1

Smith, Peterj

From: Smith, Peterj

Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 11:05 AM

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

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

Subject: EPA RESPONSE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Review: EPA's Lead-Based Paint Program; 

Amendment to Jurisdictions and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements (RIN 2070-

AK02)

Attachments: EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx

Importance: High

Categories: TSCA 411 Docket

Hi Danielle,

I am pleased to provide EPA’s response to the interagency comments that you provided on 11/3/2014. Please note that

some of the responses include text that we would add to the draft Federal Register document to help address particular

comments.  However, in order to help keep things simple, EPA will provide a markup of the draft Federal Register

document only when we can be assured that the edits provided in our responses resolve the reviewers’ comments.   

I am available today and tomorrow to help coordinate on any follow‐up or to address any questions. Thanks!

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Peter J. Smith | US EPA | Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention | Regulatory Coordination Staff 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW | Washington, DC 20460 | phone: 202/564-0262 | e-mail: smith.peterj@epa.gov

***************************************************************************************************

NOTICE: Section 411 of the Toxic Substances Control Act established special docketing requirements for draft regulations  

subject to an interagency review. Under the law, EPA must include in the rulemaking docket: (1) the draft of any proposed  

rule under TSCA Title IV and all supporting documents that were submitted to OMB for an interagency review process;  

(2) all written comments received by EPA from all of the reviewing agencies regarding those documents; and, (3) EPA’s  

written responses thereto. Similar requirements also apply at the final rule stage. If you have any questions about this

requirement, please contact Angela Hofmann (564‐0258) or Peter Smith (564‐0262) for more information.

REMINDER: If this electronic communication explains, justifies, or documents an official action or decision, it may be  

subject to federal records requirements. Please evaluate the contents of this message before deleting it.

***************************************************************************************************
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 1 of 10

Lead‐based Paint Program; Amendments to Jurisdiction‐Specific 

Certification and Accreditation Requirements and Renovator Refresher 

Training Requirements; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (RIN 2070-AK02) 

EPA Response to Revised Interagency Comments Received from OMB on 11/03/2014 

11/19/2014 

Comments on the Cost Benefit Analysis 

COMMENT #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?). 

EPA RESPONSE: The Economic Analysis already states that it is based on the assumption that 

ninety-eight percent of renovators will enroll in the e-learning refresher training courses (see section 

3.3.4). However, the proposed rule does not require training providers to offer an e-learning 

course. By removing the requirement for hands-on refresher training, the proposed rule merely 

allows training providers the option of offering a course that is entirely online. As a result, EPA 

does not have data or information about the other issues that the reviewer mentioned. For 

example, EPA does not have information on the cost that a training provider would incur if they 

choose to contract with a third-party firm to provide online content. That is why EPA addressed 

these potential impacts qualitatively. EPA does not believe it should delay the publication of the 

proposed rule in order to gather data on the indirect effects of the rule, such as the cost of 

contracting with a third-party firm if a training provider decides to offer online training. In order to 

maximize cost savings for small businesses, the proposed amendments would need to be finalized 

by March 2015. Otherwise, renovators who took their initial training in 2010 will have to receive 

hands-on training as part of their refresher training. 

In order to solicit data on the potential costs to training providers, EPA will add the following 

language to the preamble beginning at line 224: 

EPA also requests comment and supporting information on the savings that would accrue to 

renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher courses; 

the resulting number of renovators expected to take their training online instead of in-person; 

whether the tuition is likely to differ for online and in-person refresher training; and how the 

costs training providers would incur to offer online refresher training courses compare to the 

costs of offering courses in person. 

If the necessary information is provided during the public comment period, EPA can incorporate 

such estimates into the analysis for the final rule. 
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 2 of 10

COMMENT #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.

EPA RESPONSE: As stated in Section 3.1 and in the footnote to Exhibit ES-1 in the EA, “A fifty 

year analytical period is used in this to be consistent with prior economic analyses of abatement 

and RRP program rules.” Using a 50 year period makes it possible to compare the cost savings 

due to the proposed Minor Amendments rule with the costs of the 2008 RRP rule and the 2010 Optout rule, to determine the ongoing costs of the RRP program if this proposed rule is implemented. If 

a 30 year period were used for this analysis, the results would not be comparable with the previous 

analyses. 

COMMENT #3: If the trainers are providing an e-learning class, then how can EPA account for the 

reduction?

EPA RESPONSE: Without the proposed rule, only the classroom portion of the class can be 

presented online; the hands-on portion would still need to be taken in-person. That means that the 

renovator would still need to travel to the training site (incurring an average cost of $165 in travel 

costs). Taking the class entirely online avoids these travel costs. There are also tuition cost 

savings from removing the hands-on training requirement. 

COMMENT #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 e-learning 

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.

EPA RESPONSE: The cost of training for a renovator taking an existing e-learning course is 

fundamentally different from that under the proposed rule, so the baseline e-learning rate would not 

provide a realistic assumption about the post-rule adoption of e-learning. The difference is that 

renovators taking the existing e-learning courses must still take hands-on training. As a result, 

under the current rule, renovators incur the same travel costs whether they take in-person 

classroom training and hands-on training, or e-learning classroom and hands-on training. 

Renovators could avoid these travel costs as a result of the proposed rule. The savings in travel 

costs represent 82% of the cost savings under the proposed rule. Because renovators do not save 

these travel costs if they take an existing e-learning course, there is currently little financial incentive 

for them to take the classroom portion of their training online. Renovators can avoid these travel 

costs if the proposed rule is finalized, so the post-rule adoption of e-learning will significantly exceed 

the current rate. 

EPA’s rationale was provided in section 3.3.4 of the EA, which stated that “Ninety eight percent of 

renovators seeking training are assumed to enroll in an e-learning course due to the convenience 

of taking the course online and the savings in travel costs. The remaining 2 percent of 

renovators are assumed to continue taking in person training after the amendment because they 

prefer to take their training in class rather than online.” (emphasis added) 

As noted in the response to Comment #1, in order to gather information on the proportion of 

renovators likely to take refresher training online, EPA will add the following language to the 

preamble beginning at line 224: 
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 3 of 10

EPA also requests comment and supporting information on the savings that would accrue to 

renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher courses; 

the resulting number of renovators expected to take their training online instead of in-person; 

whether the tuition is likely to differ for online and in-person refresher training; and how the 

costs training providers would incur to offer online refresher training courses compare to the 

costs of offering courses in person. 

COMMENT #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.

EPA RESPONSE: Of the four training providers listing tuitions for both in-person and online 

training on their websites, three of them charged the same tuition for both options. That means the 

tuition differed at a single training provider. EPA does not agree that it should use a range based 

on this single data point. If additional data is submitted during the public comment period, EPA can 

consider including an alternate estimate or a range of cost savings in the analysis of the final rule. 

As noted in the response to Comment #1, EPA will add the following language to the preamble 

beginning at line 224: 

EPA also requests comment and supporting information on the savings that would accrue to 

renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training requirement for renovator refresher courses; 

the resulting number of renovators expected to take their training online instead of in-person; 

whether the tuition is likely to differ for online and in-person refresher training; and how the 

costs training providers would incur to offer online refresher training courses compare to the 

costs of offering courses in person.

COMMENT #6: This reviewer feels that the cost savings should be limited to the travel costs savings 

with e-learning. 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.

EPA RESPONSE: In case there is any potential confusion, the “classroom” component of the 

training can be offered either in-person or online, and it is separate from the “hands-on” component, 

which is only offered in-person. (“Classroom” refers to the portion of the course where there is a 

lecture by an instructor; it does not necessarily take place in a physical classroom.) While EPA’s 

Economic Analysis indicates that training providers will likely charge the same price for online 

training as in-person training, this only refers to the classroom component of the course. This cost 

is different than the cost of the hands-on component of the course. 

The costs of the two course components differ because the requirements to teach them differ. The 

hands-on component has a 6-to-1 recommended student-teacher ratio, compared to a 25-to-1 

recommended ratio for the in-person classroom component. The tuition for the hands-on 

component also covers the cost of various supplies (such as EPA-recognized test kits, disposable 

plastic drop cloths, tape, electrostatically charged cleaning cloths, disposable wet cleaning wipes, 

garbage bags, and so on) for each student. Thus, the hands-on component costs more to provide 

than the classroom component. The difference in the cost is demonstrated by some examples from 

individual training providers: 

 One training provider offers the initial classroom component alone for $39.99. The same 

training provider offers the initial hands-on component alone for $140. 
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 4 of 10

 

 Another training provider offers the initial classroom component alone for $55. The same 

training provider offers the initial hands-on component alone for $195. 

The same pattern can be seen looking at the average costs across many training providers: 

 The mean tuition for the initial hands-on component is $150. 

 The mean tuition for the full 8 hour initial training course (both the classroom and the handson components) is $215. This yields an estimate that the mean tuition for the classroom 

component is $65 ($215 - $150). 

So the average cost of classroom training ($65) is less than half the average cost of hands-on 

training ($150). 

Hands-on training clearly costs more than classroom training, and removing the hands-on 

requirement will decrease the cost of taking the training beyond the decrease in travel costs. 

COMMENT #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 

the same in year 2064? Does EPA anticipate the same number of renovators during this 45 year 

period?

EPA RESPONSE: The figures mentioned in the comment do not represent a decrease in the 

number of renovators seeking new and refresher training over time. The numbers starting in 2020 

are identical to the average number of renovators per year in the previous 5 year period, as shown 

in the table below. This is a simplification in the calculations, not a change in the assumptions. 

Year 

Number of 

Renovators 

Seeking Initial or 

Refresher Training 

Renovators 

Seeking 

Refresher Training 

2015 357,500 168,025 

2016 52,800 24,816 

2017 38,800 18,236 

2018 29,300 13,771 

2019 29,300 13,771 

Total for 5 year period 2015-2019 507,700 238,619 

Average per year for 5 year period 101,540 47,723 

2020 101,540 47,723 

⁞

2064 (year 50) 101,540 47,723 

101,540 represents the same average number of renovators trained per year from 2020 to 2064 as 

from 2015 to 2019. 

The number of renovators receiving initial training decreased each year from 2010 through 2013. 

One might expect a spike in refresher training starting in 2015 followed by a decrease for the next 

four years, followed by another spike in 2020, with a repeating pattern every five years. That is, 

one might expect a cyclical pattern of retraining to emerge. However, over time the original cohort 

of trained individuals will retire or leave the market and be replaced by new renovators whose 

training cycle is not tied to the start of the RRP program in 2010. So the cycle will be dampened 

and eventually disappear. Trying to model such a trend in the declining cyclicality would add little to 

the analysis while significantly increasing the complexity of the calculations. Instead, the analysis 
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 5 of 10

uses a declining level for the first cycle of refresher training (because this mirrors the historical data 

on initial training shown in Exhibit 3-7). Then, in order to simplify the calculations, the analysis 

assumes a constant average number of individuals receive refresher training each year starting in 

2020. Again, this represents an averaging of the number of renovators across the 2015 to 2019 

training cycle, not a decrease in the number of renovators. 

COMMENT #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.

EPA RESPONSE: That information is already provided in section 7.1. As shown in Exhibit 7-2, 

benefits for training provider staff are 41% of wages for professional staff and 44% of wages for 

clerical staff. Overhead is 17% of wages for both labor categories. These percentages result in 

loaded wage rates of $53.66/hour for professional staff and $26.79 per hour for clerical staff. 

COMMENT #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 nonprofit 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 nonprofit 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.

EPA RESPONSE: As described at 40 CFR 745.82(a)1, renovation, repair, and painting (RRP) 

requirements apply only to renovations performed for compensation. The reviewer may refer to the 

April 22, 2008, final rule2 for a discussion of what it means to perform a renovation for 

compensation (73 FR 21707-21708). Renovations that are not performed for compensation are 

outside of the scope of the RRP program, and thus are not affected by the changes EPA is 

proposing to the refresher training requirements. 

Comments on the Preamble 

COMMENT #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 [sic]. 

EPA RESPONSE: EPA will add the following language to the preamble explaining the notification 

requirements in the paragraph beginning on line 240. 

Both types of notifications must contain information about the course including, but not limited 

to, date, time and location. The post-training notification must also include information about 

the trainees including name, address and test score, among other things. Pre-training 

notifications must be submitted at least 7 business days prior to the start of the course. Post-

                                                            

1 See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR‐2013‐title40‐vol32/pdf/CFR‐2013‐title40‐vol32‐sec745‐82.pdf   2 See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR‐2008‐04‐22/pdf/E8‐8141.pdf  
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 6 of 10

training notifications must be submitted no later than 10 business days following course 

completion. 

COMMENT #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.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA appreciates the reviewer’s comment. As explained at lines 250-262 of the 

draft NPRM that was submitted for review, EPA is considering whether e-notifications through CDX 

should be mandatory and requests comment on this point. In the past year, 63% of training 

providers that submitted notifications used CDX. EPA decided against proposing the option 

because almost all RRP training providers are considered to be small entities. Although EPA is 

seeking comment on whether electronic training notifications should be required, such a 

requirement reduces some of the flexibility that is afforded to small entities under the existing 

regulations.

As explained in the ICR for the LBP activities and RRP program that presently approved under 

OMB Control No. 2070-01553, the costs and burdens associated with CDX are addressed in the 

ICR for EPA’s Cross-Media Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule (presently approved 

under OMB Control No. 2025-00034). EPA is in the process of renewing both ICRs. As presented in 

the CROMERR ICR, the burden associated with CDX is less than 2 hours per response for 

regulated parties who will submit information directly to EPA.

The CROMERR ICR explains that the estimated reporting burden associated with registering with 

CDX is 10 minutes per employee, and includes time for preparing an on-line application and calling 

the CDX Help Desk. In addition, the ICR also explains that estimated reporting burden for an 

employee to prepare and submit identifier, attribute, or alternative information is 80 minutes. Finally, 

the ICR estimated that the reporting burden for an employee to prepare and submit a subscriber 

agreement is up to 20 minutes, and that the estimated recordkeeping burden associated with filing 

a copy of an agreement on site is 5 minutes.

COMMENT #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.

EPA RESPONSE: EPA understands the reviewer’s concern, and reminds all reviewers that the 

Agency is only proposing changes to the hands-on component of refresher training that is required 

under the RRP program. EPA is not considering revisions to abatement program training 

requirements, and therefore respectfully disagrees that the Agency should solicit comment on the 

question. EPA’s rationale for maintaining hands-on activities in refresher courses for abatement 

program professionals is provided at lines 225-239 of the draft NPRM that was submitted for 

review. The preamble explains that work performed by inspectors, risk assessors, abatement 

worker, supervisor and dust sampling technicians involves highly specialized skills. Because of the 

technical nature of the work performed by these disciplines, EPA believes that it is important for 

their refresher training courses to include hands-on learning. 

                                                            

3 ICR Ref. No. 201109‐2070‐002; see: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201109‐2070‐002   4

  ICR Ref. No. 201106‐2025‐001; see: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201106‐2025‐001  
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 7 of 10

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, 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% e-training, but require that these re-certification courses for 

renovators use a method for students to demonstrate proficiency in lead testing and cleanup 

verification.

EPA RESPONSE: Due to the less technical nature of the RRP work practices, EPA believes that 

performing hands-on activities in the initial training is sufficient to teach renovators the needed 

skills. Furthermore, EPA plans to incorporate video demonstrations of all the hands-on activities in 

its model e-learning renovator refresher course. To address the commenter’s request to have 

students demonstrate proficiency in the hands-on skills without having to travel to a training facility, 

EPA will request comment on alternative approaches to conducting that hands-on portion of the 

training. The text below will be added to the preamble after the paragraph that ends on line 224. 

While the Agency believes that the hands-on requirement in the refresher course is no longer 

necessary, it has not ruled out having hands-on activities that are performed via e-learning 

instead of in person. This would allow instructors to assess the student’s skills without having 

the student travel to a classroom. EPA requests comment on how the hands-on portion of the 

refresher course could be performed by the student and assessed by the instructor via e-learning. 

COMMENT #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?

EPA RESPONSE: Changes to the test kits are uncommon. Since the RRP rule was finalized in 

2008, one new test kit was added to the list of EPA-recognized test kits. At this time, the EPA has 

no plans or resources to sponsor additional testing of kits as was done previously through the 

agency’s Environmental Technology Verification Program. 
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 8 of 10

COMMENT #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?

EPA RESPONSE: The Agency does not have information regarding renovators that did not use the 

RRP work practices during their 5-year certification. EPA believes that renovators who do not use 

the work practices while they are certified would not seek recertification or need to use the work 

practices in the future. 

COMMENT #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?

EPA RESPONSE: Firms must be certified and at least one renovator on each renovation must be 

certified. Firms receive certification by applying to EPA. Renovators get certified by taking the 

training and they receive their certification from the training provider. Other workers are required to 

have on-the-job training, but that is via the certified renovator and so is not affected by this 

rulemaking. 

COMMENT #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?

EPA RESPONSE: EPA has not conducted a survey of renovators and therefore does not have 

information on the rate of compliance among certified renovators. 

COMMENT #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.

EPA RESPONSE: The reviewer appears to have confused the initial training requirements for the 

refresher training requirements. As specified at 40 CFR 745.225(e)(2) of the existing regulation and 

the draft NPRM, the entire renovator refresher training course – as opposed to just the currently 

required hands-on component – must last a minimum of 4 hours. 

With regard to modifying the hands-on training to make it less burdensome, EPA will request 

comment on alternative approaches to conducting the hands-on portion of the training. The text 

below will be added to the preamble after the new paragraph in EPA’s response to comment #13. 

Another option for maintaining the hands-on requirement in the refresher course is to modify it 

to make it less burdensome for trainers and students. For example, the requirement could be 

changed so the hands-on portion of the course is only required every other time a renovator gets 

recertified instead of every five years. Under this scenario, the renovator would only have to take 

the hands-on training once every ten years. The Agency requests comment on possible 

alternative approaches to conducting the hands-on skills to make the training less burdensome.
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 9 of 10

COMMENT #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.

EPA RESPONSE: The RRP work practices standards are specified in the regulations at 40 CFR 

745.85, the training requirements are specified at 40 CFR 745.225, and the process for test kit 

recognition is specified at 40 CFR 745.88. If EPA were to change the methods for lead-safe work 

practices, EPA would consider whether training requirements would also need to be adjusted in 

order to reflect any work practices changes. Any such changes would require additional rulemaking. 

If a change was made via rulemaking, EPA would also post information on its website explaining 

any new procedures and could also send information to the certified firms explaining the change. 

If additional test kits become available in the future, EPA will work with test kit manufacturers to 

ensure that instructions for use are clear, and EPA has the flexibility to require clear instructions as 

part of the test kit recognition process established in 40 CFR 745.88. In addition, as renovation 

firms hire new employees over time, EPA expects that some of those employees will require firsttime certified renovator training. To the extent that new acceptable test kits are commercially 

available, EPA expects that renovators who receive hand-on training in the use of those test kits will 

share their knowledge with any other certified renovators employed by the firm. 

COMMENT #20: Has there been any evaluation of whether online lectures are an adequate substitute 

for hands-on training?

EPA RESPONSE: EPA reiterates that hands-on training would continue to be a required 

component of the initial training course for certified renovators and therefore, all renovators will 

have had hands-on training. EPA does not intend to propose a substitute for the hands-on 

component of the initial training. Rather, as contemplated in the proposed rule, EPA would no 

longer require that hands-on training be included as a component of refresher training courses.

COMMENT #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?

EPA RESPONSE: Not all training components are currently offered online. Some training 

providers offer the classroom portion of the initial renovator training online, while others do not. 

EPA’s RRP rule does not allow the hands-on portion of the initial renovator training to be offered 

online (and the proposed minor amendments rule does not change this). No training providers 

currently offer refresher training courses with an e-learning classroom component. The minor 

amendments rule makes e-learning more attractive to both the renovator and the training provider 

since a renovator can take the entire refresher course online, eliminating travel costs. 

Aside from the fact that online courses are generally easier to scale up than in-person classes, the 

rule does not require training providers to offer this service online. Since any training provider is 

free to continue offering in-person classes, the current capacity for training providers to offer this 

service online is not an issue. 

As a reminder, the “classroom” component of the training can be offered either in-person or online, 

and it is separate from the “hands-on” component, which is only offered in-person. The minor 

amendments rule offers training providers the option of eliminating the hands-on portion of the 

course, not the classroom portion. Based on data from initial renovator training courses, it appears 

that training providers tend to charge the same tuition whether the classroom component is taught 
*** EO 12866/EO13563 Interagency Review – Deliberative – Do Not, Cite, Quote or Release During Review *** 

EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 10 of 10

in person or online. Therefore there is no revenue loss estimated for training providers who choose 

to replace in-person classroom training with online classroom training. 

COMMENT #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?

EPA RESPONSE: The expiration dates for all the Federal jurisdictions under one certification 

expire on the same date.

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

EPA RESPONSE: Fee revenues to the U.S. Treasury are predicted to decrease by $15,085 per 

year as a result of this rule. EPA’s costs to administer the program are expected to decrease by a 

similar amount. (The fee was established as directed by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which requires 

EPA to recover the cost of administering and enforcing the lead-based paint activities requirements 

in States without authorized programs.) So the decrease in fees is offset by the decrease in costs. 

COMMENT #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.

EPA RESPONSE: The certification requirements are the same in each EPA-administered 

jurisdiction.

COMMENT #25: Unit V.A. – After paragraph one, please consider moving the text to another section of 

the preamble, such as the executive summary section.

EPA RESPONSE: The Executive Summary already presents a high-level summary of this 

information at lines 96-108. Therefore, EPA respectfully declines to make the suggested change.