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 Interagency Review: EPA's Lead-Based Paint 

Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 

2070-AK02)

Attachments: RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_EA_Redline_Revisions_

2014-12-10.docx; RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_EA_Revised_

2014-12-10.docx; RIN2070-AK02_EO12866

_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_FRdocument_Redline_Revisions_2014-12-15.docx; 

RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_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 Pollution 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***

1 RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_EA_Redline_Revisions_2014-

2 12-10.docx

3 

4 

5 

6 Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program 

7 Minor Amendments Proposed Rule 

8 

9 

10 RIN 2070-AK02 

11 

12 

13 

14 EO 12866 REVIEW DRAFT 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 July 23December 10, 2014

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

35 Economics, Exposure and Technology Division 

36 Office of Pollution, Prevention, and Toxics 

37 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

38 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

39 Washington, DC 20460 
i 

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 Programmatic 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 Coordination 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 Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years 

(millions 2014$) ......................................................................................................................................... ES-2

Exhibit 2-1: Lead-based Paint Activities Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification and Training 

Providers Applying for (Re)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 Registration 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 Cost 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 Annualized 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 Annualized 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 Savings 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) and §402(c). This report estimates the cost savings 

from the proposed rule that includes these amendments to the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule for 

lead abatement and the Residential Property Renovation 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 (re)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 apply to perform lead-based paint activities or provide 

training in a total of 431 additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. Removing the $35 fee will result in 

total estimated cost savings of approximately $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 taken 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 avoiding 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 becoming trained in each subsequent year. Training and 

certification are valid for five years, and many renovators will need to be recertified over the next few 

years. The largest number of recertifications is expected in 2015, when 168,000 renovators are expected to 

seek refresher training. Over time, the number of renovators 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 for renovator refresher training is estimated to save over $9 million per 

year. 

If the hands-on requirement is removed, training providers currently accredited for the renovator refresher 

training course are expected to apply for an e-learning 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-learning refresher course accreditation if the rule is 

promulgated. Reviewing and processing the additional accreditation applications is estimated to cost the 

EPA over $80,000. 

The rule includes a correction to the training notification requirements to add back regulatory text on posttraining notifications that was inadvertently overwritten in a 2011 rulemaking (although most training 

providers are continuing to provide post-training notifications 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 requiring accredited providers of renovation training to 

provide notification to EPA after each training course the provider delivers. For example, the currently 

approved Information Collection Request for the RRP program1

 estimates that 600 renovation training 

providers will submit an average of 14 post-training notifications 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 providers already comply with the regulations. 

Exhibit ES-1 presents estimates for the total and annualized industry cost savings and Agency costs 

associated with the enactment of the proposed amendments, 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 Cost 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 consistent 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 result from amendments to EPA’s Lead-based Paint (LBP) 

Activities rule and to the Residential Property Renovation rule. These amendments would eliminate EPA’s 

multi-jurisdiction registration fee in the abatement program 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 screens, risk assessments, and lead abatements in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities (61 FR 45778, codified at 40 CFR part 745). On June 9th, 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 additional EPA-administered jurisdiction (e.g., a state) in 

which an individual, firm, or training 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 Cherokee 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 Property Renovations under the authority of §402(c)(3) of 

TSCA to address LBP hazards created by Renovation, Repair, 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 appropriate 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 two hours of hands-on training. To maintain renovator 

certification, an individual must complete a refresher 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, Mississippi, 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-jurisdiction 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 training 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 choosing to take the refresher course online, there is an 

additional cost savings because there is no travel cost. 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 discussed 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 used 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 affect 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 comply 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 offering 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 individuals and firms are sought (re)certification and 

training providers are sought (re)accreditation. 

Exhibit 2-1: Lead-based Paint Activities Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification 

and Training Providers Applying for (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 regulated 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 certifications 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 later (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 Certifications 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 amendment and Section 3.3 presents estimates for the 

renovator refresher training course amendment. Total cost 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-jurisdiction 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-administered 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 state. EPA’s multi-jurisdiction registration fee data for 

2011 through 2013 are presented in Exhibit 3-1. Column 2 and Column 3 of Exhibit 3-1 present the total 

and annual average number of additional EPA-administered jurisdictions for which organizations applied 

to perform lead-based paint activities or provide training from 2011 through 2013, respectively. Note that 

non-profit training programs are excluded from the analysis because they are exempt from the multijurisdiction registration fee. The average annual costs 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 Registration 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)certification, 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 Providers Applying for (Re)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 refresher renovator training courses consist of both a 

classroom and a hands-on component. The classroom component 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 and/or initial renovator training. The tuition data and 

summary statistics can be found in Appendix A. 

A renovator is currently able to enroll in an in-person 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 refresher 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 recertified until 2015. The refresher course has so far only been offered to 

renovators with prior lead-safety training in order to receive certification under the RRP rule. In 2015, when the 

refresher training course is in its highest demand, training 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 courses3

, it appears that training 

providers tend to charge the same tuition whether the classroom component is taught in-person or online. 

From the sample of training provider course tuitions, 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 hours 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 the 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 allow training providers to offer the course at a lower 

price, or new firms that have a competitive advantage in providing e-learning courses may begin offering 

the renovator refresher training course.5

 

The procedure to estimate the tuition for the classroom portion of a refresher course relies on the mean 

tuition for an initial and refresher training course, and 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 course without a hands-on component) is $36.97. This 

$36.97 in savings results from decreases in the cost of supplies and instruction if the hands-on 

requirement is removed.6

 

3

 Unlike for refresher training, there are training providers currently offering the classroom portion of the initial 

renovator course online. 

4

 There may be less incentive for training providers to offer 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 instructor are traveling to the 

training site, they are incurring the travel costs whether or not the classroom portion is taken in-person or online. If 

the hands-on requirement is removed the renovator can take the entire refresher course online, eliminating these 

travel costs. This makes e-learning more attractive 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, compared 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-person 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 mandatory duration for the hands-on component of the 

refresher course. The hands-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 refresher 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 travel to the training site, incidental expenses, and the 

value of the time spent traveling to and from the training 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 1st, 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 comprise 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 assumed to be two hours, as in the 2008 economic analysis 

of the RRP program rule (U.S. EPA 2008). The wage rate 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 program. A renovator’s fully loaded wage rate 

incorporates wages and salaries, benefits, and overhead. A renovator’s wages and salaries are represented 

by the mean hourly wage rate of First-Line Supervisors 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 and salaries constitute 69.1% of total employee 

compensations for civilian workers, implying a wage 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 tuition and avoided travel costs. Renovators switching 

to the e-learning course realize the greatest cost savings because they avoid the costs associated with 

traveling to a training provider’s facility. 

Exhibit 3-6: Incremental Renovator Training 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 renovation 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 further 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 and 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 expiration 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 renovators 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 Column 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 and recertification will be less than the numbers of 

individuals with expiring certifications (which represents the total number of individuals assumed to be 

trained each year). 

It is assumed that 53 percent of the stock of renovators seeking training exits the industry during the five 

year certification period. This turnover rate is based on the average percent of Abatement Supervisor 

applications that are for initial certification, recorded in the FLPP database between 2007 and 2009 (U.S. 

EPA 2010). Therefore, the number of renovators seeking refresher 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 equilibrate 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 pattern every five years. That is, one might expect a 

cyclical pattern of retraining to emerge. However, over time the original cohort of trained individuals will 

retire or leave the market and be replaced by new renovators whose training cycle is not tied to the start of 

the RRP program in 2010. So the cycle will be dampened and eventually disappear. Trying to model 

such a trend in the declining cyclicality would add little 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 initial training shown in Exhibit 3-7). Then, in order to 

simplify the calculations, the analysis assumes a constant 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 

Year1

Number of Renovators 

Seeking Initial or 

Refresher Training1

Renovators Seeking 

Refresher Training2

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 removed, 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 training after the amendment because they prefer to 

take their training in class rather than online. Enrollment expectations are summarized in Exhibit 3-8. 

Exhibit 3-8: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking In-person and 

E-learning Refresher Training Options

Year1 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 assumption 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, that 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 value 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 savings are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. 

Exhibit 3-9: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking In-person 

Classroom Training Under the 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 Annualized 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 the 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 cost 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 Annualized 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 impacts resulting from the proposed rule that would cause 

entities regulated under the abatement program to experience increases or reductions in their costs. 

3.5.2 Renovator Refresher Training Course Amendment 

Individual training providers offering RRP training courses could be negatively impacted by the proposed 

rule if (1) their profit margins are lower for the e-learning course, or (2) they lose market share with the 

introduction of the e-learning course. 

Under the proposed rule, a much larger portion of renovators are expected to enroll in the e-learning 

refresher training course than the e-learning component of the initial training course. This is because 

renovators would not have to travel to a training facility in the absence of a hands-on refresher training 

requirement. (By contrast, renovators taking the initial training 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 scenario, 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 individual training provider profit margins might change. Some 

training providers may exit the market, others may add 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 refresher training courses could decide to become 

accredited RRP training providers. In this scenario, third-party firms could gain a large portion of the 

market share due to their competitive advantage gained 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 providers offering refresher training courses. While there 

would not be a net loss to the economy, training providers unable to compete with third-party firms that 

might attain accreditation would likely experience reduced 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 associated with reviewing the expedited e-learning 

applications submitted by training providers 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 reviewing 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 and 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 

Wage1

Fringe Benefits and 

Overhead Multiplier2

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 Pay 

Tables: 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 discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. It is not 

known how many training providers will only offer refresher 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 reaccreditation applications after 2015. If most training 

providers begin offering refresher training only online, EPA’s work load for reviewing accreditation 

applications would not change much in future years 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 accreditation 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 equivalent 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, amended 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 governments. In some instances, 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 Agency 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 registration fees and renovators that would have a less 

expensive refresher training option available to them. Training providers might incur costs associated 

with accrediting e-learning courses. However, it is expected 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, environmental justice, children’s health, and 

paperwork burden, among others. 

7.1 Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (superseding 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 that solicits the same data from more than nine 

parties. The PRA seeks to ensure that Federal agencies balance their need to collect information 

with the paperwork burden imposed on the public by the collection. The definition of 

“information collection” includes activities required 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 information to or for a Federal agency, or to 

otherwise fulfill statutory or regulatory requirements. PRA paperwork burden is measured in 

terms of annual time and financial resources the 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 the 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 requests to add an already-reviewed e-learning 

curriculum to an already-accredited training providers' record must include a cover letter; a 

training provider application to amend their accreditation; and an e-learning quality control (QC) 

plan. The e-learning QC plan must address issues 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 renovator refresher training course are expected to 

apply for an e-learning refresher training accreditation if the hands-on requirement is removed. 

Therefore they would incur an incremental paperwork burden. Training providers applying for 

accreditation incur a one-time burden associated with 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 incurred 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 accreditation for an initial training course. (Less 

information needs to be provided for an expedited e-learning application, given that the training 

provider has already been accredited for an in-person course.) Burden for the initial accreditation 

of an initial renovation training course is taken 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 providers to familiarize themselves with the rule 

requirements; 4.8 hours to complete the accreditation 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 previous 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 derive the fully loaded wage. See Exhibit 7-2 for a 

detailed derivation of the training provider loaded wage rates. 

Exhibit 7-1: Incremental RRP Training Provider Hour Burden 

Activity Professional 

Hours1

Clerical 

Hours1

Burden 

Hours Per 

Activity1

Number of 

Training 

Providers 

Number of 

Events Per 

Provider2

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 activity for an expedited e-learning application are assumed to be half the burden in the previously 

approved ICR EPA No. 1715.13. The hour estimates were 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

Wage1

Fringe 

Benefits

Benefits

(% of 

Wage)1 

Overhead

(% of 

Wage)2 

Wage 

Multiplier 

Loaded 

Wages3 

(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). "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - September 2013." Private 

industry workers, goods-producing and service-producing.

2

 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. 

3 Wage rates are rounded to the closest penny. 

As shown in Exhibit 7-1, training providers would 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 Training 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 Cost1

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 professional and clerical hour burdens, respectively. 

 

7.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 private sector. This proposed rule would not impose 

an enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal 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 into 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 information, 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 refresher renovator training would incur a cost to 

apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, 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. 

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 between the national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 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 governments 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 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. 

7.4 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation 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 implications. Tribal governments can serve as training 

providers, and thus might incur costs associated with accrediting their e-learning courses. 

However, 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. 

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 safety 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 $100 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 consensus 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 directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

This proposed rule does not directly affect the level 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 for refresher renovator training. However, it 

does not change the work practice requirements 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 2012, 47-1011 First-Line Supervisors of 

Construction Trades and Extraction Workers." 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). "Consumer 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-Mileage-Rates-for-Business,-Medicaland-Moving-Announced. 

NAHB Business Management & Information Technology (2012). Cost of Doing Business Study, 

2012 Edition, NAHB BuilderBooks.com®. 

Office of Personal Management (OPM) (2014). 2014 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay 

Tables: 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 the 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 Activities Professionals." Retrieved Mar. 7, 

2014, from http://www2.epa.gov/lead/lead-based-paint-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 Consulting Services, Inc. $150.00 

Benchmark Environmental Training $165.00 

Benchmark Environmental 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 Training1 $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 Contractors Association $250.00 $200.00

Northwest Independent Contractors Association $295.00 

Northwest Independent Contractors 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 Plan of Action Committee, LLC $225.00 

TORF Environmental Management $250.00 

Weecycle Environmental Consulting $200.00 

Weecycle Environmental 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 classroom and hands-on 

training course and subtracting the e-learning classroom component ($160.04 = $199.99 - $39.95). The e-learning 

component was developed by a third-party firm, Contractor Harbor.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Quote, Cite, or Release During Review***

1 RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_EA_Revised_2014-12-10.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 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 
i 

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 Programmatic 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 Coordination 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 Savings of the Proposed Amendments Over 50 Years 

(millions 2014$) ......................................................................................................................................... ES-2

Exhibit 2-1: Lead-based Paint Activities Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification and Training 

Providers Applying for (Re)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 Registration 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 Cost 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 Annualized 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 Annualized 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 Savings 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) and §402(c). This report estimates the cost savings 

from the proposed rule that includes these amendments to the Lead-based Paint (LBP) Activities rule for 

lead abatement and the Residential Property Renovation 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 (re)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 apply to perform lead-based paint activities or provide 

training in a total of 431 additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. Removing the $35 fee will result in 

total estimated cost savings of approximately $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 taken 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 avoiding 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 becoming trained in each subsequent year. Training and 

certification are valid for five years, and many renovators will need to be recertified over the next few 

years. The largest number of recertifications is expected in 2015, when 168,000 renovators are expected to 

seek refresher training. Over time, the number of renovators 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 for renovator refresher training is estimated to save over $9 million per 

year. 

If the hands-on requirement is removed, training providers currently accredited for the renovator refresher 

training course are expected to apply for an e-learning 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-learning refresher course accreditation if the rule is 

promulgated. Reviewing and processing the additional accreditation applications is estimated to cost the 

EPA over $80,000. 

The rule includes a correction to the training notification requirements to add back regulatory text on posttraining notifications that was inadvertently overwritten in a 2011 rulemaking (although most training 

providers are continuing to provide post-training notifications 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 requiring accredited providers of renovation training to 

provide notification to EPA after each training course the provider delivers. For example, the currently 

approved Information Collection Request for the RRP program1

 estimates that 600 renovation training 

providers will submit an average of 14 post-training notifications 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 providers already comply with the regulations. 

Exhibit ES-1 presents estimates for the total and annualized industry cost savings and Agency costs 

associated with the enactment of the proposed amendments, 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 Cost 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 consistent 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 result from amendments to EPA’s Lead-based Paint (LBP) 

Activities rule and to the Residential Property Renovation rule. These amendments would eliminate EPA’s 

multi-jurisdiction registration fee in the abatement program 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 screens, risk assessments, and lead abatements in target housing and 

child-occupied facilities (61 FR 45778, codified at 40 CFR part 745). On June 9th, 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 additional EPA-administered jurisdiction (e.g., a state) in 

which an individual, firm, or training 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 Cherokee 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 Property Renovations under the authority of §402(c)(3) of 

TSCA to address LBP hazards created by Renovation, Repair, 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 appropriate 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 two hours of hands-on training. To maintain renovator 

certification, an individual must complete a refresher 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, Mississippi, 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-jurisdiction 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 training 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 choosing to take the refresher course online, there is an 

additional cost savings because there is no travel cost. 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 discussed 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 used 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 affect 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 comply 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 offering 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 individuals and firms are sought (re)certification and 

training providers are sought (re)accreditation. 

Exhibit 2-1: Lead-based Paint Activities Individuals and Firms Applying for (Re)certification 

and Training Providers Applying for (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 regulated 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 certifications 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 later (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 Certifications 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 amendment and Section 3.3 presents estimates for the 

renovator refresher training course amendment. Total cost 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-jurisdiction 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-administered 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 state. EPA’s multi-jurisdiction registration fee data for 

2011 through 2013 are presented in Exhibit 3-1. Column 2 and Column 3 of Exhibit 3-1 present the total 

and annual average number of additional EPA-administered jurisdictions for which organizations applied 

to perform lead-based paint activities or provide training from 2011 through 2013, respectively. Note that 

non-profit training programs are excluded from the analysis because they are exempt from the multijurisdiction registration fee. The average annual costs 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 Registration 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)certification, 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 Providers Applying for (Re)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 refresher renovator training courses consist of both a 

classroom and a hands-on component. The classroom component 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 and/or initial renovator training. The tuition data and 

summary statistics can be found in Appendix A. 

A renovator is currently able to enroll in an in-person 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 refresher 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 recertified until 2015. The refresher course has so far only been offered to 

renovators with prior lead-safety training in order to receive certification under the RRP rule. In 2015, when the 

refresher training course is in its highest demand, training 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 courses3

, it appears that training 

providers tend to charge the same tuition whether the classroom component is taught in-person or online. 

From the sample of training provider course tuitions, 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 hours 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 the 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 allow training providers to offer the course at a lower 

price, or new firms that have a competitive advantage in providing e-learning courses may begin offering 

the renovator refresher training course.5

 

The procedure to estimate the tuition for the classroom portion of a refresher course relies on the mean 

tuition for an initial and refresher training course, and 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 course without a hands-on component) is $36.97. This 

$36.97 in savings results from decreases in the cost of supplies and instruction if the hands-on 

requirement is removed.6

 

3

 Unlike for refresher training, there are training providers currently offering the classroom portion of the initial 

renovator course online. 

4

 There may be less incentive for training providers to offer 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 instructor are traveling to the 

training site, they are incurring the travel costs whether or not the classroom portion is taken in-person or online. If 

the hands-on requirement is removed the renovator can take the entire refresher course online, eliminating these 

travel costs. This makes e-learning more attractive 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, compared 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-person 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 mandatory duration for the hands-on component of the 

refresher course. The hands-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 refresher 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 travel to the training site, incidental expenses, and the 

value of the time spent traveling to and from the training 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 1st, 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 comprise 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 assumed to be two hours, as in the 2008 economic analysis 

of the RRP program rule (U.S. EPA 2008). The wage rate 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 program. A renovator’s fully loaded wage rate 

incorporates wages and salaries, benefits, and overhead. A renovator’s wages and salaries are represented 

by the mean hourly wage rate of First-Line Supervisors 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 and salaries constitute 69.1% of total employee 

compensations for civilian workers, implying a wage 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 tuition and avoided travel costs. Renovators switching 

to the e-learning course realize the greatest cost savings because they avoid the costs associated with 

traveling to a training provider’s facility. 

Exhibit 3-6: Incremental Renovator Training 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 renovation 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 further 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 and 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 expiration 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 renovators 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 Column 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 and recertification will be less than the numbers of 

individuals with expiring certifications (which represents the total number of individuals assumed to be 

trained each year). 

It is assumed that 53 percent of the stock of renovators seeking training exits the industry during the five 

year certification period. This turnover rate is based on the average percent of Abatement Supervisor 

applications that are for initial certification, recorded in the FLPP database between 2007 and 2009 (U.S. 

EPA 2010). Therefore, the number of renovators seeking refresher 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 equilibrate 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 pattern every five years. That is, one might expect a 

cyclical pattern of retraining to emerge. However, over time the original cohort of trained individuals will 

retire or leave the market and be replaced by new renovators whose training cycle is not tied to the start of 

the RRP program in 2010. So the cycle will be dampened and eventually disappear. Trying to model 

such a trend in the declining cyclicality would add little 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 initial training shown in Exhibit 3-7). Then, in order to 

simplify the calculations, the analysis assumes a constant 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 

Year1

Number of Renovators 

Seeking Initial or 

Refresher Training1

Renovators Seeking 

Refresher Training2

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 removed, 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 training after the amendment because they prefer to 

take their training in class rather than online. Enrollment expectations are summarized in Exhibit 3-8. 

Exhibit 3-8: Expected Number of Renovators Seeking In-person and 

E-learning Refresher Training Options

Year1 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 assumption 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, that 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 value 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 savings are discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. 

Exhibit 3-9: Fifty Year Net Present Value and Annualized Cost Savings for Renovators Seeking In-person 

Classroom Training Under the 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 Annualized 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 the 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 cost 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 Annualized 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 impacts resulting from the proposed rule that would cause 

entities regulated under the abatement program to experience increases or reductions in their costs. 

3.5.2 Renovator Refresher Training Course Amendment 

Individual training providers offering RRP training courses could be negatively impacted by the proposed 

rule if (1) their profit margins are lower for the e-learning course, or (2) they lose market share with the 

introduction of the e-learning course. 

Under the proposed rule, a much larger portion of renovators are expected to enroll in the e-learning 

refresher training course than the e-learning component of the initial training course. This is because 

renovators would not have to travel to a training facility in the absence of a hands-on refresher training 

requirement. (By contrast, renovators taking the initial training 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 scenario, 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 individual training provider profit margins might change. Some 

training providers may exit the market, others may add 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 refresher training courses could decide to become 

accredited RRP training providers. In this scenario, third-party firms could gain a large portion of the 

market share due to their competitive advantage gained 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 providers offering refresher training courses. While there 

would not be a net loss to the economy, training providers unable to compete with third-party firms that 

might attain accreditation would likely experience reduced 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 associated with reviewing the expedited e-learning 

applications submitted by training providers 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 reviewing 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 and 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 

Wage1

Fringe Benefits and 

Overhead Multiplier2

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 Pay 

Tables: 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 discounted using rates of 3 and 7 percent. It is not 

known how many training providers will only offer refresher 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 reaccreditation applications after 2015. If most training 

providers begin offering refresher training only online, EPA’s work load for reviewing accreditation 

applications would not change much in future years 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 accreditation 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 equivalent 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, amended 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 governments. In some instances, 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 Agency 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 registration fees and renovators that would have a less 

expensive refresher training option available to them. Training providers might incur costs associated 

with accrediting e-learning courses. However, it is expected 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, environmental justice, children’s health, and 

paperwork burden, among others. 

7.1 Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (superseding 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 that solicits the same data from more than nine 

parties. The PRA seeks to ensure that Federal agencies balance their need to collect information 

with the paperwork burden imposed on the public by the collection. The definition of 

“information collection” includes activities required 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 information to or for a Federal agency, or to 

otherwise fulfill statutory or regulatory requirements. PRA paperwork burden is measured in 

terms of annual time and financial resources the 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 the 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 requests to add an already-reviewed e-learning 

curriculum to an already-accredited training providers' record must include a cover letter; a 

training provider application to amend their accreditation; and an e-learning quality control (QC) 

plan. The e-learning QC plan must address issues 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 renovator refresher training course are expected to 

apply for an e-learning refresher training accreditation if the hands-on requirement is removed. 

Therefore they would incur an incremental paperwork burden. Training providers applying for 

accreditation incur a one-time burden associated with 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 incurred 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 accreditation for an initial training course. (Less 

information needs to be provided for an expedited e-learning application, given that the training 

provider has already been accredited for an in-person course.) Burden for the initial accreditation 

of an initial renovation training course is taken 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 providers to familiarize themselves with the rule 

requirements; 4.8 hours to complete the accreditation 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 previous 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 derive the fully loaded wage. See Exhibit 7-2 for a 

detailed derivation of the training provider loaded wage rates. 

Exhibit 7-1: Incremental RRP Training Provider Hour Burden 

Activity Professional 

Hours1

Clerical 

Hours1

Burden 

Hours Per 

Activity1

Number of 

Training 

Providers 

Number of 

Events Per 

Provider2

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 activity for an expedited e-learning application are assumed to be half the burden in the previously 

approved ICR EPA No. 1715.13. The hour estimates were 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

Wage1

Fringe 

Benefits

Benefits

(% of 

Wage)1 

Overhead

(% of 

Wage)2 

Wage 

Multiplier 

Loaded 

Wages3 

(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). "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation - September 2013." Private 

industry workers, goods-producing and service-producing.

2

 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. 

3 Wage rates are rounded to the closest penny. 

As shown in Exhibit 7-1, training providers would 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 Training 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 Cost1

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 professional and clerical hour burdens, respectively. 

 

7.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 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 private sector. This proposed rule would not impose 

an enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal 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 into 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 information, 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 refresher renovator training would incur a cost to 

apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, 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. 

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 between the national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 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 governments 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 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. 

7.4 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation 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 implications. Tribal governments can serve as training 

providers, and thus might incur costs associated with accrediting their e-learning courses. 

However, 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. 

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 safety 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 $100 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 consensus 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 directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. 

This proposed rule does not directly affect the level 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 for refresher renovator training. However, it 

does not change the work practice requirements 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 2012, 47-1011 First-Line Supervisors of 

Construction Trades and Extraction Workers." 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). "Consumer 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-Mileage-Rates-for-Business,-Medicaland-Moving-Announced. 

NAHB Business Management & Information Technology (2012). Cost of Doing Business Study, 

2012 Edition, NAHB BuilderBooks.com®. 

Office of Personal Management (OPM) (2014). 2014 General Schedule (GS) Locality Pay 

Tables: 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 the 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 Activities Professionals." Retrieved Mar. 7, 

2014, from http://www2.epa.gov/lead/lead-based-paint-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 Consulting Services, Inc. $150.00 

Benchmark Environmental Training $165.00 

Benchmark Environmental 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 Training1 $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 Contractors Association $250.00 $200.00

Northwest Independent Contractors Association $295.00 

Northwest Independent Contractors 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 Plan of Action Committee, LLC $225.00 

TORF Environmental Management $250.00 

Weecycle Environmental Consulting $200.00 

Weecycle Environmental 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 classroom and hands-on 

training course and subtracting the e-learning classroom component ($160.04 = $199.99 - $39.95). The e-learning 

component was developed by a third-party firm, Contractor Harbor.
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 1 of 30 

1 Rin2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_FRdocument_Redline_Revisions_2014-

2 12-15.docx 

3 

4 Revised to address Interagency Comments received under EO 12866 Review.

5 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

7 40 CFR Part 745 

8 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304; FRL-XXXX-X] 

9 RIN 2070-AK02 

10 Lead-based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and 

11 Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements

12 

13 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

14 ACTION: Proposed rule. 

15 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing three minor revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and 

16 Painting (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008, and the Lead17 based Paint (LBP) Activities rule that published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1996. 

18 The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these programs by 

19 reducing burdens to industry and the EPA, and by clarifying language for training providers, 

20 while retaining the protections provided by the original rules. First, EPA is proposing to 

21 eliminate the requirement that the renovator refresher training have a hands-on component.

22 Second, tThe Agency is also proposing to remove jurisdiction-specific certification and 

23 accreditation requirements under the Lead-based PaintLBP Activities program. Currently, this 

24 program requires that training providers, firms and individuals seek certification in each 

25 jurisdiction (e.g., a Sstate) where the organization or person wants to work. ThirdIn addition, 

26 EPA is adding clarifying language to the requirements for training providers under both the RRP 

27 and LBP Activities programs. 

28 DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days after date of publication 

Formatted: Line spacing: single
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 2 of 30 

29 in the Federal Register]. 

30 ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA31 HQ-OPPT-2014-0304, by one of the following methods: 

32 • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

33 instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider 

34 to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 

35 by statute. 

36 • Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

37 (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 

38 20460-0001. 

39 • Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed 

40 information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

41 Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about 

42 dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

43 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Marc 

44 Edmonds, National Program Chemicals Division (7404T), Office of Pollution Prevention and 

45 Toxics (7404T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

46 DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202-) 566-0758; email address: edmonds.marc@epa.gov.

47 For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 South 

48 Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; email address: TSCA49 Hotline@epa.gov. 

50 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

51 I. Executive Summary 

52 A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 3 of 30 

53 You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required 

54 to be accredited under 40 CFR 745.225, if you are a firm or individual who must be certified to 

55 conduct lead-based paint activities in accordance with 40 CFR 745.226, or if you are an 

56 individual who must be certified to conduct renovation activities in accordance with 40 CFR 

57 745.90. This proposed rule applies only in States, territories, and tribal areas that do not have 

58 authorized programs pursuant to 40 CFR 745.324. For further information regarding the 

59 authorization status of States, territories, and Tribes, contact the National Lead Information 

60 Center at 1-800-424-LEAD [5323]. 

61 The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

62 not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this 

63 document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include: 

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

65 multi-family housing construction, residential remodelers. 

66 • Specialty trade contractors (NAICS code 238), e.g., plumbing, heating, and air67 conditioning contractors, painting and wall covering contractors, electrical contractors, finish 

68 carpentry contractors, drywall and insulation contractors, siding contractors, tile and terrazzo 

69 contractors, glass and glazing contractors. 

70 • Real estate (NAICS code 531), e.g., lessors of residential buildings and dwellings, 

71 residential property managers. 

72 • Child day care services (NAICS code 624410). 

73 • Elementary and secondary schools (NAICS code 611110), e.g., elementary schools with 

74 kindergarten classrooms. 

75 • Other technical and trade schools (NAICS code 611519), e.g., training providers. 

76 • Engineering services (NAICS code 541330) and building inspection services (NAICS 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 4 of 30 

77 code 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 

78 • Lead abatement professionals (NAICS code 562910), e.g., firms and supervisors 

79 engaged in lead-based paint activities. 

80 If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, 

81 consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

82 B. What Iis the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? 

83 This proposed rule is being issued under the authority of sections 402(a) and 402(c)(3) of 

84 the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2682(a) and 2682(c)(3). 

85 C. What Action Iis the Agency Taking? 

86 EPA is proposing three minor revisions to the RRP rule that published in the Federal 

87 Register on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 1) and the Lead-based Paint Activities rule that published in the 

88 Federal Register on August 29, 1996 (Ref. 2). First, EPA is proposing to eliminate the 

89 requirement that the renovator refresher training have a hands-on component. Second, tThe 

90 Agency is also proposing to remove jurisdictions under the Lead-based PaintLBP Activities 

91 program. Currently, this program requires that training providers, firms and individuals seek 

92 certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a Sstate) where the organization or person wants to work. 

93 ThirdIn addition, EPA is adding clarifying language to the requirements for training providers 

94 under both the RRP and Lead-based PaintLBP Activities programs. 

95 D. Why iIs the Agency Taking this Action? 

96 The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these 

97 programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA and by clarifying language for training 

98 providers, while retaining the benefits of the original rules. 

99 E. What are the Estimated Incremental Impacts of this Action? 

100 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with this 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 5 of 30 

101 rulemakingproposed rule. This analysis is summarized in greater detail in the discussion 

102 concerning Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 in Unit V.A. The following is a 

103 brief outline of the estimated incremental impacts of this proposalproposed rule. 

104  Overall Ccosts. The annualized cost savings of this proposed rule are estimated at 

105 approximately $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $9.8 million per year using a 

106 7% discount rate. 

107  Small Eentity Iimpacts. The proposed rule will would not have a significant impact on a 

108 substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for 

109 affected small entities, and would not have a direct negative impact on any small entities. 

110  Effects on State, Llocal, and Tribal Ggovernments. This proposed rule will would not 

111 have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effects on small 

112 governments, or have Federalism implications. 

113 F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

114 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 

115 http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 

116 claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

117 outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD118 ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 

119 comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 

120 the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

121 Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 

122 CFR part 2. 

123 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 

124 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 

Formatted: Font: Italic
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 6 of 30 

125 heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

126 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 

127 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

128 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 

129 your requested changes. 

130 iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you 

131 used. 

132 v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

133 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

134 vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. 

135 vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 

136 threats. 

137 viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

138 II. Background 

139 In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American 

140 children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6; that the ingestion of 

141 household dust containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the most 

142 common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of children 

143 living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead 

144 paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes. Congress further 

145 determined that the prior fFederal response to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of 

146 the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead147 Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Title X) (Ref. 3). Title X established a national 

148 goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as possible and provided 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 7 of 30 

149 a leadership role for the federal government in building the infrastructure necessary to achieve 

150 this goal. 

151 Title X amended TSCA to add a new subchapter entitled “Title IV–Lead Exposure 

152 Reduction.” Most of EPA’s responsibilities for addressing lead-based paint hazards can be found 

153 in this title, with TSCA section 402 being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry out 

154 these responsibilities. TSCA sSection 402(a) of TSCA directs EPA to promulgate regulations 

155 covering lead-based paint activities to ensure persons performing these activities are properly 

156 trained, that training programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these activities are 

157 certified. These rRegulations promulgated under TSCA section 402(a) must contain standards for 

158 performing lead-based paint activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. 

159 On August 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern 

160 lead-based paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatements in target 

161 housing and child-occupied facilities (also referred to as the Lead-based PaintLBP Activities 

162 regulations) (Ref. 2). These LBP Activities ruleregulations, codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart 

163 L, contained an accreditation program for training providers and training, and certification and 

164 work practice requirements for lead-based paint inspectors, risk assessors, project designers, 

165 abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provisions were 

166 made for interested States, territories, and Tribes to apply for and receive authorization to 

167 administer their own Lead-based PaintLBP Activities programs. Requirements applicable to 

168 State, territorial, and tribal programs are codified in 40 CFR part 745, subpart Q. 

169 TSCA sSection 402(c) of TSCA pertains to renovation and remodeling activities. TSCA 

170 sSection 402(c)(3) of TSCA requires EPA to revise the regulations issued under TSCA section 

171 402(a) to apply to renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. On 

172 April 22, 2008, EPA issued a final regulation applying a revised version of the Lead-based 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 8 of 30 

173 PaintLBP Activities regulations rule requirements to renovation, repair, and painting activities in 

174 target housing and child-occupied facilities (Ref. 1). Pursuant to the RRP rule, persons 

175 performing covered renovation activities must be properly trained, renovators and renovation 

176 firms must be certified, and training providers must be accredited (Ref. 1). The requirements of 

177 the RRP rule became effective in stages with the entire rule becoming effective as of April 22, 

178 2010. 

179 III. Proposed Revisions 

180 A. Hands-on Training 

181 To become certified as a renovator, a person must successfully complete a renovator 

182 course accredited by EPA or by a State, territorial, or tribal program authorized by EPA. To gain 

183 initial certification, renovators must complete an 8-hour training course. Until October 4, 2011, 

184 renovators that successfully completed an EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development 

185 (HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovation training course were able to take the 4-hour refresher 

186 renovator training in lieu of the 8-hour initial course. Both of these courses require hands-on 

187 training. Trainings are taught either in a classroom or via electronic learning (e-learning). In an 

188 e-learning course, students take the lecture portion of the course over the Internet and then travel 

189 to a training facility to perform the hands-on activities and take the exam. To maintain 

190 certification, renovators must complete a renovator refresher course within five 5 years of the 

191 date the individual completed their previous renovator training. Renovators who received their 

192 initial certification before April 22, 2010, however, have until July 1, 2015, to take the refresher 

193 training to maintain certification. If the renovator does not complete the course within the 

194 required timeframe, the individual must retake the initial 8-hour course to become certified 

195 again. 

196 The 8-hour initial training includes hands-on training in testing for lead in paint, methods 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 9 of 30 

197 for minimizing the creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards, interior and exterior 

198 containment and cleanup methods, and cleaning verification. Activities covered include the use 

199 of EPA-recognized test kits, setting up barriers, covering furniture, ducts, and carpeted floors 

200 with plastic, mopping floors, bagging waste, and determining that the work area has been 

201 adequately cleaned. Each student performs these activities in front of an instructor who 

202 determines if the student is proficient in each one. Students must be deemed proficient in order to 

203 pass the class and become certified. The current version of the renovator refresher course 

204 includes hands-on training in testing paint for lead and cleaning verification. 

205 At the time the RPP Rrule became effective it was important to have hands-on training in 

206 the refresher course because certain renovators were eligible to take only the refresher course to 

207 receive their initial certification (i.e., renovators who completed a prerequisite training). After 

208 October 4, 2011, however, renovators could no longer take the refresher course to gain initial 

209 certification even if they were previously eligible to take the refresher course in lieu of the initial 

210 course. From that date forward, all renovators taking the refresher course will already have 

211 received hands-on training as part of their initial renovator certification (i.e., an initial or 

212 refresher course). Now that renovators will take the refresher course only after being initially 

213 certified in a way that includes hands-on training, EPA believes it is less important for the 

214 refresher course to include hands-on training. In addition, renovators that are seeking 

215 recertification have been practicing the hands-on skills on renovation jobs during their 5-year 

216 certification. Furthermore, due to the less technical nature of work practices taught in the 

217 renovator course versus those taught in the abatement course, EPA believes performing hands-on 

218 activities once is sufficient to teach renovators the skills they need to perform renovations 

219 following the RRP rule work practices. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 10 of 30 

220 In addition, by eliminating this requirement, renovators seeking recertification will be 

221 able to take the course entirely online without having to travel to a training location to perform 

222 the hands-on activities. This change will make it easier for renovators to take the refresher 

223 training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Renovators will save time 

224 and travel costs by taking the course from a single location, possibly their own home. If taking 

225 the training is made easier, EPA believes that more renovators will take the refresher training and 

226 become recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training will lead to a higher 

227 number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a 

228 lead-safe manner. For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to eliminate the hands-on 

229 training in the renovator refresher course. The Agency requests comment on eliminating the 

230 requirement to include hands-on training in the renovator refresher course. 

231 While the Agency believes that the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher 

232 course is no longer necessary, it has not ruled out having hands-on activities that are performed 

233 via e-learning instead of in person. This would allow instructors to assess the student’s skills 

234 without having the student travel to a classroom. EPA requests comment on how the hands-on 

235 portion of the refresher course could be performed by the student and assessed by the instructor 

236 via e-learning. 

237 Another option for maintaining the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher 

238 course is to modify it to make it less burdensome for trainers and students. For example, the 

239 requirement could be changed so the hands-on portion of the course is only required every other 

240 time a renovator gets recertified instead of every 5 years. Under this scenario, the renovator 

241 would only have to take the hands-on training once every 10 years. The Agency requests 

242 comment on possible alternative approaches to conducting the hands-on skills to make the 

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

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 11 of 30 

244 The Agency does not intend to eliminate the hands-on activities in the refresher courses 

245 for the other lead-based paint program disciplines: Rrisk assessor, inspector, supervisor, 

246 abatement worker and dust sampling technician. The work performed by these disciplines 

247 involves highly specialized skills which individuals must learn in training courses accredited by 

248 EPA or authorized States, territories, and Tribes. For example, a significant portion of an 

249 abatement worker’s training is focused on abatement techniques and selection of the appropriate 

250 course of action for a variety of hazards. Renovators, on the other hand, do not seek to 

251 permanently eliminate lead hazards; instead they perform maintenance and improvement tasks as 

252 directed by the consumer. Thus, the goal of EPA’s renovator training and certification program is 

253 not to update the methodology a renovator uses to accomplish these tasks (i.e., how to be 

254 painters, plumbers, or carpenters), but rather to ensure that persons who already know how to 

255 perform renovations perform their typical work in a lead-safe manner. Because of the technical 

256 nature of the work performed by risk assessors, inspectors, supervisors, abatement workers and 

257 dust sampling technicians, the Agency believes that it is important for their refresher training 

258 courses to include hands-on learning. 

259 Currently, training providers are required to submit both a pre-training and post-training 

260 notification for each course that they teach. Both types of notifications must contain information 

261 about the course including, but not limited to, date, time and location. The post-training 

262 notification must also include information about the trainees including name, address and test 

263 score, among other things. Pre-training notifications must be submitted at least 7 business days 

264 prior to the start of the course. Post-training notifications must be submitted no later than 10 

265 business days following course completion. The notification requirements help EPA monitor 

266 compliance with the training and certification provisions of the RRP and Lead-based PaintLBP

267 Activities programs. Training providers that teach online courses must submit pre- and post-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 12 of 30 

268 training notifications for each hands-on training session they teach. If the Agency eliminates the 

269 hands-on requirement for the refresher training then there will be no classroom session for which 

270 to notify EPA. Because the training provider will still need to send the names of the students to 

271 EPA, the notification requirements will need to be changed. The Agency requests comment on 

272 how it should modify the notification requirements to accommodate a training taught entirely 

273 online. 

274 In the absence of more particular information regarding the number of renovators that 

275 may take an online class to complete the required refresher training, EPA assumes that 98% of 

276 renovators will take the online training if the hands-on requirement is removed, based on the 

277 significant cost savings that would result from reduced tuition costs and by avoiding the time and 

278 associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. EPA requests comment on this 

279 assumption. EPA also requests comment and supporting information on the savings that would 

280 accrue to renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher 

281 courses; whether the tuition is likely to differ for online and in-person refresher training; and 

282 how the costs training providers would incur to offer online refresher training courses compare to 

283 the costs of offering courses in person.

284 The Agency is considering a further modification to the notification requirements 

285 regarding online notifications. For years, training providers have had the option of submitting 

286 notifications electronically via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). ; 63% of training providers 

287 opted to do so in the past year. The CDX system is designed to streamline the notification 

288 process for training providers and EPA alike, and to perform basic validations of electronic 

289 submissions that reduce common errors in notifications otherwise submitted on paper. 

290 Depending on how the notification requirements are modified, training providers may find it 

291 more efficient and less burdensome to submit notifications to EPA electronically if the hands-on 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 13 of 30 

292 refresher training requirement was eliminated. Such a change could result in an increased rate of 

293 electronic reporting of training notifications to EPA. To reduce the burden on the Agency and 

294 save taxpayer dollars, EPA will consider requiring training providers that teach the online 

295 refresher renovator course to submit their notifications for that course online. The Agency 

296 requests comment on whether it should require training providers to submit notifications online 

297 for the online refresher course. 

298 The Agency is concerned that, by the time a final rule is published, many renovators will 

299 have already taken the refresher training that includes the hands-on learning and will have 

300 missed out on the burden savings that this proposed rule would provide. In light of this, EPA is 

301 considering extending the certifications for a portion of renovators so they would be able to 

302 realize the benefits of this proposed rule. For example, the Agency could extend for 6 months the 

303 renovator certifications that expire by July 1, 2015. EPA requests comments on whether it should 

304 extend the certifications of renovators so they can take advantage of the burden savings of this 

305 proposed rule.

306 B. Jurisdictions 

307 On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, was amended to include a fee schedule for 

308 training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for individuals and firms seeking EPA 

309 certification (Ref. 4). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which 

310 requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint activities 

311 requirements in States without authorized programs. The fee schedule created a multi312 jurisdiction registration fee which applies to individuals, firms and training programs that 

313 provide training or perform lead-based paint activities in more than one State administered by the 

314 EPA program. This fee is applied per discipline for each additional EPA-administered State in 

315 which the applicant seeks certification/recertification or accreditation/reaccreditation. An EPA-
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 14 of 30 

316 administered jurisdiction is either an individual State without an authorized program or all Tribes 

317 without authorized programs in a given EPA Region. 

318 The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 was based on the estimated burdens required for 

319 Agency clerical, technical, and managerial staff to perform tasks associated with adding 

320 jurisdictions to a certification or accreditation. Tasks include entering the information into a 

321 database, approving or disapproving the application and generating and mailing a certificate to 

322 the applicant. After years of implementing the Lead-based PaintLBP Activities program, the 

323 Agency believes that separate certifications for each EPA-administered State jurisdiction are not 

324 necessary. In particular, EPA does not believe it is necessary for the Agency to certify or accredit 

325 the same applicant multiple times; certification in one EPA-administered State jurisdiction 

326 should be sufficient to perform work in any other EPA-administered States. For instance, EPA 

327 did not include separate certifications for each EPA-administered State in the RRP rule and 

328 found that it did not adversely impact the program. In addition, only requiring one certification 

329 for all EPA-administered State jurisdictions helps to streamline the certification and accreditation 

330 process. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to eliminate the requirement for separate 

331 certifications in each EPA-administered State jurisdiction in the Lead-based PaintLBP Activities 

332 program. If jurisdictions are eliminated, regulated entities will no longer have to send an 

333 application and fees to EPA for the purpose of adding additional EPA-administered State 

334 jurisdictions to their certification or accreditation. Once a regulated entity applies and is 

335 approved in the Lead-based Paint Activities program, they will be able to work in any EPA336 administered State. EPA requests comment on whether it should eliminate this requirement from 

337 the Lead-based Paint Activities regulations. 

338 Eliminating the fee for adding an EPA-administered State jurisdiction will not cause the 

339 other fees under the Lead-based PaintLBP Activities regulations to increase. As stated earlier, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 15 of 30 

340 TSCA requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint 

341 activities requirements. Eliminating the requirement to apply for additional jurisdictions also 

342 eliminates the Agency’s costs for processing those applications and its need to recover the fee. 

343 Thus, eliminating the $35 fee will not require the Agency to adjust the other fees it collects under 

344 the Lead-based PaintLBP Activities regulationsrule. 

345 C. Clarification Regarding Training Provider Application Requirements 

346 EPA is clarifying the application regulations for accredited training providers under the 

347 RRP rule (Ref. 1) and Lead-based PaintLBP Activities regulations rule (Ref. 2). It was brought 

348 to the Agency’s attention that the regulations did not specifically state what constituted a 

349 violation of the regulations at 40 CFR 745.225. For example, some other regulatory provisions, 

350 such as 40 CFR 745.87, specifically list various activities that are considered a violation of 

351 TSCA. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to add clarifying language explaining that training 

352 providers must follow the requirements in that section. EPA believes that accredited training 

353 providers already understand this, but EPA is proposing to add the clarifying language to ensure 

354 understanding of the requirements – similar to what has been done in other regulations. This 

355 clarifying language does not change any requirements for accredited training providers. The 

356 Agency requests comment on adding this clarification to the regulations at 40 CFR 

357 745.225(a)(4), (c), (d) and (e). 

358 D. Correction to Training Notification Requirements 

359 The regulatory text of the final RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1) inadvertently omitted a 

360 requirement for accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after 

361 each training course the provider delivers. The provision was designed to supply important 

362 information regarding certified renovators for EPA’s compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, 

363 EPA issued a rule (Ref. 75) to correct this omission by amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 16 of 30 

364 require post-course notifications from accredited providers of renovator or dust sampling 

365 technician training. The 2009 rule also included conforming changes to 40 CFR 

366 745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct name of the sample post-course notification form and to 

367 make it clear that all methods of post-course notification are available to both renovation training 

368 providers and lead-based paint activities training providers. As amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) 

369 required renovation training providers to notify EPA no later than 10 business days following 

370 course completion. Although EPA identified this requirement in its cost estimates in 2008, the 

371 regulatory provision was subsequently overwritten by another rulemaking. Specifically, in a 

372 2011 rule (Ref. 86), the regulatory language inadvertently removed the regulatory text that was 

373 added to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009 rule. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 

374 add the same language back to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) that was included in the 2009 rule. 

375 EPA requests comment on adding this language back to the notification requirements. Since EPA 

376 has continued to account for the costs and paperwork burden associated with this notification 

377 provision, this proposed correction does not increase the estimated costs and burdens for the 

378 RRP program. 

379 E. Effective Date 

380 

381 EPA is proposing to find under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 

382 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date of the 

383 final rule that EPA intends to promulgate based upon this proposed rule. As stated earlier in this 

384 preamble, removing the hands-on requirement will make it easier for renovators to take the 

385 refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. If taking the 

386 training is made easier, EPA believes that removing the hands-on requirement will lead to more 

387 renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. Consequently, delaying the effective 

388 date may result in fewer renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. For this reason, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 17 of 30 

389 the Agency believes it is in the public interest to remove the requirement as soon as possible. 

390 EPA also believes that such action would relieve a restriction in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

391 553(d)(1). EPA therefore proposes to issue a final rule making this change to be effective 

392 immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. 

393 IV. References 

394 The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this 

395 document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, 

396 including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, 

397 even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating 

398 these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER 

399 INFORMATION CONTACT. 

400 1. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 

401 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). 

402 2. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child403 Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). 

404 3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. 42 U.S.C. 4852Housing 

405 and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550 (October 28, 1992). 

406 4. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and Certification of Lead-based 

407 Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999) (FRL408 6058-6). 

409 5. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 

410 Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 34257, July 15, 2009) (FRL-8422-7). 

411 6. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 

412 Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011) (FRL-8881-8). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 18 of 30 

413 57. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor Amendments 

414 Proposed Rule (Economic Analysis). (April December 2014). 

415 68. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA sections 402 and 404 

416 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and 

417 Renovation, Repair, and Painting. EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and OMB No. 2070-[NEW]. (April 

418 December 2014). 

419 7. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 

420 Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 34257, July 15, 2009) (FRL-8422-7). 

421 8. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 

422 Painting Program; Federal Register (76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011)(FRL-8881-8). 

423 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

424 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: 

425 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

426 

427 This proposed rule has been designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

428 as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

429 October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive 

430 Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to 

431 OMB recommendations are documented in the docket. 

432 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential cost savings associated with this 

433 rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the Lead-bBased Paint 

434 Program Minor Amendments Proposed Rule (Ref. 57) and is briefly summarized here. 

435 In a typical year, individuals, firms, and training providers apply to perform lead-based 

436 paint activities or provide training in a total of 431 additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. 

Formatted: Line spacing: single
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 19 of 30 

437 Removing the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee will result in total estimated cost savings of 

438 approximately $15,000 per year to these entities. 

439 Removing the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher training is estimated 

440 to reduce the tuition by an average of $37. Removing the hands-on requirement also makes 

441 online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. If 

442 renovators become recertified by taking an e-learning refresher course they are estimated to save 

443 an additional $165 by avoiding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training 

444 site. Renovator training and certification (which is valid for five 5 years) became mandatory in 

445 2010, and a large number of renovators were trained that year. As many as 168,000 of these 

446 renovators are predicted to seek refresher training in 2015. Over time, the annual number is 

447 predicted to equilibrate such that up to 48,000 renovators may seek refresher training in later 

448 years. Nearly all of these renovators are assumed to choose online refresher training if the option 

449 is available. Therefore, removing the hands-on requirement for renovator refresher training is 

450 estimated to reduce costs by over $9 million per year. 

451 The proposed rule includes a correction to the training notification requirements to add 

452 back regulatory text on post-training notifications that was inadvertently overwritten in a 2011 

453 rulemaking (although most training providers are continuing to provide post-training 

454 notifications to EPA in a timely manner). EPA has already accounted for the burden and cost of 

455 requiring accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each 

456 training course the provider delivers. For example, the currently approved 

457 Information Collection RequestICR for the TSCA sections 402 and 404 Training, Certification, 

458 Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, Repair, and 

459 Painting (EPA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0155) estimates that 600 renovation 

460 training providers will submit an average of 14 post-training notifications per year. This yields a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 20 of 30 

461 total of 8,400 post-training notifications per year at an average burden of 1.6 hours per response, 

462 resulting in a total burden for this activity of 13,440 hours at a cost of $339,578. In order to 

463 avoid double-counting, EPA’s Economic Analysis and Information Collection RequestICR for 

464 this action do not include the burden and cost of reinstating the post-training notification 

465 requirements. 

466 The clarifying language being added to the rule explaining that training providers must 

467 follow the regulations does not affect the cost of compliance because it does not change any 

468 requirements for accredited training providers. 

469 Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee and the requirement for hands on refresher renovator 

470 training is estimated to result in cost savings of up to $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount 

471 rate and $9.8 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 

472 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

473 The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted to 

474 OMB for review and approval under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document 

475 prepared by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and the OMB Control No. 2070-

476 [NEW] (Ref. 68). The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated burden 

477 and costs predicted as a result of the proposed rule. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

478 There are 275 training providers accredited to offer renovator refresher training 

479 programs. All these training providers are assumed to apply to EPA to become accredited to 

480 offer e-learning refresher training once the requirement for hands-on renovator refresher training 

481 is removed. The applications must address issues such as how the trainer will ensure that 

482 students successfully complete the e-learning modules and the e-learning final assessment. 

483 Training providers are most likely to add an already reviewed and accepted e-learning course 

484 from another training provider to their training curriculum. In that case, their burden to become 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 21 of 30 

485 familiar with the new rule and to submit an application is estimated to average 13.8 hours per 

486 response, at a cost of $687. For the 275 training providers this results in a total burden of 3,795 

487 hours at a total cost $188,861. 

488 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an 

489 information collection request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, or is 

490 otherwise required to submit the specific information by a statute. The OMB control numbers for 

491 EPA’s regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing 

492 in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal 

493 Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if 

494 applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 

495 40 CFR 9.1. 

496 Submit any comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the 

497 provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to 

498 both EPA and OMB. For EPA, follow the instructions in the ADDRESSES section at the 

499 beginning of this document. For OMB, reference “OMB Desk Officer for EPA” and email your 

500 comments to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Since OMB is required to make a decision 

501 concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after [Iinsert date of publication in the Federal 

502 Register], a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 

503 [Iinsert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register]. The final rule will address any 

504 OMB or public comments received on the information collection requirements contained in this 

505 proposal. 

506 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

507 The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

508 flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

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 

509 APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-553, or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 

510 a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

511 Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 

512 jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small 

513 entity is defined as: 

514 (1). A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

515 regulations at 13 CFR 121.201. The SBA’s definitions typically are based upon either a sales or 

516 an employment level, depending on the nature of the industry. 

517 (2). A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, 

518 school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

519 (3). A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently 

520 owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

521 After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify 

522 that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

523 entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

524 of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small 

525 entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address 

526 regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small 

527 entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 

528 significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves 

529 regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject 

530 to the rule. 

531 The proposed rule would eliminate multi-jurisdiction registration fees for the Lead-based 

532 Paint LBP Activities program, and eliminate the hands-on training requirement from the lead 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 23 of 30 

533 renovation refresher training course. This results in cost savings for entities that no longer would 

534 pay the multi-jurisdiction registration fees and for renovators that would have a less expensive 

535 refresher training option available to them. Those training providers that choose to offer e536 learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e537 learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that 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-learning refresher training 

540 option under the proposed rule. Therefore, there would be no direct negative cost impacts on 

541 small entities as a result of the proposed rule. We have therefore concluded that this proposed 

542 rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. 

543 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

544 This action does not contain any Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of 

545 UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The 

546 action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 

547 Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 or 205. This action 

548 is also not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203 because it contains no regulatory 

549 requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Those training 

550 providers (both those in the private sector as well as local or tribal governments) that choose to 

551 offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e552 learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering 

553 accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation 

554 because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training 

555 option under the proposed rule. 

556 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 24 of 30 

557 This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 

558 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

559 relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

560 responsibilities among the various levels of government. Local governments can serve as 

561 training providers, and those training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher 

562 renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. 

563 However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs 

564 through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no 

565 requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the 

566 proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically 

567 solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. 

568 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

569 This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

570 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Tribal governments can serve as training providers, and those 

571 training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost 

572 to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, it is expected that only training 

573 providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to 

574 apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to 

575 offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 

576 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

577 proposed action from tribal officials. 

578 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

579 Risks

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 

581 This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

582 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 

583 12866, and because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as 

584 applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 

585 analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the 

586 regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it would not establish an 

587 environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 

588 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 

589 Supply, Distribution, or Use

590 

591 This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 

592 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect 

593 on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to have any adverse 

594 energy effects because it does not require any action related to the supply, distribution, or use of 

595 energy. 

596 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

597 Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

598 standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 

599 otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 

600 specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 

601 adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 

602 through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 

603 voluntary consensus standards. 

604 This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

605 considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this 

Formatted: Line spacing: single
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 26 of 30 

606 aspect of the proposed rule and specifically invites the public to identify additional potentially607 applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in 

608 this regulation. 

609 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

610 Populations and Low-Income Populations

611 

612 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes fFederal executive 

613 policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs fFederal agencies, to the greatest 

614 extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

615 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

616 environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low617 income populations in the United States. 

618 EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 

619 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

620 does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The 

621 proposed rule would remove multi-jurisdiction fees for the Lead-based PaintLBP Activities 

622 program and remove the hands-on requirement for refresher renovator training. However, it 

623 would not change the work practice requirements for lead-based paint activities or renovation, 

624 repair or painting activities disturbing lead-based paint. 

Formatted: Line spacing: single
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 27 of 30 

625 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

626 Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation. 

627 Dated: ____________________ 

628 

629 __________________________________________ 

630 

631 Gina McCarthy, 

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

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 28 of 30 

633 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: 

634 PART 745--[AMENDED] 

635 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 

636 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

637 2. In § 745.225: 

638 a. Add new paragraph (a)(4). 

639 b. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 

640 c. Revise paragraphs (c), (c)(14)(i), and (d), (e), (e)(2) and (e)(3). 

641 The addition and revisionsamendments read as follows: 

642 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child-occupied facilities. 

643 (a) * * * 

644 (4) Accredited training programs, training program managers, and principal instructors 

645 must comply with all of the requirements of this section including approved terms of the 

646 application and all of the requirements and limitations specified in any accreditation documents 

647 issued to training programs. 

648 * * * * * 

649 (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. A training program 

650 accredited by EPA to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust 

651 sampling technician courses must meet the following requirements: 

652 (1) * * * * *

653 (14) * * * 

654 (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of any 

655 renovator, dust sampling, or lead-based paint activities course. This notificationce must be 

656 received by EPA no later than 10 business days following course completion. 

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 * * * * * 

658 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. A training program accredited by EPA to 

659 offer lead-based paint courses in the specific disciplines listed in this paragraph (d) must ensure 

660 that their its courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 

661 * * * * * 

662 (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training programs. A training 

663 program may seek accreditation to offer refresher training courses in any of the following 

664 disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, 

665 and dust sampling technician. A training program accredited by EPA to offer refresher training 

666 must meet the following minimum requirements: 

667 (1) * * * * *

668 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must 

669 last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher courses for project designer, renovator, and dust 

670 sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all 

671 disciplines except renovator and project designer must include a hands-on component. 

672 (3) Except for renovator and project designer courses, for all other courses offered, the 

673 training program shall conduct a hands-on assessment. With the exception of project designer 

674 courses, the training program shall conduct a course test at the completion of the course. 

675 * * * * * 

676 3. In § 745.238: 

677 a. Remove paragraph (c)(3). 

678 b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5) as (c)(3) and (c)(4). 

679 c. Revise the headings for paragraphs (d)(1) and ,(d)(2).,

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

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 30 of 30 

681 The amendments read as follows: 

682 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based paint activities. 

683 * * * * * 

684 (d) * * *Application/payment procedure—

685 (1) Certification and re-certification * * *

686 (i) * * * 

687 (ii) * * * 

688 (2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. * * *Submit a completed application 

689 (titled “Accreditation Application for Training Programs”), the materials described at §745.225, 

690 and the application fee described in paragraph (c) of this section.

691 * * * * * 

692 (e) * * * 

693 (1) * * * 

694 (2) Submit application and payment in the amount specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

695 section in accordance with the instructions provided with the application package.

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 

1 RIN2070-AK02_EO12866_Lead_MinorAmendments_NPRM_FRdocument_Revised_2014-12-

2 15.docx 

3 

4 Revised to address Interagency Comments received under EO 12866 Review.

5 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P 

6 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

7 40 CFR Part 745 

8 [EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304; FRL-XXXX-X] 

9 RIN 2070-AK02 

10 Lead-based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and 

11 Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements 

12 

13 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

14 ACTION: Proposed rule. 

15 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing minor revisions to the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting 

16 (RRP) rule that published in the Federal Register on April 22, 2008, and the Lead-based Paint 

17 (LBP) Activities rule that published in the Federal Register on August 29, 1996. The proposed 

18 revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these programs by reducing burdens 

19 to industry and the EPA, and by clarifying language for training providers, while retaining the 

20 protections provided by the original rules. EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement that the 

21 renovator refresher training have a hands-on component. The Agency is also proposing to 

22 remove jurisdiction-specific certification and accreditation requirements under the LBP 

23 Activities program. Currently, this program requires that training providers, firms and 

24 individuals seek certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a State) where the organization or person 

25 wants to work. In addition, EPA is adding clarifying language to the requirements for training 

26 providers under both the RRP and LBP Activities programs. 

27 DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days after date of publication 

28 in the Federal Register]. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 2 of 29 

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, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 

45 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 You may be potentially affected by this action if you operate a training program required 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 3 of 29 

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 code 541350), e.g., dust sampling technicians. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 4 of 29 

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 INFORMATION CONTACT. 

81 B. What is 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 is the Agency Taking? 

85 EPA is proposing minor revisions to the RRP rule that published in the Federal Register

86 on April 22, 2008 (Ref. 1) and the Lead-based Paint Activities rule that published in the Federal 

87 Register on August 29, 1996 (Ref. 2). EPA is proposing to eliminate the requirement that the 

88 renovator refresher training have a hands-on component. The Agency is also proposing to 

89 remove jurisdictions under the LBP Activities program. Currently, this program requires that 

90 training providers, firms and individuals seek certification in each jurisdiction (e.g., a State) 

91 where the organization or person wants to work. In addition, EPA is adding clarifying language 

92 to the requirements for training providers under both the RRP and LBP Activities programs. 

93 D. Why is the Agency Taking this Action? 

94 The proposed revisions are intended to improve the day-to-day function of these 

95 programs by reducing burdens to industry and the EPA and by clarifying language for training 

96 providers, while retaining the benefits of the original rules. 

97 E. What are the Estimated Incremental Impacts of this Action? 

98 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and impacts associated with this 

99 proposed rule. This analysis is summarized in greater detail in the discussion concerning 

100 Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 in Unit V.A. The following is a brief outline 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 5 of 29 

101 of the estimated incremental impacts of this proposed rule. 

102  Overall costs. The annualized cost savings of this proposed rule are estimated at 

103 approximately $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $9.8 million per year using a 

104 7% discount rate. 

105  Small entity impacts. The proposed rule would not have a significant impact on a 

106 substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for 

107 affected small entities, and would not have a direct negative impact on any small entities. 

108  Effects on State, local, and Tribal governments. This proposed rule would not have a 

109 significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effects on small governments, or 

110 have Federalism implications. 

111 F. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

112 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through 

113 http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 

114 claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the 

115 outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD116 ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the 

117 comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain 

118 the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. 

119 Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 

120 CFR part 2. 

121 2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to: 

122 i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying information (subject 

123 heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

124 ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 6 of 29 

125 organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. 

126 iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for 

127 your requested changes. 

128 iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you 

129 used. 

130 v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in 

131 sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

132 vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives. 

133 vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal 

134 threats. 

135 viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 

136 II. Background 

137 In 1992, Congress found that low-level lead poisoning was widespread among American 

138 children, affecting, at that time, as many as 3,000,000 children under age 6; that the ingestion of 

139 household dust containing lead from deteriorating or abraded lead-based paint was the most 

140 common cause of lead poisoning in children; and that the health and development of children 

141 living in as many as 3,800,000 American homes was endangered by chipping or peeling lead 

142 paint, or excessive amounts of lead-contaminated dust in their homes. Congress further 

143 determined that the prior Federal response to this threat was insufficient and enacted Title X of 

144 the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 (also known as the Residential Lead145 Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 or Title X) (Ref. 3). Title X established a national 

146 goal of eliminating lead-based paint hazards in housing as expeditiously as possible and provided 

147 a leadership role for the federal government in building the infrastructure necessary to achieve 

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

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 7 of 29 

149 Title X amended TSCA to add a new subchapter entitled “Title IV–Lead Exposure 

150 Reduction.” Most of EPA’s responsibilities for addressing lead-based paint hazards can be found 

151 in this title, with TSCA section 402 being one source of the rulemaking authority to carry out 

152 these responsibilities. Section 402(a) of TSCA directs EPA to promulgate regulations covering 

153 lead-based paint activities to ensure persons performing these activities are properly trained, that 

154 training programs are accredited, and that contractors performing these activities are certified. 

155 Regulations promulgated under TSCA section 402(a) must contain standards for performing 

156 lead-based paint activities, taking into account reliability, effectiveness, and safety. On August 

157 29, 1996, EPA promulgated final regulations under TSCA section 402(a) that govern lead-based 

158 paint inspections, lead hazard screens, risk assessments, and abatements in target housing and 

159 child-occupied facilities (also referred to as the LBP Activities regulations) (Ref. 2). The LBP 

160 Activities rule, codified at 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, contained an accreditation program for 

161 training providers and training, and certification and work practice requirements for lead-based 

162 paint inspectors, risk assessors, project designers, abatement supervisors, and abatement workers. 

163 Pursuant to TSCA section 404, provisions were made for interested States, territories, and Tribes 

164 to apply for and receive authorization to administer their own LBP Activities programs. 

165 Requirements applicable to State, territorial, and tribal programs are codified in 40 CFR part 

166 745, subpart Q. 

167 Section 402(c) of TSCA pertains to renovation and remodeling activities. Section 

168 402(c)(3) of TSCA requires EPA to revise the regulations issued under TSCA section 402(a) to 

169 apply to renovation or remodeling activities that create lead-based paint hazards. On April 22, 

170 2008, EPA issued a final regulation applying a revised version of the LBP Activities rule 

171 requirements to renovation, repair, and painting activities in target housing and child-occupied 

172 facilities (Ref. 1). Pursuant to the RRP rule, persons performing covered renovation activities 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 8 of 29 

173 must be properly trained, renovators and renovation firms must be certified, and training 

174 providers must be accredited (Ref. 1). The requirements of the RRP rule became effective in 

175 stages with the entire rule becoming effective as of April 22, 2010. 

176 III. Proposed Revisions 

177 A. Hands-on Training 

178 To become certified as a renovator, a person must successfully complete a renovator 

179 course accredited by EPA or by a State, territorial, or tribal program authorized by EPA. To gain 

180 initial certification, renovators must complete an 8-hour training course. Until October 4, 2011, 

181 renovators that successfully completed an EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development 

182 (HUD), or EPA/HUD model renovation training course were able to take the 4-hour refresher 

183 renovator training in lieu of the 8-hour initial course. Both of these courses require hands-on 

184 training. Trainings are taught either in a classroom or via electronic learning (e-learning). In an 

185 e-learning course, students take the lecture portion of the course over the Internet and then travel 

186 to a training facility to perform the hands-on activities and take the exam. To maintain 

187 certification, renovators must complete a renovator refresher course within 5 years of the date the 

188 individual completed their previous renovator training. Renovators who received their initial 

189 certification before April 22, 2010, however, have until July 1, 2015, to take the refresher 

190 training to maintain certification. If the renovator does not complete the course within the 

191 required timeframe, the individual must retake the initial 8-hour course to become certified 

192 again. 

193 The 8-hour initial training includes hands-on training in testing for lead in paint, methods 

194 for minimizing the creation of dust and lead-based paint hazards, interior and exterior 

195 containment and cleanup methods, and cleaning verification. Activities covered include the use 

196 of EPA-recognized test kits, setting up barriers, covering furniture, ducts, and carpeted floors 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 9 of 29 

197 with plastic, mopping floors, bagging waste, and determining that the work area has been 

198 adequately cleaned. Each student performs these activities in front of an instructor who 

199 determines if the student is proficient in each one. Students must be deemed proficient in order to 

200 pass the class and become certified. The current version of the renovator refresher course 

201 includes hands-on training in testing paint for lead and cleaning verification. 

202 At the time the RPP rule became effective it was important to have hands-on training in 

203 the refresher course because certain renovators were eligible to take only the refresher course to 

204 receive their initial certification (i.e., renovators who completed a prerequisite training). After 

205 October 4, 2011, however, renovators could no longer take the refresher course to gain initial 

206 certification even if they were previously eligible to take the refresher course in lieu of the initial 

207 course. From that date forward, all renovators taking the refresher course will already have 

208 received hands-on training as part of their initial renovator certification (i.e., an initial or 

209 refresher course). Now that renovators will take the refresher course only after being initially 

210 certified in a way that includes hands-on training, EPA believes it is less important for the 

211 refresher course to include hands-on training. In addition, renovators that are seeking 

212 recertification have been practicing the hands-on skills on renovation jobs during their 5-year 

213 certification. Furthermore, due to the less technical nature of work practices taught in the 

214 renovator course versus those taught in the abatement course, EPA believes performing hands-on 

215 activities once is sufficient to teach renovators the skills they need to perform renovations 

216 following the RRP rule work practices. 

217 In addition, by eliminating this requirement, renovators seeking recertification will be 

218 able to take the course entirely online without having to travel to a training location to perform 

219 the hands-on activities. This change will make it easier for renovators to take the refresher 

220 training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. Renovators will save time 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 10 of 29 

221 and travel costs by taking the course from a single location, possibly their own home. If taking 

222 the training is made easier, EPA believes that more renovators will take the refresher training and 

223 become recertified. Having more renovators take the refresher training will lead to a higher 

224 number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a 

225 lead-safe manner. For these reasons, EPA believes it is appropriate to eliminate the hands-on 

226 training in the renovator refresher course. The Agency requests comment on eliminating the 

227 requirement to include hands-on training in the renovator refresher course. 

228 While the Agency believes that the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher 

229 course is no longer necessary, it has not ruled out having hands-on activities that are performed 

230 via e-learning instead of in person. This would allow instructors to assess the student’s skills 

231 without having the student travel to a classroom. EPA requests comment on how the hands-on 

232 portion of the refresher course could be performed by the student and assessed by the instructor 

233 via e-learning. 

234 Another option for maintaining the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher 

235 course is to modify it to make it less burdensome for trainers and students. For example, the 

236 requirement could be changed so the hands-on portion of the course is only required every other 

237 time a renovator gets recertified instead of every 5 years. Under this scenario, the renovator 

238 would only have to take the hands-on training once every 10 years. The Agency requests 

239 comment on possible alternative approaches to conducting the hands-on skills to make the 

240 training less burdensome. 

241 The Agency does not intend to eliminate the hands-on activities in the refresher courses 

242 for the other lead-based paint program disciplines: Risk assessor, inspector, supervisor, 

243 abatement worker and dust sampling technician. The work performed by these disciplines 

244 involves highly specialized skills which individuals must learn in training courses accredited by 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 11 of 29 

245 EPA or authorized States, territories, and Tribes. For example, a significant portion of an 

246 abatement worker’s training is focused on abatement techniques and selection of the appropriate 

247 course of action for a variety of hazards. Renovators, on the other hand, do not seek to 

248 permanently eliminate lead hazards; instead they perform maintenance and improvement tasks as 

249 directed by the consumer. Thus, the goal of EPA’s renovator training and certification program is 

250 not to update the methodology a renovator uses to accomplish these tasks (i.e., how to be 

251 painters, plumbers, or carpenters), but rather to ensure that persons who already know how to 

252 perform renovations perform their typical work in a lead-safe manner. Because of the technical 

253 nature of the work performed by risk assessors, inspectors, supervisors, abatement workers and 

254 dust sampling technicians, the Agency believes that it is important for their refresher training 

255 courses to include hands-on learning. 

256 Currently, training providers are required to submit both a pre-training and post-training 

257 notification for each course that they teach. Both types of notifications must contain information 

258 about the course including, but not limited to, date, time and location. The post-training 

259 notification must also include information about the trainees including name, address and test 

260 score, among other things. Pre-training notifications must be submitted at least 7 business days 

261 prior to the start of the course. Post-training notifications must be submitted no later than 10 

262 business days following course completion. The notification requirements help EPA monitor 

263 compliance with the training and certification provisions of the RRP and LBP Activities 

264 programs. Training providers that teach online courses must submit pre- and post-training 

265 notifications for each hands-on training session they teach. If the Agency eliminates the hands-on 

266 requirement for the refresher training then there will be no classroom session for which to notify 

267 EPA. Because the training provider will still need to send the names of the students to EPA, the 

268 notification requirements will need to be changed. The Agency requests comment on how it 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 12 of 29 

269 should modify the notification requirements to accommodate a training taught entirely online. 

270 In the absence of more particular information regarding the number of renovators that 

271 may take an online class to complete the required refresher training, EPA assumes that 98% of 

272 renovators will take the online training if the hands-on requirement is removed, based on the 

273 significant cost savings that would result from reduced tuition costs and by avoiding the time and 

274 associated expenses needed to travel to a training site. EPA requests comment on this 

275 assumption. EPA also requests comment and supporting information on the savings that would 

276 accrue to renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher 

277 courses; whether the tuition is likely to differ for online and in-person refresher training; and 

278 how the costs training providers would incur to offer online refresher training courses compare to 

279 the costs of offering courses in person. 

280 The Agency is considering a further modification to the notification requirements 

281 regarding online notifications. For years, training providers have had the option of submitting 

282 notifications electronically via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX); 63% of training providers 

283 opted to do so in the past year. The CDX system is designed to streamline the notification 

284 process for training providers and EPA alike, and to perform basic validations of electronic 

285 submissions that reduce common errors in notifications otherwise submitted on paper. 

286 Depending on how the notification requirements are modified, training providers may find it 

287 more efficient and less burdensome to submit notifications to EPA electronically if the hands-on 

288 refresher training requirement was eliminated. Such a change could result in an increased rate of 

289 electronic reporting of training notifications to EPA. To reduce the burden on the Agency and 

290 save taxpayer dollars, EPA will consider requiring training providers that teach the online 

291 refresher renovator course to submit their notifications for that course online. The Agency 

292 requests comment on whether it should require training providers to submit notifications online 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 13 of 29 

293 for the online refresher course. 

294 The Agency is concerned that, by the time a final rule is published, many renovators will 

295 have already taken the refresher training that includes the hands-on learning and will have 

296 missed out on the burden savings that this proposed rule would provide. In light of this, EPA is 

297 considering extending the certifications for a portion of renovators so they would be able to 

298 realize the benefits of this proposed rule. For example, the Agency could extend for 6 months the 

299 renovator certifications that expire by July 1, 2015. EPA requests comments on whether it should 

300 extend the certifications of renovators so they can take advantage of the burden savings of this 

301 proposed rule. 

302 B. Jurisdictions 

303 On June 9, 1999, 40 CFR part 745, subpart L, was amended to include a fee schedule for 

304 training programs seeking EPA accreditation and for individuals and firms seeking EPA 

305 certification (Ref. 4). These fees were established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which 

306 requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint activities 

307 requirements in States without authorized programs. The fee schedule created a multi308 jurisdiction registration fee which applies to individuals, firms and training programs that 

309 provide training or perform lead-based paint activities in more than one State administered by the 

310 EPA program. This fee is applied per discipline for each additional EPA-administered State in 

311 which the applicant seeks certification/recertification or accreditation/reaccreditation. An EPA312 administered jurisdiction is either an individual State without an authorized program or all Tribes 

313 without authorized programs in a given EPA Region. 

314 The multi-state jurisdiction fee of $35 was based on the estimated burdens required for 

315 Agency clerical, technical, and managerial staff to perform tasks associated with adding 

316 jurisdictions to a certification or accreditation. Tasks include entering the information into a 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 14 of 29 

317 database, approving or disapproving the application and generating and mailing a certificate to 

318 the applicant. After years of implementing the LBP Activities program, the Agency believes that 

319 separate certifications for each EPA-administered State jurisdiction are not necessary. In 

320 particular, EPA does not believe it is necessary for the Agency to certify or accredit the same 

321 applicant multiple times; certification in one EPA-administered State jurisdiction should be 

322 sufficient to perform work in any other EPA-administered States. For instance, EPA did not 

323 include separate certifications for each EPA-administered State in the RRP rule and found that it 

324 did not adversely impact the program. In addition, only requiring one certification for all EPA325 administered State jurisdictions helps to streamline the certification and accreditation process. 

326 Accordingly, the Agency is proposing to eliminate the requirement for separate certifications in 

327 each EPA-administered State jurisdiction in the LBP Activities program. If jurisdictions are 

328 eliminated, regulated entities will no longer have to send an application and fees to EPA for the 

329 purpose of adding additional EPA-administered State jurisdictions to their certification or 

330 accreditation. Once a regulated entity applies and is approved in the Lead-based Paint Activities 

331 program, they will be able to work in any EPA-administered State. EPA requests comment on 

332 whether it should eliminate this requirement from the Lead-based Paint Activities regulations. 

333 Eliminating the fee for adding an EPA-administered State jurisdiction will not cause the 

334 other fees under the LBP Activities regulations to increase. As stated earlier, TSCA requires 

335 EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint activities 

336 requirements. Eliminating the requirement to apply for additional jurisdictions also eliminates 

337 the Agency’s costs for processing those applications and its need to recover the fee. Thus, 

338 eliminating the $35 fee will not require the Agency to adjust the other fees it collects under the 

339 LBP Activities rule. 

340 C. Clarification Regarding Training Provider Application Requirements 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 15 of 29 

341 EPA is clarifying the application regulations for accredited training providers under the 

342 RRP rule (Ref. 1) and LBP Activities rule (Ref. 2). It was brought to the Agency’s attention that 

343 the regulations did not specifically state what constituted a violation of the regulations at 40 CFR 

344 745.225. For example, some other regulatory provisions, such as 40 CFR 745.87, specifically list 

345 various activities that are considered a violation of TSCA. Accordingly, the Agency is proposing 

346 to add clarifying language explaining that training providers must follow the requirements in that 

347 section. EPA believes that accredited training providers already understand this, but EPA is 

348 proposing to add the clarifying language to ensure understanding of the requirements – similar to 

349 what has been done in other regulations. This clarifying language does not change any 

350 requirements for accredited training providers. The Agency requests comment on adding this 

351 clarification to the regulations at 40 CFR 745.225(a)(4), (c), (d) and (e). 

352 D. Correction to Training Notification Requirements 

353 The regulatory text of the final RRP rule in 2008 (Ref. 1) inadvertently omitted a 

354 requirement for accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after 

355 each training course the provider delivers. The provision was designed to supply important 

356 information regarding certified renovators for EPA’s compliance monitoring efforts. In 2009, 

357 EPA issued a rule (Ref. 5) to correct this omission by amending 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) to 

358 require post-course notifications from accredited providers of renovator or dust sampling 

359 technician training. The 2009 rule also included conforming changes to 40 CFR 

360 745.225(c)(14)(iii) to include the correct name of the sample post-course notification form and to 

361 make it clear that all methods of post-course notification are available to both renovation training 

362 providers and lead-based paint activities training providers. As amended, 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14) 

363 required renovation training providers to notify EPA no later than 10 business days following 

364 course completion. Although EPA identified this requirement in its cost estimates in 2008, the 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 16 of 29 

365 regulatory provision was subsequently overwritten by another rulemaking. Specifically, in a 

366 2011 rule (Ref. 6), the regulatory language inadvertently removed the regulatory text that was 

367 added to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) by the 2009 rule. In this proposed rule, EPA is proposing to 

368 add the same language back to 40 CFR 745.225(c)(14)(i) that was included in the 2009 rule. 

369 EPA requests comment on adding this language back to the notification requirements. Since EPA 

370 has continued to account for the costs and paperwork burden associated with this notification 

371 provision, this proposed correction does not increase the estimated costs and burdens for the 

372 RRP program. 

373 E. Effective Date 

374 

375 EPA is proposing to find under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 

376 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date of the 

377 final rule that EPA intends to promulgate based upon this proposed rule. As stated earlier in this 

378 preamble, removing the hands-on requirement will make it easier for renovators to take the 

379 refresher training, especially renovators who live far from a training facility. If taking the 

380 training is made easier, EPA believes that removing the hands-on requirement will lead to more 

381 renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. Consequently, delaying the effective 

382 date may result in fewer renovators taking the training and becoming recertified. For this reason, 

383 the Agency believes it is in the public interest to remove the requirement as soon as possible. 

384 EPA also believes that such action would relieve a restriction in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

385 553(d)(1). EPA therefore proposes to issue a final rule making this change effective upon 

386 publication in the Federal Register. 

387 IV. References 

388 The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this 

389 document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 17 of 29 

390 including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, 

391 even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating 

392 these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER 

393 INFORMATION CONTACT. 

394 1. Lead; Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (73 FR 

395 21692, April 22, 2008) (FRL-8355-7). 

396 2. Lead; Requirements for Lead-Based Paint Activities in Target Housing and Child397 Occupied Facilities; Final Rule. Federal Register (61 FR 45778, August 29, 1996) (FRL-5389-9). 

398 3. Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. 42 U.S.C. 4852. 

399 4. Lead; Fees for Accreditation of Training Programs and Certification of Lead-based 

400 Paint Activities Contractors; Final Rule. Federal Register (64 FR 31091, June 9, 1999) (FRL401 6058-6). 

402 5. Lead; Minor Amendments to the Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program; Final 

403 Rule. Federal Register (74 FR 34257, July 15, 2009) (FRL-8422-7). 

404 6. Lead; Clearance and Clearance Testing Requirements for the Renovation, Repair, and 

405 Painting Program; Final Rule. Federal Register (76 FR 47918, August 5, 2011) (FRL-8881-8). 

406 7. EPA. Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint Program Minor Amendments 

407 Proposed Rule (Economic Analysis). December 2014. 

408 8. EPA. Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA sections 402 and 404 Training, 

409 Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities and Renovation, 

410 Repair, and Painting. EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and OMB No. 2070-[NEW]. December 2014. 

411 V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

412 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: 

413 Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review 

414 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 18 of 29 

415 This proposed rule has been designated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

416 as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

417 October 4, 1993). Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive 

418 Order 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and any changes made in response to 

419 OMB recommendations are documented in the docket. 

420 EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential cost savings associated with this 

421 rulemaking. This analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the Lead-Based Paint 

422 Program Minor Amendments Proposed Rule (Ref. 7) and is briefly summarized here. 

423 In a typical year, individuals, firms, and training providers apply to perform lead-based 

424 paint activities or provide training in a total of 431 additional EPA-administered jurisdictions. 

425 Removing the $35 multi-jurisdiction fee will result in total estimated cost savings of 

426 approximately $15,000 per year to these entities. 

427 Removing the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher training is estimated 

428 to reduce the tuition by an average of $37. Removing the hands-on requirement also makes 

429 online renovator refresher training more attractive to training providers and renovators. If 

430 renovators become recertified by taking an e-learning refresher course they are estimated to save 

431 an additional $165 by avoiding the time and associated expenses needed to travel to a training 

432 site. Renovator training and certification (which is valid for 5 years) became mandatory in 2010, 

433 and a large number of renovators were trained that year. As many as 168,000 of these renovators 

434 are predicted to seek refresher training in 2015. Over time, the annual number is predicted to 

435 equilibrate such that up to 48,000 renovators may seek refresher training in later years. Nearly all 

436 of these renovators are assumed to choose online refresher training if the option is available. 

437 Therefore, removing the hands-on requirement for renovator refresher training is estimated to 

438 reduce costs by over $9 million per year. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 19 of 29 

439 The proposed rule includes a correction to the training notification requirements to add 

440 back regulatory text on post-training notifications that was inadvertently overwritten in a 2011 

441 rule (although most training providers are continuing to provide post-training notifications to 

442 EPA in a timely manner). EPA has already accounted for the burden and cost of requiring 

443 accredited providers of renovation training to provide notification to EPA after each training 

444 course the provider delivers. For example, the currently approved ICR for the TSCA sections 

445 402 and 404 Training, Certification, Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint Activities 

446 and Renovation, Repair, and Painting (EPA ICR No. 1715.13, OMB Control No. 2070-0155) 

447 estimates that 600 renovation training providers will submit an average of 14 post-training 

448 notifications per year. This yields a total of 8,400 post-training notifications per year at an 

449 average burden of 1.6 hours per response, resulting in a total burden for this activity of 13,440 

450 hours at a cost of $339,578. In order to avoid double-counting, EPA’s Economic Analysis and 

451 ICR for this action do not include the burden and cost of reinstating the post-training notification 

452 requirements. 

453 The clarifying language being added to the rule explaining that training providers must 

454 follow the regulations does not affect the cost of compliance because it does not change any 

455 requirements for accredited training providers. 

456 Removing the multi-jurisdiction fee and the requirement for hands on refresher renovator 

457 training is estimated to result in cost savings of up to $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount 

458 rate and $9.8 million per year using a 7% discount rate. 

459 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

460 The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have been submitted to 

461 OMB for review and approval under PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared 

462 by EPA has been assigned EPA ICR No. 2502.01 and the OMB Control No. 2070-[NEW] (Ref. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 20 of 29 

463 8). The ICR document provides a detailed presentation of the estimated burden and costs 

464 predicted as a result of the proposed rule. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

465 There are 275 training providers accredited to offer renovator refresher training 

466 programs. All these training providers are assumed to apply to EPA to become accredited to 

467 offer e-learning refresher training once the requirement for hands-on renovator refresher training 

468 is removed. The applications must address issues such as how the trainer will ensure that 

469 students successfully complete the e-learning modules and the e-learning final assessment. 

470 Training providers are most likely to add an already reviewed and accepted e-learning course 

471 from another training provider to their training curriculum. In that case, their burden to become 

472 familiar with the new rule and to submit an application is estimated to average 13.8 hours per 

473 response, at a cost of $687. For the 275 training providers this results in a total burden of 3,795 

474 hours at a total cost $188,861. 

475 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to an 

476 information collection request unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, or is 

477 otherwise required to submit the specific information by a statute. The OMB control numbers for 

478 EPA’s regulations codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after appearing 

479 in the preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication in the Federal 

480 Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if 

481 applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 

482 40 CFR 9.1. 

483 Submit any comments on the Agency’s need for this information, the accuracy of the 

484 provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to 

485 both EPA and OMB. For EPA, follow the instructions in ADDRESSES at the beginning of this 

486 document. For OMB, reference “OMB Desk Officer for EPA” and email your comments to 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 21 of 29 

487 oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR 

488 between 30 and 60 days after [insert date of publication in the Federal Register], a comment to 

489 OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by [insert date 30 days after 

490 publication in the Federal Register]. The final rule will address any OMB or public comments 

491 received on the information collection requirements contained in this proposal. 

492 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

493 The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

494 flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the 

495 APA, 5 U.S.C. 551-553, or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have 

496 a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

497 Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 

498 jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, small 

499 entity is defined as: 

500 1. A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations 

501 at 13 CFR 121.201. The SBA’s definitions typically are based upon either a sales or an 

502 employment level, depending on the nature of the industry. 

503 2. A small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 

504 district or special district with a population of less than 50,000. 

505 3. A small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 

506 and operated and is not dominant in its field. 

507 After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify 

508 that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

509 entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number 

510 of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 22 of 29 

511 entities, since the primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify and address 

512 regulatory alternatives “which minimize any significant economic impact of the rule on small 

513 entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 

514 significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves 

515 regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on all of the small entities subject 

516 to the rule. 

517 The proposed rule would eliminate multi-jurisdiction registration fees for the LBP 

518 Activities program, and eliminate the hands-on training requirement from the lead renovation 

519 refresher training course. This results in cost savings for entities that no longer would pay the 

520 multi-jurisdiction registration fees and for renovators that would have a less expensive refresher 

521 training option available to them. Those training providers that choose to offer e-learning 

522 refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning 

523 courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering 

524 accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation 

525 because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training 

526 option under the proposed rule. Therefore, there would be no direct negative cost impacts on 

527 small entities as a result of the proposed rule. We have therefore concluded that this proposed 

528 rule will relieve regulatory burden for all affected small entities. 

529 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

530 This action does not contain any Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of 

531 UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The 

532 action imposes no enforceable duty on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. 

533 Therefore, this action is not subject to the requirements of UMRA sections 202 or 205. This action 

534 is also not subject to the requirements of UMRA section 203 because it contains no regulatory 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 23 of 29 

535 requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Those training 

536 providers (both those in the private sector as well as local or tribal governments) that choose to 

537 offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e538 learning courses. However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering 

539 accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation 

540 because there is no requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training 

541 option under the proposed rule. 

542 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

543 This action does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 

544 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

545 relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

546 responsibilities among the various levels of government. Local governments can serve as 

547 training providers, and those training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher 

548 renovator training would incur a cost to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. 

549 However, it is expected that only training providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs 

550 through tuition charges would opt to apply for the additional accreditation because there is no 

551 requirement mandating these firms to offer an e-learning refresher training option under the 

552 proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically 

553 solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. 

554 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

555 This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 

556 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Tribal governments can serve as training providers, and those 

557 training providers that choose to offer e-learning refresher renovator training would incur a cost 

558 to apply for accreditation of their e-learning courses. However, it is expected that only training 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 24 of 29 

559 providers that anticipate recovering accreditation costs through tuition charges would opt to 

560 apply for the additional accreditation because there is no requirement mandating these firms to 

561 offer an e-learning refresher training option under the proposed rule. Thus, Executive Order 

562 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this 

563 proposed action from tribal officials. 

564 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

565 Risks 

566 

567 This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

568 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 

569 12866, and because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as 

570 applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the 

571 analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the 

572 regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it would not establish an 

573 environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. 

574 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 

575 Supply, Distribution, or Use 

576 

577 This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 

578 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect 

579 on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further, this rule is not likely to have any adverse 

580 energy effects because it does not require any action related to the supply, distribution, or use of 

581 energy. 

582 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

583 Section 12(d) of NTTAA, 15 U.S.C. 272 note, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

584 standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 

585 otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 25 of 29 

586 specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or 

587 adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, 

588 through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable 

589 voluntary consensus standards. 

590 This proposed rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not 

591 considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards. EPA welcomes comments on this 

592 aspect of the proposed rule and specifically invites the public to identify additional potentially 

593 applicable voluntary consensus standards and to explain why such standards should be used in 

594 this regulation. 

595 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

596 Populations and Low-Income Populations 

597 

598 Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive 

599 policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest 

600 extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by 

601 identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

602 environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low603 income populations in the United States. 

604 EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have disproportionately high and 

605 adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it 

606 does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. The 

607 proposed rule would remove multi-jurisdiction fees for the LBP Activities program and remove 

608 the hands-on requirement for refresher renovator training. However, it would not change the 

609 work practice requirements for lead-based paint activities or renovation, repair or painting 

610 activities disturbing lead-based paint. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 26 of 29 

611 List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 745

612 Environmental protection, Lead, Lead-based paint, Renovation. 

613 Dated: ____________________ 

614 

615 __________________________________________ 

616 

617 Gina McCarthy, 

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

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 27 of 29 

619 Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as follows: 

620 PART 745--[AMENDED] 

621 1. The authority citation for part 745 continues to read as follows: 

622 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2605, 2607, 2681-2692 and 42 U.S.C. 4852d. 

623 2. In § 745.225: 

624 a. Add new paragraph (a)(4). 

625 b. Revise the introductory text of paragraphs (c), (d), and (e). 

626 c. Revise paragraphs (c)(14)(i) and (e)(2) and (3). 

627 The addition and revisions read as follows: 

628 § 745.225 Accreditation of training programs: target housing and child-occupied facilities. 

629 (a) * * * 

630 (4) Accredited training programs, training program managers, and principal instructors 

631 must comply with all of the requirements of this section including approved terms of the 

632 application and all of the requirements and limitations specified in any accreditation documents 

633 issued to training programs. 

634 * * * * * 

635 (c) Requirements for the accreditation of training programs. A training program 

636 accredited by EPA to offer lead-based paint activities courses, renovator courses, or dust 

637 sampling technician courses must meet the following requirements: 

638 * * * * * 

639 (14) * * * 

640 (i) The training manager must provide EPA notification after the completion of any 

641 renovator, dust sampling, or lead-based paint activities course. This notification must be received 

642 by EPA no later than 10 business days following course completion. 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 28 of 29 

643 * * * * * 

644 (d) Minimum training curriculum requirements. A training program accredited by EPA to 

645 offer lead-based paint courses in the specific disciplines listed in this paragraph (d) must ensure 

646 that its courses of study include, at a minimum, the following course topics. 

647 * * * * * 

648 (e) Requirements for the accreditation of refresher training programs. A training 

649 program may seek accreditation to offer refresher training courses in any of the following 

650 disciplines: Inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, project designer, abatement worker, renovator, 

651 and dust sampling technician. A training program accredited by EPA to offer refresher training 

652 must meet the following minimum requirements: 

653 * * * * * 

654 (2) Refresher courses for inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and abatement worker must 

655 last a minimum of 8 training hours. Refresher courses for project designer, renovator, and dust 

656 sampling technician must last a minimum of 4 training hours. Refresher courses for all 

657 disciplines except renovator and project designer must include a hands-on component. 

658 (3) Except for renovator and project designer courses, for all other courses offered, the 

659 training program shall conduct a hands-on assessment. With the exception of project designer 

660 courses, the training program shall conduct a course test at the completion of the course. 

661 * * * * * 

662 3. In § 745.238: 

663 a. Remove paragraph (c)(3). 

664 b. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(4) and (5) as (c)(3) and (4). 

665 c. Revise the headings for paragraphs (d)(1) and (2). 

666 d. Revise paragraph (e)(2). 
*** EO 12866 Review Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

(RIN 2070-AK02) 

Page 29 of 29 

667 The amendments read as follows: 

668 § 745.238 Fees for accreditation and certification of lead-based paint activities. 

669 * * * * * 

670 (d) * * *

671 (1) Certification and re-certification * * * 

672 (2) Accreditation and re-accreditation. * * * 

673 * * * * * 

674 (e) * * * 

675 (2) Submit application and payment in the amount specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 

676 section in accordance with the instructions provided with the application package. 

677 * * * * *