57782 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 

[EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0034; FRL–8476–5] 

RIN 2040–AE83 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations for Lead and Copper: 

Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and 

Clarifications 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing seven 

targeted regulatory changes to the 

National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations (NPDWR) for lead and 

copper. This final rule strengthens the 

implementation of the Lead and Copper 

Rule (LCR) in the following areas: 

monitoring, treatment processes, public 

education, customer awareness, and 

lead service line replacement. These 

changes provide more effective 

protection of public health by reducing 

exposure to lead in drinking water. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 10, 2007. 

The compliance date for all of this 

final rule’s provisions is 180 days after 

promulgation except if by that date, the 

primacy State has not adopted this rule, 

in which case compliance with this 

final rule is required the earlier of either 

the State’s adoption of the rule, or two 

years after December 10, 2007. For 

purposes of judicial review, this rule is 

promulgated as of October 10, 2007 as 

provided in 40 CFR 23.7. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0034. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, 

EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Water 

Docket is (202) 566–2426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical inquiries, contact Jeffrey 

Kempic, Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water (MC 4607M), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 

564–4880; e-mail address: 

kempic.jeffrey@epa.gov. For regulatory 

inquiries, contact Eric Burneson, Office 

of Ground Water and Drinking Water 

(MC 4607M), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: (202) 564–5250; e-mail address: 

burneson.eric@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does This Action Apply to Me? 

Entities potentially affected by the 

Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term 

Regulatory Revisions final rulemaking 

are public water systems (PWSs) that are 

classified as either community water 

systems (CWSs) or non-transient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs). 

Regulated categories and entities 

include: 

Category Examples of 

regulated entities 

Industry ...................... Privately-owned 

CWSs and 

NTNCWSs. 

State, Tribal, and local 

governments.

Publicly-owned 

CWSs and 

NTNCWSs. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. This table lists 

the types of entities that EPA is now 

aware could potentially be regulated by 

this action. Other types of entities not 

listed in the table could also be 

regulated. To determine whether your 

facility is regulated by this action, you 

should carefully examine the definition 

of ‘‘public water system’’ in § 141.2, the 

section entitled ‘‘Coverage’’ of § 141.3, 

and the applicability criteria in 

§ 141.80(a) of title 40 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. If you have 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

one of the persons listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

B. Abbreviations Used in This 

Document 

AL: Action Level 

CCR: Consumer Confidence Report 

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations 

CWS: Community Water System 

CWSS: Community Water System Survey 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency 

ICR: Information Collection Request 

LCR: Lead and Copper Rule 

LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor 

Revisions 

LSL: Lead Service Line 

LSLR: Lead Service Line Replacement 

LT2: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule 

MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 

MDL: Method Detection Limit 

NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory 

Council 

NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulation 

NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community 

Water System 

O&M: Operation and Maintenance costs 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget 

PE: Public Education 

POE: Point-of-Entry Devices 

POU: Point-of-Use Devices 

RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis 

SBA: Small Business Administration 

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act 

SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water 

Information System, Federal Version 

UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

C. Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the 

Lead and Copper Rule? 

B. What Is the Regulatory History of the 

Lead and Copper Rule? 

C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR 

Short-Term Regulatory Revisions? 

II. What Do the LCR Short-Term Regulatory 

Revisions Require? 

A. Minimum Number of Samples Required 

B. Definitions for Compliance and 

Monitoring Periods 

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria 

D. Advanced Notification and Approval 

Requirements for Water Systems That 

Intend to Make Any Long-Term Change 

in Water Treatment or Add a New 

Source of Water 

E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer 

Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring 

Results to Consumers Who Occupy 

Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for 

Lead 

F. Public Education Requirements 

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines 

Deemed Replaced Through Testing 

III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper Rule 

Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and 

Clarifications 

A. Minimum Number of Samples Required 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Minimum Number of Samples Required 

Revisions? 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Minimum Number of 

Samples Required Revisions and EPA’s 

Response to These Issues? 

B. Definitions for Compliance and 

Monitoring Periods 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Compliance and Monitoring Period 

Definition Revisions? 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Compliance and 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57783 

Monitoring Period Definition Revisions 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Reduced 

Monitoring Revisions? 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By 

Commenters on the Reduced Monitoring 

Revisions and EPA’s Response to These 

Issues? 

D. Advanced Notification and Approval 

Requirement for Water Systems That 

Intend to Make Any Long-Term Changes 

in Water Treatment or Add a New 

Source of Water 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for Advanced 

Notification and Approval of Long-Term 

Treatment Changes or Addition of New 

Source Revisions? 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Advanced 

Notification and Approval of Long-Term 

Treatment Changes or Addition of New 

Source Revisions and EPA’s Response to 

These Issues? 

E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer 

Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring 

Results to Consumers Who Occupy 

Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for 

Lead 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water 

Monitoring Results Revisions? 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Consumer Notice of 

Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results 

Revisions and EPA’s Response to These 

Issues? 

F. Public Education Requirements 

1. Message Content 

a. How Is EPA Revising the Message 

Content? 

b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Message 

Content Revisions? 

c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Message Content 

Revisions and EPA’s Response to These 

Issues? 

2. Delivery 

a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery 

Requirements? 

b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Delivery 

Requirements Revisions? 

c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Delivery 

Requirements Revisions and EPA’s 

Response to These Issues? 

3. Timing 

a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing 

Provisions of the Rule? 

b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for Revising the 

Timing Provisions of the Rule? 

c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Timing Provisions 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

4. Consumer Confidence Reports 

a. How Is EPA Revising CCR 

Requirements? 

b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the CCR 

Revisions? 

c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the CCR Requirements 

Revisions and EPA’s Response to These 

Issues? 

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines 

Deemed Replaced Through Testing 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines 

Revisions? 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By 

Commenters on the Reevaluation of Lead 

Service Lines Revisions and EPA’s 

Response to These Issues? 

H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and 

Copper Rule 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for Not 

Including Any of These Other Issues in 

the Final Rule Revisions? 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on These Other Issues and 

EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

I. Compliance Dates 

1. What Are the New Compliance Dates for 

This Rule? 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Compliance Dates? 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Compliance Dates 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

J. State Implementation 

1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions 

Affect A State’s Primacy Program? 

2. What Does a State Have to Do to Apply? 

3. How Are Tribes Affected? 

IV. Economic Analysis 

A. Direct Costs 

B. Overall Cost Methodologies and 

Assumptions 

C. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory 

Change III.A 

D. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory 

Change III.B 

E. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory 

Change III.C 

F. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory 

Change III.D 

G. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory 

Change III.E 

H. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory 

Change III.F 

I. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory 

Change III.G 

J. Summary of National Average Annual 

Direct Costs 

K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and 

Implement Regulatory Changes 

L. Indirect Costs 

M. Benefits 

N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the State and System 

Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Congressional Review Act 

VI. References 

I. Background 

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for 

the Lead and Copper Rule? 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA to 

establish maximum contaminant level 

goals (MCLGs) and National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) 

for contaminants that may have an 

adverse effect on the health of persons, 

may occur in public water systems at a 

frequency and level of public concern, 

and in the sole judgment of the 

Administrator, regulation of the 

contaminant would present a 

meaningful opportunity for health risk 

reduction for persons served by public 

water systems (section 1412(b)(1)(A)). 

The 1986 amendments to SDWA 

established a list of 83 contaminants for 

which EPA is to develop MCLGs and 

NPDWRs, which included lead and 

copper. The 1991 NPDWR for Lead and 

Copper (56 FR 26460, U.S. EPA, 1991a) 

fulfilled the requirements of the 1986 

SDWA amendments with respect to lead 

and copper. 

B. What Is the Regulatory History of the 

Lead and Copper Rule? 

EPA promulgated maximum 

contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and 

NPDWRs for lead and copper (LCR) on 

June 7, 1991. The goal of the LCR is to 

provide maximum human health 

protection by reducing lead and copper 

levels at consumers’ taps to as close to 

the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish 

this goal, the LCR establishes 

requirements for community water 

systems (CWSs) and non-transient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) 

to optimize corrosion control and 

conduct periodic monitoring. Systems 

are required to perform public 

education when there are action level 

exceedances at more than 10 percent of 

the taps that are sampled, treat source 

water if it contributes significantly to 

lead and copper levels at the tap, and 

replace lead service lines in the 

distribution system if the lead level at 

the tap continues to exceed the action 

level after optimal corrosion control has 

been installed. EPA proposed minor 

revisions to the LCR (LCRMR) in 1996 

(60 FR 16348, U.S. EPA 1996a) and 

finalized these minor revisions on 

January 12, 2000 (65 FR 1950, U.S. EPA 

2000b). These minor revisions 

streamlined the requirements of the 

LCR, promoted consistent national 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57784 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

implementation, and reduced the 

reporting burden to affected entities. 

These minor revisions also addressed 

the areas of optimal corrosion control 

demonstration, lead service line 

replacement requirements, public 

education requirements, monitoring 

requirements, analytical methods, 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and special primacy 

considerations. The LCRMR did not 

change the action level, MCLG, or the 

rule’s basic requirements. 

C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR 

Short-Term Regulatory Revisions? 

The purpose of the Lead and Copper 

Rule (LCR) is to protect populations 

from exposure to lead and copper in 

drinking water and reduce potential 

health risks associated with lead and 

copper. In 2004, the District of 

Columbia experienced incidences of 

elevated drinking water lead levels, 

which prompted EPA to initiate a 

comprehensive national review of the 

LCR to evaluate the implementation and 

effectiveness of the rule. The purpose of 

the review was to determine whether 

elevated drinking water lead levels were 

a national problem; if a large percentage 

of the population received water that 

exceeded the lead action level; if a 

significant number of systems failed to 

meet the action level; how well the 

existing LCR worked to reduce drinking 

water lead levels; and if the regulation 

is currently being effectively 

implemented, especially with respect to 

monitoring and public education 

requirements. EPA’s comprehensive 

review consisted of several elements, 

including a series of workshops 

designed to solicit issues, comments, 

and suggestions from stakeholders on 

particular issues; a review of monitoring 

data to evaluate the effectiveness of the 

LCR; and a review of the LCR 

implementation by States and water 

utilities. As a result of this multi-part 

review, EPA identified seven targeted 

rule changes intended to strengthen the 

implementation of the LCR in the areas 

of monitoring, customer awareness, and 

lead service line replacement in the 

short-term. The short-term changes 

finalized in this action are expected to 

ensure and enhance protection of public 

health by reducing exposure to lead in 

drinking water. This final rule does not 

amend the portion of the regulations 

related to copper, however provisions 

addressing copper will be considered 

for future revisions to the rule. EPA will 

propose any future regulatory changes 

under a separate regulatory action. 

II. What Do the LCR Short-Term 

Regulatory Revisions Require? 

A. Minimum Number of Samples 

Required 

1. Proposed Revision 

The proposed LCR Short-Term 

Regulatory Revisions (71 FR 40828, July 

18, 2006, U.S. EPA 2006a) clarified and 

maintained that five samples per 

monitoring period is the minimum 

number of samples required for systems 

serving 100 people or fewer. 

2. Final Revision 

EPA’s final revision to the minimum 

number of samples requirement adds a 

provision that gives States the discretion 

to allow water systems with fewer than 

five taps for human consumption to 

collect one sample per tap. Under this 

alternate sampling schedule, the sample 

with the highest test result will be 

compared to the action level to 

determine compliance. While fewer 

samples may be taken, comparing the 

single highest level provides public 

health protection since it does not allow 

water systems to ignore a potential 

problem by taking repeat samples at 

taps that have low lead results when 

they get a high sample result. See 

section III.A for more information on 

this regulatory revision and also for 

EPA’s response to significant public 

comments on the proposal. A complete 

response to all comments on this rule is 

found in the Lead and Copper Docket at 

www.regulations.gov. 

B. Definitions for Compliance and 

Monitoring Periods 

1. Proposed Revision 

EPA’s proposed revision clarified the 

‘‘compliance period’’ as the three year 

calendar period as defined at § 141.2 

and the ‘‘monitoring period’’ as the 

specific period in which water systems 

must conduct required monitoring. EPA 

also proposed to revise several sections 

of the LCR to more precisely define 

when the ‘‘start date’’ for the 

compliance calendar begins. EPA also 

proposed to clarify that systems on 

reduced monitoring schedules must 

monitor during four consecutive 

months, and systems on triennial 

monitoring must monitor once every 3 

calendar years, with a similar 

requirement for small systems with a 

monitoring waiver to ensure they 

monitor every 9 years. 

2. Final Revision 

EPA is maintaining the revision as 

proposed for defining the compliance 

and monitoring periods. Based on 

commenter concerns with implementing 

the clarified definition of the term 

‘‘monitoring period,’’ EPA is allowing 

States flexibility in extending the 

timeframe to complete public education 

activities after an action level (AL) 

exceedance. For more information and 

EPA’s response to significant public 

comments, see section III.B of this 

notice. 

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria 

1. Proposed Revision 

EPA proposed a revision that would 

disallow water systems that exceeded 

the lead action level from initiating or 

remaining on a reduced lead and copper 

monitoring schedule based solely on the 

results of their water quality parameter 

(WQP) monitoring. This proposed 

change would modify the reduced 

monitoring provisions at § 141.86(d)(4). 

2. Final Revision 

EPA is maintaining the revision as 

proposed for reduced monitoring 

criteria. For more information and 

EPA’s response to significant public 

comments, see section III.C of this 

notice. 

D. Advanced Notification and Approval 

Requirements for Water Systems That 

Intend To Make Any Long-Term Change 

in Water Treatment or Add a New 

Source of Water 

1. Proposed Revision 

EPA proposed to amend several 

sections of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) to require water 

systems to obtain prior approval by the 

State to add a new source of water or 

change a treatment process prior to 

implementation. 

2. Final Revision 

EPA is maintaining the revision as 

proposed for advanced notification and 

approval requirements with a slight 

modification to clarify EPA’s intention. 

In finalizing this regulatory revision, 

EPA is clarifying the requirements for 

advance notification and approval to 

apply to those treatment changes that 

would have long-term impacts on water 

quality. EPA has provided examples of 

long-term treatment changes in 

§ 141.90(a)(3) of this final rule. EPA 

believes that this clarification will 

prevent water systems from notifying 

the State and requesting approval for 

changes that are operational in nature or 

made on a daily basis. See section III.D 

of this notice for more information 

regarding this regulatory revision and 

EPA’s response to significant public 

comments on this issue. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57785 

E. Requirements To Provide a Consumer 

Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring 

Results to Consumers Who Occupy 

Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for 

Lead 

1. Proposed Revision 

EPA proposed revisions to require 

water systems to notify consumers in 

homes or buildings tested for lead of 

their results. Specifically, systems must 

provide written notification to 

household occupants within 30 days 

after the water system learns the results 

for samples collected from that 

household and post or otherwise notify 

occupants of non-residential buildings 

of the results of lead testing. EPA also 

indicated that the consumer notification 

must contain an explanation of lead 

health effects, list steps consumers can 

take to reduce lead drinking water 

exposure, provide utility contact 

information, and include the lead 

maximum contaminant level goal or 

MCLG, lead action level, and definitions 

of each from § 141.153(c)(1). 

2. Final Revision 

EPA is maintaining the revision as 

proposed to consumer notification 

language. EPA is also adding language 

to § 141.85(d)(4), which provides an 

example of an alternative mechanism of 

consumer notification for NTNCWSs. 

For more information and EPA’s 

response to significant public 

comments, see section III.E of this 

notice. 

F. Public Education Requirements 

1. Proposed Revision 

EPA proposed to revise the public 

education requirements of the LCR in 

the areas of message content, delivery 

requirements, and the Consumer 

Confidence Report (CCR). The proposed 

revisions would modify the mandatory 

language in public education to make it 

shorter and easier to understand; require 

water systems to deliver material to new 

organizations, engage in new outreach 

activities, post lead information on 

water bills, issue two press releases 

during periods of lead action level 

exceedance; and modify the CCR such 

that all CWSs with lead detects above 

the method detection limit (MDL) of 

0.001 mg/L would have to include 

information about the risks of lead in 

drinking water in the CCR on a regular 

basis. 

2. Final Revision 

EPA is maintaining the proposed 

revisions to the public education 

requirements, but is adding a provision 

that water systems must submit public 

education language for State review and 

approval at the option of the State. 

Generally, EPA is retaining the delivery 

requirements as proposed, but has made 

modifications to address challenges 

with water system jurisdiction and 

delivery of materials. EPA is now 

requiring that all systems have a simple 

informational statement about lead in 

their CCR because the actual level of 

lead exposure for drinking water varies 

between individual homes and levels 

detected by the system for compliance 

and would not necessarily reflect the 

risk faced by consumers. EPA also 

realizes there are situations where the 

most vulnerable populations may be 

exposed to elevated levels of lead for 

many months before being notified. In 

addition, this simplifies compliance 

tracking and enforcement of this 

requirement. See section III.F of this 

notice for more information on the final 

public education requirements and for 

EPA’s responses to significant public 

comments. 

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines 

Deemed Replaced Through Testing 

1. Proposed Revision 

EPA proposed to require water 

systems to reevaluate lead service lines 

classified as ‘‘replaced’’ through testing 

if they resume lead service line 

replacement programs. 

2. Final Revision 

EPA is maintaining the revision as 

proposed for reevaluation of lead 

service line replacement, but is adding 

a provision to allow an alternative time 

schedule for systems that have 

completed a 15-year replacement 

program before re-exceeding the lead 

action level. For more information and 

EPA’s response to significant public 

comments, see section III.G of this 

notice. 

III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper 

Rule Short-Term Regulatory Revisions 

and Clarifications 

A. Minimum Number of Samples 

Required 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

EPA is clarifying the minimum 

sampling requirement for small water 

systems that have fewer than five taps 

by making revisions to § 141.86(c). 

These revisions include a clarification 

that the term ‘‘taps’’ means ‘‘taps that 

can be used for human consumption,’’

as opposed to outlets such as hose bibs 

or taps at utility sinks. In addition, the 

revisions clarify what a system must do 

to meet the minimum five number of 

samples requirement when the system 

physically has fewer than five taps. In 

this situation, the water system must 

sample all taps at least once and then 

take repeat samples on different days 

until a total of five samples are 

obtained. 

EPA is, however, adding a provision 

to § 141.86(c) that gives States the 

discretion to allow water systems that 

have fewer than five taps, to collect one 

sample per tap that can be used for 

human consumption. To qualify for this 

provision, the water system must make 

a request to the State in writing and the 

State must approve the request in 

writing or by onsite verification. Under 

this alternate sampling schedule for all 

water systems collecting fewer than five 

samples, the sample with the highest 

test result will be compared to the lead 

action level to determine compliance. If 

any sample result is above the action 

level, the system is deemed to be 

exceeding the action level and must 

complete compliance actions (e.g., 

public education, corrosion control 

treatment, and lead service line 

replacement). EPA is adding regulatory 

text to § 141.80 to describe this new 

compliance determination. The 

alternate sampling schedule may also be 

applicable for water systems that are on 

reduced monitoring and EPA is adding 

a provision to § 141.86(d)(4)(i) for those 

systems. The provision allows the water 

system to reduce sampling frequency to 

once per year, but in no case can the 

number of samples required be reduced 

below the minimum of one sample per 

tap that can be used for human 

consumption. 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Minimum Number of Samples Required 

Revisions? 

In the original Lead and Copper Rule 

of 1991, the term ‘‘site’’ is used to refer 

to the number of samples collected, and 

there has been confusion as to whether 

‘‘site’’ refers to taps or physical 

locations. EPA is clarifying that 

sampling ‘‘sites’’ refer to ‘‘taps that can 

be used for human consumption.’’ The 

phrase ‘‘that can be used for human 

consumption,’’ is being added to the 

regulations to ensure that samples are 

taken from taps which would pose the 

highest risk for exposure to lead, rather 

than from taps that are not typically 

used for human consumption. 

EPA is also making clarifications for 

water systems that have fewer than five 

taps that can be used for human 

consumption. In the proposal for this 

rule, EPA maintained that systems must 

take a minimum of five samples in order 

to adequately capture the variability of 

lead levels and that it was more cost 

effective for small systems to take more 

samples than install corrosion control or 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57786 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

source treatment based on a small pool 

of samples taken (71 FR 40828 at 40831, 

U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is maintaining 

that systems must take a minimum of 

five samples as part of this rule. 

However, EPA is also giving States the 

discretion to offer an alternative 

requirement, on which it requested 

comment in the proposed rule, 

described as follows. 

EPA requested comment on an 

alternative sampling requirement for 

NTNCWS with fewer than five taps that 

can be used for human consumption. 

The water systems would be required to 

sample 100 percent of the taps that can 

be used for human consumption. Under 

the alternative sampling provision, 

systems collecting fewer than five 

samples will compare the sample with 

the highest result to the action level to 

determine if they must complete 

compliance actions such as public 

education, corrosion control treatment 

installation, and/or lead service line 

replacement. EPA believes that 

requiring systems to use the highest 

sample result to determine compliance 

is health protective because it does not 

allow water systems to take repeat 

samples at taps that have low levels of 

lead when they get a high sample result. 

In addition, the alternative sampling 

schedule alleviates the cost burden 

associated with taking repeat samples. 

After evaluating comments, EPA has 

determined that the alternative 

sampling provision will also be made 

available to CWS with fewer than five 

taps for human consumption, such as 

washeterias in Alaska and Navajo 

hauling points. 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Minimum Number 

of Samples Required Revisions and 

EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

The majority of commenters did not 

agree with EPA’s proposal to require 

water systems with fewer than five taps 

to collect repeat samples from the same 

taps and they supported the idea of 

allowing small water systems to sample 

100 percent of taps available for human 

consumption. Commenters stated that 

repeat sampling would be a cost burden 

imposed on the smallest sized systems. 

Some commenters also stated that 

repeat sampling was an unfair 

requirement for small systems since 

large systems are not required to take 

repeat samples or sample all of their 

available taps for compliance. To 

address these concerns, EPA is giving 

discretion to the States to allow small 

systems with fewer than five taps to take 

fewer than five samples. EPA stresses, 

however, that the requirement is not 

less stringent, since systems collecting 

fewer than 5 samples must compare the 

sample with the highest concentration 

to the action level. By taking fewer than 

5 samples, systems with fewer than 5 

taps are giving up the opportunity to 

take repeat samples at taps with low 

lead results. 

Two States supported not changing 

the minimum number of samples 

requirement because of the 

administrative burden of verifying 

available taps. Although other 

commenters believed that there was no 

better statistical representation than 

sampling 100 percent of taps in a 

system, one of the States stated that it 

is statistically ‘‘risky’’ to base 

compliance on a single sample since 

lead levels vary greatly even with 

corrosion control treatment in place. 

The other State that did not favor the 

alternative suggested that EPA offer 

States discretion to allow the alternative 

of sampling 100 percent of taps. EPA 

agrees with the State and has made 

changes in this rule to reflect this 

suggestion. Because the alternative is 

not mandatory, those States which do 

not agree with the provision are not 

required to allow water systems to 

utilize the alternative sampling 

schedule. 

In their comments, a few States 

indicated that small systems with fewer 

than 5 taps are ‘‘primarily’’ NTNCWSs, 

thus indicating that some are CWSs. The 

commenters who supported this 

approach did not provide any reason for 

limiting this to NTNCWSs and in fact, 

the reasons for supporting the 

alternative would apply equally well to 

any small system with fewer than 5 

taps. As a result, States can approve the 

alternative monitoring for both CWSs 

and NTNCWSs with fewer than five 

taps. In expanding this alternative 

monitoring to CWSs, EPA emphasizes 

that this is only allowed for systems 

such as washeterias in Alaska and 

Navajo hauling points, where there are 

physically fewer than five taps within 

the system. Small CWSs with more than 

five taps cannot use this alternative 

monitoring to take fewer than the 

required number of samples pursuant to 

the table in § 141.86(c). 

B. Definitions for Compliance and 

Monitoring Periods 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

EPA is making a number of 

clarifications throughout the LCR to 

clearly explain when compliance and 

monitoring periods begin and end. In 

addition, the Agency is also clarifying 

the timing of actions following a lead or 

copper action level exceedance and the 

timing of monitoring activities with 

regard to reduced monitoring schedules. 

EPA is clarifying that the term 

‘‘compliance period’’ is a three-year 

calendar year period within a nine-year 

compliance cycle, which is consistent 

with the definition in § 141.2. EPA is 

also defining the term ‘‘monitoring 

period’’ as the specific time period 

during which a water system must 

perform the required monitoring (e.g., 

June–September). 

In this case and consistent with these 

definitions, systems will be deemed to 

be exceeding the action level as of the 

date on which the monitoring period 

ended (i.e., on September 30). EPA is 

modifying several sections of the LCR 

that describe the timing of actions after 

an action level exceedance, including 

corrosion control treatment steps in 

§ 141.81(e), source water monitoring 

and treatment recommendations to the 

State in § 141.83(a), lead service line 

replacement in § 141.84(b)(1), public 

education for community water systems 

in § 141.85(b)(2) and for non-transient 

non-community water systems in 

§ 141.85(b)(4), source water monitoring 

requirements in § 141.88(b) and (d), and 

the reporting requirements in 

§ 141.90(a) and (e). 

Also, for systems on reduced 

monitoring, the monitoring period is 

from June to September or some other 

consecutive four-month period during 

normal operation when the highest lead 

levels are most likely to occur. EPA has 

modified the reduced monitoring 

provisions in § 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) to 

reflect this requirement. In addition, the 

Agency is clarifying when a system may 

begin reduced monitoring in 

§ 141.86(d)(4)(i) and (ii), as well as 

when a system on reduced monitoring 

must resume standard monitoring 

according to § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B). In 

addition, the timing for water quality 

parameter monitoring is now more 

clearly defined in § 141.87(d) and (e). 

Lastly, systems on triennial 

monitoring must conduct their 

monitoring during a four-month 

consecutive period every three years 

and are therefore not allowed to monitor 

during Year 1 of the first compliance 

period and during Year 3 of the second 

compliance period. The Agency is 

modifying the reduced monitoring 

provisions for lead and copper sampling 

in § 141.86(d)(4)(iii), for water quality 

parameter sampling in § 141.87(e)(2)(ii), 

and for triennial source water 

monitoring in § 141.88(d)(1)(i). EPA is 

making a similar change for small 

systems with monitoring waivers to 

ensure that they monitor every nine 

years, which modifies §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i) 

and 141.88(e). 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57787 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Compliance and Monitoring Period 

Definition Revisions? 

EPA is making revisions regarding 

monitoring and compliance periods in 

order to clarify the meaning of these 

terms, to address the issues associated 

with the timing of actions following a 

lead or copper action level exceedance, 

and to address the timing of samples 

that should be taken under reduced 

monitoring schedules. 

Under the previous regulations, there 

was uncertainty about when a system 

was determined to have exceeded the 

action level and the corresponding 

deadlines for completing corrosion 

control studies, lead service line 

replacement and public education (e.g., 

end of December or the end of 

September for systems monitoring June 

to September). The changes made in this 

final rule clarify that a system is deemed 

to be exceeding the action level on the 

last day of the monitoring period in 

which the exceedance occurred. 

The clarified timing of actions 

following a lead or copper action level 

exceedance is also intended to ensure 

that the system and the State begin 

actions to reduce exposure (e.g., 

corrosion control, public education, and 

lead service line replacement) as soon as 

possible. The deadlines for completing 

these follow-up activities will be 

calculated from the date the system is 

determined to be exceeding the action 

level (i.e., end of the monitoring period), 

with some discretion for States to 

extend the deadline for completing 

public education activities on a case-bycase basis. 

The timing of samples that should be 

taken for systems on reduced 

monitoring schedules ensures that 

States and systems have an accurate 

assessment of the effectiveness of 

corrosion control. This relates to both 

the duration and frequency of 

monitoring. Under this requirement, 

samples must be taken during four 

consecutive months. For most systems, 

this will mean monitoring during June 

to September during one of the three 

years in the three-year compliance 

period. For systems where the State has 

approved some other 4-month period, 

all samples must be taken during that 4- 

month period. Sampling during a short, 

fixed time period will allow the system 

to more accurately evaluate the 

effectiveness of the corrosion control 

treatment than will collecting the same 

number of samples over a 3-year period. 

In addition, systems on triennial 

monitoring are also not allowed to 

monitor during Year 1 of the first 

compliance period and during Year 3 of 

the second compliance period because 

that would allow five years to pass 

between monitoring rounds. Similarly, 

systems on nine-year monitoring 

waivers are not allowed to monitor 

during Year 1 of the first nine-year 

period and Year 9 of the second nineyear period. 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Compliance and 

Monitoring Period Definition Revisions 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

Most commenters agreed with the 

definitions of monitoring and 

compliance periods in the proposed 

revisions, but some had implementation 

concerns. Two commenters agreed that 

four months is reasonable for 

monitoring activities, including 

distribution, collection, and initiation of 

lab processing. However, several 

expressed concern that the clock for 

compliance actions should not start 

until compliance has been determined 

after the end of the monitoring period or 

that States should be given flexibility to 

alter compliance action schedules. In 

response to these commenters, EPA is 

modifying § 141.85(b)(3)(iv) to allow 

States flexibility in extending the 

timeframe on a case-by-case basis to 

complete public education activities 

after an action level exceedance. 

However, systems must start these 

activities and States must approve in 

writing any deadline extension within 

60 days of the end of the monitoring 

period in which the exceedance 

occurred. This ensures that the system 

and the State begin public education 

actions to reduce exposure as soon as 

possible, but allows these actions to 

continue past the 60-day timeframe as 

needed for effective implementation. 

States should still make every effort to 

get public water systems to complete 

their public education activities within 

60 days after the end of the monitoring 

period. 

In addition, one commenter indicated 

that under the current version of the 

LCR, small and medium systems 

exceeding the action level must perform 

water quality parameter monitoring 

within the same monitoring period. The 

commenter then stated that the systems 

may not obtain their sample results and 

identify that they have exceeded the 

action level until after the monitoring 

period has ended. As a result, this 

requirement effectively sets systems up 

for water quality parameter monitoring 

violations. In the 1991 LCR, EPA 

recognized that many factors influence 

water corrosivity and because of this, 

decided to require small and medium 

water systems detecting lead and/or 

copper above the action levels to 

measure for water quality parameters 

(56 FR 26460 at 26526, U.S. EPA, 

1991a). However, EPA recognizes that 

under the monitoring period 

clarifications made in this final rule, 

systems on reduced monitoring that 

exceed the action level will most likely 

not be taking water quality parameters 

and would have automatically incurred 

a violation based on the requirement in 

§ 141.87(d). The end of the 6-month 

period in which small and medium 

water systems must sample for water 

quality parameters would have 

corresponded to the end of the 4-month 

monitoring period in which they must 

sample for lead and copper under 

§ 141.86(d)(4). For example, a system 

that takes lead and copper tap samples 

between June and September and 

exceeds the action level, would only 

have until the end of September to take 

all of their water quality parameters. 

The system would most likely not be 

aware of the exceedance until the end 

or after the end of the monitoring period 

and would incur a violation for not 

having already completed water quality 

parameter monitoring. Therefore, EPA is 

revising the requirement in § 141.87(d) 

to require the start of the 6-month 

period in which the system must take 

water quality parameters to correspond 

with the start of the 4-month monitoring 

period in which they must sample for 

lead and copper under § 141.86(d)(4). 

This revision will allow small and 

medium systems on reduced monitoring 

that exceed the action level two months 

to take water quality parameter samples 

after the end of the 4-month monitoring 

period in which they had to take lead 

and copper tap samples. For example, a 

system that takes lead and copper tap 

samples between June and September 

and exceeds the action level, would 

have until the end of November to take 

water quality parameter samples. This 

provision is intended primarily for 

systems that are not aware of the 

exceedance until the end of the lead and 

copper monitoring period. Those 

systems that are aware of the action 

level exceedance earlier in the 4-month 

lead and copper monitoring period 

should conduct their monitoring once 

they become aware of the exceedance to 

better capture the water quality 

conditions at the time of the 

exceedance. 

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

EPA is no longer allowing water 

systems that exceed the lead action level 

to initiate or remain on a reduced lead 

and copper monitoring schedule based 

solely on the results of their water 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57788 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

quality parameter monitoring. This 

change modifies the reduced monitoring 

provisions in § 141.86(d)(4), specifically 

subsections (ii), (iii) and (iv). These 

sections discuss when small and large 

water systems may reduce the required 

number of lead and copper samples in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of 

§ 141.86. 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Reduced Monitoring Revisions? 

EPA is making this change because 

the Agency believes that reduced 

monitoring should only be permitted 

where it has been demonstrated that 

corrosion control treatment is both 

effective and reliable. Compliance with 

water quality parameters alone may not 

always indicate that corrosion control is 

effective. 

Monitoring lead levels is particularly 

critical for systems that are exceeding 

the lead action level for several reasons. 

First, it will assist systems in evaluating 

the effectiveness of corrosion control 

treatment. The rule previously allowed 

systems eligibility for reduced 

monitoring even if they exceeded the 

lead or copper action level if they could 

demonstrate their corrosion control 

treatment was effective by meeting the 

State-designated water quality 

parameters. However, as shown by the 

events in the District of Columbia and 

as stated above, compliance with water 

quality parameters alone may not 

always indicate that corrosion control is 

effective, especially after a treatment or 

source change. Continued exceedance of 

the lead action level may indicate that 

a particular method of corrosion control 

treatment is not effective for a particular 

system and knowledge of this continued 

exceedance may result in the system 

implementing an alternative and more 

effective corrosion control treatment 

strategy. In addition, a system must 

know if it continues to exceed the lead 

action level after installing corrosion 

control treatment in order to determine 

how long its lead service line 

replacement requirements remain in 

effect. Continued understanding of the 

range of lead levels detected within the 

system can also help the system 

implement an effective public education 

program. 

Second, continued monitoring will 

allow primacy agencies to gain a more 

accurate picture of lead levels in 

drinking water in their States. Many 

systems within States share water 

sources, have similar treatment 

technologies, and have similar materials 

in their distribution systems. States and 

other primacy agencies with knowledge 

of effective corrosion control for one 

system may be able to aid other systems 

within their jurisdiction in lowering 

lead levels in water. Having a more 

accurate characterization of lead levels 

in drinking water that is exceeding the 

action level will allow States and 

systems to better inform consumers and, 

thereby, create greater confidence in 

their efforts to reduce lead levels. 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By 

Commenters on the Reduced Monitoring 

Revisions and EPA’s Response to These 

Issues? 

The majority of commenters agreed 

with EPA that a system must remain 

under the action level to continue 

operating on reduced monitoring. States 

and others supported the current 

requirement to allow systems that 

exceed the copper action level to 

continue on reduced monitoring if water 

quality parameters are met. Therefore, 

the Agency is not making any changes 

that differ from the proposal with regard 

to this provision. 

Some commenters did feel that 

systems that exceed the copper action 

level should not be allowed to reduce 

their monitoring requirements. As stated 

in the proposal, EPA did consider 

requiring that all systems meet both the 

lead and the copper action levels as 

criteria for eligibility for reduced 

monitoring. However, the Agency 

determined that copper issues should be 

considered as part of longer term 

revisions to the rule. EPA also believes 

that adding the copper action level 

requirement could impose a large 

monitoring increase on some small and 

medium systems that are currently 

limited in their ability to reduce copper 

below the action level due to their 

source water (e.g., high alkalinity 

ground waters). For these systems, the 

States currently have flexibility in the 

existing rule to limit systems from 

proceeding to reduced lead and copper 

tap monitoring. Under 

§§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and 141.86(d)(4)(iii), 

a State may review and revise its 

determination to allow a system to 

proceed with reduced monitoring when 

the system submits new monitoring or 

treatment data, or when other data 

relevant to the number and frequency of 

tap sampling becomes available. 

Therefore, the Agency is not requiring 

that systems that meet the lead action 

level and water quality parameter 

requirements must also meet the copper 

action level to be eligible for reduced 

lead and copper monitoring. 

Other commenters stated that systems 

which make treatment changes or add 

new sources of water should also be 

required to monitor for lead and copper 

for two consecutive 6-month periods. 

Currently, § 141.86(d)(4)(vii) provides 

States authority to require systems that 

either add a new source of water or 

change any water treatment to resume 

standard monitoring. In addition, 

§§ 141.81(b)(3)(iii) and 141.86(g)(4)(iii) 

allows the State to require any system 

adding a new source of water or 

changing any water treatment to 

conduct additional monitoring. EPA is 

not changing these requirements as part 

of this rule. EPA believes States should 

continue to have the flexibility to 

require systems to resume standard 

monitoring after making a treatment 

change or adding a new source of water 

that could impact corrosion control. 

D. Advanced Notification and Approval 

Requirement for Water Systems That 

Intend To Make Any Long-term Change 

in Water Treatment or Add a New 

Source of Water 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

This final rule amends 

§§ 141.81(b)(3)(iii), 141.86(d)(4)(vii), 

141.86(g)(4)(iii), and 141.90(a)(3) to 

require water systems to obtain prior 

approval by the State to add a new 

source of water or make any long-term 

change in water treatment process prior 

to implementation. The final regulatory 

language allows as much time as needed 

for water systems and States to consult 

before making these changes. To assist 

the State in making its determinations, 

EPA published a March 2007 

Simultaneous Compliance Guidance 

Manual for the Long Term 2 and Stage 

2 DBP Rules (US EPA, 2007b). This 

document will be an aid to the State in 

identifying those situations where 

optimal corrosion control can be 

affected by long-term changes in 

treatment or source water. 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for 

Advanced Notification and Approval of 

Long-Term Treatment Changes or 

Addition of New Source Revisions? 

Previously, the rule required that 

systems notify the State within 60 days 

of making a change in treatment or 

adding a new source. EPA proposed that 

systems be required to provide advance 

notification of any change in treatment 

or addition of a new source and receive 

approval from the State prior to making 

the change. The final rule requires 

systems to provide advanced 

notification of any long-term change in 

treatment or addition of a new source 

and receive approval from the State 

before implementing the change. When 

a water system makes long-term changes 

to its treatment process or adds a new 

source of water, it can unintentionally 

affect the system’s optimal corrosion 

control. EPA believes that State review 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57789 

and approval of changes in long-term 

treatment or addition of a new source 

will provide an opportunity to minimize 

any potential impacts on optimal 

corrosion control. 

For this final rule, EPA has clarified 

the intent of this provision by stating 

that it applies to long-term changes in 

treatment. Examples of long-term 

treatment changes include the addition 

of a new treatment process or 

modification of an existing treatment 

process. Examples of modifications 

include switching secondary 

disinfectants (e.g., chlorine to 

chloramines), switching coagulants (e.g., 

alum to ferric chloride), and switching 

corrosion inhibitor products (e.g., 

orthophosphate to blended phosphate). 

Long-term changes can include dose 

changes to existing chemicals if the 

system is planning long-term changes to 

its finished water pH or residual 

inhibitor concentration. Long-term 

treatment changes would not include 

chemical dose fluctuations associated 

with daily raw water quality changes. 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Advance 

Notification and Approval of Long-Term 

Treatment Changes or Addition of New 

Source Revisions and EPA’s Response to 

These Issues? 

Many commenters supported the 

concept of advance notification and 

approval of treatment changes that 

could affect optimal corrosion control, 

but were concerned that the rule 

language as proposed was too broad and 

could include daily operational 

changes. Commenters were concerned 

that review and approval of daily 

changes that are dictated by the raw 

water quality could not be done in a 

timely manner and could be detrimental 

to public health if they were covered by 

the advance notification and approval 

requirement. It was not EPA’s intention 

to include these daily operational 

activities. In response, EPA has revised 

the final rule to require advance 

notification and State approval of longterm treatment changes or addition of 

new source. Daily dose fluctuations due 

to changes in raw water quality would 

not be considered a long-term treatment 

change and would not require advance 

notification and State approval. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

it should revise the existing rule 

language on ‘‘addition of new source’’ to 

‘‘source change,’’ but did not propose to 

make this change. Many commenters 

stated that revising the rule to cover any 

source change would be too prescriptive 

and that this could also include daily 

changes. Source changes occur on a 

daily basis due to changes in demand 

and commenters expressed concern that 

State review and approval of these 

changes could not be done in a timely 

manner and therefore could be 

detrimental to public health. EPA has 

retained the language of ‘‘addition of 

new source’’ in the final rule rather than 

use the term ‘‘source change.’’ EPA 

believes that it would be difficult to 

define a long-term source change 

because the source mixture can 

constantly change due to demand or 

changes in availability of sources. EPA 

discussed several scenarios in the 

proposed rule, including switching from 

100% surface water to 100% ground 

water, switching from 100% surface 

water to 50% ground water and 50% 

surface water, and a change in 

proportion of moving from 75% ground 

water and 25% surface water to 25% 

ground water and 75% surface water. 

EPA believes that the existing language 

‘‘addition of new source’’ covers the 

first two scenarios. Notification and 

approval would not be necessary if the 

switch is repeated on an annual basis. 

The optimal corrosion control 

treatment for systems with mixed 

sources (ground water and surface 

water) should consider the impact of 

changing the proportions. Section 

141.87(a)(1)(i) states that the tap 

samples shall be representative of water 

quality throughout the distribution 

system taking into account the number 

of persons, the different sources of 

water, the different treatment methods 

employed by the system, and seasonal 

variability. Both water source and water 

treatment methods can produce 

different finished water pH values or 

other critical water quality parameters. 

For example, if the finished water pH 

values from both the surface sources 

and ground water sources are very 

similar, then this can mitigate the 

impact of changing the proportions of 

the various sources. Systems with 

waters that have different finished pH 

values should consider monitoring at 

the representative sites in the 

distribution system after making a major 

change in the proportions of the sources 

(75% ground water to 25% ground 

water). EPA will provide guidance to 

help systems identify source water 

changes (such as changing the mixture) 

that could impact optimal corrosion 

control. 

Some commenters stated that State 

approval of the treatment change or 

addition of a new source is not 

necessary and would delay changes 

needed by the system. EPA disagrees 

with these commenters. EPA believes 

that clarifying the revision to focus on 

long-term treatment changes will 

address concerns that this requirement 

would affect a system’s ability to 

address daily water quality treatment 

changes. State notification and approval 

of long-term treatment changes is 

important because these changes could 

adversely impact optimal corrosion 

control. As EPA noted in the proposed 

rule, this approach allows the State to 

evaluate the change prior to 

implementation and, if needed, to 

design a monitoring program to ensure 

that optimal corrosion control is 

maintained after the change. EPA 

expects that States will review and 

approve long-term treatment changes 

and additions of new sources 

expeditiously and will avoid 

unnecessary delays to long-term 

changes that are needed by the system. 

E. Requirements To Provide a Consumer 

Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring 

Results to Consumers Who Occupy 

Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for 

Lead 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

EPA is amending the public education 

requirements described in § 141.80(g) 

and is adding a new notification 

requirement to § 141.85(d) that will 

require water systems to provide 

consumers who occupy homes or 

buildings that are part of the utility’s 

monitoring program with the testing 

results when their drinking water is 

tested for lead. EPA is also adding a 

reporting requirement to § 141.90(f) for 

systems to certify they have completed 

this new consumer notification 

requirement. 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water 

Monitoring Results Revisions? 

Although some utilities may have 

provided customers with the results of 

analyses conducted to meet 

requirements of the regulations, utilities 

were not previously required by EPA to 

notify occupants of the lead levels 

found in their drinking water. While 

samples are primarily collected to 

evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion 

control or to evaluate the corrosivity of 

the utility’s water across the entire 

service area, the results of lead 

monitoring can provide useful 

information to the occupants of the 

household from which the samples were 

taken. Occupants can evaluate the 

results of lead tests for their drinking 

water and use that information to 

inform any decisions they might make 

to take action to reduce their exposure 

to lead in drinking water. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57790 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Consumer Notice of 

Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results 

Revisions and EPA’s Response to These 

Issues? 

EPA received a range of comments 

regarding the inclusion of the maximum 

contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the 

action level for lead, along with the 

definitions for these two terms from 

§ 141.153(c) in the consumer notice of 

lead tap results. Some commenters 

stated that listing the MCLG was 

unnecessary and would be confusing. 

However, other commenters expressed 

that it was appropriate to include the 

MCLG and many commenters stated 

that there should be some reference to 

the action level. Some of these 

commenters stated that the consumer 

notice should just indicate whether the 

result was above or below the action 

level, while others stated that there 

should be an acknowledgment that the 

action level is not health-based. Still 

others wanted EPA to provide a level of 

lead that is a health concern along with 

information on how to interpret results. 

EPA disagrees that the MCLG is 

unnecessary and would cause 

confusion, since the definition of the 

term in § 141.153(c)(1) clearly states that 

it is the level of a contaminant in 

drinking water below which there is no 

known or expected risk to health, 

allowing for a margin of safety. In 1991, 

EPA set the MCLG for lead as zero based 

on the following considerations: (1) The 

occurrence of a variety of low level 

health effects for which it is difficult to 

identify clear threshold exposure levels 

below which there are no risks of 

adverse health effects; (2) the Agency’s 

policy goal that drinking water should 

contribute minimal lead to total lead 

exposures because a portion of the 

sensitive population already exceeds 

acceptable blood lead levels; and (3) the 

classification of lead as a probably 

human carcinogen (56 FR 26460 at 

26467, U.S. EPA 1991a). EPA believes 

that individuals who have their homes 

tested for lead should be aware of the 

levels below which there is no known 

or expected risk to health and should 

have the knowledge that there are steps 

they can take to further reduce 

exposure. Therefore, this final rule 

includes the provision to include the 

MCLG along with its definition from 

§ 141.153(c)(1). 

EPA agrees that there should be a 

reference to the lead action level, since 

this is the level at which systems are 

required to take actions (e.g., public 

education, corrosion control treatment, 

lead service line replacement). This rule 

includes a requirement to include the 

term ‘‘action level’’ and its definition 

from § 141.153(c)(3). EPA is not 

requiring that systems include an 

explicit sentence that the level is not 

health based, but notes that this rule 

does not preclude a system from adding 

such a statement to the notice. 

In response to providing a level of 

lead that is a health concern, EPA 

believes the current MCLG is the best 

estimate below which there is no known 

or expected risk to health from lead in 

drinking water. EPA is currently 

working toward better defining the 

correlation between drinking water lead 

levels and adverse health effects. With 

regard to how to interpret results, EPA 

believes that including the required 

information in the consumer notice 

allows consumers to make informed 

decisions regarding their lead levels and 

provides actions they might take to 

reduce their lead exposure. 

In addition, some commenters 

expressed confusion about who would 

receive the result where testing occurred 

in buildings with many units, such as 

apartment buildings. Many of these 

commenters cited landlord-tenant issues 

that may arise by sending results to all 

residents. EPA’s intent in the proposal 

was that the sample results go to the 

individual residence where the sample 

was taken and this final revision 

clarifies the intent was not to extend 

notification of the result from one unit 

to all units in a building. 

A number of commenters were 

concerned with the burden on nontransient non-community water systems 

which, they presumed, would have to 

notify all users of a facility. It was not 

EPA’s intent to have these systems 

notify all of their users of the results of 

testing, but to have them post results in 

a public place under an alternative 

mechanism. In order to clarify this 

intent, EPA has added language to 

§ 141.85(d)(4) that provides an example 

of an alternative mechanism as follows: 

‘‘For example, upon approval by the 

State, a non-transient non-community 

water system could post the results on 

a bulletin board in the facility to allow 

users to review the information.’’

Some states were concerned about the 

burden associated with tracking and 

enforcement of this requirement. In 

response, EPA is requiring in this final 

rule that systems certify to the State that 

notification was sent consistent with the 

requirements in § 141.85(d), as part of 

the reporting requirements for public 

education in § 141.90(f). 

Lastly, one commenter stated that the 

consumer notice requirement needed its 

own unique citation, because citing it 

under § 141.85 implied that it only 

applied to the public education 

activities triggered by a lead action level 

exceedance. The proposed revisions did 

contain a reference to the consumer 

notice requirements in § 141.80, which 

stated that all water systems must 

provide a consumer notice to persons 

served at the sites that are tested. In 

addition, there is a similar statement in 

§ 141.85. In order to clarify that all 

systems must complete this 

requirement, EPA reordered the 

sentences in § 141.80 and § 141.85 to 

state the consumer notification 

requirements up front. The Agency feels 

that this adequately clarifies that all 

systems must provide notification of tap 

results to consumers at sites that are 

tested. 

F. Public Education Requirements 

EPA is changing the public education 

requirements of the Lead and Copper 

Rule in § 141.85. Water systems are still 

required to deliver public education 

materials after a lead action level 

exceedance. However, EPA is making 

significant modifications to the content 

of the written public education 

materials (message content) and adding 

a new set of delivery requirements. EPA 

is also making revisions to § 141.154 

that will require all community water 

systems (CWSs) to include an 

educational statement about lead in 

their Consumer Confidence Reports. 

1. Message Content 

a. How Is EPA Revising the Message 

Content? 

EPA is changing the required content 

of the message provided to consumers 

after a lead action level exceedance by 

shortening and simplifying the 

mandatory language. Previously, 

§ 141.85 required written materials to 

include mandatory language consisting 

of over 1,800 words describing health 

effects, levels of lead in drinking water, 

steps to reduce exposure, and how to 

obtain additional information. In this 

revision, the mandatory language will 

consist of an opening statement, health 

effects language and sources of further 

information. The health effects language 

has been revised to provide greater 

specificity on the health problems that 

can result from exposure to lead (e.g., 

the original health effects language 

indicated that lead can cause damage to 

the brain, while the new language 

specifies that this damage is associated 

with lower IQ in children). Although 

the new language includes mandatory 

language related to health effects, water 

systems will have the flexibility to tailor 

some of the topics of the public 

education message, as mentioned above, 

to fit their community and situation. For 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57791 

example, previous public education 

language required water systems to 

instruct consumers to flush their faucet 

for 15–30 seconds or one minute (if the 

home has a lead service line) before 

drinking the water. This rule allows 

systems to tailor flushing directions to 

their specific situations. Water systems 

will have to submit the public education 

materials to the State for review and 

approval prior to the delivery to 

consumers. However, the State has the 

flexibility to not require this approval. 

b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Message Content Revisions? 

During EPA’s national review of the 

LCR, many stakeholders stated that the 

public education requirements needed 

improvement. At the 2004 EPA Public 

Education Expert workshop, a number 

of concerns were raised about the 

effectiveness of the existing public 

education language and requirements. 

Workshop participants stated that the 

mandatory language in the rule was too 

long, cumbersome, and complex. EPA is 

revising the public education 

requirements to ensure that the 

delivered information is meaningful and 

useful to consumers. In addition, by 

simplifying the language, EPA hopes 

that systems can more effectively 

convey steps to their customers that 

they can take to reduce their exposure 

to lead in drinking water. 

EPA also identified compliance as an 

issue in its review of LCR 

implementation. Because many water 

utilities did not conduct the required 

public education, at-risk populations 

did not get information they needed to 

reduce their exposure from lead in 

drinking water (71 FR 40828 at 40835, 

U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is revising the 

public education requirements of the 

LCR in an effort to improve compliance 

by simplifying the mandatory language 

and to reduce potential adverse health 

effects by ensuring that consumers, 

specifically at-risk populations, receive 

the information they need in a timely 

manner to limit their exposure to lead 

in drinking water. 

With some modifications, EPA has 

included the public education language 

developed by the National Drinking 

Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) in 

this rule as a replacement of the existing 

public education requirements of the 

LCR. The revised public education 

information is more clear and concise 

and also encourages the public to take 

an appropriate course of action to 

reduce their exposure to lead. The 

health effects language section was 

revised by EPA to improve consumer 

awareness and understanding of 

potential effects of exposure to lead. 

c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Message Content 

Revisions and EPA’s Response to These 

Issues? 

While most of the commenters 

supported the proposed flexibility in the 

development of public education 

materials, one suggested that EPA 

provide a template for small and 

medium-sized systems that may lack the 

expertise to draft the public education 

materials. EPA is in the process of 

developing guidance that will include 

templates for the public education 

materials. Generally, commenters did 

support shortening the mandatory 

language. While some commenters 

believed that the revised language is 

clearer and easier to understand, most 

commenters did not like the 

recommended health effects language, 

stating that it was too alarming and 

complex. A few commenters preferred 

the existing health effects language to 

what EPA proposed. EPA believes the 

language should convey the need for 

consumers to pay attention to the 

message and understand the risks of 

exposure. In addition, the new health 

effects language is more specific about 

the health effects of greatest concern 

than was the prior language. However, 

EPA agrees that the complexity of the 

proposed mandatory health effects 

language would limit its utility in 

conveying to the general public an 

understanding of the risk posed by lead 

in drinking water and an appropriate 

course of action. Therefore, the Agency 

revised the health effects statement in 

this final rule to simplify the language—

to a reading level that is appropriate for 

the general public—while retaining its 

specificity regarding the health effects of 

greatest concern. 

Some commenters believed that the 

health effects language should promote 

awareness of the potential effects of lead 

in drinking water and put them in 

context with respect to other sources of 

lead in the environment. EPA believes 

exposure of humans to lead from any 

source is a reason for concern and has 

added the following statement to the 

mandatory health effects language: 

‘‘Lead can cause serious health 

problems if too much enters your body 

from drinking water or other sources.’’

In addition, this rule contains a 

provision in § 141.85(a)(iii) that 

provides for an explanation of other 

important sources of lead exposure in 

the public education message. 

A few commenters believed that EPA 

should provide scientific support for the 

statements about health effects in the 

revision to substantiate the changes to 

the health effects language. EPA’s most 

recent comprehensive analysis of lead 

health effects may be found in the final 

document, Air Quality Criteria for Lead 

(US EPA, 2006b), which provides a 

thorough discussion of lead health 

effects and includes citations for the 

studies that support the statements 

made in the public education language 

in this rule. 

Some commenters wanted the public 

education materials to explain that a 

90th percentile result above the action 

level does not mean all customers are 

exposed to water above the action level. 

EPA did not include any additional 

mandatory language to this effect in the 

revision, but believes that there is 

enough flexibility for a water system to 

include this type of language if they 

believe it is important. 

Most commenters thought it would be 

a burden to require States to approve 

water systems’ public education 

materials before distribution. EPA 

recognizes that distribution of public 

education materials following an action 

level exceedance should not be delayed 

if States cannot review materials in an 

expedient manner. Therefore, this rule 

allows States to determine if they will 

require State approval of a water 

system’s public education materials 

before distribution. 

EPA requested comment on whether 

there should be a mandatory 

requirement to include the contact 

information for the State drinking water 

primacy agency. Although large systems 

most likely will have a representative 

who can answer customer questions 

about lead in drinking water, very small 

systems may not have the expertise to 

answer all questions. In these cases it 

may be useful to have State contact 

information included in the public 

education materials. Most commenters 

did not support the addition of State 

contact information in the public 

education materials, stating this would 

create a burden for the States. Some 

commenters believed that the individual 

States should make the decision 

whether to include their State contact 

information in the public education 

materials. EPA has therefore not added 

a mandatory requirement for State 

contact information as part of the public 

education content, but believes there is 

enough flexibility in this final rule for 

States to make the decision whether to 

include it. 

Two commenters suggested that, 

rather than using the proposed 

regulatory language with regard to 

communicating with customers in their 

native tongue, EPA should use the 

existing language in the Public 

Notification Rule (PNR), 

§ 141.205(c)(2)(i). For public water 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57792 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

systems serving a large proportion of 

non-English speaking consumers, as 

determined by the State, the public 

education materials must contain 

information in the appropriate 

language(s) regarding the importance of 

the notice or contain a telephone 

number or address where persons 

served may contact the water system to 

obtain a translated copy of the public 

education materials or to request 

assistance in the appropriate language. 

EPA agrees with this suggestion and has 

changed the rule language accordingly. 

2. Delivery 

a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery 

Requirements? 

EPA is revising the delivery 

requirement associated with public 

education materials. EPA is requiring 

water systems to deliver materials to 

additional organizations (e.g., licensed 

childcare facilities, obstetriciansgynecologists and midwives, and 

preschools) and to include an 

informational notice with the public 

education materials explaining the 

importance of sharing the information 

with their customers or users. Water 

systems are required to contact the local 

health agency via phone or in-person, 

rather than relying solely on mailing, to 

request their assistance in distributing 

information on lead in drinking water 

and how people can reduce their 

exposure to lead. Systems must contact 

the local public health agency even if it 

is located outside the service area of the 

water system. Furthermore, the local 

public health agency may provide a 

water system with a specific list of 

additional community-based 

organizations serving target populations, 

which may include organizations 

outside the service area of the water 

system. If such lists are provided, 

systems must deliver materials to all 

organizations on the provided lists. 

Under the previous regulation, 

systems serving less than 500 people 

could limit their distribution to only 

those facilities and organizations 

frequented by the most vulnerable 

population without approval from the 

State, but systems serving 501–3,300 

persons could only do so if they 

received written approval from the 

State. This rule allows all small systems 

serving 3,300 or fewer people to limit 

their distribution to only those places 

frequented by the most vulnerable 

populations without written approval 

from the State. 

EPA is also requiring water systems to 

do additional outreach activities, but 

offers a list of activities from which they 

may choose in consultation with the 

State. Systems serving more than 3,300 

people are required to do three 

additional public education activities 

from this list, while systems serving 

3,300 or fewer people must do one 

additional activity. Primacy agencies 

can choose to waive the mandatory 

press release requirement if there are no 

media outlets that specifically reach the 

target population. 

In addition, this rule removes the 

requirement for medium and large 

systems to provide two public service 

announcements (PSAs), which differ 

from press releases, per year. Under this 

rule, all water systems must post 

information on water bills (no less than 

quarterly) and issue press releases 

throughout the period during which the 

system is exceeding the lead action 

level. However, EPA did add a 

provision which provides State 

discretion to allow systems to deliver 

the information in a separate mailing if 

the informational statement cannot be 

included on the water bill. 

In addition, water systems will have 

to distribute two press releases as 

opposed to the one required by the 

previous Lead and Copper Rule. Larger 

systems (serving a population >100,000 

persons) must also post and keep 

information on their Web site until the 

system tests below the action level. 

b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Delivery Requirements Revisions? 

In recognition of the importance of 

distributing information to the at-risk 

populations (e.g., pregnant women, 

infants, and young children) on the 

hazards of lead and how one can protect 

themselves from exposure to lead, EPA 

has added additional organizations (e.g., 

licensed childcare facilities, 

obstetricians-gynecologists and 

midwives, and preschools) to the list of 

organizations a water system must 

contact when a lead action level 

exceedance occurs to ensure that the 

information reaches all potential bill 

paying and non-bill paying customers. 

This is based on NDWAC’s 

recommendation. 

EPA believes the informational notice 

water systems must include, along with 

the public education materials 

explaining the importance of sharing 

this information with their customers/ 

patients, will encourage the 

organizations that receive the 

information to share in the task of 

promoting public awareness. EPA 

recognizes that local health agencies 

play an important role in ensuring that 

consumers who are most vulnerable 

receive critical information on how one 

can reduce their exposure to lead. 

Therefore, EPA is requiring water 

systems to directly contact the local 

health agencies via telephone or in 

person. 

In addition, since EPA believes that 

communication with consumers is 

important in promoting public 

awareness, this rule requires systems to 

continually communicate with 

consumers as long as they continue to 

exceed the lead action level. EPA 

believes the additional activities 

required in the rule following a lead 

action level exceedance (e.g., including 

information on the water bill; two 

presses releases per year as opposed to 

the current rule, which requires only 

one per year; posting information on 

systems’ Web sites) will appropriately 

bring the seriousness of lead exposure to 

the attention of consumers. 

To ensure that systems employ the 

appropriate delivery mechanism and 

content in terms of developing the most 

effective way of reaching a system’s 

target population, water systems must 

work in consultation with the State. 

System, State and consumer 

representatives on the NDWAC Working 

Group all agreed that what works in one 

community does not always work best 

in another. In order to make the public 

education as effective as possible, EPA 

is giving systems some flexibility in 

how they deliver their public education 

materials. They are still required to 

disseminate information to people 

served by their system, but they have 

some flexibility in how they complete 

their program. For instance, a large 

system in an urban area may choose to 

use a public service announcement and 

paid advertisements to reach 

consumers, while a system in a rural 

area may find the best way to reach 

customers is through displaying 

information in frequently visited public 

areas or conducting public meetings. 

Realizing that small systems may have 

difficulty in completing these 

requirements, EPA offers States the 

option to waive the press release 

requirement if there are no media 

outlets that target the population served 

by the system. Furthermore, small 

systems (serving 3,300 or less people) 

may limit their distribution to those 

places frequented by the most 

vulnerable populations without written 

approval from the State. EPA recognizes 

that small systems are typically aware of 

the constituents in their community and 

often have the capability to target 

specific populations through personal 

relationships. By removing the 

requirement to obtain State approval, 

this provision allows these systems to 

send public education materials to their 

vulnerable populations as soon as 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57793 

possible and reduces burden on both the 

system and the State. 

c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Delivery 

Requirements Revisions and EPA’s 

Response to These Issues? 

Many commenters expressed concern 

that it would be an implementation 

burden to deliver public education 

materials and maintain relationships 

with the new organizations (e.g., 

licensed child care facilities, 

obstetricians-gynecologists and 

midwives, and preschools). Some 

commenters believed that water systems 

should rely on local health departments 

to provide contact information for the 

new organizations. As stated in the 

proposal, EPA believes that the local 

health agencies play an important role 

in making sure consumers who are most 

vulnerable receive the information they 

need to reduce their exposure to lead in 

drinking water. However, EPA cannot 

mandate that health departments 

generate and provide contact 

information for the new organizations 

and is not assuming that local health 

agencies will have the contact 

information for these organizations 

readily available in all cases. As 

discussed below, this rule has 

provisions for systems to request that 

the local health department provide lists 

of the additional organizations that may 

or may not only be those within the 

water system’s service area, or the 

system must make a good faith effort by 

other means to contact those 

organizations within their service area. 

Some commenters expressed concerns 

with EPA’s proposed regulatory 

language, which indicated that water 

systems should make a good faith effort 

to contact all customers who are most at 

risk by delivering materials to specified 

organizations. The commenters stated 

that ‘‘good faith effort’’ was too openended and difficult to enforce. EPA 

employed the terminology ‘‘good faith 

effort’’ to cover the unforeseen 

situations outside of the water system’s 

control when they would not be able to 

deliver public education materials to 

organizations (e.g., non-cooperative 

organization, a new obstetriciangynecologist office opening up after or 

right before public education materials 

are distributed by the water system, and 

no contact information is available) and 

allows States the flexibility to address 

the public education challenges a water 

system might face. Some commenters 

stated that requiring water systems to 

contact their local health agencies and 

rely on them to provide contact 

information for the new organizations 

would constitute a good faith effort. 

EPA believes this may be considered a 

good faith effort but suggests that a 

water system attempt to find contact 

information for these organizations by 

some other means if the local public 

health agency cannot provide the 

information. 

Some commenters indicated that 

contacting the new organizations should 

be in guidance and not a requirement. 

EPA disagrees. It is important to alert 

the at-risk populations of how to reduce 

their exposure to lead. EPA believes the 

addition of the new organizations to the 

public education requirements 

accomplishes two goals: (1) It increases 

the likelihood that information reaches 

the most vulnerable populations (i.e., 

pregnant women, infants and young 

children) or their caregivers; and (2) It 

ensures that critical information reaches 

not only bill paying customers, but also 

non-bill paying consumers. The non-bill 

paying consumers may be contacted 

through these organizations if the 

organizations are provided with the 

necessary information and encouraged 

to share the task of improving public 

awareness. 

Some commenters stated that 

requiring distribution of material 

outside of the water system’s service 

area is a burden for the water systems 

as well as being inconsistent with other 

drinking water rules. However, EPA 

believes that if the local public health 

agency can identify organizations that 

potentially serve target populations, 

then a water system should deliver 

public education materials to this 

organization even if it is not within the 

water system’s service area. EPA 

believes there could also be instances 

where an individual does not reside 

within the system’s service area but is 

served by the water system in another 

capacity (e.g., a child lives in another 

county but spends a large part of their 

day at a child care facility that is served 

by a water system with a lead action 

level exceedance). 

Some commenters were concerned 

that States do not have the means to 

oversee or verify that systems are 

fulfilling the requirement to contact the 

new organizations. Systems that are 

subject to public education 

requirements are required as part of 

§ 141.90(f) of this rule to send written 

documentation to the State that includes 

a demonstration that the system has 

delivered the public education materials 

that meet content requirements of 

§ 141.85(a) and the delivery 

requirements in § 141.85(b). EPA 

believes that systems may provide a 

copy of the contact lists to the State as 

part of this requirement. 

EPA also proposed that systems 

include a cover letter with the printed 

materials that they send to organizations 

to explain the importance of sharing this 

information with their customers/ 

patients. Some commenters were 

concerned that this was too prescriptive. 

Other commenters suggested that the 

Agency create a template. EPA has 

revised this requirement to require that 

systems include an informational notice 

instead of a cover letter, since this will 

give systems flexibility in the exact 

format. In addition, EPA will provide 

templates as part of separate guidance. 

Some States commented that the 

proposed new requirements were 

excessive, especially as compared to 

other rules. However, some commenters 

supported the requirement that water 

systems have to conduct the additional 

activities and believed that the 

flexibility in the selection of the public 

education delivery activities would 

enhance the effectiveness of 

communication with the public. EPA 

disagrees with commenters who believe 

the requirements are excessive; EPA 

believes these changes better ensure that 

at-risk populations receive information 

to enable them to act to reduce their 

exposure. In addition, the new 

requirements are based on 

recommendations from NDWAC, which 

are modeled after the public education 

requirements in two existing EPA rules: 

The Consumer Confidence Report Rule 

(63 FR 44526, August 19, 1998, U.S. 

EPA, 1998) and the Public Notification 

Rule (65 FR 25982, May 4, 2000, U.S. 

EPA, 2000c). 

Commenters supported the revision 

that provides small water systems 

(serving 3,300 or less people) the 

authority to limit their public education 

distribution to the organizations and 

places frequented by the most 

vulnerable populations without State 

approval. Commenters also supported 

the provision that would allow States to 

waive the press release requirement for 

a small system if there were no media 

outlets that would reach the target 

population. 

Many commenters thought there were 

logistical challenges with including an 

informational statement in water bills 

when a lead action level exceedance 

occurs. Some systems do not have the 

ability to add any information to their 

water bill especially where they bill 

using a postcard. Accordingly, EPA 

added a provision to this final rule 

which provides State discretion to allow 

systems to deliver the information in a 

separate mailing if the informational 

statement cannot be included on the 

water bill. Some commenters indicated 

that many systems do not bill monthly, 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57794 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

so those consumers will not receive the 

same degree of notification as customers 

of systems that do bill monthly. In 

response, EPA has added text to the 

provision to indicate that when systems 

notify customers via their water bill, 

they must do so no less than quarterly. 

While some customers might receive 

more notification, EPA believes that no 

less than quarterly is the maximum time 

a water system should allow to elapse 

between notifications during a lead 

action level exceedance to ensure that 

the issue still holds customers’

attention. 

3. Timing 

a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing 

Provisions of the Rule? 

EPA is requiring that water systems 

that exceed the lead action level 

conduct public education within 60 

days after the end of the monitoring 

period in which the exceedance 

occurred. However, as mentioned in 

section III.B of this notice, States may 

extend the timeframe to complete the 

public education activities as long as a 

water system has started the public 

education activities within the 60-day 

period. 

b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for 

Revising the Timing Provisions of the 

Rule? 

NDWAC was concerned about the lag 

time between testing water samples, 

receiving the results, calculating the 

90th percentile, and finally sending out 

public education materials. They were 

concerned that an individual, 

particularly an infant or child, could be 

drinking water with high lead levels for 

months before the individual or 

caretaker knows of the problem. As a 

result, they recommended changes to 

increase the timeliness of public 

education on lead in drinking water. 

The NDWAC recommendations are, in 

part, modeled after the public education 

information under two existing EPA 

rules, the Consumer Confidence Report 

Rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart O) and the 

Public Notification Rule (40 CFR 141, 

Subpart Q). The NDWAC 

recommendations form the basis for the 

changes to § 141.85 in this final rule. 

While the revision requires systems to 

complete public education activities 

within 60 days of the end of the 

monitoring period in which the 

exceedance occurred, there is flexibility 

for the State to allow additional time for 

completion of these activities. However, 

systems must receive State approval 

within the 60-day window for an 

extension. This ensures that the system 

and the State begin public education 

actions to reduce exposure as soon as 

possible, but allows these actions to 

continue past the 60-day timeframe on 

a case-by-case basis as needed for 

effective implementation. 

c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Timing Provisions 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

Commenters indicated that the 60-day 

timeframe for a system to complete 

public education requirements was 

sufficient for most but not all systems. 

In response, EPA has added a provision 

to the final rule providing that the State 

may extend the 60-day window under 

certain conditions. However, EPA 

believes that systems should make every 

effort to complete their public education 

activities within 60 days after the end of 

the monitoring period. 

4. Consumer Confidence Reports 

a. How Is EPA Revising CCR 

Requirements? 

EPA is revising requirements of the 

Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) 

Rule. Previously, all community water 

systems (CWSs) that detected lead above 

the action level in more than five 

percent of the homes sampled and up to 

and including 10 percent of homes, had 

to include an informational statement in 

their CCR about lead in drinking water. 

EPA is now requiring that all CWSs 

include an informational statement 

about lead in their CCRs. In addition, 

the proposed CCR language that referred 

to ‘‘home plumbing’’ as the source of 

high lead levels has been broadened to 

include service lines, and the National 

Lead Information Center phone number 

has been replaced with the phone 

number for the EPA Safe Drinking Water 

Hotline. 

b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the CCR 

Revisions? 

EPA believes that exposure to lead 

can be a localized phenomenon and has 

revised the rule based on concerns that 

exposure to lead may be taking place, 

even though the action level is not 

exceeded; consumers, therefore, 

currently may not receive sufficient 

information on how to reduce their 

exposure to lead. Furthermore, in the 

situation where there has been a lead 

action level exceedance, NDWAC 

expressed concern that public education 

materials may not be delivered 

immediately; therefore, vulnerable 

populations may drink water with high 

levels of lead for months before 

knowing of the risk. 

Under the previous regulations and as 

stated above, all water systems which 

detect lead above the action level in 

more than 5 percent of the homes 

sampled had to include a short 

informational notice about lead in their 

CCR. EPA is now requiring that all 

community water systems provide 

information in their CCRs on lead in 

drinking water regardless if a system did 

or did not detect lead. This short 

statement will be educational in nature 

and help to ensure that all vulnerable 

populations or their caregivers receive 

information (at least once a year) on 

how to reduce their risk to lead in 

drinking water. In this revision, EPA is 

incorporating NDWAC’s recommended 

changes to the informational notice, 

which would serve to clarify the risk of 

lead in drinking water, including basic 

steps on how to reduce exposure to lead 

in drinking water and where to go for 

more information. Additionally, 

requiring all systems to have one 

statement simplifies compliance with 

this provision of the rule for the systems 

and the States. The new language is 

intended to help consumers understand 

the health effects associated with lead, 

that lead levels can vary from home to 

home, that they can take steps to reduce 

their exposure, and where to get more 

information. 

c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the CCR Requirements 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

Most of the comments that EPA 

received were directed towards the 

proposed detection limit threshold for 

requiring statements about lead in the 

CCR. Some commenters agreed that the 

method detection limit for lead of 0.001 

mg/L should be used as the threshold 

for the inclusion of the lead statement. 

Others suggested that requiring the lead 

statement should be based on the 

practical quantitation limit for lead of 

0.005 mg/L, a 90th percentile lead 

action level exceedance, or a lead 

detection in drinking water at a level 

determined to have adverse health 

effects. Some commenters even 

suggested that no changes be made to 

the CCR requirements. EPA realizes, 

however, there are situations where the 

most vulnerable populations may be 

exposed to elevated levels of lead for 

many months before or without being 

notified, as can occur in the case of a 

system that has elevated lead levels but 

only in less than 10 percent of 

compliance samples. EPA believes, 

therefore, that the CCR is a good 

mechanism to communicate with all 

customers the health risks of lead in 

drinking water in the interest of being 

proactive. EPA also believes the CCR is 

another opportunity to remind 

customers that they share responsibility 

for reducing their exposure to lead with 

their water system. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57795 

Some commenters thought there 

should be a different information 

statement for water systems samples 

above the lead action level than for 

systems below the lead action level and 

above the MDL. Other commenters were 

concerned that multiple, varying notices 

would unduly complicate compliance 

tracking and enforcement of this 

requirement. Furthermore, a large 

percentage (>95%) of the water systems 

would have detects above the MDL and 

therefore be required to have an 

informational statement in their CCR. 

Because the actual level of lead 

exposure for drinking water varies with 

individual homes, EPA concluded that 

levels detected in the system would not 

necessarily reflect the risk faced by 

consumers. As a result, and because of 

the concern over the logistics of 

compliance and tracking multiple 

different lead statements in CCRs, EPA 

concluded that all systems should have 

a simple informational statement about 

lead in their CCR, which would be 

educational in nature. 

Some commenters indicated that the 

CCR is a good way to educate the public 

about lead in drinking water. On the 

other hand, some viewed the proposed 

CCR requirement as redundant with the 

other public education requirements 

and not an effective way to reach 

populations before there is a major 

problem with lead in the water system. 

Consistent with the NDWAC 

recommendations, EPA believes that the 

combination of methods for delivering 

this urgent message (through public 

education materials, CCR, and consumer 

notice of tap water results) will provide 

a more effective way to reach the 

customer in a timely and appropriate 

basis. Some commenters thought that 

additional CCR language would pose an 

undue burden on systems that are in 

compliance with the LCR and that the 

required text would be too alarming. 

Some commenters believed that the CCR 

requirement for lead was inconsistent 

with the public notification regulations 

for other inorganic contaminants. 

However, while a water system may be 

in full compliance with the LCR, a home 

served by that water system may have 

elevated levels of lead in their tap water. 

Lead is unlike many other contaminants 

in that it is primarily introduced into 

drinking water as the water passes 

through plumbing materials from the 

distribution main into the household. 

As a result, and due to the particular 

concern that it is critically important to 

reach vulnerable populations in a timely 

manner to avoid as much lead exposure 

for those populations as possible, EPA 

believes a special lead notice is 

appropriate. 

Some commenters stated that the 

proposed language on the sources of 

lead required to be included in the 

Consumer Confidence Report focused 

too much on household plumbing 

materials as the source of lead exposure 

in drinking water and did not consider 

the other sources of lead in the 

distribution system. To address this 

concern, EPA has modified the text by 

adding ‘‘service lines’’ to more fully 

characterize sources of lead in drinking 

water. 

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines 

Deemed Replaced Through Testing 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

EPA is requiring water systems to 

reevaluate lead service lines classified 

as ‘‘replaced through testing’’ if they 

resume lead service line replacement 

programs. This will only apply to a 

system that had (1) initiated a lead 

service line replacement program, then 

(2) discontinued the program, and then 

(3) subsequently resumed the program. 

When resuming the program, this 

system will have to reconsider for 

replacement any lead service lines 

previously deemed replaced through the 

testing provisions in § 141.84(c) during 

the initial program. This change adds a 

subsection to the lead service line 

replacement requirements in § 141.84(b) 

to include provisions for systems 

resuming lead service line replacement 

programs. Systems will have to update 

the inventory of lead service lines to 

include those that were classified as 

‘‘replaced through testing.’’ The system 

will then divide the updated number of 

remaining lead service lines by the 

number of remaining years in the 

program to determine the number of 

lines that must be replaced per year 

(seven percent lead service line 

replacement is based on a 15-year 

replacement program so, for example, 

systems resuming lead service line 

replacement after previously conducting 

two years of replacement would divide 

the remaining inventory by 13). 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines 

Revisions? 

Lead service line replacement is 

intended as an additional step to reduce 

lead exposure when corrosion control 

treatment is unsuccessful. The provision 

in § 141.84(c), which allows systems to 

leave in place an individual lead service 

line if the lead concentration in all 

service line samples from that line is 

less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L, is 

intended to maximize the exposure 

reduction achieved per service line 

replaced by avoiding the disruption and 

cost of replacing lines that are not 

leaching elevated levels of lead. 

However, samples taken from a lead 

service line pursuant to § 141.84(c) 

cannot predict future conditions of the 

system or of the service line. Systems 

can discontinue a lead service line 

replacement program by meeting the 

lead action level for two consecutive 6- 

month monitoring periods. Therefore, 

EPA is requiring these systems to 

reconsider any lines previously 

determined to not require replacement if 

they exceed the action level again in the 

future and resume the lead service line 

replacement program. 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Reevaluation of 

Lead Service Lines Revisions and EPA’s 

Response to These Issues? 

Commenters generally agreed that all 

existing lead service lines should be 

considered when resuming a lead 

service line replacement program. 

However, there were some commenters 

who had concerns with the timing and 

believed that the 15-year clock should 

be reset when resuming a replacement 

program. In 1991, EPA established the 

maximum replacement schedule of 15 

years for all systems in order to ensure 

that public health is adequately 

protected (56 FR 26460 at 26507–26508, 

U.S. EPA, 1991a). The Agency continues 

to believe that systems that are 

exceeding the action level should have 

no more than 15 years to replace all of 

their lead service lines, as intended by 

the original rule. Sites that met the testout provision would need to be reevaluated or replaced within the 

remaining timeframe. This approach 

provides an incentive to physically 

replace the portion of the lead service 

line under the control of the system. 

Many lead service lines are over 70 

years old and may need to be replaced 

soon simply based on their age. 

Some commenters also recommended 

that flexibility be given to the State to 

determine when treatment or source 

changes are significant enough to 

require reevaluation of lead service 

lines. This rule does not change the 

requirements that trigger lead service 

line replacement. Systems that have 

installed optimal corrosion control and 

that subsequently exceed the lead action 

level must perform lead service line 

replacement. If a system makes a 

treatment or source change that does not 

affect the system’s optimal corrosion 

control and the system continues to 

comply with the LCR, then it is not 

necessary for the system to perform lead 

service line replacement. If a system 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57796 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

makes a treatment or source change that 

does affect the optimal corrosion control 

and the system subsequently exceeds 

the lead action level, then the system 

must perform lead service line 

replacement. This rule does not 

preclude any system currently meeting 

the lead action level from optionally 

replacing lead service lines. 

Some commenters expressed concern 

that a system could complete a 15-year 

lead service line replacement program 

and then meet the action level only to 

re-exceed it and be triggered into lead 

service line replacement. Under this 

scenario, there would be no time left to 

re-evaluate or replace lead service lines. 

EPA has added the following provision 

to address this specific situation. For 

those systems that have completed a 15- 

year lead service line replacement 

program, the State will determine a 

schedule for replacing or retesting lines 

that were previously tested out under 

the replacement program when the 

system re-exceeds the action level. 

However, once a system has been in a 

lead service line replacement program 

for more than five years, the system may 

want to consider physically replacing 

the portion of all lead service lines 

under their control rather than 

continuing to use the test-out provision. 

Replacing the line would eliminate the 

possibility of having to go back and reevaluate it or replace it if the action 

level is re-exceeded. In addition, many 

systems currently replace lead service 

lines when they find them regardless of 

their 90th percentile. 

H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and 

Copper Rule 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 

EPA has decided not to make any 

further rule changes at this time to 

address the following issues that EPA 

requested comment on in section III.H 

of the proposed rule (71 FR 40828 at 

40839, U.S. EPA, 2006a): Plumbing 

component replacement; point-of-use 

(POU) and point-of-entry (POE) 

treatment; site selection in areas with 

water softeners and POU treatment 

units; and water quality parameter 

monitoring. 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for Not 

Including Any of These Other Issues in 

the Final Rule Revisions? 

EPA concluded that sufficient 

flexibility exists under the current rule 

for small systems to utilize plumbing 

fixture replacement or point-of-use/ 

point-of-entry devices to meet the action 

level and be deemed optimized under 

§ 141.81(b)(1). Under the current rule, 

small non-transient, non-community 

water systems, where 100% of the 

plumbing fixtures and components are 

directly controlled by the system, may 

replace them and be optimized once the 

system has met the action levels for two 

consecutive six-month monitoring 

periods. Small water systems may also 

install point-of-use (POU) devices, if 

they meet the SDWA requirements for 

their use, and be deemed optimized by 

meeting the action levels for two 

consecutive six-month monitoring 

periods. In the preamble to the proposed 

rule, EPA noted that where a State does 

not require a corrosion control study, 

systems have 24 months after an action 

level is exceeded before the State 

specifies optimal corrosion control 

treatment (71 FR 40828 at 40840, U.S. 

EPA, 2006a). The fixture replacement or 

POU installation would need to be 

completed within 12 months of 

exceeding the action level in order to 

complete two consecutive six-month 

monitoring periods before the State 

specifies optimal corrosion control. 

Additionally, systems will still need to 

recommend optimal corrosion control 

treatment to the State within six months 

of the action level exceedance. 

Plumbing fixture replacement may not 

be successful in meeting the action level 

or the system may be unable to secure 

participation from all sites under a POU 

approach, so the system may need to 

install the optimal corrosion control 

treatment. 

There is also additional flexibility 

under the existing rule. States could 

require a corrosion control study for 

systems that have made progress 

towards completing either a plumbing 

replacement or POU approach. The 

study would need to be completed 

within 18 months or 30 months after the 

action level exceedance. This would 

provide an additional six-month 

monitoring period to meet the 

optimization requirement pursuant to 

§ 141.81(b)(1), while having the system 

develop an optimal corrosion control 

recommendation if the plumbing 

replacement is not successful or the 

POU approach cannot be implemented. 

The State will designate optimal 

corrosion control six months after the 

completion of the corrosion control 

study. When a corrosion control study 

is required by the State, systems can 

have up to three years after the action 

level exceedance to meet the action 

level for two consecutive six-month 

monitoring periods before they would 

need to install the optimal corrosion 

control specified by the State. 

EPA also requested comment on two 

monitoring issues. The first was 

whether the Lead and Copper Rule 

should be amended to allow sampling at 

locations with POU/POE devices used 

to remove inorganic contaminants in 

exceptional cases (such as systems with 

a high prevalence of water softeners), 

and, if so, how high risk sites should be 

identified. The second was whether the 

Lead and Copper Rule should be 

amended to require systems to 

synchronize required water quality 

parameter sampling with lead and 

copper tap sampling. Due to the 

complexity of the issue, EPA has 

determined that rule changes on site 

selection and synchronization should be 

addressed as part of the broader 

monitoring revisions. For the POU/POE 

site selection issue, EPA notes that there 

may be additional flexibility under 

§ 141.86(a)(5) which states: ‘‘A 

community water system with 

insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 

sampling sites shall complete its 

sampling pool with representative sites 

throughout the distribution system. For 

the purpose of this paragraph, a 

representative site is a site in which the 

plumbing materials used at that site 

would be commonly found at other sites 

served by the water system.’’ EPA 

believes that the current rule provisions 

and guidance on this issue are sufficient 

at this time. 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on These Other Issues and 

EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

EPA received a range of comments on 

the issue about whether there is enough 

flexibility under the existing rule to use 

plumbing replacement without 

specifying it as optimal corrosion 

control. Some commenters stated that 

the existing timeframes are sufficient for 

systems to implement plumbing 

replacement and that the rule should 

not be revised to call it an optimal 

corrosion control treatment. Other 

commenters asserted that EPA should 

specify plumbing replacement as 

optimal corrosion control treatment. As 

noted above, EPA believes that there is 

sufficient flexibility under the existing 

rule for a small system to pursue a 

fixture replacement strategy without 

listing it as an optimal corrosion control 

treatment. Because fixture replacement 

may not be successful in reducing lead 

below the action levels if some lead 

sources remain in the plumbing system, 

systems will need to prepare an optimal 

corrosion control treatment 

recommendation (either with or without 

a corrosion control study) and be 

prepared to install it if the action level 

is still exceeded. EPA noted in the 

preamble to the proposed rule that 

plumbing fixture replacement is not a 

corrosion control technique and would 

not have applicable water quality 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57797 

parameters that could be set by the State 

if the system continued to exceed the 

action level. 

EPA also received a range of 

comments on the issue about whether 

there is enough flexibility under the 

existing rule to use POU or POE without 

specifying it as corrosion control. Some 

commenters stated that the existing 

timeframes are sufficient for systems to 

implement a POU strategy and that the 

rule should not be revised to call it an 

optimal corrosion control treatment. 

Other commenters said that EPA should 

specify POU/POE as an optimal 

corrosion control treatment. As noted 

above, EPA believes that there is 

sufficient flexibility under the current 

rule for a small system to pursue a POU 

strategy without listing it as an optimal 

corrosion control treatment. Unless the 

POU option was limited to only those 

systems that control 100% of the 

distribution system (as was suggested by 

several commenters), the system may 

not be able to secure participation from 

all sites and may need to install 

corrosion control. Even if EPA limited 

the option to only those systems that 

control 100% of the distribution system, 

EPA does not believe that POU should 

be listed as an optimal corrosion control 

treatment. Under the existing rule, the 

action levels serve as screens for 

optimization, but systems can exceed 

the action levels and still be in 

compliance with the LCR by meeting 

the optimal water quality parameters 

specified by the State. Commenters who 

supported POU as an optimal corrosion 

control treatment did not provide any 

alternatives on how to demonstrate 

compliance with the treatment 

technique when the action level is 

exceeded. Many commenters agreed 

with EPA’s concern that because there 

are lead-containing materials in 

plumbing after POE devices, it may not 

be successful in meeting the action 

level. EPA does not believe that POE 

should be listed as an optimal corrosion 

control treatment because of these 

unaddressed lead sources. 

Most of the comments on the issue of 

sampling sites with POU and POE 

devices indicated that a rule change was 

not necessary and that the prohibition 

should remain in § 141.86(a)(1). EPA 

agrees with those commenters and does 

not plan to codify the guidance. 

The final issue on which EPA 

requested comment was 

synchronization of water quality 

parameter sampling with lead and 

copper tap sampling. While many 

commenters supported the scientific 

rationale for this proposed change, a 

number of comments received 

expressed concern over which 

synchronization timeframe would be 

appropriate and the feasibility of 

implementing a synchronized sampling 

approach. Several large systems noted 

that homeowners are the ones who 

collect the lead and copper tap samples 

and send them back to the utility. These 

commenters expressed that since the 

utility does not know the exact date that 

the samples will be taken by the 

homeowner, synchronizing water 

quality parameter and lead and copper 

tap samples would be difficult to 

coordinate. Some commenters noted 

that current water quality parameter 

sampling requirements for systems on 

reduced monitoring require these 

systems to take their water quality 

parameter samples throughout the year 

in order to capture seasonal variability. 

EPA also received input that in many 

States, water quality parameter 

sampling for small and medium systems 

is not started until after all tap samples 

are collected and the determination 

made that a water system does not meet 

the 90th percentile action level, 

consistent with the specific language of 

the LCR. Due to the complexity of 

issues, challenges with implementation, 

and potential burden, EPA has decided 

not to revise the LCR to require water 

quality parameter synchronization at 

this time, but will revisit this issue in 

future revisions to the rule. 

I. Compliance Dates 

1. What Are the New Compliance Dates 

for This Rule? 

Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act requires that a 

proposed national primary drinking 

water regulation (and any amendments) 

take effect on the date that is three years 

after the date of promulgation, unless 

the Administrator determines that an 

earlier date is practical. EPA proposed 

that the revisions take effect for 

purposes of compliance three years after 

the promulgation of the final rule. EPA 

requested comment on the practicality 

of implementing the following specific 

changes within 60 days of final rule 

promulgation: Minimum Number of 

Samples Required (III.A), Definitions for 

Compliance and Monitoring Periods 

(III.B), Consumer Notification of Lead 

Tap Water Monitoring Results (III.E) and 

Public Education Requirements (III.F). 

EPA also requested comment upon 

whether all of the proposed revisions 

should have an effective date earlier 

than three years after publication of the 

final rule. After reviewing comments, 

EPA is adopting a compliance date for 

all of the final rule provisions, of 180 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register or the effective date of any 

State program changes needed to 

implement the rule, whichever is later. 

However, EPA is also requiring an 

outside compliance date of two years 

after promulgation, which coincides 

with the date by which States are 

required to adopt and submit revised 

programs adopting this rule under 40 

CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this 

rule after six months but before two 

years, this rule will become effective on 

the date that the State rule is effective, 

as long as it is before the date two years 

after promulgation of this rule. 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the 

Compliance Dates? 

There were several considerations 

behind this compliance date. First, EPA 

believes that States and systems will not 

need three years to implement any of 

the rule changes. These rule changes are 

all modifications of existing 

requirements and procedures under the 

LCR or CCR. EPA believes States and 

systems will not need extensive training 

or program development to implement 

these revisions. Additionally, none of 

the revisions require systems to 

undertake new capital improvements 

prior to implementation. Second, many 

of these changes are important 

improvements to the LCR, which should 

help improve critical consumer 

information about lead and reduce lead 

exposure, so they should be established 

as quickly as possible. Third, EPA is 

also aware that because many of these 

requirements are procedural in nature, 

having dual Federal and State 

requirements at the same time is 

confusing to systems, the public, and 

the regulators. As a result, it is 

important to try to make the Federal 

changes and State changes coincide as 

much as possible. Finally, EPA received 

helpful comments from the public 

urging that the requirements should take 

effect no earlier than six months after 

promulgation. 

EPA therefore decided to adopt a 

compliance date structure that is similar 

to the one used for the public 

notification rule revisions in 2000. This 

rule, therefore, provides a minimum 

compliance date of 180 days after 

promulgation, after which the rule will 

be in effect where EPA has primacy 

(Wyoming, DC, and most Indian 

territories) and where States incorporate 

EPA’s drinking water regulations by 

reference. EPA is also providing a 

maximum compliance date of two years 

after promulgation, which coincides 

with the date by which States are 

required to adopt and submit revised 

programs adopting this rule under 40 

CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this 

rule after six months but before two 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57798 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

years, this rule will become effective on 

the date that the State rule is effective, 

as long as it is before the date two years 

after promulgation of this rule. This 

gives States the flexibility of choosing 

early implementation, enabling the 

water systems to take advantage of the 

efficiencies in the new regulations in 

less than two years, or provides States 

two years to accomplish the preparatory 

activities needed to implement the 

revisions. 

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Compliance Dates 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

Some commenters indicated that an 

early compliance date would impose 

additional burden on the States and 

utilities (e.g., conduct staff training, 

inform water systems, revise rules and 

submit primacy revisions) and 

suggested the compliance date be three 

years after final rule promulgation. 

Some commenters had concerns about 

the feasibility of a 60-day effective date 

and proposed an effective date within 

180 days of final rule promulgation. 

EPA agrees that 60 days may not offer 

States enough time to conduct training, 

review guidance and distribute 

information to water systems about the 

new requirements; therefore, EPA has 

revised the compliance date to 180 days 

after final rule promulgation. EPA 

believes there are a number of 

improvements in this rule that States 

will want to utilize and that 180 days is 

a feasible timeframe for the States to 

conduct the necessary preparatory 

actions. One commenter noted that EPA 

should not make the requirements 

effective before the State has time to 

adopt the change to avoid complications 

in meeting both State and Federal 

requirements. EPA agrees and is 

revising the date to give a broad 

timeframe during which the State may 

adopt the rule (180 days to 2 years). 

J. State Implementation 

States with approved primacy 

programs under 40 CFR part 142 subpart 

B must revise their programs to adopt 

any changes to the Lead and Copper 

Rule that are more stringent than their 

approved program. The primacy 

revision crosswalk table lists all the 

provisions that States must adopt to 

retain primacy. Table III.1 summarizes 

the rule revisions. 

TABLE III.1.—FINAL RULE REVISIONS

CFR citation Is the requirement more 

stringent? Revision 

§ 141.80(a)(2) .................................................................... No ....................................... Technical correction that deletes effective dates of the 

LCR which no longer apply. 

§ 141.80(c)(3)(v) ................................................................ No ....................................... PWS allowed by the State to collect fewer than five 

samples must compare the highest sample result to 

the action level. 

§ 141.80(g) ........................................................................ Yes ..................................... PWSs will be required to provide consumers with the 

results of lead testing who are located at sites that 

are part of the utility’s monitoring program. 

§ 141.81(b)(3)(iii), § 141.86(d)(4)(vii), § 141.86(g)(4)(iii), 

§ 141.90(a)(3).

Yes ..................................... States must approve new sources or long-term 

changes in water treatment before PWS implementation. 

§ 141.81(e)(1) .................................................................... Yes ..................................... Clarifies end of the tap sampling and timing for PWS 

recommending optimum corrosion treatment. 

§ 141.81(e)(2) .................................................................... Yes ..................................... Clarifies end of the monitoring period and timing for 

State requiring corrosion control studies. 

§ 141.81(e)(2)(i), § 141.81(e)(2)(ii) .................................... Yes ..................................... Clarifies end of the monitoring period and timing for 

State specifying optimum corrosion control treatment. 

§ 141.83(a)(1) .................................................................... Yes ..................................... Clarifies end of the source water monitoring period and 

timing for recommending source water treatment to 

the State. 

§ 141.84(b)(1) .................................................................... Yes ..................................... Clarifies beginning of the first year for lead service line 

replacement. 

§ 141.84(b)(2) .................................................................... Yes ..................................... Requires updating inventory and yearly replacement of 

lead lines when resuming lead service line replacement program. 

§ 141.90(e)(2)(ii) ................................................................ Yes ..................................... Clarifies resumption of line replacement. 

§ 141.85 ............................................................................ Yes ..................................... New public education requirements that replace the 

ones that exist in the current rule. New requirement 

for PWS to provide a notice to consumers who are 

part of the utility’s lead testing program with sampling 

results. New content and delivery requirements for 

public education materials. New requirement for PWS 

to target specific audiences for increased awareness. 

§ 141.88 (b), § 141.90(a)(1), § 141.90(e)(1), § 141.90 

(e)(2).

Yes ..................................... Clarifies end of the monitoring period. 

§ 141.86(c) ........................................................................ No ....................................... Requires PWS to collect a specified number of samples. Allows State discretion to allow PWS to sample 

100 percent of taps if there are fewer than five taps 

that can be used for human consumption in the system. 

§ 141.86(d)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)(1), 

§ 141.86(g)(4)(i), § 141.87(e)(2)(ii), § 141.88(d)(1)(i), 

§ 141.88(d)(1)(ii), § 141.88(e)(1), § 141.88(e)(2).

Yes ..................................... Clarifies sample collection periods for reduced monitoring. 

§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii), § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B) ................ Yes ..................................... Requires all systems must meet the lead action level 

as a condition for reduced monitoring. 

§ 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) .......................................................... Yes ..................................... Specifies time period to resume standard tap water 

monitoring. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57799 

TABLE III.1.—FINAL RULE REVISIONS—Continued 

CFR citation Is the requirement more 

stringent? Revision 

§ 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B) .......................................................... Yes ..................................... Specifies time period to resume water quality parameter monitoring. 

§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) ................................................................ Yes ..................................... Clarifies monitoring frequency. 

§ 141.87(d), § 141.87(e)(2)(i) ............................................ Yes ..................................... Clarifies time period for water quality parameter monitoring. 

§ 141.90 (f)(1), § 141.90 (f)(1)(i), § 141.90 (f)(3) ............... Yes ..................................... Revised public education program reporting requirements based on amendments to § 141.85. 

§ 141.154 (d)(1) and (2) .................................................... Yes ..................................... All CWSs must include a statement about lead, health 

effects language and ways to reduce exposure in 

every CCR released to the public. Flexibility is given 

to CWSs to write its own educational statement, but 

only in consultation with the Primacy Agency. 

1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions 

Affect a State’s Primacy Program? 

States must revise their programs to 

adopt any part of this final rule which 

is more stringent than the approved 

State program. Primacy revisions must 

be completed in accordance with 40 

CFR 142.12 and 142.16. States must 

submit their revised primacy 

application to the Administrator for 

approval. State requests for final 

approval must be submitted to the 

Administrator no later than two years 

after promulgation of a new standard 

unless the State requests and is granted 

an additional two-year extension. 

For revisions of State programs, 40 

CFR 142.12 requires States to submit, 

among other things, any additional 

materials that are listed in 40 CFR 

142.16 of this part for a specific EPA 

regulation, as appropriate 40 CFR 

142.12(c)(1)(ii). For the final revisions to 

the lead and copper rule, EPA believes 

that requirements in § 142.12(c) will 

provide sufficient information for EPA 

review of the State revision. The sideby-side comparison of requirements 

required in § 142.12(c)(1)(i) will consist 

of sections revised to adopt the changes 

required for the revised lead and copper 

rule and any other revisions requested 

by the State. Because the rule consists 

of changes to an already approved 

Federal NPDWR in primacy States, EPA 

believes that the State’s existing statutes 

and regulations will already have 

received extensive legal review. Under 

§ 142.12 (c)(3), EPA can request 

supplemental information as necessary 

for a specific State submittal on a caseby-case basis. Therefore, the Agency is 

waiving the Attorney General’s 

statement required in § 142.12(c)(1)(iii), 

as allowed by § 141.12(c)(2). 

2. What Does a State Have To Do To 

Apply? 

To maintain primacy for the Public 

Water System Supervision (PWSS) 

program and to be eligible for interim 

primacy enforcement authority for 

future regulations, States must adopt 

this final rule. A State must submit a 

request for approval of program 

revisions that adopt the regulations and 

implement those regulations within two 

years of promulgation unless EPA 

approves an extension under 

§ 142.12(b). Interim primacy 

enforcement authority allows States to 

implement and enforce drinking water 

regulations once State regulations are 

effective and the State has submitted a 

complete and final primacy revision 

application. To obtain interim primacy, 

a State must have primacy with respect 

to each existing NPDWR. Under interim 

primacy enforcement authority, States 

are effectively considered to have 

primacy during the period that EPA is 

reviewing their primacy revision 

application. 

3. How Are Tribes Affected? 

At this time the Navajo Nation has 

primacy to enforce the PWSS program. 

EPA Regions implement the rules for all 

the other Tribes under section 

1451(a)(1) of SDWA. 

IV. Economic Analysis 

This section describes the estimates of 

annual costs for the seven regulatory 

changes to utilities’ and States’

requirements, including costs associated 

with administrative, monitoring, 

sampling, reporting, and notification 

activities for this final rule. One-time, 

upfront costs of rule review and rule 

implementation are also described. 

There are two types of annual costs that 

may result from the rule changes—

direct and indirect. Direct costs are from 

those activities that are specified by the 

rule change, such as costs for additional 

monitoring or distribution of consumer 

notices. Indirect costs may also result 

when systems and States use the 

information generated by directlyrelated rule activities to modify or 

enhance practices to reduce lead levels. 

These indirect costs, and related health 

risk reductions, are not quantified for 

the purposes of this analysis, but are 

described qualitatively in section IV.K 

of this notice and in Chapter 5 of the 

Economic and Supporting Analyses: 

Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the 

Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA, 

2007a). Table IV.1 summarizes the 

expected direct and indirect cost 

impacts for the seven regulatory 

changes. 

TABLE IV.1.—SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPLICATIONS OF THE LCR SHORT TERM RULE CHANGES

Rule change Direct cost implications Indirect cost and health risk 

implications 

Regulatory Change III.A (Number of samples) ....................................... Yes ................................................. Yes. 

Regulatory Change III.B (Monitoring Period) .......................................... Unquantified ................................... None. 

Regulatory Change III.C (Reduced Monitoring Criteria) ......................... Yes ................................................. Yes. 

Regulatory Change III.D (Advanced Notification and Approval) ............ Yes ................................................. Yes. 

Regulatory Change III.E (Consumer Notice of Lead Results) ................ Yes ................................................. Yes. 

Regulatory Change III.F (Public Education) ........................................... Yes ................................................. Yes. 

Regulatory Change III.G (Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines) ............ Yes ................................................. Yes. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57800 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

A. Direct Costs 

The revisions in this final rule will 

result in direct costs to utilities and 

States from activities that are specified 

by rule changes, including 

administrative, monitoring, sampling, 

reporting, and notification activities. 

These costs will result in an increase in 

the overall costs associated with the 

LCR. 

The most recent cost estimates to 

utilities and States of the LCR can be 

found in the 2004 Information 

Collection Request for Disinfectants/ 

Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and 

Radionuclides Rules (Information 

Collection Request for Disinfection 

Byproducts, Chemical, and 

Radionuclides Rules, U.S. EPA, 2004a). 

The 2004 ICR estimates administrative 

burden and costs associated with the 

LCR for systems and States. System 

costs are estimated for community water 

systems and non-transient noncommunity water systems to perform 

the following activities: Monitor for 

water quality parameters, tap sampling 

of lead levels for action level 

compliance, review of sample data, 

including the calculation of lead and 

copper 90th percentile levels, 

submission to the State of monitoring 

data and any other documents or 

reports, and recording and maintaining 

information. In addition, some systems 

must submit corrosion control studies, 

recommend and submit information 

regarding the completion of corrosion 

control treatment (CCT) or source water 

treatment installation, conduct public 

education, or conduct lead service line 

(LSL) monitoring, notification, and 

replacement. In the 2004 ICR, the 

average annual cost to CWSs and 

NTNCWSs for the LCR requirements 

was estimated to be $57.9 million 

(2006$) and the burden was estimated to 

be 1.72 million hours for reporting 

(including lead service line replacement 

reporting), recordkeeping, and public 

education activities of the LCR. For 

States, the annual cost and burden 

incurred by primacy agencies for 

activities associated with the LCR were 

estimated to be $6.8 million and 0.21 

million hours, respectively. 

B. Overall Cost Methodologies and 

Assumptions 

As part of its comprehensive review 

of the Lead and Copper Rule, EPA 

collected and analyzed new data on 

various aspects of LCR implementation. 

When available and appropriate, this 

new information has been used in 

estimating the incremental costs of this 

rule. If new information was not 

available about a cost item or 

assumption, previous analyses of LCR 

requirements were reviewed to 

determine if a suitable estimate was 

available. The 1991 Regulatory Impact 

Analysis (RIA) (Final Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, 

U.S. EPA 1991b), the 1996 RIA 

Addendum (Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Addendum, U.S. EPA 1996b), and the 

various Information Collection Requests 

were all used as sources of information 

and assumptions. 

For the rule revisions that clarify the 

existing LCR rule language, if the costs 

associated with those activities were 

included in the original LCR cost 

estimates as presented in the 1991 RIA, 

those costs are not included in this 

analysis. 

C. Direct Costs Associated With 

Regulatory Change III.A 

Regulatory Change III.A clarifies 

EPA’s intent that a minimum of five 

samples must be taken when conducting 

compliance monitoring. If a system has 

fewer than the minimum number of taps 

required for sampling, then those 

systems will have to collect multiple 

samples on different days from the same 

tap so that the total number of samples 

per monitoring period is five. States, 

however, have the discretion to allow 

water systems with fewer than five taps 

for human consumption to collect one 

sample per tap. Under this alternate 

sampling schedule, the sample with the 

highest test result will be compared to 

the action level to determine 

compliance. 

Although some systems may change 

the number of samples taken in 

response to these provisions, there is 

very limited available data on the 

number of these systems and on the 

frequency with which they conduct lead 

and copper monitoring. Because of lack 

of data, EPA has not quantified the 

annual direct costs or savings associated 

with Regulatory Change III.A. EPA has 

quantified the one-time implementation 

costs for water systems with fewer than 

five taps to request permission to collect 

one sample per available tap and for 

States to review and decide upon these 

requests to collect one sample per 

available tap. Those costs are given in 

section IV.K. 

D. Direct Costs Associated With 

Regulatory Change III.B 

Regulatory Change III.B clarifies the 

meaning of ‘‘monitoring period’’ and 

‘‘compliance period,’’ addressing in 

particular the date on which actions are 

triggered by an exceedance and the 

timing of samples under reduced 

monitoring schedules. Based on the rule 

change, if a system exceeds the lead 

action level during a monitoring period, 

non-compliance starts at the end of the 

monitoring period (for most systems on 

September 30). Under the previous 

language, it was not clear whether noncompliance began at the end of the 

calendar year (December 31) or at the 

end of the monitoring period 

(September 30). 

As a result of this rule change, 

activities triggered by an action level 

exceedance could begin three months 

earlier (e.g., at the end of September 

versus the end of December), but the 

duration of these activities would not 

likely be longer. The net result is a 

change in the timing of activities, with 

a difference of three months having 

negligible, if any, impact on costs. 

Regulatory Change III.B also requires 

that systems on reduced monitoring, 

such as triennially or once every nine 

years, must take all compliance samples 

within the same calendar year during 

the June–September monitoring period. 

Under the existing rule, a system could 

collect compliance samples over 

multiple calendar years, as long as they 

were taken during the June–September 

time frame and during the three-year 

compliance period. In addition, systems 

on triennial monitoring must monitor 

no later than every third calendar year. 

Similarly, systems on nine-year 

monitoring schedules must monitor no 

later than every ninth calendar year. 

Since this rule change does not alter the 

number of samples to be taken, but the 

timing of samples, the direct cost impact 

is expected to be negligible. 

E. Direct Costs Associated With 

Regulatory Change III.C 

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory 

Change 

As a result of Regulatory Change III.C, 

utilities that have 90th percentile LCR 

monitoring samples that exceed the lead 

action level, and are currently on 

reduced monitoring, will be required to 

resume standard monitoring schedules 

for monitoring lead at taps. In addition 

to monitoring activities, utilities will 

have to meet reporting requirements to 

the State/primacy agency. State/primacy 

agencies will be required to review 

utility monitoring reports. 

2. Costs to Utilities 

The direct costs to utilities, 

summarized in Table IV.3, are estimated 

to be $2.7 million annually including 

$2.5 million in labor costs and $0.2 

million in materials costs. Detailed 

estimates are provided in the Economic 

Analysis, Appendix C. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57801 

The systems that will incur costs 

under this regulatory change are those 

systems that exceed the lead action level 

and that had been on reduced 

monitoring. The number of systems EPA 

estimates to exceed the lead action level 

each year is 994 as shown in Table IV.2. 

This estimate is based upon 2003 lead 

action level exceedances reported by 

States to EPA’s Safe Drinking Water 

Information System for systems serving 

more than 3,300 people. For purposes of 

this analysis, EPA used this data to 

estimate that 1.4 percent of systems 

(including system serving fewer than 

3,300 people) will exceed the action 

level each year. 

TABLE IV.2.—SYSTEMS EXCEEDING THE ACTION LEVEL SINCE 2003 

<3,300 1 3,300<50,000 >50,000 Total 

Number of systems above action level since 2003 ................................................................. 884 96 14 994 

Total number of systems .................................................................................................. 64,382 7,388 819 72,589 

Percent of systems with monitoring results since 2003 over AL ............................................ 1.4% 1.3% 1.7% 1.4% 

1The Estimate for systems <3,300 is based upon data from systems >3,300. 

Source: For medium and large systems, January 2005 Summary of lead action level, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/lead_data.html; for 

small systems, Summary, lead action level exceedances for public water systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule (For data through September 13, 2004). 

The number of systems on reduced 

monitoring was estimated using State 

responses to the EPA State 

Implementation of the Lead and Copper 

Rule survey (State Implementation of 

the Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA 

2004b). States provided estimates of the 

percent of systems on reduced LCR 

monitoring. Based on this data, 91 

percent of systems are on reduced lead 

and copper monitoring. This analysis 

assumes that systems that are likely to 

exceed the lead action level, and are on 

reduced monitoring, are likely to exceed 

at the same rate as all systems. 

Therefore, EPA assumes that 1.4 percent 

of the 91 percent of the systems 

estimated as likely to exceed the action 

level are on reduced monitoring and 

will therefore incur costs due to 

Regulatory Change III.C. EPA notes that 

this assumption likely over-estimates 

the number of systems that will be 

affected by this regulatory change 

because systems that are likely to have 

exceedances are generally less likely to 

be on reduced monitoring in the first 

place. 

For the number of additional 

monitoring events, it is assumed that 

each utility will conduct five additional 

monitoring events in each three year 

period by switching from a reduced 

monitoring schedule (triennial) to 

standard tap monitoring (semi-annual). 

While reduced monitoring could refer to 

either monitoring once every year or 

once every three years, it is not possible 

to distinguish, from the State responses 

to the EPA survey, between systems 

monitoring once every year and systems 

monitoring once every three years. This 

analysis assumes that all systems on 

reduced monitoring are on a one sample 

every three years schedule, an 

assumption that might slightly overestimate costs. Likewise, the number of 

samples collected in each monitoring 

period will change when the utility 

switches from reduced monitoring to 

standard monitoring. Thus, a system 

that was on reduced monitoring, but is 

placed on regular monitoring after an 

action level exceedance under 

Regulatory Change III.C, will incur an 

additional five monitoring events over a 

three year period (six monitoring events 

in three years under regular monitoring 

instead of one monitoring event in three 

years under reduced monitoring), with 

an increased number of samples 

collected in each event. The required 

number of samples varies by system 

size, with the smallest systems (serving 

less than or equal to 100 people) 

required to take five samples per 

monitoring event under both standard 

and reduced monitoring, and the largest 

systems (serving >100,000 people) 

required to take 100 samples per 

monitoring event under standard 

monitoring and 50 samples per 

monitoring event under reduced 

monitoring. 

3. Costs to States 

Regulatory Change III.C will require 

States to review utility monitoring 

reports as a result of resuming standard 

monitoring schedules. The direct costs 

to States is estimated to be $82,000 

annually including $81,000 in labor 

costs and $1,000 in materials costs, as 

summarized in Table IV.3. Detailed 

estimates are included in the Economic 

Analysis, Appendix C. 

TABLE IV.3.—SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS TO SYSTEMS AND STATES ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY

CHANGE III.C (2006 DOLLARS) 

Annual labor Annual 

materials Total annual 

Costs to Systems: 

Reporting .............................................................................................................................. $60,000 $1,000 $61,000 

Tap Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 2,442,000 193,000 2,635,000 

Total System Costs ....................................................................................................... 2,502,000 194,000 2,696,000 

Costs to State/Primacy Agencies: 

Review Costs ........................................................................................................................ 81,000 1,000 82,000 

Total State Costs ........................................................................................................... 81,000 1,000 82,000 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57802 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Direct Costs Associated With 

Regulatory Change III.D 

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory 

Change 

Regulatory Change III.D requires 

water systems to obtain prior approval 

by the State to add a new source of 

water or to make a long-term treatment 

change prior to implementation. New 

system activities will include an 

assessment of the implications of longterm treatment or source changes on 

corrosion control prior to the change 

and a letter to the state. New State 

activities will include the review of the 

system data on the implications of a 

long-term treatment or source change on 

corrosion control prior to a change, 

preparation of conclusions, and 

coordination with utilities. The 

estimated costs to the affected systems 

and States are summarized in Table 

IV.4. 

2. Costs to Utilities 

EPA estimates that the direct costs to 

utilities range from $506,000 to 

$765,000 annually. These direct costs 

are strictly labor costs; materials costs 

are expected to be negligible. Detailed 

estimates are provided in Appendix D 

(Table 6.1) of the Economic Analysis. 

In order to estimate the annual cost of 

this provision to utilities, information is 

needed on the number of systems that 

would likely implement a long-term 

treatment change or add a source each 

year, as well as the number of systems 

that are located in States that already 

have a review and approval 

requirement. Systems located in these 

States will not incur additional costs 

under this provision. 

As determined during EPA’s review of 

the implementation of LCR 

requirements by States, many States 

already have a review and approval 

process for treatment or source changes. 

For the purposes of this analysis, two 

estimates were used for the number of 

States that already have a review and 

approval process that would include 

information on corrosion control issues: 

14 States for a high end of the cost range 

and 31 States for a low end. Under the 

alternative in which only the 14 States 

with explicit review and approval are 

excluded from the count, 53,372 

systems (of 72,213 CWSs and NTNCWSs 

based on 4th quarter 2004 SDWIS/FED) 

may incur costs for the regulatory 

change. Under the alternative in which 

States with permitting and plan review 

are also excluded from the count, 27,615 

systems may incur costs for this 

regulatory provision. 

An estimate was also needed of the 

number of systems projected to 

undertake a long-term treatment change 

or add a source annually in order to 

estimate the cost of this provision to 

utilities. Long-term treatment changes 

over the next several years are likely as 

systems will be faced with new 

regulatory requirements, including 

changes to comply with the 

promulgated Arsenic Rule, the Long 

Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule 

(LT2) and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/ 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 

D/DBP). EPA estimated the number of 

systems that would undertake treatment 

changes for the following new 

regulatory requirements: 

• Arsenic—4,100 systems (Data 

source: Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule 

Economic Analysis, pp. 6–25, 6–27, U.S. 

EPA, 2000a); 

• LT2—2,882 systems (Data source: 

Economic Analysis for the Final Long 

Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water 

Treatment Rule, Exhibit 6–1, page 6–3, 

U.S. EPA, 2005a); 

• Stage 2 D/DBP—2,261 systems 

(Data source: Economic Analysis for the 

Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule, Exhibit 

ES–7a, page ES–17, U.S. EPA, 2005b). 

Together, these regulatory 

requirements are estimated to cause 

9,243 systems to institute a treatment 

change, although not all of these 

treatment changes will affect corrosion 

control. Additionally, the compliance 

periods for these regulations varies. For 

example, the Stage 2 D/DBP and LT2 

treatment changes are projected to take 

place within a six year compliance 

period for large systems (with the 

possibility of two-year extension) and 

eight years for small systems (with the 

possibility of two-year extension). To 

account for these expected treatment 

changes, and to account for treatment 

changes unrelated to the Arsenic, LT2, 

and Stage 2 D/DBP rules, EPA assumed 

(based on the projected rule-related 

treatment changes and expert judgment) 

that approximately 20 percent of the 

systems affected by the LCR will 

institute a treatment change in the next 

10 years. For purposes of this analysis, 

it is assumed that these changes will 

occur uniformly over that 10-year 

period, so that approximately one-tenth 

of these systems (or two percent of the 

total) institute a treatment change each 

year. 

Using the two percent estimate, 1,067 

(53,372 × .02) systems each year will 

report a treatment change or source 

addition. However, systems in States 

that already have a permitting or plan 

approval process in place will not incur 

additional costs to report the treatment 

change or source addition, since their 

States already require them to report 

treatment changes or source additions 

through these processes. The annual 

estimate of the number of systems in 

States that currently do not have a 

permitting or plan approval process in 

place and that will, therefore, incur 

costs is 552. 

EPA anticipates that systems will 

incur additional costs under this rule 

change as systems and States more 

carefully review and consider possible 

corrosion impacts of treatment changes 

or source additions. In the absence of 

information on the current prevalence of 

these activities, EPA has used best 

professional judgment to estimate the 

range of potential activities and 

associated costs resulting from the 

review and approval process. All 

systems, regardless of size or 

complexity, are assumed to undertake 

additional activities related to data 

collection and evaluation, preparation 

of a submittal to the State, and 

coordination with the State. For small 

systems or systems making relatively 

simple changes, considering the 

corrosion impacts of the change may be 

a rather basic process of reviewing water 

quality data and previous lead 

monitoring results. For these systems, 

additional effort will be incurred by 

system staff in coordinating with State 

personnel to assemble water quality 

parameter and lead data and evaluate 

the potential impacts. EPA estimates the 

burden for this additional effort at 7.5 

hours per system, at an average cost of 

$231 per system. For larger or more 

complex systems making major 

treatment changes, activities would be 

more extensive, including conducting 

engineering studies to evaluate impacts 

on corrosion control. Based on best 

professional judgment, EPA estimates 

that between 10 percent and 20 percent 

of medium and large systems may need 

to conduct additional engineering 

studies on corrosion impacts at a cost of 

$20,000. To some extent, systems may 

already evaluate the impacts of 

treatment or source changes on 

corrosion. EPA has considered these 

current activities in estimating the 

portion of systems that would require an 

engineering study. 

3. Costs to States 

The direct costs to States are 

estimated to range from $163,000 to 

$348,000 annually. These direct costs 

are strictly labor costs; materials costs 

are expected to be negligible. Estimates 

are summarized in Table IV.4. Activities 

that States will undertake include 

review of system data, preparation of 

conclusions and letters to systems, and 

coordination with utilities. Because the 

level of effort associated with these 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57803 

activities is expected to vary based on 

the complexity of the change and the 

type of submittal (amount and type of 

information), EPA included a range of 

State review time from four to eight 

hours. 

Those States incurring additional 

costs due to Regulatory Change III.D are 

those that do not already have a review 

and approval process that considers the 

corrosion control implications of 

treatment changes. For the States that 

will incur new costs as they review and 

approve changes before they are made, 

rather than simple review after the 

change has been made, which is the 

existing requirement, new State 

activities will include review of the 

system data on the corrosion control 

implications of a long-term treatment or 

source change prior to a change, 

preparation of conclusions and 

coordination with utilities. 

TABLE IV.4.—ESTIMATED DIRECT COSTS TO SYSTEMS AND STATE/PRIMACY AGENCIES ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY

CHANGE III.D (2006 DOLLARS) 

Annual cost—

low estimate 1

Annual cost—

high estimate 2

Costs to Systems: 

Reporting .......................................................................................................................................................... $506,000 $765,000 

Total System Costs ................................................................................................................................... 506,000 765,000 

Costs to State/Primacy Agencies: 

Review Costs .................................................................................................................................................... 163,000 348,000 

Total State Costs ....................................................................................................................................... 163,000 348,000 

Notes: 1. 10 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study and 4 hours for State review. 

2. 20 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study and 8 hours for State review. 

G. Direct Costs Associated With 

Regulatory Change III.E 

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory 

Change 

Regulatory Change III.E requires 

CWSs to provide written notification to 

each owner/occupant of the lead level 

found in the tap sample collected for 

LCR compliance monitoring. 

Compliance for NTNCWSs will be 

determined by their circumstances and 

may consist of posting a notice on 

community bulletin boards or Web sites. 

Systems must also prepare a letter that 

self-certifies that they have distributed 

the sampling results as appropriate and 

submit it to the State. While States may 

review sample customer letters/notices 

from each utility for each monitoring 

period, such a review is not required by 

the regulatory change and thus is not 

considered a direct cost of the 

regulatory change. States will be 

required to review, track, and store the 

self-certification letters. Supporting 

calculations and information regarding 

costs to utilities and States associated 

with this regulatory change are included 

in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E. 

2. Costs to Utilities 

The direct costs to utilities for 

compliance with Regulatory Change 

III.E are summarized in Table IV.5 and 

estimated to be $1,248,000 annually 

including $1,098,000 in labor costs and 

$150,000 in materials costs for 

envelopes and postage. This is based on 

an estimated 310,510 notices being 

provided to customers each year, with 

associated labor. Detailed estimates are 

provided in the Economic Analysis, 

Appendix E–2. 

In order to estimate the additional 

costs associated with Regulatory Change 

III.E, an estimate is needed of the 

number of systems that already notify 

customers of tap monitoring results. 

Based on feedback from participants in 

workshops and interactions with States, 

some systems already notify customers 

of monitoring results. These systems 

would not incur costs under the 

regulatory change. Of 72,213 CWSs and 

NTNCWSs (per 4th quarter 2004 

SDWIS/FED) subject to the LCR, EPA 

estimates that approximately 11 percent 

of these systems are estimated to already 

notify owner/occupants of tap sample 

results. Therefore, this regulatory 

change will apply to the remaining 89 

percent of systems. 

3. Costs to States 

The direct costs to States to comply 

with Regulatory Change III.E are 

presented in Table IV.5. States are 

required to review, track, and store the 

self-certification letters. 

TABLE IV.5—SUMMARY OF DIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REGULATORY CHANGE III.E (2006 DOLLARS) 

Annual labor Annual 

materials Total annual 

Costs to Systems: 

Customer Notice of Lead Results Costs and self-certification letters ................................. $1,098,000 $150,000 $1,248,000 

Total System Costs ....................................................................................................... 1,098,000 150,000 1,248,000 

Costs to States: 

Review, track and store self-certification letters .................................................................. 163,000 ........................ 163,000 

Total State Costs ........................................................................................................... 163,000 ........................ 163,000 

H. Direct Costs Associated With 

Regulatory Change III.F 

Regulatory Change III.F changes the 

public education requirements of the 

Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in § 141.85. 

Water systems would still be required to 

deliver public education materials after 

a lead action level exceedance, but the 

text of the message to be provided to 

consumers, how the materials are 

delivered to consumers, and the 

timeframe in which materials must be 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57804 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

delivered would change. The changes to 

the delivery requirements include 

additions to the list of organizations 

systems must partner with to 

disseminate the message to at-risk 

populations as well as changes to the 

media used to ensure water systems 

reach consumers when there is an 

action level exceedance. Table IV.6 

presents a summary of the additional 

activities for reaching at-risk 

populations and the associated annual 

costs per system. 

In addition to the changes to § 141.85 

of the LCR, EPA is also revising 

§ 141.154(d) of the CCR rule (40 CFR 

141, Subpart O), which requires all 

community water systems to send an 

annual report to billed customers 

containing information relevant to the 

quality of the drinking water provided 

by the system. 

TABLE IV.6.—ANNUAL COST PER SYSTEM ESTIMATE FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES TO BETTER REACH AT-RISK

POPULATIONS (2006 DOLLARS) 

System size category 

i. Public 

service announcements 

ii. Paid advertisements iii. Display 

in public 

areas 

iv. Internet 

notification 

v. Public 

meetings 

vi. Delivery 

to every 

household 

vii. Targeted 

contact 

viii. Materials directly 

to multi-family & institutions 

Average per 

system all 

activities 

25–100 ................. $98 $105 $24 $24 $48 $7 $34 $12 $44 

101–500 ............... 101 105 26 26 51 30 35 15 49 

501–3,300 ............ 105 180 111 28 55 166 37 27 89 

3.3K–10K ............. 118 180 137 420 900 435 44 81 289 

10K–50K .............. 1,400 850 696 596 2,400 1,114 66 303 928 

50K–100K ............ 1,400 5,000 1,392 596 3,000 2,448 138 945 1,865 

>100K ................... 1,400 5,000 3,943 1,035 5,000 3,874 563 5,035 3,231 

Details of how these unit costs were 

calculated are provided in Appendices 

H–6 through H–20 of the Economic 

Analysis for this final rule. 

States are required to review the 

language in the utility’s notice to 

consumers to make sure the utility is 

including the required information. 

States are also required to consult with 

each system with an action level 

exceedance. States will no longer be 

required to approve a waiver for 

notifications for each system that 

exceeds the lead action level that serves 

a population of 501–3,300. 

2. Costs to Utilities 

The annual direct costs to utilities 

resulting from Regulatory Change III.F 

are estimated to be $859,200. The 

annual system labor cost is estimated to 

be $837,900 and the annual system 

materials are estimated to cost $21,200. 

Estimates of costs associated with each 

activity are presented in Table IV.7. 

Detailed estimates of costs to utilities 

are provided in the Economic Analysis, 

Appendix F. 

The requirement to provide 

information about lead in the CCR is 

new only for systems that currently do 

not detect lead above the action level in 

95 percent or more of their sites, since 

systems in which the 95th percentile 

result is above the action level are 

already required to provide such 

information. However, EPA does not 

have data on such systems. Rather, EPA 

has data on the (smaller) number of 

systems that currently detect lead below 

the action level in 90 percent of their 

sites, and has subtracted this value from 

the universe of systems to estimate the 

number of systems that would incur 

new costs under this requirement. 

Underestimating the current baseline of 

systems that currently detect lead at the 

95th percentile level, by using data on 

systems that detect lead at the 90th 

percentile level (a smaller number of 

systems), overestimates the remaining 

number of systems that do not currently 

report lead information in their CCR. 

EPA’s estimate assumes that 52,257 

additional systems would have to 

provide information about lead in their 

CCR each year, with an additional 

associated labor of 0.25 hours per 

system per year. 

TABLE IV.7.—SUMMARY OF COSTS TO SYSTEMS DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS) 

Activity Requirement Annual 

labor 

Annual 

materials 

Total system cost 

a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials: 

III.F(a)(1) ............................................... Customer Notification ........................................................... $91,400 $0 $91,400 

b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations: 

III.F(b)(1) ............................................... Notify Additional Organizations ............................................ 21,900 21,400 43,300 

III.F(b)(2) ............................................... Additional Activities i–viii ...................................................... 292,700 0 292,700 

III.F(b)(2) ............................................... Consult with State on Activities ............................................ 33,500 300 33,700 

c. Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication with Consumers Throughout the Exceedance: 

III.F(c)(1) ............................................... Customer Bills ...................................................................... 47,400 0 47,400 

III.F(c)(2) ............................................... Post on Website ................................................................... 100 0 100 

III.F(c)(3) ............................................... PSAs and Press Releases ................................................... ¥3,700 ¥500 ¥4,200 

d. Changes to the Required Timing: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57805 

TABLE IV.7.—SUMMARY OF COSTS TO SYSTEMS DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS)—

Continued 

Activity Requirement Annual 

labor 

Annual 

materials 

Total system cost 

No cost impact 

e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report: 

III.F(e)(1) ............................................... CCR Statement .................................................................... 354,600 0 354,600 

Total Costs to Systems for PE Requirements (III.F): 

Total ...................................................... ............................................................................................... 837,900 21,200 859,200 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. 

3. Costs to States 

The direct costs to States as a result 

of Regulatory Change III.F are estimated 

to be $63,000. These costs are the 

annual State labor costs; no materials 

cost is expected. These costs are 

presented in Table IV.8. Detailed 

estimates of costs to States are provided 

in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F. 

TABLE IV.8.—SUMMARY OF COSTS TO STATES DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS) 

Annual 

labor 

Annual 

materials Total annual 

III.F Costs to States: 

Review and consultation .......................................................................................................................... $63,000 $0 $63,000 

III.F Total State Costs ...................................................................................................................... 63,000 0 63,000 

I. Direct Costs Associated With 

Regulatory Change III.G 

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory 

Change 

Under this regulatory change, utilities 

that have 90th percentile LCR samples 

that exceed the lead action level will 

need to identify all lead service lines 

(LSL) that had previously been 

determined to be replaced via sampling. 

These utilities will be affected by 

Regulatory Change III.G if they exceed 

the action level again and renew a LSL 

replacement program. These utilities 

must put these ‘‘tested out’’ LSLs back 

into their inventory of lead service lines 

that could be considered for 

replacement. To estimate the impact of 

this change, we assume these formerly 

‘‘tested out’’ LSLs will be retested and 

that some of them will exceed the lead 

action level. The primary activities as a 

result of this regulatory change include 

collecting and analyzing samples from 

these LSLs. Replacement of lines that 

were previously tested out may also 

occur as a result of this change. 

2. Costs to Utilities 

The direct costs to utilities as a result 

of Regulatory Change III.G are estimated 

to be $110,000 annually, which includes 

$101,000 in labor costs and $9,000 in 

materials costs. Detailed estimates of 

costs to utilities are provided in the 

Economic Analysis, Appendix F. 

Estimating the costs to utilities requires 

an estimate of the number of systems 

who have been involved in a lead 

service line replacement program, the 

number of systems likely to discontinue 

such a program due to low tested lead 

levels, and the fraction of those systems 

likely to subsequently exceed the action 

level and restart their lead service line 

replacement program. 

In the responses to the 50-State survey 

on lead implementation (U.S. EPA, 

2004b), which is available in the public 

docket for this rulemaking, 11 States 

responded that at least one system in 

their State has been involved in a lead 

service line replacement program. Six 

States provided sufficient information to 

derive the number of systems within 

that State required to perform lead 

service line replacement—a total of 28 

systems. Based on an average of five 

systems per State for the six States that 

provided data, for purposes of this 

analysis, EPA assumes that the 

remaining five States have five systems, 

plus one system for DC (which did not 

respond to the survey) for a total of 54 

systems that have been required to 

perform lead service line replacement. 

Because there is insufficient 

information to determine how many of 

the 54 systems suspended their lead 

replacement programs, and later 

restarted the programs due to an 

exceedance, EPA assumed the worst 

case scenario that all of these systems 

suspended their lead replacement 

programs and that the rate of subsequent 

exceedance was the same as for the 

universe of systems subject to the LCR, 

as shown in Table IV.2. Thus, EPA 

assumed that 1.4 percent of the 54 

systems or one system will exceed the 

action level and will therefore be 

triggered back into lead service line 

replacement each year. 

EPA does not have information on the 

number of systems using the test out 

provisions rather than physically 

replacing lines, so this approach likely 

overestimates the number of affected 

systems, because it assumes that all 

systems in a lead service line 

replacement program are using the test 

out provisions. Systems removing lead 

service lines are not impacted by this 

change. While the rate at which systems 

are triggered back into lead service line 

replacement might be higher than the 

initial rate, it is offset by the 

assumptions regarding systems using 

the test out provisions and the universe 

of systems that would stop their lead 

service line replacement program and 

later resume it because of this regulatory 

change. Please see the Economic 

Analysis for the final rule, Appendix F, 

for additional details on the 

assumptions EPA made to derive the 

estimated costs for this provision. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57806 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3. Costs to States 

No direct costs are projected for States 

as a result of Regulatory Change III.G. 

Although the States will review utility 

LSL replacement program annual 

reports, these costs are attributed to the 

1991 LCR rather than this rule. 

J. Summary of National Average Annual 

Direct Costs 

The estimates of annual direct costs 

for the final regulatory changes are 

presented in Table IV.9. 

TABLE IV.9.—SUMMARY OF ANNUAL DIRECT COSTS TO SYSTEMS AND STATES FROM ALL REGULATORY CHANGES (2006 

DOLLARS) 1

Regulatory change 

Annual direct costs to systems Annual 

direct costs 

to states 

Total annual 

direct costs Reporting Monitoring Consumer 

notice Total 

III.A ................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

III.B ................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

III.C ................................................................................... $61,000 $2,635,000 .................... $2,696,000 $82,000 $2,778,000 

III.D Low ........................................................................... 506,000 .................... .................... 506,000 163,000 669,000 

III.D High .......................................................................... 765,000 .................... .................... 765,000 348,000 1,113,000 

III.E ................................................................................... 136,000 .................... 1,112,000 1,248,000 163,000 1,411,000 

III.F ................................................................................... 34,000 .................... 825,000 859,000 63,000 922,000 

III.G .................................................................................. .................... 110,000 .................... 110,000 .................... 110,000 

Total Low .................................................................. 736,000 .................... .................... 5,418,000 471,000 5,890,000 

.................... 2,745,000 1,938,000 .................... .................... ....................

Total High ................................................................. 995,000 .................... .................... 5,677,000 657,000 6,335,000 

Notes: 1. Totals may not add due to independent rounding. 

K. Total Upfront Costs To Review and 

Implement Regulatory Changes 

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory 

Change 

Systems and States will incur onetime upfront costs associated with 

reviewing and implementing this rule. 

For systems, activities include 

reviewing the rule changes, training 

staff, and verification costs associated 

with Regulatory Change III.A. For 

States/Primacy Agencies, activities 

include regulation adoption, program 

development, and miscellaneous 

training. 

2. Total Costs to Utilities 

Direct costs to utilities are estimated 

to be approximately $11 million, as 

summarized in Table IV.10. Detailed 

estimates of costs to utilities are 

provided in the Economic Analysis 

Appendix G. Direct costs to utilities are 

based solely on labor; no materials costs 

are expected for these one-time upfront 

costs. 

3. Total Costs to States 

Direct costs to the States are estimated 

to be $1,650,000 as summarized in 

Table IV.10 and detailed in Appendix G 

of the Economic Analysis. Similar to the 

one-time costs for utilities, these direct 

costs are based solely on upfront labor 

costs. Fifty-seven States will review and 

implement these LCR revisions. 

TABLE IV.10.—SUMMARY OF ONETIME DIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED

WITH RULE REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION (2006 DOLLARS) 

One time labor 

costs 

Costs to Systems: 

Review & Communication $10,971,000 

Verification (III.A) .............. 104,000 

Total System Costs: ...... 11,075,000 

Costs to State/Primacy 

Agencies: 

Regulation Adoption .......... 1,488,000 

Verification (III.A) .............. 162,000 

Total State Costs ........... 1,650,000 

Total Rule Implementation Costs ................... 12,725,000 

L. Indirect Costs 

Previous sections focused on the 

direct costs of this rulemaking, costs 

resulting from activities specified by the 

rule change, such as costs for additional 

monitoring or distribution of consumer 

notices. A second type of cost, an 

indirect cost, may also result when 

systems and States use the information 

generated by the rule-required activities 

to modify or enhance practices to 

reduce lead levels. Indirect costs may 

also result if systems or States decide to 

undertake additional informationgathering activities not required by the 

rule. 

The revisions will require some 

systems to generate new information 

which, in some cases, may be provided 

to States and customers. The 

information that is generated may 

suggest lead and copper risks that 

would not otherwise have been 

discovered (or such risks might be 

discovered sooner than otherwise). 

Upon obtaining this information, a 

system itself, the State, or some of the 

system’s customers may take actions to 

address these risks, incurring the costs 

of those actions. For example, a system 

may redesign a planned treatment 

change following State review of the 

planned change, or a system may 

replace a lead service line that was 

previously ‘‘tested out.’’ System 

customers, upon receiving notification 

of the lead content of their tap samples, 

may take some action, and in the 

process, incur a cost. 

It is both difficult to project what the 

content will be of the information 

generated pursuant to the regulation, 

and difficult to predict how systems and 

individuals might act in response to the 

new information generated as a result of 

these regulatory changes. Because of the 

uncertainty in tracing the linkages from 

the regulation to new information to 

exposure prevention measures, EPA is 

unable to quantify the indirect costs that 

might ensue from these regulatory 

changes. 

It is also possible that some additional 

information-gathering activities may 

result from this rule. For example, a 

system may decide to undertake a new 

study of the corrosion implications of a 

rule change. Or a State may decide to 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57807 

review sample system customer letters 

of notification to owner/occupants 

about the lead levels found in their 

collected tap samples. These activities 

would also result in indirect costs 

associated with this final rule. 

M. Benefits 

The intent of this rulemaking is to 

improve implementation of the lead and 

copper regulations by clarifying 

monitoring requirements, improving 

customer awareness, and modifying the 

lead service line test out procedure. 

These revisions do not affect the action 

levels, corrosion control requirements, 

lead service line replacement 

requirements, or other provisions in the 

existing rule that directly determine the 

degree to which the rule reduces risks 

from lead and copper. 

However, the increase in 

administrative activities that will result 

from the revisions will generate new 

information (e.g., more monitoring data, 

some of which may show exceedances), 

and may prompt some systems or 

individuals to respond to this new 

information by taking measures to abate 

lead and copper exposures and thus 

reduce the associated risk. Also, the 

requirement that long-term treatment 

changes be approved by the State prior 

to implementation will provide an 

additional opportunity to identify 

possible adverse impacts due to 

treatment changes, which may lower the 

risk to consumers. 

Because the precise impact of these 

revisions on the behavior of individuals 

and systems is not known, EPA has not 

quantified the changes in associated 

health benefits. However, EPA does 

expect that overall benefits from the 

LCR will increase as a result of the 

indirect effects of the revisions on the 

actions of individual consumers and 

systems. 

N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the State and System 

Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) 

and EPA’s Response to These Issues? 

Many commenters stated that EPA 

underestimated the overall burden of 

the proposed rule, both for systems and 

for States. Many commenters thought, 

for example, that both systems and 

States would need more time to read 

and understand the rule. EPA agrees 

with these commenters and has revised 

the burden and cost estimates for some 

sections of the rule, and for the 

implementation activities. In particular, 

EPA made an upward revision to the 

burden estimate for the larger systems, 

estimating that it would take them an 

average of 40 hours to read, understand, 

and communicate the rule’s significance 

to required personnel. EPA also 

reviewed and revised the State 

implementation burden and cost, 

significantly increasing these estimates 

(from 312 hours to 600 hours). 

One commenter stated that some 

NTNCWSs (e.g., schools, child care 

centers, and small businesses) do not 

have staff to satisfactorily implement 

new drinking water rules and respond 

to public inquiries regarding lead in 

drinking water. EPA agrees with this 

comment and has increased the state 

burden assumptions for this final rule. 

EPA recognizes that ‘‘operators’’ at 

NTNCWSs typically have many other 

job functions and are often not 

professional water system managers, 

and that States, therefore, must 

continually educate, assist, and enforce 

regulations to ensure compliance. 

Commenters also stated that EPA 

underestimated the impact to States 

regarding the requirement to provide a 

consumer notice of lead tap water 

monitoring results. EPA agrees with this 

comment and has revised the consumer 

notice estimates to indicate that 

additional funding will be required for 

this activity. 

Some commenters asserted that EPA 

did not address the implications for a 

regulatory program assigned to 

‘‘approve’’ rather than simply ‘‘review’’

treatment changes, and specifically that 

EPA underestimated the costs of 

requiring advanced State approval. 

Commenters also thought that every 

PWS would need to have additional and 

more intensive interaction with the 

State prior to making any change in 

water treatment or source water. While 

the Agency agrees with this comment, 

EPA has narrowed the scope of this 

provision in the final rule to only longterm changes in treatment. Since this 

will considerably reduce the potential 

burden of the requirement by removing 

the daily water quality treatment 

changes from consideration, EPA is not 

revising the cost estimate for this change 

from the proposal. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Requirements 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 

action is a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted 

this action to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 

12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations 

have been documented in the docket for 

this action. 

In addition, EPA has prepared an 

analysis of the potential costs and 

benefits associated with this action. 

This analysis is contained in the 

Economic and Supporting Analyses: 

Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the 

Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA, 

2007a). A copy of the analysis is 

available in the docket for this action 

and the analysis is briefly summarized 

in section IV of this notice. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

EPA requires comprehensive and 

current information on lead and copper 

contamination and associated 

enforcement activities to implement its 

program oversight and enforcement 

responsibilities mandated by the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Highly 

publicized incidences of elevated 

drinking water lead levels prompted 

EPA to review and evaluate the 

implementation and effectiveness of the 

LCR on a national basis. As a result of 

this multi-part review, EPA identified 

seven targeted rule changes that clarify 

the intent of the LCR and ensure and 

enhance protection of public health 

through reduction in lead exposure. 

EPA will use the information collected 

as a result of the short-term revisions to 

the LCR to support the responsibilities 

outlined in SDWA by strengthening the 

implementation of the LCR in the areas 

of monitoring, customer awareness, and 

lead service line replacement. The rule 

revisions described in section III of this 

notice are intended to improve the 

implementation of the LCR and do not 

alter the original maximum contaminant 

level goals or the fundamental approach 

to controlling lead and copper in 

drinking water. 

Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires 

that there must be ‘‘criteria and 

procedures to assure a supply of 

drinking water which dependably 

complies with such maximum 

contaminant levels; including accepted 

methods for quality control and testing 

procedures to insure compliance with 

such levels and to insure proper 

operation and maintenance of the 

system * * *’’ Furthermore, section 

1445(a)(1) of SDWA requires that every 

person who is a supplier of water ‘‘shall 

establish and maintain such records, 

make such reports, conduct such 

monitoring, and provide such 

information as the Administrator may 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57808 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

reasonably require by regulation to 

assist the Administrator in establishing 

regulations * * * in determining 

whether such person has acted or is 

acting in compliance’’ with this title. In 

addition, section 1413(a)(3) of SDWA 

requires States to ‘‘keep such records 

and make such reports * * * as the 

Administrator may require by 

regulation.’’

Section 1412(b) of SDWA, as 

amended in 1996, requires the Agency 

to publish maximum contaminant level 

goals and promulgate NPDWRs for 

contaminants that may have an adverse 

effect on the health of persons, are 

known to or anticipated to occur in 

PWSs, or, in the opinion of the 

Administrator, present an opportunity 

for health risk reduction. The NPDWRs 

specify maximum contaminant levels or 

treatment techniques for drinking water 

contaminants (42 U.S.C 300g.–1). 

Section 1412(b)(9) requires that EPA, no 

less than every 6 years review, and as 

appropriate, revise existing drinking 

water standards. Promulgation of the 

LCR complies with these statutory 

requirements. 

1. Burden Estimate 

The universe of respondents for this 

ICR is comprised of 52,838 CWSs and 

19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of 72,213 

systems (4th Quarter 2004 SDWIS/FED), 

and 57 States. The activities that take 

place during the 3-year period covered 

by the ICR will vary based on the timing 

of State implementation of the final 

rule. The rule is structured to allow for 

early implementation by States within 

180 days of rule publication. 

Alternatively, States have up to 2 years 

to implement rule provisions as 

described in section III.I of this notice. 

Because there is some uncertainty in 

predicting which States will adopt early 

implementation versus those that will 

take 2 years, EPA estimates an upper 

and lower bound on ICR burden and 

cost estimates. The upper bound 

estimate assumes all States will adopt 

early implementation while the lower 

bound estimate assumes States will take 

2 years to implement the rule. 

The total annual average respondent 

burden associated with this ICR is 

estimated to be 206,997–297,122 burden 

hours. The corresponding total annual 

average respondent costs are estimated 

to be $6.4 to $9.5 million. 

EPA estimates the annual respondent 

burden for PWSs to be 189,369–271,997 

hours. Annual respondent costs for 

PWSs are estimated to be $5.6 to $8.4 

million. The Agency estimates that the 

annual respondent burden for States is 

17,628–25,125 hours. The 

corresponding annual average 

respondent costs for States are estimated 

to be $0.8 to $1.1 million. Table V.1 

presents a summary of total burden and 

costs for this ICR. 

TABLE V.1.—BOTTOM LINE AVERAGE ANNUAL BURDEN AND COSTS UPPER AND LOWER BOUND ESTIMATES (2006 

DOLLARS) 

Lower bound Upper bound 

Number of Respondents ............... 72,270 = 72,213 + 57 72,270 = 72,213 + 57 Public water systems. 

States. 

Total Annual Responses ............... 186,524 = 171,849 + 14,675 426,483 = 391,671 + 34,812 Public water system responses. 

State responses. 

Number of Responses per PWS .. 2.4 = 171,849/72,213 5.4 = 391,671/72,213 Total annual PWS responses from 

above. 

Total public water systems from 

above. 

Number of Responses per State .. 257 = 14,675/57 611 = 34,812/57 Total annual State responses from 

above. 

Total States from above. 

Total Annual Respondent Burden 

Hours.

206,997 = 189,369 + 17,628 297,122 = 271,997 + 25,125 Public water system hours. 

State hours. 

Hours per System for Public 

Water Systems.

2.6 = 189,369/72,213 3.8 = 271,997/72,213 Total PWS annual hours from 

above. 

Total PWS from above. 

Hours per State for States ............ 309 = 17,628/57 441 = 25,125/57 Total State annual hours from 

above. 

Total States from above. 

Annual O&M Costs ....................... $118,717 = $117,886 + $831 $295,205 = $293,920 + $1,284 Public water system O&M costs. 

State OM costs. 

Total Annual Respondent Cost ..... $6,353,532 = $5,584,289 + 

$769,243 

$9,520,866 = $8,423,108 + 

$1,097,758 

Public water system costs. 

State costs. 

Cost Per Response ....................... $32 $21 Public water system cost. 

$52 $32 State cost. 

Total Annual Hours (respondent plus Agency).206,997 = 206,997 + 0 297,122 = 297,122 + 0 Total respondent hours. 

Total EPA hours. 

Total Annual Cost (respondent plus Agency).$6,353,532 = $6,353,532 + $0 $9,520,866 = $9,520,866 + $0 Total respondent cost. 

Total EPA cost. 

Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. EPA burden and cost estimated under PWSS program. 

Burden means the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose 

or provide information to or for a 

Federal agency. This includes the time 

needed to review instructions; develop, 

acquire, install, and utilize technology 

and systems for the purposes of 

collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57809 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

The RFA provides default definitions 

for each type of small entity. Small 

entities are defined under the RFA as: 

(1) A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any ‘‘not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.’’ However, the 

RFA also authorizes an agency to use 

alternative definitions for each category 

of small entity, ‘‘which are appropriate 

to the activities of the agency’’ after 

proposing the alternative definition(s) in 

the Federal Register and taking 

comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(5). In 

addition, to establish an alternative 

small business definition, agencies must 

consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, EPA 

defined small entities as public water 

systems serving 10,000 or fewer 

persons. As required by the RFA, EPA 

proposed using this alternative 

definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 

7606, February 13, 1998), requested 

public comment, consulted with the 

Small Business Administration (SBA), 

and finalized the alternative definition 

in the Consumer Confidence Reports 

regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19, 

1998). EPA stated in that Final Rule that 

it would apply the alternative definition 

to future drinking water regulations 

(including this one) as well. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This certification is based on EPA’s 

established definition of small entities 

as public water systems serving 10,000 

or fewer persons. The small entities 

directly regulated by this final rule are 

small public water systems serving 

10,000 or fewer people on an annual 

basis. We have determined that 68,286 

small systems may be affected by the 

changes to the LCR. Table V.2 provides 

a summary of these small systems, by 

size category and system type. 

TABLE V.2.—THE NUMBER OF SMALL SYSTEMS AFFECTED BY THE FINAL RULE CHANGES

Size CWS NTNCWS Total 

small 

<=100 ................................................................................................................................................................... 13,766 9,548 23,314 

101–500 ............................................................................................................................................................... 16,240 6,997 23,237 

501–1,000 ............................................................................................................................................................ 5,914 1,925 7,839 

1,001–3,300 ......................................................................................................................................................... 8,298 795 9,093 

3,301–10,000 ....................................................................................................................................................... 4,707 96 4,803 

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 48,925 19,361 68,286 

However, not all of these small 

entities will incur direct costs for all of 

the final regulatory changes. In many 

cases, only a relatively small subset of 

these systems will have to change 

practices to comply with the regulatory 

changes. Table V.3 provides an estimate 

of the number of small systems that will 

incur direct costs for each of the 

regulatory changes. 

TABLE V.3.—THE NUMBER OF SMALL

SYSTEMS AFFECTED BY EACH REGULATORY CHANGE

Regulatory change 

Small systems 

impacted per 

year 

Regulatory Change III.A ..... 3,692 

Regulatory Change III.B ..... (1) 

Regulatory Change III.C ..... 854 

Regulatory Change III.D ..... 1,009 

Regulatory Change III.E ..... 60,735 

Regulatory Change III.F ..... 49,337 

Regulatory Change III.G ..... 1 

1 None—Clarifications of definitions with no 

direct cost impact. 

Activities and Costs Associated With 

Rule Changes for Small Systems 

EPA has estimated the burden and 

costs associated with the regulatory 

changes, as described in the Economic 

Analysis for this final rule. The basis for 

many of these input values and 

assumptions are described in detail in 

the Economic Analysis, Section 4. The 

following summarizes the costs 

estimated for small systems. 

1. One-Time Activities 

All small systems subject to the Lead 

and Copper Rule will be expected to 

incur some costs to read the rule 

changes and communicate requirements 

as necessary. The level of effort 

associated with these activities could 

range from 5–8 hours for each small 

system. The average cost per system for 

these activities is estimated at $138, for 

a total cost of $9,404,000 for all 68,286 

small systems. This assumes an hourly 

fully loaded labor cost for small system 

employees ranging from $23.86 to 

$33.96 (see Appendix B of the Economic 

Analysis). 

2. Activities for Regulatory Change III.A 

Under Regulatory Change III.A, small 

systems with fewer than 5 taps in States 

that allow 1 sample per tap will prepare 

and submit to the State a one-time letter 

verifying the applicable number of taps 

and requesting the use of the alternative 

sampling. Eleven States supported the 

alternative sampling in their comments 

on the proposed rule. However, two 

States did not support the alternative 

sampling. For purposes of estimating 

costs, EPA assumed that the States that 

did not support the alternative and 

States that did not comment on the rule 

provision would not allow systems to 

implement the alternative since the 

default requirement in the rule is that 

systems take a minimum of 5 samples. 

Based on data from SDWIS/FED on 

these 11 States, EPA estimates that there 

are 3,692 systems with fewer than 5 

taps. Preparing the one-time request 

letter results in a one time cost of $28 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57810 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

per system. Total costs for all small 

systems likely to be affected by 

Regulatory Change III.A are estimated at 

$104,000 per year. 

3. Activities for Regulatory Change III.C 

Under Regulatory Change III.C, all 

systems that exceed the lead action level 

are triggered into regularly scheduled 

lead tap monitoring. Additional costs 

are associated with taking lead samples 

more frequently and reporting the 

results to States. EPA estimates that 854 

small systems exceed the lead action 

level each year. Changing from reduced 

tap monitoring to regularly scheduled 

tap monitoring would result in an 

average cost increase of $2,258 per year 

per system. Total costs for all small 

systems likely to be affected by 

Regulatory Change III.C are estimated at 

$1,929,000 per year. 

4. Activities for Regulatory Change III.D 

Small systems that are changing 

treatment or adding a source would 

incur additional costs under Regulatory 

Change III.D to prepare data in support 

of treatment changes or source addition, 

to submit the data to the State for 

review, and to coordinate with the State 

during the review. These activities are 

estimated to take an additional 7.5 

hours per system for each treatment 

change or source addition. The cost for 

each small system that is changing 

treatment or adding a source is 

estimated at $196. The total cost for all 

small systems likely to be affected by 

Regulatory Change III.D is estimated at 

$198,000 per year. 

5. Activities for Regulatory Change III.E 

Most small systems are expected to 

incur additional costs under Regulatory 

Change III.E when they are required to 

notify consumers of tap monitoring 

results. The activities associated with 

notifying customers vary based on the 

type and size of the system and include 

the effort to prepare a self-certification 

letter to the State. The average cost for 

small systems to notify customers is 

estimated at approximately $17 

annually. This estimate assumes one 

labor hour to prepare a customer 

notification letter per system, 0.12 hours 

to prepare the self-certification letter, 

and $0.43 in material costs per sample 

for CWSs. EPA assumed one labor hour 

plus 0.12 hours for NTNCWSs, with 

negligible material costs. It is important 

to note that the majority of small 

systems are assumed to meet the lead 

action level and are assumed to be on 

triennial monitoring. Therefore, this 

requirement will only affect them once 

every three years. The total cost to all 

small systems likely to be affected by 

Regulatory Change III.E is estimated at 

$1,060,000. 

6. Activities for Regulatory Change III.F 

Different provisions of Regulatory 

Change III.F apply to different subsets of 

systems. All small community water 

systems will incur costs to include a 

statement on lead in the Consumer 

Confidence Report (CCR), at an average 

cost of $7 per system, based on the 

assumption of 0.25 hours to add an 

informational statement on lead to the 

CCR. Small community water systems 

that exceed the lead action level will 

incur costs from a variety of public 

education activities, at an average cost 

per system of $265. The total cost for all 

small systems likely to be affected by 

Regulatory Change III.F is estimated at 

$569,000. 

7. Activities for Regulatory Change III.G 

Regulatory Change III.G applies to 

systems that had ‘‘tested out’’ lead 

service lines as part of a lead service 

line replacement program and then reexceeded the action level. For the 

purposes of subsequent lead service line 

replacement efforts, the previously 

‘‘tested-out’’ lines would go back into 

the inventory for possible re-testing 

and/or replacement. Only a handful of 

systems are expected to be in this 

situation, estimated at 1 system per 

year. This analysis assumes that the 1 

system is not a small system. There is 

no evidence that small systems would 

be triggered into this regulatory change 

cost any more frequently than other 

systems. 

8. Total Small System Costs 

Table V.4 summarizes the estimated 

annual costs associated with all 

regulatory changes. Table V.5 

summarizes the one-time costs to small 

systems. 

TABLE V.4.—TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL SMALL SYSTEM COSTS (2006 DOLLARS) ALL SYSTEMS SERVING LESS THAN

10,000 PEOPLE

Annual 

labor 

Annual 

materials 

Total 

annual 

Regulatory Change III.A .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Regulatory Change III.B .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Regulatory Change III.C .......................................................................................................................... 1,783,000 146,000 1,929,000 

Regulatory Change III.D .......................................................................................................................... 198,000 0 198,000 

Regulatory Change III.E .......................................................................................................................... 946,000 114,000 1,060,000 

Regulatory Change III.F .......................................................................................................................... 566,000 4,000 569,000 

Regulatory Change III.G .......................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 3,492,000 264,000 3,755,000 

Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. Because this table represents annual costs, some fields include zero 

values. While there are regulatory costs associated with Regulatory Change III.A, these costs are one-time in nature and thus do not include any 

annual costs. 

TABLE V.5.—TOTAL ESTIMATED ONETIME SMALL SYSTEM COSTS (2006 

DOLLARS) ALL SYSTEMS SERVING

LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE

One-time 

costs 

Regulatory Change III.A ........... $104,000 

Implementation ......................... 9,404,000 

TABLE V.5.—TOTAL ESTIMATED ONETIME SMALL SYSTEM COSTS (2006 

DOLLARS) ALL SYSTEMS SERVING

LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE—Continued 

One-time 

costs 

Total ................................... 9,508,000 

9. Average Costs Per Small System 

The estimated average compliance 

cost for all small systems covered by the 

LCR for the final rule changes is 

minimal: $55 per system in annual 

costs. However, there is a fairly wide 

range in the costs that a system could 

face. EPA expects that all systems will 

incur the $138 one-time implementation 

cost. The additional annual costs could 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57811 

be as low as $0 for small NTNCWSs that 

already notify customers of tap 

monitoring results. Systems that do not 

already notify customers of results 

could incur $17 per year. EPA estimates 

that small CWSs will incur $7 per year 

to include a statement on the CCR. The 

roughly 2 percent of systems that are 

making a treatment change or source 

addition are estimated to incur an 

additional $196 in the year they make 

the change. 

At the high end, if a system incurred 

all estimated annual costs, the total 

would be $2,743 per year. As EPA 

estimates that only 854 small systems 

will exceed the lead action level, at 

most only 854 small systems or 1.3 

percent of all small systems could 

potentially incur all estimated annual 

costs. Those systems that do not exceed 

the lead action level face a maximum 

potential annual cost of $220. 

10. Measuring Significant Economic 

Impact of Rule Costs 

The costs to small systems are 

compared against average revenues for 

small systems from all revenue sources. 

Small systems can be one of three types 

of small entities—small businesses, 

small governments, or small non-profits. 

The revenue estimate used for assessing 

impacts to small systems in this rule is 

derived from two sources: (1) EPA’s 

2000 Community Water System Survey 

(CWSS) and (2) the 2002 Census of 

Governments. Data from these two 

sources are used to calculate an average 

revenue estimate for all small systems 

serving less than 10,000 customers and 

for each of 3 size categories: Those 

serving 25–500 customers, those serving 

501–3300 customers, and those serving 

3301–10,000 customers. Analyzing 

impacts separately for these 3 categories 

of small systems allows EPA to better 

identify potential impacts to the 

smallest systems, which tend to have 

the lowest revenues. Estimates of total 

revenue are shown in Table V.6 and 

reflect updates to EPA’s revenue 

analysis in the proposed rule. For more 

information on EPA’s revenue estimates 

for the small system size subcategories, 

please see the Economic Analysis for 

the final rule. 

Using average revenues and the 

average cost of the regulatory changes 

for all small systems, the one-time costs 

represent roughly 0.006 percent of 

annual revenues from all revenue 

sources. The estimated $55 average 

annual compliance costs per system 

represent 0.003 percent of average 

annual revenues from all revenue 

sources. EPA estimates that roughly 1.3 

percent of the systems serving 10,000 or 

less customers would incur all annual 

costs of $2,743, which is approximately 

0.127 percent of annual revenues from 

all sources. 

Costs as a percentage of revenues for 

the 3 size categories separately are 

shown in Table V.6. This table 

compares the average costs of the 

regulatory changes to the average 

revenues. As shown in Table V.6, 

average economic impacts to small 

systems from these regulatory revisions 

are all less than one percent of average 

revenue for each of the small system 

size subcategories. However, as 

discussed in section V.C.1 of this notice, 

substantial data limitations exist in our 

revenue data which may limit our 

ability to accurately describe the 

revenues available to small water 

systems. 

TABLE V.6.—AVERAGE COSTS PER SYSTEM AND PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE

[All revenue sources (2006$)] 

System size Number of 

systems 

Average 

annual cost 

per system 

Revenues 

per system* 

Average annual cost as 

percentage 

of revenue 

25–500 ............................................................................................................................. 46,551 $41 **$550,000 0.007 

501–3,300 ........................................................................................................................ 16,932 67 1,448,000 0.005 

3,301–10K ........................................................................................................................ 4,803 153 12,643,000 0.001 

Aggregate: 25–10K .......................................................................................................... 68,286 55 2,167,000 0.003 

Notes: *Includes water revenues and non-water related revenues (e.g., revenues related to the primary business for private entities that operate a water system to support their business or municipal general revenue for publicly owned and operated systems). **Estimated Total Average 

Revenue per system for systems serving 25–100 is $220,000. 

In summary, the average costs for 

each of the small size subcategories 

below 10,000 represent less than 1 

percent of average revenue from all 

sources. To provide additional 

information on the potential economic 

impacts of the LCR on small entities, 

EPA also examined the range of 

potential costs relative to revenues for 

the smallest system size category (those 

serving 25–500 people). Average total 

annual revenue for this system size is 

estimated to be $550,000. As stated 

above, the maximum number of small 

systems (serving less than 10,000 

people) that could possibly incur all 

annual total costs of $2,743 is 854, those 

that exceed the lead action level. This 

maximum cost represents 

approximately 0.5 percent of average 

revenues from all sources for systems in 

the smallest size subcategory. However, 

because of our limited data on small 

system revenues, we do not have the 

ability to develop a distribution of 

revenues in this subcategory for 

comparison. For those systems that do 

not exceed the lead action level, the 

maximum potential cost that could be 

incurred by systems in the smallest size 

category is $220, or 0.04 percent of 

revenue from all sources. This analysis 

further supports our conclusion that this 

final rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Although this final rule will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the 

impact of this rule on small entities. For 

Regulatory Change III.A, EPA added a 

provision that gives States the discretion 

to allow water systems with fewer than 

5 taps for human consumption to collect 

one sample per tap. Under this 

alternative sampling schedule, the 

sample with the highest test result will 

be compared to the action level to 

determine compliance. Taking fewer 

than 5 samples for each monitoring 

event will reduce the monitoring burden 

for small systems while still being 

protective of public health. Comparing 

the single highest sample value does not 

allow water systems to ignore a 

potential problem by taking repeat 

samples at taps that have low lead 

results when they get a high sample 

result. 

Regulatory Change III.C requires 

systems that exceed the lead action level 

to resume tap monitoring for lead on a 

regular basis, rather than on a reduced 

schedule. Originally EPA considered 

extending this requirement to both lead 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57812 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

and copper monitoring. Based on 

guidance from the work group on 

minimizing impacts to small systems, 

EPA limited the requirement to only 

include lead action level exceedances. 

Regulatory Change III.E requires 

systems to provide lead monitoring 

results to consumers. The regulatory 

development work group considered 

including copper monitoring results in 

the consumer notice, but decided to 

defer that suggestion for consideration 

in future regulatory revisions, thereby 

limiting the increase in burden to small 

systems. 

11. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 

Commenters on the Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis and EPA’s Response 

to These Issues? 

EPA received one comment on its 

Regulatory Flexibility analysis 

supporting the proposed rule. The 

commenter agreed with EPA’s 

certification that the LCR will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, but 

recommended that EPA provide more 

detailed information concerning the 

economic impacts of these regulatory 

changes to subcategories of small 

entities. In response to this commenter, 

EPA provided additional information in 

the final rule on the potential impacts 

to systems in the three smallest size 

subcategories (those serving 25–500, 

501–3,300, and 3,301 to 10,000 people) 

and has considered this information in 

evaluating impacts to small systems. 

In certifying that these regulatory 

changes will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, EPA assessed 

the economic impacts of this final rule 

on small water systems by calculating 

an average revenue estimate for systems 

serving less than 10,000 customers and 

comparing it to an average cost estimate 

for systems serving less than 10,000. 

EPA then evaluated data on the costs 

and revenues per system for three small 

size subcategories as defined in the 

SDWA for affordability determinations 

for small systems. EPA believes that for 

this rule this is a reasonable way to 

stratify the small system universe by 

size for purposes of its RFA screening 

analysis as well. EPA is continuing to 

examine issues associated with the 

significant variety of entities that 

operate small water systems and how 

best to analyze them under the RFA, 

and may further refine its analytical 

approach for future rule makings. 

EPA is also working to improve its 

estimation of small system revenues. 

The new CWSS, estimated for 

completion in early 2009, is expected to 

better enable EPA to assess the impacts 

of future regulatory actions on small 

systems. In the new CWSS, we are 

taking steps to improve response rate, 

particularly with respect to water 

system revenue estimates. Examples of 

these steps include linking municipal 

government revenues to the system 

surveyed in that municipality, rather 

than reliance on the Census of 

Governments data; decreasing item nonresponse on revenue source through 

system site visits; and gaining a better 

understanding of how a water system 

pays for its system operations in 

systems that report no revenue, through 

an additional survey question. These 

improvements to the new CWSS will 

help EPA to gain a better understanding 

of the revenue sources available to small 

water systems and improve our ability 

to accurately understand the revenue 

streams available to these systems. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 

104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more in any one year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 do not apply when they are 

inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to 

adopt an alternative other than the least 

costly, most cost-effective or least 

burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of the UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may 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. The 

total upfront costs of this action to 

States and public water systems are 

estimated at $12.7 million, with 

estimated annual costs to States and 

public water systems ranging from $5.9 

to $6.3 million. Systems and State/ 

Primacy agencies incur one-time 

upfront costs associated with reviewing 

and implementing the overall LCR 

regulatory changes. For systems, 

activities include reviewing the rule 

changes and training staff. For States/ 

Primacy agencies, activities include 

regulation adoption, program 

development, and miscellaneous 

training. Systems and States also incur 

annual costs consisting of the costs to 

implement the regulation. Annual costs 

to systems include the costs of 

reporting, monitoring, and public 

education. Annual costs to States 

consist of the costs of reviewing water 

system information. Thus, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

EPA has determined that this rule 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. The rule is 

consistent with, and only makes 

revisions to, the requirements under the 

current NPDWR for lead and copper. 

The existing rule imposes requirements 

on PWSs to ensure that water delivered 

to users is minimally corrosive; the rule 

requires removal of lead service lines 

and the provision of public education 

where necessary to ensure public health 

protection. This final rule does not 

make any significant changes to these 

requirements, but makes revisions and 

clarifications to the rule’s requirements 

to enhance the efficiency and 

effectiveness of current rule 

requirements. 

Nevertheless, in developing this rule, 

EPA consulted with State and local 

officials (including small entity 

representatives) early in the process of 

developing the proposed regulation to 

permit them to have meaningful and 

timely input into its development. EPA 

held five workshops in 2004–2005 to 

elicit concerns and suggestions from 

stakeholders on various issues related to 

lead in drinking water. These 

workshops covered the topic areas of 

simultaneous compliance, sampling 

protocols, public education, lead service 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57813 

line replacement, and lead in plumbing. 

Expert participants from utilities, 

academia, state governments, consumer 

and environmental groups, and other 

stakeholder groups participated in these 

workshops to identify issues, propose 

solutions, and offer suggestions for 

modifications and improvements to the 

LCR. These workshops are described in 

greater detail in the Economic Analysis 

for this final rule. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’

This final rule does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. The rule is 

consistent with, and only makes 

revisions to, the requirements under the 

current NPDWR for lead and copper. 

The existing rule imposes requirements 

on PWSs to ensure that water delivered 

to users is minimally corrosive; the rule 

requires removal of lead service lines 

and the provision of public education 

where necessary to ensure public health 

protection. This final rule does not 

make any significant changes to these 

requirements, but makes revisions and 

clarifications to the rule’s requirements 

to enhance the efficiency and 

effectiveness of current rule 

requirements. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. 

Nevertheless, EPA did consult with 

State and local officials in developing 

this final rule as described in Section 

V.D, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In 

the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and 

consistent with EPA policy to promote 

communications between EPA and State 

and local governments, EPA specifically 

solicited comment on the proposed rule 

from State and local officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175. It does not 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of Indian tribal 

governments, nor does it impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

those communities. The provisions of 

this final rule apply to all community 

and non-transient non-community water 

systems. Tribal governments may be 

owners or operators of such systems; 

however, nothing in this rule’s 

provisions uniquely affects them. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, 

April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: 

(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically 

significant’’ as defined under Executive 

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 

environmental health or safety risk that 

EPA has reason to believe may have a 

disproportionate effect on children. If 

the regulatory action meets both criteria, 

the Agency must evaluate the 

environmental health or safety effects of 

the planned rule on children, and 

explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective 

and reasonably feasible alternatives 

considered by the Agency. 

While this final rule is not subject to 

the Executive Order because it is not 

economically significant as defined in 

Executive Order 12866, we nonetheless 

have reason to believe that the 

environmental health or safety risk 

addressed by this action has a 

disproportionate effect on children. This 

final rule does not change the core LCR 

requirements in place to assure the 

protection of children from the effects of 

lead in drinking water; rather, these 

changes improve the implementation of 

these provisions. Moreover, EPA 

believes that this final rule is consistent 

with Executive Order 13045 because it 

further strengthens the protection to 

children from exposure to lead via 

drinking water as it enhances the 

implementation of the LCR in the areas 

of monitoring, customer awareness, and 

lead service line replacement. This final 

rule also clarifies the intent of some 

provisions in the LCR. These changes 

are expected to ensure and enhance 

more effective protection of public 

health through the reduction in lead 

exposure. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

The rule provides clarifications and 

modifications to the existing LCR 

requirements only. 

This final rule does not affect the 

supply of energy as it does not regulate 

power generation. The public and 

private utilities that are affected by this 

final regulation do not, as a rule, 

generate power. The revisions to the 

LCR do not regulate any aspect of 

energy distribution as the utilities that 

are regulated by the LCR already have 

electrical service. Finally, these 

regulatory revisions do not adversely 

affect the use of energy as EPA does not 

anticipate that a significant number of 

drinking water utilities will add 

treatment technologies that use 

electrical power to comply with these 

regulatory revisions. As such, EPA does 

not anticipate that this rule will 

adversely affect the use of energy. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

As noted in the proposed rule, 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

The final rule may involve voluntary 

consensus standards in that it requires 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57814 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

additional monitoring for lead and 

copper in certain situations, and 

monitoring and sample analysis 

methodologies are often based on 

voluntary consensus standards. 

However, the final rule does not change 

any methodological requirements for 

monitoring or sample analysis, only, in 

some cases, the required frequency and 

number of samples. Also, EPA’s 

approved monitoring and sampling 

protocols generally include voluntary 

consensus standards developed by 

agencies such as the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) and other 

such bodies wherever EPA deems these 

methodologies appropriate for 

compliance monitoring. 

J. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A Major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective December 10, 2007. 

VI. References 

U.S. EPA, 1991a. Federal Register. Vol. 56, 

No. 110. Maximum Contaminant Level 

Goals and National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; 

Final Rule (Fri. Jun. 7, 1991), 26460–

26564. (56 FR 26460). 

U.S. EPA, 1991b. Final Regulatory Impact 

Analysis of National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. 

Prepared by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. 

(April 1991). 

U.S. EPA, 1996a. Federal Register. Vol. 60, 

No. 72. Maximum Contaminant Level 

Goals and National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; 

Proposed Rule (Friday, April 12, 1996), 

16348–16371. (60 FR 16348). 

U.S. EPA, 1996b. Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Addendum. EPA 812–B–96–002, January 

1996. 

U.S. EPA, 1998. Federal Register. Vol. 63, 

No. 160. Consumer Confidence Reports 

(August 19, 1998) (63 FR 44526). 

U.S. EPA, 2000a. Arsenic in Drinking Water 

Rule Economic Analysis. Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA 

815–R–00–026, December 2000. 

U.S. EPA, 2000b. Federal Register. Vol. 65, 

No. 8. National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final 

Rule. (Wed, January 12, 2000), 1950–

2015 (65 FR 1950). 

U.S. EPA, 2000c. Federal Register. Vol. 65, 

No. 87. Public Notification of Drinking 

Water Violations (May 4, 2000) (65 FR 

26035). 

U.S. EPA, 2004a. Information Collection 

Request for Disinfection Byproducts, 

Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules. 

OMB Control Number: 2040–0204. EPA 

Tracking Number: 1896.03. Appendix H, 

page H–43, table entitled ‘‘Tap 

Monitoring for Lead & Copper—

Monitoring, Burden, and Cost 

Assumptions.’’ September, 2004. 

U.S. EPA, 2004b. State Implementation of the 

Lead and Copper Rule. July, 2004. 

U.S. EPA, 2005a. Economic Analysis for the 

Final Long Term 2 Enhances Surface 

Water Treatment Rule. Office of Ground 

Water and Drinking Water, EPA 815–R–

06–001, December 2005. 

U.S. EPA, 2005b. Economic Analysis for the 

Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and 

Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Office of 

Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA 

815–R–05–010, December 2005. 

U.S. EPA, 2006a. Federal Register. Vol. 71, 

No. 137. National Primary Drinking 

Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 

Short-term Regulatory Revisions and 

Clarifications; Proposed Rule (July 18, 

2006), 40828–40863 (71 FR 40828). 

U.S. EPA, 2006b. EPA Air Quality Criteria for 

Lead (Final). U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 

EPA/600/R–05/144aF–bF, October, 2006. 

U.S. EPA, 2007a. Economic and Supporting 

Analyses: Short-Term Regulatory 

Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking 

Water, EPA–815–R0–7022, September 

2007. 

U.S. EPA, 2007b. Simultaneous Compliance 

Guidance Manual for the Long Term 2 

and Stage 2 DBP Rules. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 

815–R–07–017, March 2007. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and 

142 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Indians—lands, Intergovernmental 

relations, Radiation protection, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Water supply. 

Dated: September 25, 2007. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 141 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, 

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, 

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

■ 2. Section 141.80 is amended by 

removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2), 

by adding paragraph (c)(3)(v), and by 

revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 141.80 General requirements. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(v) For a public water system that has 

been allowed by the State to collect 

fewer than five samples in accordance 

with § 141.86(c), the sample result with 

the highest concentration is considered 

the 90th percentile value. 

* * * * * 

(g) Public education requirements. 

Pursuant to § 141.85, all water systems 

must provide a consumer notice of lead 

tap water monitoring results to persons 

served at the sites (taps) that are tested. 

Any system exceeding the lead action 

level shall implement the public 

education requirements. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 141.81 is amended as 

follows by: 

■ a. Removing the first sentence in 

paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding in its 

place the following two sentences; 

■ b. Revising the last sentence in 

paragraph (e)(1); 

■ c. Revising the first sentence in 

paragraph (e)(2) introductory text; 

■ d. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii). 

§ 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control 

treatment steps to small, medium-size and 

large water systems. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) Any water system deemed to have 

optimized corrosion control pursuant to 

this paragraph shall notify the State in 

writing pursuant to § 141.90(a)(3) of any 

upcoming long-term change in 

treatment or addition of a new source as 

described in that section. The State 

must review and approve the addition 

of a new source or long-term change in 

water treatment before it is 

implemented by the water system. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * A system exceeding the lead 

or copper action level shall recommend 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

(§ 141.82(a)) within six months after the 

end of the monitoring period during 

which it exceeds one of the action 

levels. 

(2) Step 2: Within 12 months after the 

end of the monitoring period during 

which a system exceeds the lead or 

copper action level, the State may 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57815 

require the system to perform corrosion 

control studies (§ 141.82(b)). * * * 

(i) For medium-size systems, within 

18 months after the end of the 

monitoring period during which such 

system exceeds the lead or copper 

action level. 

(ii) For small systems, within 24 

months after the end of the monitoring 

period during which such system 

exceeds the lead or copper action level. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 141.83(a)(1) is revised to 

read as follows: 

§ 141.83 Source water treatment 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * (1) Step 1: A system 

exceeding the lead or copper action 

level shall complete lead and copper 

source water monitoring (§ 141.88(b)) 

and make a treatment recommendation 

to the State (§ 141.83(b)(1)) no later than 

180 days after the end of the monitoring 

period during which the lead or copper 

action level was exceeded. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Section 141.84 is amended as 

follows by: 

■ a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as 

(b)(1); 

■ b. Revising the last sentence in the 

newly designated (b)(1) and adding two 

sentences to the end of the paragraph; 

■ c. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and 

■ d. In paragraph (f), revise ‘‘paragraph 

(b)’’ to read ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’. 

§ 141.84 Lead service line replacement 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(b)(1) * * * The first year of lead 

service line replacement shall begin on 

the first day following the end of the 

monitoring period in which the action 

level was exceeded under paragraph (a) 

of this section. If monitoring is required 

annually or less frequently, the end of 

the monitoring period is September 30 

of the calendar year in which the 

sampling occurs. If the State has 

established an alternate monitoring 

period, then the end of the monitoring 

period will be the last day of that 

period. 

(2) Any water system resuming a lead 

service line replacement program after 

the cessation of its lead service line 

replacement program as allowed by 

paragraph (f) of this section shall update 

its inventory of lead service lines to 

include those sites that were previously 

determined not to require replacement 

through the sampling provision under 

paragraph (c) of this section. The system 

will then divide the updated number of 

remaining lead service lines by the 

number of remaining years in the 

program to determine the number of 

lines that must be replaced per year (7 

percent lead service line replacement is 

based on a 15-year replacement 

program, so, for example, systems 

resuming lead service line replacement 

after previously conducting two years of 

replacement would divide the updated 

inventory by 13). For those systems that 

have completed a 15-year lead service 

line replacement program, the State will 

determine a schedule for replacing or 

retesting lines that were previously 

tested out under the replacement 

program when the system re-exceeds the 

action level. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.85 Public education and 

supplemental monitoring requirements. 

All water systems must deliver a 

consumer notice of lead tap water 

monitoring results to persons served by 

the water system at sites that are tested, 

as specified in paragraph (d) of this 

section. A water system that exceeds the 

lead action level based on tap water 

samples collected in accordance with 

§ 141.86 shall deliver the public 

education materials contained in 

paragraph (a) of this section in 

accordance with the requirements in 

paragraph (b) of this section. Water 

systems that exceed the lead action level 

must sample the tap water of any 

customer who requests it in accordance 

with paragraph (c) of this section. 

(a) Content of written public 

education materials. (1) Community 

water systems and Non-transient noncommunity water systems. Water 

systems must include the following 

elements in printed materials (e.g., 

brochures and pamphlets) in the same 

order as listed below. In addition, 

language in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through 

(ii) and (a)(1)(vi) of this section must be 

included in the materials, exactly as 

written, except for the text in brackets 

in these paragraphs for which the water 

system must include system-specific 

information. Any additional information 

presented by a water system must be 

consistent with the information below 

and be in plain language that can be 

understood by the general public. Water 

systems must submit all written public 

education materials to the State prior to 

delivery. The State may require the 

system to obtain approval of the content 

of written public materials prior to 

delivery. 

(i) IMPORTANT INFORMATION 

ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR DRINKING 

WATER. [INSERT NAME OF WATER 

SYSTEM] found elevated levels of lead 

in drinking water in some homes/ 

buildings. Lead can cause serious health 

problems, especially for pregnant 

women and young children. Please read 

this information closely to see what you 

can do to reduce lead in your drinking 

water. 

(ii) Health effects of lead. Lead can 

cause serious health problems if too 

much enters your body from drinking 

water or other sources. It can cause 

damage to the brain and kidneys, and 

can interfere with the production of red 

blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts 

of your body. The greatest risk of lead 

exposure is to infants, young children, 

and pregnant women. Scientists have 

linked the effects of lead on the brain 

with lowered IQ in children. Adults 

with kidney problems and high blood 

pressure can be affected by low levels of 

lead more than healthy adults. Lead is 

stored in the bones, and it can be 

released later in life. During pregnancy, 

the child receives lead from the 

mother’s bones, which may affect brain 

development. 

(iii) Sources of Lead. 

(A) Explain what lead is. 

(B) Explain possible sources of lead in 

drinking water and how lead enters 

drinking water. Include information on 

home/building plumbing materials and 

service lines that may contain lead. 

(C) Discuss other important sources of 

lead exposure in addition to drinking 

water (e.g., paint). 

(iv) Discuss the steps the consumer 

can take to reduce their exposure to lead 

in drinking water. 

(A) Encourage running the water to 

flush out the lead. 

(B) Explain concerns with using hot 

water from the tap and specifically 

caution against the use of hot water for 

preparing baby formula. 

(C) Explain that boiling water does 

not reduce lead levels. 

(D) Discuss other options consumers 

can take to reduce exposure to lead in 

drinking water, such as alternative 

sources or treatment of water. 

(E) Suggest that parents have their 

child’s blood tested for lead. 

(v) Explain why there are elevated 

levels of lead in the system’s drinking 

water (if known) and what the water 

system is doing to reduce the lead levels 

in homes/buildings in this area. 

(vi) For more information, call us at 

[INSERT YOUR NUMBER] [(IF 

APPLICABLE), or visit our Web site at 

[INSERT YOUR WEB SITE HERE]]. For 

more information on reducing lead 

exposure around your home/building 

and the health effects of lead, visit 

EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ 

lead or contact your health care 

provider. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57816 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Community water systems. In 

addition to including the elements 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section, community water systems must: 

(i) Tell consumers how to get their 

water tested. 

(ii) Discuss lead in plumbing 

components and the difference between 

low lead and lead free. 

(b) Delivery of public education 

materials. (1) For public water systems 

serving a large proportion of nonEnglish speaking consumers, as 

determined by the State, the public 

education materials must contain 

information in the appropriate 

language(s) regarding the importance of 

the notice or contain a telephone 

number or address where persons 

served may contact the water system to 

obtain a translated copy of the public 

education materials or to request 

assistance in the appropriate language. 

(2) A community water system that 

exceeds the lead action level on the 

basis of tap water samples collected in 

accordance with § 141.86, and that is 

not already conducting public education 

tasks under this section, must conduct 

the public education tasks under this 

section within 60 days after the end of 

the monitoring period in which the 

exceedance occurred: 

(i) Deliver printed materials meeting 

the content requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section to all bill paying 

customers. 

(ii)(A) Contact customers who are 

most at risk by delivering education 

materials that meet the content 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section to local public health agencies 

even if they are not located within the 

water system’s service area, along with 

an informational notice that encourages 

distribution to all the organization’s 

potentially affected customers or 

community water system’s users. The 

water system must contact the local 

public health agencies directly by phone 

or in person. The local public health 

agencies may provide a specific list of 

additional community based 

organizations serving target populations, 

which may include organizations 

outside the service area of the water 

system. If such lists are provided, 

systems must deliver education 

materials that meet the content 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section to all organizations on the 

provided lists. 

(B) Contact customers who are most at 

risk by delivering materials that meet 

the content requirements of paragraph 

(a) of this section to the following 

organizations listed in 1 through 6 that 

are located within the water system’s 

service area, along with an 

informational notice that encourages 

distribution to all the organization’s 

potentially affected customers or 

community water system’s users: 

(1) Public and private schools or 

school boards. 

(2) Women, Infants and Children 

(WIC) and Head Start programs. 

(3) Public and private hospitals and 

medical clinics. 

(4) Pediatricians. 

(5) Family planning clinics. 

(6) Local welfare agencies. 

(C) Make a good faith effort to locate 

the following organizations within the 

service area and deliver materials that 

meet the content requirements of 

paragraph (a) of this section to them, 

along with an informational notice that 

encourages distribution to all 

potentially affected customers or users. 

The good faith effort to contact at-risk 

customers may include requesting a 

specific contact list of these 

organizations from the local public 

health agencies, even if the agencies are 

not located within the water system’s 

service area: 

(1) Licensed childcare centers 

(2) Public and private preschools. 

(3) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and 

Midwives. 

(iii) No less often than quarterly, 

provide information on or in each water 

bill as long as the system exceeds the 

action level for lead. The message on the 

water bill must include the following 

statement exactly as written except for 

the text in brackets for which the water 

system must include system-specific 

information: [INSERT NAME OF 

WATER SYSTEM] found high levels of 

lead in drinking water in some homes. 

Lead can cause serious health problems. 

For more information please call 

[INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] 

[or visit (INSERT YOUR WEB SITE 

HERE)]. The message or delivery 

mechanism can be modified in 

consultation with the State; specifically, 

the State may allow a separate mailing 

of public education materials to 

customers if the water system cannot 

place the information on water bills. 

(iv) Post material meeting the content 

requirements of paragraph (a) of this 

section on the water system’s Web site 

if the system serves a population greater 

than 100,000. 

(v) Submit a press release to 

newspaper, television and radio 

stations. 

(vi) In addition to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 

through (v) of this section, systems must 

implement at least three activities from 

one or more categories listed below. The 

educational content and selection of 

these activities must be determined in 

consultation with the State. 

(A) Public Service Announcements. 

(B) Paid advertisements. 

(C) Public Area Information Displays. 

(D) E-mails to customers. 

(E) Public Meetings. 

(F) Household Deliveries. 

(G) Targeted Individual Customer 

Contact. 

(H) Direct material distribution to all 

multi-family homes and institutions. 

(I) Other methods approved by the 

State. 

(vii) For systems that are required to 

conduct monitoring annually or less 

frequently, the end of the monitoring 

period is September 30 of the calendar 

year in which the sampling occurs, or, 

if the State has established an alternate 

monitoring period, the last day of that 

period. 

(3) As long as a community water 

system exceeds the action level, it must 

repeat the activities pursuant to 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section as 

described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through 

(iv) of this section. 

(i) A community water system shall 

repeat the tasks contained in paragraphs 

(b)(2)(i), (ii) and (vi) of this section every 

12 months. 

(ii) A community water system shall 

repeat tasks contained in paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of this section with each 

billing cycle. 

(iii) A community water system 

serving a population greater than 

100,000 shall post and retain material 

on a publicly accessible Web site 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this 

section. 

(iv) The community water system 

shall repeat the task in paragraph 

(b)(2)(v) of this section twice every 12 

months on a schedule agreed upon with 

the State. The State can allow activities 

in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to 

extend beyond the 60-day requirement 

if needed for implementation purposes 

on a case-by-case basis; however, this 

extension must be approved in writing 

by the State in advance of the 60-day 

deadline. 

(4) Within 60 days after the end of the 

monitoring period in which the 

exceedance occurred (unless it already 

is repeating public education tasks 

pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this 

section), a non-transient noncommunity water system shall deliver 

the public education materials specified 

by paragraph (a) of this section as 

follows: 

(i) Post informational posters on lead 

in drinking water in a public place or 

common area in each of the buildings 

served by the system; and 

(ii) Distribute informational 

pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in 

drinking water to each person served by 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57817 

the non-transient non-community water 

system. The State may allow the system 

to utilize electronic transmission in lieu 

of or combined with printed materials 

as long as it achieves at least the same 

coverage. 

(iii) For systems that are required to 

conduct monitoring annually or less 

frequently, the end of the monitoring 

period is September 30 of the calendar 

year in which the sampling occurs, or, 

if the State has established an alternate 

monitoring period, the last day of that 

period. 

(5) A non-transient non-community 

water system shall repeat the tasks 

contained in paragraph (b)(4) of this 

section at least once during each 

calendar year in which the system 

exceeds the lead action level. The State 

can allow activities in (b)(4) of this 

section to extend beyond the 60-day 

requirement if needed for 

implementation purposes on a case-bycase basis; however, this extension must 

be approved in writing by the State in 

advance of the 60-day deadline. 

(6) A water system may discontinue 

delivery of public education materials if 

the system has met the lead action level 

during the most recent six-month 

monitoring period conducted pursuant 

to § 141.86. Such a system shall 

recommence public education in 

accordance with this section if it 

subsequently exceeds the lead action 

level during any monitoring period. 

(7) A community water system may 

apply to the State, in writing (unless the 

State has waived the requirement for 

prior State approval), to use only the 

text specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section in lieu of the text in paragraphs 

(a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section and to 

perform the tasks listed in paragraphs 

(b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section in lieu of 

the tasks in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) 

of this section if: 

(i) The system is a facility, such as a 

prison or a hospital, where the 

population served is not capable of or is 

prevented from making improvements 

to plumbing or installing point of use 

treatment devices; and 

(ii) The system provides water as part 

of the cost of services provided and does 

not separately charge for water 

consumption. 

(8) A community water system 

serving 3,300 or fewer people may limit 

certain aspects of their public education 

programs as follows: 

(i) With respect to the requirements of 

paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section, a 

system serving 3,300 or fewer must 

implement at least one of the activities 

listed in that paragraph. 

(ii) With respect to the requirements 

of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a 

system serving 3,300 or fewer people 

may limit the distribution of the public 

education materials required under that 

paragraph to facilities and organizations 

served by the system that are most likely 

to be visited regularly by pregnant 

women and children. 

(iii) With respect to the requirements 

of paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section, the 

State may waive this requirement for 

systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons 

as long as system distributes notices to 

every household served by the system. 

(c) Supplemental monitoring and 

notification of results. A water system 

that fails to meet the lead action level 

on the basis of tap samples collected in 

accordance with § 141.86 shall offer to 

sample the tap water of any customer 

who requests it. The system is not 

required to pay for collecting or 

analyzing the sample, nor is the system 

required to collect and analyze the 

sample itself. 

(d) Notification of results. (1) 

Reporting requirement. All water 

systems must provide a notice of the 

individual tap results from lead tap 

water monitoring carried out under the 

requirements of § 141.86 to the persons 

served by the water system at the 

specific sampling site from which the 

sample was taken (e.g., the occupants of 

the residence where the tap was tested). 

(2) Timing of notification. A water 

system must provide the consumer 

notice as soon as practical, but no later 

than 30 days after the system learns of 

the tap monitoring results. 

(3) Content. The consumer notice 

must include the results of lead tap 

water monitoring for the tap that was 

tested, an explanation of the health 

effects of lead, list steps consumers can 

take to reduce exposure to lead in 

drinking water and contact information 

for the water utility. The notice must 

also provide the maximum contaminant 

level goal and the action level for lead 

and the definitions for these two terms 

from § 141.153(c). 

(4) Delivery. The consumer notice 

must be provided to persons served at 

the tap that was tested, either by mail 

or by another method approved by the 

State. For example, upon approval by 

the State, a non-transient noncommunity water system could post the 

results on a bulletin board in the facility 

to allow users to review the information. 

The system must provide the notice to 

customers at sample taps tested, 

including consumers who do not 

receive water bills. 

■ 7. Section 141.86 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(5) remove the 

citation ‘‘§ § 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)’’ and 

add in its place ‘‘§ 141.85(b)(7)’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (c) introductory text 

by adding three sentences after the third 

sentence; 

■ c. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add three 

sentences after the last sentence; 

■ d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iii); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A); 

■ g. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B) 

introductory text; 

■ h. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)(1); 

■ i. Removing the first sentence in 

paragraph (d)(4)(vii), and adding in its 

place the following two sentences; 

■ j. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (g)(4)(i); and 

■ k. Removing the first sentence in 

paragraph (g)(4)(iii) and adding in its 

place two new sentences: 

§ 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead 

and copper in tap water. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * A public water system that 

has fewer than five drinking water taps, 

that can be used for human 

consumption meeting the sample site 

criteria of paragraph (a) of this section 

to reach the required number of sample 

sites listed in paragraph (c) of this 

section, must collect at least one sample 

from each tap and then must collect 

additional samples from those taps on 

different days during the monitoring 

period to meet the required number of 

sites. Alternatively the State may allow 

these public water systems to collect a 

number of samples less than the number 

of sites specified in paragraph (c) of this 

section, provided that 100 percent of all 

taps that can be used for human 

consumption are sampled. The State 

must approve this reduction of the 

minimum number of samples in writing 

based on a request from the system or 

onsite verification by the State. * * * 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * A small or medium water 

system collecting fewer than five 

samples as specified in paragraph (c) of 

this section, that meets the lead and 

copper action levels during each of two 

consecutive six-month monitoring 

periods may reduce the frequency of 

sampling to once per year. In no case 

can the system reduce the number of 

samples required below the minimum of 

one sample per available tap. This 

sampling shall begin during the 

calendar year immediately following the 

end of the second consecutive sixmonth monitoring period. 

(ii) Any water system that meets the 

lead action level and maintains the 

range of values for the water quality 

control parameters reflecting optimal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57818 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

corrosion control treatment specified by 

the State under § 141.82(f) during each 

of two consecutive six-month 

monitoring periods may reduce the 

frequency of monitoring to once per 

year and reduce the number of lead and 

copper samples in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section if it receives 

written approval from the State. This 

sampling shall begin during the 

calendar year immediately following the 

end of the second consecutive sixmonth monitoring period. The State 

shall review monitoring, treatment, and 

other relevant information submitted by 

the water system in accordance with 

§ 141.90, and shall notify the system in 

writing when it determines the system 

is eligible to commence reduced 

monitoring pursuant to this paragraph. 

The State shall review, and where 

appropriate, revise its determination 

when the system submits new 

monitoring or treatment data, or when 

other data relevant to the number and 

frequency of tap sampling becomes 

available. 

(iii) A small or medium-size water 

system that meets the lead and copper 

action levels during three consecutive 

years of monitoring may reduce the 

frequency of monitoring for lead and 

copper from annually to once every 

three years. Any water system that 

meets the lead action level and 

maintains the range of values for the 

water quality control parameters 

reflecting optimal corrosion control 

treatment specified by the State under 

§ 141.82(f) during three consecutive 

years of monitoring may reduce the 

frequency of monitoring from annually 

to once every three years if it receives 

written approval from the State. 

Samples collected once every three 

years shall be collected no later than 

every third calendar year. The State 

shall review monitoring, treatment, and 

other relevant information submitted by 

the water system in accordance with 

§ 141.90, and shall notify the system in 

writing when it determines the system 

is eligible to reduce the frequency of 

monitoring to once every three years. 

The State shall review, and where 

appropriate, revise its determination 

when the system submits new 

monitoring or treatment data, or when 

other data relevant to the number and 

frequency of tap sampling becomes 

available. 

(iv) * * * 

(A) The State, at its discretion, may 

approve a different period for 

conducting the lead and copper tap 

sampling for systems collecting a 

reduced number of samples. Such a 

period shall be no longer than four 

consecutive months and must represent 

a time of normal operation where the 

highest levels of lead are most likely to 

occur. For a non-transient noncommunity water system that does not 

operate during the months of June 

through September, and for which the 

period of normal operation where the 

highest levels of lead are most likely to 

occur is not known, the State shall 

designate a period that represents a time 

of normal operation for the system. This 

sampling shall begin during the period 

approved or designated by the State in 

the calendar year immediately following 

the end of the second consecutive sixmonth monitoring period for systems 

initiating annual monitoring and during 

the three-year period following the end 

of the third consecutive calendar year of 

annual monitoring for systems initiating 

triennial monitoring. 

* * * * * 

(vi) * * * 

(B) Any water system subject to the 

reduced monitoring frequency that fails 

to meet the lead action level during any 

four-month monitoring period or that 

fails to operate at or above the minimum 

value or within the range of values for 

the water quality parameters specified 

by the State under § 141.82(f) for more 

than nine days in any six-month period 

specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct 

tap water sampling for lead and copper 

at the frequency specified in paragraph 

(d)(3) of this section, collect the number 

of samples specified for standard 

monitoring under paragraph (c) of this 

section, and shall resume monitoring for 

water quality parameters within the 

distribution system in accordance with 

§ 141.87(d). This standard tap water 

sampling shall begin no later than the 

six-month period beginning January 1 of 

the calendar year following the lead 

action level exceedance or water quality 

parameter excursion. Such a system 

may resume reduced monitoring for 

lead and copper at the tap and for water 

quality parameters within the 

distribution system under the following 

conditions: 

(1) * * * This sampling shall begin 

during the calendar year immediately 

following the end of the second 

consecutive six-month monitoring 

period. 

* * * * * 

(vii) Any water system subject to a 

reduced monitoring frequency under 

paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall 

notify the State in writing in accordance 

with § 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming 

long-term change in treatment or 

addition of a new source as described in 

that section. The State must review and 

approve the addition of a new source or 

long-term change in water treatment 

before it is implemented by the water 

system. * * * 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(4) * * * 

(i) * * * Samples collected every 

nine years shall be collected no later 

than every ninth calendar year. 

* * * * * 

(iii) Any water system with a full or 

partial waiver shall notify the State in 

writing in accordance with 

§ 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming longterm change in treatment or addition of 

a new source, as described in that 

section. The State must review and 

approve the addition of a new source or 

long-term change in water treatment 

before it is implemented by the water 

system.* * * 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 141.87 is amended as 

follows by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (d); 

■ b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and 

■ c. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii). 

§ 141.87 Monitoring requirements for 

water quality parameters. 

* * * * * 

(d) Monitoring after State specifies 

water quality parameter values for 

optimal corrosion control. After the 

State specifies the values for applicable 

water quality control parameters 

reflecting optimal corrosion control 

treatment under § 141.82(f), all large 

systems shall measure the applicable 

water quality parameters in accordance 

with paragraph (c) of this section and 

determine compliance with the 

requirements of § 141.82(g) every six 

months with the first six-month period 

to begin on either January 1 or July 1, 

whichever comes first, after the State 

specifies the optimal values under 

§ 141.82(f). Any small or medium-size 

system shall conduct such monitoring 

during each six-month period specified 

in this paragraph in which the system 

exceeds the lead or copper action level. 

For any such small and medium-size 

system that is subject to a reduced 

monitoring frequency pursuant to 

§ 141.86(d)(4) at the time of the action 

level exceedance, the start of the 

applicable six-month monitoring period 

under this paragraph shall coincide 

with the start of the applicable 

monitoring period under § 141.86(d)(4). 

Compliance with State-designated 

optimal water quality parameter values 

shall be determined as specified under 

§ 141.82(g). 

(e) * * * 

(2)(i) Any water system that maintains 

the range of values for the water quality 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57819 

parameters reflecting optimal corrosion 

control treatment specified by the State 

under § 141.82(f) during three 

consecutive years of monitoring may 

reduce the frequency with which it 

collects the number of tap samples for 

applicable water quality parameters 

specified in this paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section from every six months to 

annually. This sampling begins during 

the calendar year immediately following 

the end of the monitoring period in 

which the third consecutive year of sixmonth monitoring occurs. Any water 

system that maintains the range of 

values for the water quality parameters 

reflecting optimal corrosion control 

treatment specified by the State under 

§ 141.82(f), during three consecutive 

years of annual monitoring under this 

paragraph may reduce the frequency 

with which it collects the number of tap 

samples for applicable water quality 

parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) 

of this section from annually to every 

three years. This sampling begins no 

later than the third calendar year 

following the end of the monitoring 

period in which the third consecutive 

year of monitoring occurs. 

(ii) * * * Monitoring conducted 

every three years shall be done no later 

than every third calendar year. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Section 141.88 is amended as 

follows by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (b); 

■ b. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (d)(1)(i); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii); 

■ d. Revising paragraph (e)(1) 

introductory text; and 

■ e. Revising paragraph (e)(2) 

introductory text. 

§ 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead 

and copper in source water. 

* * * * * 

(b) Monitoring frequency after system 

exceeds tap water action level. Any 

system which exceeds the lead or 

copper action level at the tap shall 

collect one source water sample from 

each entry point to the distribution 

system no later than six months after the 

end of the monitoring period during 

which the lead or copper action level 

was exceeded. For monitoring periods 

that are annual or less frequent, the end 

of the monitoring period is September 

30 of the calendar year in which the 

sampling occurs, or if the State has 

established an alternate monitoring 

period, the last day of that period. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) * * * Triennial samples shall be 

collected every third calendar year. 

(ii) A water system using surface 

water (or a combination of surface and 

ground water) shall collect samples 

once during each calendar year, the first 

annual monitoring period to begin 

during the year in which the applicable 

State determination is made under 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) A water system using only ground 

water may reduce the monitoring 

frequency for lead and copper in source 

water to once during each nine-year 

compliance cycle (as that term is 

defined in § 141.2) provided that the 

samples are collected no later than 

every ninth calendar year and if the 

system meets one of the following 

criteria: 

* * * * * 

(2) A water system using surface 

water (or a combination of surface water 

and ground water) may reduce the 

monitoring frequency in paragraph 

(d)(1) of this section to once during each 

nine-year compliance cycle (as that term 

is defined in § 141.2) provided that the 

samples are collected no later than 

every ninth calendar year and if the 

system meets one of the following 

criteria: 

* * * * * 

§ 141.89 [Amended] 

■ 10. Section 141.89 is amended as 

follows by: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii) remove the 

citation ‘‘§ 141.88(a)(1)(iii)’’ and add in 

its place ‘‘§ 141.88(a)(1)(iv)’’; 

■ b. In paragraph (a)(1)(iv) remove the 

citation ‘‘(a)(2)’’ and add in its place 

‘‘(a)(1)’’. 

■ 11. Section 141.90 is amended as 

follows by: 

■ a. Removing the colon and adding a 

period in its place at the end of 

paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; 

■ b. Adding a sentence to the end of 

paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; 

■ c. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text 

remove the citation ‘‘§§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) 

and (ii)’’ and add in its place 

‘‘§ 141.85(b)(7)’’; 

■ d. Revising paragraph (a)(3); 

■ e. Revising paragraph (e)(1); 

■ f. Revising paragraph (e)(2) 

introductory text; 

■ g. Revising the last sentence of 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii); 

■ h. Revising paragraph (f)(1) 

introductory text; 

■ i. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(i); and 

■ j. Adding paragraph (f)(3). 

§ 141.90 Reporting requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * (1)* * * For monitoring 

periods with a duration less than six 

months, the end of the monitoring 

period is the last date samples can be 

collected during that period as specified 

in §§ 141.86 and 141.87. 

* * * * * 

(3) At a time specified by the State, or 

if no specific time is designated by the 

State, then as early as possible prior to 

the addition of a new source or any 

long-term change in water treatment, a 

water system deemed to have optimized 

corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3), a 

water system subject to reduced 

monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4), 

or a water system subject to a 

monitoring waiver pursuant to 

§ 141.86(g), shall submit written 

documentation to the State describing 

the change or addition. The State must 

review and approve the addition of a 

new source or long-term change in 

treatment before it is implemented by 

the water system. Examples of long-term 

treatment changes include the addition 

of a new treatment process or 

modification of an existing treatment 

process. Examples of modifications 

include switching secondary 

disinfectants, switching coagulants (e.g., 

alum to ferric chloride), and switching 

corrosion inhibitor products (e.g., 

orthophosphate to blended phosphate). 

Long-term changes can include dose 

changes to existing chemicals if the 

system is planning long-term changes to 

its finished water pH or residual 

inhibitor concentration. Long-term 

treatment changes would not include 

chemical dose fluctuations associated 

with daily raw water quality changes. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) No later than 12 months after the 

end of a monitoring period in which a 

system exceeds the lead action level in 

sampling referred to in § 141.84(a), the 

system must submit written 

documentation to the State of the 

material evaluation conducted as 

required in § 141.86(a), identify the 

initial number of lead service lines in its 

distribution system at the time the 

system exceeds the lead action level, 

and provide the system’s schedule for 

annually replacing at least 7 percent of 

the initial number of lead service lines 

in its distribution system. 

(2) No later than 12 months after the 

end of a monitoring period in which a 

system exceeds the lead action level in 

sampling referred to in § 141.84(a), and 

every 12 months thereafter, the system 

shall demonstrate to the State in writing 

that the system has either: 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * In such cases, the total 

number of lines replaced and/or which 

meet the criteria in § 141.84(c) shall 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3
57820 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

equal at least 7 percent of the initial 

number of lead lines identified under 

paragraph (e)(1) of this section (or the 

percentage specified by the State under 

§ 141.84(e)). 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * (1) Any water system that is 

subject to the public education 

requirements in § 141.85 shall, within 

ten days after the end of each period in 

which the system is required to perform 

public education in accordance with 

§ 141.85(b), send written documentation 

to the State that contains: 

(i) A demonstration that the system 

has delivered the public education 

materials that meet the content 

requirements in § 141.85(a) and the 

delivery requirements in § 141.85(b); 

and 

* * * * * 

(3) No later than 3 months following 

the end of the monitoring period, each 

system must mail a sample copy of the 

consumer notification of tap results to 

the State along with a certification that 

the notification has been distributed in 

a manner consistent with the 

requirements of § 141.85(d). 

* * * * * 

■ 12. Section 141.154 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d) to read as 

follows: 

§ 141.154 Required additional health 

information. 

* * * * * 

(d) Every report must include the 

following lead-specific information: 

(1) A short informational statement 

about lead in drinking water and its 

effects on children. The statement must 

include the following information: 

If present, elevated levels of lead can 

cause serious health problems, 

especially for pregnant women and 

young children. Lead in drinking water 

is primarily from materials and 

components associated with service 

lines and home plumbing. [NAME OF 

UTILITY] is responsible for providing 

high quality drinking water, but cannot 

control the variety of materials used in 

plumbing components. When your 

water has been sitting for several hours, 

you can minimize the potential for lead 

exposure by flushing your tap for 30 

seconds to 2 minutes before using water 

for drinking or cooking. If you are 

concerned about lead in your water, you 

may wish to have your water tested. 

Information on lead in drinking water, 

testing methods, and steps you can take 

to minimize exposure is available from 

the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. 

(2) A system may write its own 

educational statement, but only in 

consultation with the State. 

* * * * * 

PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

IMPLEMENTATION 

■ 13. The authority citation for part 142 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, 

300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, 

300j–9, and 300j–11. 

■ 14. Section 142.14 is amended by 

revising paragraph (d)(8)(xi) to read as 

follows: 

§ 142.14 Records kept by States. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(8) * * * 

(xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)—systemspecific determinations regarding use of 

non-first-draw samples at non-transient 

non-community water systems, and 

community water systems meeting the 

criteria of § 141.85(b)(7)(i) and (ii) of 

this chapter, that operate 24 hours a 

day; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–19432 Filed 10–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3