1

Richmond, Jonah

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

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

To: Richmond, Jonah

Cc: Hofmann, Angela; Smith, Peterj

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

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

Attachments: EO 12866 Interagency Comments Lead Rule 2.docx

Jonah,

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

Best,

Danielle

From: Jones, Danielle  

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

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

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

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

Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070‐AK02)

Jonah,

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

Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements final rule.  

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Danielle Y. Jones

Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: (202) 395‐1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1

1. The draft amendment itself does not use the term “online” but simply refers to renovator 

refresher training as either having or not having hands-on training. In the part of the 

amendment regarding notification of renovator or LBP training courses, the terms “electronic 

learning” and e-learning” are used, and all usage of the term “online” occurs in the preamble. 

Consistent terminology should be used. Functional descriptions of the terms might be inserted 

in the preamble at the end of Section A, Hands-on Training, or a new section could be created to 

discuss and define online training. Where appropriate, new definitions should be included in 

the regulatory provisions.

2. The draft preamble indicates that EPA anticipates an increase in the number of certified 

renovators by allowing online refresher training at prescribed intervals during an individual’s 

lifetime of certification. In order to accomplish this goal without confusion among certified 

renovators and those striving to become certified, clarification in the draft of the meaning of 

several terms, including “online training,” “electronic (e-learning),” “trainers who teach an 

online course,” and “training providers that teach the refresher course,” would be appropriate. 

It is unclear in the amendment whether EPA intends to require a live instructor for the online 

presentations, or to allow a training provider who would simply direct trainees to a website 

where they take a course at their convenience perhaps without assistance from a live instructor 

being available, or something in between; EPA should clarify this.

3. It is important that RRP initial and refresher training focus on skills as well as retention of factual 

information. Skill training is not easily transferred through computer screens, as EPA 

acknowledges by retaining the requirement for hands-on training for alternating refresher 

certification courses. Therefore, it is important that EPA clarify which types of online training 

will be allowable and under what circumstances.

4. EPA should provide, in the preamble, information about the success (effectiveness and usage) of 

the online versions of the initial renovator course in English and Spanish that are discussed on 

EPA’s website at: http://www.epa.gov/lead/training-courses. This could include, for example, 

the numbers of individuals who have received RRP certification through e-learning versus faceto-face classes, what evaluation EPA has conducted of the effectiveness of online training, and, 

if it has conducted such evaluation, how the results have affected its decision to allow it for 

refresher training where hands-on is not required.

5. Online learning for the refreshers for a 3-year certification period may encompass various 

strategies including use of computerized platforms and instructional tools such as videos, audio 

recordings, photographs, and interactive exercises. For example, viewing by a trainee of a 4-

hour video on Youtube (or a similarly functioning website), or listening to a lecture or podcast 

through a training provider’s network for a fee, in itself do not constitute adequate online 

learning experiences or provide opportunity for assessment by an instructor of the trainee’s 

competency in using the material presented.
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

2

6. Generally and traditionally, online learning is described as consisting of synchronous and 

asynchronous types, but other online learning approaches may exist as well. Setting the issues

of potential identity verification or fraud aside, EPA should consider the use of instructor-led 

online training settings with a date certain for delivery and reference on the certificate. 

Asynchronous training, by design, does not occur at the same time for all participants, so that 

citing a specific date on a certificate may be problematic. Although the use of a live instructor 

provides insight and feedback, and is available to answer questions through chat boxes, 

Question and Answer opportunities, or blogs to assess individuals’ performance, live instructors 

will come with an increased cost. 

7. Another generic issue with online training is the difficulty associated with ongoing course 

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

changed over time. EPA should consider developing a model online curriculum for the 3-year 

refresher course that can be modified to include state and/or local requirements. This will keep 

changes to a minimum to minimize the difficulty when verifying which version of an online 

curriculum a student used and what the course content included. For example, this commenter 

realizes that, should federal or state lead-based paint and/or lead-based paint hazard standards 

change in the future, courses would have to be modified (one real purpose of refresher training) 

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

training providers not having made significant investments in Information Technology support 

staff. Again, EPA’s experience with the online initial RRP training would be helpful in this regard.

8. The draft discusses areas of potential fraud by referencing criminal penalties. The draft is 

subject to different interpretations of fraud. EPA should clarify its intended scope of fraud for 

the online training situation, and provide, in guidance, further options to reduce the potential 

for fraud or misrepresentation. 

9. Specific comments: 

a. How will the instructor verify who is:

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

ii. Participating throughout the presentation.

iii. Paying for, and getting, the certificate

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

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

each of the attendees?

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

internet speeds?

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

amend their agreement?

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

recertification be recognized as well: throughout the US? only in EPA-run states? only in 

other EPA-authorized states? nowhere else?
Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under 

EO12866/13563 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

3

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

certified. Please check the wording.

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

to monitor for quality? Please check the wording.

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

days, not 30? Please check the wording.