Je veux savoir à propos de…

jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with RULES

31944

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 16, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
notification requirements, as well as changes in the sampling requirements.
Similarly, one anonymous commenter argued that to delay the rule is tantamount to repeal of the rule and that EPA has not analyzed the effects on human health of the delay that the LCRR was designed to benefit, or considered why it is worth forgoing the benefits of the rule for nine months in exchange for evaluation of the LCRR
which, the commenter claims, could be done without delaying the compliance dates. The commenter also claims that EPA has failed to provide a meaningful opportunity for the public to comment because of these substantive oversights, including the failure to consider the merits of the LCRR and the deficiencies of the preexisting requirements in its proposal that would allow those preexisting requirements to remain in effect for a longer period of time.
The KY/TN WUC opposed the delay of the LCRR effective and compliance dates, noting that EPA has already conducted extensive outreach during the development of the LCRR, stating, EPAs thorough and extensive review and stakeholder engagement process resulted in a final Rule that strengthens every aspect of the current rule and accelerates actions that can reduce lead in drinking water. This concept of EPA
having already conducted extensive outreach was echoed by AMWA, noting that the agency has been discussing options for the rule with these communities, other stakeholders, and the public since at least 2010.
However, AMWA agrees that engagement with at-risk communities is critical. The commenter opposing the delay and arguing that EPA should simultaneously implement and revise the LCRR, also expressed support for EPAs effort to seek additional stakeholder input on the LCRR. Another comment letter, from the American Water Works Association AWWA
recommended that EPA consider the extensive outreach that the agency has already conducted on the LCRR.
EPA received two comment letters that did not explicitly support or oppose the delay in the effective and compliance dates of the LCRR. One comment letter, jointly signed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties, indicated that the LCRR as published on January 15, 2021, at 86 FR 4198 satisfactorily addressed the local government perspective in both protecting public health and reducing lead contamination of drinking water. Another comment letter from AWWA requests that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

15:52 Jun 15, 2021

Jkt 253001

effective and compliance dates be extended in an amount commensurate with the additional time used for stakeholder outreach. AWWA noted that the uncertainty . . . which is naturally generated through reconsideration efforts will make it difficult for public water systems to prepare for compliance and make investments needed to meet the interrelated requirements of the rule, as such efforts may prove to be wasted or wasteful if the Rule ultimately changes in its particulars. Accordingly, AWWA
requests that all extensions to the effective date of the LCRR and any subsequent agency activity that seeks to change the LCRR should be accompanied by an extension to the compliance timeframes. AMWA, though opposing the delays in the LCRR
implementation, also expressed support for an extension of the compliance dates by nine months if EPA delays the June 17, 2021 effective date of the rule.
For reasons discussed in the proposal and this action, EPA disagrees with the commenters asserting that the LCRR, as published on January 15, 2021, at 86 FR
4198, should take effect on June 17, 2021. EPA provided a reasoned explanation in the proposal for the delayed effective and compliance dates while the agency conducts this reevaluation. The explanation identified EPAs concern that water systems and states could unnecessarily expend significant resources on compliance with a rule that may ultimately be withdrawn or substantially modified and, which many commenters have urged, may not be a sufficient improvement in public health protection in comparison to the existing protection of the LCR, or even possibly reduce public health protections.
This action will enable EPA to engage with communities, stakeholders, tribes, and states to gather more information about their concerns with the LCRR and to share information about actions that can reduce drinking water lead exposure. The LCRR virtual engagement process is providing benefits in three ways. First, the engagement is increasing public and community awareness of the potential harmful health effects of lead and the ways individuals and communities may proactively reduce their exposure.
Because the effective implementation of drinking water lead reduction requirements, such as LSL replacement, depends on the actions of both water systems and private citizens, the increased awareness fostered by EPAs LCRR review outreach activities will improve the implementation of the LCRR and/or a future lead in drinking
PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

water regulatory action. Second, the information gained by the agency from listening to the public and communities that have been dealing with lead in drinking water issues across the country will provide EPA with new information that will help in the development of more effective implementation guidance for the LCRR or any future revisions of the LCRR. Information gathered from this process may be especially useful for the guidance on developing the initial LSL inventory and the LSL replacement plan. Third, the delay of the effective date, to engage with communities, will allow the agency to potentially develop future regulatory revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule, consistent with Executive Order 13990, that will be more effective at reducing the lead in drinking water in real world communities and better at targeting disadvantaged underserved communities.
EPAs economic analysis of the LCRR
supports the conclusion that the relatively-short delay in the effective date and compliance dates for this rule, in particular, will not significantly reduce the benefits of the LCRR. The economic analysis of the final LCRR
estimated that the annual total incremental cost of the regulatory requirements, in 2016 dollars, would range from $161 to $335 million at the 3 percent discount rate, and $167 to $372 million at the 7 percent discount rate. The annual total incremental monetized benefits, in 2016 dollars, of the final rule were estimated to be between $223 to $645 million, at a 3
percent discount rate, and $39 to $119
million at the 7 percent discount rate.
The delay of the original compliance date, of January 16, 2024, by nine months pushes back in time both the cost born by complying entities and the monetized benefits received by the public as a result of lower lead levels in drinking water, by nine months, assuming all other environmental and regulatory conditions remain the same.
EPA selected the conservative assumption of modeling a one year delay in the regulatory costs and benefits impacts. The estimated annual total incremental cost of the rule given the one-year delay ranged from $153 to $320 million, at the 3 percent discount rate, and $155 to $346 million at the 7
percent discount rate, in 2016 dollars.
The monetized annual incremental benefits, in 2016 dollars, given a oneyear delay of the compliance date would range from $213 to $616 million, at the 3 percent discount rate, and $37 to $111
million at the 7 percent discount rate.
The estimated change in the monetized
E:FRFM16JNR1.SGM

16JNR1