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, Tanya; 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	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

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 analysis 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 those 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, without 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 implementation 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 portion of the class. The rule does not mandate 

trainers to provide e-learning, however, EPA has 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 the e-learning, and consider utilizing existing 

information on the breakdown of e-learning versus 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 reconsider the cost savings associated with the 

amendments, and consider a range of cost savings. 

6. This reviewer feels that the cost savings should 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 agency states that the renovation market will reach an equilibrium 

point in 2020, which results in a steep reduction of renovators seeking new and refresher training 

(357,500 to 101,540). What explains this dramatic decrease in renovators? Why is this number 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

2

the same in year 2064? Does EPA anticipate the same 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 number of volunteer workers exposed to Pb hazards 

during renovation, repair, and painting of older homes 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 renovation, 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/repairing 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 hazardous [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 vulnerable 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 had 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 component 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 hands-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 training, 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 post-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 validate 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 before seeking re-certification. According to the 

body of research on learning theory, skill mastery, and forgetting, it is plausible that renovators, 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

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 small 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 the opportunity to know and practice the most 

appropriate methods, including any new methods that 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 and 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 programs have evolved to allow engagement with 

trainees so that they can demonstrate skill proficiency 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 testing and post-abatement cleanup verification. The 

video could be easily uploaded to the training provider 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 indicates that engaging training, with opportunity for 

feedback on performance, is critical to quality training outcomes [Burke et al. 2006]. Thus, this 

reviewer recommends that EPA modify its refresher 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 training 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 maintain their certification for some 

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

16. Does the certification cover only individuals or entire 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 certifications 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 the 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, once every other recertification period? What about 

requiring heads of renovation firms or renovation teams to continue to participate in a hands-on 

refresher every recertification cycle, but eliminate the requirement for non-supervisory workers in 

the firm? Etc. 
Summary	of	Interagency	Working	Comments	on	Draft	Language	under

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

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 the 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 certification? 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. However, 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, the 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.