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, T anya; Gilbreath, Jan; Anderson, Steve Subject: EPA RESPONSE: EO 12866/13563 Interagency Re view: EPA's Lead-Based Paint Program;

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

Attachments: EO12866_RIN2070-AK02_Lead Minor Amendm ents_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 Pollu tion 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 Ame ndments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 1 of 10 

## Lead

‐ based Paint Program; Amendments to Jurisdiction

‐ Specific Certification and Accreditation Requi rements and Renovator Refresher Training Requirements; Notice of Pr oposed Rulemaking (RIN 2070-AK02)

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

11/19/2014



## Comments on the Cost Benefit Analysis

COMMENT #1: EPA describes a negative impact on individ ual 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 co st analysis as completely as the cost savings, EPA may receive adverse comments that could drum up unnecessary o pposition 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 exis t (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 c ourse 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 t heir 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 informati on on the savings that would accrue to renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training re quirement for renovator refresher courses; the resulting number of renovators expected to ta ke their training online instead of in-person; whether the tuition is likely to differ for on line and in-person refres her 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 Ame ndments_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 cons istent with prior economic analyses of abatement and RRP program rules.” Using a 50 year period makes it possible to compare the cost savingsdue 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 t hese 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 conduc ted 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 consi der 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 re sult 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 tr aining 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 Ame ndments_EPA Response1_2014-11-19.docx Page 3 of 10 

### EPA also requests comment and supporting informati on on the savings that would accrue to renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training re quirement for renovator refresher courses; the resulting number of renovators expected to ta ke their training online instead of in-person; whether the tuition is likely to differ for on line and in-person refres her 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 informati on on the savings that would accrue to renovators if EPA removes the hands-on training re quirement for renovator refresher courses; the resulting number of renovators expected to ta ke their training online instead of in-person; whether the tuition is likely to differ for on line and in-person refres her 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 t he 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 Ame ndments_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 t he 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 dram atic 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 r enovators trained per year from 2020 to 2064 as

from 2015 to 2019.

The number of renovators receiving initial traini ng 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 t he 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 Ame ndments_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 mosthazardous 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-commercialworkers 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 signi ficant 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 rule 2 for a discussion of what it means to perform a renovation for compensation (73 FR 21707-21708). Renovations t hat 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 co ntext 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 info rmation about the course including, but not limited to, date, time and location. The post-training notifi cation 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 busines s 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 Ame ndments_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 hav e 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 consi dered 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 c onsidered 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. 2070-0155 3 , 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. 2025-0003 4 ). 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 225-23 9 of the draft NPRM that was submitted for review. The preamble explains that work perfo rmed by inspectors, risk assessors, abatement worker, supervisor and dust sampling technicians invo lves 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 Ame ndments_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, howev er 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 prov iding refresher training and EPA will have no ability to

validate that renovators have remembered and can demons trate 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 t he 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 evolv ed to allow engagement with trainees so that they can demonstrate skill proficiency in novel, prac tical ways. This could be readily accomplished by requiring students to simply capture a brief ce ll 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 re viewer 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 vi deo 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 requ irement 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 instructor s to assess the student’s skills without having the student travel to a classroom. EPA request s comment on how the hands-on portion of the refresher course could be perfor med 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 Ame ndments_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 t he 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 eliminat e 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 requirem ent in the refresher course is to modify it to make it less burdensome for trainers and studen ts. 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 conduc ting 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 Ame ndments_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 we re 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 su ch 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 informati on to the certified firms explaining the change.

If additional test kits become available in the futu re, 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 t hat 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 cert ified 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 initia l 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 wi th 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 curr ent 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 opt ion 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 Ame ndments_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 ad minister the program are expected to decrease by a similar amount. (The fee was established as dire cted by TSCA section 402(a)(3), which requires EPA to recover the cost of administering and enfor cing 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.