Kirrane, E. F., and M.M. Patel. 2014). Memorandum from EPA NCEA to ISA for Lead Docket: Identification and consideration of errors in Lanphear et al. (2005), "Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled Analysis."
Kordas, K., R.L. Canfield, P. Lopez, J.L. Rosado, G.G. Vargas, M.E Cebrian, and R.J. Stoltzfus 2005. Deficits in cognitive function and achievement in Mexican first-graders with low blood lead concentrations. Environ Res, 100(3), 371-386. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.07.007.
Lanphear, B.P., R. Hornung, J. Khoury, K. Yolton, P.A. Baghurst, DC Bellinger, R.L. Canfield, K.N. Dietrich, R. Bornschein, T. Greene, S.J. Rothenberg, H.L. Needleman, L. Schnaa, G. Wasserman, J. Graziano, and R. Roberts. 2005. Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 894-899. doi:10.1289/ehp.7688.
Lanphear, B. P., R. Hornung, J. Khoury, K. Yolton, P.A. Baghurst, D.C. Bellinger, R.L. Canfield, K.N. Dietrich, R. Bornschein, T. Greene, S.J. Rothenberg, H.L. Needleman, L. Schnaa, G. Wasserman, J. Graziano, and R. Roberts. 2019. Erratum: Low-Level Environmental Lead Exposure and Children's Intellectual Function: An International Pooled Analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(7), 894-899.
Lu, H., R. Romero-Canyas, S. Hiltner, T. Neltner, L. McCormick, and J. Niederdeppe. 2019.
Research to move toward evidence-based recommendations for lead service line disclosure policies in home buying and home renting scenarios. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(6), 963. doi:10.3390/ijerph16060963.
Lytle, M.R. Schock, K. Wait, K. Cahalan, V. Bosscher, A. Porter, and M. Del Toral. 2019. Sequential Drinking Water Sampling as a Tool for Evaluating Lead in Flint, Michigan. Water Research 157:40-54.
Metaxas, S. and E. Charalambous. 2005. Residential price elasticity of demand for water. Water Supply 1 December 2005; 5 (6): 183 - 188. doi: https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2005.0063.
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). 2019. Lead and Copper Rule. Available online at: https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3313_3675_3691-9677--,00.html.
Min, M.O., L.T. Singer, H.L. Kirchner, S. Minnes, E. Short, Z. Hussain, and S. Nelson. 2009. Cognitive development and low-level lead exposure in poly-drug exposed children. Neurotoxicol Teratol, 31(4), 225-231. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2009.03.002
Mohn, C., K. Sundet, and B.R. Rund. 2014. The relationship between IQ and performance on the MATRICS consensus cognitive battery. Schizophr Res Cogn, 1(2), 96-100. doi:10.1016/j.scog.2014.06.003.
Navas-Acien, A., E.Guallar, E.K. Silbergeld, and S.J. Rothenberg. 2007. Lead Exposure and Cardiovascular Disease -- A Systematic Review. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(3):472-482.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf [accessed April 6, 2011].
Riblet, C., E. Deshommes, L. Laroche, and M. Prevost. 2019. True exposure to lead at the tap: Insights from proportional sampling, regulated sampling and water use monitoring Water Research. 156:327-336.
Salkever, D.S. 1995. Updated estimates of earnings benefits from reduced exposure of children to environmental lead. Environmental Research 70:1 - 6. doi:0013-9351/95.
Sandvig, A., P. Kwan, G. Kirmeyer, B. Maynard, D. Mast, R.R. Trussell, S. Trussell, A. Cantor, and A. Prescott. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. Denver, Colo.: AWWA Water Research Foundation 3018.
Schnaas, L., S.J. Rothenberg, E. Perroni, S. Martinez, C. Hernandez, R.M. Hernandez. 2000. Temporal pattern in the effect of postnatal blood lead level on intellectual development of young children. Neurotoxicol Teratol, 22, 805 - 810. doi.org/10.1016/S0892-0362(00)00101-X.
Slabaugh, R.M., R.B. Arnold, S. Chaparro, and C.P. Hill. 2015. National cost implications of potential long-term LCR requirements. Journal AWWA. 107(8):E389-E400.
Stanek, L., J. Xue, C.R. Lay, E. Helm, M. Schock, D.A. Lytle, T. Speth, V. Zartarian. 2020, Modeled Impacts of Drinking Water Pb Reduction Scenarios on Children's Exposures and Blood Lead Levels. Environmental Science and Technology. Publication Date (Web): 08 Jul 2020. Downloaded from pubs.acs.org on July 13, 2020. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.0c00479.
Theising, A. 2019. Lead Pipes, Prescriptive Policy and Property Values. Environmental and Resource Economics 74: 1355-1382.
Tully, J., M.K. DeSantis, and M.R. Schock. 2019. Water quality - pipe deposit relationships in Midwestern lead pipes. AWWA Water Science. 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1127.
United States Census Bureau. 2013. 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics. CPH-1-1, U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC. https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2012/dec/cph-1-1.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. April 1991. Office of Water.
USEPA. 1998. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence Report. Final Rule. Federal Register 63(160):44512. April 19, 1998.
USEPA 2009. 2006 Community Water System Survey. February 2009. Office of Water. EPA 815-R-09-001. https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/community-water-system-survey.
USEPA. Science Advisory Board (SAB). 2011. SAB Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead Service Line Replacements. EPA-SAB-11-015.
USEPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. June 2013. Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment. EPA/600/R-10/075F
USEPA. 2016. Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water Systems. Office of Water. EPA-816-B-16-003. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-07/documents/occtmarch2016updated.pdf.
USEPA. 2018. 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities: A Training, Testing, and Taking Action Approach (Revised Manual). October 2018. Office of Water. EPA 815-B-18-007. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water-toolkit.
USEPA. 2019a. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Office of Water. November 2019
USEPA. 2019b. Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to Revise the TSCA Dust-Lead Hazard Standards. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. June 2019. USEPA. 2019. https://nchh.org/resource-library/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0049-0916_Final_Economic_Analysis_3-08.pdf.
USEPA. 2019c. Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis of the Proposed Perchlorate National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. EPA 816-R-19-004. https://beta.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0780-0124.
USEPA. 2020a. Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Office of Water. December 2020.
USEPA. 2020b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Final Rule. Federal Register xx(xxx): p. Date. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2020c. Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the Scientific and Technical Basis of EPA's Proposed Rule Titled National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. June 2020. Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-20-007. https://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/LookupWebProjectsCurrentBOARD/3F7193E0C9A7755385258589005849FB/$File/EPA-SAB-20-007.pdf.
Vasquez, W., P. Mozumder, J. Hernandez-Arce, R.P. Berrens. 2009. Willingness to pay for safe drinking water: Evidence from Parral, Mexico. J. Envtl. Management, 90(11), 3391-3400.
Water Research Foundation (WRF), 2018. Evaluation of Flushing to Reduce Lead Levels. WRF ISBN: 978‐1‐60573‐358‐6 WRF Project Number: 4584. Available: https://www.waterrf.org/system/files/resource/2019-05/4584.pdf.
Wasserman, G. A., X. Liu, N.J. Lolacono, P. Factor-Litvak, J.K. Kline, D. Popovac, and N. Morina. 1997. Lead exposure and intelligence in 7-year-old children: The Yugoslavia prospective study. Environ Health Perspect 105, 956-962.
Zartarian V., J. Xue, R. Tornero-Velez, and J. Brown. 2017. Children's Lead Exposure: A Multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide Public Health Decision-Making, Environmental Health Perspectives 125(9): 097009-1, https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1605.
17 Regulatory Process
EPA requested comments on all aspects of the proposed revisions. EPA also specifically requested comment on: General Matters, Trigger Level, Lead Service Line (LSL) Requirements, Corrosion Control Treatment (CCT), Tap Sampling, Testing in Schools and Child Care Facilities, Small System Flexibilities, Public Education and Outreach, the Economic Analysis, and Recordkeeping. Response to comments for these topics are addressed in other sections of this document.
EPA received commenters request an extension of the public comment period, regulatory procedural comments and stakeholder engagement.
17.1 Request for Comment Period Extension
Summary of Comments
EPA received many requests from commenters to extend the initial public comment period of 60 days. Most commenters requested an extension of 30 days, while others requested an extension of 60 days. A few commenters did not specify the duration, but simply requested an extension of the comment period. Many commenters cited the complexity and length of the revised rule, the addition of new requirements, and the length of supporting documentation (e.g., "Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions" or "Proposed LCRR EA" (USEPA, 2019a)) as justification for the extension. Other commenters mentioned the impacts of the revised rule, which would affect many communities and existing regulation programs, as reason for the need of a comment period extension. A few commenters also noted that some supporting documents were made available later, thus giving commenters less time to review them.
Agency Response
On November 13, 2019, EPA published in the Federal Register (84 FR 61684; USEPA, 2019b) a proposed notice for rulemaking to revise the existing drinking water standards for lead and copper under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). EPA requested written comments be received by January 13, 2020, which is a 60-day public comment period. In response to public comments requesting additional time to review the proposal and provide comments, most of whom requested 30 days, EPA extended the comment period by an additional 30 days to February 12, 2020, resulting in a 90-day public comment period. The additional 30 days were designed to provide time for commenters to read and understand the proposal and to provide their comments without introducing substantial delays to the finalization of this important public health regulation. EPA notes that the Agency posted all materials related to the rulemaking effort to the public docket on November 13[th], and that documents released during the public comment period were intended to address questions received on the proposed rule and provide additional information to the public.
17.2 Funding, Guidance, and Regulatory Procedural Comments
Summary of Comments
A significant number of comments address the issue of funding. Of these comments, most of them requested that the revisions for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) be accompanied by adequate funding. Many of these comments also offered to help the Agency request more funding from Congress. Commenters used various justifications for more funding for the Lead and Copper Rule revisions (LCRR). Several commenters referenced the existing financial issues that many water systems have. One commenter mentioned that state water programs are "stretched to the breaking point." Another commenter highlighted that the LCRR would put small water systems under additional strain and that funding should "allocate additional funds to organizations like rural water associations to deliver technical assistance to waterworks as well as contracting assistance to complete the lead service line inventory." A separate commenter warned that any extra costs incurred by the LCRR would have to be passed on to the customer. A similar commenter mentioned that extra funding would help keep water rates low. Some commenters emphasized that funding be prioritized for certain aspects of the LCRR. One commenter suggested funding go towards water infrastructure. Another recommended extra funding be directed towards human resources, guidance and training. Meanwhile, another commenter recommended that funding address school sampling and lead service line replacement (LSLR).
Of the comments that recommended increased funding, a significant amount focused on extra funding for LSLR. Many of these comments recommended that funding should be available for full LSLR (which would include privately-owned portions of LSLs). Some comments cited that many homeowners are financially unable to fund private side LSLRs, thus advising that funding be made available to help these homeowners. Another commenter added that extra funding or new grant programs should also target LSLR in small water systems. Some commenters provided recommendations and solutions to the funding issue. One recommendation included that the federal and state governments create a funding mechanism to help low-income consumers carry out LSLR. One commenter recommended LSLR grants and low-interest loans be made available to help finance LSLR. Another comment suggested federal grants for private side LSLR for homeowners that make up to three times the poverty level. A few commenters suggested that the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), in addition to Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program (United States, 2018), and Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act (United States, 2016) could be better funded to aid water systems in implementing LSLR.
A few comments addressed other aspects of funding. One commenter mentions that the short collection time for the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey  as well as the lack of an already prepared service line inventory would make the process for implementing LCRR burdensome for communities that do not currently have inventories. Therefore, the commenter justifies extra funding on this basis. A couple other commenters expressed concern that funding for LCRR may take away attention from other issues that a water system may have to manage for instance, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), and certain other regulations outside of the LCR.
About 30 commenters recommended that guidance for implementation of the LCRR be provided. A few commenters had suggestions of how guidance should be made available. One commenter recommended the creation of a "centralized information warehouse" that would provide all applicable guidance for state regulators. Another commenter added that the Agency should provide training in addition to guidance and that the time needed to train public water system (PWS) staff be considered. Another commenter mentioned the idea of guidance coming from "the Environmental Justice Office at the federal level." Guidance was recommended for a range of LCRR-related issues. One commenter recommended guidance for general implementation of LCRR. Another commenter suggested the following topics should be addressed in guidance documents: overall LCRR implementation; development and review of LSL inventories and updated compliance sampling plans based on these inventories; development of LSL replacement plans; pitcher filter programs; state review of optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs) and optimized corrosion control treatment (OCCT); addressing growing systems; re-evaluation of CCT; additional monitoring requirements; state review of source and/or treatment change proposals; homeowner educational materials; small system alternative compliance; revisions or additions to the "3Ts" guidance; and lead testing in schools and child care centers. Several more commenters recommended guidance on CCT and OCCT. Find-and-fix guidance was recommended by a couple of commenters.
One commenter recommends that find-and-fix guidance that focused on situations in which follow-up tap sampling could not be carried out. Another commenter adds that find-and-fix guidance include minimum criteria that would warrant a find-and-fix assessment. Guidance has also been recommended for LSLR. One comment recommended guidance on LSLR goal rates and conducting an LSL inventory. Commenters also recommended guidance for other issues that might be raised by the LCRR. One commenter requested guidance that better explains the "trigger" and "action" levels. Another commenter recommended guidance on materials that could be provided to homeowners. Guidance on treatment source changes and the required accompanying studies has been mentioned in a couple comments. Point-of-Use (POU) device guidance has been raised in a couple comments, which would include issues such as follow-up sampling, installation, sampling locations, and pitcher filter tracing. Finally, commenters requested guidance for other issues including: application of LCRR in consecutive systems; when the water system follows a shorter schedule than §141.84; outreach activities; funding and flexibility of small water systems; scale analyses; health-based drinking water lead action levels; interpreting lead results; and predictive modeling.
Some commenters raised the issue of public hearings. One commenter recommended that these hearings take place in "cities such as Chicago, IL; Flint, MI; Milwaukee, WI; Pittsburgh, PA; and Washington, DC with mobilized lead-in-water activists, many of whom cannot afford to travel far to testify," "adequate public notice" is given; and the events be held "in venues that are accessible by public transportation and at times that accommodate working people's schedules."
A couple commenters asked the Agency to ensure that any claims made in the rule are based on the "best available peer-reviewed science and acknowledge the well-documented history of LCR's spotty implementing and enforcement to more accurately characterize the LCR's eﬀectiveness to date." Another comment from the same commenter had concerns with the claims made in the "General Information" section of the LCRR. The commenter requested the revision and review of excerpts relating to: the number of drinking water systems in exceedance over time; the percentage that drinking water makes up the total exposure to lead; infant lead exposure due to water in formula; lead exposure from homes and buildings; lead exposure during pregnancy; and state primacy agency competencies. Another commenter mentioned the "administrative burden" associated with implementation of the LCRR and that the rule should prioritize systems with a history of non-compliance. A commenter suggested that the EPA "hold L & C (lead and copper) detection and response training webinars held during both business day (Monday-Friday) and at least one Saturday every three months for small business owners that cannot easily attend during the work week."
Agency Response
In December of 2018, the Federal Action Plan (Action Plan) to Reduce Childhood Lead Exposure and Associated Health Impacts, was issued. This Action Plan includes EPA commitments to actions to reduce lead from various sources in the environment. Regarding lead in drinking water, the Action Plan emphasizes EPA's commitment to help communities reduce lead in drinking water through funding sources. Some of these sources include the DWSRF and the WIFIA. These loan programs offer a means to improving water infrastructure with updates and replacements. In addition, grants are available as of 2018 through the WIIN Act to help fund small disadvantaged communities and water systems with infrastructure improvements, to provide a means for testing for lead and schools and childcare facilities and for other lead reduction projects. Under the WIIN Act, Congress appropriated $50 million in 2018, $65 million in 2019 and $70.908 million in 2020 for these projects.
EPA acknowledges that small systems often have limited technical, managerial and financial capacity The final LCRR includes small system flexibilities that allow systems serving 10,000 or fewer people to select a compliance option for a lead action level exceedance that is most appropriate and effective for their community. Options include CCT, LSLR, POU devices or replacements of lead-bearing materials.
EPA maintains a web site of funding sources for lead in drinking water reduction activities at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/funding-lead-service-line-replacement. Some may be used for replacement of the customer-side of the LSL, in response to comments on this concern. Homeowners can also look to see if grants or other funding sources are available at the state and local levels.
In response to the comment on needing more funding for communities that do not already have LSLR inventories in place, EPA notes that water systems have three years to prepare the LSL inventory and may apply for funding to support this effort. EPA expects initial inventories will be compiled from existing water system records and improved over time through normal operation and maintenance activities. EPA does not believe that funding for LCRR will be "taking away" attention from other concerns, as many federal funding sources for the LCRR are for lead and copper reduction activities only.
EPA received numerous requests for Agency guidance and training on implementation of the revised rule. EPA understands this is a critical component to ensure the rule's effectiveness in protecting public health. The Agency intends to develop implementation guidance targeting the most significant areas of the rule. In addition to guidance, EPA will also provide training and other supporting materials that will help states and water systems implement the revised rule and promote greater national consistency. EPA will also ensure guidance is readily available in a centralized and easily identifiable web site.
In response to the commenters who requested that EPA hold public hearings after publication of the proposal, in accessible locations, at certain times, and with adequate notice, EPA declines the request. In developing the LCRR, EPA has conducted several public meetings.  First, EPA held a public meeting on Nov. 4, 2010, in Philadelphia, PA to provide information to the public and an opportunity for the public to provide input on potential revisions to the LCR, including changes related to lead service line replacement, monitoring, and schools. (75 FR 63177, Oct.  14, 2010). The meeting took place in the Philadelphia Convention Center, a venue accessible by public transportation.  The meeting was scheduled for seven hours -- from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.  EPA also provided an opportunity to participate by teleconference, which addresses the commenters' concerns about those who could not travel to attend the meeting in person.

In addition, from March 2014 until June 2015, EPA held seven, two-day public meetings with a working group of the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee on the development of the long term revisions of the LCR. (79 FR 12504; 79 FR 26751; 79 FR 51153; 79 FR 60848; 80 FR 2101; 80 FR 16674; 80 FR 32372; 80 FR 34636) Then, in November 2015, the NDWAC held a public meeting focusing on developing recommendations for EPA on long term revisions to the LCR.  (80 FR 67397, Nov. 2, 2015). The NDWAC working group meetings, as well as the NDWAC meeting, were all noticed in the Federal Register, open to and attended by members of the public, in a venue accessible by public transportation, with time provided for public comment.  In addition to those meetings, EPA held a public meeting, after notice in the Federal Register, for the purpose of seeking public input on the LCR revisions, consistent with Executive Order 12898 (76 FR 8674). At that meeting, EPA provided the public with time to present comments. Accordingly, EPA has met the requirement to provide the opportunity for a public hearing consistent with Section 1412(d) of the SDWA to "provide opportunity for public hearing prior to promulgation" of regulations under Section 1412, such as the LCRR. EPA conducted several other public outreach efforts in the ten years that the LCRR has been in development to inform the public of EPA's rulemaking efforts and gather additional public input. These efforts included many public meetings held by webinar, after providing notice in a variety of formats.

Given the need for key decisions to be made in the development of the proposed LCR revisions, coupled with the fact that the public would have an opportunity to comment on the proposal, EPA reasonably chose to provide the opportunity for a public hearing prior to proposal.  EPA then received extensive written public comments on the proposed rule, diminishing any incremental benefit of additional opportunities for the public to provide oral comments. Therefore, to avoid additional delays in finalizing revisions to the rule, EPA has determined to decline commenters' requests for additional opportunities for a public hearing.  For more information about stakeholder engagement, see Section VII of the Federal Register Notice (FRN) for the final rule.
In response to the comments requesting EPA to ensure any claims made in the rule are based on best-available science, EPA notes that the supporting analyses for the proposed LCR were are publicly available in the rule docket, giving the public the opportunity to review and provide comment. In addition, EPA has consulted multiple times with scientists throughout the rule development process. For more information about these consultations Section VII of the Federal Register Notice for the final rule (USEPA, 2020a).
For response to the comment about implementation and enforcement, please see response to comment Section 15.
17.3 EPA Stakeholder Engagement
Summary of Comments
One commenter mentioned that while the proposed rule language and preamble mention concepts that have come up in EPA's stakeholder outreach efforts, the process of finalizing the rule preamble and text occurred within EPA without engagement. Another commenter recommended that the Agency continue working with the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) and states to finalize the rule after the comment period. A third commenter suggested that the Agency should engage public health experts, especially with respect to detection and filter tests. The same commenter also expressed willingness to participate in a small entity representative (SER) meeting. A separate commenter raised concerns that the rulemaking process excluded "lead corrosion and LCR policy experts" and the "experiences of the community." In addition, the same commenter added that the rule "contradicts science" and ignores certain policy recommendations.
Agency Response
EPA notes that the proposed rule has been in development for over a decade. In that time, EPA has had several consultations and extensive stakeholder outreach which informed the proposed LCR and this final rule. EPA conducted outreach through consultations with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC, EPA's Science Advisory Board, states, local governments and tribes. In addition, the Agency held a public meeting on environmental justice issues. The Agency requested NDWAC form a LCR Working Group to provide feedback to EPA. The NDWAC working group was comprised a wide range of expertise and perspectives, including water system representatives, state and local public health and the environment regulators, advocacy groups, and a public utilities commission representative. The group was asked to address various components of the rule including sample site selection criteria, lead sampling protocols, public education for copper, measures to ensure OCCT, and LSLR. Additionally, EPA has considered the extensive public feedback on the proposal in developing the final rule. EPA met with ASDWA following the end of the comment period to discuss its Costs of State Transactions Study (CoSTS) model. EPA disagrees with the commenter who claimed that the rulemaking process excluded corrosion experts and experiences of the community, given the extensive public outreach opportunities over more than a decade as well as the opportunity to provide public comment on the proposal. EPA disagrees that the proposal contradicts science. EPA used the best available science in development of the LCRR and provided detailed description of the science and analysis in the Proposed LCRR EA (USEPA, 2019a) and final rule (USEPA, 2020b). EPA also disagrees that the proposed rule ignores certain policy recommendations. Although the final rule does not include every policy recommended by stakeholders or commenters, each recommendation has been carefully considered.
References
United States America's Water Infrastructure Act. 2018. Public Law 115-270, 132 Stat. 3765.
United States Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. 2016. Public Law 114-322, 130 Stat. 1628 (Dec. 16, 2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/612.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019a. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions.
USEPA. 2019b. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Federal Register 84(219):61684. November 13, 2019. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2020a. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Final Rule. Federal Register xx(xxx): p. Date. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
USEPA. 2020b. Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions.
18 Statutory and Administrative Requirements
EPA received public comments related to Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Executive Order 13132: Federalism, Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act and Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations.
EPA did not receive public comment related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use.
18.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
Summary of Comments
EPA received two comments about the Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563. Both comments were related to the EPA's lack of alternative proposals. One commenter stated, "EPA does not fully explore even one of the most fundamental categories of alternatives: different degrees of stringency." The commenter questions why EPA did not consider lowering the lead action level and asserts the Agency did not adequately explain the basis for the trigger level of 10 ug/L. Another comment stated "The obvious scenarios to include are the possibility of lowering the action level, implementing an [maximum contaminant level] MCL for lead, and requiring comprehensive replacement of all lead service lines. Without this, this economic analysis clearly is incomplete."
Agency Response
EPA disagrees with commenters that the Agency did not sufficiently consider reasonable alternates, or that different alternatives from those considered should have been evaluated in the proposal. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 (OMB, 2003) directs agencies to consider the benefits and costs of reasonable alternatives. The circular further recognizes that "analyzing all possible combinations is not practical when there are many options (including possible interaction effects). In these cases, you should use your judgment to choose reasonable alternatives for careful consideration." EPA has evaluated a range of reasonable alternatives and attempted to maximize net benefits in the Lead and Copper Rule revisions (LCRR).
In the 1991 LCR, EPA determined to promulgate a treatment technique rule, not an MCL, consistent with the criteria for doing so in Section1412(b)(7)(A) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). That determination was upheld in American Water Works Association v EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir 1994). EPA considered several alternative options while developing the LCRR. These alternative options and associated costs were presented in the proposal and in Chapter 9 of the "Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions or Proposed LCRR EA (USEPA, 2019) and EPA specifically requested public comment on these alternatives. One alternative option that was considered was the requirement for water systems to conduct tap water sampling program at schools and licensed child care facilities. EPA proposed 20 percent of K  -  12 schools and licensed child care facilities get sampled annually so each facility is sampled every five years. In the proposed LCRR, water systems would collect five samples from each school and two from each child care facility. EPA also considered an alternative lead tap sampling for schools and licensed child care facilities. The "upon request" option contained the same elements of the mandatory program under the proposed LCRR but would require water systems to conducting tap sampling at the request of the schools and child facilities. EPA also estimated the costs and benefits of the upon request option. Based on the analysis of these alternatives, and after considering public comment, EPA determined that community water systems (CWSs) should be required to conduct one round of sampling at each elementary school and child care facility and then conduct sampling on request. For secondary schools, CWSs will be required to conduct sampling on request only. See the response to comment Section 12.
Another alternative option EPA considered during the development of the LCRR is the lead tap sampling requirements for systems with lead service lines (LSLs). Since taking first-draw samples of one-liter may not reflect the significant contributions of LSLs to lead in drinking water EPA considered requiring water systems with LSLs to collect a fifth liter tap sample. EPA estimated the likelihood that an individual tap sample would exceed 15 ug/L based on the fifth liter sampling for LSL systems and the percent of systems with a trigger level exceedance (TLE) or action level exceedance (ALE). EPA also estimated the costs and benefits associated with the fifth liter option. Based on the thorough analysis of this alternative, and consideration of public comments, EPA concluded that the fifth liter tap sample protocol for LSL sites captures water that has been in contact with the LSL and provides a better assessment of lead concentration from that source. See the response to comment Section 9.
An additional alternative EPA considered was whether LSLs geographic information or exact addresses should be used as part of the LSL inventory requirements to make the inventory publicly available. EPA proposed to require water systems to make their LSL inventory publicly available by providing a location identifier for the LSL such as the street, intersection, or a landmark and took comment on whether an address should be used. Based on comments received, water systems will not be required to identify LSL status at individual properties and will be required to use location identifiers in the final rule. See the response to comment Section 5.
Another alternative EPA considered in the proposal is small system flexibilities. The proposed LCRR allowed small system flexibility for CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer people, and all non-transient non -- community water systems (NTNCWSs). The Agency requested comment on the appropriateness of these flexibilities. The Agency also requested comment on using a different threshold which would limit the small system flexibility provision to CWSs that serve 3,300 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs. EPA calculated the associated cost and benefits of the alternative threshold for the small system flexibility. After review of public comments and relevant analyses, EPA determined the appropriate small system flexibility threshold for CWSs is those serving 10,000 or fewer persons. Information about the alternative small system option can be found in response to comment Section 7. EPA considered a range of reasonable alternatives before finalizing the final LCRR. See also the response to comment Section 19.
18.2 Paperwork Reduction Act
Summary of Comments
EPA received several comments concerning the PRA. Some commenters stated that the LCRR introduces significant and unnecessary paperwork burden on water systems, states, and primacy agencies. There were several commenters opposing the LCRR's monitoring and reporting requirements. Some commenters expressed concern that the LCRR monitoring and reporting requirements waste valuable resources that could otherwise be spent providing safe drinking water. There was also a comment that suggested the LCRR's reporting requirement are unnecessary stating "[t]he requirements of the current and proposed rule already require making the most pertinent information available to the public. The additional proposed requirements are duplicative."
The commenter argues that all state and local government are subjected to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Thus, many water systems are also subjected to the FOIA since they fall under state and local authority. Another comment argues that monitoring and reporting violations do not accurate portray public health risks and two commenters argued reporting violations merely erode public trust. The comment stated "... an accidental failure to report could lead to violations that erode the public's confidence in their water supplier." Some commenters argue the additional paperwork may cause water systems to fail to report violations which can cause a decrease in public confidence.
Agency Response
EPA determined that it is necessary for water systems to demonstrate compliance with new requirements if the LCRR. The LCRR includes reporting requirements to demonstrate compliance. For example, water systems must submit an LSL inventory to their primacy agency and updates either annually or triennially  -  based on the tap sampling monitoring schedule. Water systems must also submit a lead service line replacement (LSLR) plan so they are prepared in the event of a TLE or ALE to move quickly to replace LSLs. EPA disagrees with commenters who asserted the LCRR imposes unnecessary paperwork on water systems, states and primacy agencies; that the reporting of data adds limited value; and that reporting data and violations serves no purpose other than to undermine public trust.
EPA disagrees with the comment that reporting requirements are duplicative and thus cause unnecessary burden. Water system reporting data to the state assures that regulatory requirements are met, and systems are not in violation. Sampling for lead and copper at taps allows water systems to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion control treatment (CCT) and the 90[th] percentile must be accurately calculated and reported to the state. Further, monitoring optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs) to insure CCT is optimized is a critical component of the treatment technique. States are unable to perform oversight without the data and certifications water systems are required to submit under the LCRR.
The Agency believes that ensuring public access to information related to lead and copper tap samples, 90[th] percentiles and LSL inventories an important improvement in the LCRR. Improving transparency and communication will increase community awareness of drinking water quality and interest in participation in LSLR. See response to comment Section 5 and 8.
EPA does not agree that the PRA information collection request (ICR) is duplicative. The Agency consulted with other federal agencies, state agencies, industry organizations, water systems, and tribal organizations to minimize the risk of any potential duplication of this information collection request.
Regarding estimating burden beyond the first three years of compliance to meet the requirements of the PRA, EPA must resubmit and seek approval from OMB for an ongoing collection at least once every three years. EPA will estimate burden for purposes of the PRA prior to the fourth year of the LCRR implementation consistent with the requirements of the PRA.
18.3 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Summary of Comments
EPA received comments related to the UMRA. Some commenters suggested the LCRR's requirements impose unfunded federal mandates to state and local governments. The commenters assert the LCRR's requirements are detrimental to communities and violates the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. One commenter highlighted the LSLR plan as such a provision. One commenter stated "Yet another financial burden on the CWS.... This is an unfunded mandate which appears to be in violation of the EPAs Unfunded Mandates Reform Act." A comment was received concerning the unintended consequences of the LCRR's requirements. The commenter argues the problem is at the homeowners' tap and not in the water system. Thus, forcing communities to pay for compliance actions is unnecessary and creates issues for economically disadvantage populations. There is an insistence new funding sources be put in place so the LCRR can be implemented successful and achieve compliance. It is argued the current funding that is available is inadequate to reduce lead exposure. For example, one commenter states "If the federal government has deemed removing lead from drinking water as a top priority, we suggest creating a new funding source to help communities address this issue." There is also a concern the LCRR's requirement will lead to high cost burden on homeowners. The comment states "We are concerned that the proposed rule's "find and fix" requirement will place a high cost burden on homeowners if they test above the designated lead level." The commenter also notes a concern over the legal consequences of replacing the LSL located on a homeowner's property.
Agency Response
EPA has estimated that the LCRR will result in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. EPA engaged UMRA stakeholders in 2011 through 2018. Please see the Summary Report on Federalism: Lead and Copper Rule located in the final docket for further discussion of these meetings. These consultations were held concurrently because there are many overlapping interests between the groups. EPA has remained consistent with UMRA section 205. EPA identified and analyzed a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to determine the treatment technique requirements in the LCRR. See response to comment Section 18.
EPA agrees that funding is important to implementation of the LCRR. EPA will continue to support states and communities by providing funding opportunities through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) (United States, 2018) loan program for updating and replacing drinking water infrastructure. In addition, there are three newly authorized grant programs under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act (United States, 2016), for which Congress appropriated $50 million in 2018, $65 million in 2019 and $70.908 million in 2020. The grants will help small and disadvantaged communities develop and maintain infrastructure, support lead reduction projects, and support voluntary testing of drinking water in schools and child care centers. As they are made available, EPA will continue to highlight additional sources of funding in the future.
EPA disagrees with the commenter who suggested: lead is only a problem at homeowner's tap; lead is not in the water system; and the implication that it is not the responsibility of the public water system to address. LSLs, when present, represent the greatest contribution to lead in drinking water and there are an estimated 6.3 to 9.3 million homes served by LSLs in thousands of communities nationwide. EPA agrees that water systems cannot unilaterally implement all of the actions that are needed to reduce levels of lead in drinking water alone. In most communities, homeowners must be engaged to assure successful LSLR because in most communities, LSLs are partially owned by the water system and partially owned by the homeowner. Because of the important roles of both the homeowner and the water system, EPA has encouraged water systems to engage with consumers to encourage actions homeowners can take to reduce lead exposure in their households, such as flushing that reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. For these reasons, the LCRR requires systems to conduct regular outreach to the homeowners with LSL to ensure effective communication, and where appropriate, collaboration between the water system and homeowner.
18.4 Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Summary of Comments
Most of the comments EPA received about federalism were related to EPA continuing to keep an open dialogue with states. States want to continue to stay involved with EPA and ensure a cooperative relationship to address lead in drinking water. States want to be informed and be a part of the discussion concerning revising the LCRR. Commenters expressed concern about the increased burden associated with the LCRR. EPA received a comment stating "These new mandates expand federal regulatory authority over locally governed utilities' practices for the prevention of contamination, public education, and operations & maintenance of the community water supply. The federal government should not usurp local governed utilities' policies for these operations without a clear and obvious finding of contamination or exceedance of a federal public health standard." Another commenter stated the scope of federal authority should be limited to monitoring the compliance and operations of local water utilities. Additionally, the comment goes on to assert the local water supply's best practices that are not currently funded by the federal government should not become new unfunded federal mandates. EPA also received a comment encouraging the use of scientifically sound principles. The comment stated, "To ensure the protection of human health, we also urge EPA to base any and all potential revisions on scientifically sound principles."
Agency Response
EPA is committed to a cooperative relationship with states and primacy agencies and EPA intends to continue supporting states and communities during the implementation of LCRR. For development of the LCRR, EPA consulted with states and local governments early in the regulatory development process. EPA held federalism consultations starting on November 15, 2011 to seek early input on rule development. EPA initiated additional consultations on January 8, 2018 and held five meetings which concluded on March 8, 2018. EPA sought feedback and insight from states and local governments in five areas: LSLR, CCT, transparency and public education, tap sampling, and copper. During these consultations, other areas were discussed, including typical costs of actions to reduce lead in drinking water. EPA provided an opportunity for states and local governments to submit written input within 60 days after the initial meeting. EPA involved states and local governments to gain an understanding of how the potential revisions might affect local communities.
EPA does not agree with commenters who assert EPA has exceeded its statutory authority and should allow local governments to decide how to comply with SDWA-mandated requirements to ensure that potable water from public water systems is of sufficiently low risk. EPA derives its statutory authority to regulate contaminants in drinking water through the SDWA. The revisions of the LCR fall under the authority of the following sections of the SDWA: 1412, 1413, 1414, 1417, 1445, and 1450 of the SDWA (42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq). Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA authorizes EPA to promulgate a treatment technique "which in the Administrator's judgment, would prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible. EPA followed the applicable procedures and requirements described in section 1412 of the SDWA, including those related to (1) the use of the best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies; (2) presentation of information on public health effects; and (3) a health risk reduction and cost analysis of the rule.
For additional information on potential funding sources see response to comment Section 18.7.
For information regarding EPA's cost and burden estimates see response to comment Section 16.
18.5 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Summary of Comments
One commenter wrote that it is in our exam rooms where we see the everyday consequences of policy decisions such as Medicaid cuts, food assistance rollbacks, staggering child poverty rates, inaction on gun violence, and lax public health protections. Our children disproportionately shoulder these burdens, both in their bodies and in their blunted potentials. And as a pediatrician in Flint, I can attest and bear witness that once again our children were the victims of a failed policy, specifically the Lead and Copper Rule, that did not prioritize their health and development. As pediatricians, we respect the science that now clearly understands that there is no safe level of lead. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. Low level lead exposure harms children: A renewed call for primary prevention. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/ACCLPP/Final_Document_030712.pdf.] [See, e.g., National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Lead, https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/lead/index.cfm] [AAP Council on Environmental Health. Prevention of childhood lead toxicity. Pediatrics. 2016;138(1):e20161493.] And we recognize that efforts should focus on ensuring children are never exposed to lead - also known as primary prevention.
Agency Response
EPA recognizes lead is a highly toxic pollutant that can damage neurological, cardiovascular, immunological, developmental, and other major body systems. EPA also recognizes that children are vulnerable to lead. EPA is also aware of increased lead exposure to children because of increased drinking water consumption per day on a body weight basis than adolescents. EPA acknowledges there is no safe level of lead and has established a maximum contaminant level goal for lead of zero. The SDWA requires that a treatment technique prevent known or anticipated effects to the extent feasible. The LCRR includes integrated actions that will holistically reduce drinking water lead risks to the extent feasible. These additional actions will reduce lead exposure to children which will therefore, reduce children's health risks. To evaluate some of the expected benefits provided by the LCRR for children's health, EPA assessed avoided losses in the intelligence quotient (IQ) in children that result from the actions required under the LCRR compared to pre-LCRR requirements. In addition, the final rule includes requirements for CWSs to conduct lead in drinking water testing in schools and child care facilities. The requirement for water systems to conduct sampling at schools and child care facilities provides an added measure of protection, above the other elements of the treatment technique rule, in light of the vulnerabilities of the population served and the potential variability of lead levels within the system and within a school or child care facility over time. Also see response to comment Sections 12 and 16.
18.6 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Summary of Comments
EPA received one comment related to using transparent language when communicating American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and voluntary consensus standards.
Agency Response
EPA agrees it is important to make clear the distinction between voluntary consensus standards and the ANSI. The commenter makes an observation that ANSI does not develop standards, rather ANSI accredits standards developing organizations. EPA agrees that clarity and transparency is important in order to be clear and concise. In response, EPA modified the language to clarify the voluntary consensus standard in the final rule are in accordance with applicable standards established by an organization accredited for that purpose by the ANSI or any other accrediting body deemed appropriate by the Administrator.
18.7 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Summary of Comments
EPA received numerous comments pertaining to environmental justice issues associated with the proposed LCRR. Comments were mostly centered on how the proposed LSLR requirements will disproportionately negatively impact minority populations and low-income populations. Commenters asserted this is due to the requirement that water systems are not required to pay for customer-side LSLR. There were comments raising concern about the affordability of LSLRs for low-income, minority, and elderly populations. The commenters stated that these communities would not be able to afford the removal of LSLs and federal investment would be necessary and assert that significant federal funding must be made available. Many commenters were concerned about how the LCRR could result in financial hardship to vulnerable communities whose populations are at a higher risk for negative health impacts from lead in drinking water. EPA also received comments related to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (United States Department of Justice, 1964). One comment argues EPA does not address environmental justice issues in the rule. The comment claims states and water systems that receive federal funding will be vulnerable to legal challenges from affected residents. Another comment stated, private individuals can prevail in a lawsuit against a recipient of Title VI funding if its proven that the federally funded program intentionally discriminated. The commenter makes the argument that the rule contains aspects that create incentives for water systems to cause disparate impacts for minorities. In addition, one comment stated EPA should help states and communities that receive federal funding to avoid violations of the Title VI of the Civil Right Act of 1964.
Agency Response
EPA disagrees that the LCRR will have a disproportionately negative impact on minority populations and low-income populations, nor is the rule expected to increase poverty in low-income and minority communities. EPA concluded that it has met the requirements of Executive Order 12898 to identify and consider, and where appropriate, address potential environmental justice concerns. EPA has conducted the necessary analyses to evaluate the LCRR's impact on these communities and those analyses demonstrate that the final rule is not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. The final rule will result in improvements to CCT, increased public awareness of the sources of lead in drinking water and public education about lead in drinking water, as well as LSLR and thereby increases the level of health protection for all affected populations. On average, the LSLR provision may be less likely than the CCT provision to address baseline health risk disparity among low-income populations because LSLR may not be affordable for low-income households. While the economic analysis for this rulemaking assumed that households must pay for their portion of the LSLR under the goal based or mandatory replacement programs, there are federal and state programs that may be used to fund LSLR programs including the cost of LSLR for customer-owned LSLs. These include but are not limited to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), WIFIA Program, WIIN Act of 2016 grant programs, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant  Program. EPA is aware of several water systems that have conducted full LSLRs in cities and towns without requiring individual households to finance the replacement of the non-system-owned portion of the service line. For more information, including specific case studies of where these funding vehicles have been used to fund full LSLR, see https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/funding-lead-service-line-replacement.
EPA encourages financial assistance programs by water systems to assist in achieving LSLR in disadvantaged households. To further address the comments related to the financial constraints that impact minority populations and low income populations, EPA added a requirement in the final regulation for water systems to include in their LSLR plan a description of how they will accommodate customers that want LSLR but are unable to pay. The new requirement creates an incentive for water systems to support LSLR and allows each water system to utilize financing options most appropriate for its community. Water systems are in the best position to determine how to fund their capital improvements. In any case, EPA does not have the authority under the SDWA to determine how water systems cover the costs of compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
EPA expects that the CCT changes will account for most of the benefits from the LCRR (see Section 6.4.6 of "Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions" (USEPA, 2020)). Therefore, even in the absence of LSLR, health risk reduction benefits will be more uniformly distributed among populations with higher baseline health risks including minority and low-income households. The final LCRR includes many new requirements that will result in health risk reductions through reducing lead concentrations in drinking water for all consumers, including for minority and low-income households.
For example, the final rule requires water systems with LSLs to collect tap samples from LSL sites and collect the fifth liter of water, which is more likely to be in contact with the LSL during the stagnation period. The rule also requires that the exceedance of the trigger level of 10 ug/L will require water systems that currently treat for corrosion to re-optimize their existing treatment. For water systems that do not currently treat for corrosion, the systems would be required to conduct a corrosion control study. In addition, exceedance of the trigger level requires water systems to conduct LSLR at an annual goal rate approved by the state. The find-and-fix provisions require water systems to collect follow up tap sampling at any site that has a sample above 15 ug/L, collect a water quality parameters sample if the system has CCT and perform any needed modification to treatment. In the final rule, water systems are required to create an LSL inventory and make consumers aware of the presence of a LSL. Taken together, these requirements will provide reduced health risks in minority and low-income communities in a cost-effective and feasible manner.
EPA disagrees that the LCRR violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. (Title VI) prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in the programs or activities of recipients and subrecipients of federal financial assistance which includes loans. EPA's regulations implementing Title VI and other nondiscrimination statutes found at 40 C.F.R. Part 7 prohibit both acts of intentional discrimination and those that have the effect of discriminating based on race, color or national origin. The LCRR, like many regulations adopted by EPA and other federal departments and agencies implementing federal statutes, provides some discretion to water systems as to how they design their own implementing programs. As noted above, EPA does not have the authority under the SDWA to determine how water systems finance the cost of compliance with national primary drinking water standards. However, a condition of accepting federal financial assistance is that those water systems must exercise their discretion and implement programs and policies in a manner that does not intentionally discriminate or have the effect of discriminating based on race, color or national origin.
A finding that an action taken by a recipient or subrecipient has an adverse disparate impact based on race, color, or national origin does not necessarily mean EPA will find a violation of Title VI and EPA's implementing regulations. A violation will be found if the evidence establishes a prima facie case of adverse disparate impact and the recipient or subrecipient fails to articulate a substantial legitimate justification for the challenged policy or practice. EPA will generally consider whether the recipient can show that the challenged policy was necessary to meeting a goal that was legitimate, important, and integral to the recipient or subrecipient's institutional mission in order to establish a substantial legitimate justification. If a recipient makes that showing, EPA must also determine whether there are any comparably effective alternative practices that would result in less adverse impact -- are there less discriminatory alternatives. If the recipient or subrecipient demonstrates a substantial legitimate justification, the challenged policy or decision will nevertheless violate Title VI if the evidence shows that less discriminatory alternatives exist. EPA's Office of General Counsel's (OGC's) External Civil Right Compliance Office has published the first chapter of a toolkit which discusses this legal framework in more detail. https://www.epa.gov/ogc/chapter-1-us-epas-external-civil-rights-compliance-office-compliance-toolkit-chapter-1.
References
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2003. Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf [accessed April 6, 2011].
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions.
USEPA. 2020. Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions.
United States. America's Water Infrastructure Act. 2018. Public Law 115-270, 132 Stat. 3765.
United States. Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act. 2016. Public Law 114-322, 130 Stat. 1628 (Dec. 16, 2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/612.
United States Department of Justice. 1964. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/TitleVI.
19 Other Recommended Rule Changes
EPA received comments on revising the lead action level (AL) in §141.80(c). EPA also received comments suggesting the Agency set an enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead in lieu of a treatment technique.
19.1 Revising the Lead Action Level (AL)
Summary of Comments
Many commenters stated that lead in drinking water can impact health at and below the current lead AL of 15 ppb (or ug/L), and that there is "no safe level of lead." Several commenters expressed concern that while the AL is intended to evaluate the system-wide effectiveness of corrosion control treatment (CCT), it is often interpreted as a safe level of lead for drinking water. They stated this results in "public confusion and misapprehension" and a "false sense of security." One commenter further stated that school districts that operate their own water systems "may believe their water supply is safe simply because it complies with a specific state or federal standard." One commenter suggested renaming the AL as "treatment technique action level (TTAL)" to clarify that it is not an MCL.
A few commenters stated that EPA did not provide justification for maintaining the AL at 15 ppb as the "most health protective, feasible standard" mandated by the SDWA (Section 300g-1(b)(7)(A)), citing various studies on health effects of lead. One commenter argued that consuming water with 15 ppb at two liters per day may lead to negative effects of "cardiovascular system, kidneys, and liver" as well as for pregnant women, and stated that more stringent regulations for lead will "improve the health of our nation." A few commenters also noted that low levels of lead exposure can have disproportionate impacts on children (e.g., decreased IQ), and that "primary prevention is the only way to avoid irreversible health effects."
Commenters noted that the AL has not been revised since it was established in 1991 and argued that both new information on health effects of lead and technological advancements in CCT justify redetermining the feasibility of an AL lower than 15 ppb. A few commenters note that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has reduced its reference level for children's blood lead levels since the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). One commenter stated that given the health effects of lead on children it is "incomprehensible that the Agency has not adopted a more stringent action level." A few commenters noted that while more water systems would be required to conduct lead service line replacement (LSLR) under a lower AL, "cost is not a bar to feasibility," citing federal investment in LSLR and infrastructure improvements. A few commenters cited Michigan's reduction of the lead AL to 12 ppb (effective 2025), standards of 10 ppb and 5 ppb set by the European Union and Canada respectively, and the Federal Drug Administration's (FDA's) limit of 5 ppb for bottled water as examples of lower thresholds for lead. Others noted that it is feasible to detect lead at 1 ppb. One commenter suggesting EPA include a provision to reevaluate the lead AL once every 6 years in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) until the AL is consistent with the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of 0 ppb. However, one commenter noted that the feasibility of standards of 1 ppb or less is "questionable" due to lead content in lead free plumbing and that state and federal agencies would need to "agree upon an evidence-based standard that would be feasible to adhere to." Another commenter stated they agreed with keeping the AL at 15 ppb as proposed.
Similarly, many commenters recommended that EPA lower the AL to 10 ppb and remove the proposed lead trigger level (TL) of 10 ppb. Some commenters referenced that studies indicate 10 ppb is achievable with CCT and noted that by introducing the TL, EPA has implied that 10 ppb is a feasible standard. They also claimed that eliminating the TL while lowering the AL will reduce confusion among the water systems, customers, and the public, reduce rule complexity and implementation burden, and be more protective of public health. They note that reducing the AL would result in more systems implementing CCT and replacing lead service lines (LSLs). One commenter stated that EPA did not evaluate the option of lowering the AL to 10 ppb, but that the projected incremental increase in LSLR based on TL and AL exceedances in Exhibit 5-96 of the Economic Analysis "demonstrates that 10 ppb is more effective at protecting public health" (USEPA, 2019). Another commenter stated that EPA has implied that a level of 5 ppb is feasible by noting that many water systems will have optimized CCT when their lead 90[th] percentile is 5 ppb or less. One commenter further noted that as proposed, "10% of households in a water system could be drinking water with lead concentrations above the action level without the water system having any obligation to take action" and suggested changing the percentile used for the AL from 90[th] to 95[th] or 98[th] depending on system size.
Several commenters stated that EPA must set a household health-based level for lead, citing the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) recommendations. However, one commenter stated that while it is a goal to have "no exposure to lead" in absence of a household health-based level from EPA, using a "number below the community-wide action level as a household action level is not consistent with the balance of the LCR framework."
Agency Response
EPA acknowledges commenter concerns that members of the public may misinterpret the AL as "the safe level of lead." EPA notes that it has revised the public education requirements under §141.85 for water system customers and users to achieve a broader understanding of lead risks in drinking water, sources of lead in drinking water (e.g., LSLs), and steps individuals can take to reduce risk. This includes notification of tap sample results under §141.85(d) and annual notification of known or potential service lines containing lead under §141.85(e). Additionally, water systems are required to include lead health effects information and definitions of the AL and MCLG in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) which is received by all community water system customers regardless of system 90[th] percentile lead level. In response to a commenter that specifically expressed concerns regarding misinterpretation of the AL in the context of schools and child care facilities. Please see the response to comment Section 12 for discussion. EPA reiterates that there is no safe level of lead and intends for the revised requirements in §141.85 to increase public awareness of lead risks. EPA disagrees that introducing a new term of "treatment technique action level" would result in easier interpretation for consumers. Water systems and customers have had decades of experience using the term "action level."
In response to comments suggesting lowering the lead AL, EPA acknowledges that there is no safe level of lead and notes that the MCLG for lead is 0 ppb. The Lead and Copper Rule revisions' (LCRR's) AL prioritizes systems with the highest lead levels for state interaction and mandates actions to reduce drinking water lead levels. Similarly, the Agency has determined that 10 ug/L is a reasonable level to trigger water systems with higher (but not the highest) lead levels to have interactions with states to prepare for and to undertake actions to reduce drinking water lead levels. However, EPA disagrees that the AL should be lowered. EPA established the lead AL in 1991 to require systems serving 50,000 or fewer people exceeding it to install CCT and to require large systems and other systems with optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) to conduct LSLR. The AL was based on examination of data at 39 medium sized systems; while it was "limited as a basis for making broad-based estimates of treatment efficacy," EPA concluded that "the data are useful as general indictors of the range of levels systems have achieved with various treatment measures in place." (56 FR 26490; USEPA, 1991). EPA acknowledged in 1991 that the selection of the AL "is not based on a precise statistical analysis of the effectiveness of treatment" but it "reflects EPA's assessment of a level that is generally representative of effective corrosion control treatment, and that is, therefore, useful as a tool for simplifying the implementation of the treatment technique" at those systems (56 FR 26490; USEPA, 1991). EPA decided to use the same AL as a screen to determine which systems with CCT must also replace LSLs (56 FR 26491; USEPA, 1991). While EPA is not lowering the AL, the Agency is strengthening the public health protections of the treatment technique by improving the sampling procedures to better identify elevated levels of lead. This will result in more systems exceeding the AL and more actions to reduce drinking water exposure to lead. Rule requirements that apply independent of the AL, (e.g., actions required after a trigger level exceedance (TLE), source water treatment, customer notification of tap sample result and presence of an LSL or unknown, public access to the LSL inventory, and find-and-fix), address targeted lead issues that occur in systems that are at or below the AL. Thus, the rule as a whole represents a treatment technique that prevents known and anticipated adverse health effects of lead to the extent feasible.
While some commenters stated it is technologically feasible to detect lead at low levels (e.g., 1 ppb), EPA notes that it would not be feasible for most systems to achieve such levels even with optimized CCT, given the ubiquity of lead in drinking water infrastructure and premise plumbing. EPA further notes that while Section 1417 of the SDWA was amended by Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act to reduce the amount of lead in certified lead-free plumbing from 8 to 0.25 percent of lead by weighted average, it may not be possible to achieve lead levels as low as 1 ppb even with replacement of lead-bearing plumbing. Likewise, while some water systems have optimized CCT which brings their 90[th] percentile lead levels below 5 ppb, this may not be feasible for all water systems with OCCT.
Regarding the commenter recommendation to include in the LCRR a requirement that the feasibility of enforcing a lower AL be reexamined every six years, with the goal of reducing the AL until it meets the MCLG. EPA is already required under Section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA to "review and revise, as appropriate" each national primary drinking water regulation (NPDWR) promulgated under the SDWA and that "each revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons." EPA notes that the Agency's protocol for identifying an existing NPDWR as a candidate for revision in the Six-Year Process is that, at a minimum, the revision presents a meaningful opportunity to improve the level of public health protections and/or achieve cost savings while maintaining or improving the level of health protection. As a result, there is no need to include the commenter's suggested language in the rule.
EPA also disagrees with lowering the AL to 10 ppb and removing the TL. EPA established the TL to allow states to focus on water systems with elevated lead before an AL exceedance occurs. The use of a TL of 10 ug/L in the implementation of this treatment technique rule provides a reasonable concentration that is below the AL and above the practical quantitation limit of 5 ug/L at which to require water systems to take a progressive set of actions to reduce lead levels prior to an action level exceedance (ALE) and to have a plan in place to rapidly respond if there is an ALE. Requiring such actions of systems only when a TL of 10 ug/L is exceeded, rather than all systems prioritizes actions at systems with higher lead levels and allows states to work proactively with water systems that are a higher priority. The actions water systems will be required to undertake if their 90[th] percentile exceeds the TL will require review and oversight from states to assure that they are effective in reducing drinking water lead levels. As shown in Exhibits 4-19 and 4-20 of the Economic Analysis, setting a lower TL would substantially increase the number of water systems required to obtain review and input from their primacy agency to comply with the CCT and LSLR requirements (USEPA, 2020). EPA has concluded it is not practicable for this significant number of water systems to obtain this state review and approval.
 However, inclusion of the TL offers "greater protection of health of persons" consistent with Section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA. Please see the response comment Section 3 for further discussion. Similarly, EPA disagrees with changing the lead threshold level from the 90[th] percentile to a higher percentile like 95[t]h or 98[th] thereby reducing the number of consumers allowed to have higher lead levels under the calculation. EPA notes that under the requirements of §141.82(j) water systems are required to conduct follow-up activities (find-and-fix) whenever a tap sample site exceeds 15 ug/L under monitoring in accordance with §141.86, regardless of a system's 90[th] percentile level (see the response to comment Section 13 for more detail). Furthermore, calculating a 95[th] or 98[th] percentile from a small number of samples (e.g., 5, 10, 20) would not be statistically advisable because the number of samples is too small.
In response to comments about the health effects of lead, please see response to comment section 16. EPA disagrees that the CDC reference level can be compared to the lead AL. The CDC reference level is based on the top 2.5 percent of blood lead levels in children aged one to five, while the lead AL is a concentration of lead in drinking water based on feasibility that is used to evaluate the effectiveness of CCT. Because the CDC reference level has dropped over time does not mean that the lead AL warrants reduction.
EPA disagrees with comments suggesting that the final rule should include a health-based value that triggers immediate notification and compels coordination with public health agencies to reduce lead levels. EPA notes that there is already a health-based lead level, the MCLG, which is set to zero because there is no safe level of lead in drinking water. While EPA considered introducing a new health-based household lead level, it did not include one in the final rule. Furthermore, it is not technologically feasible to assess lead exposure and subsequent health impacts from a single tap sample due to the unpredictability of lead release and individual consumer water use habits. The final rule includes provisions to notify consumers and find-and-fix requirements to remedy elevated lead levels when individual tap samples exceed 15 ug/L. Although 15 ug/L is not a health-based standard, the final rule compels these follow-up actions when a tap sample indicates higher lead levels at individual service connections.
19.2 Setting a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
Summary of Comments
Commenters asserted that the final rule should include an enforceable lead MCL. Commenters believed that an MCL is more appropriate than a treatment technique because it would make the LCR more efficient, enforceable, and simpler for water systems and the public to understand. A few commenters also stated that an MCL is easier for the public and consumers to understand and asserted that the public often incorrectly interprets the AL as an MCL. Commenters claimed that an MCL would compel more action by water systems to reduce lead levels, as the 90[th] percentile construct allows 10 percent of samples to exceed the AL and does not require action until lead levels are "much higher" than the MCLG of 0 ppb. One commenter said that the implementation of an MCL could also include provisions by which a variance may be granted when a specific showing of necessity has been made. A commenter suggested that there should be a lead level that if exceeded would require water systems to provide an alternate source of water to customers. One commenter suggested that the current LCR is considered the "most cheated regulation" of the SDWA and that adopting a clear MCL with enforcement implementation is the "only real solution."
Commenters claimed that because LSLs are today considered the primary source of lead in drinking water, as compared to lead solder and lead-containing fixtures and fittings which commenters say have passivated over time, there is no question that water systems are responsible for elevated lead levels in drinking water. Given this, commenters suggested that water systems should be held accountable for elevated lead levels with an enforceable MCL.
Some commenters said the MCL should be set at 5 ppb, while another said it should be set no greater than 5 ppb. One commenter suggested that an MCL should be set at 0 ppb because there is no safe level of lead. One commenter stated that while "there are legitimate scientific challenges involved in calculating an MCL" it does not justify failure to set an MCL for lead in drinking water. Another commenter said that if no MCL is set, the final rule should include a health-based standard to communicate how lead in drinking water affects the most vulnerable and, if exceeded, trigger immediate notification from the water system and coordination with public health agencies to reduce lead exposure. A commenter said that if no MCL is set, the lead AL should be lowered to 5 ppb.
Conversely, one commenter stated that the LCR is "more protective than such an MCL" and noted that while an MCL would simplify compliance monitoring, establishing an "MCL based on some quantitative health-based linkage" between tap water and blood lead levels would present challenges.
Agency Response
EPA disagrees that an MCL at the tap is appropriate for the revisions to the LCR. EPA's decision to promulgate a treatment technique rule for lead instead of an MCL in 1991 has been upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. American Water Works Association v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (D.C Cir. 1994). The Court deferred to EPA's determination that it was not "feasible" to establish an MCL as a reasonable interpretation of the SDWA in light of the specific problem of lead: "A single national standard (i.e., an MCL) for lead is not suitable for every public water system because the condition of plumbing materials, which are the major source of lead in drinking water, varies across systems and the systems generally do not have control over the sources of lead in their water. In this circumstance EPA suggests that requiring public water systems to design and implement custom corrosion control plans for lead will result in optimal treatment of drinking water overall, i.e. treatment that deals adequately with lead without causing public water systems to violate drinking water regulations for other contaminants. 56 Fed.Reg. 26,487."
The reasons for EPA's decision to promulgate a treatment technique rule are described in great detail in the preamble to the 1991 rule (see especially 56 FR 26472-77; USEPA, 1991) and in EPA's brief filed in response to petitions challenging the 1991 rule. EPA affirms that those reasons apply today just as they did in 1991 when EPA promulgated the original LCR. As noted in the preamble to the 1991 final rule, "regulation of corrosion by-products in drinking water poses unique problems not associated with other contaminants regulated by EPA. These problems include variability of contaminant levels even after treatment and the elevation of lead levels at the tap even after a system has done everything within its control to remedy the sources of corrosion." (56 FR 26473; USEPA, 1991). Even if the contribution of lead contamination in drinking water from LSLs as compared to premise plumbing has changed since EPA promulgated the LCR in 1991, that would not in itself justify revising the LCR to establish an MCL rather than treatment techniques. LSLs, like premise plumbing, are not always controlled or owned by the water system. The fact that water systems do not have control over the sources of lead in premise plumbing was a key factor in EPA's determination to establish a treatment technique rule rather than an MCL in 1991. See, e.g. 56 F.R. 26473, 26475-26476; USEPA, 1991), and mentioned by the court in upholding EPA's determination to establish a treatment technique rule. It is not technologically feasible at the tap to ascertain the level of lead in drinking water against which an MCL would be compared because lead release can be unpredictable over time and across households, can originate from many sources owned by the water system and the customer, can vary based on the sample technique used, and can be affected by customer water use habits. EPA believes that given these factors, an MCL is not "feasible" and a treatment technique is thus a more appropriate construct for regulating lead in drinking water than an MCL.
In addition, a treatment technique has the benefit of allowing for requirements that compel the water system to act at multiple lead levels to alert customers and reduce lead in drinking water, such as the final rule's TL and AL, rather than the construct of an MCL where a water system remains in compliance and takes no action until the MCL is exceeded.
EPA disagrees with commenters suggesting that water systems are always responsible for elevated lead levels in drinking water. EPA notes that because customers may own lead-bearing plumbing, including customer-owned LSLs and brass fixtures that are not lead-free, As explained in the preamble to the 1991 rule, water systems can control the chemistry of that water and therefore its corrosivity when it interacts with distribution system materials such as lead and copper. Additionally, multiple factors can influence lead leaching into drinking water, such as customer water use behaviors that cause extended periods of stagnation and physical disruptions (that may be caused by the customer, water system, or a third party). These factors further obscure the cause and responsibility of elevated lead levels. The final rule's find-and-fix provisions in § 141.82(j)(3) also recognize that the cause of elevated lead levels may be not be known even after a site assessment. Given this potential uncertainty, EPA disagrees that a water system should be in violation of the LCR, such as after the AL is exceeded, when it has optimized CCT and is following other final rule actions to reduce lead in drinking water.
EPA disagrees that if an MCL were set, an MCL of 0 would be appropriate. An MCL is "the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water... [and] are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration." EPA has already set an MCLG of 0 for lead because there is no safe level of lead in drinking water. However, given the ubiquity of lead in drinking water infrastructure, even in trace amounts, it is not feasible to achieve 0 ppb even with optimized CCT.
EPA agrees that water systems should provide risk mitigation when LSLs are replaced or disturbed. The final rule includes risk mitigation requirements , including flushing guidance to remove particulate lead and issuance of a filter certified to reduce lead, that the water system must comply with after the disturbance or replacement of an LSL, when lead levels are expected to increase. In addition, public notification requirements apply after a household or system exceeds the lead AL to inform consumers in a timely manner how they can reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. For individual tap samples that are above 15 ug/L water systems must conduct find-and-fix requirements. For more information, see response to comment Sections 6 and 13.
References
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Control of Lead and Copper; Final Rule. Code of Federal Register, 40 CFR parts 141 and 142. Vol. 56, No. 110. June 7, 1991.
USEPA. 2016. EPA Protocol for the Third Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. EPA-810-R-16-007. December 2016.
USEPA. 2019. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions.
USEPA. 2020. Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49483-49485]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21316]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1214; Airspace Docket No. 17-ASO-24]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace, Knoxville, TN; and Establishment
of Class E Airspace, Madisonville, TN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E surface airspace at Knoxville
Downtown Island Airport, Knoxville, TN, by adding to the airspace
description the exclusion of a 1-mile radius around University of
Tennessee Medical Center Heliport, to allow helicopters departing from
the heliport to no longer require a clearance. Also, the Benfi non-
directional radio beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring
redesign of Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at McGhee-Tyson Airport, and Monroe County Airport,
Madisonville, TN, is moved to stand-alone airspace with its own
designation. This action is necessary to further the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these
airports. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of
Knoxville Downtown Island Airport, McGhee Tyson Airport, and
Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Airport in the associated

Class E airspace areas to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, January 3, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E surface airspace at Knoxville Downtown Island
Airport, Knoxville, TN, and amends Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface by removing Monroe County Airport,
Madisonville, TN, from in the legal description for McGhee-Tyson
Airport, and establishing it under its own designation of Madisonville,
TN, to support IFR operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 19474, May 3, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-1214 to
amend Class E surface airspace at Knoxville Downtown Island Airport,
Knoxville, TN, by adding to the airspace description the exclusion of a
1-mile radius around University of Tennessee Medical Center Heliport,
and to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at McGhee-Tyson Airport, Kenansville, NC, due to the
decommissioning of the Kenan NDB, and cancellation of the NDB approach.
The FAA published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Federal Register (83 FR 39386, August 9, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-
1214 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface by removing Monroe County Airport, Madisonville, TN, from in
the legal description for McGhee-Tyson Airport, and establishing it
under its own designation of Madisonville, TN. Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
amends part 71 by:
    Amending Class E surface airspace at Knoxville Downtown Island
Airport, Knoxville, TN, by adding to the airspace description the
exclusion of a 1-mile radius around University of Tennessee Medical
Center Heliport;
    Amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface to within a 15.4-mile (from a 10-mile) radius of McGhee-Tyson
Airport, Kenansville, NC, due to the decommissioning of the Kenan NDB,
and cancellation of the NDB approach;
    Adjusting of the geographic coordinates of Knoxville Downtown
Island Airport, McGhee Tyson Airport, and Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge
Airport, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    Removing Monroe County Airport, Madisonville, TN, from the
Knoxville, TN, McGhee-Tyson Airport designation, and establishing it as
stand-alone airspace with its own designation.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will
be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO TN E2 Knoxville, TN [Amended]

Knoxville Downtown Island Airport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]57'50'' N, long. 83[deg]52'25'' W)
University of Tennessee Medical Center Heliport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]56'30'' N, long. 83[deg]56'38'' W)

    Within a 4.5-mile radius of Knoxville Downtown Island Airport,
excluding that airspace within a 1.0-mile radius of University of
Tennessee Medical Center Heliport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO TN E5 Knoxville, TN [Amended]

McGhee-Tyson Airport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]48'34'' N, long. 83[deg]59'43'' W)
Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Airport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]51'28'' N, long. 83[deg]31'43'' W)
Knoxville Downtown Island Airport, TN
    (Lat. 35[deg]57'50'' N, long. 83[deg]52'25'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 15.4-mile radius of McGhee-Tyson Airport, and within a 13-
mile radius of Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Airport, and from the
080[deg] bearing from Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Airport clockwise to
the 210[deg] bearing extending from the 13-mile radius southeast to
the 33-mile radius centered on Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Airport, and
within an 8-mile radius of Knoxville Downtown Island Airport.

ASO TN E5 Madisonville, TN [New]

Monroe County Airport, TN,
    (Lat. 35[deg]32'43'' N, long. 84[deg]22'49'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.5-mile radius of Monroe County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on September 24, 2018.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-21316 Filed 10-1-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P