Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034-0097
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications
Posted Date: 2007-10-10T04:00Z

[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 57781-57820]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-13]                         

[[Page 57781]]

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

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications; Final Rule

[[Page 57782]]

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

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 
http://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 
http://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 non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). Regulated 
categories and entities include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Examples of  regulated
                 Category                             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 Sec.  141.2, the section 
entitled ``Coverage'' of Sec.  141.3, and the applicability criteria in 
Sec.  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

[[Page 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 non-community 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

[[Page 57784]]

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 http://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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  141.153(c)(1).
2. Final Revision
    EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed to consumer 
notification language. EPA is also adding language to Sec.  
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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 57786]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  141.81(e), source water monitoring and treatment 
recommendations to the State in Sec.  141.83(a), lead service line 
replacement in Sec.  141.84(b)(1), public education for community water 
systems in Sec.  141.85(b)(2) and for non-transient non-community water 
systems in Sec.  141.85(b)(4), source water monitoring requirements in 
Sec.  141.88(b) and (d), and the reporting requirements in Sec.  
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 Sec.  
141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) to reflect this requirement. In addition, the 
Agency is clarifying when a system may begin reduced monitoring in 
Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(i) and (ii), as well as when a system on reduced 
monitoring must resume standard monitoring according to Sec.  
141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B). In addition, the timing for water quality 
parameter monitoring is now more clearly defined in Sec.  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 Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(iii), for water quality parameter 
sampling in Sec.  141.87(e)(2)(ii), and for triennial source water 
monitoring in Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  141.86(g)(4)(i) and 141.88(e).

[[Page 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-by-case 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 nine-year 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 57788]]

quality parameter monitoring. This change modifies the reduced 
monitoring provisions in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  
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, Sec.  
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, Sec. Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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

[[Page 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 long-term 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 
Sec.  141.80(g) and is adding a new notification requirement to Sec.  
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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 57790]]

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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-
transient 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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  
141.85(d), as part of the reporting requirements for public education 
in Sec.  141.90(f).
    Lastly, one commenter stated that the consumer notice requirement 
needed its own unique citation, because citing it under Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  141.85. In order to clarify that 
all systems must complete this requirement, EPA reordered the sentences 
in Sec.  141.80 and Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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, Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  
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), Sec.  141.205(c)(2)(i). For public water

[[Page 57792]]

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, obstetricians-gynecologists 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

[[Page 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 open-ended 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 obstetrician-gynecologist 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  141.85(a) and the 
delivery requirements in Sec.  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,

[[Page 57794]]

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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 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 Sec.  141.84(c) during the initial 
program. This change adds a subsection to the lead service line 
replacement requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 test-out provision would need to be re-evaluated 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

[[Page 57796]]

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 re-evaluate 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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

[[Page 57798]]

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Is the
         CFR citation            requirement more         Revision
                                    stringent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   141.80(a)(2)...........  No...............  Technical correction
                                                    that deletes
                                                    effective dates of
                                                    the LCR which no
                                                    longer apply.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   141.81(b)(3)(iii), Sec.  Yes..............  States must approve
   141.86(d)(4)(vii), Sec.                          new sources or long-
 141.86(g)(4)(iii), Sec.                            term changes in
 141.90(a)(3).                                      water treatment
                                                    before PWS
                                                    implementation.
Sec.   141.81(e)(1)...........  Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
                                                    tap sampling and
                                                    timing for PWS
                                                    recommending optimum
                                                    corrosion treatment.
Sec.   141.81(e)(2)...........  Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
                                                    monitoring period
                                                    and timing for State
                                                    requiring corrosion
                                                    control studies.
Sec.   141.81(e)(2)(i), Sec.    Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
 141.81(e)(2)(ii).                                  monitoring period
                                                    and timing for State
                                                    specifying optimum
                                                    corrosion control
                                                    treatment.
Sec.   141.83(a)(1)...........  Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
                                                    source water
                                                    monitoring period
                                                    and timing for
                                                    recommending source
                                                    water treatment to
                                                    the State.
Sec.   141.84(b)(1)...........  Yes..............  Clarifies beginning
                                                    of the first year
                                                    for lead service
                                                    line replacement.
Sec.   141.84(b)(2)...........  Yes..............  Requires updating
                                                    inventory and yearly
                                                    replacement of lead
                                                    lines when resuming
                                                    lead service line
                                                    replacement program.
Sec.   141.90(e)(2)(ii).......  Yes..............  Clarifies resumption
                                                    of line replacement.
Sec.   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.
Sec.   141.88 (b), Sec.         Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
 141.90(a)(1), Sec.                                 monitoring period.
 141.90(e)(1), Sec.   141.90
 (e)(2).
Sec.   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.
Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(i), (ii),   Yes..............  Clarifies sample
 (iii), Sec.                                        collection periods
 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)(1), Sec.                       for reduced
  141.86(g)(4)(i), Sec.                             monitoring.
 141.87(e)(2)(ii), Sec.
 141.88(d)(1)(i), Sec.
 141.88(d)(1)(ii), Sec.
 141.88(e)(1), Sec.
 141.88(e)(2).
Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(ii) and     Yes..............  Requires all systems
 (iii), Sec.                                        must meet the lead
 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B).                               action level as a
                                                    condition for
                                                    reduced monitoring.
Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)....  Yes..............  Specifies time period
                                                    to resume standard
                                                    tap water
                                                    monitoring.

[[Page 57799]]

Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)....  Yes..............  Specifies time period
                                                    to resume water
                                                    quality parameter
                                                    monitoring.
Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(ii).......  Yes..............  Clarifies monitoring
                                                    frequency.
Sec.   141.87(d), Sec.          Yes..............  Clarifies time period
 141.87(e)(2)(i).                                   for water quality
                                                    parameter
                                                    monitoring.
Sec.   141.90 (f)(1), Sec.      Yes..............  Revised public
 141.90 (f)(1)(i), Sec.                             education program
 141.90 (f)(3).                                     reporting
                                                    requirements based
                                                    on amendments to
                                                    Sec.   141.85.
Sec.   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 Sec.  142.12(c) 
will provide sufficient information for EPA review of the State 
revision. The side-by-side comparison of requirements required in Sec.  
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 Sec.  142.12 (c)(3), EPA can request 
supplemental information as necessary for a specific State submittal on 
a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the Agency is waiving the Attorney 
General's statement required in Sec.  142.12(c)(1)(iii), as allowed by 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 directly-
related 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Indirect cost and
           Rule change                Direct cost         health risk
                                     implications        implications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A (Number   Yes...............  Yes.
 of samples).
Regulatory Change III.B           Unquantified......  None.
 (Monitoring Period).
Regulatory Change III.C (Reduced  Yes...............  Yes.
 Monitoring Criteria).
Regulatory Change III.D           Yes...............  Yes.
 (Advanced Notification and
 Approval).
Regulatory Change III.E           Yes...............  Yes.
 (Consumer Notice of Lead
 Results).
Regulatory Change III.F (Public   Yes...............  Yes.
 Education).
Regulatory Change III.G           Yes...............  Yes.
 (Reevaluation of Lead Service
 Lines).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57800]]

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 non-community 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 non-compliance 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.

[[Page 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%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The 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 over-estimate 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
                                                                   Annual labor      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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57802]]

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 long-term 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 x .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

[[Page 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--   Annual cost--
                                           low estimate    high estimate
                                                \1\             \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
                                                                   Annual labor      materials     Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
    Customer Notice of Lead Results Costs and self-certification      $1,098,000        $150,000      $1,248,000
     letters....................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        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 Sec.  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

[[Page 57804]]

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 Sec.  141.85 of the LCR, EPA is also 
revising Sec.  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)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   viii.
                                                                   iii.                                   vi.                    Materials
                                   i. Public       ii. Paid     Display in  iv. Internet   v. Public   Delivery       vii.      directly to  Average per
      System size category          service     advertisements    public    notification   meetings    to every     Targeted   multi-family   system all
                                 announcements                     areas                               household    contact          &        activities
                                                                                                                               institutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Annual       Annual       Total
                 Activity                            Requirement              labor      materials   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                   21,900       21,400       43,300
                                             Organizations.
III.F(b)(2)...............................  Additional Activities i-viii.      292,700            0      292,700
III.F(b)(2)...............................  Consult with State on               33,500          300       33,700
                                             Activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57805]]

                                                 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       Annual       Total
                                      labor      materials      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.

[[Page 57806]]

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\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Annual direct costs to systems               Annual       Total
                                   ----------------------------------------------------    direct       annual
         Regulatory change                                      Consumer                 costs  to      direct
                                     Reporting    Monitoring     notice       Total        states       costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 one-time 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 One-Time 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 
information-gathering 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

[[Page 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 
long-term 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

[[Page 57808]]

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      206,997 = 189,369 + 17,628  297,122 = 271,997 + 25,125  Public water system
 Hours.                                                                                      hours.
                                                                                            State hours.
Hours per System for Public Water   2.6 = 189,369/72,213        3.8 = 271,997/72,213        Total PWS annual
 Systems.                                                                                    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 +       Public water system
                                                                 $1,284                      O&M costs.
                                                                                            State OM costs.
Total Annual Respondent Cost......  $6,353,532 = $5,584,289 +   $9,520,866 = $8,423,108 +   Public water system
                                     $769,243                    $1,097,758                  costs.
                                                                                            State costs.
Cost Per Response.................  $32                         $21                         Public water system
                                                                                             cost.
                                    $52                         $32                         State cost.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Hours (respondent  206,997 = 206,997 + 0       297,122 = 297,122 + 0       Total respondent
     plus Agency).                                                                           hours.
                                                                                            Total EPA hours.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Cost (respondent   $6,353,532 = $6,353,532 +   $9,520,866 = $9,520,866 +   Total respondent
     plus Agency).                   $0                          $0                          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.

[[Page 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-for-profit 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                  Size                      CWS       NTNCWS     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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Small systems
                   Regulatory change                       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

[[Page 57810]]

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 re-exceeded 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       Annual       Total
                                      labor      materials      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 One-Time 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
                                                            ------------
    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

[[Page 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$)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Average
                                                                             Average                 annual cost
                         System size                           Number of   annual cost    Revenues        as
                                                                systems     per system  per system*   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

[[Page 57812]]

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 non-response 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

[[Page 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

[[Page 57814]]

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.

0
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

0
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.

0
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:

Sec.  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 Sec.  141.86(c), the 
sample result with the highest concentration is considered the 90th 
percentile value.
* * * * *
    (g) Public education requirements. Pursuant to Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 141.81 is amended as follows by:
0
a. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding in 
its place the following two sentences;
0
b. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (e)(1);
0
c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(2) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii).

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 (Sec.  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

[[Page 57815]]

require the system to perform corrosion control studies (Sec.  
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.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 141.83(a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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 (Sec.  
141.88(b)) and make a treatment recommendation to the State (Sec.  
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.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 141.84 is amended as follows by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as (b)(1);
0
b. Revising the last sentence in the newly designated (b)(1) and adding 
two sentences to the end of the paragraph;
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and
0
d. In paragraph (f), revise ``paragraph (b)'' to read ``paragraph 
(b)(2)''.

Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-community 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.

[[Page 57816]]

    (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 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.
    (2) A community water system that exceeds the lead action level on 
the basis of tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  
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 non-community 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

[[Page 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-by-case 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-community 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.

0
7. Section 141.86 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (b)(5) remove the citation ``Sec.  Sec.  
141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)'' and add in its place ``Sec.  141.85(b)(7)'';
0
b. In paragraph (c) introductory text by adding three sentences after 
the third sentence;
0
c. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add three sentences after the last sentence;
0
d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii);
0
e. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iii);
0
f. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A);
0
g. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B) introductory text;
0
h. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)(1);
0
i. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (d)(4)(vii), and adding in 
its place the following two sentences;
0
j. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (g)(4)(i); and
0
k. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (g)(4)(iii) and adding in 
its place two new sentences:

Sec.  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 six-month 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

[[Page 57818]]

corrosion control treatment specified by the State under Sec.  
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 six-month monitoring period. The State 
shall review monitoring, treatment, and other relevant information 
submitted by the water system in accordance with Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 non-community 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 six-month 
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 Sec.  141.82(f) for more than nine days in 
any six-month period specified in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.* * *
* * * * *

0
8. Section 141.87 is amended as follows by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d);
0
b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
0
c. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (e)(2)(ii).

Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 Sec.  141.86(d)(4). Compliance with 
State-designated optimal water quality parameter values shall be 
determined as specified under Sec.  141.82(g).
    (e) * * *
    (2)(i) Any water system that maintains the range of values for the 
water quality

[[Page 57819]]

parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment specified by 
the State under Sec.  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 six-month 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 Sec.  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.
* * * * *

0
9. Section 141.88 is amended as follows by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(1)(i);
0
c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii);
0
d. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text; and
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text.

Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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:
* * * * *

Sec.  141.89  [Amended]

0
10. Section 141.89 is amended as follows by:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii) remove the citation ``Sec.  
141.88(a)(1)(iii)'' and add in its place ``Sec.  141.88(a)(1)(iv)'';
0
b. In paragraph (a)(1)(iv) remove the citation ``(a)(2)'' and add in 
its place ``(a)(1)''.

0
11. Section 141.90 is amended as follows by:
0
a. Removing the colon and adding a period in its place at the end of 
paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
b. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(1) introductory text;
0
c. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text remove the citation 
``Sec. Sec.  141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)'' and add in its place ``Sec.  
141.85(b)(7)'';
0
d. Revising paragraph (a)(3);
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(1);
0
f. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text;
0
g. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
0
h. Revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text;
0
i. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(i); and
0
j. Adding paragraph (f)(3).

Sec.  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 Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  
141.81(b)(3), a water system subject to reduced monitoring pursuant to 
Sec.  141.86(d)(4), or a water system subject to a monitoring waiver 
pursuant to Sec.  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 
Sec.  141.84(a), the system must submit written documentation to the 
State of the material evaluation conducted as required in Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  141.84(c) shall

[[Page 57820]]

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 Sec.  141.84(e)).
* * * * *
    (f) * * * (1) Any water system that is subject to the public 
education requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
141.85(a) and the delivery requirements in Sec.  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 Sec.  141.85(d).
* * * * *

0
12. Section 141.154 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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

0
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.

0
14. Section 142.14 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(8)(xi) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  142.14  Records kept by States.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)--system-specific determinations regarding 
use of non-first-draw samples at non-transient non-community water 
systems, and community water systems meeting the criteria of Sec.  
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