Quiero saber acerca de...

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations the significant and widespread public interest in this rulemaking, coupled with the time needed to compile and evaluate input received during the public engagement process and make a decision as to whether to let the LCRR
as published take effect or initiate a rulemaking to withdraw or modify the rule. EPA is currently implementing a public engagement plan that includes public listening sessions, community, tribal, and stakeholder roundtables, and a co-regulator meeting in addition to receiving written public comment on the LCRR as part of its engagement process. EPA believes that the extension of the effective date to December 16, 2021, is sufficient for the review of the LCRR in accordance with Executive Order 13990.
EPA also agrees with commenters that support the 9-month delay of the compliance date. The SDWA typically provides a 3-year time period for drinking water systems and states to assure compliance with new or revised drinking water standards. If the compliance date is not delayed, systems and states would expend resources now to assure compliance with the LCRR by January 16, 2024, particularly given the significant effort required to develop the LSL inventory, LSL replacement plan, and to re-evaluate the tap sampling locations used in their sampling pool, all of which are required before the compliance date and underpin the implementation of the larger requirements of the LCRR. EPA
estimated in the economic analysis of the final LCRR that systems and states would spend between $5760 million, in 2016 dollars, in the first year following promulgation of the rule, working towards compliance by January 16, 2024. The majority of these funds are spent by systems to read and understand the new regulatory requirements, develop implementation plans, train staff, and participate in trainings and technical assistance interactions with the states; and by states to adopt the rule and develop the changes needed to their implementation programs, modify their data systems, provide training to their staff, and provide training and technical assistance to the regulated systems.
If EPA determines to initiate a rulemaking to withdraw the LCRR or significantly revise it as a result of the Executive Order 13990 review process, then these compliance expenditures might be unnecessary to comply with applicable regulatory requirements.
Without a delay in the effective and compliance dates of the rule, states and regulated entities may make decisions and spend scarce resources on
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:52 Jun 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

compliance obligations that could change at the end of EPAs review period. To avoid imposing unnecessary costs on water systems and states, and to allow systems and states sufficient time to prepare for compliance once regulatory certainty has been achieved, EPA has determined to delay both the effective and compliance dates of the LCRR to December 16, 2021, and October 16, 2024, respectively.
EPA received a small number of comment letters that, in general, supported a delay in the effective date and compliance dates, but did not want the agency to delay the implementation of some of the regulatory requirements they felt would increase public health protection. These commenters indicated that the following improvements could be implemented during EPAs reconsideration of the other aspects of the LCRR: The LSL inventory requirements, improved corrosion control treatment requirements, and strengthened monitoring provisions, including provisions that would prevent sampling that is likely to underestimate the actual lead levels in drinking water.
Other commenters indicated that any delay to the LCRR effective date and compliance date must apply to the entire LCRR given the interrelated nature of the different aspects of the rule. According to these commenters, having the compliance date extension apply to the LCRR in its entirety will simplify communication, reduce complexity and confusion, improve compliance by the regulated community, and provide additional time to obtain the data management tools and resources required to implement the rule.
Because there is only one effective date for the LCRR, it can take effect or be withdrawn only in its entirety. EPA
cannot selectively allow some aspects of the rule to become effective in advance of other parts of the rule without undertaking a separate notice and comment rulemaking. While EPA could establish different compliance dates for different parts of the LCRR as part of a notice and comment rulemaking, the agency has determined not to do so at this time because it would predetermine the outcome of the public stakeholder process, create confusion for implementing authorities and regulated entities, impose potentially unnecessary costs, and undermine the re-evaluation process by diverting agency and stakeholder resources that would otherwise be devoted to the reevaluation process. EPA is currently seeking input on all aspects of the rule as part of the stakeholder engagement process. To proceed with
PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

31943

implementation of selected portions of the rule during EPAs review of the entire rule would be both impractical and inconsistent with the agencys stated intention to re-evaluate the LCRR
in light of stakeholder input on the entire LCRR. Moreover, as explained in the proposal, stakeholders have raised concerns with nearly all aspects of the LCRR, including the LSL inventory requirements. Therefore, EPA has determined to delay the effective date and all of the compliance dates in the rule at this time.
EPA received a total of four comment letters indicating opposition to the extensions of the effective and compliance dates, and an additional two that did not explicitly support or oppose the delay in the effective and compliance dates of the LCRR. In general, the commenters opposing the extensions stated that delaying the effective and compliance dates would delay the public health improvements that would be achieved with implementing the LCRR, in part or in total, as finalized on January 15, 2021.
The comments opposing a delay in the compliance deadline include the following, from the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies AMWA, which stated that it has concerns that EPAs proposal to delay the effective date . . . would postpone the significant public health improvements that will be achieved by implementing the rule as finalized. They go on to state, the benefits of this delay must be weighed against the costs of postponing the public health improvements that will be achieved when water systems begin to comply with the final rule in its current form.
AMWA identifies the customer-initiated LSL replacement provision, the LSL
inventory, and the school and child-care testing provisions as public health improvements that would be postponed by a delay of the rule effective and compliance dates. Also, the Kentucky and Tennessee Water Utility Councils KY/TN WUC of the American Water Works Association stated that they are concerned that extending the dates of the Rule could delay the enhanced awareness, detection, communication, and elimination of potential lead exposure in communities. Another public commenter opposed the effective and compliance date extensions, arguing that EPA should instead simultaneously implement and revise the LCRR because of certain aspects of the rule that the commenter claims would provide immediate public health benefitssuch as the LSL
inventory and associated public
E:FRFM16JNR1.SGM

16JNR1