1

Smith, Peterj

From: Smith, Peterj

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:44 AM

To: Danielle Jones - OMB/OIRA (Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov)

Cc: Hofmann, Angela; Edmonds, Marc; Mottley, Tanya; Gilbreath, Jan; Anderson, Steve

Subject: (CORRECTED) EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: RIN 2070-AK02 - Introductory Briefing 

Materials for EPA's Minor Amendments to LBP Program Regulations NPRM

Attachments: EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead-MinorAmendments_IntroBriefing_2014-09-29.pdf

Categories: TSCA 411 Docket

Colleagues,  

I am resending with the correct RIN identified in the subject line of my previous message. I regret the error and

apologize for any related confusion.

From: Smith, Peterj  

Sent: Friday, September 26, 2014 10:41 AM

To: Danielle Jones ‐ OMB/OIRA (Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov)

Cc: Hofmann, Angela; Edmonds, Marc; Mottley, Tanya; Gilbreath, Jan; Anderson, Steve

Subject: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: RIN 2070‐AJ22 ‐ Introductory Briefing Materials for EPA's Minor

Amendments to LBP Program Regulations NPRM

Hi Danielle,

Attached are the materials for September 29th introductory briefing for interagency reviewers. Would you please

distribute the attached as appropriate?

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.

***************************************************************************************************
Proposed Rule for Lead‐based Paint Program; Amend

Jurisdiction‐Specific Certification and Accreditation Requ

Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 207

September 29, 2014

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE

• EPA is proposing four minor revisions to the Lead Re

Repair, and Painting Program (RRP) rule (April 22, 20

the Lead‐based Paint Activities rule (August 29, 1996

proposing to:

• Eliminate the requirement that the renovator refresher 

have a hands‐on component.

• Remove jurisdiction‐specific certification and accreditat

requirements under the Lead‐based Paint Activities pro

• Currently training providers, firms and individuals must seek 

in each jurisdiction (e.g., a state) where the organization or p

to work.

• Add clarifying language to the requirements for training 

under both the RRP and Lead‐based Paint Activities pro

• Correct the training notification requirements.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
BACKGROUND ON THE RRP RULE

• The rule requires firms and renovators to 

certified.

• Renovators must take an 8‐hour training.

• Grandfathering provision allowed some renovat

qualify for a 4‐hour training in lieu of the longer 

• Over 500,000 renovators have been certifie

• Over 200,000 certifications expire in the beginn

2015.

• Renovators must take the 4‐hour refresher t

before their certification expires.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
HANDS‐ON REQUIREMENT FOR RRP REFRESHER TR

• The renovator refresher training requires hands‐on learning 

cannot be done online.

• Currently with the initial e‐learning course, students take the 

portion online and then travel to a training facility to complet

hands‐on skill sets.

• Two commenters on a 2010 proposed rule thought that the 

requirement for refresher training may be unnecessary.

• The requirement limits the availability of the refresher trainin

increases costs to conduct the training.

• Enough information could probably be conveyed in an e‐learn

to warrant dispensing with the hands‐on requirement.

• In the preamble to the 2011 final rule, EPA said that it woul

point, consider whether hands‐on training is still necessary 

appropriate for the renovator refresher course.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
HANDS‐ON REQUIREMENT FOR RRP REFRESHER TR

• At the time the RPP Rule became effective it was important to ha

on training in the 4‐hour refresher course because certain renova

eligible to take only the refresher course to receive their initial ce

(i.e., renovators who qualified under the grandfathering provision

therefore had not been introduced to new skills required for RRP

• After October 4, 2011, however, renovators could no longer take 

refresher course to gain initial certification even if they were prev

eligible to take the refresher course in lieu of the initial course.

• From that date forward, all renovators taking the refresher course w

have received hands‐on training as part of their initial renovator cer

(i.e., an initial or refresher course).

• Now that renovators will take the refresher course only after bein

certified in a way that includes hands‐on training, EPA believes it 

important for the refresher course to include hands‐on training.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
HANDS‐ON REQUIREMENT FOR RRP REFRESHER TR

Rationale for removing the requirement:

• Hands‐on training in the refresher course is no longer nece

• Providing refresher training online will be less expensive an

lower tuition.

• On‐line courses would give renovators easier access to train

saving them time and money resulting in more renovators t

training.

• Higher number of renovators taking the refresher course re

higher capacity of certified renovators.

• All students taking the refresher training will have already h

on training in the critical skill sets; therefore, EPA believes t

refresher training will be sufficient.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
HANDS‐ON REQUIREMENT FOR RRP REFRESHER TR

Timing• More than 200,000 renovators must be re‐trained by J

2015.

• To provide enough time for training providers to get ac

and 200,000 renovators to take the training, the final r

to be signed by March 2015.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
ELIMINATING ABATEMENT PROGRAM JURISDICTION

• Under the abatement program, firms, training providers and individuals 

for and be certified or accredited in each jurisdiction (i.e., state, tribe or 

where EPA runs the abatement program) where they work.

• Separate jurisdictions for the abatement program were created in the or

rule finalized in 1999. The jurisdiction fee of $35 was designed to recove

for activities associated with issuing a certification or accreditation in a j

• The proposed change would eliminate the $35 fee.

• Unlike the abatement program, the RRP program does not require separ

certification or accreditation in each jurisdiction.

• A single federal certification or accreditation allows those certified or accredited t

federal jurisdiction.

• After years of implementing the abatement and RRP programs, the Agen

that jurisdictions are not needed.

• In April 2014, the certification of individuals was consolidated into two r

Currently, firms are certified by headquarters without regional approval 

jurisdictions.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
ELIMINATING ABATEMENT PROGRAM JURISDICTION

Rationale for removing jurisdictions:

• Would lower burden and costs for applicants becau

would send fewer applications and pay less in fees.

• Would streamline application processing

• Regions would not have to approve jurisdictions

• EPA would no longer process amendments adding jurisdic

associated payments

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
CLARIFYING TRAINING PROVIDER REQUIREMENTS

• EPA is clarifying the regulations for accredited training providers under t

and Lead‐based Paint Activities Regulations. It was brought to the Agenc

that the regulations did not specifically state what constituted a violatioregulations at 40 CFR 745.225.

• Some other regulatory provisions, such as 40 CFR 745.87, specifically list 

activities that are considered a violation of TSCA. Accordingly, the Agenc

proposing to add a statement explaining that training providers must fol

requirements in that section.

• EPA believes that accredited training providers already understand this, 

proposing to add the clarifying language to ensure understanding of the

requirements – similar to what has been done in other regulations.

• This clarifying language does not change any requirements for accredite

providers.

• Rationale for clarifying the regulations:

• The training provider regulations will be more consistent with other lead program • The change will ensure that training providers understand what constitutes a viola

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
CORRECTION TO TRAINING NOTIFICATION REQUIRE

• The regulations of the 2008 RRP rule inadvertently om

requirement for training providers to send a notificatio

after each training.

• Notifications provide EPA with information about who took th

• The omission was corrected in a 2009 rulemaking.

• In a 2011 rulemaking some of the regulatory text was

inadvertently removed.

• The proposal will add back the text that was removed 

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

• Removing the hands‐on requirement is also expected to make on

renovator refresher training more attractive to renovators.

• Estimated to reduce the tuition for refresher training courses by an average 

• Estimated to save an additional $165 by avoiding the time and associated ex

to travel to a training site.

• Removing the hands‐on requirement for renovator refresher trai

estimated to save over $9 million per year.

• Removing the $35 jurisdiction fee will result in total estimated co

of approximately $15,000 per year to entities that apply for addit

jurisdictions.

• The clarifying language for training providers does not change an

requirements and therefore does not impact costs.

• Correcting the training notification requirement does not increas

burdens for trainers because the costs were already accounted fo

2009 rule.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 
IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE

Category Description

Costs The annualized cost savings of this proposed rule are estimated at 

approximately $9.6 million per year using a 3% discount rate and $9.8 million per year using a 7% discount rate.

Small Entity Impacts The proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. This proposed rule would relieve regulatory burden for affected small entities, and would not have a direct negative impact on any small entities.

Effects on State, Local, and Tribal Governments

This proposed rule would not have a significant intergovernmental mandate, significant or unique effects on small governments, or have Federalism implications.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release 

The chart provides a brief outline of the costs and impacts of the

proposal.
DOCKET REQUIREMENT FOR INTERAGENCY COMME

• EPA looks forward to receiving your comments via O

you prepare written comments, you should know:

• TSCA Title IV, under which EPA’s lead paint program 

authorized, established special rulemaking requiremapply to all related proposed and final rules (15 U.S.

• Among other things, EPA must include in the rulema

docket:

• The draft rule and all supporting documents that were s

to OMB for interagency review

• All written comments received by EPA from reviewing a

regarding those documents

• EPA’s written responses.

EO 12866 Deliberative – Do not cite, quote, or release