1 

# U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Lead-based Paint Programs; Amendment to Jurisdiction-Specific Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements

Response to Public Comments

October 20152 Hands-on Training

Comment : Several commenters stated that many renovato rs have not had hands-on training in using the D-lead test kit or paint chip sampling because they took their initial training before these paint-testing options were allowed under the RRP program. One co mmenter contends that without hands-on training some renovators will never have a chance to perform these tasks in a training course.

Response: EPA modified its proposed rule to require hands-on training every other certification instead of eliminating it completely as had been propo sed. By requiring hands-on training every other certification renovators will have a chance to prac tice these hands-on skills during their training. For trainings that are taken online without hands-on learni ng, renovators will see vide os demonstrating how to test for lead-based paint and other work practices.

Comment : One commenter asked why the hands-on traini ng in the renovator refresher course could be eliminated while trainings for the other lead-based paint program disciplines such as risk assessor and abatement worker still include hands-on learning. The commenter stated that the program requirements

should be uniform because the hazards from lead are th e same. Another commenter stated that if hands-on learning is required for the refresher trainings for othe r lead professionals, then it should be required for

renovators as well.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters. The work performed by risk assessors, inspectors, abatement workers, supervisors and dust sampling t echnicians involves highly specialized skills which individuals must learn in training courses accredited by EPA or authorized States, territories, and Tribes. For example, a significant portion of an abatement wo rker's training is focused on abatement techniques and selection of the appropriate course of action for a variety of hazards. Renovators, on the other hand, do not seek to permanently eliminate lead hazards; instead they perform maintenance and improvement tasks as directed by the consumer. Thus, the goal of EPA's renovator training and certification program is not to update the methodology a renova tor uses to accomplish these tasks ( i.e., how to be painters, plumbers, or carpenters), but rather to ensure that persons who already know how to perform renovations perform their typical work in a lead-safe manner. Be cause of the technical nature of the work performed by risk assessors, inspectors, supervisors, abatement workers and dust sampling technicians, the Agency believes that it is important for their refresher training courses to incl ude hands-on learning.

Comment : Several commenters stated that removing the hands-on requirement in the renovator refresher training would result in a major decrease in the num ber of accredited RRP training providers. A common concern among these commenters was that a small number of training providers would get most of the business for the online trainings and th e training providers who were left out would stop teaching both the initial and refresher courses. One training provider st ated that an online course could be provided by one entity which would negate the investments in staff, facilities and materials that many accredited training providers have made. Another trai ning provider said that it would not be able to make enough money by teaching only the initial course and would therefore st op teaching both the initial and refresher courses.

Response: EPA does not believe that the rule will lead to a reduction in the number of accredited training providers. Under the final rule, renovators must ta ke a training that includes hands-on learning every other certification. These trainings cannot be taught entirely online. Further, the certification for the online training will be good for only three years whic h will give renovators incentive to take the refresher with hands-on which leads to a longer, five-year certif ication. Thus, training providers that do not teach the online refresher course will still have a signifi cant number of students who will take a classroom training which should preserve the infrastructure of RRP training providers.3 Comment : One commenter who supported removing the hands -on training in the refresher believes that the hands-on learning is not time well spent. This tr aining provider notes that the hands-on portion of the course is the least challenging for students and that more time should be spent learning how to interpret the requirements of the regulations and stay up to date on changes to the RRP program.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The hands-on learning portion of the refresher course makes up only 25% of the time needed of the entire cour se. EPA believes that the time remaining to teach the lecture portion of the course is sufficient. If this training provider needs more time to teach students about the RRP requirements, then the trainer may ma ke the course longer. The regulations at 40 CFR § 745.225 (e)(i)(2) requires that the renovator refresher course last a minimum of 4 hours. There is no limit

on the number of hours the course should take so if a training provider needs to take more than 4 hours to teach the course it may do so.

Comment : One commenter suggested that EPA allow stude nts to watch a demonstration of the hands-on activities instead of having students perform them individually when taking the renovator refresher

course.

Response: EPA has incorporated videos into its model e-learning renovator refresher course that

demonstrate the hands-on activities. Renovators who ta ke the online refresher training without hands-on learning will be able to watch the videos instead of performing the activities.

Comment : One commenter states that renovators may or may not be involved with lead-safe work practices on a daily basis and therefore need to have hands-on in a class room setting when they take the refresher training.

Response: To address concerns like the one raised by th is commenter, EPA is requiring renovators to take a refresher training that includes hands-on learning every other certification.

Comment : One commenter asserts that removing the ha nds-on learning would penalizes renovators who took the training early, before this rule was finaliz ed. The commenter states that the renovators were taking the refresher course early to avoid the tidal wave of renovators that would take the refresher training

Response: EPA does not believe that renovators who took the refresher training before this rule was promulgated have been penalized. These renovators w ill still be able to take advantage of the burden savings of this final rule when they take their next renovator refresher training.

Comment : One commenter, a training provider, contends that the hands-on training is not needed in the

refresher course. The commenter states that students do not forget how to use the test kit, even if they test rarely or not at all. The commenter further states th at cleaning verification does not need to be performed via hands-on in the refresher training. According to the commenter, the information can be easily refreshed in a lecture or e-learning format without hands-on retraining.4 Response: The Agency disagrees with the commenter. EPA believes that the hands-on training should be performed periodically although not necessarily every 5 years as was the previous requirement. Under the final rule, hands-on training is effectively required every 8 years.

Comment : Several commenters contend that hands-on trai ning can be performed via online learning. For example, an online training could allow students to select pieces from a test kit or move objects on a screen simulating hands-on activities while recording the activities.

Response: At this time a virtual hands-on training has not been developed by EPA or a training provider. Training providers may incorporate a virtual hands-o n training in their online courses if they chose although it will not meet the requirements of the hands-on training that leads to a 5-year certification. The course must be submitted to EPA for review with the trainer provider’s application.

Comment : One commenter stated that eliminating the ha nds-on requirement does not meet the statutory standard under TSCA that requires lead-based paint regul ations to be safe, reliable, and effective and requires renovators to be properly trained.

Response: The Agency believes that the refresher course meets the requirements of TSCA mentioned by the commenter. Hands-on learning is still required in the renovator refresher course once every 8 years. The course that does not include hands-on learning will still include demonstrations of those activities.

General Comments Regarding Trainings

Comment : Several commenters stated that EPA should in crease or eliminate the student instructor ratio during the hands-on training. One commenter suggested student instructor ratios of 24 to 1 or 30 to 1. Another commenter suggested a ratio of 15 students to 1 instructor. This commenter believes that instructors will have continuing opportunities during th e refresher course to test student’s understanding

of the hands-on activities. Another commenter stated that increasing the student instructor ratio would result in more instructors being available to conduc t the course, possibly in different locations, and the

cost of the course would decrease.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter s. The Agency believes that the hands-on trainings should

be done at a six to one student to instructor ratio . At a higher ratio, such as 15 to 1 like one commenter suggests, the instructor would not have time to assess how each student performs the activities during the time allotted for the hands-on learning.

Comment : One commenter noted that the dangers of lead -based paint are more effectively communicated

via face to face instruction. The commenter contends that convincing and motivating people is much more effective in a classroom setting.

Response: EPA believes that the dangers of lead-based pain t can be effectively taught via online learning. Training providers are not required to use EPA’s model renovator course. Therefore, trainers that want to emphasize the dangers of lead-based paint in an on line course may do so by creating their own course.

Comment : One commenter stated that renovators are not good candidates for online learning without giving a reason why.5 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The Agency believes that renovators would be able to effectively learn material presented in an online format.

Comment : One commenter asked how trainers will be ab le to verify a student’s eligibility for the refresher via the online training course. The comment appears to believe that the verification must be done during the online course.

Response: Per 40 CFR § 745.225(i)(viii), training providers must verify whether a student is eligible to take the refresher course by obtaining a copy of the student’s prior course completion certificate showing that each trainee was eligible to take the course. This may be done at any time prior to the student taking the course and does not need to be done online. For example, the student may email a copy of their previous course completion certificate to the training provider.

Comment : One commenter contends that training provide rs could have a difficult time obtaining student information such as pictures and proof of initial certification. The commenter claims that contractors are extremely busy and they do not look at sending this information as a priority. When students do not submit the proper information, the training provider w ill have to spend time following up with the student to get the needed information. The commenter furthe r states that students who take the course that do not give the trainer the required information do not recei ve a certification and are therefore not certified. These students may forget that they never obtained their certificate providing the student with a false sense of compliance.

Response: Training providers must submit certain informa tion to EPA regarding the students who they train. It is up to the training provider to decide how and when it collects this information from students. Trainers may want to get all the required information up front before the student begins the training. This would give students incentive to give the informa tion to the training provider in a timely manner and would prevent students from believing they are certified when they have not received a certificate from the training provider.

Comment : One commenter pointed out that EPA had not developed a model course for the online renovator refresher training.

Response: Since the publication of the proposed rule, EPA has published a model course for the online renovator refresher training. Training providers may use the model course or develop their own online

refresher course and submit the alternative course w ith their application for review. Accredited training providers should visit EPA’s Lead Program webs ite at www.epa.gov/lead for information on how to request a copy of the model refresher course.

Comment : One commenter contended that renovators who got their initial certification before October 2011 will not have to opportunity to conduct paint chip sampling in fr ont of an instructor which could negatively impact their ability to test for lead-based paint.

Response: EPA developed a model refresher course that training providers can use to teach the online training. This course contains instructional videos on methods for testing paint including paint chip sampling. Students who take the online refresher training without hands-on learning will see the video demonstration of how to properly conduct paint chip sampling. If a renovator prefers not to do paint chip6 sampling, he or she may use one of the EPA-recogni zed test kits or assume lead-based paint is present and not conduct any testing.

Comment : A comment by a training provider states that renovators would prefer in-class training over training conducted on-line. The commenter claims th at students who have take n both his in-class and online training prefer the in-class training.

Response: EPA understands that some renovators may pref er classroom training over online training. However, the Agency received many comments from firm s and individuals stating that they prefer online training. In addition, under the fi nal rule, hands-on training is still re quired every 8 years. Renovators who prefer hands-on training may take the classroom training for every certification if they wish.

Comment : A training provider commented that live, in-c lass trainings are better than online trainings because they can be tailored to the audience mix. The commenter contends that online trainings are not as effective because they are the same for everyone.

Response: Training providers, at their discretion, may tailor a renovator course to a specific audience. The course must comply with the requirements in 40 CFR § 745.225 but the training provide may add information in addition to those requirement s that it finds helpful to its audience.

Comment : One commenter was concerned that the renovato r course contained almost nothing on interim controls, adding that interim control provisions are more stringent than RRP regulation but are barely discussed in the training course. The commenter belie ves that the renovator course should include more information regarding interim controls.

Response: Renovations and interim controls are performed for different reasons. Interim controls are temporary measures to reduce exposure to lead-based paint hazards such as specialized cleaning, temporary containment or ongoing monitoring of lead-b ased paint hazards, are most often performed in response to a child with an elevated blood lead leve l. Renovations are performed for reasons other than to eliminate lead-based paint or lead-based paint hazards . Interim controls are generally covered by HUD’s Lead Safe Housing Rule, EPA’s Lead-based Paint Acti vities Regulations, or State or local regulations. The requirements regarding interim controls are appropriately covered in EPA’s Lead-based Paint

Activities courses instead of the renovator courses.

Comment : One training provider asked if the hands-on trai ning is eliminated, do training providers have

to maintain the 6 to 1 student instructor ratio.

Response: The 6 to 1 student to instructor ratio is specifically for the hands-on portion of the training course. This ratio does not apply to trainings that do not include hands-on learning.

Comment : One commenter disagrees with EPA’s assertion that an online training will make it easier for

renovators who live in remote locations to take th e refresher training. The commenter believes that

renovators do not live in locations so remote that they cannot take a classroom training. The commenter points out that renovators in remote locations must travel to buy supplies and can take a training when they travel to these areas.7 Response: EPA does not believe that all renovators who live far from an RRP training location will not take the training. Rather, these renovators are less likel y to take the training due to the inconvenience of having to travel long distances. To address this, the Ag ency is allowing renovators to take the refresher training online every other time they get certified. EPA does not believe that renovators can simply take their training in the same area where they buy supplies because stores selling renovation supplies are much more prevalent than RRP training providers.

Comment : One comment submitted by a training provider st ated that online training is not suitable for renovators who are not computer literate or those who speak English as a second language. The commenter did not give specific reasons why. A differe nt commenter stated that many contractors in her area do not use technology well or have adequate acce ss to a computer. Another commenter stated that Spanish speaking individuals would be at a disa dvantage because EPA has not created an e-learning model course in Spanish thus requiring Span ish speakers to take a classroom training.

Response: Renovators who are not computer literate or do not have a computer can take the training in a classroom instead of online if they wish. Renovators ar e not required to take the refresher training online. With regard to language, if a training provider belie ves that there are renovators who would benefit from an online training in a language other than English, the trainer may develop a course in that language and submit it to EPA with its application for accreditation.

Comment : An authorized state commented that if EPA removes the hands-on requirement in the refresher course, fees collected by the state w ould be reduced. The state collects fees from stateaccredited training providers for each student trained. If the refresher course is allowed to be taught completely online, then it is possible that training providers from outside of the state will conduct most of the trainings causing a reduction in the fees collected by the state.

Response: EPA does not believe that the rule will lead to a reduction in the number of accredited training providers. Under the final rule, renovators must take a training that includes hands-on learning every other certification. These trainings cannot be taught entirely online. Further, the certification for the online training will be good for only three years whic h will give renovators incentive to take the refresher with hands-on which leads to a longer, five-year certif ication. Thus, training providers that do not teach the online refresher course will still see a significant number of students who will take a classroom training.

Comment : One commenter suggested that EPA review data on the effectiveness of the initial refresher training to determine the impact of the time interval between the initial and refresher trainings in terms of renovator performance on the job. The commenter also suggested that EPA review data on the effectiveness of e-learning courses for teaching s ubject matter such as provisions added to the RRP program for 2011 (e.g. paint chip sampling). The commenter did not provide any data.

Response: At this time, EPA does not have the data discussed by the commenter and therefore will not change the 5-year certification period of the trai ning that includes hands-on learning. EPA chose to shorten the certification period for training without hands-on learning to 3 years to address commenters’ concerns that renovators may not learn as much in this type of training.8 Comment : One commenter stated that if the hands-on re quirement is retained, training providers would be overwhelmed by the large numbe r of renovators that need to be retrained around the same time.

Response: EPA believes that this should not be a concern for two reasons. First, the final rule allows renovators to take the training online and EPA believes many renovators will take advantage of this which will reduce the number of renovators seeking a classr oom training. Second, when EPA extended the certifications of certain renovators, the expirations we re spread out over a year which will spread out the demand for training over that time.

Comment : One commenter claimed that a benefit of an onlin e training is that students can learn at their own pace. Online training allows students review concepts over and over if necessary.

Response: EPA agrees that this is one benefit of online training. Students can view the course at their own pace which cannot be done in a classroom training.

Comment : One commenter contends that paint chip tes ting hands-on exercise in the RRP training takes longer that the time allotted in EPA’s model training course.

Response: EPA understands that not all training provider s will be conduct the hands-on training in the exact time alloted to it in the model training course. If the training provider wants to conduct the hands-on training in less time, it may use more instructors which should result in a faster hands-on training. The hands-on portion of the course can be taught by principal instructors or guest instructors as defined in the regulations at 40 CFR § 745.223.

Comment : One commenter, who feels that paint chip sa mpling should be eliminated from the hands-on activities, claims that the equipment used to cond uct paint chip sampling are sharp and cumbersome, posing a safety risk.

Response: EPA does not believe the equipment used during the hands-on activities poses a risk to students. Many renovators safely use this type of equi pment on the job and would, therefore, be able to use it during the hands-on training. If a student does not know how to use the equipment properly, the

instructor should teach the student how to do so.

Comment : One commenter stated that pre-training notifications for refresher courses taught entirely

online should be submitted as one notice at the time of accreditation.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. The applicati on for accreditation informs the Agency of the training provider’s intent to conduct the online traini ng. Submitting a pre-training notification in addition to the application would not be useful.

Comment : One commenter states that acceptance of online training for the refresher course would send a negative message to renovators that the cour se is not important to the public interest.

Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. One reason th e Agency is modifying the requirements for the refresher course is to get more renovators to take the training leading to a higher number of certified renovators resulting in a workforce better able to perform renovations in a lead-safe manner.9 Economic Analysis

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) stated that the rule was potentially in violation of Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The commenter claims that the proposed rule did not mention Executiv e Order 13045. According to the commenter, this is a covered regulation because lead paint creates a disp roportionate risk to children. The commenter also

claims that the rule is economica lly significant, with an impact well above $100 million per year. The commenter estimates the impact at $50 billion.

Response : The commenter’s statement that the proposed rule did not mention Executive Order 13045 is

inaccurate. EPA addressed Executive Order 13045 in the Federal Register at 80 FR 1879, stating that:

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and because EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required

under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it would not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks.

EPA reiterates that this rulemaking does not establis h an environmental standard intended to mitigate health or safety risks. These amendments do not ch ange the work practice requirements under the RRP program. Furthermore, renovators must still take refresh er training, and under the final rule they must take refresher training with a hands-on component every othe r training cycle. Therefore, the RRP program will continue to protect children from exposure to lead.

Finally, this action is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. The impact is well below $100 million per year, as demonstrated in EPA ’s Economic Analysis, which was placed in the docket and summarized in the Federal Register notice. EPA addresses the commenter’s claim that the rule has $50 billion in impacts elsewhere in this response to comments document.

The commenter’s claim are incorrect, and EPA’s actio ns with respect to this rule did not violate

Executive Order 13045.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) disagreed with EPA’s conclusion that the rule would not have a direct negative impact on any small entities. While it would relieve regulatory burden for many small renovation firms, the rule will negatively affect many small training providers nationally and potentially put them out of the training business.

Response: EPA disagrees with this commenter’s claim that the rule will have direct negative impacts on many training providers that will potentially put them out of business. The rule requires training providers to include the expiration date of the renovator’s certif ication in the post-training notification, but the time required to do this is negligible. The rule also clar ifies the requirements for post-training notifications for in-person training courses. Training providers are alre ady required to submit post-training notifications for renovator training. The rule’s correction to the regula tory text (clarifying that the notifications must be submitted no later than ten business days following cour se completion) may affect the timing of when the notifications are submitted, but not the cost of comp liance. Lastly, the rule a dds clarifying language explaining that training providers must follow the regul ations. This does not affect the cost of compliance10 because it does not change any requirements for accred ited training providers, and the analysis assumes that training providers already comply with the re gulations. These changes to the rule will not create a significant impact on training providers.

Any hypothetical impact experienced by training providers that do not offer online training would be indirect because it would not be due to a regulatory requirement – it would be due to loss of business to other firms that take advantage of the opportunities un der the amendments to compete more effectively in the marketplace.

Only rules that will have a direct significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that are subject to the rule require an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) or Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRF A). The purpose of both analyses is to identify adverse impacts on small entities subject to the rule, and to discuss regulatory alternatives that minimize significant economic impacts on small entities (see 5 U.S.C. section 603-604). 1

The determinative question is which firms are subj ect to the requirements of a proposed or final rulemaking. If a small entity will have compliance obliga tions imposed on it directly by the rule, then the small entity is subject to the requirements of the rule and the impacts of these requirements on such entities would be included in a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis. If a small entity does not have a compliance obligation imposed on it directly by the rule, it would not be included in an RFA analysis.

The commenter was objecting to the proposed revi sion to the hands-on requirement for renovator refresher training. Neither the proposed rule nor the final rule require training providers to offer online training. Training providers can continue offering in-person training including a hands-on component, as they have in the past. Although training providers that voluntarily choose to offer online refresher training are subject to certain requirements (such as becomi ng accredited to teach an online course and submitting training notifications to EPA via CDX), the rule amen dments do not mandate that training providers offer online training.

The commenter appears to misunderstand the terminol ogy in the RFA. In the context of the RFA, an entity is "directly" impacted by an EPA regulation when that entity will have obligations imposed on it directly by the rule and will be liable to Federal enforcement if it does not co mply. That is not the case here. Because training providers are not required to offer online training, any impacts of allowing onlineonly training are by definition indirect. The commenter appears to believe it will incur indirect negative impacts as a result of this action because some of its potential customers may choose to receive refresher training from other competing training providers.

While the commenter states that small training provide rs may potentially go out of the training business,

this same commenter submitted data that undermines its claim. The commenter variously stated that 57% of renovators who responded to a survey it conducte d would like a live class, and 98% do not want a computer-based class. 2 If this is true, then many renovators w ill continue to take in-person refresher

1 According to section 603(b)(4) and section 604(a)(4), th ese analyses shall contain “a description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the ... rule, including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement and th e type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record” (emphasis added).

2 For example, the commenter stated th at “More than half of the students b lindly surveyed (57.4% see attached) specifically stated they would like a liv e class with interactive instructor discussion”, “Ninety Eight (98%) percent of the trades DO NOT WANT OR LIKE A computer based class, but to the contrary, 57.4% of those blindly surveyed (1000 surveys were sent, thos e received attached) want a LIVE instructor and resource!” “Since we provide both webinar based training and live instruction, I wanted to share a situation that literally occurred two11 classes even if they have the option of taking online tr aining. That calls into question that magnitude of indirect impacts for any training providers that do not wish to offer online training.

Under the final rule, renovators will have to take re fresher training with a hands-on component at least every other training cycle. Based on statements su ch as the comments noted above, EPA assumes that

some renovators will take a class with a hands-on co mponent every time they are trained. EPA estimates that 43,000 to 55,000 renovators per year will take in-person refresher training. Furthermore, EPA estimates that 30,000 new renovators entering the industr y each year will take initial training, which also includes a hands-on component. These 73,000 to 85,000 re novators will continue to provide business for training providers that offer in-person training. There will also be an estimated 25,000 to 44,000 renovators per year taking online refresher training. Currently accredited training providers have the option of becoming accredited for an online refresher trai ning course if they wish to compete for part of

this market.

Training providers such as the commenter may or may not incur indirect negative impacts, depending on the business decisions that they make. But the magn itude of potential indirect impacts are not only speculative, they are not part of EPA’s determination under the RFA of whether there is a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Re vising the requirements to allow renovators to take refresher training without a hands-on component every other training cycle does not impose new mandatory obligations on training providers such as the commenter b ecause these training providers are not required to offer online courses. Therefore, any potential indirect impact s on training providers from these amendments are outside the scope of EPA’s RFA determination.

Online training has always been allowed under the RRP program for the classroom portion of the course, although relatively few training provide rs have chosen to offer it thus far. Those training providers that only offer in-person training have made a choice not to enter the online market. Revising the requirements for the hands-on component of the refresher training allows an additional option for how the training is presented. EPA is not restricting the training that will be accredited, as in-person training will still be allowed. Training providers still have the choice of whet her to offer in-person training, online training, or both. The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is i ndeed to create flexibility in regulations, and this rulemaking amendment does just that. The fact that so me training providers feel they will be outcompeted

in the market does not mean that this action violat es the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

It is EPA's policy to make an assessment of the rule ’s direct adverse impact on any small entities, and to minimize the impact of the rule on small entities to th e extent feasible while remaining consistent with applicable statutory requirements. While EPA has concluded that this rulemaking does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small en tities, EPA has still taken steps to minimize adverse impacts on training providers, including removing the re quirement for pre-training notifications for online training courses, reducing the frequency of post-traini ng notifications for online training courses, and not charging an accreditation fee for training providers that qualify for the expe dited approval process for online training courses.

weeks ago. A student was registered to take the web based Training course, when he arrived and saw the course was going to be presented on a computer, he unhappily stated, he thought our class was live and did NOT want to take a computer based class and expected, wanted and learned better from a live class. Fortunately, we had a live class on the same subject the next day, so he returned and took the live class and all were happy.”12 Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) stated that EPA’s est imate of 9 million dollars in savings to the regulated entities clearly does not reflect any economic loss to those small business who were going to provide the training.

Response : EPA disagrees that revising the requirements for training providers will necessarily cause economic losses to training providers. However, even if some renovators choose to receive refresher training from other competing training providers, th is would not result in net economic losses from the social cost perspective of a benefit cost analysis, sin ce the loss to one firm would be offset by the gain to another firm. Furthermore, any competing firms that gain business may also be small businesses. 3

Comment: Commenter 0304-0049 stated that an online Refr esher Course, which could be provided by a single entity, would negate the investments in staff, facilities and materials that the certified trainers have made in support of the EPA RRP Program. This along w ith the potential loss of employment by trainers goes against EPA’s assertion that there will be no impact on small business.

Response: Contrary to the commenter 0304-0049’s claim, EPA did not assert that there will be no impact on small businesses due to the rule. In fact, in the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule, EPA acknowledged that “Individual trai ning providers offering RRP training courses could be negatively impacted by the proposed rule if (1) their profit marg ins are lower for the e-learning course, or (2) they lose market share with the introduction of the e-learning course.”

The commenter is alluding to potential indirect imp acts on training providers because the rule allows some refresher training to be taken without a ha nds-on component. As explained in the response to another comment, these do not qualify as direct adverse impacts for purposes of EPA’s RFA determination. Therefore, EPA is certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the provisions of the RFA.

EPA addresses elsewhere in this response to comments document the claims that the rule may result in a single entity providing all training, and that the rule will result in a loss of training providers’ investments.

Comment: Commenter #0304-0060 states that the EPA’s cost analysis for this decision does not seem to include the cost of illness. EPA’s reason for changi ng the regulation appears to be a $10 million annual cost savings to the industry. The EPA’s analysis, however, does not address the cost-benefit to the general public who would suffer even more economic loss at th e hands of a poorly-trained RRP work force. The

Centers for Disease Control links even low levels of lead childhood exposure to an increased risk of ADHD, this has been reinforced by several other studies. According to Pelham, Foster, and Robb, the annual cost of illness for a single child with ADHD is $14,576.00, or about $1. 0 million in a lifetime. (“The Economic Impact of Attention-Deficit/Hyper activity Disorder in Children and Adolescents,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology, vol.32, no. 6, 2007, pp. 711-727). The EPA numbers also appear to ignore the psychological and social costs that go alon g with having children and adults sickened by lead poisoning.

Response: EPA’s economic analysis does not include an estimate of a cost of illness for ADHD or any health effects because EPA disagrees that the rule will increase the pr evalence of these adverse health effects. Neither this nor any other commenter has provi ded evidence to demonstrate that blood-lead levels

3 For example, of the 18 training providers accredited for online RRP training prior to the finalization of the rule amendments, there was a single firm that could clearly be identified as a large business, and it is a window and door manufacturer that appears to offering the training solely to its own employees.13 will increase as a result of this rule. EPA does not be lieve that the amendments will result in a poorlytrained RRP work force. Renovators will still be require d to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands-on component; they will still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training will have to include a hands-on component every other traini ng cycle; refresher training without a hands-on component will only be valid for three years; and re novators will still have to comply with the work practice requirements in the regulation.

Finally, the Pelham, Foster, and Robb study cited by the commenter does not estimate a lifetime cost of $1 million per child. While the Pelham, Foster, and Robb study estimated that the annual cost of illness for a single child with ADHD is $14,576, the study did not derive a lifetime value. In fact, the authors stated that “For this study, our time frame is ch ildhood and adolescence. We do not capture the costs of ADHD extending into adulthood.” The commenter app ears to have derived the $1.0 million value by multiplying the annual childhood and adolescence cost of $14 ,576 by a 68 year lifespan. If this is indeed what the commenter did, that is an inappropriate cal culation. The Pelham et al. annual cost estimate is comprised of $2,636 for health and mental health services (pharmacological treatment, psychosocial mental health treatments, etc.); $4,900 for educati on (i.e., special educational services provided in schools for children kindergarten through grade 12); and $7,040 for crime and delinquency. The $4,900 in additional classroom education costs is not applicab le to individuals outside of kindergarten through grade 12. And most of the $7,040 crime and delinquency cost is due to an estimate of $6,600 for the cost to victims of crimes committed by 14- to 17-year olds . It is not appropriate to apply this to very young children, such as kindergarteners, as they are not co mmitting such crimes. Therefore, the $14,576 annual cost should not be applied to an individual’s entire lifetime, and the Pelham et al. study does not indicate that the lifetime cost of a child with ADHD is $1.0 million.

Comment : Several commenters disagreed with the assump tion in EPA’s Economic Analysis that 98% of renovators would take the online training if the hand s-on requirement is removed. One training provider (0304-0113) surveyed students who took its RRP training course; 31 of 43 respondents (57%) indicated that they learned the most through live instructiona l interactive training with hands-on exercises, leading the commenter to assert that 57% of renovators would pr efer to take a course in person. Another training provider (0304-0094) stated that many individu als enjoy coming to class and having a face-to-face interaction with their peers and instructors where th ey are able to participate in group discussions, and receive clarifications on confusing requirements. This commenter felt that even if the class was offered online, more than 2% of individuals would take th e course in person. Yet another commenter (0304-0053) stated that only a few renovators would opt for e-tr aining due to language, educational, accessibility and computer intimidation factors. A different training provider (0304-0140) stated that approximately 90% of the students will opt for the online training. Ye t another commenter (0304-0053) questioned whether EPA’s 98% assumption was supported by any empirical data, and (although not totally analogous), asked whether EPA knows how many renovators received initial RRP training via e-learning.

Response: EPA’s 98% assumption in the analysis of the proposed rule was not based on any empirical data. The number was an assumption, chosen because ma ny renovators would likely take online refresher training if the hands-on requirement were rem oved, but the number would be less than 100%.

The number of renovators that received their initial tr aining via e-learning is not indicative of the number that may be expected to take the refresher traini ng online after the hands-on requirement is revised. The baseline e-learning rate would not provide useful in formation about the post-rule adoption of e-learning

because there is a fundamental difference between the co st of taking an initial course online compared to taking refresher training online under the amended rule. Since the initial course includes hands-on training, renovators incur costs to travel to the traini ng site whether they take the classroom component in person or online. Given that most training provid ers offering online classes in the baseline charge the14 same tuition as they do for their in -person classes, there is not a particularly large financial incentive for renovators to take their training online wh en the hands-on component is required.

By contrast, renovators could avoid these travel costs as a result of the changes to the refresher training requirements. The savings in travel costs averag e $144 per student. Because renovators do not accrue these travel cost savings if they take an e-learning ve rsion of the initial training, there is little financial incentive for them to take that training online. EPA’s rule allows renovators to avoid these travel costs for some of their refresher training, so more renovators can be expected to take online refresher training when they are eligible to do so.

Given that commenters differed as to whether the number of students that would continue to take training in person would be more than 2%, 10%, 57%, or all but a few, EPA has revised its economic analysis to

consider several different scenarios for the number of renovators assumed to take refresher training online after revisions to the hands-on requirement. Specifi cally, the analysis includes separate scenarios assuming that 50%, 75%, and 90% of the students will opt for the online refresher training when they are eligible to take it. That means that under these scen arios, 10%, 25%, or 50% of students are assumed to take all of their refresher training in person. Even renovato rs taking an online course will have to take a hands-on class every other training cycle.

Comment : Several commenters provided their estimates of the cost savings per student that would result from removing the hands on training requirement. One training provider (0304-0113) stated that the tuition for a live course is $120 and claimed that the tuition for an online course would be $80. This same commenter also stated that expenses needed to travel to a training site would be $10 for gas, tolls, and parking.

Another training provider (0304-0062) estimated that the cost for the online refresher class would be

similar to the standard refresher class ($150 to $250). This same co mmenter stated that removing the hands-on training requirement would reduce the cost of in-person refresher training by eliminating the need for disposable supplies such as test kits, wip es, gloves, paper-format student manual, and other supplies, costing approximately $15-$20 per student; the costs would be saved by the training provider

and could lower student tuition. This commenter also noted that online trainers would save by eliminating costs of physical facilities (rent, lease, own) necess ary to provide in-person training. This commenter

stated that the costs for trainers to access and provide an accredited online training program are unknown, but they anticipate that the costs to supply, staff and manage an online program would be less than the costs for an in-person training program. This co mmenter also noted that removing the hands-on requirement would reduce travel costs for students. The commenter estimated that students traveling 50 miles each way to the training would save $165 in travel costs, while students traveling 300 miles would save $760 in travel costs and lodging.

Yet another training provider (0304-0094) stated that tr aining providers would incur an additional cost to create and/or outsource an infrastructure to provide online training, and that the additional cost would more than likely be passed on to the renovator. Th e commenter anticipates this additional cost to be approximately 20-30% in addition to the current co st of the course which ranges from $100-$175. This estimate assumes that an instructor would still be requir ed to be a part of the training course. If the need for an instructor is eliminated altogether, this est imate could change and lessen or remove the additional

cost burden.

And another training provider (0304-0140) stated that EPA under-estimated the drop in price for online training, and estimated that the price will drop to th e $30 - $40 range. According to the commenter, there is a significant level of effort and expense required for developing online training, and very few existing

trainers will have the know-how and cash available to create online training. According to the commenter,15 the low price point creates a barrier to entry into this new online training market for any existing environmental training companies.

A commenter representing renovators (0304-0136) clai med that the savings could be substantial. According to the commenter, estimated costs to obtai n certification for a remodeler are at least $300 and at least $550 for a painter or painter/remodeler. Initia l courses are $300 to $500. The refresher course is a four-hour course every five years. Ho wever, in reality, if the employee has to travel to a location, it will end up as a full “lost work day.” The employer is requ ired to pay every employee for the day they spend at the course. Most of these employees are paid $30 to $40 an hour.

Response: The commenters provided diverse opinions about the costs of training and the savings that

would result from the minor amendments rule. Based on the data it has collected, EPA agrees with some of these comments and disagrees with others.

The training cost estimates provided by commenter 0304-0113 equate to a cost savings of $40 from allowing online courses ($120 - $80 = $40). EPA agrees that the cost savings per individual may be roughly of this magnitude. Based on an initial sample of training provider tuition data, EPA’s estimate for the proposed rule was that the savings would be $36 .97. For the final rule, EPA expanded the sample size of the tuition data, and re-estimated the savings to be $45.36. Therefore, the commenter’s estimate of the savings per student for the classroom portion of the training is in the same range as EPA’s estimate.

EPA disagrees with the estimate by commenter 0304- 0062 that the cost for the online refresher class

would be similar to the standard refresher class. As this same commenter stated, removing the hands-on training requirement would reduce the cost of in-per son refresher training by eliminating the need for disposable supplies such as test kits, wipes, gloves, paper-format student manual, and other supplies; the costs would be saved by the training provider and some portion of these savings may be passed along to

students in the form of lower tuition. As this comme nter also noted, online trainers would save money by eliminating costs of physical facilities (rent, lease, own) necessary to provide in-person training. That is why this commenter anticipated that the costs to supply, staff and manage an online program would be less than the costs for an in-person training program . EPA believes that these very reasons demonstrate why the costs for an online course may be similar to those for an in-person class.

EPA disagrees with the statement by commenter 030 4-0094 that online training would increase the cost of training by 20-30%. Training providers offering the classroom component both in person and online tend to charge the same tuition for both types of courses, suggesting that the cost of offering both types is similar. Training providers are not required to offer online courses as a webinar taught by a live instructor. So EPA agrees with this commenter’s st atement that the cost savings from not having a live

instructor could offset the additional cost to creat e and/or outsource an infrastructure to provide online training.

EPA notes that some commenters (including 0304- 0035, -0062, and -0127) supported removing the hands-on refresher training requirement, since they beli eved it reduces the cost of providing the training.

EPA based its cost estimates on the price of tuition for existing RRP training classes. The available data indicates that the cost of training is generally the same regardless of whether the classroom component is provided in-person or online. So EPA has not assumed that the price of tuition will drop to the $30 to $40 range suggested by commenter 0304-0140. EPA is aw are of one training provider (Public Health and Safety, Inc.) offering the classroom component of re fresher training (the current 3 hours of classroom training) online for $25, which is $8.33 per hour. This is equivalent to EPA’s estimate that the cost of the classroom component is $8.67 per hour. And the same tr aining provider is offering the 1 hour hands-on16 component for $100, which is only slightly less than th e sum of EPA’s estimate that the cost of hands-on training is $54.04 per hour and the additional fixed co st of offering a training class is $56.93 (yielding a total of $110.97). In this case, the training provider ap pears to be recouping all of its fixed costs through the hands-on component rather recovering some or a ll of it through the tuition for the online component. This training provider charges $25 for the online co mponent and $100 for the hands-on component, which is identical to the $125 this same training provider charges for an in-person refresher class containing both the classroom and hands-on components. This is fu rther validation for EPA’s assumption that training providers tend to charge the same amount for in-person and online classroom training.

EPA provides model online refresher renovator training, which decreases the cost of developing such a course. Furthermore, training providers can license an online course without having to develop the course themselves. (EPA is aware of one firm that licenses tr aining providers with an online refresher course at a cost of $49.95 per student.) So EPA does not agree with commenter 0304-0140 that the price of online training will create a barrier to entry that will prevent existing environmental training companies from offering online training.

For some students (located relatively close to a training site), the direct cost incu rred to travel to an inperson training can be on the order of $10 for gas, tolls, and parking claimed by commenter 0304-0113, although EPA notes that this commenter did not include the cost of the time that students spend traveling.

But for some students in remote rural areas that trav el long distances to training, the estimate of $760 in travel costs made by commenter 0304-0062 may be va lid. However, EPA believes that neither of these estimates represents a typical cost of travel. The estimate by commenter 0304-0062 that some students would travel 50 miles each way to training at a cost of $165 is closer to a typical value, and it is very similar to the value EPA is using its analysis. (In the analysis of the final rule, EPA estimated the average

travel distance to be 39 miles each wa y at a total average cost of $144.)

Some of the cost estimates made by commenter 0304- 0136 are supported by independent data and some are not. EPA’s economic analysis for the proposed rule used mean wage data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of $31.12 per hour, which is at the lower end of the $30 to $40 per hours range claimed by the

commenter. That commenter’s allusion to certification costs appear to represent the fees that EPA charges to certify firms. The cost of firm certification in the RRP program is $300. The commenter’s reference to a certification cost of $550 appears to be referring to the cost of certification in the lead-based paint activities program (which is required to conduct abatem ents), or a joint certification in the RRP program and the lead-based paint activities program (which repr esents a savings compared to the cost of the two individual certifications). However, the abatement fee is not germane to this rulemaking. Moreover, the number of certified lead-based paint activity firms is an order of magnitude less than the number of RRP firms, and not all abatement firms ha ve a dual certification. So the $550 applies to a small subset of RRP firms, and it is not dependent on whether the renovator is a painter or a remodeler. Whether the applicable certification fee is $300 or $550, the certification cost is applicable to the entire firm not each renovator, and it is irrelevant to the cost savings due to revi sing the hands-on requirements for refresher training. The cost of initial training is also irrelevant to revisions to the refresher training requirements. Furthermore, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s claim that the cost of an initial course is $300 to $500. As described in the Economic Analysis for the final rule, EPA re viewed the tuition data for a sample of 138 initial courses where the tuition data was available online, and found that tuition averaged $217. (Tuition for a sample of 97 refresher courses averaged only $137.) Th erefore, the commenter is significantly overstating the typical cost of training.

Comment: Commenter #0304-0022 stated that on-line learning costs have historically been comparable to in person training.17 Response: EPA is not assuming that it costs less to offer the classroom portion of the training (i.e., the portion that is not hands-on) online instead of in-perso n. In fact, EPA is assuming that the cost for online

classroom courses will be the same as in-person classroom courses, based on tuition data from several training providers offering both in-person and on line classroom courses for renovator training. The estimated cost savings result from revising the ha nds-on requirement because training providers would save money on materials and supplies. The assumption is supported in statements by commenter #0304- 0062 (that removing the hands-on training requirement w ould reduce the cost of disposable supplies such as test kits, wipes, gloves, paper-format student manual, and other supplies) and commenter #0304-0035 (that the hands-on portion greatly increases the cost to run a class by requiring extra instructors and costly materials). Therefore, EPA continues to account for a cost saving for revising the hands-on requirement.

While EPA assumes the same cost for online and in-person classroom training, there may be less incentive for training providers to offer an online option – or for renovators to take advantage of it – if hands-on training is always required. If the renovator and/or the instructor are traveling to the training site for the hands-on portion, they are incurring the travel costs whether or not the classroom portion is taken in-person or online. By revising the hands-on requireme nt travel costs are eliminated for those training cycles where the renovator chooses to take the entire refresher course online. This makes online training more attractive to both the renovator and the training provider.

Comment: Several commenters (0304-0143, 0304-0046) disagre ed that contractors have to travel long distances to take a classroom course, and noted that th ey and other training provid ers offer the training in

various locations in order to minimi ze contractor traveling expenses.

Response: EPA agrees that there are numerous training prov iders that offer traveling training, which does

reduce the distance that students have to travel to ta ke the training. Nonetheless, there are still renovators who are distant from even these traveling training sites, or who cannot attend traveling training on the

dates when it is offered near them. EPA believes that the opportunity to take some cycles of the training entirely online will be particularly beneficial to such renovators.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) submitted what it termed a very amateurish cost savings/expense spreadsheet. To estimate cost sav ings from the rule, the commenter assumed that 500,000 certified renovators will be tr ained in 2015-2016. The commenter also assumed that in-person refresher training with a hands-on component costs $120 per person, and that online refresher training would cost $50 per person. Thus, online training is es timated to save $70 per renovator. When this $70 in savings is combined with the assumption that 50 0,000 renovators will be trained, the commenter estimated that the total cost savings due to the proposed rule would be $35 million.

The commenter claimed that the pr oposed rule would result in a multi- billion dollar current and long-term expense to the country. According to the commenter, th ere are 500,000 children with a blood lead level at

or above the CDC reference level. The commenter assumes that the number of children above the CDC

reference level will increase 20% due to EPA’s rule. A nd based on a paper on the benefits of lead hazard control, the commenter asserts that the cost of a ch ild with a blood lead level above the CDC reference level is $500,000. Thus the commenter claims that the rule will potentially cost taxpayers $50 billion.

Response: EPA disagrees with the estimates that the commenter made, which the commenter itself characterized as very amateurish. A few of the flaws in the commenter’s analysis are discussed below.

The commenter’s cost savings estimate is incomplete since it only accounts for the savings in the cost of offering a class, and does not address any savings in tr avel costs, which are a significant portion of the18 total savings. In fact, EPA’s analysis indicates that the average savings in travel cost is significantly larger than the average savings in the cost of the class itself. Furthermor e, the commenter’s estimates appear to be based solely on opinion. By contrast, EPA’s estim ates of the unit costs of in-person training, online training, and travel are based on samples of data about actual renovators and RRP training courses.

EPA notes that elsewhere in its comme nts, the commenter stated that an online course would cost $80, for a savings of $40 compared to an in-person class cos ting $120. So the commenter is inconsistent in its

claims about the costs and sav ings from an online course.

EPA disagrees with the commenter’s assumption that th e number of children with blood lead levels above the CDC reference level will increase by 20% due to this rule. Renovators will still be required to take an 8 hour initial training, that includes a hands-on compone nt; they will still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training will have to include a hands-on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands- on component will only be valid for three years; and renovators will still have to comply with the work practice requi rements in the regulation. The commenter has not demonstrated that there will be any increase in the numb er of children with blood lead levels at or above the CDC reference level, much less a 20% increase.

The study the commenter cites for the benefits of l ead control was published in 2009, prior to April 2010 date when the RRP rule required renovators to be tr ained and to follow work practices that contain and control lead dust from renovations. So the study did not reflect any of the protection offered to children by the RRP program. The commenter’s baseline estimate could only be correct if the RRP program had no effect on reducing blood lead levels or the number of children with elevated blood lead levels. EPA

does not believe that to be the case.

To put the commenters claims about the health imp acts of the rulemaking into context, EPA’s Economic Analysis for the 2008 RRP rule estimated the quantif ied benefits of reducing lead exposure to children under the age of 6 to be $681 million to $1,670 m illion per year using a 3% discount rate, and $725 million to $1,778 million per year using a 7% discountrate. EPA’s Economic Analysis for the 2010 Optout rule estimated the quantified be nefits for children under the age of 6 to be $90.5 million to $315.6 million per year using a 3% disc ount rate, and $96.3 million to $3 35.9 million per year using a 7% discount rate. Thus, EPA’s combined estimated of th e quantified benefits to children 6 and under is as high as $1,986 million per year using a 3% discount ra te, or $2,114 million per y ear using a 7% discount rate. These benefits represent additional lifetime ea rnings from avoiding IQ loss in children. EPA agrees that the RRP program generates additional unquantified benefits to children (and individuals over the age of 6) aside from the lifetime earnings value from avoi ded IQ loss. But for the commenter’s estimate of $50 billion in impacts from children under the age of 6 to be correct, the benefit of the hands-on refresher training component alone would have to be 25 times higher than EPA’s quantified estimates of the benefits of the entire RRP program, including cl assroom training, hands-on training, certification, restricted and prohibited practices , containment, cleaning, and cleaning verification. EPA does not consider this to be likely.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) stated that EPA’s economic analysis should incorporate various additional costs, including litigation costs for c ontractors performing renovation work, insurance costs due to increased litigation, costs for Department of health ( sic ) programs addressing children with blood lead levels of 5 ug/dL and above, the lifetime costs for these children (which the commenter claims is $1 million), costs to training providers and the construction trades, and employment in the training industry.

Response: EPA does not agree that it should revise its economic analysis as suggested by the commenter. The commenter did not provide any evidence to support the assertion that there will be increased19 litigation against contractors as a result of the rule . EPA notes that when it promulgated the 2008 RRP rule and the 2010 Opt-out rule, there were also cl aims from the construction industry that those rules would increase the level of litigation. That is, claims have been made that litigation will increase when EPA has imposed new regulatory requirements and now when it creates additional flexibility in the requirements. In none of these cases have commenter s demonstrated an actual change in the level of litigation. In fact, in another portion of its comments, the same commenter stated that lawyers say that homeowners are not suing contractors for leaving l ead hazards behind. The commenter has provided no factual basis to support its claim that litigation will in crease due to this rule. Furthermore, from a benefitcost perspective, litigation awards represent a tr ansfer, not a cost. EPA disagrees that its economic analysis should incorporate costs for a hypot hetical and unlikely increase in litigation.

Furthermore, renovators who believes that taking a refresher course without a hands-on training course would increase their risk of litigation are free to take hands-on training every tim e they take refresher training, thus avoiding such a perceived risk. And training providers (such as the commenter) who believe that hands-on training should be taken every training cycle are free to advertise and promote their courses on that basis. EPA disagrees with the commenter’s presumption about the effect of online training on litigation risk. If the commenter were correct, it would be in renovators’ self-interest to always take a course with hands-on training, and under the rule they retain the freedom to do so. If renovators choose to take an online course, then they obviously do not ag ree with the commenter’s claims about litigation risk.

Similarly, the commenter has not provided any evidence to support the assertion that there will be

increased insurance costs. Given that the commenter has not demonstrated that litigation is likely to increase as a result of the rule, there is no reason to co nclude that insurance costs will increase. Moreover, insurance payments are a transfer, not a social cost, so it would not be appropriate to include them in the

cost estimate even if the commenter had demonstrated that the rule would affect insurance markets. And the commenter’s suggestion to include litigation and insurance as costs would double count those transfers, since insurance premiums pay for litigatio n. EPA disagrees that it should include changes in

costs for insurance in its econom ic analysis for this rule.

Renovators are still required to take an 8 hour initia l training that includes a hands-on component; they still have to take regular refresher training; the re fresher training has to include a hands-on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands-on component is only valid for three years; and renovators still have to comply with the work pr actice requirements in the regulation. The commenter has not demonstrated that the rule will negatively aff ect children or increase the number of children with blood lead levels above 5 ug/dL. Neither this nor any other commenter has provided evidence to

demonstrate that blood-lead levels will increase as a result of this rule.

Given this, EPA disagrees with the commenter’s sugg estion that its economic analysis should include costs for Department of Health programs addressing children with blood lead levels of 5 ug/dL and above, or the lifetime costs for these children. EPA no tes that the lifetime costs the commenter cited for

children with elevated blood lead levels include hea lth care costs, so that the commenter’s suggestion to

include both lifetime costs and health car e costs would double-count the latter.

EPA disagrees that its benefit-cost analysis should in clude additional cost estimates for training providers. The rule does not require training providers to offer online training. Training providers that decide to offer online training may incur some additional costs (such as developing or licensing online training, obtaining an additional accreditation, and paying addi tional web hosting fees.) However, they will also incur savings due to decreases in costs such as suppl ies for the hands-on component, staff time, facility rental, and travel for trainers. Training providers will only choose to offer online training if they believe that their savings outweigh their additional costs, or if they can recover any additional costs through tuition increases or other means. Counting the number of jobs lost or gained in a particular firm as a result20 of a regulation has no meaning in the context of a benefits cost analysis. If some training providers increase their market share or employment at the expe nse of their competitors, this represents a transfer not a social cost, and there would not be a long term net loss to the economy.

EPA’s economic analysis already reflect the impact of the rule on the construction trades, and the result was an estimate that these firms would save money as a result of the rule. EPA does not believe that

further revisions to its estimates are warranted based on these comments.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) stated that it sees no savings due to eliminating the hands-on requirement. The commenter stated that it is highly confident that the regulated entities as a whole will not be 100% compliant with the rule; that it is conf ident that 30% or greater of disturbed painted surfaces will have dust lead levels of greater than 40ug/ft2; an d that based on the new CD C new reference value of 5ug/dl, substantially more children will be identified as exceeding the reference value. Accordingly, more children will be identified as having an elevated blood l ead level, which has a substantial cost to society. The commenter also claims that litigation is on the rise. According to the co mmenter, lawyers say that homeowners are not suing shoddy contractors who leave lead dust hazards behind because they cannot get a substantial amount of money from contractors fo r leaving lead dust hazards behind. However, now that the CDC has revised its reference value, the co mmenter assumes with confidence that a substantially larger population of kids will be identified with blood leads of equal to or greater than 5ug/dl and now there is a personal injury claim that has the potentia l for “significant litigation” against the contractor who performed the work. If the contractor is not 100% co mpliant (and few are in the commenter’s experience), they will be found guilty in most cases and have to pay substantial settlements or awards. The commenter asks whether any of this litigation co st, insurance cost, time cost, travel cost, aggravation cost, etc. was considered by EPA when formulating their 9 million do llar savings versus a billion dollars in expense and costs to the country for the regulated entities failure to potentially comply.

Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. As described elsewhere in this document, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to include litigation cost or insurance cost in its anal ysis. The commenter does not offer any factual support for the contention that litigation is currently on the rise, or that litigation will increase further if the refresher training requirement is revised. The commenter’s assertions in this regard are undercut by its own statement that lawyers say that homeowners do not sue contractors for leaving

behind dust hazards.

EPA’s analysis already includes changes in time cost and travel cost, which result in much of the estimated savings generated by the rule. The comment er does not provide details on what costs it foresees due to aggravation, and EPA sees no reason to revise its analysis on this account.

As described in more detail in the response to another comment, the information submitted by the commenter does not demonstrate that 30% or greater of disturbed painted surfaces will have dust lead levels of greater than 40ug/ft2 as a result of this ru le. Renovators are still required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands-on component; they stil l have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training has to include a hands-on compone nt every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands-on component is only valid for three y ears; and renovators still have to comply with the work practice requirements in the regulation.

The CDC reference value (5 micrograms per deciliter) is intended to identify children with blood lead levels that are much higher than most children’s leve ls. This new level is based on the U.S. population of children ages 1-5 years who are in the highest 2.5% of children when tested for lead in their blood. This reference value is based on the 97.5th percentile of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)’s blood lead distribution in children. Pr eviously, children were identified as having a blood21 lead “level of concern” if the test result was 10 or more micrograms per deciliter of lead in blood. Setting the reference level at 5 micrograms per deciliter does not mean that more children are suffering negative health effects from lead exposure than when the leve l was 10 or more micrograms per deciliter, or that cost to society of these blood lead levels w ill increase (as the commenter seems to imply).

In fact, children’s blood lead levels have been decreasing over time. For example, according to NHANES data from 2009 to 2010, the geometric mean blood lead level for children ages 1 to 5 was 1.17 ug/dL, and

the 95 th percentile level was 3.37 ug/dL. According to the 2011 to 2012 NHANES data, the geometric mean was 0.970 ug/dL, and the 95 th percentile was 2.91 ug/dL.

The commenter has not justified its statement that th e rule will result in a billion dollars in expenses and costs to the country, and EPA does not agree with the commenter’s claims.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) claimed that it w as providing real data to support a proper economic potential outcome, not “presumed” data, th e very well documented and researched Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Soci al and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control (3/31/09 P. 7) clearly states; “The net benefit of lead hazard control ranges from $181 to $269 billion, resulting in a return of $17–$221 for each dollar invested in lead hazard control. ..... This leads to a net benefit ranging from $124 to $188 billion, resulting in a return of $12–$155 for each dollar invested in lead paint hazard control”. According to the commenter , this document and others continue with the cost

of a child with an EBL over a lifetime which can be millions, while EPA’s 9 million dollars in

‐ accurately calculated savings to the regulated entities clearly does not reflect the cost to society and families of blood lead levels greater than 5ug/dl (CDC Reference valu e) which has been estimated at $1,000,000 per child

over a lifetime. The commenter said that EPA’s mandate that refresher courses have hands

‐ on was prior to CDC lowering its reference value which should only raise the importance of Paint assessment and Cleaning verification/clearance and the need for hands

‐ on! The commenter requested that EPA incorporate into the economic analysis Department of health ( sic ) programs time and expense addressing 5ug/dl and above, and most importantly, the cost of $1,000,000 per lifetime on average for approximately 1:53 (CDC children > Reference value) child ren under 6 (Census 26 million kids under 6).

Response: EPA does not agree that its economic analysis should be revised based on the comment. Neither this nor any other commenter has provided evidence to demonstrate that children’s blood-lead

levels will increase as a result of this rule. Renovators are still required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands-on component; they still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training has to include a hands-on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands-on component is only valid for three years; a nd renovators still have to comply with the work practice requirements in the regulation. The commenter has not demonstrated that the rule will negatively

affect children or increase the number of childre n with blood lead levels above 5 ug/dL.

The 2009 article cited by the commenter (Elise Gould, Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Economic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control , Environmental Health Perspectives, 2009) was published prior to the date that the training and work practice requirements in the RRP rule became mandatory. Data from the CDC indicat es that the average blood lead level in children

has decreased since then. So the ar ticle does not reflect the advances that have been made in protecting children from exposure to lead-based paint since 2009.

EPA notes that the commenter’s claim that the cost to society and families of blood lead levels greater than the CDC Reference value of 5ug/dl is $1,000,000 per child is not supported by the information that the commenter provided. The 2009 Gould article estimat ed that the benefits of lead control range from $192.38 billion to $270.45 billion. The commenter stat es that there are 26 million children under the age22 of 6, and that 1 out of 53 of them exceed the CDC re ference value. This is equi valent to 491,000 children. Assuming that all of the $192.38 billion to $270.45 bi llion in benefits are due to the 491,000 children that were above the CDC reference value, then the av erage the benefit per child ranged from $392,000 to $551,000 per child. But the article acknowledged that lead-based paint is not the only source of lead exposure among children, and reduced net benefits by 30% to account for other sources of lead exposure. Applying this adjustment factor yields of estimated benefit of controlling exposures to lead from paint of $274,000 to $386,000 per child. Even adjusting for inflation from the 1996 dollars in the Gould paper to 2015 dollars yields an estimate of $416,000 to $587,0 00 per child, which is well below the $1 million the

commenter claimed.

Furthermore, not all cases of elevated blood lead levels from lead paint are due to renovation, repair, or painting work. Exposure to lead from paint can be caused through other mechanisms, such as dust generated through friction surfaces (such as opening or closing painted windows or doors), or paint that is chipping or peeling. Moreover, only renovations for compensation in residences and child-occupied facilities are currently covered by the RRP program. Th erefore, even if current data were available on

children whose blood lead levels are elevated due to lead-based paint, the RRP program could not address all of these exposures, not matter what type of refresher training is required for renovators.

EPA agrees that there are positive net benefits to lead hazard control, and that the RRP program generates positive net benefits. Based on the evidence it has re viewed, EPA has concluded that the program will continue to have positive net benefits after the mi nor amendments in this rulemaking take effect.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) objected to EPA’s characterization that removing the hands-on requirement would result in “significant” cost savings . According to the comment er, Air Force One costs $228,288 per hour (Washington Examiner 2/28/14), so if the president did not use Air Force One for ONLY ONE week, our country would save 9 million. 9 million dollars, or one week of use of Air Force One is considered “Significant” by EPA. The agency w ould be better off advising the President, that for the sake of our children and our countries ( sic ) future to refrain from using Air Force One for one week so EPA can subsidize the regulated entities the 9 million dollar supposed savings and then no change is needed. According to the commenter, another way to determine the significance of 9 million is to compare it to the Regulated industries 2014 Gross Revenue , which happen to be one of the best years in a decade for the Regulated Entities. L ast year according to Statista.com the value of the construction industry was $3.6 Billion. If we divide $3.6 billion by 9 million we get .0025 or .25%. The commenter asks whether EPA is comfortable with making a statement that a Quarter ( sic ) of a percent savings (.25% not even 1%) to an industry is, “Signifi cant” as suggested in the proposed rule.

Response: EPA does not find the cost of Air Force One to be relevant to this rule. EPA does however

note that the article the commenter re ferenced was referring to the cost of Air Force One per hour of flight time. The article did not state, as the commenter assum es, that Air Force One is in the air flying 40 hours per week. Therefore, the commenter is incorrect that Air Force One costs $9 million per week.

Nor is the commenter’s data on the construction indus try relevant. The $3.6 billion figure the commenter

uses is the value of the U.S. construction industr y as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. The construction industry is a very broad category that includes non-residential construction and heavy and civil engineering construction, as well as residen tial construction. And the residential construction industry includes firms that only perform new constr uction and do not engage in renovation, repair, or painting, as well as firms that do not engage in activiti es that disturb lead-based paint. The Statista.com

web site that the commenter mentions states that B echtel is currently the largest U.S.-based construction firm. Bechtel engages in projects such as extending th e Washington Metrorail system to Dulles airport,23 and building a liquefied natural gas plant in Louisi ana. The commenter’s comparison to gross revenues from the construction industry is not relevant to this rule.

Regarding the significance of the cost savings, EPA’s an alysis for the final rule estimates that the average

baseline tuition for a refresher class with a hands-on co mponent is $137, and that the average travel cost is $144, for a total cost of $281. (The estimates fo r the proposed rule were si milar.) Renovators can save the travel costs by taking training online. Furtherm ore, training providers may pass along to their students some or all of the $45 reduction in costs they reap by not including a hands-on component to the refresher training. So the average tuition for an online refresh er class could be from $92 to $137, and the renovator will save the cost of traveling to the training site. Thus, the average renovator taking an online refresher class could save $144 to $189 compared to the baseline co sts of $281. This is a 51% to 67% cost savings. EPA believes that a cost saving of that magnitude can accurately be characterized as significant.

Comment: One commenter (0304-0110) questioned EPA estim ate of the number of renovators expected to take refresher training. According to the comme nter, EPA’s 2011 website said that an estimated 743,000 people had been trained as of October 26, 2011, while EPA stated in August, 2014 that there were 510,000 Renovators certified. Whether we traine d 743,000 or 510,000 Renovators in initial courses, why is EPA estimating only 168,000 of those certified renovators to return for recertification? On what justification does EPA estimate that only ~23% or ~33% will return? Does EPA believe more than a quarter to half a million renovators were trained unnecessarily? Does EPA feel there are more than a quarter to half a million violators of the RRP rule? Only 14 States have implemented their own RRP program, does EPA believe these 14 states account for a quarter to half a million renovators under the state’s jurisdiction? Does EPA believe the program is collapsing and unenforceable because of this dropout rate? Does the number change from 2011 to 2014 reflect the accurate readjustment of the EPA’s

database?

Response: The 743,000 estimate from 2011 was calculated b ased on data on the number of classes taught and an assumption about the average number of student s per class. The 2014 figure was derived from the

number of trained individuals in EPA’s Federal Lead Paint Program (FLPP) database, which is based on the post-training notifications submitted by training providers. Thus, the 2014 ta bulation is more accurate

than the 2011 estimate.

There are two reasons for the difference between th e 510,000 initially trained renovators and the 168,000 recertified renovators. First, some individuals w ho took the initial training are no longer working as renovators, and thus have no need to take the refresher training. As explained in EPA’s Economic Analysis for the proposed rule (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2014-0304-0014):

Each year, some certified individuals exit th e 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).

Second, the 510,000 represents the cumulative number of renovators trained over a five year period (2010 through 2014), while the 168,000 represents the renovators from a single year (2010) expected to take refresher training in the future.

Approximately 357,000 renovators were trained in 2010, and EPA’s analysis for the proposed minor amendments rule estimated that 168,000 of the ren ovators trained in 2010 would seek recertification in24 2015. The difference (357,000 – 168,000 = 189,000) were assumed to have left the industry between 2010 and 2015, and thus would not ta ke refresher training. Additional renovators were trained in 2011, 2012, 2013, etc., and those that have not left the industry will also return for refresher training in future

years.

While EPA has revised its estimates of the turnover in the industry for the final rule, the same factors are still relevant. Namely, the number of renovators seeking re fresher training in any one year is less than the

total stock of renovators trained over the life of th e RRP program. And some renovators who take the initial training will exit the industry before they are due to be recertified. So not all of the renovators in an initial training cohort will receive refresher training. However, the renovators exiting the industry are replaced by new entrants, who take the initial training.

In answer to the commenter’s other questions, the difference between the number of individuals receiving initial training and the number predicted to take refresher training does not represent the number of renovators in authorized states, nor does it mean that renovators were trained unnecessarily, or that violations of the RRP program are increasing. EPA does not believe the program is collapsing or

unenforceable.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0110) stated that EPA underestimated costs because training providers would require a new accreditation in order to offer a new web-based refresher course, and EPA did not account for the $340 fee each training provider would pay in order to teach an e-leaning approved courses in this 5-year renovator renewal cycle.

Response: While some training providers may pay an accred itation fee in order to teach an online course, EPA disagrees that it has underestimated costs due to accreditation fees. EPA estimated the change in social costs based on the tuition that training provide rs currently charge. (And the evidence described in the Economic Analysis indicates that training provide rs are likely to charge the same tuition for the classroom component of the course whether it is offere d online or in-person.) The tuition for the in-person class recoups the costs that training providers incur (including the accreditation fee that they currently pay), and the tuition for the online class will do the sam e. Were EPA’s Economic Analysis to include a separate line-item for an additional accreditation fee in its cost estimate, it would double-count the cost of

accreditation.

EPA notes that training providers using an online curriculum that EPA has already reviewed and approved may qualify for an exped ited accreditation process. There is no fee charged for such an expedited accreditation. Many training providers may choose to license a currently approved online course instead of developing a new course themselv es, in which case they will not pay an additional

accreditation fee.

Comment : One training provider (0304-0110) stated that removing the hands-on refresher training requirement would cause the training provider infrastru cture to collapse. According to the commenter,

t rainers have already renewed and planned their trai ning schedules for the expected training load of 5- year renovator returns. The schedules were based on the peak load starting in March and slowing down

after June. The commenter stated that its class sche dules will be disrupted as many move to online. If the hands-on elimination is successful, it will be easier for the trainees and kill the trainers. Trainers are on a 4-year renewal cycle but a 5-year peak training re venue cycle. The commenter claimed that EPA would lose the RRP support infrastructure, because trainers will not make sufficient revenue to support the program—they'll collapse. Only a few training providers offered certification programs continuously over the last five years, after the peak land of milk a nd honey five years ago. According to the commenter, it25 offers classes even if only one person has signed up, and has cancelled a large number of classes for want of trainees. This program runs on a five year tsunami of activity, with a great dead lull for four years and then another tsunami. The commenter stated that a five year training revenue cycle is part of why it

believed EPA’s Mark Henshall’s remarks at the Colo rado lead conference in August 2014 that less than half of the RRP trainers had renewed their accreditation. The commenter asked how they can stay in business as a trainer, supporting childhood lead poisoni ng prevention, if they only make money every fifth year. According to the commenter, even the IRS would call this a hobby and not a profession.

The commenter asked how few online programs it will ta ke to train the outstanding folks vs. how many training providers it will take to maintain training support for the program with hands-on components. The commenter predicts the financial collapse of th e non-online trainers, resulting in a loss of training provider support for the initial certification program training, since training providers can't make money on the program at a low return level. The commenter envisages that if the number of training providers decreases, renovators with questions will contact the EPA Lead hotline and EPA officials. The commenter asks whether EPA is planning to increase staffing to meet such increased demand for answers from renovators who current ( sic ) call the training providers for answers.

Response: EPA does not agree that revising the hands- on refresher training requirement will cause the training provider infrastructure to collapse. There will continue to be renovators needing initial training, as well as those that need to take refresher training. And since several training providers that commented on the proposal claimed that many students prefer in-person training, it is reasonable to assume that some

fraction of renovators will continue ta king refresher training in person. A ll of this activity will generate revenue for training providers offering in-person traini ng. However, it is not expected to be difficult or expensive for training providers to license a third-part y online course, and thus existing training providers will also be able to participate in the online trai ning market. So EPA expects there to be a sufficient number of training providers for the RRP program.

While many renovators were trained in the first year of the program, EPA expects that the five year peak in the training cycle will dampen over time due to tu rnover in the stock of renovators. Therefore, there will continue to be renovators needing initial traini ng each year, and the annual number of individuals seeking refresher training will gradually even out over tim e. Therefore, the wave of refresher training the commenter mentions will cease being what it refers to as a tsunami. This dampening will occur regardless of any changes made to the refresher training requirem ents. EPA’s estimate for the final rule is that the steady state average will be 30,000 renovators r eceiving initial training and 70,000 renovators receiving refresher training each year.

Some of the commenters on the rule have claimed that students prefer in-person training instead of online training. Commenter #0304-0094 stated that many in dividuals enjoy coming to class and having a faceto-face interaction with their peers and instructors wher e they are able to participate in group discussions, and receive clarifications on confusing requireme nts. Commenter #0304-0053 stated that only a few would opt for e-training due to language, educationa l, accessibility and computer intimidation factors. According to commenter #0304-0113, 57% of the respondents to their survey indicated that they learned the most through live instructional interactive tr aining with hands-on exercises. EPA’s rule allows training providers to con tinue to present in-person training. To the extent that these commenters are correct about students’ preferences, then the demand for in-person refresher training would continue to provide business for trainers.

Under the minor amendments final rule, refresher tr aining without a hands-on component is only valid for three years, and training with a hands-on component must be taken every-other training cycle. While the steady state average number of renovators taking in-per son refresher training is expect to decline from 70,000 per year to 43,000 to 55,000 per year, the number taking either in-person or online training is26 predicted to increase by 10,000 to 18,000 students per year, to a total of 80,000 to 88,000 per year. This provides a growth opportunity for training providers that choose to offer online training.

The market for training, like the markets for other goods, operates based on supply and demand. Commenters have not provided any evidence of market failures that prevent training providers from offering sufficient training courses to meet the needs of the students, nor does EPA believe that such impediments exist. Therefore, it is reasonable to concl ude that there will be a sufficient supply of trainers to meet the demand of students needing training.

As EPA has described elsewhere in this response to comments document, training providers can license an online course from a third-party vendor at a flat ra te per student, which makes it more likely that they will choose to offer online training. And there are va rious other programs (such as OSHA training) where training providers make extensive u se of online courses, and no evidence has been provided that this has resulted in insufficient numbers of training providers.

So EPA does not agree that the training provider market will collapse as a result of this rule.

EPA notes that according to the IRS, income from hobbies (including stamp or coin collecting, craft making and horse breeding) must be reported on ta x returns, although hobby income is reported differently than business income. 4 A key feature of a business is that the activity is done to make a profit, which differs from a hobby that is done for sport or re creation. There are nine factors to consider when determining if an activity is done to make a profit:

 Whether you carry on the activity in a businesslike manner.

 Whether the time and effort you put into the activity indicate you intend to make it profitable.

 Whether you depend on income from the activity for your livelihood.

 Whether your losses are due to circumstances beyond your control (or are normal in the startup phase of your type of business).

 Whether you change your methods of operation in an attempt to improve profitability.

 Whether you or your advisors have the knowledge needed to carry on the activity as a successful

business.

 Whether you were successful in making a profit in similar activities in the past.

 Whether the activity makes a profit in some years and how much profit it makes.

 Whether you can expect to make a future profit from the appreciation of the assets used in the activity.

While EPA does not have all the facts and circumstan ces with respect to indivi dual training providers, it does not appear that the IRS would generally co nsider them to be engaged in a hobby.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0144) stated that the proposed revisions have the potential to negatively impact authorized states. The State of Ore gon is authorized by EPA to administer and enforce the RRP Rule, jointly implemented by the Oregon H ealth Authority (OHA) and the Oregon Construction Contractors Board (CCB). OHA collects fees from accre dited training providers for each student that completes the course and earns certification in th e RRP disciplines. These student fees comprise the majority of fee dollars used to support the Ore gon Lead-based Paint Program. If the hands-on requirement is removed, EPA estimates that 98% of renovators w ill take the refresher course online. Large national

4 Five Tax Tips about Hobbies that Earn Income , IRS Summertime Tax Tip 2015-08, July 20, 2015, http://www.irs.gov/uac/Five-Tax-Tips-about-Hobbies-that-Earn-Income127 companies able to offer the online course at a redu ced cost may undercut businesses and organizations in our state that offer these courses, thereby resulting in the loss of significant fees for Oregon and loss of business for Oregon accredited training providers.

Response: EPA does not believe that the revisions it is making will negatively impact authorized states. The changes that EPA is making do not pre-empt stat e requirements in authorized states, so those states can continue to require training providers to pr ovide a hands-on component in renovator refresher training. It appears that Oregon already has such a requirement. According to the Oregon Administrative

Rules 5 333-070-0135(18)(a):

(D) Refresher courses for renovator and dust sampling technician must last a minimum of four training hours. (E) For each course offered, the training pr ogram shall conduct a hands-on assessment (if applicable), and at the completion of the course, a course test.

Therefore, it does not appear that the changes that EPA is making will result in a loss of business for Oregon accredited training providers (including the fi ve training providers located outside of Oregon among the 14 training providers authorized to offer RRP training in Oregon 6 ) or a loss of fees for the State of Oregon. So it does not seem that Oregon will need to make any changes to its program in order to continue funding its lead-based paint program through fees collected from Oregon accredited training providers for each student that completes the cour se and earns certification in the RRP discipline.

Comment : One commenter that is a training provider (0304-0113) presented the responses to a survey it conducted of its students. According to this comment er, “I have attached REAL DATA that supports the EXACT OPPOSITE of what EPA is “Presuming”. Ninety Eight (98%) percent of the trades DO NOT WANT OR LIKE A computer based class, but to th e contrary, 57.4% of tho se blindly surveyed (1000 surveys were sent, those received attached) want a LIVE instructor and resource! That’s reality!!!! Several openly admitted their wife or secretary will take.”

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for submitting this in formation, but the Agency disagrees with the

conclusions that the commenter has drawn from the su rvey responses. In fact, the survey data provides support for the action that EPA is taking.

The specific survey questions that the commenter ask ed and the distribution of the 54 total responses are

shown below.

1. What type of training do you feel you learn the most through?

 Live instructional interactive training with hands on exercises: n = 31 ( 57% )

 Webinar based training where you can interact through a computer via typing or potentially

video stream: 6 ( 11% )

 1 00% computer based curriculum slides, mandated course, time to complete, and on-line testing with NO live interaction or communication: 13 ( 24% )

 Other: 4 ( 7% ) – “Any way is good”; “All of the above”; “Computer based with some video (interactive not necessary)”; “Webinar based training where you can interact thru a computer via

5 Oregon Administrative Rules, Department Of Human Services, Public Health Division, Chapter 333 Division 70, Pre-Renovation Education and Renovation, Re pair and Painting Activities Involving Lead-Based Paint, 333-070-0135, Minimum Curriculum Requirements for Training Program Accreditation. July 1, 2014 Edition. http://www.oregon.gov/CCB/Documents/pdf/oar.pdf.

6 Oregon RRP Accredited Training Providers - Wednesday, March 04, 2015. http://public.health.oregon.gov/HealthyEnvironments/Health yNeighborhoods/LeadPoisoning/TrainingProviders/Doc uments/acctrainprovlist.pdf.28 typing or potentially video stream”

2. How many times do you typically need to SEE (NOT PHYSICALLY DO, BUT SEE) something to truly feel comfortable performing a particular task?

 1 times: 24 ( 44% )

 2 times: 24 ( 44% )

 3 times: 6 ( 11% )

 5 times: 0 ( 0% )

3. If a 4 hour administrative regulatory on-line course was mandated by state law who would be the most likely person in your organization to take it?

 Assistant: 0 ( 0% )

 Wife: 3 ( 6% )

 Myself: 49 ( 91% )

 Other: 2 ( 4% ) – “Myself and my foreman”; “All applicable staff”

4. Do you believe having a relationship and access to professional service providers and subject expert resources in related fields to your particular trade is important?

 Yes: 53 ( 98% )

 No: 1 ( 2% )

5. What is your most important criteria when selecting training providers?

 Cost: 16 ( 30% )

 Location: 20 ( 37% )

 Expertise of Trainer: 7 (13 % )

 Other: 11 (2 0% ) – “All of the above”; “All three items lis ted above”; “Cost and location”; “Location and reputation of firm/trainer”; “Cost; location; and time at training is time lose on job which is loos of money”; “Combination of Cost and Location. On line training is great and preferred unless the course requires hands on exercises as with RRP”; “Cost and Location”; “Convenience”;
“Location/Cost are about equal depending on the distance of t he actual course and if an overnight stay is required”; “All of the above”; “All of the above”

The respondents were not blindly surveyed, contrary to the commenter’s asser tion, since the responses include the respondent’s name, email address, and ph one number. Since EPA does not know whether this lack of anonymity influenced the information that the respondents provided, the Agency will use these survey results to respond to the clai ms of this and other commenters.

The commenter’s claim that 98% of renovators do not want or like a computer based class appears to be based on the responses to Question #4. However, that question did not ask about training at all, and it certainly did not ask about computer based training. Online training providers can offer their students access to professional service providers and subject e xperts, as the respondents to Question #4 wanted. For example, one commenter (0304-0063) stated that it offers online RRP training with a live principal instructor present, and that it provides its st udents free 24/7 consulting about RRP issues.

The responses to the other questions in the survey disprove this commenter’s claim that 98% of renovators do not want computer based classes. In Qu estion #1, 43% of the students responded that they learn the most through webinars, computer slides, or via any method (which includes online training).

EPA’s rule is allowing training providers the optio n of providing the class online, not mandating online training. Training providers can continue to offer live instructional interactive training with hands-on exercises for students who feel that they learn best th at way. But training providers will also be able to apply to EPA to offer the training via interactive We binars or computer slides, so that approved courses

can be offered to students who feel that th ey learn best through one of those methods.29 In Question #2, 56% of respondents indicated that they need to see a task two or more times (but not physically do it) in order to feel comfortable perform ing it. For such students, online training can offer the opportunity to watch the training multiple times, which may not be possible in live training.

The responses to Question #5 indicate that students varied in terms of whether cost, location, expertise, or other factors were most important in selecting a tr aining provider. Again, EPA’s rule allows training providers to offer various options that appeal to different students.

In Question #3, 94% of respondents indicated that ma ndatory training would be taken by themselves or their relevant staff. While 3 respondents indicated th at their wives would take the training, the question was ambiguous because it could be inte rpreted to mean that having a spouse take the training would be allowable under this hypothetical mandatory training program. It is important that training providers offering online training make clear that the certified re novator must take the refresher training themselves, rather than delegating it to some other person.

In summary, the commenter’s survey shows that diffe rent students have different wishes about training. As Commenter #0304-0046 noted, “Online training will work for certain individuals – not for all. The same can be said for live classes. Is there really one an swer that fits all here?” EPA’s rule allows training providers the flexibility to tailor the way that traini ng is offered to meet various students’ preferences.

Comment: Several commenters (0304-0046, -0049, -0056, -01 13, -0140, -0143, and -0149) stated that if the hands-on requirement is removed from the refresher training, the market will be dominated by a few large training providers.

Commenter 0304-0046 claimed that most of the smaller trainers will lack the assets required to create and offer their online training. The commenter felt that the rule will open up the industry of wholesale online providers forcing these trainers to become re-selle rs of these watered down generic trainings, and that there would be a thinning of the herd where only the largest will survive. The commenter stated that if EPA allows these considerations to be promulgated, it would financially benefit from the switching away from live classes to an online platform.

According to commenter 0304-0143, many trainers are not currently set up with e-learning capabilities, and much more time, money, and equipment would be required to be able to effectively provide elearning. The commenter stated that big national comp anies and schools will be at distinct advantage over the smaller training providers because adding another e-learning class to an established set up will not be a problem. The commenter felt that smaller training provi ders will not be able to effectively compete in this marketplace, thus losing personal contact with the individuals who are out in the world doing the

work.

Commenter #0304-0056 stated that if the hands-on portion of the RRP Refresher class is eliminated, it will hand this class over to the large national compani es with their on-line, impersonal, cheap trainings. The commenter claimed that this would effectively put small, loyal, mission driven providers such as

itself out of business.

Commenter #0304-0140 stated that there is a significant level of effort and expense required for developing online training, and very few existing tr ainers will have the know-h ow and cash available to create online training. According to the commenter, the low price point cr eates a barrier to entry into this new online training market for any existing environm ental training companies. The market for online training will be dominated by 2-3 companies that already offer online training. The companies offering that training might not even be in the environmental training field at this time – hence they will have no30 subject matter knowledge regarding c onstruction and the issues renovators face. They will certainly not be able to answer any questions IF they give out their phone numbers to students.

Response: The commenters have not provided evidence to support their assertion that a single entity (or two or three large entities) will offer all of the online refresher training. Instead, there is evidence from the RRP program as well as other training programs that markets can support numerous online training providers, including small businesses.

The evidence from the current RRP prog ram refutes the contention that training is likely to be offered by a single firm. Online training has always been a llowed for the classroom portion of the RRP training

curriculum. If the commenters’ contentions were corre ct then all, or nearly all, of the baseline RRP classroom training would be conducted online; in-per son training would be limited to the hands-on portion of the curriculum; and the online training would be offered by a single national firm that would drive small competitors out of business. Instead, many renovators take the classroom portion of the training in person, instead of online. The classroom portion of the training is offered online by a dozen and a half training providers, compared to approxim ately four hundred training providers offering it inperson. And the nearly all of the training provid ers offering online classes appear to be small businesses. 7
Although the number of firms offering online training is expected to increase post-rule, the types and sizes of firms may be similar to the current make-up.

As another example of how online training is not limited to a single entity or a small number of entities, computer-based training may be used to meet some of the training requirements under OSHA’s Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Respons e (HAZWOPER) standard. Yet there are dozens of training providers that offer this online training, instead of a single entity offering all of the training. Similarly, some states allow online training in order for individuals to receive a license, and there are multiple competing providers for such training, instea d of a single provider. In Michigan, for example, individuals who are applying for a license as a resi dential builder or as a maintenance & alteration contractor must complete 60 hours of approved prelic ensure education prior to taking an examination or submitting a license application (unless they are grandf athered in). All preli censure education courses must be approved by the Department of Licensing a nd Regulatory Affairs. The Department’s web site lists six approved providers of online courses, and five of them are located in Michigan. 8 Michigan also requires individuals to take 90 hours of approved pre licensure education prior to submitting an application to become a real estate broker, and to take continuing education. There are 17 providers approved to offer online courses, and 11 of them are located in Michigan . Although this is far fewer than the number of RRP training providers, Michigan is a single state. If these numbers were to be extrapolated nationally, the result would be a similar order of magn itude as the number of RRP training providers.

7 Based on information in the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) database, there was a single firm offering online RRP training that clearly does not qualify as a small business under the Small Business Admi nistration’s size standards. (That large business is a window and door manufacturer, and no evidence was found that it offers training services to the public. So it may be offering training solely to its own employees.) A number of providers offering online RRP training qualify as small business based on the D&B data. While there was insufficient information in the D&B database to determine the size status of some firms, many of them appear to be small businesses. The NAICS codes reported for most of these training providers have SBA size standards that are revenue based (generally with a threshold of $11 million or $15 million in revenue). D&B does not report revenue data for many of these firms, but it does have employment data for most of them. With one exception, these training providers had anywhere from 1 to 30 employees, with most of them at the low end of that range. So there is a good chance that many of them are

small businesses.

8 https://www.lara.michigan.gov/colaCourses/31 Given that the initial training and alternating cycles of refresher training will con tinue to require a handson component, EPA expects that there will continue to be demand for numerous training providers, particularly if many renovators choose to take refresh er training from the provider of their initial training. And as described elsewhere in this document, several commenters claimed that students prefer to take training in person. That is yet another reason that there will continue to be numerous training providers.

All classes, including online training, must be approved by EPA as part of the training provider accreditation process. Therefore, EPA will have determin ed that any online courses meet the needs of the program. So EPA disagrees with the contention that training that is licensed from a third party will be “watered down” or otherwise inadequate.

EPA cannot guarantee that there will not be changes in the universe of training providers. But while EPA does not believe that the rule will cause the training pr ovider infrastructure to collapse, the purpose of the training requirements is not to provide business or ge nerate revenues for training providers. Instead, the purpose is to efficiently and effectively train renova tors to comply with the requirements of the RRP program. The amendments to the training requirements further that goal.

Comment: Commenter 0304-0049 stated that an online Refresher Course, which could be provided by a single entity, would negate the investments in staff, facilities and materials that the certified trainers have made in support of the EPA RRP Program. Commenter 0304-0113 also stated that online training could in theory be provided nationally by one entity, a nd claimed that numerous training providers will lose substantial investments in the preparation and pr esentation of these classes, most likely in millions as

well.

Response: The commenters have not provided any eviden ce of investments in staff, facilities and materials relating to the preparation and presentati on of these classes. EPA has developed model training

courses for both initial and refresher renovator trai ning, for both the in-per son and online classes. The availability of these EPA model courses means that tr aining providers do not need to incur substantial costs to develop courses and get accredited by EPA. Th e commenters have not shown that they invested millions of dollars in these classes in the first place, much less that they will lose millions of dollars in investments. Moreover, training providers can continue to use any investments they have made to teach the initial training course to new entrants to the in dustry, renovators who are in the hands-on training cycle, or those who choose to take all of their training in person.

Comment : Commenter #0304-0130 stated that she is a training provider that has taken over the management of an RRP Training Network that trained over 33,000 individuals from 2009 – 2015. According to the commenter, offering of e-learning c ourses is extremely expensive and is cost prohibitive for many training providers. Not only does a training pr ovider need to develop the course and pay for the EPA accreditation, they will also need to pay for an LMS to host the e-learning course. Selecting a LMS site to host the e-learning course, which would be able to support even a small percentage of contractors needing renewal, will cost on average $13,000 per ye ar. With the limited advanced knowledge of this proposal, many training providers will not have the available capital to provide this training, thereby greatly effecting the yearly business plan of the training provider.32 Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter’s contention that a training provider will necessarily need to develop an online course, pay for th e EPA accreditation, and pay for an LMS 9 to host an e-learning course. A training provider may avoid these costs if it licenses an existing online course from a third-party vendor. If a training provider is using an already approved course and is not making any changes to the information that they submitted with their first refre sher accreditation, they are eligible to use EPA’s expedited accreditation process. There is no EPA accreditation fee for the expedited accreditation.

If a training provider licenses an existing course, then they would not incur costs to develop an online course, and they may not need to pay for an LMS eith er. EPA is aware of at least one third party offering an online RRP course that training providers can purch ase for $49.95 per student and then market to their own customers, avoiding the need for the training provider to pay for their own LMS. 10 Other companies may begin offering similar ser vices to training providers.

For those companies that choose to develop their own online course, EPA does not have independent information to verify the commenter’s estimate that the average cost of LMS services will be $13,000 per year. But the commenter may be able to afford such a cost. EPA notes that the commenter mentioned that it trained over 33,000 individuals from 2009 – 2015, whic h is an average of 5,500 individuals trained per year. If the $13,000 per year LMS cost was based on the commenter’s experience, then their LMS cost would be $2.37 per student. This is only 1.7% of the average refresher training tuition of $137.

EPA also notes that it calculated training provider cost s based on an estimated loaded wage rate of $53.66 per hour for professional staff at training providers. At that wage rate, the $13,000 cost mentioned by the commenter is equivalent to 242 hours of staff time. Th us, if offering online training saved more than 242 hours of instructor time per year, these labor savings would pay for the LMS cost. Based on EPA’s FLPP database, the average class size for an RRP class is 7 students. So 5,500 student s is equivalent to 785 average sized classes. And at 4 hours per refresher class, more than 3,140 hours of instructor time would

be needed to teach 785 classes. 11 242 hours of staff time is a small fraction of 3,140 hours. To look at it another way, at $53.66 per hour, the staff cost of 3,140 hours is $168,492 per year, which is significantly more than $13,000 per year. So the savings to training providers from offering online training may more than offset the costs they may incur in order to offer e-learning courses.

In addition to saving staff time, online training can reduce costs for staff travel, facility rental, and supplies. Again, it does not seem unreasonable that these costs alone could be more than $13,000 per year. So even if an LMS system would cost the commenter $13,000 per year, offering online training could still be profitable for them.

EPA notes that it found that training providers o ffering both online and in-person renovator training generally charge the same tuition for the classroom porti on of both types of courses. This suggests that the additional costs of offering online training (such as an LMS site) are offset by reductions in other costs (such as travel, facilities, supplies, and instructor time), so that the total cost per student of offering online training is similar to the cost of in-person training. This conclusion is reinforced by statement made by other commenters. For example, commenter 0304-0062 stated that the costs for trainers to access and provide an accredited online training program are unknown, but they anticipate that the costs to supply, staff and manage an online program would be less than the costs for an in-person training program. And

9 The commenter is referring to a learning management system (LMS), which is a software application for the administration, documentation, tracking, reporting and delivery of online training courses.

10 ProTech Training and Consulting, LLC: http://protechtrainingonline.com.

11 More than 3,140 hours of instruction time would be re quired because the student-t eacher ratio for the hands-on component must be 6-to-1 or less. Since the average class size is 7 students, some of the classes involve more than

one instructor.33 commenter 0304-0094 stated that if the need for an inst ructor is eliminated altogether, this estimate could change and lessen or remove the additional cost burden of offering online training.

Comment: Commenter #0304-0126 claimed that on-line courses typically take longer than face to face instruction, and most employers will only pay for the first 4 hours. According to the commenter, this will not encourage employees to take the extra ti me to fully understand the subject matter.

Response: EPA has designed the model online refresher cour se so that it can be completed in 4 hours. The commenter does not provide any evidence to supp ort its claims that online courses take longer to complete than those offered in-person. EPA is not aw are of evidence that the online versions of the initial renovator training take more than 8 hours to comp lete. Nor has the commenter provided evidence that most employers will only pay for the first 4 hour s of training. Commenter #0304-0136 claimed that employers pay their employees for the full day they are at training, even if the training only takes 4 hours. Moreover, many renovators are self-employed, in whic h case there is not an issue of what their employer will pay for. In any event, taking the training online avoids the time spent traveling to and from a training facility, and it allows students to take the class at their convenience, and can pr ovide an opportunity to take the training at their own pace, or to watch a segment more than once (which would increase the time spent on an online class). In the survey res ponses provided by commenter #0304-0013, 55% of respondents said they need to see something 2 or more times in order to feel comfortable performing a particular task. EPA does not see it as a downside th at online training can allow them to do this.

Comment: Commenter #0304-0126 claimed that e-learning actually increases administrative costs, as

there is more data to track.

Response: The commenter has not explained why it believes th ere is more data to track for an e-learning course. In any event, an e-learning course offers the opportunity to reduce costs for instructor time, instructor travel, supplies for the hands-on portion, etc. Furthermore, the available data indicated that the cost of initial training is generally the same regardle ss of whether the classroom component is provided in-person or online, and the one training provider th at charged different tuition charged less for the online training than the in-person course. Therefore, EPA does not believe that the overall cost to training providers of offering refresher training online is higher than the cost of offering it in person.

Comment: Commenter #0304-0126 stated that the lack of an implementation period between the passing of any changes and the date they take effect is a c oncern. According to the commenter, this make for a very uneven playing field for the numerous persons th at have made the effort and taken the time to become accredited Lead RRP instructors. Large firms and corporations can afford to have an e-class in

the can before the amendments are finalized . Small business and single person entities cannot.

Response: While the commenter believes that small bus iness and single person entities will be at a disadvantage, it is not clear that that this comme nter can speak from experience about what small businesses are capable of. According to the commenter ’s web site, it has 40,000 employees and operates

in over 50 countries.

Training providers that are concerned about the time and effort needed to accredit a course have alternatives open to them. EPA has developed mode l courses for online versions of the refresher34 renovator course. Using the model course reduces the time and cost for training providers to develop a course and get it approved by EPA. Alternatively, tr aining providers can license an existing online course that EPA has already reviewed and approved. Trai ning providers that are using an approved online curriculum, and that are not making any changes to the information they submitted with their first refresher accreditation, are eligible fo r EPA’s expedited accreditation process.

Comment : One training provider (Commenter #0304-0056) states that it is a non-profit housing rehabilitation organization, and that removing the hand s-on portion of the refresher class will put it out of the training business because large na tional companies that offer cheap training will take over the training business. According to the commenter, it just had 500 Refresher books printer ( sic ) for the anticipated classes at a cost of $2,000. The co mmenter notes that this may seem like a small amount of money, but it is enough for them to build a ramp for a wheelchair user.

Response: EPA appreciates the commenter providing this information. Under the final rule, refresher training without a hands-on component is only valid for 3 years, and hands-on refresher training is required every second time that a renovator is trained. Therefore, EPA believes that there will still be an opportunity for training providers such as the commenter to offer in-person refresher training and to use the books it had printed.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) stated EPA’s 9 million dollars in

‐ accurately calculated savings to the regulated entities clearly does not reflect the lo ss in tax revenues and employment that will result.

Response: The commenter appears to be referring to estimates in a study ( Childhood Lead Poisoning: Conservative Estimates of the Social and Econom ic Benefits of Lead Hazard Control ) included with its comments. That study estimated the loss in government tax revenues due to the loss in lifetime earnings due to IQ point loss resulting from lead exposure. Bu t neither this nor any other commenter has provided

evidence to demonstrate that blood-lead levels will increase as a result of this rule. Renovators are still required to take an 8 hour initial training that in cludes a hands-on component; they still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher training has to include a hands-on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a hands-on component is only valid for three years; and renovators still have to comply with the work practice requirements in the regulation. Therefore, EPA does not believe

that it should assume that the rule will result in incr eases in lead poisoning, or losses in tax revenue and employment.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) opposed to allowing online training suggested that EPA review what it termed “articles on web based training fraud” and provided two URLs. 12

Response : EPA has reviewed the information at the links referenced by the commenter. They are not studies of fraud in web based training. The first link that the commenter provided was to a chapter in “Information Security Management Handbook” (Sixth Edition) by Harold F. Tipton and Micki Krause. Specifically, the link was to Chapter 42 in the bo ok, entitled “Training Your Employees to Identify

12 These URL links were:

 https://books.google.com/books?id=B0Lwc6ZEQhcC& pg=PA517&lpg=PA517&dq=web+based+training+stud ent+fraud&source=bl&ots=_lHIvJjtp&sig=cc8P9 YeCLvvDPwBSQKDmsXoQL8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=O962VJf HDYyUNqWrhNgD&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=web%20based%20training%20student%20fraud&

f=false

 http://findit.ed.gov/search?utf8=%E 2%9C%93&affiliate=ed.gov&query=we b+based+training+student+fraud35 Potential Fraud and How to Encourage Them to Co me Forward” by Rebecca Herold. The discussion in the chapter is not about individuals fraudulently clai ming to have completed mandatory online training, as the commenter seems to believe. Instead, it deals w ith training employees to prevent theft and fraud. For instance, the suggestions include the following:

Train appropriate personnel with related job res ponsibilities in how to select, test, operate, and maintain security, fraud prevention, and fraud de tection devices. Such devices may include the following:

 Mechanisms to protect cash and other liquid asset s, such as a vault, safe, or other secure

spaces

 A lighting system for illuminating the area around the vault, if the vault is visible from outside the facilities

 Tamper-resistant locks on publicly accessible doors and windows

 Alarm systems or devices to immediately notify the nearest law enforcement officers of an attempted or perpetrated robbery or burglary...

The chapter does indicate that online training can be u seful in training employees to prevent fraud, stating

“Consider time constraints. If the audience is la rge and geographically dispersed, a technology-based solution, such as Web-based, CD, or satellite learning, may work best”, and “Some topics are better suited for instructor-led, video, Web-based, or CBT 13 delivery. There are many opinions about what type of

method is best.”

The chapter goes on to discuss the benefits and disadva ntages of different training methods. It lists the following disadvantages of instructor-led classroom training:

 May be costly with regard to time and resources necessary.

 Can train only a relatively small numb er of participants at a time.

 Often requires a large time investment for participants.

 Takes participants away from their work area.

The chapter also discusses the following be nefits of online training methods:

 Computer-Based Training or CD-ROM Training This type of training is recommended for gene ral audiences and training remote participants.

o Allows participants to remain in their work areas.

o Costs less overall than most other methods.

o Can be taken in modules.

o Allows participants to be widely dispersed geographically.

o Allows a large number of participants to undergo training in a short amount of time.

 Web-Based Live Training ("Webinars," Net Meetings)

o Can reach a large number of participants in a short amount of time.

o Accommodates participants in many different locations.

o Can be recorded and subsequently viewed anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

o Offers the option of on-line support.

o Is cost effective.

 Videos

13 Computer-based training.36 o Can be shown anywhere, anytime, anyplace.

o Typically does not require any instructor-student interaction.

o Can be viewed by a large number of pa rticipants in a short period of time.

 Satellite Presentations

o Allows for live interactions.

o Is more timely and up-to-date than videos and computer-based training.

o Is interactive.

o Reaches a large number of participants.

The chapter states that “The students (employees a nd other applicable personne l) all have their own unique learning styles, and what works well for one pe rson will not necessarily be effective for others.”

EPA has considered the benefits and disadvantages of different training methods (including those discussed in this reference). As described in th e preamble, EPA has concluded that the final rule appropriately balances the various considerations.

The second link that the commenter provided was to the search results from an online query of a Department of Education web site, generated by searching on the phrase “web based train”. The results include a case study on “Discovering the Meani ng of Community In An Online Master’s Degree Program”, a description of the application process for fiscal year 2013 grants under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and a discussion of the Magnet Schools Assistance program grants.

EPA does not find this material to be relevant to online renovator refresher training under the RRP program, especially in the absence of any speci fication or elaboration in the comment.

In conclusion, the information in the links provi ded by the commenter does not indicate that online training is impractical for RRP refresher training.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) suggested that EPA should review EPA FAQ – 23002

‐ 14757 &

23002

‐ 18088.

Response: EPA is well aware of the FAQs that the Agen cy developed and posted to its web site. The FAQs referenced by the commenter describe the existi ng training requirements prior to this rulemaking. These FAQs do not limit or constrain EPA’s abilities to modify the training requirements as it is doing

with these rule amendments.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) provided data that it claims documents greater than 30% of RRP regulated activities, the same students who already once did cleaning verification hands

‐ on, are leaving lead

‐ dust hazards behind. According to the comment er, this rule amendment will further reduce the regulated entities skills and accountability is go ing to decrease reliability, effectiveness AND safety!

Response: It is not possible to determine from the in formation that the commenter submitted whether any of these jobs left behind lead-dust hazards as a result of RRP regulated activities, much less that

exceedances of the hazard standard o ccur in 30% of RRP activities.

According to the clearance proce dures described in the commenter’s documentation, after conducting

renovation or lead hazard reduction activities with cont ainment between treated and untreated areas, two dust samples were to be taken from each of no less th an four rooms, hallways or stairwells within the containment area. One dust sample was to be take n from one interior window sill and window trough37 (alternating between rooms) and one dust sample was to be taken from the floors of each room, hallway or stairwell selected. In addition, one dust sample wa s to be taken from the floor outside the containment area. If there were less than four rooms, hallways or stairwells within the containment area, then all rooms, hallways or stairwells were to be sampled.

This means that some of the dust samples could have been taken from outside the work area, in which case the lead levels detected in the wipe sampling c ould have been due to pre-existing conditions instead of the renovation activities. Under the RRP progr am, renovators are required to clean objects and

surfaces in the work area and within 2 feet of the wo rk area, and to perform cleaning verification in the work area. While the information submitted by the commenter indicates where the wipe samples were taken (bedroom, kitchen, porch, etc.) and the results of the lab testing of the wipe samples, there is no indication of where the renovation work was perfo rmed. (For example, whether the renovation was performed in the bedroom, the bathroom, or the liv ing room.) Therefore, based on the information submitted by the commenter, it is impossible to know whether the dust lead levels above the hazard standard were due to the RRP work, or whether th ey came from pre-existing conditions in spaces outside

the work area.

Since the commenter provides no indication of how many renovations were tested for lead dust, it is not possible to verify the commenter’s claim that lead h azards remain after 30% of RRP regulated activities. The commenter provided data indicating that 4 jo bs that occurred between 2012 and 2014 had one or more wipe samples that exceeded the applicable hazar d standard. For the 30% figure to be valid, the commenter would have had to collect sampling data for no more than 13 RRP jobs during this time period. But if, for example, the commenter took sam ples from 100 RRP jobs during this time period, then the 4 jobs that had lead levels exceeding a hazar d standard would represent 4% of RRP activities not

30%. Since the commenter is silent about the total num ber of jobs tested, it is not possible to determine the percentage of RRP jobs where lead le vels exceeded the hazard standard.

Even if the 30% figure claimed by the commenter were accurate for the current regulation, that does not

mean that this rule will reduce renovators’ skills and accountability, or decrease reliability, effectiveness or safety. These amendments do not change the wo rk practice requirements under the RRP program, and the hands-on component is still required for initial re novator training and every other time a renovator takes refresher training. EPA believes that allowing online training will lead to more renovators taking the refresher training and becoming recertified. Ha ving more renovators take the refresher training will lead to a higher number of certified renovators, resulting in a workforce better able to perform

renovations in a lead-safe manner.

Comment : One commenter (0304-0113) suggested that EPA should review a commentary from a training provider on why online RRP training is a bad idea 14 , and what the commenter terms an “Article on Web Based Learning concerns and support of not practical for this application.”

Response: The commenter did not enclose any article on Web-based learning concerns, or provide a citation, so it is not clear what the commenter was referring to. But since the commenter referenced the online commentary by Zach Rose opposing the proposed rule, the commenter may have meant a study mentioned in the Rose commentary. That study was published in 2013 in The Journal of Public Affairs

14 “Why Online RRP Training Is a Bad Idea; Commentary: You need in-person classes to deliver vital information about lead paint” by Zachary Rose, Remodeling , June 23, 2014. http://www.remodeling.hw.net/busin ess/regulations/why-online-rrp-training-is-a-bad-idea_o38 Education (JPAE). 15 According to the commentary by Zach ary Rose, the 2013 JPAE study “suggested that certain types of courses are better taught in person rather than online.” However, the details of the 2013 JPAE study do not indicate that RRP refresher training would necessarily be better taught in person

rather than online.

The JPAE study compared student performance me asures and assessments of learning experience from both online and traditional sections of a required grad uate public administration research methods course taught by the same instructor as part of a master’s program in public administration (MPA) at the California State University – San Bernardino. Th e paper provides evidence that student performance as measured by grade is independent of the mode of inst ruction. Furthermore, the study author noted that participation may be less intimidating in online classes, and the quality and quantit y of interaction may be

increased.

The JPAE study did find that a hi gher percentage of students failed the online course than the classroom version, but stated that students who failed the class were often those who discontinued their study, and noted that this result is in agreement with findi ngs from previous research results that the online classroom experiences a higher dropout rate as compared to face-to-face classroom. The study notes that this result can be attributed to demographics (since that distance education students are frequently older and have more life obligations), and to the mode of instruction itself (because online classes are often viewed as easier to drift away from or sever ties with).

Since refresher training is mandatory for renovators that disturb lead-based paint, EPA does not believe that demographic factors are an issue for the RRP prog ram. Furthermore, since refresher training is one

4-hour class rather than a set of classes over a semest er, EPA does not expect RRP students to drift away or sever ties during the course of the training.

The JPAE study also noted that difference in failure rates for online students in the research methods

course was not seen in all the other MPA core cour ses (including Public Administration Theory and Practice, Public Financial Mana gement, Public Management Information Systems, Human Resource Management, Public Budgeting and Finance, Manage ment of Public Organizations, Administrative Regulation, and Public Policy Analysis). The author stated that “It seems that students are more likely to

fail in online research methods classes.”

The commenter did not indicate why it thinks RRP re fresher training is more like the research methods class than it is like all the other public administratio n core courses, or why the experience with any of these MPA courses is relevant to RRP training. Theref ore, EPA does not believe that the information in the JPAE study indicates that online training is impractical for RRP refresher training.

In response to the general conclusion of the Rose co mmentary that renovators can only truly grasp all of the concepts present in the RRP rule through live in -person training, one online comment on the web site where the Rose commentary was posted (www.remodeling.hw.net) stated that

I agree that the initial class should be done in person. This is due to the fact that there are certain

"hands on" activities that need to be done as far as setting up site containment etc. As far as the recertification I see no reason why that can't be done on line.

Another commenter on that web site responde d to the Rose commentary as follows:

15 Anna Ya Ni, “Comparing the Effectiveness of Classroom and Online Learning: Teaching Research Methods”, The Journal of Public Affairs Education , 2013, 19(2), 199-215.39 I think allowing both types (in classroom and online) is the best option. As stated there are many different learning styles for each individual so pi ck the method that will be most informative to that person.

I for one have a much higher comprehension rate by reading, watching online, etc than I do when

I have to sit in a classroom for 8 hours. There ar e others who's learning style is better suited to being in the classroom. So have both and let each person decide which is the best fit for the.

I will agree that maybe there are. certain aspects of the training, at least for the first time through, that may be better served by being in a classroom setting. As an example, how to properly prep the area, or tricks of the trade to make the prep area even better, etc

In conclusion, I would like the option to be traine d the way I want to learn. Remember if I do not learn it correctly it can be very, very costly.

EPA agrees that the training should include a hands -on component the first time through, so that continues to be required for initial renovator trai ning. And the requirement to take the hands-on component every other time a renovator takes refresher training will continue to reinforce the hands-on skills. This way, renovators who may learn more th rough hands-on training will not be able to take the online course perpetually without ever having classroom refresher training, while renovators who prefer to take online training will be able to do so periodically.40 Comment: Commenter #0304-0046 is a training provider that opposes the proposed rule but stated they would financially benefit from the switching away from live classes to an online platform. The commenter indicated that, at the moment, they have ch osen to offer RRP refresher training only in live classes due to the importance of the subject matter . According to the commenter, they only offer less intense subject matter such as office skills, bus iness management and career skills online.

Response : This commenter indicated that it offers onlin e courses in business skills and in career training. However, the commenter fails to mention that in addition to office skills, business management and career skills, it also offers dozens of online courses in Environmental Health and Safety topics. According to this commenter’s web site, it offers the following courses online:

SAFETY BASICS

 Accidents-It Can't Happen to Me

 Basic Safety Orientation

 General Safe Work Practices

 Lifting Safely in Construction

 Basic Electrical Safety in the Workplace

 Bloodborne Pathogens Construction

 Slips and Falls in Construction

 Supervisor Safety Responsibilities

 Safety is Your Responsibility

 Preventing Injury Incidents

 Safe Operations of Motor Vehicles

 First Responder Awareness Level 1

HEALTH HAZARDS

 Health Hazards in Construction

 Hazardous Materials (C)

 Hazardous Communications Your Right to Know

 Globally Harmonized System (GHS) FAQ

 GHS Hazardous Communication Training

 Identifying Your Hazardous Wastes

 Hazardous Material Spill-Clean Up

 Health Effects of Asbestos

 Lead Safety in the Workplace (C)

 Personal Protective & Lifesaving Equipment (C)

 Personal Protective Equipment

 Respirators and How to Use Them C005P

 Testing and Monitoring for Hazardous Gases

 Hearing Conservation

 Health and Safety Factors in Welding Operations

 Heat Stress Awareness and Prevention

CONSTRUCTION

 Confined Space Entry Training

 Confined Space Entry

 Confined Space Entry Training 8-Hour

 Concrete and Masonry Construction (C)

 Cranes and Rigging (C)

 Vehicle Mounted Aerial Lift

 Pedestal Mounted Crane

 Overhead Crane

 Utility Truck Crane

 Telescopic Handler

 Stand Up Forklift  Sit Down Forklift

 Materials Handling (C)

 Materials Handling and Storage for Construction

 Excavation Safety (C)

 Flagger Safety

 Trenching-Shoring

 Backhoe-Loader Operations

 Dump Truck Safe ty New Update

 Fall Protection for Construction

 Employee Fall Protection

 Stairway and Ladder Safety (C)

 Ladder Safety

 Scaffolding Safety (C)

 Scaffolding Safety for Employees

 Articulated Boom Truck

 Aerial Lift/Scissor Lift

 Rough Terrain Crane

 Boom Truck

 Electrical Safety

 Electrical Safety (C)

 Hand and Power Tools (C)

 Hand and Power Tools

 Hand and Power Tool Safety

 Material Handling and Storage

 Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

 Fire Safety (C)

 Fire Extinguisher

 Use of Explosives in the Workplace(C)

 Welding and Cutting (C)

 Portable Grinders and Abrasive Wheels

OSHA

 Introduction to OSHA and the OSH Act

 Recordkeeping & Reporting (C)

 Struck By and Caught Between

 Struck-By and Caught In Between Hazards (C)

 FOCUS FOUR: Electrical Safety

HAZWOPER

 OSHA - HAZWOPER: Basic

 24 HR HAZWOPER

 HAZWOPER 40 HR

 HAZWOPER 8 hr Annual Refresher41 The commenter’s statements to this rulemaking docke t do not provide a sufficient basis to indicate why it

believes all of these other Environmental Health and Safety courses can be successfully taught online but the RRP refresher course cannot be. Moreover, th e commenter’s web site goes on to provide the following justifications for offering courses online 16 :

WHO SAYS YOU CAN'T TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS??
THE 5 C'S: WHY ONLINE TRAINING MIGHT BE FOR YOU... From An Old Dog

I’m the old dog, the one who never thought he’d be offering online classes and even argued against them. I still believe our live classes taught by ex perienced contractors who have been in the field are the most effective. But after seeing so many crews out there in need of training, I’m changing my ways. My goal is to educate as many workers as possible so they will be safe on their jobs, and go home to their families each night. I recognize that one training session may not impact dangerous worker habits that were years in the making, and I see smaller companies who may not be able to afford a private training or the lost production time. I’ve also met a new generation of workers who want to train digitally, as they were raised.

So, here I am offering a few good reasons why online classes might be a great addition to your training strategy:

 COSTS – far less expensive than private training

 CONVENIENT – train without losi ng PRODUCTION TIME

 CONCENTRATED – you decide who needs which topic and when

 CONTINUAL – ongoing training and not a "once a year" event - something OSHA encourages

 COMPREHENSIVE – can complete an individuals’ training when combined with live trainings

THE MORE WE SEE HOW TO BE, THE MORE WE LEARN TO BE

Take a look at the course offerings as we teamed up with a leading online training provider to give YOU another tool to use in keeping your crew sharp and safe.

EPA believes that this commenter’s web site offers compelling rationales for offering training online that also applies to allowing RRP refresher training to be taken online every other training cycle.

Miscellaneous Comments

Comment : One commenter stated that, in order to comply with Executive Order 13045, EPA must

evaluate the effects of this rule on children and e xplain why the regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives.

Response: As stated in the preamble to the final rule, the action is not subject to Executive Order 13045,

because it would not establish an environmental standa rd intended to mitigate health or safety risks. Furthermore, the requirements in the lead program will continue to protect children, since renovators will still be required to take an 8 hour initial training that includes a hands-on component; they will still have to take regular refresher training; the refresher tr aining will have to include a hands-on component every other training cycle; refresher training without a ha nds-on component will only be valid for three years; and renovators will still have to comply with the wo rk practice requirements for renovation, repair or painting activities that disturb lead-based paint.

Comment : One commenter disagrees with EPA’s assertion that renovation work is not technical. The commenter states that skills required by a renova tor are technical to the common contractor.

16 http://www.leadsmarttraining.com/onlin e-safety-training-online-osha-train ing-osha-training-safety-training42 Response: In a discussion about removing the hands-on re quirement, EPA referred to renovation work as “less technical” compared to abatement work. The Agency did not say that renovation work is not technical but merely that it is less technical than work done during an abatement. The purpose of the discussion was to point out that hands-on learning should take place more often in the abatement trainings.

Comment : One commenter stated that states authorized to implement the RRP program may turn the program back over to EPA rather than comply with EPA’s proposed changes to the hands-on requirement. Another commenter asked if state programs will have to eliminate their hands-on training requirements.

Response: The Agency disagrees with the first commenter . Authorized states are not required to make conforming changes to the hands-on requir ement because of this rulemaking.