2563ss01

ICR SUPPORTING STATEMENT
December, 6, 2016
Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water
OMB NO. 2040-NEW
EPA ICR NO. 2563.01

Terms of Clearance:
NONE
A. Justification.
1.

EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAKE THE COLLECTION
OF INFORMATION NECESSARY. IDENTIFY ANY LEGAL OR
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS THAT NECESSITATE THE
COLLECTION.
The Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011 (RLDWA) created
exemptions for certain plumbing products from pre-existing lead free
requirements. This proposed rule would require labels for plumbing products,
designed to assist the public in differentiating between products that meet the Safe
Drinking Water Act’s (SDWA) lead free requirements and are safe to use for
drinking water, and those that may contain lead and are not safe for use with
drinking water.
Additionally, EPA is proposing a requirement for a certification that the products
required to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act’s lead free requirement, to ensure
the safety of water that is delivered to consumers. This certification requirement
includes a third party certification for all manufacturers except for those with
fewer than 100 employees, who are still are required to self-certify their products
conform to SDWA’s lead free requirements.

2.

INDICATE HOW, BY WHOM, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE
INFORMATION IS TO BE USED. EXCEPT FOR A NEW COLLECTION,
INDICATE THE ACTUAL USE THE AGENCY HAS MADE OF THE
INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE CURRENT COLLECTION.
The primary use of the data will be for the general public to use in identifying
which plumbing products are safe to use with drinking water. When Congress
enacted the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011, it included
exemptions from the lead free requirements for pipes, fittings and fixtures that
had previously not existed. We had received feedback from stakeholders that it is
1

unclear which plumbing products are safe for use with drinking water. The rule
includes a requirement that manufacturers obtain a third party certification for
products subject to the lead free requirements. In the case of entities having fewer
than 100 employees, they are allowed to self-certify. The intent of the certification
is not only to ensure that the lead content is somehow verified but also to ensure
that the public has access to this information. With the increased public scrutiny
on lead in plumbing products we are trying to get as much information to the
public so they are able to make informed decisions on the products they use in
their drinking water systems. All manufacturers taking advantage of the selfcertification are required to, to at a minimum, post documentation online, or
provide it to the first level of distribution; while the manufacturers that are
required to obtain third party certification are required to identify on their product
that they have obtained a third party certification. Both options should be able to
provide the public the information necessary to determine that they products they
are purchasing are indeed safe for use with drinking water.
There is also a record keeping aspect of this proposed regulation will ensure that:
a) Regulators are able to conduct the necessary calculations to verify a product is
lead free. Without detailed schematics of a plumbing product, it is
impossible to accurately calculate the average lead content of the wetted
perimeter as required in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
b) Entities using the self-certification option will have the necessary information
on hand to show a regulator the process they used to determine the lead
content of their product. In an effort to be flexible we did not specify one
single specific means of demonstrating these self-certifying entities meet the
lead free definition, in order to provide that flexibility, the manufacturers
need to keep records showing how they met the requirement.

3. DESCRIBE WHETHER, AND TO WHAT EXTENT, THE COLLECTION OF
INFORMATION INVOLVES THE USE OF AUTOMATED, ELECTRONIC,
MECHANICAL, OR OTHER TECHNOLOGICAL COLLECTION
TECHNIQUES OR OTHER FORMS OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
E.G. PERMITTING ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF RESPONSES, AND
THE BASIS FOR THE DECISION FOR ADOPTING THIS MEANS OF
COLLECTION. ALSO DESCRIBE ANY CONSIDERATION OF USING
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY TO REDUCE BURDEN.
There is are no reporting requirements in this proposed regulations and all record
keeping required in the regulations will take place in house.
2

4.

DESCRIBE EFFORTS TO IDENTIFY DUPLICATION. SHOW SPECIFICALLY
WHY ANY SIMILAR INFORMATION ALREADY AVAILABLE CANNOT BE
USED OR MODIFIED FOR USE FOR THE PURPOSE(S) DESCRIBED IN ITEM
2 ABOVE.
There is no duplication of these efforts, as there currently there are no federal
requirements to make information on lead content of plumbing products available to the
public. The requirements are intended to be broad enough that any State or local labeling
or certification requirements would satisfy the federal requirements set forth in the
proposed regulation.

5.

IF THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION IMPACTS SMALL BUSINESSES
OR OTHER SMALL ENTITIES, DESCRIBE THE METHODS USED TO
MINIMIZE BURDEN.
EPA analyzed the financial impacts of labeling and certification requirements on small
businesses. In order to limit some of these impacts EPA is proposing that entities with
fewer than 100 employees may simply self-certify that they meet the lead free
requirements, as opposed to procuring a more costly third party certification.

6.

DESCRIBE THE CONSEQUENCE TO FEDERAL PROGRAM OR POLICY
ACTIVITIES IF THE COLLECTION IS NOT CONDUCTED OR IS
CONDUCTED LESS FREQUENTLY, AS WELL AS ANY TECHNICAL OR
LEGAL OBSTACLES TO REDUCING BURDEN.
If products are not labeled or certified, it is likely that consumers could inadvertently
purchase a product, not designed for use with drinking water, and incorrectly install the
product in their drinking water system. Inadvertent installations such as these could
introduce lead into a consumer’s drinking water, which can lead to a number of health
related issues, including: cardiovascular issues in adults and reduced IQ in infants.

7.

EXPLAIN ANY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD CAUSE AN
INFORMATION COLLECTION TO BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER:
This ICR would require respondents to retain records for more than three years. A
plumbing product is likely to be available for sale or installation for more than three years
and as such, there is a need for the manufacturer to retain the records documenting
compliance with the lead free requirements and also to ensure that all products sold
would include the labeling requirements as set forth in the proposal.
8.
IF APPLICABLE, IDENTIFY THE DATE AND PAGE NUMBER OF
PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER OF THE AGENCY'S NOTICE,
REQUIRED BY 5 CFR 1320.8(d), SOLICITING COMMENTS ON THE
INFORMATION COLLECTION PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO OMB.
3

SUMMARIZE PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THAT
NOTICE AND DESCRIBE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE AGENCY IN RESPONSE
TO THESE COMMENTS. SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON COST AND HOUR BURDEN.
The Agency is taking comment in conjunction with the proposed regulation
9.

EXPLAIN ANY DECISION TO PROVIDE ANY PAYMENT OR GIFT TO
RESPONDENTS, OTHER THAN REMUNERATION OF CONTRACTORS OR
GRANTEES.
No payments or gifts are provided to respondents.

10.

DESCRIBE ANY ASSURANCE OF CONFIDENTIALITY PROVIDED TO
RESPONDENTS AND THE BASIS FOR THE ASSURANCE IN STATUTE,
REGULATION, OR AGENCY POLICY.
No assurances of confidentiality are provided to respondents.

11.

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY QUESTIONS OF A
SENSITIVE NATURE, SUCH AS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDES,
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND OTHER MATTERS THAT ARE COMMONLY
CONSIDERED PRIVATE. THIS JUSTIFICATION SHOULD INCLUDE THE
REASONS WHY THE AGENCY CONSIDERS THE QUESTIONS NECESSARY,
THE SPECIFIC USES TO BE MADE OF THE INFORMATION, THE
EXPLANATION TO BE GIVEN TO PERSONS FROM WHOM THE
INFORMATION IS REQUESTED, AND ANY STEPS TO BE TAKEN TO
OBTAIN THEIR CONSENT.
Questions of a sensitive nature are not found in this information collection request.
12.

PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF THE HOURS AND COST FOR LABOR
BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION.

EPA estimates the number of respondents to be 2,193 manufacturers of plumbing products
intended for potable use and exempted use plumbing products that are physically compatible
with potable uses, that must comply with the proposed rule’s regulatory requirements. EPA will
be responsible for implementation of the proposed rule so states and local governments are not
impacted by the rule. For the first three years after publication of the final rule, the Agency is not
anticipated to incur any reporting or recordkeeping burden for implementation activities and
ensuring compliance.
For the first three years after publication of the final regulation: “Use of Lead Free Pipes,
Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water” in the Federal Register, manufacturers
4

with 100 or more employees will incur burden to conduct the following rule compliance
activities:
 Obtaining certification of products from an accredited third party certification body to
document compliance with the lead free requirements as set forth in the Safe
Drinking Water Act,
 Maintaining records associated with the initial certification (conducted by an
independent third party certifying agency) that potable use products (those supplying
water for human consumption) meet the requirements of NSF/ANSI Standard 372.
Firms with fewer than 100 employees will be allowed to choose between third party certification
and self-certifying compliance with the rule’s lead free requirements. EPA assumes in this ICR
that these manufactures will select the lower cost self-certification option and incur the burden
of:
 Preparing the initial certificate of conformity and maintaining records for potable use
products that are self-certified by the manufacturer as being lead free.
The rule requirement to respond to EPA requests for information is on an ad hoc basis (however,
this information collection is not anticipated to occur during the three-year period covered by this
ICR).
In order to develop ICR (proposed rule compliance) costs for third party certification, EPA had
to determine the regulatory baseline. This baseline represents the current industry practice with
regard to third party certification. EPA obtained information on third party use by plumbing
manufacturers by reviewing current State laws requiring certification for NSF/ANSI Standard 61
and 372; reviewing the International and Uniform Plumbing Codes; contacting the two primary
industry trade groups, PMI and AFS; and acquiring information from industry third party
certifiers (e.g. NSF International, CSA Group, UL, etc.). Based on the above information, the
Agency estimated that 90 percent of manufacturers with 100 or greater employees already use an
accredited third party agency to certify that their products are lead free. In order to account for
uncertainty in the proportion of smaller manufacturers that currently use a third party
certification bodies, EPA chose to develop lower and upper bound cost scenarios based on
baseline compliance assumptions for firms having fewer than 100 employees. Fifty to 75 percent
of plumbing manufacturers having fewer the 100 employees are assumed to use third party
certifiers. Table 1 summarizes the third party certification baseline assumptions EPA used in the
development of regulatory and ICR costs. Under the proposed rule, certification costs would
only be attributable to those manufacturers that do not already use these third party certification
bodies.

5

Table 1: Estimated Percentage of Manufacturers by Size that Do Not Already Use Third
Party Certification Bodies
Percentage of Manufacturers that Currently Do Not Use Third
Party Certification Bodies and to which Certification Costs
Manufacturer Size
Would Apply
(no. of employees)
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
< 100
25%
50%
100-499
10%
10%
≥ 500
10%
10%
Source: Rule Technical Support Document, Exhibit 4-18
Third party certifying firms usually conduct the certification process for a plumbing
manufacturer’s specific plumbing product families. For NSF/ANSI Standard 372, products of the
same material formulation and similar configuration are considered one product family. So
certifying costs were developed based on a product family basis. EPA estimated that each firm
produces an average of three product families, based on an assessment of firm website data for
manufacturers across all potable plumbing product sub categories.
Certification costs can be broken into initial assessment and testing costs and annual renewal
costs. Most of the accredited third party certification bodies offer an annual renewal based on an
audit process for a set number of years after the initial certification year. In order to derive initial
and renewal certification unit cost, EPA contacted the eight ANSI accredited third party
certification bodies to obtain estimated costs for certifying products to ANSI/NSF Standard 372.
The certifiers were asked to provide estimates for four representative product categories (faucets,
fittings, valves, and pipes), which are intended to represent the range in complexity of plumbing
products.
Four certification bodies provided quotes of sufficient specificity or comparable scope that could
be used in estimating initial certification costs. None of the firms provided quotes for all four
product lines. Costs varied based on the product type and certifying agency. EPA used the
average, across firms and product types, as the estimated costs for an initial certification of a
single product family, $6,000. Five of the eight certification bodies provided estimates for
annually renewing the third party certification to Standard 372. Costs varied based on the
product type and certifying agency. One of the responding certifiers requires re-certification
every year. The other four certification bodies varied in the length of time required for renewal
from annual to every five years. EPA determined a five-year cost stream for each of the third
party certifiers and computed a per product family average annual renewal cost of $3,200. In
addition to the certifier’s fees, EPA assumed $224 of recordkeeping cost on the part of the
plumbing manufacturing firms. The recordkeeping costs are based on an 8 hour per product
family labor burden times a $28.05 per hour labor rate. The hourly labor rate was obtained from
the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Occupational Employment Survey, May 2014. The rate is
based on the highest base wage rate across the technical labor categories, Computer Control
6

Programmers and Operators, in NAICS 332900 - Other Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing, which was selected because it represents several product categories impacted by
the proposed rulemaking including potable use and use-exempted products (e.g., pipe, pipe
fittings, valves, and plumbing fixture fittings and trim, such as sinks). This base rate was
adjusted to include the additional non-wage labor costs to firms using a loading rate of 1.53.
This loading rate was derived using the BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation
report, Table 10, December 2014, and represents the percent of total compensation for all
workers in the goods-producing industries that are specific to manufacturing.
Under the proposed rule analysis, all firms are assumed to come into compliance with the third
party or self-certification requirements of the rule in the first three years after the signature date
of the final rule as required by the regulation. EPA assumes that firms will come into
compliance with these certification requirements evenly over this initial three-year period (onethird of firms incur initial certification costs each year). In the analysis firms after their initial
certification year receive the certification renewal cost in the following years of the three year
ICR period of analysis.
Third party initial certification and renewal costs are applied to firms with 100 or more
employees. Table 2 presents the total and average annual labor burden and labor cost to
manufacturers with 100 or more employees for this ICR.
Table 2: Total and Average Annual Burden Hours and Labor Costs to Manufacturers with
100 or Greater Employees for the Information Collection Request

Manufacturers with
100 or greater
employees

Number of
Manufacturers

Total Burden
(Hours)

Average Annual
Burden
(Hours)

Total Labor
Costs
(in millions)

Average
Annual Labor
Costs
(in millions)

612

6,888

2,296

$0.19

$0.06

Source: Lead Free Rule Cost Model, ICR Analysis worksheets.

The proposed rule also allows firms with fewer than 100 employees the choice between third
party certification or self-certifying compliance with lead free requirements. EPA estimated that
each manufacturer would require 40 hours of labor to initially develop the certificate of
conformity, which certifies a product family as being compliant with the lead free requirements.
The unit cost per product family is $1,122. The labor burden for the annual renewal of the selfcertification per product family is estimated to be 16 hours. These hours are used in the updating
of the certificate of conformity and recordkeeping activities. This means the unit cost of annual
self-recertification is $449 per product family.
EPA in the analysis of the proposed rule assumed that all firms with fewer than 100 employees
would select to self-certify. Table 3 shows the estimated total and average annual labor burden
hours and costs for firms with fewer than 100 employees. Values in this table are ranges based
7

on the EPA lower and upper bound estimated percentages of manufactures with fewer than 100
employees that are currently not already compliant with the proposed rule requirements (see
Table 1).
Table 3: Total and Average Annual Burden Hours and Labor Costs to Manufacturers with
Fewer than 100 Employees for the Information Collection Request

Manufacturers with
fewer than 100
employees

Number of
Manufacturers

Total Burden
(Hours)

Average Annual
Burden
(Hours)

Total Labor
Costs
(in millions)

Average
Annual Labor
Costs
(in millions)

1,581

155,694 - 311,388

51,898 -103,796

$4.37 - $8.73

$1.46 - $2.91

Source: Lead Free Rule Cost Model, ICR Analysis worksheets.

Table 4 provides the total and average burden hours and labor costs for firms of all employee
size categories. Again ranges are base of lower and upper bound estimated percentages of
manufactures with fewer than 100 employees.
Table 4: Total and Average Annual Burden Hours and Labor Costs to Manufacturers
Across All Employee Size Categories for the Information Collection Request

Manufacturers –
All size categories

Number of
Manufacturers

Total Burden
(Hours)

Average Annual
Burden
(Hours)

Total Labor
Costs
(in millions)

Average
Annual Labor
Costs
(in millions)

2,193

162,582 - 318,276

54,194 - 106,092

$4.56 - $8.93

$1.52 - $2.98

Source: Lead Free Rule Cost Model, ICR Analysis worksheets.

Total labor burned to manufactures of all sized ranges from 162,582 – 318,276 hours over the
three-year time period of the ICR. Estimated average annual burden varies between 54,194 and
106,092 hours. Three-year total cost is between $4.56 and $8.93 million. The EPA estimated
average annual labor cost ranges from $1.52 to $2.28 million.

13. PROVIDE AN ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL NON-LABOR COST
BURDEN TO RESPONDENTS OR RECORDKEEPERS RESULTING FROM
THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. (DO NOT INCLUDE THE COST
OF ANY HOUR BURDEN SHOWN IN ITEMS 12 AND 14).
Question 12 outlines the process for developing both the burden and labor cost of the ICR, as
well as the capital cost associated with the proposed rule requirement that firms with 100 or
greater employees use third party accredited certification bodies to demonstrate that their potable
use plumbing products meet specific lead free requirements.
8

Under the proposed rule analysis, firms with 100 or greater employees are assumed to come into
compliance with the third party requirements of the rule in the first three years after the signature
date of the final rule as specified by the proposed regulation. EPA assumes that firms will come
into compliance with these certification requirements evenly over this initial three-year period
(one-third of firms incur initial certification costs each year). In the analysis firms after their
initial certification year receive the certification renewal cost in the following years of the three
year ICR period of analysis.
Third party initial certification and renewal costs are applied to firms with 100 or more
employees. Table 5 presents the total and average annual non-labor cost to manufacturers with
100 or more employees for this ICR.
Table 5: Total and Average Annual Non-Labor Costs to Manufacturers with 100 or
Greater Employees for the Information Collection Request
Initial Certification Costs (Capital)
Number of
Total Initial Cert. Average Initial
Manufacturers
Costs
Cert. Costs
(in millions)
(in millions)
Manufacturers
with 100 or
greater employees

612

$2.58

$0.86

Renewal Certification Costs (O&M)
Total Renewal
Costs
(in millions)

Average
Renewal Costs
(in millions)

$1.38

$0.46

Source: Lead Free Rule Cost Model, ICR Analysis worksheets.

EPA assumed that all firm with less than 100 employees would select the less expensive
regulatory option of self-certification under the proposed rule, therefore there are no non-labor
costs incurred by these firms. The costs in Table 5 represent all capital and O&M costs
associated with this ICR.
14.

PROVIDE ESTIMATES OF ANNUALIZED COST TO THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. ALSO, PROVIDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD
USED TO ESTIMATE COST, WHICH SHOULD INCLUDE
QUANTIFICATION OF HOURS, OPERATION EXPENSES (SUCH AS
EQUIPMENT, OVERHEAD, PRINTING, AND SUPPORT STAFF), AND
ANY OTHER EXPENSE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED
WITHOUT THIS COLLECTION OF INFORMATION. AGENCIES ALSO
MAY AGGREGATE COST ESTIMATES FROM ITEMS 12, 13, AND 14
IN A SINGLE TABLE.

Due to the regulatory implementation schedule which allows three years for compliance after
publication of the final rule, the Agency is not anticipated to incur any reporting or
recordkeeping burden for implementation activities and ensuring compliance during the period
covered by this ICR.
9

Tables 6 and 7 provide the total and average burden hours, and labor and non-labor costs for all
2,193 firms affected by this ICR. Again ranges are base of lower and upper bound estimated
percentages of manufactures with fewer than 100 employees.
Table 6: Total Burden Hours and Labor and Non-Labor Costs to Manufacturers Across
All Employee Size Categories for the Information Collection Request

Manufacturers –
All size categories

Total Burden
(Hours)

Total Labor
Costs
(in millions)

Total Initial
Certification
Costs (Capital, in
millions)

Total
Renewal
Costs (O&M,
in millions

Total Costs
(in millions)

162,582 – 318,276

$4.56 - $8.93

$2.58

$1.38

$8.52 - $12.89

Table 7: Annual Average Burden Hours and Labor and Non-Labor Costs to
Manufacturers Across All Employee Size Categories for the Information Collection
Request

Manufacturers –
All size categories

Average Annual
Burden (Hours)

Average
Annual Labor
Costs
(in millions)

Average Annual
Initial
Certification
Costs (Capital, in
millions)

Average
Annual
Renewal
Costs (O&M,
in millions

Total Average
Annual Costs
(in millions)

54,194 – 106,092

$1.5 - $3.0

$0.86

$0.46

$2.8 - $4.3

Total estimated burden hours range from 162,582 to 318,276. Total costs for this ICR range
from $8.52 to $12.89 million. This means that the average number of burden hours for each year
of the ICR period is calculated to be between 54,194 and 106,092. The average annual cost for
the ICR ranges between $2.8 and $4.3 million.
15.

EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR ANY PROGRAM CHANGES OR
ADJUSTMENTS IN BURDEN ESTIMATES FROM THE PREVIOUS
APPROVED ICR.
All of the burden associated with this Information Collection Request is new
burden due to the creation of a new regulation.

16.

FOR COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION WHOSE RESULTS WILL BE
PUBLISHED, OUTLINE PLANS FOR TABULATION, AND
PUBLICATION. ADDRESS ANY COMPLEX ANALYTICAL
TECHNIQUES THAT WILL BE USED. PROVIDE THE TIME
SCHEDULE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, INCLUDING BEGINNING
10

AND ENDING DATES OF THE COLLECTION OF INFORMATION,
COMPLETION OF REPORT, PUBLICATION DATES, AND OTHER
ACTIONS.
There are no plans on publishing the data discussed in this supporting statement.
17.

IF SEEKING APPROVAL TO NOT DISPLAY THE EXPIRATION DATE
FOR OMB APPROVAL OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION,
EXPLAIN THE REASONS THAT DISPLAY WOULD BE
INAPPROPRIATE.
Not Applicable

18.

EXPLAIN EACH EXCEPTION TO THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
IDENTIFIED IN ITEM 19, "CERTIFICATION FOR PAPERWORK
REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSIONS," IN ROCIS.
The agency is able to comply with all provisions of the Certification for
Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions.

B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
This information collection does not employ statistical methods

11