National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions; Delay of Effective Date, 14003-14006 [2021-05271]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 47 / Friday, March 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
Service (Docket-customerservice@
epa.gov).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA–OW–2017–0300; FRL–10020–99–OW]
RIN 2040–AF15
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions; Delay of Effective Date
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective
date.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) is issuing a
short delay of the March 16, 2021,
effective date of the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR),
published in the Federal Register on
January 15, 2021. The LCRR will now
become effective on June 17, 2021. This
final rule does not change the
compliance date of January 16, 2024.
This delay in the effective date is
consistent with Presidential directives
issued on January 20, 2021, to heads of
Federal agencies to review certain
regulations, including the LCRR. The
sole purpose of this delay is to enable
EPA to take public comment on a longer
extension of the effective date for EPA
to undertake its review of the rule in a
deliberate and thorough manner
consistent with the public health
purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act
and the terms and objectives of recent
Presidential directives and in
consultation with affected stakeholders.
DATES: As of March 12, 2021, the
effective date of the final rule published
January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 4198, is
delayed until June 17, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action,
identified by docket identification (ID)
number EPA–HQ–OW–2017–0300, is
available at https://www.regulations.gov.
Out of an abundance of caution for
members of the public and our staff, the
EPA Docket Center and Reading Room
are closed to the public, with limited
exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID–19. Our Docket
Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email,
phone, and webform. For further
information about EPA Docket Center
Services and the current status, please
visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/
dockets. If you are having trouble
locating EPA docket materials, contact
the EPA Reading Room Staff for
assistance by calling (202) 566–1744, or
send a message to Dockets Customer
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Mar 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
Jeffrey Kempic, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk
Management Division, at (202) 564–
3632 or email kempic.jeffrey@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 20, 2021, President Biden
issued an ‘‘Executive Order on
Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to
Tackle the Climate Crisis.’’ (86 FR 7037,
January 25, 2021) (‘‘Executive Order
13990’’). Section 2 of Executive Order
13990 directs the heads of all agencies
to immediately review regulations that
may be inconsistent with, or present
obstacles to, the policy set forth in
Section 1 of Executive Order 13990. In
the January 20, 2021, White House ‘‘Fact
Sheet: List of Agency Actions for
Review,’’ the ‘‘National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions’’ (LCRR) is
specifically identified as an agency
action that will be reviewed in
conformance with Executive Order
13990 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/
01/20/fact-sheet-list-of-agency-actionsfor-review/). Also on January 20, 2021,
Ronald A. Klain, the Assistant to the
President and Chief of Staff, issued a
Memorandum for the Heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies
entitled, ‘‘Regulatory Freeze Pending
Review’’ (White House memo) (86 FR
7424, January 28, 2021); the
memorandum directs agencies to
consider postponing the effective date of
regulations, like the LCRR, that have
been published in the Federal Register,
but have not taken effect, for the
purpose of reviewing any questions of
fact, law, and policy the rules may raise.
In addition to these presidential
directives, the LCRR has been
challenged in court by Natural
Resources Defense Council, Newburgh
Clean Water Project, NAACP, Sierra
Club, United Parents Against Lead and
the Attorneys General of New York,
California, Illinois, Maryland,
Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the
District of Columbia. Those cases have
been consolidated in Newburgh Clean
Water Project, et al., v. EPA, No. 21–
1019 (D.C. Cir.). EPA also received a
letter on March 4, 2021, from 36
organizations and five individuals
requesting that EPA suspend the March
16, 2021, effective date of the LCRR to
review the rule and initiate a new
rulemaking. The litigants and other
stakeholders raise concerns about key
aspects of the rule, including whether to
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14003
have a maximum contaminant level, the
action level, the pace of lead service line
replacements, and the requirements for
small water systems, as well as
compliance with SDWA rulemaking
requirements such as those governing
risk assessment, management and
communication, and the opportunity for
a public hearing. EPA also received a
letter on February 4, 2021, from the
American Water Works Association
requesting that EPA not delay the rule.
I. Reason for This Action
Consistent with the above directives,
EPA is reviewing the LCRR. In order to
ensure that there is an opportunity for
engagement with the public in this
review, including public input on the
critically important public health issues
associated with lead in drinking water,
and to enable EPA to complete its
review of the rule in a deliberate and
thorough manner consistent with the
public health purposes of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, EPA expects that
this review will take 9 months and thus
will not conclude until December 2021.
The sole purpose of this action is to
provide a short delay of the effective
date of the LCRR so that EPA can
request comment on a longer
extension—until December 2021—of the
LCRR effective date and corresponding
compliance dates. The proposed longer
extension, published elsewhere in this
Federal Register, would allow EPA to
complete its review of this important
rule and consult with stakeholders who
have raised significant concerns about
the rule, including those who have been
historically underserved by, or subject
to, discrimination in Federal policies
and programs prior to the rule going
into effect. The longer extension will
also avoid expenditures or other
irreversible commitments that would be
wasted if, at the end of EPA’s review, it
decides to propose revisions to the
LCRR.
Because of the short duration of this
action, the procedural nature of this
action, and the fact that the compliance
dates for the LCRR are well in the future
and this action provides a reprieve for
immediate planning for compliance,
this action should have minimal adverse
impact on regulated entities or the
public. No regulatory changes to the
LCRR are made by this action. Rather,
EPA is taking this action for the sole
purpose of providing time for a public
comment period which will allow all
interested parties to provide input to the
agency about whether to extend the
LCRR effective date, and corresponding
compliance dates, prior to that rule
going into effect. To enable this
comment process, this rule provides a
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
14004
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 47 / Friday, March 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
short delay of the LCRR effective date,
to June 17, 2021, and EPA is
simultaneously publishing a proposed
rule that, if finalized, would extend the
effective date for an additional 6 months
(see the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of
this issue of the Federal Register).
II. Importance of EPA’s Review of the
LCCR for Protection of Public Health
The impact of lead exposure,
including through drinking water, is a
public health issue of paramount
importance and its adverse effects on
children and the general population are
serious and well known. For example,
exposure to lead is known to present
serious health risks to the brain and
nervous system of children. Lead
exposure causes damage to the brain
and kidneys and can interfere with the
production of red blood cells that carry
oxygen to all parts of the body. Lead has
acute and chronic impacts on the body.
The most robustly studied and most
susceptible subpopulations are the
developing fetus, infants, and young
children. Even low level lead exposure
is of particular concern to children
because their growing bodies absorb
more lead than adults do, and their
brains and nervous systems are more
sensitive to the damaging effects of lead.
EPA estimates that drinking water can
make up 20 percent or more of a
person’s total exposure to lead. Infants
who consume mostly formula mixed
with tap water can, depending on the
level of lead in the system and other
sources of lead in the home, receive 40
percent to 60 percent of their exposure
to lead from drinking water used in the
formula. Scientists have linked lead’s
effects on the brain with lowered
intelligence quotient (IQ) and attention
disorders in children. Young children
and infants are particularly vulnerable
to lead because the physical and
behavioral effects of lead occur at lower
exposure levels in children than in
adults. During pregnancy, lead exposure
may affect prenatal brain development.
Lead is stored in the bones and it can
be released later in life. Even at low
levels of lead in blood, there is an
increased risk of health effects in
children (e.g., less than 5 micrograms
per deciliter) and adults (e.g., less than
10 micrograms per deciliter).
The 2013 Integrated Science
Assessment for Lead and the HHS
National Toxicology Program
Monograph on Health Effects of LowLevel Lead have both documented the
association between lead and adverse
cardiovascular effects, renal effects,
reproductive effects, immunological
effects, neurological effects, and cancer.
EPA’s Integrated Risk Information
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Mar 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment
Summary provides additional health
effects information on lead.
Because of disparities in the quality of
housing, community economic status,
and access to medical care, lead in
drinking water (and other media)
disproportionately affects lower-income
people. Minority and low-income
children are more likely to live in
proximity to lead-emitting industries
and to live in urban areas, which are
more likely to have contaminated soils,
contributing to their overall exposure.
Additionally, non-Hispanic black
individuals are more than twice as
likely as non-Hispanic whites to live in
moderately or severely substandard
housing which is more likely to present
risks from deteriorating lead based
paint. The disparate impacts for lowincome and minority populations may
be exacerbated because of their more
limited resources for remediating the
sources of lead such as lead service
lines. For example, stakeholders have
raised concerns that to the extent water
systems rely on homeowners to pay for
replacement of privately owned
portions of lines, lower-income
homeowners will be unable to replace
lines, resulting in disparate levels of
protection. Moreover, the crisis in Flint,
Michigan, has brought increased
attention to the challenge of lead in
drinking water systems across the
country.
Given the paramount significance to
the public’s health for ensuring that lead
in drinking water is adequately
addressed under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and the concerns raised by
litigants and other stakeholders about
the LCRR, it is critically important that
EPA’s review of the LCRR be deliberate
and have the benefit of meaningful
engagement with the affected public,
including underserved communities
disproportionately affected by exposure
to lead.
In conducting its review, EPA will
carefully consider the concerns raised
by stakeholders, including
disadvantaged communities that have
been disproportionately impacted, states
that administer national primary
drinking water regulations, consumer
and environmental organizations, water
systems and other organizations.
Stakeholders have a range of concerns
about the LCRR. For example, a primary
source of lead exposure in drinking
water is lead service lines. Stakeholders
have raised concerns that despite the
significance of this source of lead, the
LCRR fails to require, or create adequate
incentives, for public water systems to
replace all of their service lines. In
addition, stakeholders have raised
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
concerns that portions of many lead
service lines are privately owned and
disadvantaged homeowners may not be
able to afford the cost of replacing their
portion of the lead service line and may
not have this significant source of lead
exposure removed if their water system
does not provide financial assistance.
Other stakeholders have raised concerns
regarding the significant costs public
water systems and communities would
face to replace all lead service lines.
Based upon information from the
Economic Analysis for the Final Lead
and Copper Rule, EPA estimates that
there are between 6.3 and 9.3 million
lead service lines nationally and the
cost of replacing all of these lines is
between $25 and $56 billion.
Another key element of the LCRR
relates to requiring public water systems
to conduct an inventory of lead service
lines so that systems know the scope of
the problem, can identify potential
sampling locations and can
communicate with households that are
or may be served by lead service lines
to inform them of the actions they may
take to reduce their risks. Some
stakeholders have raised concerns that
the rule’s inventory requirements are
not sufficiently rigorous to ensure that
consumers have access to useful
information about the locations of lead
service lines in their community. Other
stakeholders have raised concerns that
water systems do not have accurate
records about the composition of
privately owned portions of service
lines and that have concerns about
public water systems publicly releasing
information regarding privately owned
property.
A core component of the LCRR is
maintaining an ‘‘action level’’ of 15
parts per billion (ppb), which serves as
a trigger for certain actions by public
water systems such as lead service line
replacement and public education. The
LCRR did not modify the existing lead
action level but established a 10 ppb
‘‘trigger level’’ to require public water
systems to initiate actions to decrease
their lead levels and take proactive steps
to remove lead from the distribution
system. Some stakeholders support this
new trigger level while others argue that
EPA has unnecessarily complicated the
regulation. Some stakeholders suggest
that the Agency should eliminate the
new trigger level and instead lower the
15 ppb action level.
Some stakeholders have indicated
that the Agency has provided too much
flexibility for small water systems and
that it is feasible for many of the
systems serving 10,000 or fewer
customers to take more actions to
reduce drinking water lead levels than
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 47 / Friday, March 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
required under the LCRR. Other
stakeholders have highlighted the
limited technical, managerial, and
financial capacity of small water
systems and support the flexibilities
provided by the LCRR to all of these
small systems.
Stakeholders have divergent views of
the school and childcare sampling
provisions of the LCRR; some believe
that the sampling should be more
extensive, while others do not believe
that community water systems should
be responsible for it and that such a
program would be more effectively
carried out by the school and childcare
facilities.
Finally, some stakeholders have
expressed concerns that the Agency did
not provide adequate opportunities for a
public hearing and did not provide a
complete or reliable evaluation of the
costs and benefits of the proposed
LCRR.
The short delay in effective date
accomplished by this rule will enable
the Agency to separately take comment
on the need for a further extension of
the effective date and an extension of
the compliance dates so that the Agency
can conduct a thorough review of the
rule and engage meaningfully with the
public on this all-important public
health regulation. In a separate notice of
proposed rulemaking, published in the
‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section of this issue
of the Federal Register, EPA is
requesting public comment on the
additional 6-month extension of the
June 17, 2021, effective date of the LCRR
to December 16, 2021, and a 9-month
extension of the current compliance
date of January 16, 2024, to September
16, 2024, respectively. EPA will engage
with stakeholders during this 9 month
review period to evaluate the rule and
determine whether to initiate a process
to revise components of the rule. If EPA
decides it is appropriate to propose
revisions to the rule, it will consider
whether to further extend compliance
dates for those specific obligations.
The LCRR’s effective date (which is
when the rule is codified into the Code
of Federal Regulations) is different from
the compliance date. Section
1412(b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act specifies that drinking water
regulations generally require
compliance three years after the date the
regulation is promulgated. This 3-year
period is used by states to adopt laws
and regulations in order to obtain
primary enforcement responsibility for
the rule and by water systems to take
any necessary actions to meet the
requirements in the rule. Without a
delay in the effective date of the rule,
regulated entities may feel it necessary
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Mar 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
to undertake activities and spend scarce
resources on compliance obligations
that could change at the end of EPA’s
review period.
III. Compliance With the
Administrative Procedure Act
Section 553 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an
agency for good cause finds that notice
and public procedure are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, the agency may issue a rule
without providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment. As
further explained below, EPA has
determined that there is good cause to
delay the effective date of the LCRR for
90 days without prior proposal and
opportunity for comment because prepromulgation public comment on this
short notice is impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. Namely,
in this instance, where the LCRR will go
into effect on March 16, 2021, less than
two months after the start of this new
Administration, it is impracticable for
EPA to provide notice and gather
comment prior to the rule going into
effect. For the reasons explained above
and below, allowing the rule to go into
effect without further public
engagement will also be contrary to the
public interest.
Consistent with Executive Order
13990 and the January 20, 2021, White
House memorandum, EPA has
determined that the LCRR needs
additional assessment of policy and
legal issues, as well as stakeholder
consultations on issues critical to the
protection of public health. As
discussed above, this rule is about the
significant public health issues
associated with lead in drinking water
that is both nationally significant and
has had a particular impact, in some
instances overwhelming, on some
American communities, particularly
some minority and low income
communities. As noted above,
stakeholders that represent some of
these communities have raised concerns
that the LCRR, which is a revision of an
existing lead drinking water rule, is not
sufficient to provide needed protection
from the dangers of lead in drinking
water and that it may, in some respects,
actually represent a retreat from
protections provided by the existing
rule. For example, in a March 4, 2021,
letter, stakeholders raised concerns
about key aspects of the rule, including
whether to have a maximum
contaminant level, whether the lead
action level of 15 ppb is too high, the
pace of lead service line replacements,
and the flexibilities in the LCRR for
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14005
small water systems, as well as whether
the Agency complied with SDWA
rulemaking requirements such as those
governing risk assessment, management
and communication and the
opportunity for public hearing. Indeed,
representatives of these stakeholders
have asked EPA to suspend the rule for
6 months for these and other reasons.
EPA has concluded, as a result, that it
is critical to engage these stakeholders
and other interested parties in
reexamining the rule to ensure that it is
maintaining and enhancing public
protection from lead in drinking water
for all Americans. EPA believes it is
vital and in the public interest to engage
this community in a review of this rule
before it goes into effect.
At the same time, EPA recognizes that
water systems and States must expend
funds and begin to make near term and
significant programmatic and legal
changes in order to be in compliance
with the rule within the three year
timeframe provided by the statute.
These changes include assigning and
training personnel, obtaining funds,
developing lead service line inventories,
preparing plans, adopting new rules
and/or obtaining legislative
authorization, and modifying data
systems. If after the review of the rule,
EPA concludes that significant portions
of the rule should change, these
activities, and the funds that support
them will have been expended in ways
that could be less protective of public
health from the significant adverse
effects from lead in drinking water than
if these communities made expenditures
after the Agency has determined what
constitutes the best approach to
addressing this problem under the
SDWA. The Agency feels strongly that
the diversion of funds from cashstrapped communities and public
agencies in this manner should be
avoided. As a result, it is also in the
public interest to delay the effective
date during the time that EPA is
reviewing the rule so that critically
limited public funds needed to address
this public health crisis are not wasted
on implementation activities that may
not be warranted after reexamination of
the rule. It is further in the public
interest to briefly delay this rule in
order to take comment from affected
parties on whether a longer delay of the
effective date and compliance date is
necessary and appropriate.
EPA has acted quickly during the
transition to address concerns about this
rule. Within a short period of time after
the transition, the Agency determined
that it was critically important to engage
with the public and interested
stakeholders through multiple
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
14006
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 47 / Friday, March 12, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
avenues—including an opportunity for
written public comments, meetings with
stakeholders—prior to completing its
review of the LCRR and allowing it to
become effective. This document was
expeditiously prepared by the Agency
in order to be published within less
than two months of the change in
Administration.
EPA is promulgating this delay to
allow time for the public to comment on
whether to further extend the effective
date of the LCRR. That proposal is
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. This opportunity for
public input on whether to allow the
rule to go into effect as it currently
stands, would be foreclosed if EPA were
to provide for pre-promulgation notice
and comment. EPA has weighed
carefully the fact that this objective is
being achieved by deferring the effective
date through use of the good cause
exception under the APA. The Agency
has concluded that the LCRR presents
the exceptional case in which reliance
on good cause to forgo pre-promulgation
notice and comment is appropriate due
to the impacts of allowing the rule to go
into effect without further public input
and engagement. EPA finds that the
totality of the circumstances here—the
short duration of and important purpose
served by the delay, the serious issues
raised by the stakeholders and litigants
which deserve careful evaluation by the
Agency prior to the rule becoming
effective, the concerns raised by
stakeholders about potential harm from
allowing the rule to go into effect, and
that, at the same time as publishing this
final rule, EPA is also publishing a
proposed rule inviting public comment
on whether the effective date should be
delayed—provide good cause to forego
notice and an opportunity for comment
in these limited circumstances.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides
that final rules shall not become
effective until 30 days after publication
in the Federal Register ‘‘except . . . as
otherwise provided by the agency for
good cause.’’ The purpose of this
provision is to ‘‘give affected parties a
reasonable time to adjust their behavior
before the final rule takes effect.’’
Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc’n
Comm’n, 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir.
1996); see also United States v.
Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099, 1104 (8th Cir.
1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus,
in determining whether good cause
exists to waive the 30-day delay, an
agency should ‘‘balance the necessity
for immediate implementation against
principles of fundamental fairness
which require that all affected persons
be afforded a reasonable amount of time
to prepare for the effective date of its
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:32 Mar 11, 2021
Jkt 253001
ruling.’’ Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105.
EPA has determined that there is good
cause for making this final rule effective
immediately where, as explained above,
the impact of this rule is to provide
affected persons additional time before
the LCCR goes into effect.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory
action that was submitted to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. Any changes made in response
to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA. This action does not contain any
information collection activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This action is not subject to the RFA.
The RFA applies only to rules subject to
notice and comment rulemaking
requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or
any other statute. This rule is not
subject to notice and comment
requirements because the Agency has
invoked the APA ‘‘good cause’’
exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538. The action
imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13175. This action is not subject
to Executive Order 13175 because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on
tribes or on the relationship between the
national government and tribes.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are economically significant
per the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in Section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because the delay of the effective date,
by itself is not economically significant.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994)
because it does not establish an
environmental health or safety standard.
This action delays the effective date
that, by itself, does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and
the EPA will submit a rule report to
each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United
States. The CRA allows the issuing
agency to make a rule effective sooner
than otherwise provided by the CRA if
the agency makes a good cause finding
that notice and comment rulemaking
procedures are impracticable,
unnecessary or contrary to the public
interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). EPA has made
a good cause finding for this rule as
discussed in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document,
including the basis for that finding.
Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021–05271 Filed 3–11–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\12MRR1.SGM
12MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 47 (Friday, March 12, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14003-14006]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05271]
[[Page 14003]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA-OW-2017-0300; FRL-10020-99-OW]
RIN 2040-AF15
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions; Delay of Effective Date
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is issuing
a short delay of the March 16, 2021, effective date of the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
(LCRR), published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2021. The LCRR
will now become effective on June 17, 2021. This final rule does not
change the compliance date of January 16, 2024. This delay in the
effective date is consistent with Presidential directives issued on
January 20, 2021, to heads of Federal agencies to review certain
regulations, including the LCRR. The sole purpose of this delay is to
enable EPA to take public comment on a longer extension of the
effective date for EPA to undertake its review of the rule in a
deliberate and thorough manner consistent with the public health
purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the terms and objectives of
recent Presidential directives and in consultation with affected
stakeholders.
DATES: As of March 12, 2021, the effective date of the final rule
published January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 4198, is delayed until June 17,
2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300, is available at https://www.regulations.gov. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the
public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed
to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. For further
information about EPA Docket Center Services and the current status,
please visit us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. If you are
having trouble locating EPA docket materials, contact the EPA Reading
Room Staff for assistance by calling (202) 566-1744, or send a message
to Dockets Customer Service ([email protected]).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Kempic, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division, at (202)
564-3632 or email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued
an ``Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment
and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' (86 FR 7037,
January 25, 2021) (``Executive Order 13990''). Section 2 of Executive
Order 13990 directs the heads of all agencies to immediately review
regulations that may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles to, the
policy set forth in Section 1 of Executive Order 13990. In the January
20, 2021, White House ``Fact Sheet: List of Agency Actions for
Review,'' the ``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions'' (LCRR) is specifically identified as an agency
action that will be reviewed in conformance with Executive Order 13990
(https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/01/20/fact-sheet-list-of-agency-actions-for-review/). Also on January 20,
2021, Ronald A. Klain, the Assistant to the President and Chief of
Staff, issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies entitled, ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review'' (White House
memo) (86 FR 7424, January 28, 2021); the memorandum directs agencies
to consider postponing the effective date of regulations, like the
LCRR, that have been published in the Federal Register, but have not
taken effect, for the purpose of reviewing any questions of fact, law,
and policy the rules may raise. In addition to these presidential
directives, the LCRR has been challenged in court by Natural Resources
Defense Council, Newburgh Clean Water Project, NAACP, Sierra Club,
United Parents Against Lead and the Attorneys General of New York,
California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. Those cases have
been consolidated in Newburgh Clean Water Project, et al., v. EPA, No.
21-1019 (D.C. Cir.). EPA also received a letter on March 4, 2021, from
36 organizations and five individuals requesting that EPA suspend the
March 16, 2021, effective date of the LCRR to review the rule and
initiate a new rulemaking. The litigants and other stakeholders raise
concerns about key aspects of the rule, including whether to have a
maximum contaminant level, the action level, the pace of lead service
line replacements, and the requirements for small water systems, as
well as compliance with SDWA rulemaking requirements such as those
governing risk assessment, management and communication, and the
opportunity for a public hearing. EPA also received a letter on
February 4, 2021, from the American Water Works Association requesting
that EPA not delay the rule.
I. Reason for This Action
Consistent with the above directives, EPA is reviewing the LCRR. In
order to ensure that there is an opportunity for engagement with the
public in this review, including public input on the critically
important public health issues associated with lead in drinking water,
and to enable EPA to complete its review of the rule in a deliberate
and thorough manner consistent with the public health purposes of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA expects that this review will take 9
months and thus will not conclude until December 2021. The sole purpose
of this action is to provide a short delay of the effective date of the
LCRR so that EPA can request comment on a longer extension--until
December 2021--of the LCRR effective date and corresponding compliance
dates. The proposed longer extension, published elsewhere in this
Federal Register, would allow EPA to complete its review of this
important rule and consult with stakeholders who have raised
significant concerns about the rule, including those who have been
historically underserved by, or subject to, discrimination in Federal
policies and programs prior to the rule going into effect. The longer
extension will also avoid expenditures or other irreversible
commitments that would be wasted if, at the end of EPA's review, it
decides to propose revisions to the LCRR.
Because of the short duration of this action, the procedural nature
of this action, and the fact that the compliance dates for the LCRR are
well in the future and this action provides a reprieve for immediate
planning for compliance, this action should have minimal adverse impact
on regulated entities or the public. No regulatory changes to the LCRR
are made by this action. Rather, EPA is taking this action for the sole
purpose of providing time for a public comment period which will allow
all interested parties to provide input to the agency about whether to
extend the LCRR effective date, and corresponding compliance dates,
prior to that rule going into effect. To enable this comment process,
this rule provides a
[[Page 14004]]
short delay of the LCRR effective date, to June 17, 2021, and EPA is
simultaneously publishing a proposed rule that, if finalized, would
extend the effective date for an additional 6 months (see the
``Proposed Rules'' section of this issue of the Federal Register).
II. Importance of EPA's Review of the LCCR for Protection of Public
Health
The impact of lead exposure, including through drinking water, is a
public health issue of paramount importance and its adverse effects on
children and the general population are serious and well known. For
example, exposure to lead is known to present serious health risks to
the brain and nervous system of children. Lead exposure causes damage
to the brain and kidneys and can interfere with the production of red
blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the body. Lead has acute
and chronic impacts on the body. The most robustly studied and most
susceptible subpopulations are the developing fetus, infants, and young
children. Even low level lead exposure is of particular concern to
children because their growing bodies absorb more lead than adults do,
and their brains and nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging
effects of lead. EPA estimates that drinking water can make up 20
percent or more of a person's total exposure to lead. Infants who
consume mostly formula mixed with tap water can, depending on the level
of lead in the system and other sources of lead in the home, receive 40
percent to 60 percent of their exposure to lead from drinking water
used in the formula. Scientists have linked lead's effects on the brain
with lowered intelligence quotient (IQ) and attention disorders in
children. Young children and infants are particularly vulnerable to
lead because the physical and behavioral effects of lead occur at lower
exposure levels in children than in adults. During pregnancy, lead
exposure may affect prenatal brain development. Lead is stored in the
bones and it can be released later in life. Even at low levels of lead
in blood, there is an increased risk of health effects in children
(e.g., less than 5 micrograms per deciliter) and adults (e.g., less
than 10 micrograms per deciliter).
The 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for Lead and the HHS
National Toxicology Program Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level
Lead have both documented the association between lead and adverse
cardiovascular effects, renal effects, reproductive effects,
immunological effects, neurological effects, and cancer. EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment Summary
provides additional health effects information on lead.
Because of disparities in the quality of housing, community
economic status, and access to medical care, lead in drinking water
(and other media) disproportionately affects lower-income people.
Minority and low-income children are more likely to live in proximity
to lead-emitting industries and to live in urban areas, which are more
likely to have contaminated soils, contributing to their overall
exposure. Additionally, non-Hispanic black individuals are more than
twice as likely as non-Hispanic whites to live in moderately or
severely substandard housing which is more likely to present risks from
deteriorating lead based paint. The disparate impacts for low-income
and minority populations may be exacerbated because of their more
limited resources for remediating the sources of lead such as lead
service lines. For example, stakeholders have raised concerns that to
the extent water systems rely on homeowners to pay for replacement of
privately owned portions of lines, lower-income homeowners will be
unable to replace lines, resulting in disparate levels of protection.
Moreover, the crisis in Flint, Michigan, has brought increased
attention to the challenge of lead in drinking water systems across the
country.
Given the paramount significance to the public's health for
ensuring that lead in drinking water is adequately addressed under the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and the concerns raised by litigants and other
stakeholders about the LCRR, it is critically important that EPA's
review of the LCRR be deliberate and have the benefit of meaningful
engagement with the affected public, including underserved communities
disproportionately affected by exposure to lead.
In conducting its review, EPA will carefully consider the concerns
raised by stakeholders, including disadvantaged communities that have
been disproportionately impacted, states that administer national
primary drinking water regulations, consumer and environmental
organizations, water systems and other organizations.
Stakeholders have a range of concerns about the LCRR. For example,
a primary source of lead exposure in drinking water is lead service
lines. Stakeholders have raised concerns that despite the significance
of this source of lead, the LCRR fails to require, or create adequate
incentives, for public water systems to replace all of their service
lines. In addition, stakeholders have raised concerns that portions of
many lead service lines are privately owned and disadvantaged
homeowners may not be able to afford the cost of replacing their
portion of the lead service line and may not have this significant
source of lead exposure removed if their water system does not provide
financial assistance. Other stakeholders have raised concerns regarding
the significant costs public water systems and communities would face
to replace all lead service lines. Based upon information from the
Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule, EPA estimates
that there are between 6.3 and 9.3 million lead service lines
nationally and the cost of replacing all of these lines is between $25
and $56 billion.
Another key element of the LCRR relates to requiring public water
systems to conduct an inventory of lead service lines so that systems
know the scope of the problem, can identify potential sampling
locations and can communicate with households that are or may be served
by lead service lines to inform them of the actions they may take to
reduce their risks. Some stakeholders have raised concerns that the
rule's inventory requirements are not sufficiently rigorous to ensure
that consumers have access to useful information about the locations of
lead service lines in their community. Other stakeholders have raised
concerns that water systems do not have accurate records about the
composition of privately owned portions of service lines and that have
concerns about public water systems publicly releasing information
regarding privately owned property.
A core component of the LCRR is maintaining an ``action level'' of
15 parts per billion (ppb), which serves as a trigger for certain
actions by public water systems such as lead service line replacement
and public education. The LCRR did not modify the existing lead action
level but established a 10 ppb ``trigger level'' to require public
water systems to initiate actions to decrease their lead levels and
take proactive steps to remove lead from the distribution system. Some
stakeholders support this new trigger level while others argue that EPA
has unnecessarily complicated the regulation. Some stakeholders suggest
that the Agency should eliminate the new trigger level and instead
lower the 15 ppb action level.
Some stakeholders have indicated that the Agency has provided too
much flexibility for small water systems and that it is feasible for
many of the systems serving 10,000 or fewer customers to take more
actions to reduce drinking water lead levels than
[[Page 14005]]
required under the LCRR. Other stakeholders have highlighted the
limited technical, managerial, and financial capacity of small water
systems and support the flexibilities provided by the LCRR to all of
these small systems.
Stakeholders have divergent views of the school and childcare
sampling provisions of the LCRR; some believe that the sampling should
be more extensive, while others do not believe that community water
systems should be responsible for it and that such a program would be
more effectively carried out by the school and childcare facilities.
Finally, some stakeholders have expressed concerns that the Agency
did not provide adequate opportunities for a public hearing and did not
provide a complete or reliable evaluation of the costs and benefits of
the proposed LCRR.
The short delay in effective date accomplished by this rule will
enable the Agency to separately take comment on the need for a further
extension of the effective date and an extension of the compliance
dates so that the Agency can conduct a thorough review of the rule and
engage meaningfully with the public on this all-important public health
regulation. In a separate notice of proposed rulemaking, published in
the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this issue of the Federal Register,
EPA is requesting public comment on the additional 6-month extension of
the June 17, 2021, effective date of the LCRR to December 16, 2021, and
a 9-month extension of the current compliance date of January 16, 2024,
to September 16, 2024, respectively. EPA will engage with stakeholders
during this 9 month review period to evaluate the rule and determine
whether to initiate a process to revise components of the rule. If EPA
decides it is appropriate to propose revisions to the rule, it will
consider whether to further extend compliance dates for those specific
obligations.
The LCRR's effective date (which is when the rule is codified into
the Code of Federal Regulations) is different from the compliance date.
Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act specifies that
drinking water regulations generally require compliance three years
after the date the regulation is promulgated. This 3-year period is
used by states to adopt laws and regulations in order to obtain primary
enforcement responsibility for the rule and by water systems to take
any necessary actions to meet the requirements in the rule. Without a
delay in the effective date of the rule, regulated entities may feel it
necessary to undertake activities and spend scarce resources on
compliance obligations that could change at the end of EPA's review
period.
III. Compliance With the Administrative Procedure Act
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing
notice and an opportunity for public comment. As further explained
below, EPA has determined that there is good cause to delay the
effective date of the LCRR for 90 days without prior proposal and
opportunity for comment because pre-promulgation public comment on this
short notice is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
Namely, in this instance, where the LCRR will go into effect on March
16, 2021, less than two months after the start of this new
Administration, it is impracticable for EPA to provide notice and
gather comment prior to the rule going into effect. For the reasons
explained above and below, allowing the rule to go into effect without
further public engagement will also be contrary to the public interest.
Consistent with Executive Order 13990 and the January 20, 2021,
White House memorandum, EPA has determined that the LCRR needs
additional assessment of policy and legal issues, as well as
stakeholder consultations on issues critical to the protection of
public health. As discussed above, this rule is about the significant
public health issues associated with lead in drinking water that is
both nationally significant and has had a particular impact, in some
instances overwhelming, on some American communities, particularly some
minority and low income communities. As noted above, stakeholders that
represent some of these communities have raised concerns that the LCRR,
which is a revision of an existing lead drinking water rule, is not
sufficient to provide needed protection from the dangers of lead in
drinking water and that it may, in some respects, actually represent a
retreat from protections provided by the existing rule. For example, in
a March 4, 2021, letter, stakeholders raised concerns about key aspects
of the rule, including whether to have a maximum contaminant level,
whether the lead action level of 15 ppb is too high, the pace of lead
service line replacements, and the flexibilities in the LCRR for small
water systems, as well as whether the Agency complied with SDWA
rulemaking requirements such as those governing risk assessment,
management and communication and the opportunity for public hearing.
Indeed, representatives of these stakeholders have asked EPA to suspend
the rule for 6 months for these and other reasons. EPA has concluded,
as a result, that it is critical to engage these stakeholders and other
interested parties in reexamining the rule to ensure that it is
maintaining and enhancing public protection from lead in drinking water
for all Americans. EPA believes it is vital and in the public interest
to engage this community in a review of this rule before it goes into
effect.
At the same time, EPA recognizes that water systems and States must
expend funds and begin to make near term and significant programmatic
and legal changes in order to be in compliance with the rule within the
three year timeframe provided by the statute. These changes include
assigning and training personnel, obtaining funds, developing lead
service line inventories, preparing plans, adopting new rules and/or
obtaining legislative authorization, and modifying data systems. If
after the review of the rule, EPA concludes that significant portions
of the rule should change, these activities, and the funds that support
them will have been expended in ways that could be less protective of
public health from the significant adverse effects from lead in
drinking water than if these communities made expenditures after the
Agency has determined what constitutes the best approach to addressing
this problem under the SDWA. The Agency feels strongly that the
diversion of funds from cash-strapped communities and public agencies
in this manner should be avoided. As a result, it is also in the public
interest to delay the effective date during the time that EPA is
reviewing the rule so that critically limited public funds needed to
address this public health crisis are not wasted on implementation
activities that may not be warranted after reexamination of the rule.
It is further in the public interest to briefly delay this rule in
order to take comment from affected parties on whether a longer delay
of the effective date and compliance date is necessary and appropriate.
EPA has acted quickly during the transition to address concerns
about this rule. Within a short period of time after the transition,
the Agency determined that it was critically important to engage with
the public and interested stakeholders through multiple
[[Page 14006]]
avenues--including an opportunity for written public comments, meetings
with stakeholders--prior to completing its review of the LCRR and
allowing it to become effective. This document was expeditiously
prepared by the Agency in order to be published within less than two
months of the change in Administration.
EPA is promulgating this delay to allow time for the public to
comment on whether to further extend the effective date of the LCRR.
That proposal is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. This opportunity for public input on whether to allow the
rule to go into effect as it currently stands, would be foreclosed if
EPA were to provide for pre-promulgation notice and comment. EPA has
weighed carefully the fact that this objective is being achieved by
deferring the effective date through use of the good cause exception
under the APA. The Agency has concluded that the LCRR presents the
exceptional case in which reliance on good cause to forgo pre-
promulgation notice and comment is appropriate due to the impacts of
allowing the rule to go into effect without further public input and
engagement. EPA finds that the totality of the circumstances here--the
short duration of and important purpose served by the delay, the
serious issues raised by the stakeholders and litigants which deserve
careful evaluation by the Agency prior to the rule becoming effective,
the concerns raised by stakeholders about potential harm from allowing
the rule to go into effect, and that, at the same time as publishing
this final rule, EPA is also publishing a proposed rule inviting public
comment on whether the effective date should be delayed--provide good
cause to forego notice and an opportunity for comment in these limited
circumstances.
Section 553(d)(3) of the APA provides that final rules shall not
become effective until 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register ``except . . . as otherwise provided by the agency for good
cause.'' The purpose of this provision is to ``give affected parties a
reasonable time to adjust their behavior before the final rule takes
effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v. Fed. Commc'n Comm'n, 78 F.3d 620, 630
(D.C. Cir. 1996); see also United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 1099,
1104 (8th Cir. 1977) (quoting legislative history). Thus, in
determining whether good cause exists to waive the 30-day delay, an
agency should ``balance the necessity for immediate implementation
against principles of fundamental fairness which require that all
affected persons be afforded a reasonable amount of time to prepare for
the effective date of its ruling.'' Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d at 1105. EPA
has determined that there is good cause for making this final rule
effective immediately where, as explained above, the impact of this
rule is to provide affected persons additional time before the LCCR
goes into effect.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes
made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the
docket.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This action does not contain any information collection
activities.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to
rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute.
This rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements because the
Agency has invoked the APA ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C.
553(b).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any
State, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13175 because it will not have a substantial direct effect on tribes or
on the relationship between the national government and tribes.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are economically significant per the definition
of ``covered regulatory action'' in Section 2-202 of the Executive
Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the
delay of the effective date, by itself is not economically significant.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
This action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or
safety standard. This action delays the effective date that, by itself,
does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes
a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C.
808(2)). EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed
in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document, including
the basis for that finding.
Jane Nishida,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-05271 Filed 3-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P