1 

### Smith, Peterj

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

Sent: Monday, November 03, 2014 6:57 PM

To: Smith, Peterj

Cc: Hofmann, Angela; Edmonds, Marc; Mottley, T anya; Gilbreath, Jan; Anderson, Steve Subject: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: EPA's Lead- Based Paint Program; Amendment to

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

Attachments: EO 12866_13563 EPA Lead RRP Amendments Interagency Comments.docx

Categories: TSCA 411 Docket

Good evening Peter,

Please find attached to this email the interagency reviewer’s comments on the EPA’s draft proposed Lead

‐ Based Paint

Program; Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements.

Please let me know if you have any question regarding the comments.

Regards,

Danielle

Danielle Y. Jones Policy Analyst

Office of Management and Budget

Phone: (202) 395

‐ 1741 | djones@omb.eop.gov

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Com ments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Re view.

1 Comments on the Cost Benefit Analysis

1. EPA describes a negative impact on individual of training providers offering RRP training courses in general terms. This section of the anal ysis seems inconsistent with the level of detail and data provided elsewhere in the analysis (i.e. industry cost savings). This is a weakness that will easily be subject to criticism from the section of the industry that may be anxious about lower profit margins for e-learning course or tho se worried about losing market share altogether to e-learning courses. The proposed amendments have significant cost savings that might be beneficial to many small businesses, however, wit hout explaining the cost analysis as completely as the cost savings, EPA may receive adverse comments that could drum up unnecessary opposition and impede the progress and implementati on of the changes in this amendment. For instance, instead of declaring general statements about numbers and costs, EPA should include as much data or estimated/anticipated numbers/dollars that are available. For example, EPA should include an estimate of the portion of renovators that are expected to enroll in the e-learning refresher training courses. EPA should also include the cost that a training provider would incur when required to contract a third-party firm to offer the course online if it does not exist (e.g. how much will it cost to develop and administer the courses?).

2. What is the rationale for selecting a 50 year net present value for the economic analysis? Recommend the agency provide a robust rationale for 50 years, as opposed to 30 years for the

costs of the rule.

3. If the trainers are providing an e-learning class, then how can EPA account for the reduction?

4. EPA states within the RIA that the current rule allows for e-learning classrooms for refresher training by removing the hands-on training por tion of the class. The rule does not mandate trainers to provide e-learning, however, EPA h as conducted the cost analysis with the assumption that the majority of renovators (164,665 out of 168,025) will take the refresher training in an elearning environment (please see exhibit 3-8). Recommend that EPA provide a rationale for the assumption that 98% of renovators will take th e e-learning, and consider utilizing existing information on the breakdown of e-learning ve rsus classroom training to provide a more reasonable assumption.

5. EPA stated in the cost chapter of the RIA that training providers would most likely charge the same amount for the refresher training for the online course even though the agency no longer mandates hands-on training. The cost estimates for the courses are based on four training courses. This reviewer recommends that the agency rec onsider the cost savings associated with the amendments, and consider a range of cost savings.

6. This reviewer feels that the cost savings shoul d be limited to the travel costs savings with elearning. EPA acknowledged in the RIA that the training providers would most likely maintain the same pricing of refresher training for the online version, however, the agency still accounted for the cost savings.

7. EPA discusses that most renovators will renew in 2015 due to the current stock of renovators will need to renew. However, the ag ency states that the renovation market will reach an equilibrium point in 2020, which results in a steep reducti on of renovators seeking new and refresher training (357,500 to 101,540). What expl ains this dramatic decrease in renovators? Why is this number

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Com ments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Re view.

2 the same in year 2064? Does EPA anticipate the sa me number of renovators during this 45 year period?

8. In section 7.1, it would be helpful for EPA to provide the percentages for the load wage rates, etc,

as found in the costs section.

9. EPA should consider how to determine the numbe r of volunteer workers exposed to Pb hazards during renovation, repair, and painting of older hom es in the U.S., their frequency/intensity of exposure, and also how to effectively reach the volunteer workers conducting work that the Rule covers. There are many (but unknown number of) volunteer workers in the U.S. doing the most

hazardous Pb work involved in residential renovati on, repair, and painting for religious and other non-profit organizations. Many of the community volunteers are minors (high school and college students) and also women of childbearing age. The community organizations, workers, and parents are often unaware that painting/repairi ng homes with lead-based paint is hazardous, or of the early signs and symptoms of lead poisoning. As a result, elevated blood lead levels among these non-commercial workers would not be measured, or are underreported. NIOSH found that volunteers working for a non-profit agency that painted older homes were offered no training or protection, although their Pb exposures were haza rdous [NIOSH 1997]. If this work is done with some frequency (i.e., daily over a summer break from school), it would be a significant Pb exposure hazard among a vulne rable population.

Comments on the Preamble

10. The agency is requesting comment on how to modify the notification requirements, it would be helpful to provide some additional context on the notification. Recommend providing examples of pre and post notification that are already used for past courses renovation.

11. EPA states in the preamble that trainers have ha d the option to electronically submit notifications for a couple of years through EPA’s Central Data Exchange. How many trainers have submitted

this information online and has EPA considered proposing this as an option and providing the

burden and costs that are associated with CDX? This might be useful information to provide

commenters.

12. Has EPA considered removing the hands on co mponent for the inspector, risk assessor, supervisor, and dust sampling technicians? What is the rationale for only removing this portion of the training for the renovator and project designer? Reviewer recommends that the agency at least consider requesting comment.

13. Regarding the EPA proposal to eliminate a ha nds-on component to refresher training for renovators, this reviewer understands that this decision is based on EPA’s desire to lower cost and burden for renovators and providers of trai ning, however for renovators, the hands-on requirement was already limited to just two skills : demonstrating their mastery of an approved method to test for lead and showing proper pos t-abatement cleanup verification. Removing the requirement for demonstrating mastery of these two skills means that those providing refresher training and EPA will have no ability to validat e that renovators have remembered and can demonstrate these skills important to their work. EPA notes in its discussion that renovators will have been practicing these tasks for five years be fore seeking re-certification. According to the body of research on learning theory, skill mastery, and forgetting, it is pl ausible that renovators,

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Com ments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Re view.

3 who will have received only one 8-hour training certification class, could work for five years performing these tasks inadequately or incorrectly (see Arthur et al. [1998] for review of the training decay issue.) Renovators are often sma ll businesses or sole proprietors, who have little opportunity for supervision or correction as skills decay. Re-certifying with a hands-on component will ensure that renovators have th e opportunity to know and practice the most appropriate methods, including any new methods th at become available and are introduced in the refresher training. Additionally keeping a hands -on component will allow training providers and

EPA to ensure that renovators have mastered a nd are correctly employing these important skills. This review suggests that the hands-on component of refresher training need not involve traveling to and attending a live class. Many E-training progr ams have evolved to allow engagement with trainees so that they can demonstrate skill profic iency in novel, practical ways. This could be readily accomplished by requiring students to simply capture a brief cell phone video in which they demonstrate proper technique for lead tes ting and post-abatement cleanup verification. The video could be easily uploaded to the training provi der for verification that the student is using correct methods for these tasks. The ubiquity of cell phones with video capability and online refresher training for renovators makes collecting proof of competency feasible at minimal or no added expense to the trainees. Research indicat es that engaging training, with opportunity for feedback on performance, is critical to quality tr aining outcomes [Burke et al. 2006]. Thus, this reviewer recommends that EPA modify its refresh er requirement for renovators to allow 100% etraining, but require that these re-certification courses for renovators use a method for students to demonstrate proficiency in lead testing and cleanup verification.

14. How frequently do test kits change? Could there be a situation where a test kit might change significantly enough that additional hands-on trai ning may be beneficial during a refresher

course?

15. Does EPA have any information about the number of renovators that have been certified but may not have had hands-on practice during renovation jobs over the 5-year certification period? In other words, is it possible some renovators have been certified but never conducted jobs where the skills were needed/practiced , but nonetheless needs to mainta in their certification for some

reason and could benefit fr om hands-on training during the refresher course?

16. Does the certification cover only individuals or en tire firms? In other words, can an individual complete certification and that covers the firm he or she represents, or must each individual worker in that firm go through the training?

17. Has there been any survey of the competence of renovators upon taking the refresher course?

How do we know if certified renovators whose certifi cations are expiring are actually engaging in lead-safe work practices?

18. Has EPA considered ways to modify the hands- on training to make it less burdensome, rather than completely eliminate it? What would be th e impact of a shorter hands-on component (e.g. 2hrs vs the current 4hrs)? What would be the impact of reducing the frequency of hands-on training so that it is required, for instance, on ce every other recertification period? What about requiring heads of renovation firms or renovation team s to continue to participate in a hands-on refresher every recertification cycle, but eliminat e the requirement for non-supervisory workers in

the firm? Etc.

## Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Com ments	on	Draft	Language	under EO12866/13563	Interagency	Review.		Subject	to	Further	Policy	Re view.

4 19. If methods change for lead-safe work practices, what other opportunities will EPA have to provide the lead renovation workforce hands-on training? Specifically, technological changes that change the operation of lead test kits.

20. Has there been any evaluation of whether online lectures are an adequate substitute for hands-on training?

21. Are all training lectures already offered online? What is the capacity currently for training providers to offer this service online? What is th e estimated loss in revenue for training providers who will be eliminating the classroom portion of their training?

22. For firms with multiple state certifications, do the different certifications expire at different times depending on when the renovator applied for the cer tification? By collapsing all the certifications into one, would the certification default to the latest expiration date? Would this effectively extend the expiration date for certifications beyond the length set currently?

23. What is the expected total loss in fee revenue as a result of this rule?

24. EPA’s proposed streamlining to require one certification and accreditation for all EPAadministered State jurisdictions makes sense. Howe ver, it is not clear if the current system of separate certifications uses different certification standards or if they are all the same. If all the separate certifications are equivalent, then the streamlining would make sense from a cost and consistency perspective. If, on the other hand, th e current system does not have equal certification requirements, such that some represent more comprehensive or better training for certification, then the impact of this streamlining might vary. Consideration should be given to clarifying the certification system.

25. Unit V.A. – After paragraph one, please consider moving the text to another section of the preamble, such as the executive summary section.