3-1 3.2 Abatement Multi-jurisdiction Registration Fee Amendment ................................................... 3-1 3.3 Renovator Refresher Training Course Amendment ................................................................. 3-2 3.4 Total Industry Cost Savings ................................................................................................... .. 3-9 3.5 Other Industry Costs .......................................................................................................... ...... 3-9 4. Agency Costs .................................................................................................................. ................... 4-1 5. Social Cost Savings ........................................................................................................... ................ 5-1 6. Small Entity Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. ........ 6-1 7. Other Impact Analyses ......................................................................................................... ............ 7-1 7.1 Paperwork Reduction Act ....................................................................................................... . 7-1 7.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ............................................................................................. 7-3 7.3 Executive Order 13132 – Federalism ....................................................................................... 7-4 7.4 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordina tion with Indian Tribal Governments ... 7-4 7.5 Executive Order 13045 - Children’s Health ............................................................................. 7-4 7.6 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ............................................... 7-4 7.7 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ............................................................. 7-4 7.8 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice ..................................................................... 7-5 8. References .................................................................................................................... ..................... 8-1 Appendix A. Training Courses Tuition Data ..................................................................................... ..... A-1*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

iv 

### List of Exhibits

Exhibit ES-1: Total and Annualized Social Cost Savi ngs of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (millions 2014$) .............................................................................................................. ........................... ES-2 Exhibit 2-1: Lead-based Paint Activities Individuals a nd Firms Applying for (Re)certification and Training Providers Applying for (R e)accreditation from 2011-2013 ....................................................................... ... 2-1 Exhibit 2-2: Renovator Initial Certifications under the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Rule from 2010 through 2013. ............................................................................................................ ........................... 2-1 Exhibit 3-1: Annual Multi-jurisdiction Registrati on Fees for Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification, and Training Providers Applying for (Re)accreditation ................................................... 3- 1 Exhibit 3-2: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost Savings for Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification, and Training Providers Applying for (Re)accreditation (2014$) ................................ 3-2 Exhibit 3-3: Procedure to estimate in-person classroom refresher training course tuition ........................... 3-4 Exhibit 3-4: Estimated refresher training tuition summary ..................................................................... ...... 3-4 Exhibit 3-5: Total Renovator Travel Cost ...................................................................................... ............... 3-5 Exhibit 3-6: Incremental Renovator Training Co st Savings under the Proposed Rule ................................. 3-5 Exhibit 3-7: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking Training ................................................................. 3 -7 Exhibit 3-8: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking In-person and E-learning Refresher Training Options ....................................................................................................................... ................................... 3-7 Exhibit 3-9: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annuali zed Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking In-person Classroom Training Under the Proposed Rule (2014$) ............................................................................ .... 3-8 Exhibit 3-10: Fifty Year Net Present Value and A nnualized Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking E-learning Classroom Training Under the Proposed Rule (2014$) .............................................................. 3- 8 Exhibit 3-11: Combined Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Renovator Recertification Cost Savings Under the Proposed Rule (thousands 2014$) ............................................................................. ..... 3-9 Exhibit 3-12: Total and Annualized Industry Cost Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (thousands 2014$) ............................................................................................................. ............................ 3-9 Exhibit 4-1: EPA Wage Rate .................................................................................................... .................... 4-1 Exhibit 4-2: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost to EPA Under the Proposed Rule (2014$) 4- 1 Exhibit 5-1: Total and Annualized Social Cost Savi ngs of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (thousands 2014$) ............................................................................................................. ............................ 5-1 Exhibit 7-1: Incremental RRP Training Provider Hour Burden ................................................................... 7-2 Exhibit 7-2: Loaded RRP Training Provider Wage Rates .......................................................................... .. 7-3 Exhibit 7-3: RPP Incremental Training Provider Cost (2014$) ................................................................... . 7-3 Exhibit A-1: Sample of Renovation (Re)certification Training Courses ..................................................... A-1*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

ES-1 

## Executive Summary The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) is considering two cost saving amendments to the regulations for Lead-based Paint Poisoning Prevention in Certain Residential Structures, codified at 40 CFR part 745 and promulgated under TSCA §402(a) a nd §402(c). This report estimates the cost savings from the proposed rule that includ es these amendments to the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule for lead abatement and the Residential Property Renova tion rule for renovation, repair and painting (RRP). The first amendment removes the multi-jurisdiction registration fee that individuals and firms pay for (re)certification and that training programs pay for (r e)accreditation in the lead abatement program. Under the existing regulations, there is a $35 fee for each additional EPA-administered jurisdiction for which organizations apply to perform LBP abatement activities or to provide lead abatement training. In a typical year, individuals, firms, and training providers appl y to perform lead-based paint activities or provide training in a total of 431 additi onal EPA-administered jurisdictions. Removing the $35 fee will result in total estimated cost savings of approxima tely $15,000 per year to these entities. The second amendment removes the hands-on training requirement from the lead renovation refresher training course. Under the existing rule, both the initial and refresher renovator training courses must include a classroom component (which may be take n in person or online) and a hands-on component (which must be taken in person). Removing the hands- on training requirement is estimated to reduce the tuition for refresher training courses by an average of $37. Removing the hands-on requirement is also expected to make online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. If renovators become recertified solely by taking an e- learning course (i.e., without an in-person component) they are estimated to save an additional $165 by avoi ding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. Renovator training and certification became mandatory in 2010 and a large number of renovators were trained that year, with smaller numbers becomi ng trained in each subsequent year. Training and certification are valid for five years, and many renova tors will need to be recertified over the next few years. The largest number of recertifications is expect ed in 2015, when 168,000 renovators are expected to seek refresher training. Over time, the number of re novators seeking refresher training is predicted to equilibrate to approximately 48,000 per year. Nearly all of these renovators are assumed to choose to receive their refresher training online if the hands-on requirement is removed, thus reducing travel costs. Removing the hands-on requirement fo r renovator refresher training is estimated to save over $9 million per year. If the hands-on requirement is rem oved, training providers currently accredited for the renovator refresher training course are expected to apply for an e-l earning refresher training accreditation to accommodate the high demand for the course. EPA will incur additional costs because the Agency must review and process applications submitted by training providers to become accredited for an e-learning course. An estimated 275 training providers would apply for an e-learni ng refresher course accreditation if the rule is promulgated. Reviewing and processing the additional accr editation applications is estimated to cost the EPA over $80,000. The rule includes a correction to the training notifica tion requirements to add back regulatory text on posttraining notifications that was inadvertently overw ritten in a 2011 rulemaking (although most training providers are continuing to provide post-training no tifications to EPA in a timely manner). EPA has*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

ES-2 already accounted for the burden and cost of requi ring accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training course the provider delivers. Fo r example, the currently approved Information Collection Request for the RRP program 1 estimates that 600 renovation training providers will submit an average of 14 post-training notifi cations per year. This yields a total of 8,400 posttraining notifications per year at an average burden of 1.6 hours per response, resulting in a total burden for this activity of 13,440 hours at a cost of $339,578. In order to avoid double-counting cost that has already been accounted for, the current analysis does not include the burden and cost of reinstating the post-training notification requirements. The rule also adds clarifying language explaining that training providers must follow the regulations. This does not affect the cost of compliance because it does not change any requirements for accredited training providers, and the analysis assumes that training pr oviders already comply with the regulations. Exhibit ES-1 presents estimates for the total and an nualized industry cost savings and Agency costs associated with the enactment of the proposed amendm ents, as well as the total and annualized social cost savings. Estimates are discounted at 3 and 7 percent. The cost savings to society is estimated to be between $9.6 and $9.8 million per year with the passage of the proposed amendments to the LBP activities and renovation regulations (see Exhibit ES-1).

Exhibit ES-1: Total and Annualized Social Co st Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (millions 2014$) 1

Category Net Present Value Annualized Cost Savings 3% 7% 3% 7% Total Industry Cost Savings $246.551 $134.938 $9.583 $9.777 Multi-jurisdiction Amendment $0.388 $0.208 $0.015 $0.015 Refresher Training Amendment $246.163 $134.730 $9.568 $9.762 Total Agency Costs $0.083 $0.080 $0.003 $0.006 E-learning Application Processing $0.083 $0.080 $0.003 $0.006 Social Cost Savings $246.468 $134.858 $9.580 $9.771

1 A fifty year analytical period is selected to be cons istent with economic analyses of prior Lead-based Paint Activities program rules and RRP program rules.

1 Information Collection Request for the TSCA Sections 402 and Section 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and Painting (EPA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0155).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

1-1 

## 1. Introduction This report assesses the cost savings expected to resu lt from amendments to EPA’s Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule and to the Residential Property Ren ovation rule. These amendments would eliminate EPA’s multi-jurisdiction registration fee in the abatement pr ogram and remove the hands-on requirement from the renovator refresher training course curriculum. This chapter provides background information on EPA’s lead-based paint (LBP) regulations, a brief summary of the methodology used in the analysis, and a description of the organization of the remainder of this report. 

### 1.1 Regulatory and Programmatic Background 1.1.1 Abatement Multi-jurisdiction Registration Fee In 1996 EPA promulgated final regulations for Lead-based Paint Activities under TSCA §402(a) that govern LBP inspections, lead hazard scr eens, risk assessments, and lead ab atements in target housing and child-occupied facilities (61 FR 45778, codified at 40 CFR part 745). On June 9t h, 1999, EPA amended the regulations (64 FR 31092) to include a fee schedule for individuals and firms seeking EPA (re)certification and for training programs seeking EPA (re)accreditation. The fee schedule created a multi-jurisdiction registration fee of $35 per discipline for each additiona l EPA-administered jurisdiction (e.g., a state) in which an individual, firm, or tr aining program applies for (re)certification or (re)accreditation (40 CFR §745.238 (c)(3)). For purposes of this multi-jurisdiction registration fee, an EPA-administered jurisdiction is an individual state without an authorized program or all tribes without authorized programs in a given EPA Region. The EPA-administered jurisdictions for the lead abatement program are:

 States – Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming;

 U.S. territories – American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marianas; and

 Tribal lands – tribal lands except the Cherok ee Nation, Lower Sioux Nation, and Upper Sioux Community. All other states, U.S. territories, as well as the Cherokee Nation, Lower Sioux Nation, and Upper Sioux Community, have EPA-authorized LBP abatement programs (U.S. EPA 2014b).

1.1.2 Hands-on Refresher Training for Renovators In 2008, EPA issued a final rule for Residential Pr operty Renovations under the authority of §402(c)(3) of TSCA to address LBP hazards created by Renovation, Re pair, and Painting (RRP) activities that disturb LBP in target housing and child-occupied facilities ( 73 FR 21692). To become a certified renovator, an individual must successfully complete an appropria te training course accredited by EPA (40 CFR §745.90). Individuals who have not previously been trained must complete an initial training course lasting a minimum of eight hours, including a minimum of tw o hours of hands-on training. To maintain renovator certification, an individual must complete a refresh er course from an accredited training provider within five years of completing the initial course. The rule requires renovator refresher training courses to last a minimum of four hours (40 CFR §745.225 (e)(2)) and include a hands-on component (40 CFR §745.225 (e)(3)). EPA manages the RRP program in most areas of the country. However, the states of Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mi ssissippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin are authorized to administer their own programs in lieu of the federal program. The proposed rule, and this analysis, apply only in states that do not have authorized programs.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

1-2 

### 1.2 Summary of Analytic Approach This analysis seeks to quantify, to the extent possible, the cost savings to society of the two amendments. The costs to industry associated with the multi-juri sdiction registration fee include a $35 fee for each additional EPA-administered jurisdiction for which organizations apply to perform lead-based paint abatement activities or to provide lead abatement training. The cost savings to industry for eliminating the fee is the amount in fees that they would no longer be required to pay.

Costs to renovators associated with the refresher trai ning course currently include course tuition and travel cost to a training site to receive hands-on training. Tuition costs are estimated to decrease if the hands-on requirement is removed. For those renovators choosi ng to take the refresher course online, there is an additional cost savings because there is no travel co st. The cost savings from eliminating the hands-on requirement for renovator refresher training includes reductions in both average tuition cost and average travel cost. 

### 1.3 Organization of This Report Regulated entities are characterized in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 includes the economic analysis of cost savings to regulated entities. The small entity impacts are di scussed in Chapter 4. Several additional impacts are described in Chapter 7. Cited references are listed in Chapter 8. The Appendix contains the tuition data for renovator initial and refresher training courses that were u sed in the analysis. Note that all dollar values in this analysis are reported in 2014 dollars.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

2-1 

## 2. Affected Entities 2.1 Regulated Community The multi-jurisdiction registration fee amendment may a ffect individuals, firms, and training providers regulated by the Lead-based Paint Activities rule, with the exception of non-profit training providers (which are exempt from the fee). The renovator refresher training course amendment directly affects individuals who must take a training course to comp ly with the Residential Property Renovation rule. The number of entities affected under both amendments is estimated from data in EPA’s Federal Leadbased Paint Program (FLPP) database (U.S. EPA 2014a). Exhibit 2-1 presents the number of all applications submitted by individuals and firms engaging in leadbased paint activities, and all training providers o ffering lead-based paint activities training courses, from 2011 through 2013 (not just those applying to work in additional jurisdictions). Exhibit 2-1 also presents the number of additional jurisdictions in which i ndividuals and firms are sought (re)certification and training providers are sought (re)accreditation.

Exhibit 2-1: Lead-based Paint Activities Indivi duals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification and Training Providers Applying fo r (Re)accreditation from 2011-2013 Applicant Total Number of Applications Additional Jurisdictions Sought Individuals 5,127 864 Firms 1,780 403 Training Providers (for-profit) 23 27 The RRP rule required that, starting in 2010, all regul ated renovations disturbing lead-based paint must be performed by renovators who have taken an 8 hour training course (including 2 hours of hands-on training). Renovators must take a 4 hour refresher training class (which currently includes a required hands-on component) every five years. Exhibit 2-2 presents the number of renovator certifications from 2010 through 2013. Column 1 of Exhibit 2-2 lists the year the certification was issued, and Column 2 lists the year the certification expires. The number of cer tifications was highest in 2010 because that was the year that the renovator training requirement became effective. Consequently, the number of refresher trainings is expected to be highest five years la ter (in 2015), and decline for several years at a rate analogous to the rate of decline observed in certifications from 2011 to 2013.

Exhibit 2-2: Renovator Initial Cert ifications under the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Rule from 2010 through 2013. Year Certified Expiration Year Number of Initial Certifications 2010 2015 357,500 2011 2016 52,800 2012 2017 38,800 2013 2018 29,300*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-1 

## 3. Industry Cost Savings 3.1 Introduction This chapter presents estimates of the cost savings associated with the amendments. Section 3.2 presents estimates for the multi-jurisdiction registration fee am endment and Section 3.3 presents estimates for the renovator refresher training course amendment. Total co st savings of both amendments are summarized in Section 3.4. A fifty year analytical period is used in this to be consistent with prior economic analyses of abatement and RRP program rules. Net present value and annualized savings are presented for this time period using 3 and 7 percent discount rates. 

### 3.2 Abatement Multi-jurisdicti on Registration Fee Amendment If jurisdictions are eliminated, regulated entities will no longer have to send an application and fees to EPA for the purpose of adding additional EPA-administe red state jurisdictions to their certification or accreditation. Once a regulated entity applies and is approved in the Lead-based Paint Activities program, it will be able to work in any EPA-administered stat e. EPA’s multi-jurisdiction registration fee data for 2011 through 2013 are presented in Ex hibit 3-1. Column 2 and Column 3 of Exhibit 3-1 present the total and annual average number of add itional EPA-administered jurisdictions for which organizations applied to perform lead-based paint activities or provide trai ning from 2011 through 2013, respectively. Note thatnon-profit training programs are excluded from the analysis because they are exempt from the multijurisdiction registration fee. The average annual cost s borne by regulated entities are summarized in the last column of Exhibit 3-1 and are calculated by applying the $35 multi-jurisdiction registration fee to Column 3. Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee would save individuals, firms, and training providers a combined $15,085 per year. Exhibit 3-1: Annual Multi-jurisdiction Re gistration Fees for Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification, and Training Providers Applying for (Re)accreditation

Applicant Additional Jurisdictions Total Annual Fees 2011 - 2013 Average Annual Individuals 864 288 $10,080 Firms 403 134 $4,690 Training Providers (for-profit) 27 9 $315 Total 431 $15,085 Exhibit 3-2 presents the fifty year net present value and annualized cost savings under the proposed rule for individuals and firms applying for (re)certif ication, and training providers applying for (re)accreditation (2014$). The cost savings are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-2 Exhibit 3-2: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost Savings for Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification, and Training Pr oviders Applying for (R e)accreditation (2014$)

Period Additional Jurisdictions Unit Incremental Cost Savings Incremental Cost Savings Discounted Incremental Cost Savings 3% 7% 2015 431 $35 $15,085 $14,646 $14,098 2016 431 $35 $15,085 $14,219 $13,176 2017 431 $35 $15,085 $13,805 $12,314 2018 431 $35 $15,085 $13,403 $11,508 2019 431 $35 $15,085 $13,012 $10,755 2020 431 $35 $15,085 $12,633 $10,052



# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 431 $35 $15,085 $3,441 $512 Net Present Value $388,133 $208,184 Annualized Cost Savings $15,085 $15,085 

### 3.3 Renovator Refresher Training Course Amendment Incremental training cost savings associated with the proposed amendment include tuition and travel cost. The cost of the time spent on training activities is not affected because the proposed rule does not change the duration of the refresher training course.

3.3.1 Tuition Under the existing rule, both the initial and refr esher renovator training courses consist of both a classroom and a hands-on component. The classroom co mponent can be taken in-person or online, whereas the hands-on component must be taken in -person. Under the proposed rule, the hands-on requirement would be rescinded from the refresher training course, allowing renovators to become recertified remotely solely by taking an e-learning course. Traveling to a training provider’s facility, or contracting a traveling training provider, would no longer be obligatory. The refresher training course tuition is estimated under both the existing rule (with a hands-on training requirement) and the proposed rule (no hands-on training requirement). Estimates are based on tuition data collected from the websites of a sample of training providers offering refresher a nd/or initial renovator trai ning. The tuition data and summary statistics can be found in Appendix A. A renovator is currently able to enroll in an in-p erson classroom and hands-on refresher training course. (The current rule would allow a renovator to take an e-learning classroom and hands-on refresher training course, but no training providers currently offer re fresher training courses with an e-learning classroom component. 2 ) The mean tuition for an in-person classroom and hands-on refresher training course is

2 The number and variety of refresher training courses has been more limited than initial training courses because

renovators will not need to be recertif ied until 2015. The refresh er course has so far only been offered to renovators with prior lead-safety traini ng in order to receive certification un der the RRP rule. In 2015, when the refresher training course is in its highest demand, traini ng providers will offer the course more frequently and may offer an e-learning option as well.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-3 $134.65 (see Appendix A). Based on data from initial renovator training courses 3 , it appears that training providers tend to charge the same tuition whether th e classroom component is taught in-person or online. From the sample of training provider course tuiti ons, four training providers listed tuitions for both options on their websites. Three of the four training providers offered both options for the same tuition. Accordingly, it is assumed that if a refresher training course with an e-learning classroom component and a hands-on component were offered, the mean tuition would also be $134.65 (identical to the tuition for a course with an in-person classroom component). As shown in Appendix A, the mean tuition for the 8 hour initial renovator training course (which includes 2 ho urs of hands-on training) is $214.86. The mean tuition for the 2 hour hands-on training component by itself is estimated to be $150.02. Removing the hands-on requirement is expected to make online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. 4 Under the proposed rule, a renovator can enroll in an in-person or an e-learning classroom refresher training course. While the tuition for an e-learning classroom refresher training course is assumed to be th e same as for an in-person class, it is worth noting that the e-learning classroom refresher training course tuition could be less expensive than the in-person option. For example, lower overhead costs may allo w training providers to offer the course at a lower price, or new firms that have a competitive advant age in providing e-learning courses may begin offering the renovator refresher training course. 5 The procedure to estimate the tuition for the classroo m portion of a refresher course relies on the mean tuition for an initial and refresher training course, a nd the mean tuition for the hands-on component of an initial training course. The estimated tuition for an in-person classroom refresher training course is $97.68. The steps taken to produce this estimate are detailed in Exhibit 3-3. The difference between the tuition of $134.65 (for an in-person refresher course with a hands-on component) and $97.68 (for an in-person refresher co urse without a hands-on component) is $36.97. This $36.97 in savings results from decreases in the co st of supplies and instruction if the hands-on requirement is removed. 6

3 Unlike for refresher training, there are training provide rs currently offering the classroom portion of the initial renovator course online.

4 There may be less incentive for training providers to o ffer an e-learning option – or for renovators to take advantage of it – if there is a hands-on training requirement. If the renovator and/or the in structor are traveling to the training site, they are incurring the trav el costs whether or not the classroom portion is taken in-person or online. If the hands-on requirement is removed the renovator can ta ke the entire refresher course online, eliminating these travel costs. This makes e-learning more attractiv e to both the renovator and the training provider.

5 Currently, many e-learning courses for initial training are developed by third party firms and are offered by

training providers who package the course with their hands-on training course.

6 The cost of providing instruction decreases if the hands-on component is removed because the recommended student teacher ratio is 6-to-1 for the hands-on component of the course, compar ed to 25-to-1 for the rest of the inperson classroom course. The tuition for the hands-on component also covers the cost of various supplies (such as EPA-recognized test kits, disposable plastic drop cloths, tape, electrostatically charged cleaning cloths, disposable wet cleaning wipes, garbage bags, and so on) for each student.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-4 Exhibit 3-3: Procedure to estimate in-p erson classroom refresher training course tuition Estimation Steps Value Formula Tuition data (mean) (A) Initial Course $214.86 (B) Refresher Course $134.65 (C) Hands-on Training (2 hours) $150.02 Derived estimates (D) Cost of 3 classroom hours and 1 hands-on training hour $80.21 (A) - (B) (E) Fixed cost of Initial Course $54.44 (B) - (D) (F) Incremental costs of 2 hours of hands-on training $95.58 (C) - (E) (G) Hands-on training cost per hour $47.79 (F) ÷ 2 (H) Cost of 3 classroom hours $32.42 (D) - (G) (I) Classroom cost per hour $10.81 (H) ÷ 3 In-person classroom refresher training course, 4 hours $97.68 (E) + [4 * (I)] Note: Unlike the initial training course, there is no ma ndatory duration for the hands-on component of the refresher course. The ha nds-on portion of the initial course must be at least 2 hours, which is 25% of the total 8 hours of training. So for the refresher course, the hands-on component is assumed to be 1 hour, which is 25% of the 4 hour duration of the refresher course. Exhibit 3-4 presents a summary of the estimated re fresher training course tuitions under the existing and proposed rule. Exhibit 3-4: Estimated refresher training tuition summary Existing Rule

In-person classroom and in-person hands-on $134.65 E-learning classroom and in-person hands-on $134.65 Proposed Rule removing hands-on requirement

In-person classroom (no hands-on) $97.68 E-learning classroom (no hands-on) $97.68

3.3.2 Travel Cost Travel cost consists of the cost for a renovator to tr avel to the training site, incidental expenses, and the value of the time spent traveling to and from the trai ning site. The estimated cost of travel relies on the Standard Mileage Rates published by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS published a rate of $0.56 per mile, effective January 1 st , 2014 (IRS 2013). The travel distance is assumed to be 100 miles (50 miles each way), as in the 2008 economic analysis of the RRP program rule (U.S. EPA 2008). The total cost of travel is estimated to be $56. Expenses co mprise the cost of lunch and are estimated using the Meals and Incidental Expenses Breakdown published by the General Services Administration. These expenses are estimated to be $14.17 and are calculated by averaging the six tiers of lunch reimbursement rates representing the lower 48 states (GSA 2014). The travel duration and the average renovator wage rate are used to estimate the cost of renovators’ time to travel to a training site. Travel duration is assume d to be two hours, as in the 2008 economic analysis of the RRP program rule (U.S. EPA 2008). The wage ra te assigned to renovators is derived with methods*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-5 and from sources identical to or similar to those used in previous Information Collection Request renewals and economic analyses for EPA’s RRP pr ogram. A renovator’s fully loaded wage rate incorporates wages and salaries, benefits, and overh ead. A renovator’s wages and salaries are represented by the mean hourly wage rate of First-Line Superv isors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) - Occupational Employment Statistics (OES). The mean hourly wage rate inflated to 2014 dollars is $31.12 for First Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers (BLS 2012; BLS 2014). The base wage rate is inflated to 2014 dollars by applying the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2014). The September 2013 release of the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data indicates that wages a nd salaries constitute 69.1% of total employee compensations for civilian workers, implying a wa ge multiplier of 1.45 to account for benefits (BLS 2013). An overhead of 8.3% is derived from the 2012 publication of the Cost of Doing Business (NAHB Business Management & Information Technology 2012) . By combining 1.45 and 8.3%, a multiplier of 1.53 is used to estimate a fully loaded hourly wage rate of $47.61 for renovators. Taking into account the total travel duration of two hours, the cost of travel time for a renovator attending training is estimated to be $95.22. Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the components of the travel cost to attend in-person training.

Exhibit 3-5: Total Renovator Travel Cost Category Cost Mileage Cost $56.00 Expenses (lunch) $14.17 Cost of Travel Time $95.22 Travel Cost $165.39

3.3.3 Incremental Training Cost Savings per Renovator Exhibit 3-6 presents the incremental training cost savings per renovator seeking recertification under the proposed rule. The cost savings includes reduced tu ition and avoided travel co sts. Renovators switching to the e-learning course realize the greatest cost sav ings because they avoid the costs associated with traveling to a training provider’s facility.

Exhibit 3-6: Incremental Renovator Tr aining Cost Savings under the Proposed Rule Training Course Existing Rule Costs Proposed Rule Costs Cost Savings In-person classroom Tuition $134.65 $97.68 $36.97 Travel Cost $165.39 $165.39 0 Total $300.04 $263.07 $36.97 E-learning classroom Tuition $134.65 $97.68 $36.97 Travel Cost $165.39 0 $165.39 Total $300.04 $97.68 $202.36*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-6 3.3.4 Number of Individuals Seeking Renovator Recertification Renovator training and certification for persons conducting covered renova tion activities became mandatory in 2010, and a large number of renovators were trained that year. There was a decrease in the number of individuals trained in 2011, and a furt her decrease in 2012 and 2013. The total number of renovators expected to seek refresher training in 2015 through 2018 is estimated using certification expiration data for the current stock of trained a nd certified renovators (see Exhibit 3-7) and an assumed turnover rate for renovators exiting the industry. The total number of renovators expected to seek training in 2019 is assumed to equal the total in 2018 because e xpiration data is not yet available for that year. Beyond 2019, it is assumed that the total number of renovators expected to seek training each year will stabilize. Exhibit 3-7 presents the total number of re novators expected to seek training from 2015 through 2064, as well as the subset expected to seek refresher training. The number of expired certifications presented in Colu mn 2 of Exhibit 3-7 is equal to the number of initial certifications attained five years earlier. 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 an d recertification will be less than the numbers of individuals with expiring certifica tions (which represents the total number of individuals assumed to be trained each year). It is assumed that 53 percent of the stock of renova tors seeking training exits the industry during the five year certification period. This turnover rate is b ased on the average percent of Abatement Supervisor applications that are for initial certification, reco rded in the FLPP database between 2007 and 2009 (U.S. EPA 2010). Therefore, the number of renovators seeking re fresher training in a given year is equal to the number of renovators that remained active throughout the certification period, which is 47 percent of the number of renovators trained five years earlier (see Column 2 of Exhibit 3-7). The other 53 percent are assumed to exit the industry and be replaced by new entrants who take the initial training course. Because renovators were required to be trained and certified starting in 2010 and because renovator training and certification is valid for five years, a large number of renovators are expected to seek refresher training in 2015, with a decrease in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Beginning in 2020, the number of renovators seeking training each year is assumed to equ ilibrate to 101,540, one fifth of the total stock of certified renovators. The total stock of certified renovators is equal to the sum of expiring certifications from 2015 through 2019 (507,700 renovators). The number of renovators receiving initial training decreased each year from 2010 through 2013. One might expect a spike in refresher training starting in 2015 followed by a decrease for the next four years, followed by another spike in 2020, with a repeating patte rn every five years. That is, one might expect a cyclical pattern of retraining to emerge. However, ove r time the original cohort of trained individuals will retire or leave the market and be replaced by new renova tors whose training cycle is not tied to the start of the RRP program in 2010. So the cycle will be damp ened and eventually disappear. Trying to model such a trend in the declining cycli cality would add litt le to the analysis while significantly increasing the complexity of the calculations. Instead, the analysis uses a declining level for the first cycle of refresher training (because this mirrors the historical data on init ial training shown in Exhib it 3-7). Then, in order to simplify the calculations, the analysis assumes a consta nt average number of individuals receive refresher training each year starting in 2020.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-7 Exhibit 3-7: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking Training

Year 1 Number of Renovators Seeking Initial or Refresher Training 1 Renovators Seeking Refresher Training 2 2015 357,500 168,025 2016 52,800 24,816 2017 38,800 18,236 2018 29,300 13,771 2019 29,300 13,771 Average for 2015-2019 101,540 47,723 2020 101,540 47,723



# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 101,540 47,723

1 The number of renovators seeking training in 2019 is assumed to equal the number in 2018.

2 Each year 47 percent of renovators with expiring certifications are expected to seek refresher training. The other

53 percent are assumed to exit the industry, and be replaced by new entrants who take the initial training course. If the refresher hands-on training requirement is re moved, renovators seeking refresher training would have the option to become recertified by enrolling in an in-person course or an e-learning course. Ninety-eight percent of renovators seeking training are assumed to enroll in an e-learning course due to the convenience of taking the course online and the savings in travel costs. 7 The remaining 2 percent of renovators are assumed to continue taking in-person tr aining after the amendment because they prefer to take their training in class rather than online. Enro llment expectations are summarized in Exhibit 3-8. Exhibit 3-8: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking In-person and E-learning Refresher Training Options Year 1 In-person E-learning 2015 3,361 164,665 2016 496 24,320 2017 365 17,871 2018 275 13,496 2019 275 13,496 Average for 2015-2019 954 46,769 2020 954 46,769



# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 954 46,769

1 The number of renovators seeking training in 2019 is assumed to equal the number in 2018.

7 The 98% value is a demonstrative assu mption for analytical purposes. It is not based on experience with any other training programs, such as the initial renovator training. (Because the initial renovator training requires hands-on training, as well as travel expenses, th at online training does not result in comparable cost savings or adoption rates.)*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-8 3.3.5 Total Renovator Training Costs Savings Exhibit 3-9 and Exhibit 3-10 present the net present valu e and annualized cost savings under the proposed rule, over a fifty year period from 2015 through 2064, for the in-person and e-learning classroom refresher training courses, respectively. The cost savi ngs are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent.

Exhibit 3-9: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annua lized Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking In-person Classroom Training Under th e Proposed Rule (2014$)

In-person classroom training Recertifications Unit Incremental Cost Savings Incremental Cost Savings

(1,000$) Discounted Incremental Cost Savings (1,000$) 3% 7% 2015 3,361 $36.97 $124 $121 $116 2016 496 $36.97 $18 $17 $16 2017 365 $36.97 $13 $12 $11 2018 275 $36.97 $10 $9 $8 2019 275 $36.97 $10 $9 $7 2020 954 $36.97 $35 $30 $24 

# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 954 $36.97 $35 $8 $1 Net Present Value $914 $500 Annualized Cost Savings $36 $36

Exhibit 3-10: Fifty Year Net Present Value and An nualized Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking E-learning Classroom Training Under the Proposed Rule (2014$)

E-learning classroom training Recertifications Unit Incremental Cost Savings Incremental Cost Savings

(1,000$) Discounted Incremental Cost Savings (1,000$) 3% 7% 2015 164,665 $202.36 $33,322 $32,351 $31,142 2016 24,320 $202.36 $4,921 $4,639 $4,298 2017 17,871 $202.36 $3,616 $3,310 $2,952 2018 13,496 $202.36 $2,731 $2,426 $2,083 2019 13,496 $202.36 $2,731 $2,356 $1,947 2020 46,769 $202.36 $9,464 $7,926 $6,306 

# ⁞ 2064 (year 50) 46,769 $202.36 $9,464 $2,159 $321 Net Present Value $245,249 $134,230 Annualized Cost Savings $9,532 $9,726 Exhibit 3-11 presents the combined net present value and annualized incremental cost savings accrued by renovators over a fifty year period from 2015 through 2064, under the proposed rule. Costs are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-9 Exhibit 3-11: Combined Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Renovator Recertification Cost Savings Under th e Proposed Rule (thousands 2014$)

Category Net Present Value Annualized Costs 3% 7% 3% 7% Proposed Rule Cost Savings $246,163 $134,730 $9,568 $9,762



### 3.4 Total Industry Cost Savings The net present value and annualized industry co st savings for both proposed amendments are summarized in Exhibit 3-12. These savings reflect a 50 year period from 2015 through 2064, and are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. The net present value of the industry cost savings ranges from $134,938 thousand to $246,551 thousand, in 2014$. Annualized industry cost savings are expected to range from $9,583 thousand to $9,777 thousand per year, in 2014$.

Exhibit 3-12: Total and Annualiz ed Industry Cost Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (thousands 2014$)

Category Net Present Value Annualized Cost Savings 3% 7% 3% 7% Multi-jurisdiction Amendment $388 $208 $15 $15 Refresher Training Amendment $246,163 $134,730 $9,568 $9,762 Total Industry Cost Savings $246,551 $134,938 $9,583 $9,777



### 3.5 Other Industry Costs 3.5.1 Abatement Multi-jurisdiction Registration Fee Amendment EPA does not anticipate other direct or indirect im pacts resulting from the proposed rule that would cause entities regulated under the abatement program to ex perience increases or reductions in their costs.

3.5.2 Renovator Refresher Training Course Amendment Individual training providers offering RRP training c ourses could be negatively impacted by the proposed rule if (1) their profit margins are lower for the e-l earning course, or (2) they lose market share with the introduction of the e-learning course. Under the proposed rule, a much larger portion of re novators are expected to enroll in the e-learning refresher training course than the e-learning componen t of the initial training course. This is because renovators would not have to travel to a training f acility in the absence of a hands-on refresher training requirement. (By contrast, renovators taking the initial tr aining course will still have to travel to take the hands-on portion.) If training providers do not develop their own e-learning course, they must contract a third-party firm to offer the course online. In this scen ario, training providers will incur costs in the form of fees paid to the third-party firms to develop and administer the e-learning courses. At the same time other training provider costs, such as classroom space and faculty costs, will decrease. In addition, tuition is expected to be lower if the hands-on requirement is removed. Thus, tuition is expected to decrease*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

3-10 while some costs are expected to increase and others are expected to decrease. Many uncertainties and data gaps exist about the extent to which individua l training provider profit margins might change. Some training providers may exit the market, others may a dd market share, and new entrants might also seek training provider accreditation. Alternatively, if many renovators choose to take refresher training from the provider of their initial training, there may be little change in market shares. Third-party firms developing renovator e-learning re fresher training courses could decide to become accredited RRP training providers. In this scenario, th ird-party firms could gain a large portion of the market share due to their competitive advantage gain ed by experience and economies of scale. Assuming there are relatively few third-party firms developing e-learning courses, the proposed rule could result in the consolidation of the market of training prov iders offering refresher training courses. While there would not be a net loss to the economy, training provide rs unable to compete with third-party firms that might attain accreditation would likely experience redu ced profits or exit the refresher training market (although they might continue to offer initial certification training).*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

4-1 

## 4. Agency Costs EPA will incur costs resulting from the new rule asso ciated with reviewing the expedited e-learning applications submitted by training provi ders to attain accreditation. It is estimated to take an average of 4 hours apiece for an Agency employee to review each of the 275 applications. The base wage rate of the federal government employee review ing applications is taken from the 2014 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay Table for Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). A loaded wage rate of $78.13 is then derived by applying a 1.6 fringe benefits and overhead multiplier to the base wage rate of a GS- 13 Step 5 government employee (see Exhibit 4-1) (OPM 2014). The 1.6 fringe benefits a nd overhead multiplier is taken from the ICR Handbook- EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests , published in 2009 (U.S. EPA 2009). Exhibit 4-1: EPA Wage Rate

Labor Category Date Base Wage 1 Fringe Benefits and Overhead Multiplier 2 Loaded Wages (a) (b) (c)=(a)*(b) GS-13 Step 5 1/14 $48.83 1.6 $78.13

1 Office of Personal Management (2014). 2014 General Schedule (GS) Locality PayTables: WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE-NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DC-MD-VAWV-PA. SALARY TABLE 2014-DCB .

2 U.S. EPA (2009). "ICR Handbook- EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection

Requests." Exhibit 4-2 presents net present value and annualized cost accrued by EPA over a fifty year period from 2015 through 2064, under the proposed rule. Costs are di scounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. It is not known how many training providers will only offer refr esher training online and how many will maintain dual accreditations (one for in-person training and one for online training). Therefore, it is unknown whether there will be a change in the number of r eaccreditation applications af ter 2015. If most training providers begin offering refresher training only on line, EPA’s work load for reviewing accreditation applications would not change much in future year s since the training providers would be substituting an online accreditation for one that is in-person. As a result, the analysis only considers EPA’s costs for reviewing additional accreditati on applications in 2015. Exhibit 4-2: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost to EPA Under the Proposed Rule (2014$) Application Review Costs Hours per Application Cost per Application ($78.13/hour) Applications Reviewed Total Cost Discounted Total Cost 3% 7% 2015 4.00 $312.52 275 $85,943 $83,440 $80,321 Net Present Value $83,440 $80,321 Annualized Cost $3,243 $5,820*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

5-1 

## 5. Social Cost Savings The estimated total social cost savings of the proposed rule is equal to the sum of industry cost savings less Agency costs. Exhibit 5-1 presents the net present value and annualized equiva lent value of expected cost savings to society over a fifty year period ranging from 2015 to 2064. Estimates are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. Exhibit 5-1: Total and Annualized Social Cost Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years (thousands 2014$)

Category Net Present Value Annualized Cost Savings 3% 7% 3% 7% Industry Cost Savings $246,551 $134,938 $9,583 $9,777

Multi-jurisdiction Amendment $388 $208 $15 $15 Refresher Training Amendment $246,163 $134,730 $9,568 $9,762 Total Agency Costs $83 $80 $3 $6

E-learning Application Processing $83 $80 $3 $6 Social Cost Savings $246,468 $134,858 $9,580 $9,771*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

6-1 

## 6. Small Entity Impact Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, amen ded by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of regulations on small entities including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and govern ments. In some instan ces, agencies are also required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. The RFA requires agencies to prepare an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless the Agen cy certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed rule would eliminate multi-jurisdiction registration fees and eliminate the hands-on training requirement from the lead renovation refresher training course, resulting in cost savings for entities that no longer would pay the multi-jurisdiction registra tion fees and renovators that would have a less expensive refresher training option available to th em. Training providers might incur costs associated with accrediting e-learning courses. However, it is exp ected that only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. Therefore, there would be no direct negative cost impacts on small entities as a result of the proposed rule.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-1 

## 7. Other Impact Analyses Several statutes and executive orders (EOs) pertain to the proposed rule. This chapter presents statements discussing unfunded mandates, envi ronmental justice, children’s health, and paperwork burden, among others. 

### 7.1 Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (supers eding the PRA of 1980), as implemented by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requires that agencies submit a supporting statement to OMB for any information collection th at solicits the same data from more than nine parties. The PRA seeks to ensure that Federal ag encies balance their need to collect information with the paperwork burden imposed on the pub lic by the collection. The definition of “information collection” includes activities require d by regulations such as permit development, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting. The term “burden” refers to the “time, effort, or financial resources” the public expends to provide in formation to or for a Federal agency, or to otherwise fulfill statutory or regulatory require ments. PRA paperwork burden is measured in terms of annual time and financial resources th e public devotes to meet one-time and recurring information requests (44 U.S.C. 3502(2); 5 C.F.R. 1320.3(b)). Information collection activities may include:

 reviewing rule requirements;

 using technology to collect, process, and disclose information;

 adjusting existing practices to comply with requirements;

 searching data sources;

 completing and reviewing the response; and

 transmitting or disclosing information. Agencies must provide information to OMB on th e parties affected, the annual reporting burden, and the annual cost of responding to the information collection. 7.1.1 Industry Burden RPP Training Provider Burden Currently accredited training providers that wish to add an already reviewed and accepted RRP e-learning course from another training provider to their training curriculum are eligible for an expedited e-learning course approval. All requ ests to add an already-reviewed e-learning curriculum to an already-accredited training provi ders' record must include a cover letter; a training provider application to amend their accred itation; and an e-learning quality control (QC) plan. The e-learning QC plan must address is sues such as how the trainer will ensure that students successfully complete the e-learning modules and the e-learning module final assessment. Training providers that are already accredited are not charged a fee when adding an already-reviewed e-learning curriculum. Training providers currently accredited for the renova tor refresher training course are expected to apply for an e-learning refresher training accredita tion if the hands-on requi rement is removed. Therefore they would incur an incremental pape rwork burden. Training providers applying for accreditation incur a one-time burden associated w ith becoming familiar with the new rule’s requirements, as well as the burden of completing the accreditation application. Recordkeeping burdens and reporting burdens associated with notification are not incorporated into the incremental burden because they are incurre d with or without this proposed rule.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-2 There are 275 training providers with accredited renovator refresher training programs. It is estimated that renovation training providers will spend half as long on becoming accredited for an e-learning refresher training course as on initial accr editation for an initial training course. (Less information needs to be provided for an expedite d e-learning application, given that the training provider has already been accredite d for an in-person course.) Bu rden for the initial accreditation of an initial renovation training course is take n from the previously approved ICR (EPA No. 1715.13). Burden hour estimates were rounded to one decimal place for this ICR. The resulting burden is estimated to be 4 hours for training provi ders to familiarize themselves with the rule requirements; 4.8 hours to complete the accredita tion statement; and 5 hours to complete the Quality Control Plan (see Exhibit 7-1). Wage rates for each category of personnel are derived with methods and from sources either identical or very similar to those used in prev ious ICRs and economic analyses. Loaded wage rates of $53.66 and $26.79 represent training provider wages for professional and clerical workers, respectively. Wage and fringe benefits data are taken from the Employer Cost for Employee Compensation data series published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2013). Both the professional and clerical base wage rates are inflated to 2014 dollars by applying the CPI for All Urban Consumers published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS 2014). The overhead data is taken from Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of The Toxics Release Inventory Program (U.S. EPA 2002). The overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to deri ve the fully loaded wage. See Exhibit 7-2 for a detailed derivation of the training provider loaded wage rates.

Exhibit 7-1: Incremental RRP Trai ning Provider Hour Burden

Activity Professional Hours 1 Clerical Hours 1 Burden Hours Per Activity 1 Number of Training Providers Number of Events Per Provider 2 Total Burden Hours E-learning Accreditation

Rule Familiarization 4.00 0.00 4.00 275 1 1,100 Accreditation Statement 3.80 1.00 4.80 275 1 1,320 Quality Control Plan 4.00 1.00 5.00 275 1 1,375 Total Reporting 11.80 2.00 13.80 275 1 3,795

1 Burden hour estimates per activit y for an expedited e-learning application are assu med to be half the burden in the previously

approved ICR EPA No. 1715.13. The hour estimates we re rounded to one decimal place for this ICR.

2 Number of events are from the previously approved ICR EPA No. 1715.13.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-3 Exhibit 7-2: Loaded RRP Training Provider Wage Rates

Labor Category Occupation Category (BLS) 1 Date Base Wage 1 Fringe Benefits Benefits (% of Wage) 1 Overhead (% of Wage) 2 Wage Multiplier Loaded Wages 3 (a) (b) (c) =(b)/(a) (d) (e) =1+(c)+(d) (f) =(a)*(e)

Professional Professional and related 9/12 $33.96 $13.92 41% 17% 1.58 $53.66

Clerical Office and administrative support 9/12 $16.64 $7.32 44% 17% 1.61 $26.79

1 Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2013, Dec. 11). "Employe r Costs for Employee Compensa tion - September 2013." Private

industry workers, goods-producing and service-producing.

2 U.S. EPA (2002). Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of The Toxi cs Release Inventory Program, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Environm ental Analysis Division, Analytical Support Branch.

3 Wage rates are rounded to the closest penny. As shown in Exhibit 7-1, training providers woul d incur an incremental burden of 3,795 hours. Exhibit 7-3 presents the incremental costs to training providers associated with new training program accreditation, which are estimated to be $188,861. 8 Wage rates of $53.66 and $26.79 are applied to the professional and clerical hour burdens, respectively, to calculate costs.

Exhibit 7-3: RPP Incremental Tr aining Provider Cost (2014$)

Cost Element Professional Costs ($53.66/hour) Clerical Costs ($26.79/hour) Costs per Activity Number of Training Providers Events per Training Provider Total Cost 1 E-learning Accreditation

Rule Familiarization $214.64 $0.00 $214.64 275 1 $59,026 Accreditation Statement $203.91 $26.79 $230.70 275 1 $63,442 Quality Control Plan $214.64 $26.79 $241.43 275 1 $66,393 Total Reporting $633.19 $53.58 $686.77 275 1 $188,861

1 Wage rates of $53.66 and $26.79 are applied to the pr ofessional and clerical hour burdens, respectively. 

### 7.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Ac t of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, directs agencies to assess the effects of significant regulatory actions that impose Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments, and the pr ivate sector. This proposed rule would not impose an enforceable duty on any State, local or tr ibal governments or the private sector, nor does it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Training providers (both those in the private sector as well as local or tribal

8 The cost of training providers becoming accredited is incorporated in to the tuition they charge their students, so the labor cost of the accreditation is not listed separately in the social cost estimate for the rule. But since the activity involves disclosing informati on, it is accounted for separately as part of the paperwork burden analysis.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-4 governments) that choose to offer e-learning refr esher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning cour ses. However, only trai ning providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. 

### 7.3 Executive Order 13132 – Federalism Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) applies to policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship be tween the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities am ong the various levels of government. This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Local govern ments can serve as training providers, and thus might incur costs associated with accrediting their e-learning courses as a result of this action. However, only training providers that anticip ate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additiona l accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. 

### 7.4 Executive Order 13175 – Consultati on and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) directs agencies to consult and collaborate with tribal officials in Federal policy decisions that have tribal implications. This proposed rule would not have tribal implicati ons. Tribal governments can serve as training providers, and thus might incur costs associa ted with accrediting their e-learning courses. However, only training providers that anticip ate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additiona l accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. 

### 7.5 Executive Order 13045 - Children’s Health Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to rules that are economically significant and that concern health or safet y risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. This action is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 because it is not likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of $10 0 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities. 

### 7.6 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001 ) addresses actions that effect the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule is not likely to have any adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

### 7.7 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

7-5 or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consen sus standards are technical standards ( e.g. , materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. 

### 7.8 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision di rects federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make envi ronmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, dispropor tionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, polici es, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. This proposed rule does not directly affect the le vel of protection provided to human health or the environment. This is a rule amendment that removes multi-jurisdiction fees for lead-based paint activities and removes the hands-on requirement fo r refresher renovator training. However, it does not change the work practice requirement s for lead-based paint activities or renovation, repair or painting activities disturbing lead-based paint.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

8-1 

## 8. References Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2012, Mar. 29, 2013). "Occupational Employment Statistics - Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2 012, 47-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Worker s." Retrieved Jan. 30, 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes471011.htm#(2)

. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2013, Dec. 11). "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - September 2013." Retrieved Jan. 30, 2014, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_12112013.pdf

. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). (2014). "Consum er Price Index - All Urban Consumers, U.S. City Average (2004 to 2014)." CUSR0000SA0 Retrieved Mar. 21, 2014. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (2013, Dec. 6). " 2014 Standard Mileage Rates." Retrieved Mar. 19, 2014, from http://www.irs.gov/2014-Standard-Mil eage-Rates-for-Business,-Medicaland-Moving-Announced

. NAHB Business Management & Information Technol ogy (2012). Cost of Doing Business Study, 2012 Edition, NAHB BuilderBooks.com®. Office of Personal Management (OPM) (2014) . 2014 General Schedule (GS) Locality PayTables: WASHINGTON-BALTIMORE-NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DC-MD-VA-WVPA. SALARY TABLE 2014-DCB U.S. EPA (2002). Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of The Toxics Release Inventory Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Environmental Analysis Division, Analytical Support Branch. U.S. EPA (2008). Economic Analysis for th e TSCA Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program Final Rule for Target Housing and Child-Occupied Facilities. U.S. EPA (2009). "ICR Handbook- EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests." U.S. EPA (2010). "Federal Lead-Based Paint Program (FLPP) Database 2007-2009." U.S. EPA (2014a). "Federal Lead-Based Paint Program (FLPP) Database 2010-2013." U.S. EPA. (2014b, Jan. 15). "Lead-Based Paint Activ ities Professionals." Retrieved Mar. 7, 2014, from http://www2.epa.gov/lead/lead-based-p aint-activities-professionals#map

. U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). (2014, Jan. 14). "Meals and Incidental Expenses (M&IE) Breakdown." Retrieved Jan. 30, 2014, from www.gsa.gov/mie

.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

A-1 

### Appendix A. Training Courses Tuition Data Exhibit A-1: Sample of Renovation (Re)certification Training Courses

Company Initial Refresher Complete Hands-on Complete Access Training $195.00 $150.00 AEHS, Inc. $200.00 $140.00 Analytical Testing and C onsulting Services, Inc. $150.00 Benchmark Envir onmental Training $165.00 Benchmark Envir onmental Training $200.00 Cardno ATC $225.00 $135.00 CEI CNY Environmental Institute $150.00 $135.00 CEI CNY Environmental Institute $175.00 Chem Scope $180.00 $125.00 Contractor Training 1 $160.04 Environmental Education $145.00 Environmental Management Institute $280.00 $180.00 GEBCO Associates, LP $220.00 $200.00 Greenville Technical College $215.00 $150.00 LEW Corporation $200.00 $120.00 Lianna Development Corporation Training Program $190.00 $100.00 Midwest Environmental Consulting, LLC $195.00 $95.00 Midwest Training Institute $175.00 $100.00 National Econ Corporation $185.00 $135.00 Northwest Independent C ontractors Association $250.00 $200.00 Northwest Independent C ontractors Association $295.00 Northwest Independent C ontractors Association $300.00 Public Health and Safety Inc. $260.00 Resolution, Inc. $225.00 $95.00 The Environmental Institute $250.00 $125.00 The Western Regional Lead Training Center $217.00 The Westside Environmental Pl an of Action Committee, LLC $225.00 TORF Environmental Management $250.00 Weecycle Environm ental Consulting $200.00 Weecycle Environm ental Consulting $250.00 Wunderlin Environmental Training Services LLC $209.00 $99.00 Number of Courses 29 2 17 Mean $214.86 $150.02 $134.65 Median $209.00 $150.02 $135.00 Minimum $150.00 $140.00 $95.00 Maximum $300.00 $160.04 $200.00 Standard Deviation $39.52 $14.17 $33.91

1 Initial hands-on training course tuition is derived by taking the tuition for the initial e-learning cl assroom and hands-on training course and subtracting the e-learning classr oom component ($160.04 = $199.99 - $39.95). The e-learning component was developed by a thir d-party firm, Contractor Harbor.*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 1 of 30 Rin2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_FRdocument_Redline_Revisions_2014- 1 12-15.docx 2 3 Revised to address Interagency Comments received under EO 12866 Review. 4 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 6 40 CFR Part 745 7 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304; FRL-XXXX-X] 8 RIN 2070-AK02 9 Lead-based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and 10 Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements 11 12 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 13 ACTION: Proposed rule. 14 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing three minor revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and 15 Painting (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008, and the Lead16 based Paint (LBP) Activities rule that published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1996. 17 The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these programs by 18 reducing burdens to industry and the EPA, and by clarifying language for training providers, 19 while retaining the protections provided by the original rules. First, EPA is proposing to 20 eliminate the requirement that the renovator refresher training have a hands-on component. 21 Second, t T he Agency is also proposing to remove jurisdiction-specific certification and 22 accreditation requirements under the Lead-based Paint LBP Activities program. Currently, this 23 program requires that training providers, firms and individuals seek certification in each 24 jurisdiction (e.g., a S s tate) where the organization or person wants to work. Third In addition , 25 EPA is adding clarifying language to the requirements for training providers under both the RRP 26 and LBP Activities programs. 27 DATES: Comments must be received on or before [ insert date 30 days after date of publication 28 Formatted: Line spacing: single*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 2 of 30 in the Federal Register ]. 29 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA30 HQ-OPPT-2014-0304, by one of the following methods: 31

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online 32 instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider 33 to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 34 by statute. 35

• Mail : Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 36 (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 37
20460-0001. 38

• Hand Delivery : To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed 39 information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html

. 40 Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about 41 dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets

. 42 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact : Marc 43 Edmonds, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T) , Office of Pollution Prevention and 44 Toxics (7404T) , Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 45 DC 20460-0001; telephone number: ( 202

- ) 566-0758; email address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov

. 46 For general information contact : The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 47 Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA48 Hotline@epa.gov

. 49 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 50 I. Executive Summary 51 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 52*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 3 of 30 You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required 53 to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm or individual who must be certified to 54 conduct lead-based paint activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you are an 55 individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 56 745.90. This proposed rule applies only in States, territories, and tribal areas that do not have 57 authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the 58 authorization status of States, territories, and Tribes, contact the National Lead Information 59 Center at 1-800-424-LEAD [5323]. 60 The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is 61 not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this 62 document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: 63

• Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-family housing construction, 64 multi-family housing construction, residential remodelers. 65

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air66 conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish 67 carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 68 contractors, glass and glazing contractors. 69

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 70 residential property managers. 71 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 72 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with 73 kindergarten classrooms. 74 • Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g., training providers. 75 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS 76*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 4 of 30 code 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 77 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors 78 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 79 If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 80 consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFO RMATION CONTACT

. 81 B. What I i s the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? 82 This proposed rule is being issued under the authority of sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of 83 the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3). 84 C. What Action I i s the Agency Taking? 85 EPA is proposing three minor revisions to the RRP rule that published in the Federal 86 Register on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 1) and the Lead-based Paint Activities rule that published in the 87 Federal Register on August 29, 1996 (Ref. 2). First, EPA is proposing to eliminate the 88 requirement that the renovator refresher training have a hands-on component. Second, t T he 89 Agency is also proposing to remove jurisdictions under the Lead-based Paint LBP Activities 90 program. Currently, this program requires that training providers, firms and individuals seek 91 certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a S s tate) where the organization or person wants to work. 92 Third In addition , EPA is adding clarifying language to the requirements for training providers 93 under both the RRP and Lead-based Paint LBP Activities programs. 94 D. Why i I s the Agency Taking this Action? 95 The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these 96 programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA and by clarifying language for training 97 providers, while retaining the benefits of the original rules. 98 E. What are the Estimated Incremental Impacts of this Action? 99 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with this 100*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 5 of 30 rulemaking proposed rule . This analysis is summarized in greater detail in the discussion 101 concerning Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 in Unit V.A. The following is a 102 brief outline of the estimated incremental impacts of this proposal proposed rule

. 103

 Overall C c osts. The annualized cost savings of this proposed rule are estimated at 104 approximately $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $9.8 million per year using a 105 7% discount rate. 106

 Small E e ntity I i mpacts . The proposed rule will would not have a significant impact on a 107 substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for 108 affected small entities, and would not have a direct negative impact on any small entities. 109

 Effects on State, L l ocal, and Tribal G g overnments . This proposed rule will would not 110 have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effects on small 111 governments, or have Federalism implications. 112 F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 113
1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through 114 http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 115 claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 116 outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD117 ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 118 comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 119 the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 120 Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 121 CFR part 2. 122

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to: 123 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 124 Formatted: Font: Italic*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 6 of 30 heading, Federal Register date and page number). 125 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 126 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 127 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 128 your requested changes. 129 iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you 130 used. 131 v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 132 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 133 vi. Provide specific examples to illustra te your concerns and suggest alternatives. 134 vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 135 threats. 136 viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 137 II. Background 138 In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American 139 children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6; that the ingestion of 140 household dust containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the most 141 common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of children 142 living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead 143 paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes. Congress further 144 determined that the prior f F ederal response to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of 145 the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead146 Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Title X) (Ref. 3). Title X established a national 147 goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in h ousing as expeditiously as possible and provided 148*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 7 of 30 a leadership role for the federal government in building the infrastructure necessary to achieve 149 this goal. 150 Title X amended TSCA to add a new subchapter entitled “Title IV–Lead Exposure 151 Reduction.” Most of EPA’s responsibilities for addressing lead-based paint hazards can be found 152 in this title, with TSCA section 402 being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry out 153 these responsibilities. TSCA s S ection 402(a) of TSCA directs EPA to promulgate regulations 154 covering lead-based paint activities to ensure persons performing these activities are properly 155 trained, that training programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these activities are 156 certified. These r R egulations promulgated under TSCA section 402(a) must contain standards for 157 performing lead-based paint activi ties, taking into account reliabili ty, effectiveness, and safety. 158 On August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern 159 lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatements in target 160 housing and child-occupied facilities (also referred to as the Lead-based Paint LBP Activities 161 regulations) (Ref. 2). The se LBP Activities rule regulations , codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart 162 L, contained an accreditation program for training providers and training, and certification and 163 work practice requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project designers, 164 abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provisions were 165 made for interested States, territories, and Trib es to apply for and receive authorization to 166 administer their own Lead-based Paint LBP Activities programs. Requirements applicable to 167 State, territorial, and tribal programs are codified in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. 168
TSCA s S ection 402(c) of TSCA pertains to renovation and remodeling activities. TSCA 169

s S ection 402(c)(3) of TSCA requires EPA to revise the regulations issued under TSCA section 170 402(a) to apply to renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. On 171 April 22, 2008, EPA issued a final regulation applying a revised version of the Lead-based 172*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 8 of 30 Paint LBP Activities regulations rule requirements to renovation, repair, and painting activities in 173 target housing and child-occupied facilities (Ref. 1). Pursuant to the RRP rule, persons 174 performing covered renovation activities must be properly trained, renovators and renovation 175 firms must be certified, and training providers must be accredited (Ref. 1). The requirements of 176 the RRP rule became effective in stages with the entire rule becoming effective as of April 22, 177
2010. 178 III. Proposed Revisions 179 A. Hands-on Training 180 To become certified as a renovator, a person must successfully complete a renovator 181 course accredited by EPA or by a State, territorial, or tribal program authorized by EPA. To gain 182 initial certification, renovators must complete an 8-hour training course. Until October 4, 2011, 183 renovators that successfully completed an EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development 184 ( HUD ) , or EPA/HUD model renovation training course were able to take the 4-hour refresher 185 renovator training in lieu of the 8-hour initial course. Both of these courses require hands-on 186 training. Trainings are taught either in a classroom or via electronic learning (e-learning). In an 187 e-learning course, students take the lecture portion of the course over the Internet and then travel 188 to a training facility to perform the hands-on activities and take the exam. To maintain 189 certification, renovators must complete a renovator refresher course within five 5 years of the 190 date the individual completed their previous renovator training. Renovators who received their 191 initial certification before April 22, 2010, however, have until July 1, 2015 , to take the refresher 192 training to maintain certification. If the renovator does not complete the course within the 193 required timeframe, the individual must retake the initial 8-hour course to become certified 194 again. 195 The 8-hour initial training includes hands-on training in testing for lead in paint, methods 196*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 9 of 30 for minimizing the creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards, interior and exterior 197 containment and cleanup methods, and cleaning verification. Activities covered include the use 198 of EPA-recognized test kits, setting up barriers, covering furniture, ducts, and carpeted floors 199 with plastic, mopping floors, bagging waste, and determining that the work area has been 200 adequately cleaned. Each student performs these activities in front of an instructor who 201 determines if the student is proficient in each one. Students must be deemed proficient in order to 202 pass the class and become certified. The current version of the renovator refresher course 203 includes hands-on training in testing paint for lead and cleaning verification. 204 At the time the RPP R r ule became effective it was important to have hands-on training in 205 the refresher course because certain renovators were eligible to take only the refresher course to 206 receive their initial certification (i.e., renovators who completed a prerequisite training). After 207 October 4, 2011, however, renovators could no longer take the refresher course to gain initial 208 certification even if they were previously eligible to take the refresher course in lieu of the initial 209 course. From that date forward, all renovators taking the refresher course will already have 210 received hands-on training as part of their initial renovator certification (i.e., an initial or 211 refresher course). Now that renovators will take the refresher course only after being initially 212 certified in a way that includes hands-on training, EPA believes it is less important for the 213 refresher course to include hands-on training. In addition, renovators that are seeking 214 recertification have been practicing the hands-on skills on renovation jobs during their 5-year 215 certification. Furthermore, due to the less technical nature of work practices taught in the 216 renovator course versus those taught in the abatement course, EPA believes performing hands-on 217 activities once is sufficient to teach renovators the skills they need to perform renovations 218 following the RRP rule work practices. 219*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 10 of 30 In addition, by eliminating this requirement, renovators seeking recertification will be 220 able to take the course entirely online without having to travel to a training location to perform 221 the hands-on activities. This change will make it easier for renovators to take the refresher 222 training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Renovators will save time 223 and travel costs by taking the course from a single location, possibly their own home. If taking 224 the training is made easier, EPA believes that more renovators will take the refresher training and 225 become recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training will lead to a higher 226 number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a 227 lead-safe manner. For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to eliminate the hands-on 228 training in the renovator refresher course. The Agency requests comment on eliminating the 229 requirement to include hands-on training in the renovator refresher course. 230 While the Agency believes that the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher 231 course is no longer necessary, it has not ruled out having hands-on activities that are performed 232 via e-learning instead of in person. This would allow instructors to assess the student’s skills 233 without having the student travel to a classroom. EPA requests comment on how the hands-on 234 portion of the refresher course could be performed by the student and assessed by the instructor 235 via e-learning. 236 Another option for maintaining the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher 237 course is to modify it to make it less burdensome for trainers and students. For example, the 238 requirement could be changed so the hands-on portion of the course is only required every other 239 time a renovator gets recertified instead of every 5 years. Under this scenario, the renovator 240 would only have to take the hands-on training once every 10 years. The Agency requests 241 comment on possible alternative approaches to conducting the hands-on skills to make the 242 training less burdensome. 243*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 11 of 30 The Agency does not intend to eliminate the hands-on activities in the refresher courses 244 for the other lead-based paint program disciplines: R r isk assessor, inspector, supervisor, 245 abatement worker and dust sampling technician. The work performed by these disciplines 246 involves highly specialized skills which individuals must learn in training courses accredited by 247 EPA or authorized States, territories, and Tribes. For example, a significant portion of an 248 abatement worker’s training is focused on abatement techniques and selection of the appropriate 249 course of action for a variety of hazards. Renovators, on the other hand, do not seek to 250 permanently eliminate lead hazards; instead they perform maintenance and improvement tasks as 251 directed by the consumer. Thus, the goal of EPA’s renovator training and certification program is 252 not to update the methodology a renovator uses to accomplish these tasks (i.e., how to be 253 painters, plumbers, or carpenters), but rather to ensure that persons who already know how to 254 perform renovations perform their typical work in a lead-safe manner. Because of the technical 255 nature of the work performed by risk assessors, inspectors, supervisors, abatement workers and 256 dust sampling technicians, the Agency believes th at it is important for their refresher training 257 courses to include hands-on learning. 258 Currently, training providers are required to submit both a pre-training and post-training 259 notification for each course that they teach. Both types of notifications must contain information 260 about the course including, but not limited to, date, time and location. The post-training 261 notification must also include information about the trainees including name, address and test 262 score, among other things. Pre-training notifications must be submitted at least 7 business days 263 prior to the start of the course. Post-training notifications must be submitted no later than 10 264 business days following course completion. The notification requirements help EPA monitor 265 compliance with the training and certification provisions of the RRP and Lead-based Paint LBP 266 Activities programs. Training providers that teach online courses must submit pre- and post- 267*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 12 of 30 training notifications for each hands-on training se ssion they teach. If the Agency eliminates the 268 hands-on requirement for the refresher training then there will be no classroom session for which 269 to notify EPA. Because the training provider will still need to send the names of the students to 270 EPA, the notification requirements will need to be changed. The Agency requests comment on 271 how it should modify the notification requirem ents to accommodate a training taught entirely 272 online. 273 In the absence of more particular information regarding the number of renovators that 274 may take an online class to complete the required refresher training, EPA assumes that 98% of 275 renovators will take the online training if the hands-on requirement is removed, based on the 276 significant cost savings that would result from reduced tuition costs and by avoiding the time and 277 associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. EPA requests comment on this 278 assumption. EPA also requests comment and supporting information on the savings that would 279 accrue to renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher 280 courses; whether the tuition is likely to differ for online and in-person refresher training; and 281 how the costs training providers would incur to offer online refresher training courses compare to 282 the costs of offering courses in person. 283 The Agency is considering a further modification to the notification requirements 284 regarding online notifications. For years, training providers have had the option of submitting 285 notifications electronically via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)

. ; 63% of training providers 286 opted to do so in the past year. The CDX system is designed to streamline the notification 287 process for training providers and EPA alike, and to perform basic validations of electronic 288 submissions that reduce common errors in no tifications otherwise submitted on paper. 289 Depending on how the notification requirements are modified, training providers may find it 290 more efficient and less burdensome to submit notifications to EPA electronically if the hands-on 291*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 13 of 30 refresher training requirement was eliminated. Such a change could result in an increased rate of 292 electronic reporting of training notifications to EPA. To reduce the burden on the Agency and 293 save taxpayer dollars, EPA will consider requiring training providers that teach the online 294 refresher renovator course to submit their notifications for that course online. The Agency 295 requests comment on whether it should require training providers to submit notifications online 296 for the online refresher course. 297 The Agency is concerned that, by the time a final rule is published, many renovators will 298 have already taken the refresher training that includes the hands-on learning and will have 299 missed out on the burden savings that this proposed rule would provide. In light of this, EPA is 300 considering extending the certifications for a portion of renovators so they would be able to 301 realize the benefits of this proposed rule. For example, the Agency could extend for 6 months the 302 renovator certifications that expire by July 1, 2015. EPA requests comments on whether it should 303 extend the certifications of renovators so they can take advantage of the burden savings of this 304 proposed rule. 305 B. Jurisdictions 306 On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, was amended to include a fee schedule for 307 training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for individuals and firms seeking EPA 308 certification (Ref. 4). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which 309 requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint activities 310 requirements in States without authorized programs. The fee schedule created a multi311 jurisdiction registration fee which applies to individuals, firms and training programs that 312 provide training or perform lead-based paint activities in more than one State administered by the 313 EPA program. This fee is applied per discipline for each additional EPA-administered State in 314 which the applicant seeks certification/recertification or accreditation/reaccreditation. An EPA- 315*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 14 of 30 administered jurisdiction is either an individual State without an authorized program or all Tribes 316 without authorized programs in a given EPA Region. 317 The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 was based on the estimated burdens required for 318 Agency clerical, technical, and managerial staff to perform tasks associated with adding 319 jurisdictions to a certification or accreditation. Tasks include entering the information into a 320 database, approving or disapproving the application and generating and mailing a certificate to 321 the applicant. After years of implementing the Lead-based Paint LBP Activities program, the 322 Agency believes that separate certifications for each EPA-administered State jurisdiction are not 323 necessary. In particular, EPA does not believe it is necessary for the Agency to certify or accredit 324 the same applicant multiple times; certification in one EPA-administered State jurisdiction 325 should be sufficient to perform work in any other EPA-administered States. For instance, EPA 326 did not include separate certifications for each EPA-administered State in the RRP rule and 327 found that it did not adversely impact the program. In addition, only requiring one certification 328 for all EPA-administered State jurisdictions helps to streamline the certification and accreditation 329 process. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to eliminate the requirement for separate 330 certifications in each EPA-administered State jurisdiction in the Lead-based Paint LBP Activities 331 program. If jurisdictions are eliminated, regulated entities will no longer have to send an 332 application and fees to EPA for the purpose of adding additional EPA-administered State 333 jurisdictions to their certification or accreditation. Once a regulated entity applies and is 334 approved in the Lead-based Paint Activities program, they will be able to work in any EPA335 administered State. EPA requests comment on whether it should eliminate this requirement from 336 the Lead-based Paint Activities regulations. 337 Eliminating the fee for adding an EPA-administered State jurisdiction will not cause the 338 other fees under the Lead-based Paint LBP Activities regulations to increase. As stated earlier, 339*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 15 of 30 TSCA requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint 340 activities requirements. Eliminating the requirement to apply for additional jurisdictions also 341 eliminates the Agency’s costs for processing those applications and its need to recover the fee. 342 Thus, eliminating the $35 fee will not require the Agency to adjust the other fees it collects under 343 the Lead-based Paint LBP Activities regulations rule

. 344 C. Clarification Regarding Training Provider Application Requirements 345 EPA is clarifying the application regulations for accredited training providers under the 346 RRP rule (Ref. 1) and Lead-based Paint LBP Activities regulations rule (Ref. 2). It was brought 347 to the Agency’s attention that the regulations did not specifically state what constituted a 348 violation of the regulations at 40 CFR 745.225. For example, some other regulatory provisions, 349 such as 40 CFR 745.87, specifically list various activities that are considered a violation of 350 TSCA. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to add clarifying language explaining that training 351 providers must follow the requirements in that section. EPA believes that accredited training 352 providers already understand this, but EPA is proposing to add the clarifying language to ensure 353 understanding of the requirements – similar to what has been done in other regulations. This 354 clarifying language does not change any requirements for accredited training providers. The 355 Agency requests comment on adding this clarification to the regulations at 40 CFR 356 745.225(a)(4), (c), (d) and (e). 357 D. Correction to Training Notification Requirements 358 The regulatory text of the final RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1) inadvertently omitted a 359 requirement for accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after 360 each training course the provider delivers. The provision was designed to supply important 361 information regarding certified renovators for EPA’s compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, 362 EPA issued a rule (Ref. 7 5 ) to correct this omission by amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to 363*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 16 of 30 require post-course notifications from accredited providers of renovator or dust sampling 364 technician training. The 2009 rule also included conforming changes to 40 CFR 365 745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct name of the sample post-course notification form and to 366 make it clear that all methods of post-course notification are available to both renovation training 367 providers and lead-based paint activities training providers. As amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) 368 required renovation training providers to notify EPA no later than 10 business days following 369 course completion. Although EPA identified this requirement in its cost estimates in 2008, the 370 regulatory provision was subsequently overwritten by another rulemaking. Specifically, in a 371 2011 rule (Ref. 8 6 ), the regulatory language inadvertently removed the regulatory text that was 372 added to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009 rule. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 373 add the same language back to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) that was included in the 2009 rule. 374 EPA requests comment on adding this language back to the notification requirements. Since EPA 375 has continued to account for the costs and paperwork burden associated with this notification 376 provision, this proposed correction does not increase the estimated costs and burdens for the 377 RRP program. 378 E. Effective Date 379 380 EPA is proposing to find under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 381 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date of the 382 final rule that EPA intends to promulgate based upon this proposed rule. As stated earlier in this 383 preamble, removing the hands-on requirement will make it easier for renovators to take the 384 refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. If taking the 385 training is made easier, EPA believes that removing the hands-on requirement will lead to more 386 renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. Consequently, delaying the effective 387 date may result in fewer renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. For this reason, 388*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 17 of 30 the Agency believes it is in the public interest to remove the requirement as soon as possible. 389 EPA also believes that such action would relieve a restriction in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 390 553(d)(1). EPA therefore proposes to issue a final rule making this change to be effective 391 immediately upon publication in the Federal Register

. 392 IV. References 393 The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this 394 document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, 395 including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, 396 even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating 397 these other documents, please consu lt the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER 398 INFORMATION CONTACT

. 399 1. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 400 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). 401 2. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child402 Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). 403
3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. 42 U.S.C. 4852 Housing 404 and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (October 28, 1992)

. 405 4. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and Certification of Lead-based 406 Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999) (FRL407 6058-6). 408 5. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 409 Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 34257, July 15, 2009) (FRL-8422-7). 410 6. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 411 Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011) (FRL-8881-8). 412*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 18 of 30 5 7 . EPA. Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor Amendments 413 Proposed Rule (Economic Analysis). (April December 2014 )

. 414

6 8 . EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA sections 402 and 404 415 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and 416 Renovation, Repair, and Painting. EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and OMB No. 2070-[NEW]. (April 417 December 2014 )

. 418 7. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 419 Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 34257, July 15, 2009) (FRL-8422-7). 420 8. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 421 Painting Program; Federal Register (76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011)(FRL-8881-8). 422 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 423 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: 424 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 425 426 This proposed rule has been designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 427 as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 428 October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive 429 Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to 430 OMB recommendations are documented in the docket. 431 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential cost savings associated with this 432 rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the Lead- b B ased Paint 433 Program Minor Amendments Proposed Rule (Ref. 5 7 ) and is briefly summarized here. 434 In a typical year, individuals, firms, and training providers apply to perform lead-based 435 paint activities or provide training in a total of 431 additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. 436 Formatted: Line spacing: single*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 19 of 30 Removing the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee will result in total estimated cost savings of 437 approximately $15,000 per year to these entities. 438 Removing the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher training is estimated 439 to reduce the tuition by an average of $37. Removing the hands-on requirement also makes 440 online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. If 441 renovators become recertified by taking an e-learning refresher course they are estimated to save 442 an additional $165 by avoiding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training 443 site. Renovator training and certification (which is valid for five 5 years) became mandatory in 444 2010, and a large number of renovators were trained that year. As many as 168,000 of these 445 renovators are predicted to seek refresher training in 2015. Over time, the annual number is 446 predicted to equilibrate such that up to 48,000 renovators may seek refresher training in later 447 years. Nearly all of these renovators are assumed to choose online refresher training if the option 448 is available. Therefore, removing the hands-on requirement for renovator refresher training is 449 estimated to reduce costs by over $9 million per year. 450 The proposed rule includes a correction to the training notification requirements to add 451 back regulatory text on post-training notifications that was inadvertently overwritten in a 2011 452 rule making (although most training providers are continuing to provide post-training 453 notifications to EPA in a timely manner). EPA has already accounted for the burden and cost of 454 requiring accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each 455 training course the provider delivers. For example, the currently approved 456 Information Collection Request ICR for the TSCA sections 402 and 404 Training, Certification, 457 Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and 458 Painting (EPA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0155) estimates that 600 renovation 459 training providers will submit an average of 14 post-training notifications per year. This yields a 460*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 20 of 30 total of 8,400 post-training notifications per year at an average burden of 1.6 hours per response, 461 resulting in a total burden for this activity of 13,440 hours at a cost of $339,578. In order to 462 avoid double-counting, EPA’s Economic Analysis and Information Collection Request ICR for 463 this action do not include the burden and cost of reinstating the post-training notification 464 requirements. 465 The clarifying language being added to the rule explaining that training providers must 466 follow the regulations does not affect the cost of compliance because it does not change any 467 requirements for accredited training providers. 468 Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee and the requirement for hands on refresher renovator 469 training is estimated to result in cost savings of up to $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount 470 rate and $9.8 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 471 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 472 The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted to 473 OMB for review and approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The ICR document 474 prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and the OMB Control No. 2070- 475 [NEW] (Ref. 6 8 ). The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated burden 476 and costs predicted as a result of the proposed rule. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 477 There are 275 training providers accredited to offer renovator refresher training 478 programs. All these training providers are assumed to apply to EPA to become accredited to 479 offer e-learning refresher training once the requirement for hands-on renovator refresher training 480 is removed. The applications must address issues such as how the trainer will ensure that 481 students successfully complete the e-learning modules and the e-learning final assessment. 482 Training providers are most likely to add an already reviewed and accepted e-learning course 483 from another training provider to their training curriculum. In that case, their burden to become 484*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 21 of 30 familiar with the new rule and to submit an application is estimated to average 13.8 hours per 485 response, at a cost of $687. For the 275 training providers this results in a total burden of 3,795 486 hours at a total cost $188,861. 487 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an 488 information collection request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, or is 489 otherwise required to submit the specific information by a statute. The OMB control numbers for 490 EPA’s regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) , after appearing 491 in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal 492 Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if 493 applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 494 40 CFR 9.1. 495 Submit any comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the 496 provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to 497 both EPA and OMB. For EPA, follow the instructions in the ADDRESSES section at the 498 beginning of this document. For OMB, reference “OMB Desk Officer for EPA” and email your 499

comments to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov . Since OMB is required to make a decision 500 concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [ I i nsert date of publication in the Federal 501 Register ], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 502 [ I i nsert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register ]. The final rule will address any 503 OMB or public comments received on the information collection requirements contained in this 504 proposal. 505 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 506 The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 507 flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 508 Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 22 of 30 APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-553, or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 509 a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 510 Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 511 jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small 512 entity is defined as: 513 ( 1 )

. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 514 regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The SBA’s definitions typically are based upon either a sales or 515 an employment level, depending on the nature of the industry. 516 ( 2 )

. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 517 school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 518 ( 3 )

. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 519 owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 520 After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify 521 that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 522 entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number 523 of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small 524 entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address 525 regulatory alternatives “which minimize any si gnificant economic impact of the rule on small 526 entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 527 significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves 528 regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject 529 to the rule. 530 The proposed rule would eliminate multi-jurisdiction registration fees for the Lead-based 531 Paint LBP Activities program, and eliminate the hands-on training requirement from the lead 532*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 23 of 30 renovation refresher training course. This results in cost savings for entities that no longer would 533 pay the multi-jurisdiction registration fees and for renovators that would have a less expensive 534 refresher training option available to them. Those training providers that choose to offer e535 learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e536 learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering 537 accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation 538 because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training 539 option under the proposed rule. Therefore, there would be no direct negative cost impacts on 540 small entities as a result of the proposed rule. We have therefore concluded that this proposed 541 rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. 542 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 543 This action does not contain any Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of 544 UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The 545 action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 546 Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirem ents of UMRA sections 202 or 205. This action 547 is also not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203 because it contains no regulatory 548 requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Those training 549 providers (both those in the private sector as well as local or tribal governments) that choose to 550 offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e551 learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering 552 accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation 553 because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training 554 option under the proposed rule. 555 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 556*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 24 of 30 This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 557 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 558 relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 559 responsibilities among the various levels of government. Local governments can serve as 560 training providers, and those training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher 561 renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. 562 However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs 563 through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no 564 requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the 565 proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically 566 solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. 567 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 568 This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 569 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Tribal governments can serve as training providers, and those 570 training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost 571 to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, it is expected that only training 572 providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to 573 apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to 574 offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 575 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 576 proposed action from tribal officials. 577 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 578 Risks 579 580 Formatted: Line spacing: single*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 25 of 30 This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 581 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 582 12866, and because EPA interprets Executive Orde r 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as 583 applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 584 analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the 585 regulation. This action is not subject to Executiv e Order 13045, because it would not establish an 586 environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 587 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 588 Supply, Distribution, or Use 589 590 This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 591 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect 592 on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to have any adverse 593 energy effects because it does not require any action related to the supply, distribution, or use of 594

energy. 595 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 596 Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 no te, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 597 standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 598 otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 599 specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 600 adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 601 through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 602 voluntary consensus standards. 603 This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not 604 considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this 605 Formatted: Line spacing: single*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 26 of 30 aspect of the proposed rule and specifically invites the public to identify additional potentially

606 applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in 607 this regulation. 608 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 609 Populations and Low-Income Populations 610 611 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes f F ederal executive 612 policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs f F ederal agencies, to the greatest 613 extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 614 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 615 environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low616 income populations in the United States. 617 EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 618 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 619 does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The 620 proposed rule would remove multi-jurisdiction fees for the Lead-based Paint LBP Activities 621 program and remove the hands-on requirement for refresher renovator training. However, it 622 would not change the work practice requirements for lead-based paint activities or renovation, 623 repair or painting activities disturbing lead-based paint. 624 Formatted: Line spacing: single*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 27 of 30 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 625 Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation. 626 Dated: ____________________ 627
628

__________________________________________ 629
630 Gina McCarthy, 631 Administrator 632*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 28 of 30 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: 633 PART 745--[AMENDED] 634 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 635 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 636 2. In § 745.225: 637 a. Add new paragraph (a)(4). 638 b. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 639 c. Revise paragraphs (c), (c)(14)(i) , and (d), (e), (e)(2) and (e) (3). 640 The addition and revisions amendments read as follows: 641 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child-occupied facilities. 642 (a) * * * 643 (4) Accredited training programs, training program managers, and principal instructors 644 must comply with all of the requirements of this section including approved terms of the 645 application and all of the requirements and limitations specified in any accreditation documents 646 issued to training programs. 647

* * * * * 648 (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. A training program 649 accredited by EPA to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust 650 sampling technician courses must meet the following requirements: 651 (1) * * * * * 652 (14) * * * 653 (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of any 654 renovator, dust sampling, or lead-based paint activities course. This noti fication ce must be 655 received by EPA no later than 10 business days following course completion. 656 Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 29 of 30 * * * * * 657 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. A training program accredited by EPA to 658 offer lead-based paint courses in the specific disciplines listed in this paragraph (d) must ensure 659 that their its courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 660

* * * * * 661 (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training programs. A training 662 program may seek accreditation to offer refresher training courses in any of the following 663 disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, 664 and dust sampling technician. A training program accredited by EPA to offer refresher training 665 must meet the following minimum requirements: 666 (1) * * * * * 667 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must 668 last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher courses for project designer, renovator, and dust 669 sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all 670 disciplines except renovator and project designer must include a hands-on component. 671 (3) Except for renovator and project designer courses, for all other courses offered, the 672 training program shall conduct a hands-on assessment. With the exception of project designer 673 courses, the training program shall conduct a course test at the completion of the course. 674

* * * * * 675 3. In § 745.238: 676 a. Remove paragraph (c)(3). 677 b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4) and (c) (5) as (c)(3) and (c) (4). 678 c. Revise the headings for paragraphs (d)(1) and ,(d) (2)

. , 679 d. Revise paragraph and (e)(2). 680*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)

Page 30 of 30 The amendments read as follows: 681 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation an d certification of lead-b ased paint activities. 682

* * * * * 683 (d) * * * Application/payment procedure

— 684 (1) Certification and re-certification * * * 685 (i) * * * 686 (ii) * * * 687 (2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. * * * Submit a completed application 688 (titled “Accreditation Application for Training Programs”), the materials described at §745.225, 689 and the application fee described in paragraph (c) of this section. 690

* * * * * 691 (e) * * * 692 (1) * * * 693 (2) Submit application and payment in the amount specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 694 section in accordance with the instructions provided with the application package. 695

* * * * * 696 Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 1 of 29 RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendmen ts_NPRM_FRdocument_Revised_2014-12- 

### 1 15.docx 

### 2 3 

## Revised to address Interagency Comm ents received under EO 12866 Review. 4 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 5 ENVIRONMENTAL PRO TECTION AGENCY 6 40 CFR Part 745 7 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304; FRL-XXXX-X] 8 RIN 2070-AK02 9 Lead-based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and 10 Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements 11 12 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 13 ACTION: Proposed rule. 14 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing minor revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 15 (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008, and the Lead-based Paint 16 (LBP) Activities rule that published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1996. The proposed 17 revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these progr ams by reducing burdens 18 to industry and the EPA, and by clarifying langua ge for training providers, while retaining the 19 protections provided by the original rules. EPA is proposing to elim inate the requirement that the 20 renovator refresher training have a hands-on co mponent. The Agency is also proposing to 21 remove jurisdiction-specific certification a nd accreditation requirements under the LBP 22 Activities program. Currently, this program requires that training providers, firms and 23 individuals seek certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a State) where the organization or person 24 wants to work. In addition, EPA is adding clarif ying language to the requirements for training 25 providers under both the RRP and LBP Activities programs. 26 DATES: Comments must be recei ved on or before [ insert date 30 days after date of publication 27 in the Federal Register ]. 28*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 2 of 29 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by doc ket identification (ID) number EPA29 HQ-OPPT-2014-0304, by one of the following methods: 30

• Federal eRulemaking Portal : http://www.regulations.gov . Follow the online 31 instructions for submitting comments. Do not subm it electronically any information you consider 32 to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or ot her information whose disclosure is restricted 33 by statute. 34

• Mail : Document Control Office (7407M), O ffice of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 35 (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 36
20460-0001. 37

• Hand Delivery : To make special arrangements fo r hand delivery or delivery of boxed 38 information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html

. 39 Additional instructions on commen ting or visiting the docket, al ong with more information about 40 dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets

. 41 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact : Marc 42 Edmonds, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and 43 Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 44 20460-0001; telephone number: (202 ) 566-0758; email address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov

. 45 For general information contact : The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 46 Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephon e number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA47 Hotline@epa.gov

. 48 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 49 I. Executive Summary 50 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 51 You may be potentially affected by this ac tion if you operate a tr aining program required 52*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 3 of 29 to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a fi rm or individual who must be certified to 53 conduct lead-based paint ac tivities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you are an 54 individual who must be certif ied to conduct renovation activitie s in accordance with 40 CFR 55 745.90. This proposed rule applies only in States, territories, and tribal areas that do not have 56 authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.32 4. For further information regarding the 57 authorization status of States , territories, and Tribes, contac t the National Lead Information 58
Center at 1-800- 424-LEAD [5323]. 59 The following list of North American Industr ial Classification Syst em (NAICS) codes is 60 not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this 61 document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: 62

• Building construction (NAICS code 236), e.g., single-family housing construction, 63 multi-family housing constructi on, residential remodelers. 64

• Specialty trade contractors (NAICS c ode 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air65 conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, el ectrical contractors, finish 66 carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation cont ractors, siding contract ors, tile and terrazzo 67 contractors, glass a nd glazing contractors. 68

• Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 69 residential property managers. 70 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 71 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with 72 kindergarten classrooms. 73 • Other technical and trade schools ( NAICS code 611519), e.g., training providers. 74 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS 75 code 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 76*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 4 of 29 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors 77 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 78 If you have any questions regarding the applicab ility of this action to a particular entity, 79 consult the technica l person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

. 80 B. What is the Agency's Aut hority for Taking this Action? 81 This proposed rule is being issued under th e authority of sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of 82 the Toxic Substances Control Act (T SCA), 15 U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3). 83 C. What Action is the Agency Taking? 84 EPA is proposing minor revisions to the RRP rule that published in the Federal Register 85 on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 1) and the Lead-based Pa int Activities rule th at published in the Federal 86 Register on August 29, 1996 (Ref. 2). EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement that the 87 renovator refresher training have a hands-on co mponent. The Agency is also proposing to 88 remove jurisdictions under the LBP Activities program. Currently, this program requires that 89 training providers, firms and individuals seek certification in each juri sdiction (e.g., a State) 90 where the organization or person wants to work. In addition, EPA is adding clarifying language 91 to the requirements for training providers unde r both the RRP and LBP Activities programs. 92 D. Why is the Agency Taking this Action? 93 The proposed revisions are intended to im prove the day-to-day function of these 94 programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA and by clarifying language for training 95 providers, while retaining the bene fits of the original rules. 96 E. What are the Estimated Incremental Impacts of this Action? 97 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potenti al costs and impacts associated with this 98 proposed rule. This analysis is summarized in greater detail in th e discussion concerning 99 Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 in Unit V.A. The following is a brief outline 100*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 5 of 29 of the estimated incremental impacts of this proposed rule. 101

 Overall costs. The annualized cost savings of th is proposed rule are estimated at 102 approximately $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $9.8 million per year using a 103 7% discount rate. 104

 Small entity impacts . The proposed rule would not ha ve a significant impact on a 105 substantial number of small en tities. This proposed rule woul d relieve regulatory burden for 106 affected small entities, and would not have a direct negative impact on any small entities. 107

 Effects on State, local, and Tribal governments . This proposed rule would not have a 108 significant intergovernmental mandate, significan t or unique effects on small governments, or 109 have Federalism implications. 110 F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 111
1. Submitting CBI . Do not submit this information to EPA through 112 http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 113 claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 114 outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically wi thin the disk or CD115 ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 116 comment that includes information claimed as CBI , a copy of the comment that does not contain 117 the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 118 Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 119 CFR part 2. 120

2. Tips for preparing your comments . When submitting comments, remember to: 121 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 122 heading, Federal Register date and page number). 123 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 124*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 6 of 29 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 125 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 126 your requested changes. 127 iv. Describe any assumptions and provide a ny technical information and/or data that you 128 used. 129 v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 130 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 131 vi. Provide specific examples to illustra te your concerns and suggest alternatives. 132 vii. Explain your views as cl early as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 133 threats. 134 viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 135 II. Background 136 In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American 137 children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000 ,000 children under age 6; th at the ingestion of 138 household dust containing lead from deterioratin g or abraded lead-based paint was the most 139 common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of children 140 living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead 141 paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contamin ated dust in their homes. Congress further 142 determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of 143 the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead144 Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Titl e X) (Ref. 3). Title X established a national 145 goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as possible and provided 146 a leadership role for the federal government in building the infrastructure necessary to achieve 147 this goal. 148*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 7 of 29 Title X amended TSCA to add a new subc hapter entitled “Title IV–Lead Exposure 149 Reduction.” Most of EPA’s responsibilities for a ddressing lead-based paint hazards can be found 150 in this title, with TSCA sect ion 402 being one source of the ru lemaking authority to carry out 151 these responsibilities. Section 402(a) of TSCA directs EPA to promulgate regulations covering 152 lead-based paint activities to ensure persons pe rforming these activities are properly trained, that 153 training programs are accredited, and that cont ractors performing these activities are certified. 154 Regulations promulgated under TSCA section 40 2(a) must contain standards for performing 155 lead-based paint activities, taki ng into account reliability, effec tiveness, and safety. On August 156 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) th at govern lead-based 157 paint inspections, lead ha zard screens, risk assessments, a nd abatements in target housing and 158 child-occupied facilities (also referred to as the LBP Activities regulations) (Ref. 2). The LBP 159 Activities rule, codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, containe d an accreditation program for 160 training providers and training, a nd certification and work practice requirements for lead-based 161 paint inspectors, risk assessors, project designers , abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. 162 Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provi sions were made for interested States, territories, and Tribes 163 to apply for and receive aut horization to administer thei r own LBP Activities programs. 164 Requirements applicable to State, territorial, and trib al programs are codified in 40 CFR part 165 745, subpart Q. 166 Section 402(c) of TSCA pertains to renovation and remodeling activities. Section 167 402(c)(3) of TSCA requires EPA to revise the re gulations issued under TSCA section 402(a) to 168 apply to renovation or remodeli ng activities that crea te lead-based paint hazards. On April 22, 169 2008, EPA issued a final regulation applying a re vised version of the LBP Activities rule 170 requirements to renovation, repair, and painting ac tivities in target hous ing and child-occupied 171 facilities (Ref. 1). Pursuant to the RRP rule, persons performi ng covered renovation activities 172*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 8 of 29 must be properly trained, renovators and renovation firms mu st be certified, and training 173 providers must be accredited (Ref. 1). The requ irements of the RRP ru le became effective in 174 stages with the entire rule b ecoming effective as of April 22, 2010. 175 III. Proposed Revisions 176 A. Hands-on Training 177 To become certified as a renovator, a person must successfully complete a renovator 178 course accredited by EPA or by a State, territorial, or tribal program author ized by EPA. To gain 179 initial certification, renovators must complete an 8-hour training course. Until October 4, 2011, 180 renovators that successfully completed an EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development 181 (HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovati on training course were able to take the 4-hour refresher 182 renovator training in lieu of th e 8-hour initial course. Both of these courses require hands-on 183 training. Trainings are taught either in a classroom or via electron ic learning (e-learning). In an 184 e-learning course, students take th e lecture portion of the course ove r the Internet and then travel 185 to a training facility to perf orm the hands-on activities and take the exam. To maintain 186 certification, renovators must comp lete a renovator refresher course within 5 years of the date the 187 individual completed their previous renovator training. Renovators who received their initial 188 certification before April 22, 2010, however, have until July 1, 2015, to take the refresher 189 training to maintain certificati on. If the renovator does not comp lete the course within the 190 required timeframe, the individual must retake the initial 8-hour course to become certified 191 again. 192 The 8-hour initial training includes hands-on trai ning in testing for lead in paint, methods 193 for minimizing the creation of dust and lead-based paint haza rds, interior and exterior 194 containment and cleanup methods , and cleaning verification. Activ ities covered in clude the use 195 of EPA-recognized test kits, se tting up barriers, covering furn iture, ducts, and carpeted floors 196*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 9 of 29 with plastic, mopping floors, bagging waste, an d determining that the work area has been 197 adequately cleaned. Each student performs thes e activities in front of an instructor who 198 determines if the student is proficient in each one . Students must be deemed proficient in order to 199 pass the class and become certified. The current version of the renovator refresher course 200 includes hands-on training in testing pa int for lead and cleaning verification. 201 At the time the RPP rule became effective it was important to have hands-on training in 202 the refresher course because certain renovators were eligible to take only the refresher course to 203 receive their initial certification (i.e., renovators who completed a prerequisite training). After 204 October 4, 2011, however, renovators could no longer take the refres her course to gain initial 205 certification even if they were prev iously eligible to take the refres her course in lieu of the initial 206 course. From that date forward, all renovators taking the refresher course will already have 207 received hands-on training as part of their in itial renovator certificati on (i.e., an initial or 208 refresher course). Now that renovators will take the refresher course only after being initially 209 certified in a way that includes hands-on trai ning, EPA believes it is less important for the 210 refresher course to include hands-on traini ng. In addition, renovato rs that are seeking 211 recertification have been practicing the hands- on skills on renovation jobs during their 5-year 212 certification. Furthermore, due to the less tec hnical nature of work practices taught in the 213 renovator course versus those taught in the abat ement course, EPA believes performing hands-on 214 activities once is sufficient to teach renovators the skills they need to perform renovations 215 following the RRP rule work practices. 216 In addition, by eliminating this requirement, renovators seeking rece rtification will be 217 able to take the course entirely online without having to travel to a training location to perform 218 the hands-on activities. This change will make it easier for renovators to take the refresher 219 training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Re novators will save time 220*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 10 of 29 and travel costs by taking the course from a single location, possibly th eir own home. If taking 221 the training is made easier, EPA believes that mo re renovators will take the refresher training and 222 become recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training wi ll lead to a higher 223 number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a 224 lead-safe manner. For these reasons, EPA believe s it is appropriate to eliminate the hands-on 225 training in the renovator refres her course. The Agency request s comment on eliminating the 226 requirement to include hands-on training in the renovator refresher course. 227 While the Agency believes that the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher 228 course is no longer necessary, it has not ruled out having hands-on activit ies that are performed 229 via e-learning instead of in person. This would al low instructors to assess the student’s skills 230 without having the student travel to a classr oom. EPA requests comment on how the hands-on 231 portion of the refresher course could be performed by the studen t and assessed by the instructor 232 via e-learning. 233 Another option for maintaining the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher 234 course is to modify it to make it less burdensom e for trainers and students. For example, the 235 requirement could be changed so the hands-on por tion of the course is only required every other 236 time a renovator gets recertified instead of ever y 5 years. Under this scenario, the renovator 237 would only have to take the hands-on traini ng once every 10 years. The Agency requests 238 comment on possible alternative approaches to conducting the hands-on skills to make the 239 training less burdensome. 240 The Agency does not intend to eliminate the hands-on activities in the refresher courses 241 for the other lead-based paint program discipli nes: Risk assessor, inspector, supervisor, 242 abatement worker and dust sampling technici an. The work performed by these disciplines 243 involves highly specialized skills which individuals must learn in training courses accredited by 244*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 11 of 29 EPA or authorized States, territories, and Tr ibes. For example, a significant portion of an 245 abatement worker’s training is focused on abatemen t techniques and select ion of the appropriate 246 course of action for a variety of hazards. Renovators, on the other hand, do not seek to 247 permanently eliminate lead hazards; instead they perform maintenance and improvement tasks as 248 directed by the consumer. Thus, the goal of EP A’s renovator training and certification program is 249 not to update the methodology a renovator uses to accomplish these tasks (i.e., how to be 250 painters, plumbers, or carpenters ), but rather to ensure that persons who already know how to 251 perform renovations perform their typical work in a lead-safe manner. Because of the technical 252 nature of the work performed by risk assessors, inspectors, supervisors, abatement workers and 253 dust sampling technicians, the Agency believes that it is important for their refresher training 254 courses to include hands-on learning. 255 Currently, training providers are required to submit both a pre-trai ning and post-training 256 notification for each course that they teach. Both types of notifications must contain information 257 about the course including, but not limited t o, date, time and location. The post-training 258 notification must also include information about the trainees including name, address and test 259 score, among other things. Pre-training notificati ons must be submitted at least 7 business days 260 prior to the start of the course. Post-training notifications must be submitted no later than 10 261 business days following course completion. The notification requirements help EPA monitor 262 compliance with the training and certificati on provisions of the RRP and LBP Activities 263 programs. Training providers that teach onlin e courses must submit pre- and post-training 264 notifications for each hands-on tr aining session they teach. If the Agency eliminates the hands-on 265 requirement for the refresher training then there will be no classroom session for which to notify 266 EPA. Because the training provider will still need to send the names of the students to EPA, the 267 notification requirements will need to be changed. The Agency requests comment on how it 268*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 12 of 29 should modify the notification requirements to accommodate a training taught entirely online. 269 In the absence of more particular informa tion regarding the number of renovators that 270 may take an online class to complete the requir ed refresher training, EPA assumes that 98% of 271 renovators will take the online training if the hands-on requirement is removed, based on the 272 significant cost savings that would result from re duced tuition costs and by avoiding the time and 273 associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. EPA requests comment on this 274 assumption. EPA also requests comment and suppor ting information on the savings that would 275 accrue to renovators if EPA re moves the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher 276 courses; whether the tuition is likely to differ for online and in -person refresher training; and 277 how the costs training providers would incur to o ffer online refresher training courses compare to 278 the costs of offering courses in person. 279 The Agency is considering a further modi fication to the notification requirements 280 regarding online notifications. For years, training providers have had the option of submitting 281 notifications electronical ly via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX); 63% of tr aining providers 282 opted to do so in the past year. The CDX syst em is designed to str eamline the notification 283 process for training providers and EPA alike, a nd to perform basic valid ations of electronic 284 submissions that reduce common errors in notifications otherwise submitted on paper. 285 Depending on how the notification requirements are modified, training providers may find it 286 more efficient and less burdensome to submit notif ications to EPA electronically if the hands-on 287 refresher training requirement was eliminated. Such a change could result in an increased rate of 288 electronic reporting of training no tifications to EPA. To reduce the burden on the Agency and 289 save taxpayer dollars, EPA will consider requi ring training providers that teach the online 290 refresher renovator course to submit their notif ications for that course online. The Agency 291 requests comment on whether it shou ld require training providers to submit notifications online 292*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 13 of 29 for the online refresher course. 293 The Agency is concerned that, by the time a final rule is published, many renovators will 294 have already taken the refresher training that includes the hands-on learning and will have 295 missed out on the burden savings that this proposed rule would provide. In light of this, EPA is 296 considering extending the certifica tions for a portion of renovators so they would be able to 297 realize the benefits of this proposed rule. For ex ample, the Agency could extend for 6 months the 298 renovator certifications that expire by July 1, 2015. EPA requests comments on whether it should 299 extend the certifications of renovators so they can take advantage of the burden savings of this 300 proposed rule. 301 B. Jurisdictions 302 On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, was amended to include a fee schedule for 303 training programs seeking EPA accreditation an d for individuals and firms seeking EPA 304 certification (Ref. 4). These fees were establishe d as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which 305 requires EPA to recover the cost of administerin g and enforcing the lead-based paint activities 306 requirements in States without authorized programs. The fee schedule created a multi307 jurisdiction registration fee which applies to individuals, firms and training programs that 308 provide training or perform lead-based paint activit ies in more than one State administered by the 309 EPA program. This fee is applied per discipline for each additional EPA-administered State in 310 which the applicant seeks certifi cation/recertificati on or accreditation/reaccreditation. An EPA311 administered jurisdiction is either an individual State without an authorized program or all Tribes 312 without authorized programs in a given EPA Region. 313 The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 was based on the estimated burdens required for 314 Agency clerical, technical, and managerial st aff to perform tasks associated with adding 315 jurisdictions to a cer tification or accreditation. Tasks incl ude entering the information into a 316*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 14 of 29 database, approving or disapprovi ng the application and generating and mailing a certificate to 317 the applicant. After years of implementing the LBP Activities program, the Agency believes that 318 separate certifications for each EPA-administered State jurisdiction are not necessary. In 319 particular, EPA does not believe it is necessary for the Agency to certify or accredit the same 320 applicant multiple times; certification in one EPA-administered State jurisdiction should be 321 sufficient to perform work in any other EPA-ad ministered States. For instance, EPA did not 322 include separate certifications fo r each EPA-administered State in the RRP rule and found that it 323 did not adversely impact the pr ogram. In addition, only requiri ng one certification for all EPA324 administered State jurisdictions helps to str eamline the certification a nd accreditation process. 325 Accordingly, the Agency is propos ing to eliminate the requirement for separate certifications in 326 each EPA-administered State juri sdiction in the LBP Activities pr ogram. If jurisdictions are 327 eliminated, regulated entities will no longer have to send an application and fees to EPA for the 328 purpose of adding additional EPA-ad ministered State jurisdictions to their certification or 329 accreditation. Once a regulated entity applies and is approved in the Lead-based Paint Activities 330 program, they will be able to work in any EP A-administered State. EPA requests comment on 331 whether it should eliminate this requirement from the Lead-based Paint Activities regulations. 332 Eliminating the fee for adding an EPA-administ ered State jurisdiction will not cause the 333 other fees under the LBP Activit ies regulations to increase. As stated earlier, TSCA requires 334 EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing th e lead-based paint activities 335 requirements. Eliminating the requirement to apply for additional jurisdictions also eliminates 336 the Agency’s costs for processing those applications and its need to recover the fee. Thus, 337 eliminating the $35 fee will not require the Agency to adjust the other fees it collects under the 338 LBP Activities rule. 339 C. Clarification Regarding Training Pr ovider Application Requirements 340*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 15 of 29 EPA is clarifying the application regulati ons for accredited training providers under the 341 RRP rule (Ref. 1) and LBP Activities rule (Ref. 2) . It was brought to the Agency’s attention that 342 the regulations did not specifically state what c onstituted a violation of the regulations at 40 CFR 343 745.225. For example, some other regulatory provis ions, such as 40 CFR 745.87, specifically list 344 various activities that are considered a violati on of TSCA. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing 345 to add clarifying language explaining that training provide rs must follow the requirements in that 346 section. EPA believes that accredited training providers already unders tand this, but EPA is 347 proposing to add the clarifying la nguage to ensure understanding of the requirements – similar to 348 what has been done in other regulations. Th is clarifying language does not change any 349 requirements for accredited training providers. The Agency requests comment on adding this 350 clarification to the regul ations at 40 CFR 745.225(a)(4 ), (c), (d) and (e). 351 D. Correction to Training Notification Requirements 352 The regulatory text of the final RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1) inad vertently omitted a 353 requirement for accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after 354 each training course the provider delivers. The provision was designed to supply important 355 information regarding certifie d renovators for EPA’s compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, 356 EPA issued a rule (Ref. 5) to correct th is omission by amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to 357 require post-course notifications from accred ited providers of renovator or dust sampling 358 technician training. The 2009 rule also included conforming changes to 40 CFR 359 745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct name of the sample pos t-course notification form and to 360 make it clear that all methods of post-course no tification are available to both renovation training 361 providers and lead-based pain t activities training providers. As amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) 362 required renovation training provi ders to notify EPA no later than 10 business days following 363 course completion. Although EPA identified this requirement in its cost estimates in 2008, the 364*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 16 of 29 regulatory provision was subseque ntly overwritten by another rulemaking. Specifically, in a 365 2011 rule (Ref. 6), the regulatory language inadve rtently removed the regulatory text that was 366 added to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009 rule. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 367 add the same language back to 40 CFR 745.225(c)( 14)(i) that was included in the 2009 rule. 368 EPA requests comment on adding this language back to the notification requirements. Since EPA 369 has continued to account for the costs and paperw ork burden associated w ith this notification 370 provision, this proposed correction does not increase the estimat ed costs and burdens for the 371 RRP program. 372 E. Effective Date 373 374 EPA is proposing to find under the Admini strative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 375 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date of the 376 final rule that EPA intends to promulgate based u pon this proposed rule. As stated earlier in this 377 preamble, removing the hands-on requirement will make it easier for renovators to take the 378 refresher training, especially re novators who live far from a training facility. If taking the 379 training is made easier, EPA belie ves that removing the hands-on re quirement will lead to more 380 renovators taking the training and becoming recer tified. Consequently, delaying the effective 381 date may result in fewer renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. For this reason, 382 the Agency believes it is in th e public interest to remove the requirement as soon as possible. 383 EPA also believes that such action would relieve a restriction in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 384 553(d)(1). EPA therefore proposes to issue a final rule making this change effective upon 385 publication in the Federal Register

. 386 IV. References 387 The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this 388 document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, 389*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 17 of 29 including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, 390 even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. Fo r assistance in locating 391 these other documents, please consu lt the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER 392 INFORMATION CONTACT

. 393 1. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Progr am; Final Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 394 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). 395 2. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child396 Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Re gister (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). 397 3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. 42 U.S.C. 4852. 398 4. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and Certification of Lead-based 399 Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule. Fe deral Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999) (FRL400 6058-6). 401 5. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 402 Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 34257, July 15, 2009) (FRL-8422-7). 403 6. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 404 Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Regi ster (76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011) (FRL-8881-8). 405 7. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Lead -Based Paint Program Minor Amendments 406 Proposed Rule (Economic Analysis). December 2014. 407 8. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA sections 402 and 404 Training, 408 Certification, Accreditation and Standards fo r Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, 409 Repair, and Painting. EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and OMB No. 2070-[NEW]. December 2014. 410 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 411 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: 412 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 413 414*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 18 of 29 This proposed rule has been designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 415 as a “significant regulatory action” under se ction 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 416 October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive 417 Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011) , and any changes made in response to 418 OMB recommendations are documented in the docket. 419 EPA has prepared an analysis of the poten tial cost savings associated with this 420 rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint 421 Program Minor Amendments Proposed Rule (R ef. 7) and is briefly summarized here. 422 In a typical year, individuals, firms, and tr aining providers apply to perform lead-based 423 paint activities or provide trai ning in a total of 431 additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. 424 Removing the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee will resu lt in total estimated cost savings of 425 approximately $15,000 per year to these entities. 426 Removing the hands-on training requirement fo r renovator refresher training is estimated 427 to reduce the tuition by an av erage of $37. Removing the hands-on requirement also makes 428 online renovator refresher training more attrac tive to training provide rs and renovators. If 429 renovators become recertified by taking an e-learning refresher course they are estimated to save 430 an additional $165 by avoiding the time and associat ed expenses needed to travel to a training 431 site. Renovator training and certific ation (which is valid for 5 y ears) became mandatory in 2010, 432 and a large number of renovators were trained that year. As many as 168,000 of these renovators 433 are predicted to seek refreshe r training in 2015. Over time, the annual number is predicted to 434 equilibrate such that up to 48,000 renovators may seek refresher training in later years. Nearly all 435 of these renovators are assumed to choose online refresher training if th e option is available. 436 Therefore, removing the hands-on requirement fo r renovator refresher training is estimated to 437 reduce costs by over $9 million per year. 438*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 19 of 29 The proposed rule includes a correction to the training notification requirements to add 439 back regulatory text on post-tra ining notifications that was in advertently overwritten in a 2011 440 rule (although most training provi ders are continuing to provide post-training notifications to 441 EPA in a timely manner). EPA has already accounted for the burden and cost of requiring 442 accredited providers of renovation training to pr ovide notification to EPA after each training 443 course the provider delivers. For example, the currently approved ICR for the TSCA sections 444 402 and 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards fo r Lead-Based Paint Activities 445 and Renovation, Repair, and Painting (E PA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0155) 446 estimates that 600 renovation training provide rs will submit an average of 14 post-training 447 notifications per year. This yiel ds a total of 8,400 post-training notifications per year at an 448 average burden of 1.6 hours per re sponse, resulting in a total burden for this activity of 13,440 449 hours at a cost of $339,578. In order to avoid double-counting, EPA’s Economic Analysis and 450 ICR for this action do not include the burden and co st of reinstating the post-training notification 451 requirements. 452 The clarifying language being added to the ru le explaining that tr aining providers must 453 follow the regulations does not affect the cost of compliance because it does not change any 454 requirements for accredited training providers. 455 Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee and the re quirement for hands on refresher renovator 456 training is estimated to result in cost savings of up to $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount 457 rate and $9.8 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 458 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 459 The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted to 460 OMB for review and approval under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq . The ICR document prepared 461 by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and the OMB Control No. 2070-[NEW] (Ref. 462*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 20 of 29 8). The ICR document provides a detailed presen tation of the estimated burden and costs 463 predicted as a result of the proposed rule . Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 464 There are 275 training providers accredite d to offer renovator refresher training 465 programs. All these training providers are assume d to apply to EPA to become accredited to 466 offer e-learning refresher traini ng once the requirement for hands- on renovator refresher training 467 is removed. The applications must address issu es such as how the trainer will ensure that 468 students successfully complete the e-learning modules and the e-learni ng final assessment. 469 Training providers are most likely to add an al ready reviewed and accepted e-learning course 470 from another training provider to their training curriculum. In that case, their burden to become 471 familiar with the new rule and to submit an a pplication is estimated to average 13.8 hours per 472 response, at a cost of $687. For the 275 training pr oviders this results in a total burden of 3,795 473 hours at a tota l cost $188,861. 474 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, a nd a person is not required to respond to an 475 information collection request unl ess it displays a currently vali d OMB control number, or is 476 otherwise required to submit the specific inform ation by a statute. The OMB control numbers for 477 EPA’s regulations codified in Title 40 of the C ode of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing 478 in the preamble of the final rule, are furt her displayed either by publication in the Federal 479 Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if 480 applicable. The display of OMB co ntrol numbers for certain EPA re gulations is consolidated in 481 40 CFR 9.1. 482 Submit any comments on the Agency’s need fo r this information, the accuracy of the 483 provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to 484 both EPA and OMB. For EPA, follow the instructions in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 485 document. For OMB, reference “OMB Desk Officer for EPA” and email your comments to 486*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 21 of 29 oira_submission@omb.eop.gov . Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 487 between 30 and 60 days after [ insert date of publication in the Federal Register ], a comment to 488 OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [ insert date 30 days after 489 publication in the Federal Register ]. The final rule will addr ess any OMB or public comments 490 received on the information collection requi rements contained in this proposal. 491 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 492 The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. , generally requires an agen cy to prepare a regulatory 493 flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 494 APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-553, or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 495 a significant economic impact on a substa ntial number of small entities. 496 Small entities include sma ll businesses, small organizat ions, and small governmental 497 jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impact s of this proposed rule on small entities, small 498 entity is defined as: 499 1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 500 at 13 CFR 121.201. The SBA’s definitions typica lly are based upon either a sales or an 501 employment level, depending on the nature of the industry. 502 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a cit y, county, town, school 503 district or special district w ith a population of less than 50,000. 504 3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 505 and operated and is not do minant in its field. 506 After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify 507 that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 508 entities. In determining whether a rule has a si gnificant economic impact on a substantial number 509 of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small 510*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 22 of 29 entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analys es is to identify and address 511 regulatory alternatives “which minimize any signi ficant economic impact of the rule on small 512 entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 513 significant economic impact on a substantial numb er of small entities if the rule relieves 514 regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive econo mic effect on all of the small entities subject 515 to the rule. 516 The proposed rule would eliminate multi-jur isdiction registration fees for the LBP 517 Activities program, and eliminate the hands-on training requirement from the lead renovation 518 refresher training course. This re sults in cost savings for entiti es that no longer would pay the 519 multi-jurisdiction registration fees and for renovato rs that would have a less expensive refresher 520 training option available to th em. Those training providers th at choose to offer e-learning 521 refresher renovator training woul d incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning 522 courses. However, it is expected that only tr aining providers that anticipate recovering 523 accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation 524 because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-le arning refresher training 525 option under the proposed rule. Therefore, there would be no direct negative cost impacts on 526 small entities as a result of the proposed rule. We have ther efore concluded that this proposed 527 rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. 528 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 529 This action does not contain any Federal ma ndates under the provisions of Title II of 530 UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, or tr ibal governments or the private sector. The 531 action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, lo cal or tribal governments or the private sector. 532 Therefore, this action is not subject to the requ irements of UMRA sectio ns 202 or 205. This action 533 is also not subject to the requirements of UM RA section 203 because it contains no regulatory 534*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 23 of 29 requirements that might signifi cantly or uniquely a ffect small governments. Those training 535 providers (both those in the privat e sector as well as local or tr ibal governments) that choose to 536 offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to ap ply for accreditation of their e537 learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers th at anticipate recovering 538 accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation 539 because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-le arning refresher training 540 option under the proposed rule. 541 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 542 This action does not have federalism impli cations as specified in Executive Order 13132 543 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have subs tantial direct effects on the States, on the 544 relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 545 responsibilities among the various levels of government. Local governments can serve as 546 training providers, and those tr aining providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher 547 renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. 548 However, it is expected that onl y training providers that anticipa te recovering accreditation costs 549 through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no 550 requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher trai ning option under the 551 proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically 552 solicits comment on this proposed acti on from State and local officials. 553 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coor dination with Indian Tribal Governments 554 This action does not have tribal implicati ons as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 555 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Tribal governments can serve as training providers, and those 556 training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renova tor training would incur a cost 557 to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, it is expected that only training 558*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 24 of 29 providers that anticipate rec overing accreditation cost s through tuition ch arges would opt to 559 apply for the additional accreditation because ther e is no requirement mandating these firms to 560 offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 561 13175 does not apply to this ac tion. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 562 proposed action from tribal officials. 563 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 564 Risks 565 566 This action is not subject to Execu tive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 567 because it is not an economically significant re gulatory action as defined by Executive Order 568 12866, and because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as 569 applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 570 analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the 571 regulation. This action is not subject to Executi ve Order 13045, because it would not establish an 572 environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 573 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regul ations That Significantly Affect Energy 574 Supply, Distribution, or Use 575 576 This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 577 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likel y to have a significant adverse effect 578 on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to have any adverse 579 energy effects because it does not require any action related to the supply, distribution, or use of 580

energy. 581 I. National Technology Transfe r and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 582 Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 583 standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 584 otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus sta ndards are technical st andards (e.g., materials 585*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 25 of 29 specifications, test methods, sampling procedures , and business practices) that are developed or 586 adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies . NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 587 through OMB, explanations when the Agency de cides not to use avai lable and applicable 588 voluntary consensus standards. 589 This proposed rule does not involve tec hnical standards. Therefore, EPA is not 590 considering the use of any voluntary consensu s standards. EPA welcomes comments on this 591 aspect of the proposed rule and specifically in vites the public to iden tify additional potentially 592 applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in 593 this regulation. 594 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 595 Populations and Low-Income Populations 596 597 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive 598 policy on environmental justice. Its main provi sion directs Federal agen cies, to the greatest 599 extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 600 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disp roportionately high and adverse human health or 601 environmental effects of their programs, policie s, and activities on minority populations and low602 income populations in the United States. 603 EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 604 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 605 does not directly affect the leve l of protection provided to human health or the environment. The 606 proposed rule would remove multi-jurisdiction fees for the LBP Activities program and remove 607 the hands-on requirement for refresher renovator training. However, it would not change the 608 work practice requirements for lead-based pain t activities or renovati on, repair or painting 609 activities disturbing lead-based paint. 610*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 26 of 29 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745 611 Environmental protection, Lea d, Lead-based paint, Renovation. 612 Dated: ____________________ 613
614

__________________________________________ 615
616 Gina McCarthy, 617 Administrator 618*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 27 of 29 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: 619 PART 745--[AMENDED] 620 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 621 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 622 2. In § 745.225: 623 a. Add new paragraph (a)(4). 624 b. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 625 c. Revise paragraphs (c)(14) (i) and (e)(2) and (3). 626 The addition and revisions read as follows: 627 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child-occupied facilities. 628 (a) * * * 629 (4) Accredited training programs, training pr ogram managers, and principal instructors 630 must comply with all of the requirements of this section including approved terms of the 631 application and all of the requirements and limitations specified in any accreditation documents 632 issued to training programs. 633

* * * * * 634 (c) Requirements for the accred itation of training programs. A training program 635 accredited by EPA to offer lead-based paint ac tivities courses, renovator courses, or dust 636 sampling technician courses must meet the following requirements: 637

* * * * * 638 (14) * * * 639 (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of any 640 renovator, dust sampling, or lead-b ased paint activities course. This notification must be received 641 by EPA no later than 10 business da ys following course completion. 642*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 28 of 29 * * * * * 643 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. A training program accredited by EPA to 644 offer lead-based paint courses in the specific discip lines listed in this paragraph (d) must ensure 645 that its courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 646

* * * * * 647 (e) Requirements for the accreditati on of refresher training programs. A training 648 program may seek accreditation to offer refresher training co urses in any of the following 649 disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor , project designer, abatement worker, renovator, 650 and dust sampling technician. A training program accredited by EPA to offer refresher training 651 must meet the following minimum requirements: 652

* * * * * 653 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk asse ssor, supervisor, and abatement worker must 654 last a minimum of 8 training hour s. Refresher courses for project designer, renovator, and dust 655 sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all 656 disciplines except renovator and project de signer must include a hands-on component. 657 (3) Except for renovator and project designer co urses, for all other courses offered, the 658 training program shall conduct a hands-on assessme nt. With the exceptio n of project designer 659 courses, the training program shall conduct a co urse test at the completion of the course. 660

* * * * * 661 3. In § 745.238: 662 a. Remove paragraph (c)(3). 663 b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) as (c)(3) and (4). 664 c. Revise the headings for paragraphs (d)(1) and (2). 665 d. Revise paragraph (e)(2). 666*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** (RIN 2070-AK02)



### Page 29 of 29 The amendments read as follows: 667 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certificatio n of lead-based paint activities. 668

* * * * * 669 (d) * * * 670 (1) Certification and re-certification * * * 671 (2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. * * * 672

* * * * * 673 (e) * * * 674 (2) Submit application and payment in the am ount specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 675 section in accordance with th e instructions provided with the application package. 676

* * * * * 677