Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034-0098
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-10-10T04:00Z

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034; FRL-XXXX-X]

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 [insert date 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register].  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 effective the earlier of either the
State's adoption of the rule, or two years after [insert date 60 days
after publication in the Federal Register].  For purposes of judicial
review, this rule is promulgated as of [insert date of publication in
the Federal Register] 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 
 HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  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   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket
Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., and 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: 
 HYPERLINK "mailto:kempic.jeffrey@epa.gov"  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:

Category	Examples of regulated entities

Industry	Privately-owned CWSs and NTNCWSs

State, Tribal, and local governments	Publicly-owned CWSs and NTNCWSs

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities regulated by this action.  This table
lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be
regulated by this action.  Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be regulated.  To determine whether your facility is
regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the definition of
“public water system” in §141.2, the section entitled
“Coverage” of §141.3, and the applicability criteria in §141.80(a)
of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.  If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult one of the persons listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B.	Abbreviations Used in This Document

ALE: Action Level Exceedance

ANSI: American National Standards Institute

CCR: Consumer Confidence Report

CCT: Corrosion Control Treatment

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CWS: Community Water System   

CWSS: Community Water System Survey

DDBP: Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

FTE: Full-Time Equivalents

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

NSF: National Science Foundation

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

WQP: Water Quality Parameter monitoring

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 Revisions Require?

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
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

Direct Costs

Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.A

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.B

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.C

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.D

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.E

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.F

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.G

Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs

Total Upfront Costs to Review and Implement Regulatory Changes

Indirect Costs

Benefits

What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the State and System
Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) and EPA’s Response To These
Issues?

Statutory and Executive Order Requirements

Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Paperwork Reduction Act

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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 the 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.     

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) in 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, US EPA 1996a) and
finalized these minor revisions on January 12, 2000 (65 FR 1950, US EPA
2000a).  These minor revisions streamlined the requirements of the LCR,
promoted consistent national 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 more effective 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, 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   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov" 
www.regulations.gov . 

B.  Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods  

1.  Proposed Revision

	EPA’s proposed revision clarified the “compliance period” as the
three year calendar period as defined at §141.2 and the “monitoring
period” as the specific period in which water systems must conduct
required monitoring.  EPA also proposed to revise several sections of
the LCR to more precisely define when the “start date” for the
compliance calendar begins.   EPA also proposed to clarify that systems
on reduced monitoring schedules must monitor during four consecutive
months, and systems on triennial monitoring must monitor once every 3
calendar years with a similar requirement for small systems with a
monitoring waiver to ensure they monitor every 9 years.  

2.  Final Revision

EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for defining the compliance
and monitoring periods.  Based on commenter concerns with implementing
the clarified definition of the term “monitoring period,” EPA is
allowing States flexibility in extending the timeframe to complete
public education activities after an action level (AL) exceedance.  For
more information and EPA’s response to significant public comments,
see section III.B of this notice.

C.  Reduced Monitoring Criteria  

1.  Proposed Revision

	EPA proposed a revision that would disallow water systems that exceeded
the lead action level from initiating or remaining on a reduced lead and
copper monitoring schedule based solely on the results of their water
quality parameter (WQP) monitoring.  This proposed change would modify
the reduced monitoring provisions at §141.86(d)(4).

2.  Final Revision

	EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for reduced monitoring
criteria.  For more information and EPA’s response to significant
public comments, see section III.C of this notice.

D.  Advanced Notification and Approval Requirements for Water Systems
That Intend to Make Any Long-Term Change in Water Treatment or Add a New
Source of Water 

1.  Proposed Revision

	EPA proposed to amend several sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to require water systems to obtain prior approval by
the State primacy agency to add a new source of water or change a
treatment process prior to implementation.

2.  Final Revision

	EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for advanced notification
and approval requirements with a slight modification to clarify EPA’s
intention.  In finalizing this regulatory revision, EPA is clarifying
the requirements for advance notification and approval to apply to those
treatment changes that would have long-term impacts on water quality. 
EPA has provided examples of long-term treatment changes in
§141.90(a)(3) of this final rule.  EPA believes that this clarification
will prevent water systems from notifying the State and requesting
approval for changes that are operational in nature or made on a daily
basis.  See section III.D of this notice for more information regarding
this regulatory revision and EPA’s response to significant public
comments on this issue.   

E.  Requirements to Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That Are
Tested for Lead

1.  Proposed Revision

	EPA proposed revisions to require water systems to notify consumers in
homes or buildings tested for lead of their results.  Specifically,
systems must provide written notification to household occupants within
30 days after the water system learns the results for samples collected
from that household and post or otherwise notify occupants of
non-residential buildings of the results of lead testing.  EPA also
indicated  that the consumer notification must contain an explanation of
lead health effects, list steps consumers can take to reduce lead
drinking water exposure, provide utility contact information, and
include the lead maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG, lead action
level , and definitions of each from §141.153(c)(1).

2. Final Revision

	EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed to consumer notification
language.  EPA is also adding language to §141.85(d)(4), which provides
an example of an alternative mechanism of consumer notification for
NTNCWSs.  For more information and EPA’s response to significant
public comments, see section III.E of this notice.   

F.  Public Education Requirements

1.  Proposed Revision

	EPA proposed to revise the public education requirements of the LCR in
the areas of message content, delivery requirements, and the Consumer
Confidence Report (CCR).  The proposed revisions would modify the
mandatory language in public education to make it shorter and easier to
understand; require water systems to deliver material to new
organizations, engage in new outreach activities, post lead information
on water bills, issue two press releases during periods of lead action
level exceedance; and modify the CCR such that all CWSs with lead
detects above the method detection limit (MDL) of 0.001 mg/L would have
to include information about the risks of lead in drinking water in the
CCR on a regular basis.  

2. Final Revision 

EPA is maintaining the proposed revisions to the public education
requirements, but is adding a provision that water systems must submit
public education language for State review and approval at the option of
the State.  Generally, EPA is retaining the delivery requirements as
proposed, but has made modifications to address challenges with water
system jurisdiction and delivery of materials. EPA is now requiring that
all systems have a simple informational statement about lead in their
CCR because the actual level of lead exposure for drinking water varies
between individual homes and levels detected by the system for
compliance would not necessarily reflect the risk faced by consumers. 
EPA also realizes there are situations where the most vulnerable
populations may be exposed to elevated levels of lead for many months
before being notified.  In addition, this simplifies compliance tracking
and enforcement of this requirement. See section III.F of this notice
for more information on the final public education requirements and for
EPA’s responses to significant public comments.  

G.  Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing

1.  Proposed Revision

	EPA proposed to require water systems to reevaluate lead service lines
classified as “replaced” through testing if they resume lead service
line replacement programs.  

2. Final Revision

	EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for reevaluation of lead
service line replacement, but is adding a provision to allow an
alternative time schedule for systems that have completed a 15-year
replacement program before re-exceeding the lead action level.  For more
information and EPA’s response to significant public comments, see
section III.G of this notice.

III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper Rule Short Term Regulatory
Revisions and Clarifications   

A. Minimum Number of Samples Required 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

	EPA is clarifying the minimum sampling requirement for small water
systems that have fewer than five taps by making revisions to
§141.86(c).   These revisions 

include a clarification that the term “taps” mean “taps that can
be used for human consumption,” as opposed to outlets such as hose
bibs or taps at utility sinks.  In addition, the revisions clarify what
a system must do to meet the minimum five number of samples requirement,
when the system physically has fewer than five taps.  In this situation,
the water system must sample all taps at least once and then take repeat
samples on different days until a total of five samples are obtained.  

	EPA is, however, adding a provision to §141.86(c) that gives States
the discretion to allow water systems that have fewer than five taps, to
collect one sample per tap that can be used for human consumption.  To
qualify for this provision, the water system must make a request to the
State in writing and the State must approve the request in writing or by
onsite verification.  Under this alternate sampling schedule for all
water systems collecting fewer than five samples the sample with the
highest test result will be compared to the lead action level to
determine compliance. If any sample result is above the action level,
the system is deemed to be exceeding the action level and must complete
compliance actions (e.g., public education, corrosion control treatment,
and lead service line replacement).  EPA is adding regulatory text to
§141.80 to describe this new compliance determination. The alternate
sampling schedule may also be applicable for water systems that are on
reduced monitoring and EPA is adding a provision to §141.86(d)(4)(i)
for those systems.  The provision allows the water system to reduce
sampling frequency to once per year, but in no case can the number of
samples required be reduced below the minimum of one sample per tap that
can be used for human consumption.

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale For The Minimum Number Of Samples Required
Revisions? 

	In the original Lead and Copper Rule of 1991, the term “site” is
used to refer to the number of samples collected, and there has been
confusion as to whether “site” refers to taps or physical locations.
 EPA is clarifying that sampling “sites” refer to “taps that can
be used for human consumption.” The phrase “that can be used for
human consumption,” is being added to the regulations to ensure that
samples are taken from taps which would pose the highest risk for
exposure to lead, rather than from taps that are not typically used for
human consumption.   

	EPA is also making clarifications for water systems that have fewer
than five taps that can be used for human consumption.  In the proposal
for this rule, EPA maintained that systems must take a minimum of five
samples in order to adequately capture the variability of lead levels
and that it was more cost effective for small systems to take more
samples than install corrosion control or source treatment based on a
small pool of samples taken (137 FR 40828 at 40831, US EPA, 2006b).  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
the alternative requirement.

	The alternative sampling requirement applies to public water systems
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.

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 these systems must
compare the sample with the highest concentration to the action level,
which does not allow systems to take repeat samples at taps with low
lead results.

Two States supported not changing the minimum number of samples
requirement because of the administrative burden of verifying available
taps.  Although other commenters believed that there was no better
statistical representation than sampling 100 percent of taps in a
system, one of the States stated that it is statistically “risky” to
base compliance on a single sample since lead levels vary greatly even
with corrosion control treatment in place.  The other State that did not
favor the alternative suggested that EPA offer States discretion to
allow the alternative of sampling 100 percent of taps.  EPA agrees with
the State and has made changes in this rule to reflect this suggestion. 
Because the alternative is not mandatory, those States which do not
agree with the provision are not required to allow water systems to
utilize the alternative sampling schedule. 

In their comments, a few States indicated that small systems with fewer
than 5 taps are "primarily" NTNCWSs, thus indicating that some are CWSs.
 The commenters who supported this approach did not provide any reason
for limiting this to NTNCWSs and in fact, the reasons for supporting the
alternative would apply equally well to any small system with fewer than
5 taps.  As a result, States can approve the alternative monitoring for
both CWSs and NTNCWSs with fewer than five taps.  In expanding this
alternative monitoring to CWSs, EPA emphasizes that this is only allowed
for systems such as washeterias in Alaska and Navajo hauling points,
where there are physically fewer than five taps within the system. 
Small CWSs with more than five taps cannot use this alternative
monitoring to take fewer than the required number of samples pursuant to
the table in §141.86(c).

B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

EPA is making a number of clarifications throughout the LCR to clearly
explain when compliance and monitoring periods begin and end.  In
addition, the Agency is also clarifying the timing of actions following
a lead or copper action level exceedance and the timing of monitoring
activities with regard to reduced monitoring schedules.

EPA is clarifying that the term ‘‘compliance period’’ is a
three-year calendar year period within a nine-year compliance cycle,
which is consistent with the definition in §141.2. EPA is also defining
the term ‘‘monitoring period’’ as the specific time period
during which a water system must perform the required monitoring (e.g.,
June-September).

Consistent with these definitions, systems will be deemed to be
exceeding the action level as of the date on which the monitoring period
ended (e.g., on September 30).  EPA is modifying several sections of the
LCR that describe the timing of actions after an action level
exceedance, including corrosion control treatment steps in §141.81(e),
source water monitoring and treatment recommendations to the State in
§141.83(a), lead service line replacement in §141.84(b)(1), public
education for community water systems in §141.85(b)(2) and for
non-transient non-community water systems in §141.85(b)(4), source
water monitoring requirements in §141.88(b) and (d), and the reporting
requirements in §141.90(a) and (e).

Also, for systems on reduced monitoring, the monitoring period is from
June to September or some other consecutive four-month period during
normal operation when the highest lead levels are most likely to occur.
EPA has modified the reduced monitoring provisions in
§141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) to reflect this requirement.  In addition, the
Agency is clarifying when a system may begin reduced monitoring in
§141.86(d)(4)(i) and (ii), as well as when a system on reduced
monitoring must resume standard monitoring according to
§141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B).  In addition, the timing for water quality
parameter monitoring is now more clearly defined in §141.87(d) and (e).

Lastly, systems on triennial monitoring must conduct their monitoring
during a four-month consecutive period every three years and are
therefore not allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the first compliance
period and during Year 3 of the second compliance period. The Agency is
modifying the reduced monitoring provisions for lead and copper sampling
in §141.86(d)(4)(iii), for water quality parameter sampling in
§141.87(e)(2)(ii), and for triennial source water monitoring in
§141.88(d)(1)(i).  EPA is making a similar change for small systems
with monitoring waivers to ensure that they monitor every nine years,
which modifies §§141.86(g)(4)(i) and 141.88(e).

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 four-month period, all samples must be
taken during that four-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 three-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 §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 as a result, the systems may not
obtain their sample results and identify that they have exceeded the
action level until after the monitoring period has ended.  This
requirement effectively sets systems up for water quality parameter
monitoring violations.  In the 1991 LCR, EPA recognized that many
factors influence water corrosivity and because of this, decided to
require small and medium water systems detecting lead and/or copper
above the action levels to measure for water quality parameters (56 FR
26460 at 26526, U.S. EPA, 1991a).  However, EPA recognizes that under
the monitoring period clarifications made in this final rule, systems on
reduced monitoring that exceed the action level will most likely not be
taking water quality parameters and would have automatically incurred a
violation based on the requirement in §141.87(d).  The end of the
6-month period in which small and medium water systems must sample for
water quality parameters would have corresponded to the end of the
4-month monitoring period in which they must sample for lead and copper
under §141.86(d)(4).  For example, a system that takes lead and copper
tap samples between June and September and exceeds the action level,
would only have until the end of September to take all of their water
quality parameters.  The system would most likely not be aware of the
exceedance until the end or after the end of the monitoring period and
would incur a violation for not having already completed water quality
parameter monitoring. Therefore, EPA is revising the requirement in
§141.87(d) to require the start of the 6-month period in which the
system must take water quality parameters to correspond with the start
of the 4-month monitoring period in which they must sample for lead and
copper under §141.86(d)(4).  This revision will allow small and medium
systems on reduced monitoring that exceed the action level two months to
take water quality parameter samples after the end of the 4-month
monitoring period in which they had to take lead and copper tap samples.
 For example, a system that takes lead and copper tap samples between
June and September and exceeds the action level, would have until the
end of November to take water quality parameter samples.  This provision
is intended primarily for systems that are not aware of the exceedance
until the end of the lead and copper monitoring period.  Those systems
that are aware of the action level exceedance earlier in the four-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 quality parameter
monitoring. This change modifies the reduced monitoring provisions in
§141.86(d)(4), specifically subsections (ii), (iii) and (iv). These
sections discuss when small and large water systems may reduce the
required number of lead and copper samples in accordance with paragraph
(c) of §141.86.

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale For The Reduced Monitoring Revisions? 

EPA is making this change because the Agency believes that reduced
monitoring should only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that
corrosion control treatment is both effective and reliable. Compliance
with water quality parameters alone may not always indicate that
corrosion control is effective.

Monitoring lead levels is particularly critical for systems that are
exceeding the lead action level for several reasons. First, it will
assist systems in evaluating the effectiveness of corrosion control
treatment. The rule previously allowed systems eligibility for reduced
monitoring even if they exceeded the lead or copper action level if they
could demonstrate their corrosion control treatment was effective by
meeting the State-designated water quality parameters. However, as shown
by the events in the District of Columbia and as stated above,
compliance with water quality parameters alone may not always indicate
that corrosion control is effective, especially after a treatment or
source change. Continued exceedance of the lead action level may
indicate that a particular method of corrosion control treatment is not
effective for a particular system and knowledge of this continued
exceedance may result in the system implementing an alternative and more
effective corrosion control treatment strategy. In addition, a system
must know if it continues to exceed the lead action level after
installing corrosion control treatment in order to determine how long
its lead service line replacement requirements remain in effect.
Continued understanding of the range of lead levels detected within the
system can also help the system implement an effective public education
program.

Second, continued monitoring will allow primacy agencies to gain a more
accurate picture of lead levels in drinking water in their States. Many
systems within States share water sources, have similar treatment
technologies, and have similar materials in their distribution systems.
States and other primacy agencies with knowledge of effective corrosion
control for one system may be able to aid other systems within their
jurisdiction in lowering lead levels in water. Having a more accurate
characterization of lead levels in drinking water that is exceeding the
action level will allow States and systems to better inform consumers
and, thereby, create greater confidence in their efforts to reduce lead
levels.

3. What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Reduced
Monitoring Revisions And EPA's Response To These Issues? 

The majority of commenters agreed with EPA that a system must remain
under the action level to continue operating on reduced monitoring. 
States and others supported the current requirement to allow systems
that exceed the copper action level to continue on reduced monitoring if
water quality parameters are met.  Therefore, the Agency is not making
any changes that differ from the proposal with regard to this provision.

Some commenters did feel that systems that exceed the copper action
level should not be allowed to reduce their monitoring requirements.  As
stated in the proposal, EPA did consider requiring that all systems meet
both the lead and the copper action levels as criteria for eligibility
for reduced monitoring. However, the Agency determined that copper
issues should be considered as part of longer term revisions to the
rule. EPA also believes that adding the copper action level requirement
could impose a large monitoring increase on some small and medium
systems that are currently limited in their ability to reduce copper
below the action level due to their source water (e.g., high alkalinity
ground waters). For these systems, the States currently have flexibility
in the existing rule to limit systems from proceeding to reduced lead
and copper tap monitoring. Under  §§141.86(d)(4)(ii) and
141.86(d)(4)(iii), a State may review and revise its determination to
allow a system to proceed with reduced monitoring when the system
submits new monitoring or treatment data, or when other data relevant to
the number and frequency of tap sampling becomes available.  Therefore,
the Agency is not requiring that systems that meet the lead action level
and water quality parameter requirements must also meet the copper
action level to be eligible for reduced lead and copper monitoring.

Other commenters stated that systems which make treatment changes or add
new sources of water should also be required to monitor for lead and
copper for two consecutive 6-month periods.  Currently,
§141.86(d)(4)(vii) provides States authority to require systems that
either add a new source of water or change any water treatment to resume
standard monitoring.   In addition, §§141.81(b)(3)(iii) and
141.86(g)(4)(iii) allows the State to require any system adding a new
source of water or changing any water treatment to conduct additional
monitoring.  EPA is not changing these requirements as part of this
rule.  EPA believes States should continue to have the flexibility to
require systems to resume standard monitoring after making a treatment
change or adding a new source of water that could impact corrosion
control.

	D.  Advanced Notification and Approval Requirement for Water Systems
that Intend to 	Make Any Long-term Change in Water Treatment or Add a
New Source of Water

How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

This final rule amends §§141.81(b)(3)(iii), 141.86(d)(4)(vii),
141.86(g)(4)(iii), and 141.90(a)(3) to require water systems to obtain
prior approval by the State primacy agency 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 June 2006 “Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual (Draft) for the
Final Stage 2 M-DBP Rules.”  This document will be revised in 2007 and
can 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. 

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 add a new source of water,
it can unintentionally affect the system’s optimal corrosion control. 
EPA believes that State review 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.

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 Those 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 advanced
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 advanced 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 advanced
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. Requirement to Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring
Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings that are Tested for
Lead 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

EPA is amending the public education requirements described in
§141.80(g) and is adding a new notification requirement to §141.85(d)
that will require water systems to provide consumers who occupy homes or
buildings that are part of the utility’s monitoring program with the
testing results when their drinking water is tested for lead.  EPA is
also adding a reporting requirement to §141.90(f) for systems to
certify they have completed this new consumer notification requirement.

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale For The Consumer Notice Of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results Revisions? 

Although some utilities may have provided customers with the results of
analyses conducted to meet requirements of the regulations, utilities
were not previously required by EPA to notify occupants of the lead
levels found in their drinking water. While samples are primarily
collected to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion control or to
evaluate the corrosivity of the utility’s water across the entire
service area, the results of lead monitoring can provide useful
information to the occupants of the household from which the samples
were taken. Occupants can evaluate the results of lead tests for their
drinking water and use that information to inform any decisions they
might make to take action to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking
water.

3. What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Consumer Notice
Of Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results Revisions And EPA's Response To
These Issues? 

EPA received a range of comments regarding the inclusion of the maximum
contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the action level for lead, along with
the definitions for these two terms from §141.153(c) in the consumer
notice of lead tap results.  Some commenters stated that listing the
MCLG was unnecessary and would be confusing.  However, other commenters
expressed that it was appropriate to include the MCLG and many
commenters stated that there should be some reference to the action
level.  Some of these commenters stated that the consumer notice should
just indicate whether the result was above or below the action level,
while others stated that there should be an acknowledgment that the
action level is not health-based.  Still others wanted EPA to provide a
level of lead that is a health concern along with information on how to
interpret results.

EPA disagrees that the MCLG is unnecessary and would cause confusion,
since the definition of the term in §141.153(c)(1) clearly states that
it is the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is
no known or expected risk to health, allowing for a margin of safety. 
In 1991, EPA set the MCLG for lead as zero based on the following
considerations: (1) The occurrence of a variety of low level health
effects for which it is difficult to identify clear threshold exposure
levels below which there are no risks of adverse health effects; (2) the
Agency’s policy goal that drinking water should contribute minimal
lead to total lead exposures because a substantial portion of the
sensitive population already exceeds acceptable blood lead levels; and
(3) the classification of lead as a probably human carcinogen (56 FR
26460 at 26467, U.S. EPA 1991a).  EPA believes that individuals who have
their homes tested for lead should be aware of the levels below which
there is no known or expected risk to health and should have the
knowledge that there are steps they can take to further reduce exposure.
 Therefore, this final rule includes the provision to include the MCLG
along with its definition from §141.153(c)(1).   

EPA agrees that there should be a reference to the lead action level,
since this is the level at which systems are required to take actions
(e.g., public education, corrosion control treatment, lead service line
replacement).  This rule includes a requirement to include the term
“action level” and its definition from §141.153(c)(3).  EPA is not
requiring that systems include an explicit sentence that the level is
not health based, but notes that this rule does not preclude a system
from adding such a statement to the notice.

In response to providing a level of lead that is a health concern, EPA
believes the current MCLG is the best estimate below which there is no
known or expected risk to health from lead in drinking water.  EPA is
currently working toward better defining the correlation between
drinking water lead levels and adverse health effects. With regard to
how to interpret results, EPA believes that including the required
information in the consumer notice allows consumers to make informed
decisions regarding their lead levels and provides actions they might
take to reduce their lead exposure.    

In addition, some commenters expressed confusion about who would receive
the result where testing occurred in buildings with many units, such as
apartment buildings.  Many of these commenters cited landlord-tenant
issues that may arise by sending results to all residents.  EPA’s
intent in the proposal was that the sample results go to the individual
residence where the sample was taken and this final revision clarifies
the intent was not to extend notification of the result from one unit to
all units in a building.  

A number of commenters were concerned with the burden on 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 §141.85(d)(4)
that provides an example of an alternative mechanism as follows: “For
example, upon approval by the State, a non-transient non-community water
system could post the results on a bulletin board in the facility to
allow users to review the information.”

Some states were concerned about the burden associated with tracking and
enforcement of this requirement. In response, EPA is requiring in this
final rule that systems certify to the State that notification was sent
consistent with the requirements in §141.85(d), as part of the
reporting requirements for public education in §141.90(f).

Lastly, one commenter stated that the consumer notice requirement needed
its own unique citation, because citing it under §141.85 implied that
it only applied to the public education activities triggered by a lead
action level exceedance.  The proposed revisions did contain a reference
to the consumer notice requirements in §141.80, which stated that all
water systems must provide a consumer notice to persons served at the
sites that are tested.  In addition, there is a similar statement in
§141.85.  In order to clarify that all systems must complete this
requirement, EPA reordered the sentences in §141.80 and §141.85 to
state the consumer notification requirements up front.  The Agency feels
that this adequately clarifies that all systems must provide
notification of tap results to consumers at sites that are tested.

F.  Public Education Requirements 

EPA is changing the public education requirements of the Lead and Copper
Rule in §141.85.  Water systems are still required to deliver public
education materials after a lead action level exceedance.  However, EPA
is making significant modifications to the content of the written public
education materials (message content) and adding a new set of delivery
requirements.  EPA is also making revisions to §141.154 that will
require all community water systems (CWSs) to include an educational
statement about lead in their Consumer Confidence Reports.

1.  Message Content

a.  How Is EPA Revising The Message Content? 

EPA is changing the required content of the message provided to
consumers after a lead action level exceedance by shortening and
simplifying the mandatory language. Previously, §141.85 required
written materials to include mandatory language consisting of over 1,800
words describing health effects, levels of lead in drinking water, steps
to reduce exposure, and how to obtain additional information.  In this
revision, the mandatory language will consist of an opening statement,
health effects language and sources of further information. The health
effects language has been revised to provide greater specificity on the
health problems that can result from exposure to lead (e.g., the
original health effects language indicated that lead can cause damage to
the brain, while the new language specifies that this damage is
associated with lower IQ in children). Although the new language
includes mandatory language related to health effects, water systems
will have the flexibility to tailor some of the topics of the public
education message, as mentioned above, to fit their community and
situation. For 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 (137 FR
40828 at 40835, US 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 to simplify the
language—to a reading level that is appropriate for the general
public—while retaining its specificity regarding the health effects of
greatest concern. 

Some commenters believed that the health effects language should promote
awareness of the potential effects of lead in drinking water and put
them in context with respect to other sources of lead in the
environment. EPA believes exposure of humans to lead from any source is
a reason for concern and has added the following statement to the
mandatory health effects language: “Lead can cause serious health
problems if too much enters your body from drinking water or other
sources.”  In addition, this rule contains a provision in
§141.85(a)(iii) that provides for an explanation of other important
sources of lead exposure in the public education message. 

A few commenters believed that EPA should provide scientific support for
the statements about health effects in the revision to substantiate the
changes to the health effects language. EPA's most recent comprehensive
analysis of lead health effects may be found in the final document, Air
Quality Criteria for Lead (US EPA, 2006b), which provides a thorough
discussion of lead health effects and includes citations for the studies
that support the statements made in the public education language in
this rule. 

Some commenters wanted the public education materials to explain that a
90th percentile result above the action level does not mean all
customers are exposed to water above the action level. EPA did not
include any additional mandatory language to this effect in the
revision, but believes that there is enough flexibility for a water
system to include this type of language if they believe it is important.
 

Most commenters thought it would be a burden to require States to
approve water systems’ public education materials before distribution.
 EPA recognizes that distribution of public education materials
following an action level exceedance should not be delayed if States
cannot review materials in an expedient manner.  Therefore, this rule
allows States to determine if they will require State approval of a
water system’s public education materials before distribution.

EPA requested comment on whether there should be a mandatory requirement
to include the contact information for the State drinking water primacy
agency. Although large systems most likely will have a representative
who can answer customer questions about lead in drinking water, very
small systems may not have the expertise to answer all questions.  In
these cases it may be useful to have State contact information included
in the public education materials.  Most commenters did not support the
addition of State contact information in the public education materials,
stating this would create a burden for the States. Some commenters
believed that the individual States should make the decision whether to
include their State contact information in the public education
materials.  EPA has therefore not added a mandatory requirement for
State contact information as part of the public education content, but
believes there is enough flexibility in this final rule for States to
make the decision whether to include it. 

Two commenters suggested that, rather than using the proposed regulatory
language with regard to communicating with customers in their native
tongue, EPA should use the existing language in the Public Notification
Rule (PNR), §141.205(c)(2)(i). For public water 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's
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) 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 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 nor
is EPA 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
(pregnant women, infants and young children) or their caregivers; and 2)
It ensures that critical information reaches not only bill paying
customers, but also non-bill paying consumers.  The non-bill paying
consumers may be contacted through these organizations if the
organizations are provided with the necessary information and encouraged
to share the task of improving public awareness. 

Some commenters stated that requiring distribution of material outside
of the water system’s service area is a burden for the water systems
as well as being inconsistent with other drinking water rules. However,
EPA believes that if the local public health agency can identify
organizations that potentially serve target populations, then a water
system should deliver public education materials to this organization
even if it is not within the water system's service area.  EPA believes
there could also be instances where an individual does not reside within
the system’s service area but is served by the water system in another
capacity (e.g., a child lives in another county but spends a large part
of their day at a child care facility that is served by a water system
with a lead action level exceedance).   

Some commenters were concerned that States do not have the means to
oversee or verify that systems are fulfilling the requirement to contact
the new organizations.  Systems that are subject to public education
requirements are required as part of §141.90(f) of this rule to send
written documentation to the State that includes a demonstration that
the system has delivered the public education materials that meet
content requirements of  §141.85(a) and the delivery requirements in
§141.85(b).  EPA believes that systems may provide a copy of the
contact lists to the State as part of this requirement.  

EPA also proposed that systems include a cover letter with the printed
materials that they send to organizations to explain the importance of
sharing this information with their customers/patients.  Some commenters
were concerned that this was too prescriptive.  Other commenters
suggested that the Agency create a template.  EPA has revised this
requirement to require that systems include an informational notice
instead of a cover letter, since this will give systems flexibility in
the exact format.  In addition, EPA will provide templates as part of
separate guidance.

Some States commented that the proposed new requirements were excessive,
especially as compared to other rules.  However, some commenters
supported the requirement that water systems have to conduct the
additional activities and believed that the flexibility in the selection
of the public education delivery activities would enhance the
effectiveness of communication with the public. EPA disagrees with
commenters who believe the requirements are excessive; EPA believes
these changes better ensure that at-risk populations receive information
to enable them to act to reduce their exposure.  In addition, the new
requirements are based on recommendations from NDWAC, which are modeled
after the public education requirements in two existing EPA rules:  the
Consumer Confidence Report Rule and the Public Notification Rule (65 FR
25982, U.S. EPA 2000b).   

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 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 40 CFR 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.  

Some commenters thought there should be a different information
statement for water systems samples above the lead action level than for
systems below the lead action level and above the MDL.  Other commenters
were concerned that multiple, varying notices would unduly complicate
compliance tracking and enforcement of this requirement. Furthermore, a
large percentage (>95%) of the water systems would have detects above
the MDL and therefore be required to have an informational statement in
their CCR.  Because the actual level of lead exposure for drinking water
varies with individual homes, EPA concluded that levels detected in the
system would not necessarily reflect the risk faced by consumers.  As a
result, and because of the concern over the logistics of compliance and
tracking multiple different lead statements in CCRs, EPA concluded that
all systems should have a simple informational statement about lead in
their CCR, which would be educational in nature.     

	Some commenters indicated that the CCR is a good way to educate the
public about lead in drinking water.  On the other hand, some viewed the
proposed CCR requirement as redundant with the other public education
requirements and not an effective way to reach populations before there
is a major problem with lead in the water system.  Consistent with the
NDWAC recommendations, EPA believes that the combination of methods for
delivering this urgent message (through public education materials, CCR,
and consumer notice of tap water results) will provide a more effective
way to reach the customer in a timely and appropriate basis. Some
commenters thought that additional CCR language would pose an undue
burden on systems that are in compliance with the LCR and that the
required text would be too alarming.  Some commenters believed that the
CCR requirement for lead was inconsistent with the public notification
regulations for other inorganic contaminants.  However, while a water
system may be in full compliance with the LCR, a home served by that
water system may have elevated levels of lead in their tap water.  Lead
is unlike many other contaminants in that it is primarily introduced
into drinking water as the water passes through plumbing materials from
the distribution main into the household. As a result, and due to the
particular concern that it is critically important to reach vulnerable
populations in a timely manner to avoid as much lead exposure for those
populations as possible, EPA believes a special lead notice is
appropriate.  

Some commenters stated that the proposed language on the sources of lead
required to be included in the Consumer Confidence Report focused too
much on household plumbing materials as the source of lead exposure in
drinking water and did not consider the other sources of lead in the
distribution system. To address this concern, EPA has modified the text
by adding “service lines” to more fully characterize sources of lead
in drinking water.  

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing

 

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

EPA is requiring water systems to reevaluate lead service lines
classified as “replaced through testing” if they resume lead service
line replacement programs. This will only apply to a system that had (1)
initiated a lead service line replacement program, then (2) discontinued
the program, and then (3) subsequently resumed the program. When
resuming the program, this system will have to reconsider for
replacement any lead service lines previously deemed replaced through
the testing provisions in §141.84(c) during the initial program. This
change adds a subsection to the lead service line replacement
requirements in §141.84(b) to include provisions for systems resuming
lead service line replacement programs.  Systems will have to update the
inventory of lead service lines to include those that were classified as
“replaced through testing.”  The system will then divide the updated
number of remaining lead service lines by the number of remaining years
in the program to determine the number of lines that must be replaced
per year (seven percent lead service line replacement is based on a
15-year replacement program so, for example, systems resuming lead
service line replacement after previously conducting two years of
replacement would divide the remaining inventory by 13). 

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale For The Reevaluation Of Lead Service Lines
Revisions? 

Lead service line replacement is intended as an additional step to
reduce lead exposure when corrosion control treatment is unsuccessful.
The provision in §141.84(c), which allows systems to leave in place an
individual lead service line if the lead concentration in all service
line samples from that line is less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L, is
intended to maximize the exposure reduction achieved per service line
replaced by avoiding the disruption and cost of replacing lines that are
not leaching elevated levels of lead. However, samples taken from a lead
service line pursuant to §141.84(c) cannot predict future conditions of
the system or of the service line. Systems can discontinue a lead
service line replacement program by meeting the lead action level for
two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Therefore, EPA is requiring
these systems to reconsider any lines previously determined to not
require replacement if they exceed the action level again in the future
and resume the lead service line replacement program.

3. What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Reevaluation Of
Lead Service Lines Revisions And EPA's Response To These Issues? 

Commenters generally agreed that all existing lead service lines should
be considered when resuming a lead service line replacement program. 
However, there were some commenters who had concerns with the timing and
believed that the 15-year clock should be reset when resuming a
replacement program. In 1991, EPA established the maximum replacement
schedule of 15 years for all systems in order to ensure that public
health is adequately protected (56 FR 26460 at 26507–26508, U.S. EPA,
1991a). The Agency continues to believe that systems that are exceeding
the action level should have no more than 15 years to replace all of
their lead service lines, as intended by the original rule. Sites that
met the 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 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 (137 FR 40828 at 40839, US EPA, 2006a): 
plumbing component replacement; point-of- use (POU) and point-of-entry
(POE) treatment; site selection in areas with water softeners and POU
treatment units; and water quality parameter monitoring.

2.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For Not Including Any Of These Other
Issues In The Final 	Rule Revisions?

		EPA concluded that sufficient flexibility exists under the current
rule for small systems to utilize plumbing fixture replacement or
point-of-use/point-of-entry devices to meet the action level and be
deemed optimized under §141.81(b)(1).  Under the current rule, small
non-transient, non-community water systems, where 100% of the plumbing
fixtures and components are directly controlled by the system, may
replace them and be optimized once the system has met the action levels
for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.  Small water systems
may also install point-of-use (POU) devices, if they meet the SDWA
requirements for their use, and be deemed optimized by meeting the
action levels for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.  In the
preamble to the proposed rule, EPA noted that where a State does not
require a corrosion control study, systems have 24 months after an
action level is exceeded before the State specifies optimal corrosion
control treatment (137 FR 40828 at 40840, US EPA, 2006a).  The fixture
replacement or POU installation would need to be completed within 12
months of exceeding the action level in order to complete two
consecutive six-month monitoring periods before the State specifies
optimal corrosion control.  Additionally, systems will still need to
recommend optimal corrosion control treatment to the State within six
months of the action level exceedance.  Plumbing fixture replacement may
not be successful in meeting the action level or the system may be
unable to secure participation from all sites under a POU approach, so
the system may need to install the optimal corrosion control treatment. 

   	There is also additional flexibility under the existing rule. 
States could require a corrosion control study for systems that have
made progress towards completing either a plumbing replacement or POU
approach.  The study would need to be completed within 18 months or 30
months after the action level exceedance.  This would provide an
additional six-month monitoring period to meet the optimization
requirement pursuant to §141.81(b)(1), while having the system develop
an optimal corrosion control recommendation if the plumbing replacement
is not successful or the POU approach cannot be implemented.  The State
will designate optimal corrosion control six months after the completion
of the corrosion control study.  When a corrosion control study is
required by the State, systems can have up to three years after the
action level exceedance to meet the action level for two consecutive
six-month monitoring periods before they would need to install the
optimal corrosion control specified by the State.

     	EPA also requested comment on two monitoring issues.  The first
was whether the Lead and Copper Rule should be amended to allow sampling
at locations with POU/POE devices used to remove inorganic contaminants
in exceptional cases (such as systems with a high prevalence of water
softeners), and, if so, how high risk sites should be identified.  The
second was whether the Lead and Copper Rule should be amended to require
systems to synchronize required water quality parameter sampling with
lead and copper tap sampling.  Due to the complexity of the issue, EPA
has determined that rule changes on site selection and synchronization
should be addressed as part of the broader monitoring revisions.  For
the POU/POE site selection issue, EPA notes that there may be additional
flexibility under §141.86(a)(5) which states:  “A community water
system with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 sampling sites shall
complete its sampling pool with representatives 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 Those 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 parameters
that could be set by the State if the system continued to exceed the
action level.     

     	EPA also received a range of comments on the issue about whether
there is enough flexibility under the existing rule to use POU or POE
without specifying it as corrosion control.  Some commenters stated that
the existing timeframes are sufficient for systems to implement a POU
strategy and that the rule should not be revised to call it an optimal
corrosion control treatment.  Other commenters said that EPA should
specify POU/POE as an optimal corrosion control treatment.  As noted
above, EPA believes that there is sufficient flexibility under the
current rule for a small system to pursue a POU strategy without listing
it as an optimal corrosion control treatment.  Unless the POU option was
limited to only those systems that control 100% of the distribution
system (as was suggested by several commenters), the system may not be
able to secure participation from all sites and may need to install
corrosion control.  Even if EPA limited the option to only those systems
that control 100% of the distribution system, EPA does not believe that
POU should be listed as an optimal corrosion control treatment. Under
the existing rule, the action levels serve as screens for optimization,
but systems can exceed the action levels and still be in compliance with
the LCR by meeting the optimal water quality parameters specified by the
State.  Commenters who supported POU as an optimal corrosion control
treatment did not provide any alternatives on how to demonstrate
compliance with the treatment technique when the action level is
exceeded.  Many commenters agreed with EPA’s concern that because
there are lead-containing materials in plumbing after POE devices, it
may not be successful in meeting the action level.  EPA does not believe
that POE should be listed as an optimal corrosion control treatment
because of these unaddressed lead sources. 

     	Most of the comments on the issue of sampling sites with POU and
POE devices indicated that a rule change was not necessary and that the
prohibition should remain in §141.86(a)(1).  EPA agrees with those
commenters and does not plan to codify the guidance.  

     	The final issue on which EPA requested comment was synchronization
of water quality parameter sampling with lead and copper tap sampling. 
While many commenters supported the scientific rationale for this
proposed change, a number of comments received expressed concern over
which synchronization time frame 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 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 is adopting a compliance date for all of the final rule provisions
of 180 days after publication in the Federal Register.   However, EPA is
also allowing 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 years,
compliance with 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,
as discussed in the proposal, EPA believes that none of these
requirements in this rule needs three full years for compliance because
none involve capital improvements or extensive training or system
modifications.  These rule changes are all modifications of existing
requirements and procedures under the LCR or CCR.  At the same time,
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. 
Second, 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.  EPA also 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
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 State
primacy agencies 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 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 time frame during which
the State may adopt the rule (180 days to 2 years).

J.  State Implementation

States with approved primacy programs under 40 CFR Part 142 subpart B
must revise their programs to adopt any changes to the Lead and Copper
Rule that are more stringent than their approved program.  The primacy
revision crosswalk table lists all the provisions that States must adopt
to retain primacy.  Table III.1 summarizes the rule revisions.



TABLE III.1.—Final Rule Revisions

CFR citation	Is the requirement more stringent?	Revision

§141.80(a)(2) 

	No	Technical correction that deletes effective dates of the LCR which
no longer apply.

§141.80(c)(3)(v)	No	PWS allowed by the State to collect fewer than five
samples must compare the highest sample result to the action level.

§141.80(g) 

	Yes	PWSs will be required to provide consumers with the results of lead
testing who are located at sites that are part of the utility’s
monitoring program.

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

§141.90(a)(3).	Yes 

	States must approve new sources or long-term changes in water treatment
before PWS implementation.

§141.81(e)(1) 

	Yes	Clarifies end of the tap sampling and timing for PWS recommending
optimum corrosion treatment.

§141.81(e)(2) 

	Yes	Clarifies end of the monitoring period and timing for State
requiring corrosion control studies.

§141.81(e)(2)(i), §141.81(e)(2)(ii) 

	Yes	Clarifies end of the monitoring period and timing for State
specifying optimum corrosion control treatment.

§141.83(a)(1) 

	Yes	Clarifies end of the source water monitoring period and timing for
recommending source water treatment to the State.

§141.84(b)(1) 

	Yes	Clarifies beginning of the first year for lead service line
replacement.

§141.84(b)(2) 

	Yes	Requires updating inventory and yearly replacement of lead lines
when resuming lead service line replacement program.

§141.90(e)(2)(ii) 

	Yes	Clarifies resumption of line replacement.

§141.85 

	Yes	New public education requirements that replace the ones that exist
in the current rule. New requirement for PWS to provide a notice to
consumers who are part of the utility’s lead testing program with
sampling results.  New content and delivery requirements for public
education materials.  New requirement for PWS to target specific
audiences for increased awareness. 

§141.88 (b), §141.90(a)(1), §141.90(e)(1), §141.90 (e)(2) 

	Yes	Clarifies end of the monitoring period.

§141.86(c) 	No	Requires PWS to collect a specified number of samples. 
Allows State discretion to allow PWS to sample 100 percent of taps if
there are fewer than five taps that can be used for human consumption in
the system.

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

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

§141.88(d)(1)(ii), §141.88(e)(1), §141.88(e)(2)	Yes	Clarifies sample
collection periods for reduced monitoring.

§141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii), §141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)	Yes	Requires all
systems must meet the lead action level as a condition for reduced
monitoring.

§141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) 

	Yes	Specifies time period to resume standard tap water monitoring.

§141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B) 

	Yes	Specifies time period to resume water quality parameter monitoring.

§141.86(d)(4)(ii) 

	Yes	Clarifies monitoring frequency.

§141.87(d), §141.87(e)(2)(i) 

	Yes	Clarifies time period for water quality parameter monitoring.

§141.90 (f)(1), §141.90 (f)(1)(i), §141.90 (f)(3)  

	Yes	Revised public education program reporting requirements based on
amendments to §141.85.

§141.154 (d)(1) and (2) 

	Yes	All CWSs must include a statement about lead, health effects
language and ways to reduce exposure in every CCR released to the
public. Flexibility is given to CWSs to write its own educational
statement, but only in consultation with the Primacy Agency.

1.  How do these regulatory revisions affect a State’s primacy
program?

States must revise their programs to adopt any part of this final rule
which is more stringent than the approved State program.  Primacy
revisions must be completed in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12 and 142.16.
 States must submit their revised primacy application to the
Administrator for approval.  State requests for final approval must be
submitted to the Administrator no later than two years after
promulgation of a new standard unless the State requests and is granted
an additional two-year extension.  

For revisions of State programs, §142.12 requires States to submit,
among other things, any additional materials that are listed in §142.16
of this part for a specific EPA regulation, as appropriate
(§142.12(c)(1)(ii)).  For the final revisions to the lead and copper
rule, EPA believes that requirements in §142.12(c) will provide
sufficient information for EPA review of the State revision.  The
side-by-side comparison of requirements required in §142.12(c)(1)(i)
will consist of sections revised to adopt the changes required for the
revised lead and copper rule and any other revisions requested by the
State.  Because the rule consists of changes to an already approved
Federal NPDWR in primacy States, EPA believes that the State’s
existing statutes and regulations will already have received extensive
legal review. Under §142.12 (c)(3), EPA can request supplemental
information as necessary for a specific State submittal on a
case-by-case basis.  Therefore, the Agency plans to waive the Attorney
General’s statement required in §142.12(c)(1)(iii), as allowed by
§141.12(c)(2).  

2.  What does a State have to do to apply? 

To maintain primacy for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program and to be eligible for interim primacy enforcement authority for
future regulations, States must adopt this final rule.  A State must
submit a request for approval of program revisions that adopt the
regulations and implement those regulations within two years of
promulgation unless EPA approves an extension under §142.12(b). 
Interim primacy enforcement authority allows States to implement and
enforce drinking water regulations once State regulations are effective
and the State has submitted a complete and final primacy revision
application.  To obtain interim primacy, a State must have primacy with
respect to each existing NPDWR.  Under interim primacy enforcement
authority, States are effectively considered to have primacy during the
period that EPA is reviewing their primacy revision application. 

3.    How are Tribes affected?

At this time the Navajo Nation has primacy to enforce the PWSS program. 

EPA Regions implement the rules for all the other Tribes under section
1451(a)(1) of SDWA.  

IV.  Economic Analysis   

This section describes the estimates of annual costs for the seven
regulatory changes to utilities’ and States’ requirements, including
costs associated with administrative, monitoring, sampling, reporting,
and notification activities for this final rule.  One-time, upfront
costs of rule review and rule implementation are also described.  There
are two types of annual costs that may result from the rule changes –
direct and indirect.  Direct costs are from those activities that are
specified by the rule change, such as costs for additional monitoring or
distribution of consumer notices.   Indirect costs may also result when
systems and States use the information generated by 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 Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term
Regulatory Revisions (U.S. EPA, 2007a).  Table IV.1 summarizes the
expected direct and indirect cost impacts for the seven regulatory
changes.



Table IV.1: Summary of Direct and Indirect Implications of the LCR Short
Term Rule Changes

Rule Change	Direct Cost Implications	Indirect Cost and Health Risk
Implications

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

Regulatory Change III.B (Monitoring Period)	Unquantified 	None

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

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

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

Regulatory Change III.F  (Public Education)	Yes	Yes

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

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, USEPA, 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 (i.e., 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.

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

	<3,3001	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

% 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,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/lead_data.html" 
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  State/Primacy agencies to review
utility monitoring reports as a result of resuming standard monitoring
schedules. The direct costs to State/Primacy agencies 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
State/Primacy Agencies Associated with Regulatory Change III.C (2006
dollars)

Annual Labor	Annual Materials	Total Annual

Costs to Systems

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

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

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

Costs to State/Primacy Agencies

	Review Costs	$81,000	$1,000	$82,000

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

 

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/Primacy agency 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/Primacy agency 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 State primacy agencies 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 EA,
pp. 6-25, 6-27;

LT2 – 2,882 systems (Data source: U.S.  EPA, Office of Water, Economic
Analysis for the Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule, EPA 815-R-06-001, December 2005, Exhibit 6-1, page 6-3);

Stage 2 D/DBP – 2,261 systems (Data source: U.S. EPA, Office of Water,
Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule, EPA 815-R-05-010, December 2005, Exhibit ES-7a, page
ES-17).

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 State primacy agencies 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 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 primacy
activities will include review of the system data on the corrosion
control implications of a long-term treatment or source change prior to
a change, preparation of conclusions and coordination with utilities.

Table IV.4: Estimated Direct Costs to Systems and State/Primacy Agencies
Associated with Regulatory Change III.D (2006 dollars)

Annual Cost – Low Estimate1	Annual Cost – High Estimate2

	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 State/Primacy
agencies may review sample customer letters/notices from each utility
for each monitoring period, such a review is not required by the
regulatory change and thus is not considered a direct cost of the
regulatory change.  States will be required to review, track, and store
the self-certification letters.  Supporting calculations and information
regarding costs to utilities and States associated with this regulatory
change are included in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E.

2.  Costs to utilities

		The direct costs to utilities for compliance with Regulatory Change
III.E are summarized in Table IV.5 and estimated to be $1,248,000
annually including $1,098,000 in labor costs and $150,000 in materials
costs for envelopes and postage.  This is based on an estimated 310,510
notices being provided to customers each year, with associated labor.
Detailed estimates are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E-2.

		In order to estimate the additional costs associated with Regulatory
Change III.E, an estimate is needed of the number of systems that
already notify customers of tap monitoring results.  Based on feedback
from participants in workshops and interactions with States, some
systems already notify customers of monitoring results.  These systems
would not incur costs under the regulatory change.  Of 72,213 CWSs and
NTNCWSs (per 4th quarter 2004 SDWIS/FED) subject to the LCR, EPA
estimates that approximately 11 percent of these systems are estimated
to already notify owner/occupants of tap sample results.  Therefore,
this regulatory change will apply to the remaining 89 percent of
systems.  

3.  Costs to States

The direct costs to States to comply with Regulatory Change III.E are
presented in Table IV.5.  States are required to review, track, and
store the self-certification letters.

Table IV.5: Summary of Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change
III.E (2006 dollars)

Annual Labor	Annual Materials	Total Annual

Costs to Systems

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

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

Costs to States

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

     $163,000

Total State Costs	                  $163,000

      $163,000

H.  Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.F

Regulatory Change III.F changes the public education requirements of the
Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in §141.85.  Water systems would still be
required to deliver public education materials after a lead action level
exceedance, but the text of the message to be provided to consumers, how
the materials are delivered to consumers, and the timeframe in which
materials must be delivered would change.  The changes to the delivery
requirements include additions to the list of organizations systems must
partner with to disseminate the message to at-risk populations as well
as changes to the media used to ensure water systems reach consumers
when there is an action level exceedance.  Table IV.6 presents a summary
of the additional activities for reaching at-risk populations and the
associated annual costs per system.  

In addition to the changes to §141.85 of the LCR, EPA is also revising
§141.154(d) of the CCR rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart O), which requires all
community water systems to send an annual report to billed customers
containing information relevant to the quality of the drinking water
provided by the system. 

Table IV.6

Annual Cost Per System Estimate for Additional Activities to Better
Reach At-Risk Populations (2006 dollars)

System Size

Category	i. Public Service Announcements	ii. Paid

Advertisements	iii. Display

in Public Areas	iv. Internet

Notification	v. Public

Meetings	vi. Delivery to

Every Household	vii. Targeted

Contact	viii. Materials Directly

to Multi-Family & Institutions	Average Per System 

All Activities

25-100	$98	$105	$24 	$24 	$48 	$7 	$34	$12	$44

101-500	$101	$105	$26 	$26 	$51 	$30 	$35	$15	$49

501-3,300	$105	$180	$111 	$28 	$55 	$166 	$37	$27	$89

3.3K-10K	$118	$180	$137 	$420 	$900 	$435 	$44	$81	$289

10K-50K	$1,400	$850	$696 	$596 	$2,400 	$1,114 	$66	$303	$928

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

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

Details of how these unit costs were calculated are provided in
Appendices H-6 through H-20 of the Economic Analysis for this final
rule.

States are required to review the language in the utility’s notice to
consumers to make sure the utility is including the required
information.  States are also required to consult with each system with
an action level exceedance.  States will no longer be required to
approve a waiver for notifications for each system that exceeds the lead
action level that serves a population of 501-3,300. 

2. Costs to Utilities

The annual direct costs to utilities resulting from Regulatory Change
III.F are estimated to be $859,200.  The annual system labor cost is
estimated to be $837,900, with the annual system materials are estimated
to cost $21,200.  Estimates of costs associated with each activity are
presented in Table IV.7.  Detailed estimates of costs to utilities are
provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F.   

The requirement to provide information about lead in the CCR is new only
for systems that currently do not detect lead above the action level in
95 percent or more of their sites, since systems in which the 95th
percentile result is above the action level are already required to
provide such information.  However, EPA does not have data on such
systems.  Rather, EPA has data on the (smaller) number of systems that
currently detect lead below the action level in 90 percent of their
sites, and has subtracted this value from the universe of systems to
estimate the number of systems that would incur new costs under this
requirement.   Underestimating the current baseline of systems that
currently detect lead at the 95th percentile level, by using data on
systems that detect lead at the 90th percentile level (a smaller number
of systems), overestimates the remaining number of systems that do not
currently report lead information in their CCR.   EPA’s estimate
assumes that 52,257 additional systems would have to provide information
about lead in their CCR each year, with an additional associated labor
of 0.25 hours per system per year.

Table IV.7: Summary of Costs to Systems Due to LCR Public Education 
Changes (2006 dollars)

Activity	Requirement	Annual Labor 	Annual Materials	Total System Cost

a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials

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

b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d.  Changes to the Required Timing

No cost impact

e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report

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

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

TOTAL	$837,900	$21,200	$859,200

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

3. Costs to States 

The direct costs to States as a result of Regulatory Change III.F are
estimated to be $63,000.  These costs are the annual state labor costs;
no materials cost is expected. These costs are presented in Table IV.8. 
Detailed estimates of costs to States are provided in the Economic
Analysis, Appendix F.

Table IV.8: Summary of  Costs to States Due to LCR Public Education 
Changes (2006 dollars)

Annual Labor	Annual Materials 	Total Annual

III.F Costs to States

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

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

I. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.G

1.  Activities resulting from regulatory change

	Under this regulatory change, utilities that have 90th percentile LCR
samples that exceed the lead action level will need to identify all lead
service lines (LSL) that had previously been determined to be replaced
via sampling.  These utilities will be affected by Regulatory Change
III.G if they exceed the action level again and renew a LSL replacement
program.  These utilities must put these “tested out” LSLs back into
their inventory of lead service lines that could be considered for
replacement.  To estimate the impact of this change, we assume these
formerly “tested out” LSLs will be retested and that some of them
will exceed the lead action level.  The primary activities as a result
of this regulatory change include collecting and analyzing samples from
these LSLs.  Replacement of lines that were previously tested out may
also occur as a result of this change.

2.  Costs to utilities

		The direct costs to utilities as a result of Regulatory Change III.G
are estimated to be $110,000 annually, which includes $101,000 in labor
costs and $9,000 in materials costs.  Detailed estimates of costs to
utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F.  Estimating
the costs to utilities requires an estimate of the number of systems who
have been involved in a lead service line replacement program, the
number of systems likely to discontinue such a program due to low tested
lead levels, and the fraction of those systems likely to subsequently
exceed the action level and restart their lead service line replacement
program.  

		In the responses to the 50-State survey on lead implementation, 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.

3.  Costs to States

	No direct costs are projected for State primacy agencies as a result of
Regulatory Change III.G.  Although the State primacy agencies will
review utility LSL replacement program annual reports, these costs are
attributed to the 1991 LCR rather than this rule.

J.	Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs

	The estimates of annual direct costs for the final regulatory changes
are presented in Table IV.9. 

Table IV.9:  Summary of Annual Direct Costs to Systems and States from
All Regulatory Changes (2006 dollars)1

Regulatory Change	Annual Direct Costs to Systems	Annual  Direct Costs to
States	Total Annual Direct Costs

	Reporting	Monitoring	Consumer Notice	Total

III.A	-	-	-	-	-	-

III.B	-	-	-	-	-	-

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

III.D Low

III.D High	$506,000

$765,000	-	-	$506,000

$765,000	$163,000

$348,000	$669,000

$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

TOTAL High	$736,000

$995,000	$2,745,000	$1,938,000	$5,418,000

$5,677,000	$471,000

$657,000	$5,890,000

$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 State/Primacy Agencies 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 State/Primacy agencies
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

Verification (III.A)	$10,971,000

$104,000

Total System Costs	$11,075,000

Costs to State/Primacy Agencies

	Regulation Adoption 

Verification (III.A)	$1,488,000

$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 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, 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 primacy agency 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
those 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

 Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 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 Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term
Regulatory Revisions (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 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 USC 300g-1).  Section 1412 (b)(9)
requires that EPA, no less than every 6 years review, and if
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 State primacy agencies.  The activities that take
place during the 3-year period covered by the ICR will vary based on the
timing of State implementation of the final rule.  The rule is
structured to allow for early implementation by States within 180 days
of rule publication.  Alternatively, States have up to 2 years to
implement rule provisions as described in section III.I of this notice. 
Because there is some uncertainty in predicting which States will adopt
early implementation versus those that will take 2 years, EPA estimates
an upper and lower bound on ICR burden and cost estimates.  The upper
bound estimate assumes all States will adopt early implementation while
the lower bound estimate assumes States will take 2 years to implement
the rule.  

	The total annual average respondent burden associated with this ICR is
estimated to be 206,997- 297,122 burden hours.  The corresponding total
annual average respondent costs are estimated to be $6.4 to $9.5
million.

	EPA estimates the annual respondent burden for PWSs to be 189,369 -
271,997 hours.  Annual respondent costs for PWSs are estimated to be
$5.6 to $8.4 million.  The Agency estimates that the annual respondent
burden for States is 17,628 – 25,125 hours.  The corresponding annual
average respondent costs for States are estimated to be $0.8 to $1.1
million.  Table V.1 presents a summary of total burden and costs for
this ICR.

Table V.1 – Bottom Line Average Annual Burden and Costs

Upper and Lower Bound Estimates (2006 dollars)

	Lower Bound	Upper Bound

	

Number of Respondents	

72,270 =72,213

+57	

         72,270=72,213

+57	

Public water systems

States 

Total Annual Responses	

186,524 =171,849

+14,675	

426,483 =391,671

+34,812	

Public water system responses

State responses

Number of Responses per PWS	

2.4 =171,849

 /72,213	

5.4 =391,671

/ 72,213	

Total annual PWS responses from above

Total public water systems from above

Number of Responses per State	

257 =14,675

/57	

611=34,812

/57	

Total annual State responses from above

Total States from above

Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours	

206,997 =189,369

+17,628	

297,122 =271,997

+25,125	

Public water system hours

State hours

Hours per System

for Public Water Systems	

2.6  = 189,369

/72,213	

3.8 = 271,997

/72,213	

Total PWS annual hours from above

Total PWS from above

Hours per State for States	

309 =17,628

/57	

441 =25,125

/57	

Total State annual hours from above

Total States from above

Annual O&M Costs	

$118,717 = $117,886

+$831	

 $295,205=$293,920

+$1,284	

Public water system O&M costs

State O&M costs

Total Annual Respondent Cost	

$6,353,532

=$5,584,289

+ $769,243	

$9,520,866

=$8,423,108

+$1,097,758	

Public water system costs

State costs

Total Annual Hours (respondent plus Agency)	

206,997  =206,997

+0	

297,122  =297,122

+0	

Total respondent hours

Total EPA hours

Total Annual Cost (respondent plus Agency)	

$6,353,532

=$6,353,532

+$0	

$9,520,866

 =$9,520,866

+$0	

Total respondent cost

Total EPA cost

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

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by
persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed
to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.  

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.  When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

 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 USC 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).
As stated in that Final Rule, EPA applied the alternative definition to
this regulation 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 will be affected by the
changes to the LCR.  Table V.2 provides a summary of these small
systems, by size category and system type.

Table V.2 - The Number of Small Systems Affected by the Final Rule
Changes

Size	CWS	NTNCWS	TOTAL Small

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

101-500	16,240	6,997	23,237

501-1,000	5,914	1,925	7,839

1,001-3,300	8,298	795	9,093

3,301-10,000	4,707	96	4,803

Total	48,925	19,361	68,286

However, not all of these small entities will be affected and incur
direct costs for all of the final regulatory changes.  In many cases,
only a relatively small subset of these systems will have to change
practices to comply with the regulatory changes. Table V.3 provides an
estimate of the number of small systems that will incur direct costs for
each of the regulatory changes.

Table V.3 - The Number of Small Systems Affected by Each Regulatory
Change

Regulatory Change	Small Systems Impacted Per Year

Regulatory Change III.A	3,682

Regulatory Change III.B	None – Clarifications of definitions with no
direct cost impact

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

	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.

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 all small systems. 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).

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 five 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 per system. Total costs
for all small systems are estimated at $104,000 per year.

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 are estimated at $1,929,000 per year.

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 is estimated at
$198,000 per year.

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
is estimated at $1,060,000.

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, 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 is estimated at $569,000.

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-exceed 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. 

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) 

 	Annual Labor	Annual Materials	Total Annual

Regulatory Change III.A	 $                  -   	 $              -   	 $
                -   

Regulatory Change III.B	 $                  -   	 $              -   	 $
                -   

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

Regulatory Change III.D	 $         198,000 	 $              -   	 $     
  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 

TOTAL	 $       3,492,000 	 $     264,000 	 $      3,755,000 

Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding

Table V.5 - Total Estimated One-Time Small System Costs (2006 dollars)

 	One-Time Costs

Regulatory Change III.A	     $104,000

Implementation	$9,404,000

Total	$9,508,000

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 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, EPA estimates that the roughly 1.4 percent of small
systems that exceed the lead action level would incur an additional
$2,523 per year. If a system incurred all estimated annual costs, the
total would be $2,743 per year.

Measuring Significant 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.  The weighted average revenue from all revenue sources for a
small system is estimated at $2,166,700 per year.  EPA updated its
revenue analysis from the proposal.    

Using the average cost of the regulatory changes for small systems, the
one-time costs represent roughly 0.008 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 1.4 percent of the systems
would incur annual costs of $2,523, which is approximately 0.0116
percent of revenues from all sources.  This maximum annual cost is
approximately 0.127 percent of annual revenues from all sources.

In summary, the costs for the typical small system due to the regulatory
changes are estimated to be less than 1 percent of revenues from all
sources (0.003 percent). In addition, highest possible annual economic
impact on a small system ($2,743 per year) is 0.127 percent of annual
revenues.  Based on this analysis, EPA concludes that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.  This conclusion is based on EPA’s established
alternative definition of small entities as public water systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons.

1.  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, and recommended that EPA
further subcategorize regulated small entities in order to better
understand the economic impacts of the proposed rule on small water
systems of varying size.  EPA appreciates the viewpoint expressed by
this commenter, but notes that the RFA does not require EPA to
subcategorize industries for purposes of preparing regulatory
flexibility analysis.  Furthermore, as explained below, EPA does not
believe that a disaggregated cost/revenue approach for assessing impacts
on small entities is appropriate for this rule.  

	For purposes of assessing the economic impacts of regulatory costs on
small entities in this rule, 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).  As stated in that Final Rule, EPA applied the
alternative definition to this regulation as well.  

	In assessing the economic impacts of this final rule on small water
systems, EPA relied on an aggregated average revenue estimate for
systems serving less than 10,000 customers and compared it to an average
cost estimate for systems serving less than 10,000.  As discussed above,
the revenue estimate used for assessing impacts in this action is
derived from two sources: (1) EPA’s 2000 Community Water System Survey
(CWSS) and (2) 2002 Census of Government data on revenues for
municipalities of less than 10,000 people.  Disaggregating these data
sources by system size sub-categories (e.g., 25-100, 101-500, 501-3,300,
and 3,301-10,000) presents data limitations and quality issues due to
concerns about sample sizes for revenue data, from the CWSS, for each of
the smaller system size sub-categories.  Because of these data
limitations, EPA believes that it is not appropriate to disaggregate
revenues by system size sub-category.  

	EPA is, however, 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, actions that 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.           

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.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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 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.     

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.

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.  

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.  

Executive Order 13211:  Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 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. 

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 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. 

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 [insert date 60 days after date of publication in FR].

VI.  References

US 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].	      

US EPA, 1991b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared by Wade Miller
Associates, Inc. (April 1991).

US 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]. 

US EPA, 1996b. Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum. EPA 812-B-96-002,
January 1996.   

US EPA, 1998. Federal Register. Vol.63, No. 160. Consumer Confidence
Reports (August 19, 1998) [63 FR 44526].

US EPA, 2000a. 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]

US EPA, 2000b. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 87. Public Notification of
Drinking Water Violations (May 4, 2000) [65 FR 26035].

US 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. 

US EPA, 2004b. State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. July,
2004.

US 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]

US EPA, 2006b.  EPA Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Final). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/144aF-bF,
October, 2006

US EPA, 2007a. Final Economic & Supporting Analysis.

US EPA. 2007b. Final Information Collection Request.

[National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:
Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications, Page 127 of 157]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians--lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Dated: 

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

    

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 141
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5,
300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

    2. Section 141.80 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(2), by adding paragraph (c)(3)(v), and by revising paragraph (g) to
read as follows:

Section 141.80  General requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(1) * * *

(2) * * * 

(3) * * *

(i)  * * *

(ii) * * * 

(iii) * * *

(iv) * * *

(v) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with §141.86(c), the
sample result with the highest concentration is considered the 90th
percentile value.

* * * * *

    (g) Public education requirements. Pursuant to §141.85, all water
systems must provide a consumer notice of lead tap water monitoring
results to persons served at the sites (taps) that are tested.  Any
system exceeding the lead action level shall implement the public
education requirements.

 * * * * *

    3. Section 141.81 is amended as follows by:

    a. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding
in its place the following two sentences;

    b. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (e)(1);

    c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(2);

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

    e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii).

Section 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control treatment steps to
small, medium-size and large water systems.

* * * * *

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (iii) Any water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control
pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the State in writing pursuant to
§141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming long-term change in treatment or addition
of a new source as described in that section.  The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or long-term change in water
treatment before it is implemented by the water system. * * * 

* * * * *

    (e) * * *

    (1) * * * A system exceeding the lead or copper action level shall
recommend optimal corrosion control treatment (§141.82(a)) within six
months after the end of the monitoring period during which it exceeds
one of the action levels.

    (2) Step 2: Within 12 months after the end of the monitoring period
during which a system exceeds the lead or copper action level, the State
may require the system to perform corrosion control studies
(§141.82(b)). * * *

    (i) For medium-size systems, within 18 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.

    (ii) For small systems, within 24 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.

* * * * *

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

Section 141.83 Source water treatment requirements.

* * * * *

    (a) * * * (1) Step 1: A system exceeding the lead or copper action
level shall complete lead and copper source water monitoring
(§141.88(b)) and make a treatment recommendation to the State
(§141.83(b)(1)) no later than 180 days after the end of the monitoring
period during which the lead or copper action level was exceeded.

* * * * *

    5. Section 141.84 is amended as follows by:

    a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as (b)(1);

    b. Revising the last sentence in the newly designated (b)(1) and
adding two sentences to the end of the paragraph;

    c. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and

    d. In paragraph (f), revise ``(b)'' to read ``(b)(2)''.

Section 141.84 Lead service line replacement requirements.

* * * * *

    (b)(1) * * * The first year of lead service line replacement shall
begin on the first day following the end of the monitoring period in
which the action level was exceeded under paragraph (a) of this section.
If monitoring is required annually or less frequently, the end of the
monitoring period is September 30 of the calendar year in which the
sampling occurs. If the State has established an alternate monitoring
period, then the end of the monitoring period will be the last day of
that period.

    (2) Any water system resuming a lead service line replacement
program after the cessation of its lead service line replacement program
as allowed by paragraph (f) of this section shall update its inventory
of lead service lines to include those sites that were previously
determined not to require replacement through the sampling provision
under paragraph (c) of this section. The system will then divide the
updated number of remaining lead service lines by the number of
remaining years in the program to determine the number of lines that
must be replaced per year (7 percent lead service line replacement is
based on a 15-year replacement program, so, for example, systems
resuming lead service line replacement after previously conducting two
years of replacement would divide the updated inventory by 13).  For
those systems that have completed a 15-year lead service line
replacement program, the State will determine a schedule for replacing
or retesting lines that were previously tested out under the replacement
program when the system re-exceeds the action level.

* * * * *

    6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as follows:

Section  141.85  Public education and supplemental monitoring 

requirements.

    All water systems must provide a consumer notice of lead tap water
monitoring results to persons served by the water system at sites that
are tested, as specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section. A water system that exceeds the lead action level
based on tap water samples collected in accordance with §141.86 shall
deliver the public education materials contained in paragraph (a) of
this section in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (b) of
this section. Water systems that exceed the lead action level must
sample the tap water of any customer who requests it in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section. 

    (a) Content of written public education materials.  (1) Community
water systems and Non-transient 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,
paragraphs (a)(1)(i)-(ii) and (a)(1)(vi) 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) Opening Statement. 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 action 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 (see
below).  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) Steps you can take to reduce your 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) What happened to cause the elevated lead levels and what is
being done about the elevated lead levels?

    (A) Explain why there are elevated levels of lead in the system's
drinking water (if known).

    (B) Discuss 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], or visit
our Web site at [INSERT YOUR WEB SITE HERE IF APPLICABLE]. For more
information on reducing lead exposure around your home/building and the
health effects of lead, visit EPA's Web site at   HYPERLINK
"http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html
&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/lead"  http://www.epa.gov/lead  or
contact your health care provider.

    (2) Community water systems. In addition to including the elements
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, community water systems
must:

    (A) Tell consumers how to get their water tested.

    (B) 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
§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
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
materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to all organizations on the provided lists.

     (ii) (A) (1) 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.

(ii) (B) 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 with the addition of the system's name and Web site:
[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)
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)-(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) Display Information in Public Areas.

    (D) Internet such as emails to customers.

    (E) Public Meetings.

    (F) Delivery to every household.

    (G) Individual contact with customers (targeted contact).

    (H) Provide materials directly 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 system exceeds the action level, it must repeat the
activities pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section as described in
(b)(3)(i)-(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 (b)(2)(iv) of this section.

    (iv) The community water system shall repeat the task in (b)(2)(v)
of this section twice every 12 months on a schedule agreed upon with the
State. The State can allow activities in (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 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 §141.86. Such
a system shall recommence public education in accordance with this
section if it subsequently exceeds the lead action level during any
monitoring period.

    (7) A community water system may apply to the State, in writing,
(unless the State has waived the requirement for prior State approval)
to use only the text specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in
lieu of the text in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section and to
perform the tasks listed in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section
in lieu of the tasks in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section if:

    (i) The system is a facility, such as a prison or a hospital, where
the population served is not capable of or is prevented from making
improvements to plumbing or installing point of use treatment devices;
and

    (ii) The system provides water as part of the cost of services
provided and does not separately charge for water consumption.

    (8) A community water system serving 3,300 or fewer people may limit
certain aspects of their public education programs as follows:

    (i) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this
section, a system serving 3,300 or fewer must implement at least one of
the activities listed in that paragraph.

    (ii) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of
this section, a system serving 3,300 or fewer people may limit the
distribution of the public education materials required under that
paragraph to facilities and organizations served by the system that are
most likely to be visited regularly by pregnant women and children.

    (iii) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(v) of
this section, the State may waive this requirement for systems serving
3,300 or fewer persons as long as system distributes notices to every
household served by the system.

    (c) Supplemental monitoring and notification of results. A water
system that fails to meet the lead action level on the basis of tap
samples collected in accordance with §141.86 shall offer to sample the
tap water of any customer who requests it. The system is not required to
pay for collecting or analyzing the sample, nor is the system required
to collect and analyze the sample itself.

    (d) Notification of results.  (1) Reporting requirement. All water
systems must provide a consumer notice of lead tap water monitoring
results carried out to meet requirements under §141.86 to persons
served by the water system, at the sampling sites tested pursuant to
§141.86(c).

    (2) Timing of notification. A water system must provide the consumer
notice as soon as practical, but no later than 30 days after the system
learns of the tap monitoring results.

    (3) Content. The consumer notice must include the results of lead
tap water monitoring for the tap that was tested, an explanation of the
health effects of lead, list steps consumers can take to reduce exposure
to lead in drinking water and contact information for the water utility.
The notice must also provide the maximum contaminant level goal and the
action level for lead and the definitions for these two terms from
§141.153(c).  

    (4) Delivery. The consumer notice must be provided to persons served
at the tap that was tested, either by mail or by another method approved
by the State.  For example, upon approval by the State, a non-transient
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.

    7. Section 141.86 is amended as follows:

    a. In the introductory paragraph of (c), adding three sentences
after the third sentence;

    b. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add two sentences after the last sentence;

    c. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii);

    d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iii);

    e. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A);

    f. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B);

    g. In paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)(1) adding as the last sentence;

    h. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (d)(4)(vii), and adding
in its place the following two sentences;

    i. In paragraph (g)(4)(i) adding as the last sentence; and

    j. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (g)(4)(iii) and adding
in its place the following two sentences:

Section 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 §141.86(a) to reach the required number of sample
sites listed in §141.86(c), 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.  The State may allow a public water system to collect a number
of samples less than the number of sites specified at §141.86(c),
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 public water system collecting fewer than the required
number of samples specified at §141.86(c), 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, except as specified at
§141.86(c).  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 corrosion control treatment specified by the State under
§141.82(f) during each of two consecutive six-month monitoring periods
may reduce the frequency of monitoring to once per year and reduce the
number of lead and copper samples in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this section if it receives written approval from the State. This
sampling shall begin during the calendar year immediately following the
end of the second consecutive six-month monitoring period. The State
shall review monitoring, treatment, and other relevant information
submitted by the water system in accordance with §141.90, and shall
notify the system in writing when it determines the system is eligible
to commence reduced monitoring pursuant to this paragraph. The State
shall review, and where appropriate, revise its determination when the
system submits new monitoring or treatment data, or when other data
relevant to the number and frequency of tap sampling becomes available.

    (iii) A small or medium-size water system that meets the lead and
copper action levels during three consecutive years of monitoring may
reduce the frequency of monitoring for lead and copper from annually to
once every three years. Any water system that meets the lead action
level and maintains the range of values for the water quality control
parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment specified by
the State under 

§141.82(f) during three consecutive years of monitoring may reduce the
frequency of monitoring from annually to once every three years if it
receives written approval from the State. Samples collected once every
three years shall be collected no later than every third calendar year.
The State shall review monitoring, treatment, and other relevant
information submitted by the water system in accordance with §141.90,
and shall notify the system in writing when it determines the system is
eligible to reduce the frequency of monitoring to once every three
years. The State shall review, and where appropriate, revise its
determination when the system submits new monitoring or treatment data,
or when other data relevant to the number and frequency of tap sampling
becomes available.

    (iv) * * *

    (A) The State, at its discretion, may approve a different period for
conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for systems collecting a
reduced number of samples. Such a period shall be no longer than four
consecutive months and must represent a time of normal operation where
the highest levels of lead are most likely to occur. For a non-transient
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 §141.82(f) for more than nine days in any six-month
period specified in §141.87(d) shall conduct tap water sampling for
lead and copper at the frequency specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section, collect the number of samples specified for standard monitoring
under paragraph (c) of this section, and shall resume monitoring for
water quality parameters within the distribution system in accordance
with §141.87(d). This standard tap water sampling shall begin no later
than the six-month period beginning January 1 of the calendar year
following the lead action level exceedance or water quality parameter
excursion. Such a system may resume reduced monitoring for lead and
copper at the tap and for water quality parameters within the
distribution system under the following conditions:

    (1) * * * This sampling shall begin during the calendar year
immediately following the end of the second consecutive six-month
monitoring period.

* * * * *

    (vii) Any water system subject to reduced monitoring frequency under
paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall notify the State in writing in
accordance with §141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming long-term change in
treatment or addition of a new source as described in that section.  The
State must review and approve the addition of a new source or long-term
change in water treatment before it is implemented by the water system. 
* * *

* * * * *

    (g) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) * * * Samples collected every nine years shall be collected no
later than every ninth calendar year.

* * * * *

    (iii) Any water system with a full or partial waiver shall notify
the State in writing in accordance with §141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming
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.* * *

*****

    8. Section 141.87 is amended as follows by:

    a. Revising  paragraph (d);

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

    c. Adding as the last sentence of (e)(2)(ii).

Section 141.87 Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.

* * * * *

    (d) Monitoring after State specifies water quality parameter values
for optimal corrosion control. After the State specifies the values for
applicable water quality control parameters reflecting optimal corrosion
control treatment under §141.82(f), all large systems shall measure the
applicable water quality parameters in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this section and determine compliance with the requirements of 
§141.82(g) every six months with the first six-month period to begin on
either January 1 or July 1, whichever comes first, after the State
specifies the optimal values under  §141.82(f).  Any small or medium
system shall conduct such monitoring during each six-month period
specified in this paragraph in which the system exceeds the lead or
copper action level.  For any such small and medium-size system that is
subject to a reduced monitoring frequency pursuant to §141.86(d)(4) at
the time of the action level exceedance, the start of the applicable
six-month monitoring period under this paragraph shall coincide with the
start of the applicable monitoring period under §141.86(d)(4). 
Compliance with State-designated optimal water quality parameter values
shall be determined as specified under §141.82(g)** *

    (e) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) Any water system that maintains the range of values for the
water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment
specified by the State under §141.82(f) during three consecutive years
of monitoring may reduce the frequency with which it collects the number
of tap samples for applicable water quality parameters specified in this
paragraph (e)(1) of this section from every six months to annually. This
sampling begins during the calendar year immediately following the end
of the monitoring period in which the third consecutive year of
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 §141.82(f), during three
consecutive years of annual monitoring under this paragraph may reduce
the frequency with which it collects the number of tap samples for
applicable water quality parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) of
this section from annually to every three years. This sampling begins no
later than the third calendar year following the end of the monitoring
period in which the third consecutive year of monitoring occurs.

    (ii) * * * Monitoring conducted every three years shall be done no 

later than every third calendar year.

* * * * *

    9. Section 141.88 is amended as follows by:

    a. Revising paragraph (b);

    b. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (d)(1)(i);

    c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii);

    d. Revising paragraph (e)(1) introductory text; and

    e. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text.

Section 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 groundwater) shall collect samples once during each calendar year,
the first annual monitoring period to begin during the year in which the
applicable State determination is made under paragraph (d)(1) of this
section.

* * * * *

    (e) * * *

    (1) A water system using only ground water may reduce the monitoring
frequency for lead and copper in source water to once during each
nine-year compliance cycle (as that term is defined in §141.2) provided
that the samples are collected no later than every ninth calendar year
and if the system meets one of the following criteria:

* * * * *

    (2) A water system using surface water (or a combination of surface
water and ground water) may reduce the monitoring frequency in paragraph
(d)(1) of this section to once during each nine-year compliance cycle
(as that term is defined in §141.2) provided that the samples are
collected no later than every ninth calendar year and if the system
meets one of the following criteria:

* * * * *

    10. Section 141.90 is amended as follows by:

    a. Adding a sentence to the end of paragraph (a)(1) introductory
text;

    b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);

    c. Revising paragraph (e)(1);

    d. Revising paragraph (e)(2) introductory text;

    e. Revising the last sentence of paragraph (e)(2)(ii);

    f. Revising paragraph (f)(1) introductory text; 

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

    h. Adding paragraph (f)(3).

Section  141.90  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

    (a) * * * (1)* * * For monitoring periods with a duration less than
six months, the end of the monitoring period is the last date samples
can be collected during that period as specified in §§141.86 and
141.87.

* * * * *

    (3) At a time specified by the State, or if no specific time is
designated by the State, then as early as possible prior to the addition
of a new source or any long-term change in water treatment, a water
system deemed to have optimized corrosion control under §141.81(b)(3),
a water system subject to reduced monitoring pursuant to §141.86(d)(4),
or a water system subject to a monitoring waiver pursuant to
§141.86(g), shall submit written documentation to the State describing
the change or addition.  The State must review and approve the addition
of a new source or long-term change in treatment before it is
implemented by the water system.  Examples of long-term treatment
changes include the addition of a new treatment process or modification
of an existing treatment process.  Examples of modifications include
switching secondary disinfectants, switching coagulants (e.g., alum to
ferric chloride), and switching corrosion inhibitor products (e.g.,
orthophosphate to blended phosphate).  Long-term changes can include
dose changes to existing chemicals if the system is planning long-term
changes to its finished water pH or residual inhibitor concentration. 
Long-term treatment changes would not include chemical dose fluctuations
associated with daily raw water quality changes.

* * * * *

    (e) * * *

    (1) No later than 12 months after the end of a monitoring period in
which a system exceeds the lead action level in sampling referred to in
§141.84(a), the system must submit written documentation to the State
of the material evaluation conducted as required in §141.86(a),
identify the initial number of lead service lines in its distribution
system at the time the system exceeds the lead action level, and provide
the system's schedule for annually replacing at least 7 percent of the
initial number of lead service lines in its distribution system.

    (2) No later than 12 months after the end of a monitoring period in
which a system exceeds the lead action level in sampling referred to in
§141.84(a), and every 12 months thereafter, the system shall
demonstrate to the State in writing that the system has either:

    (i) * * *

    (ii) * * * In such cases, the total number of lines replaced and/or
which meet the criteria in §141.84(c) shall equal at least 7 percent of
the initial number of lead lines identified under paragraph (1) of this
section (or the percentage specified by the State under  §141.84(e)).

* * * * *

    (f) * * * (1) Any water system that is subject to the public
education requirements in §141.85 shall, within ten days after the end
of each period in which the system is required to perform public
education in accordance with §141.85(b), send written documentation to
the State that contains:

    (i) A demonstration that the system has delivered the public
education materials that meet the content requirements in §141.85 (a)
and the delivery requirements in   §141.85(b); and

* * * * *

     (3) No later than 3 months following the end of the monitoring
period, each system must mail a sample copy of the consumer notification
of tap results to the primacy agency along with a certification that the
notification has been distributed in a manner consistent with the
requirements of §141.85(d).

*****

    11. Section 141.154 is amended by revising paragraph (d)
introductory text, paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) to read as follows:

Section  141.154  Required additional health information.

* * * * *

Every report must include the following:

(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 Primacy Agency.

* * * * *

 PAGE   

 PAGE   9