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 a
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 previous LCR regulatory language, 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. 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 minimal.

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 $2.4 million annually including $2.2 million in labor
costs and $0.2 million in materials costs. Detailed estimates are
provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix C (Economic and Supporting
Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule,
Appendix C, U.S. EPA 2006b).
    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 995 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 3300 people. EPA used this data to estimate that 1.4
percent of systems (including system serving fewer than 3300 people)
will exceed the action level each year.

                              Table IV.2.--Systems Over the Action Level Since 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 \1\<3,300       3,300<50,000       >50,000           Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of systems above Action Level since              884               97               14              995
 2003.......................................
Total number of systems.....................         64,382            7,388              819           72,589
Percent of systems with monitoring results                1.4              1.3              1.7              1.4
 since 2003 over AL.........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Estimate for systems <3,300 is based upon data from systems >3,300.

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

small systems, Summary, Lead Action Level exceedances for public water
systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule (For data through September
13, 2004).
    The number of systems on reduced monitoring was estimated using
state responses to the EPA survey on LCR implementation (State
Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. U.S. EPA 2004d). 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 action level, and are on reduced monitoring, are likely
to exceed at the same rate as all systems. Therefore, we assume that 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. This assumption is conservative, because
systems that are likely to have exceedances are 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 5 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, a conservative 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 5 monitoring events
over a 3 year period (6 monitoring events in three years under regular
monitoring instead of 1 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 5 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 $77,000 annually including $76,000 in labor costs and
$1000 in materials costs, as summarized in Table IV.3. Detailed
estimates are included in the Economic Analysis, Appendix C (Economic
and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix C, U.S. EPA, 2006b).

 Table IV.3.--Summary of Estimated Direct Costs to Systems and State/Primacy Agencies Associated With Regulatory
                                                  Change III.C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                                                                   Annual  labor     materials     Total  annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
    Reporting...................................................         $56,000           $1000         $57,000
    Tap Monitoring..............................................       2,157,000         214,000       2,371,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total System Costs......................................       2,213,000         215,000       2,428,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
    Review Costs................................................          76,000            1000          77,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total State Costs.......................................          76,000            1000          77,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
change a treatment process prior to implementation. The current
requirement is that systems notify States about changes in treatment or
additions of new sources within 60 days of a change or addition. The
proposed regulatory language allows as much time as needed for water
systems and States to consult before a proposed change is approved.
    New system activities will include the preparation of the
corrosiveness implications of treatment or source changes prior to the
change and a letter to the state. New State/Primacy agency activities
will include review of the system data on the corrosiveness

implications of a treatment or source change 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
    The direct costs to utilities range from $474,000 to $733,000
annually. These direct costs are strictly labor costs; materials costs
are expected to be negligible. Estimates are summarized in Table IV.4.
Detailed estimates are provided in Appendix D (Table 6.1) of the
Economic Analysis (Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix D, U.S. EPA,
2006b).
    In order to estimate the cost of this provision to utilities,
information is needed on the number of systems that will change a
treatment or add a source annually, 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.
    Many States already have a review and approval process for
treatment or source changes. In 2004, as part of a review of the
implementation of LCR requirements by States, EPA asked State programs
a number of questions about how they implement different aspects of the
LCR. Included were the following questions: ``How do systems notify the
State of treatment changes? Does the State require that systems provide
information about potential effects of treatment changes on corrosion
control?''
    14 States indicated that they currently have a review and approval
process for treatment changes. Another nine States have a process that
requires a permit for treatment changes and an additional eight States
review submissions of engineering plans for proposed changes. Although
not a review and approval process focused specifically on the impact of
a change on corrosion control, the permitting and plan review processes
are comprehensive enough that they should include corrosion issues. For
the purposes of this analysis, two estimates were used of the number of
States that already have a review and approval process that would
include information on corrosion 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) 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 is also needed of the number of systems that will
change a treatment or add a source annually, in order to estimate the
cost of this provision to utilities. Treatment changes over the next
several years are likely, as systems will be faced with new regulatory
requirements, including changes to comply with the already promulgated
Arsenic Rule and the upcoming Long Term 2 Surface Water Treatment Rule
and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule. 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--2,968 systems (Data source: June 2003 draft EA, pp.
6-23, 4-23);
     Stage 2 D/DBP--1,824 systems (Data source: July 2003 draft
EA, pp. 6-35, 6-30).
    Together, these regulatory requirements are estimated to cause
8,892 systems to institute a treatment change, although not all of
these treatment changes will affect corrosion control. Also the
compliance periods for these regulations varies. For example, the Stage
2 and LT2 treatment changes are projected to take place within a 6 year
compliance period for large systems (with the possibility of 2-year
extension) and 8 years for small systems (with the possibility of 2-
year extension). To account for these expected treatment changes, and
to account for treatment changes unrelated to the arsenic, LT2, and
Stage 2 rules, EPA assumed (based on the projected rule-related
treatment changes and expert judgment) that approximately 20% of the
systems affected by the LCR will institute a treatment change in the
next ten years. It is assumed that these changes occur uniformly over
that 10-year period, so that approximately one-tenth of these systems
(or 2 percent of the total) institute a treatment change each year.
    Using the 2 percent estimate, 1,067 (53,372 x .02) systems each
year would report a treatment change or source addition and incur costs
in that year in States currently not covered by an explicit review and
approval program. The estimate for the number of systems is 552 if
States with a permitting or plan approval process are also excluded.
    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.
The activities and burden associated with the review and approval
process are expected to vary based on the size and complexity of a
system, and the nature of the change or source addition. In the absence
of information on the current prevalence of these activities, EPA has
used the 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 coordination 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 $201 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 $153,000 to $328,000 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 letter 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 on State review from 4 to 8 hours.
    Those States incurring additional costs due to regulatory change
III.D are those that do not already have a review and approval process
which considers the corrosion control implications of treatment
changes. All States currently review treatment or source changes within
60 days after the change. However, some States are already reviewing
and issuing approval before such changes are made. Based on the State
program responses to the EPA questions on the implementation of LCR
requirements (on existing review and approval processes), the analysis
assumes either that 14 States have existing explicit review and
approval processes or that 31 States have existing review and approval
processes (if permit and plan review processes are also counted). The
remaining States under each alternative will incur costs under this
regulatory change as they review and approve changes before they are
made, rather than simple review after the change has been made.
    For the States that will incur new costs, new State/Primacy agency
activities will include review of the system data on the corrosiveness
implications of a 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Annual cost--   Annual cost--
                                           low estimate    high estimate
                                                \1\             \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
    Reporting...........................        $474,000        $733,000
                                         -------------------------------
        Total System Costs..............         474,000         733,000
                                         -------------------------------
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
    Review Costs........................         153,000         328,000
                                         -------------------------------
        Total State Costs...............         153,000        328,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 will require 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. 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. Supporting calculations and information regarding
costs to utilities and States associated with this regulatory change
are included in the Economic Analyses, Appendix E (Economic and
Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and
Copper Rule, Appendix E, U.S. EPA, 2006b).
2. Costs to Utilities
    The direct costs to utilities for compliance with Regulatory Change
III.E are summarized in Exhibit 4 and estimated to be $1,028,000
annually including $894,000 in labor costs and $134,000 in materials
costs for envelopes and postage. This is based on 310,510 notices being
provided to customers each year, with estimated associated labor.
Detailed estimates are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E-2
(Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix E, U.S. EPA, 2006b).
    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 proposed regulatory change.
This analysis uses information from the State survey (State
Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. U.S. EPA, 2004) to develop
an estimate of the number of systems that currently notify customers of
tap sampling results. Of 72,213 CWS and NTNCWSs (per 2004 SDWIS/Fed
data) subject to the LCR, 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
    No new costs to States are assumed. States are not required to
review the notification letter or notice.

                  Table IV.5.--Summary of Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.E
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                                                                   Annual  labor     materials     Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
    Customer Notice of Lead Results Costs.......................        $894,000        $134,000      $1,028,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total System Costs......................................         894,000         134,000       1,028,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.F

    Regulatory Change III.F changes the public education requirements
of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in Sec.  141.85. Water systems would
still be required to deliver public education materials after a Lead
Action Level exceedance, but the text of the message to be provided to
consumers, how the materials are delivered to consumers, and the
timeframe in which materials must be 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.
    In addition to the changes to Sec.  141.85 of the LCR, revisions
will be made to Sec.  141.154(d) of the CCR rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart
O) which requires 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. EPA is proposing to change the
CCR rule to require all community water systems that detect lead to
include information about the risks of lead in drinking water on a
regular basis.
1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
    (a) Changes to the mandatory text of the written materials.
    (a)(1) Customer Notification: Deliver brochures to all bill-paying
customers within 60 days.
    The brochure will include a section on ``What happened? What is
being done?'' to be developed by each water system. Mandatory language
will address essential topics such as the opening statement and health
effects language. The mandatory language will be shorter and easier to
understand than the language that is currently used. EPA will develop
suggested language.
    (b) Changes to better reach at-risk populations.
    (b)(1) Brochures will be delivered to additional organizations,
with a cover letter.
    The organizations to be added to the list of required recipients of
the brochures will increase the likelihood that the most vulnerable
populations or their caregivers will receive the information they need
to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. These organizations
will include licensed childcare centers, preschools and Obstetricians-
Gynecologists and Midwives. Also, local public health agencies will be
contacted by phone.
    (b)(2) Systems will perform additional activities.
    Systems serving more than 3,300 will be required to implement three
or more activities from a list of possible activities. Systems serving
fewer than 3,300 will be required to implement one activity from the
list. A list of nine possible activities follows (including a general
``other methods'' because the primacy agency may also approve other
methods). An estimate of the annual cost of each identified activity is
given in Table IV.6.
    (i) Public Service Announcement: Production of a radio PSA includes
developing a script for the spot and then producing an audio of the
spot.
    (ii) Paid advertisement.
    (iii) Information display in public areas: Posting a notice at a
local grocery store or laundromat.
    (iv) Internet: Email contact with all customers.
    (v) Public Meetings: For systems serving fewer than 3,300, system
representatives would bring up the issue for discussion at an existing
town meeting. For systems serving over 3,300, a separate public meeting
would be held. This activity includes making logistical arrangements,
preparing a 30-45 minute presentation, attending the meeting, and doing
follow-up activities such as meeting notes.
    (vi) Delivery to every household: Delivery to every postal address,
either through mail or distribution of flyers.
    (vii) Targeted individual contact with customers: Especially
vulnerable customers, such as pregnant women and children, would be
individually contacted.
    (viii) Materials to be provided directly to multi-family homes and
institutions.
    (ix) Other methods approved by the primacy agency.

                       Table IV.6.--Annual Cost Per System Estimate for Additional Activities to Better Reach At-Risk Populations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                viii.
                                   i. Public                    iii. Display                               vi.        vii.       Materials      Average
     System size category           service        ii. Paid       in public   iv. Internet  v. Public   Delivery    Targeted    directly to   per system
                                 announcements  advertisements      areas     notification   meetings   to every    contact   multi-family &      all
                                                                                household              institutions   activities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-100........................             $95            $105           $23           $23        $45          $7        $34             $12         $43
101-500.......................              95             105            25            24         45          30         34              14          47
501-3,300.....................              95             180           106            26         45         166         36              26          85
3.3K-10K......................              95             180           108           384        800         435         42              66         264
10K-50K.......................           1,400             850           556           526      2,200       1,114         64             247         870
50K-100K......................           1,400           5,000         1,111           526      2,900       2,448        135             771       1,786
>100K.........................           1,400           5,000         3,330           912      5,000       3,874        548           4,311       3,047
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Details of how these unit costs were calculated are provided in
Appendices H-6 through H-20 of the Economic Analysis for the rule.
    (b)(3) Review activities for States.
    States will review the language in the utility's notice to
consumers to make sure the utility is including the required
information. States will also 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.
    (c) Changes to help systems maintain communication with consumers
throughout the exceedance.
    (c)(1) Every water bill will contain a message about lead while a
system is exceeding the action level.
    (c)(2) Post brochure on Web site if system serves >100,000 people.
    (c)(3) Public service announcements and press releases.
    The requirement to send public service announcements (PSAs) to TV
stations and radio stations every six months while a system has an Lead
Action Level exceedance will be cut to once every year. The PSA must be
sent to five TV stations and five radio stations. A press release will
still have to be submitted to newspapers, TV stations and radio
stations.
    (d) Changes to the required timing.
    No cost impact.

    (e) Changes to Consumer Confidence Report.
    (e)(1) Inclusion of an informational statement on CCR for all
systems.
    Systems that detect lead in their drinking water will have to
include an informational statement about lead in their CCR. Currently,
only those systems with more than five percent of their sites above the
Lead Action Level must include an informational statement in their CCR.
2. Costs to Utilities
    The direct costs to utilities as a result of Regulatory Change
III.F are estimated to be $780,500. The annual system labor cost is
estimated to be $759,500, with the annual system materials cost
$21,000. Estimates of costs associated with each activity are given in
Table IV.7. Detailed estimates of costs to utilities are provided in
the Economic Analysis, Appendix F (Economic and Supporting Analysis
Short Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix F,
U.S. EPA, 2006b). The costs for the CCR component may be overstated
because EPA does not have specific data to determine the percentage of
systems that will not detect lead. Thus, we have assumed that all
systems will detect lead in their water, which may lead to an
overstatement of the cost estimates shown in Table IV.7. In addition,
the requirement to provide information about lead in the CCR would be
new only for systems that currently detect lead below the action level
in 95% 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% 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.
Thus, there are two factors contributing to a possible overestimate in
the national cost for the CCR statement. The first factor is that
assuming all systems will detect lead overestimates the number of
systems that will actually detect lead, because some systems do not
detect any lead. The second factor is that 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 additional
associated labor of 0.25 hours per system per year.

        Table IV.7.--Summary of Preliminary Costs to Systems Due to LCR Public Education Proposed Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual       Total system
             Activity                        Requirement           Annual  labor     materials         cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(a)(1).......................  Customer Notification.......         $84,900              $0         $84,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(b)(1).......................  Notify Additional                     18,700          21,400          40,100
                                     Organizations.
III.F(b)(2).......................  Additional Activities i-viii         275,100               0         275,100
III.F(b)(2).......................  Consult with State on                 14,400               0          14,400
                                     Activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           c. Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication With Consumers Throughout the Exceedance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(c)(1).......................  Customer Bills..............          43,300               0          43,300
III.F(c)(2).......................  Post on Web site............             100               0             100
III.F(c)(3).......................  PSAs and Press Releases.....          -3,000            -500          -3,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        d. Changes to the Required Timing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 No cost impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(e)(1).......................  CCR Statement...............         325,900               0         325,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Total Costs to Systems for PE Requirements (III.F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.........................  ............................         759,500         $21,000        780,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 $50,600. These costs are the annual state labor
costs; no materials cost is expected. These costs are given in Table
IV.8. Detailed estimates of costs to States are provided in the
Economic Analysis, Appendix F (Economic and Supporting Analysis Short
Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix F, U.S.
EPA, 2006b).

        Table IV.8.--Summary of Preliminary Costs to States Due to LCR Public Education Proposed Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                                                                   Annual  labor     materials     Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F Costs to States:
    Review and consultation.....................................         $50,600              $0         $50,600
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        III.F Total State Costs.................................          50,600               0          50,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.G

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Cchange
    Under this proposed 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. If a LSL was previously ``tested out'' or
determined to be replaced by sampling, the sample previously collected
from the LSL had a lead level less than the Lead Action Level. These
utilities would 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 $97,000 annually, which includes $87,000 in
labor costs and $10,000 in materials costs. Detailed estimates of costs
to utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F
(Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term Regulatory Changes to the
Lead and Copper Rule, Appendix F, U.S. EPA, 2006b). 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
(State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule U.S. EPA, 2004), 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 a 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, we assume 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 not sufficient information to determine how many
of 54 systems suspended their lead replacement programs, and later
restarted the programs due to an exceedance, we 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, we assume that 1.4 percent of the 54 systems or 1 system will
exceed the Action Level and 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 is conservative 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 conservative 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
change.
    Replacement of lines that were previously tested out may also occur
as a result of this change. EPA cannot quantify the costs associated
with this change for a number of reasons. As noted above, EPA does not
have information on the number of systems and the number of lines that
have been previously tested out and could be impacted by this change.
This difficulty is further compounded by the fact that some lines may
have been replaced as part of the ongoing utility replacement programs.
In the 1991 final regulatory impact analysis, EPA cited an AWWA survey
that produced an estimate of 1 percent of lead service lines being
replaced per year as part of ongoing utility replacement programs.
After promulgation of the rule, many systems modified their ongoing
utility replacement programs to replace lead lines at a higher rate.
    Where lines would have to be replaced, the unit cost of replacement
is measured in $ per foot of line being replaced. The 1991 final
regulatory impact analysis provided a range of $26 to $51 per foot,
depending upon system size, as the unit cost for lead service line
replacement. Using the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index,
updated estimates would range from $41 per foot for small systems to
$80 per foot for large systems. The length of the lead service line
owned by systems will also vary, which will affect costs.
    The derivation of the number of lead service lines per system and
the number of lines to be retested are based on several assumptions.
Since EPA does not know the number of years that the system was on the
lead service line replacement program before meeting the AL, a
conservative assumption was made that all lines were either tested or
physically replaced. EPA estimated that the one system impacted by this
change is a large system with 21,467 lead service lines. The percent of
lead service lines tested out rather than replaced is estimated at 76
percent based on one year of data from DC WASA. It is likely that the
estimates of the proportion of lines that are tested out rather than
replaced is high because the 76 percent test out was during an initial
year of replacement when a system is more likely to be able to test out
lines rather than replace them. The time required to physically replace
lines also leads to a higher percentage of test outs in the first year
at DC WASA. We do not know the remaining years in the lead service line

replacement program, therefore, we assumed that 76 percent of lead
service lines will need to be retested over a 15 year period. The
resulting number of lead service lines that are assumed to be retested
each year is 1,088.
3. Costs to States
    No direct costs are expected for State/Primacy agencies as a result
of Regulatory Change III.G. The State/Primacy Agencies will review
utility Lead Service Line replacement program annual reports but these
costs were captured previously in the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis
of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper,
April 1991 (Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, U.S. EPA, 1991b).

J. Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs

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

                       Table IV.9.--Summary of Annual Direct Costs to Systems and States From All Proposed Regulatory Changes \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual direct costs to systems
                                                         ----------------------------------------------------------------  Annual direct   Total annual
                    Regulatory change                                                        Consumer                        costs to      direct costs
                                                             Reporting      Monitoring        notice           Total          states
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.A...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
III.B...................................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
III.C...................................................         $56,000      $2,371,000  ..............      $2,428,000         $77,000      $2,505,000
III.D Low...............................................         474,000  ..............  ..............         474,000         153,000         627,000
III.D High..............................................         733,000  ..............  ..............         733,000         328,000       1,061,000
III.E...................................................  ..............  ..............      $1,027,000       1,027,000  ..............       1,027,000
III.F...................................................  ..............  ..............         780,000         780,000          51,000         831,000
III.G...................................................  ..............          97,000  ..............          97,000  ..............          97,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Low...........................................         530,000  ..............  ..............       4,805,000         281,000       5,086,000
                                                          ..............       2,468,000       1,807,000  ..............
    Total High..........................................         789,000  ..............  ..............       5,064,000         456,000      5,520,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. Totals may not add due to 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 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.
2. Total Costs to Utilities
    Direct costs to utilities are estimated to be $8.1 million as
summarized in Table IV.8. Detailed estimates of costs to utilities are
provided in the Economic Analysis Appendix G (Economic and Supporting
Analysis Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule,
Appendix G, U.S. EPA, 2006b). 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 $0.7 million as
summarized in Table IV.10 and detailed in Appendix G of the Economic
Analysis (Economic and Supporting Analysis Short-Term Regulatory
Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA, 2005b, Appendix A).
Similar to 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          One time labor
                                                               costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
    Review & Communication..............................      $8,076,000
                                                         ---------------
Total System Costs......................................       8,076,000
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
  Regulation Adoption...................................         730,000
                                                         ---------------
        Total State Costs...............................         730,000
        Total Rule Implementation Costs.................       8,806,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Indirect Costs

    Previous sections focused on the direct costs of the proposed
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 proposed 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 the 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 the rule.

M. Benefits

    The intent of this proposed 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. The proposed 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 result in the generation of 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 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 proposed revisions on the behavior
of individuals and systems is not known, EPA has not quantified the
changes in health benefits associated with these proposed revisions.
EPA does expect that overall benefits from the LCR will increase, as a
result of the indirect effect of the revisions on the actions of
individual consumers and systems.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, [58 Federal Register 51735 (October 4,
1993)] the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is
``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB review and the
requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant
regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4)
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive
Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that it considers this a ``significant regulatory action'' within
the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to
OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations are documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed 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 Request (ICR) document prepared by EPA has been
assigned EPA ICR number XXXX.XX.
1. Need for the Information Collection
    EPA requires current information on lead and copper contamination
to be provided to consumers and States. Recent 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
enhance protection of public health through additional information
gathering and public education. Consumers and States will use the
information collected as a result of the short-term revisions to the
LCR to determine the appropriate action they should undertake. The rule
revisions described in Section III of this proposal 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 the SDWA requires that regulations contain
``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
the 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. * * *'' In addition, Section
1413(a)(3) of the SDWA requires States to ``keep such records and make
such reports * * * as the Administrator may require by regulation.''
    Section 1412(b) of the 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, and, in the opinion of
the Administrator, present an opportunity for health risk reduction.
The NPDWRs specify maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques
for drinking water contaminants (42 U.S.C. 300g-1). Section 1412(b)(9)
requires that EPA no less than every 6 years review, and if
appropriate, revise existing drinking water standards. Promulgation of
the LCR implements these statutory requirements.
2. Burden Estimate
    The universe of respondents for this ICR is comprised of the 52,838
CWSs and 19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of 72,213 systems, and 57 State
primacy agencies. Table V.1 presents a summary of total burden and
costs for the ICR period of 2006-2008.
    The annual system burden is estimated at 107,924 hours in 2006,
107,924 hours in 2007, and 107,924 hours in 2008. The annual system
costs are projected at $2.7 million in 2006, $2.7 million in 2007, and
$2.7 million in 2008.
    The annual State burden is estimated at 5,928 hours in 2006, 5,928
hours in 2007, and 5,928 hours in 2008. The annual State costs are
projected at $243,226 in 2006, $243,226 in 2007, and $243,226 in 2008.
These annual costs reflect the costs to systems and States for the
first three years after rule promulgation and consist of the one-time
direct costs for rule review and implementation. Upon the effective
date of the rule, three years after rule promulgation, EPA estimates
annual costs to systems for all proposed regulatory revisions ranging
from $4.8 to $5.1 million and annual costs to States for all proposed
regulatory revisions ranging from $281,000 to $456,000. A detailed
discussion of these costs is presented in Section IV of this notice.
3. Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs
    The total burden and costs for the three year compliance period of
2006 to 2008 is summarized in Table V.1. The total burden and costs for
each regulatory change is explained in the ICR document for this
proposed action.

         Table V.1.--Summary of the Burden and Costs From 2006-2008 for the Proposed Regulatory Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Burden         Cost  (in
                           Respondent                                Number of     (hours) 2006-    $millions)
                                                                    respondents        2008          2006-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWSs............................................................          72,213         323,772            $8.1
State...........................................................              57          17,784            0.73
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................          72,270         341,556             8.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimates of the annual burden and costs from 2006 to 2008 are
summarized in Table V.2.

                        Table V.2.-- A Summary of the Annual Burden and Costs from 2006-2008 for the Proposed Regulatory Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               2006                         2007                         2008
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Respondent                                Burden       Cost  (in       Burden       Cost  (in       Burden       Cost  (in
                                                                     (hours)      $millions)      (hours)      $millions)      (hours)      $millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWSs.............................................................      107,924             2.7      107,924             2.7      107,924             2.7
State............................................................        5,928            0.24        5,928            0.24        5,928            0.24
                                                                  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total........................................................      113,852            2.94      113,852            2.94      113,852            2.94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Burden and costs are the same in all three years as it is assumed
that the one-time costs to prepare for rule implementation will be
spread over the three year period prior to compliance with the
regulatory changes.
4. Burden Statement
    For the ICR period of 2006 through 2008 associated with the short-
term revisions to the LCR, the average burden for systems to implement
the proposed requirements of the short-term LCR revisions is estimated
to be 1.49 hours per system per year. The average annual cost to
systems is expected to be $37.28 per system per year. System burden
includes time to read and understand the rule requirements and
communicate those requirements to system personnel and management. The
average burden for State agencies is estimated to be 104 hours per
State per year. This burden includes the time to inform systems of the
requirements, and perform primacy related activities. The estimated
annual State cost is estimated to be $4,267 per State per year.
    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. To comment on the
Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the

provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection
techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this rule, which
includes this ICR, under Docket ID number 2005-0034. Submit any
comments related to the ICR for this proposed rule to EPA and OMB. See
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this proposal for where to submit
comments to EPA. Send comments to OMB at the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Since OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days
after July 18, 2006, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it by August 17, 2006. The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
Small entities are defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any ``not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also authorizes an agency to
use alternative definitions for each category of small entity, ``which
are appropriate to the activities of the agency'' after proposing the
alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register and taking comment. 5
U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition, to establish an alternative small
business definition, agencies must consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
Advocacy.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposal on small
entities, EPA considered small entities to be 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 7620,
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, the alternative definition is
applied to this regulation as well.
    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, EPA certifies that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities directly regulated by this proposed 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 experience an impact
from .004 percent to .13 percent of their revenues (see section
V.C.10). Table V.4 provides a summary of these small systems, by size
category and system type.

                    Table V.4.--The Number of Small Systems Affected by the Proposed 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 proposed rule changes. In many cases, only
a relatively small subset of these systems will have to change
practices to comply with the rule changes. Table V.5 provides an
estimate of the number of small systems that will incur direct costs
for each of the proposed rule changes.

   Table V.5.--The Number of Small Systems Affected by Each Regulatory
                                 Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Regulatory change             Small systems impacted per year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change  III.A......  Not Quantified.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Activities and Costs Associated With Rule Changes for Small Systems
    EPA has estimated the burden and costs associated with the proposed
rule changes as described in the Economic Analysis support document.
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.

2. One-Time Activities
    All small systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule will be
expected to incur some costs to read the proposed rule changes and
communicate requirements as necessary. The level of effort associated
with these activities could range from 4-8 hours for all small systems.
The average cost per system for these activities is estimated at $105,
for a total cost of $7,193,000 for all 68,286 small systems. This
assumes an hourly fully loaded labor cost for small system employees
ranging from $22.70 to $26.83 (see Appendix B of the Economic Analysis
for derivation).
3. Activities for Regulatory Change III.C
    Under Regulatory Change III.C, all systems that exceed the Lead
Action Level are triggered into regularly scheduled lead tap
monitoring. Additional costs are associated with taking lead samples
more frequently and reporting the results to States. EPA estimates that
854 small systems exceed the Action Level each year. Changing from
reduced tap monitoring to a regular tap monitoring schedule would
result in an average cost increase of $2,092 per year per system. Total
costs for all small systems are estimated at $1,786,000 per year.
4. Activities for Regulatory Change III.D
    Small systems that are changing treatment or adding a source would
incur additional costs under Regulatory Change III.D to prepare data in
support of proposed treatment changes or source addition, submit the
data to the State for review, and 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 $201. The total cost for small systems is estimated at
$203,000 per year.
5. Activities for Regulatory Change III.E
    Most small systems are expected to incur additional costs under
Regulatory Change III.E when they are required to notify consumers of
tap monitoring results. The activities associated with notifying
customers vary based on the type and size of the system. The average
cost for small systems to notify customers is estimated at
approximately $14 annually. This estimate assumes one labor hour to
prepare a customer notification letter per system and $0.43 in material
costs per sample for CWSs. EPA assumed one labor hour 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 small systems is
estimated at $878,000.
6. Activities for Regulatory Change III.F
    Different provisions of Regulatory Change III.F apply to different
subsets of systems. Most small Community Water Systems will incur costs
to include a statement on lead on the CCR, at an average cost of $6 per
system, based on the assumption of 0.25 hours to add an informational
statement on lead to the CCR. Small Non-Transient Non-Community Water
Systems that exceed the Lead Action Level will incur costs to modify
their public notification language, at an average cost per system of
$83. 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 $348. The total cost for small systems is
estimated at $517,000.
7. Activities for Regulatory Change III.G
    Regulatory Change III.G applies to systems that have ``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 one system per year. There is no evidence that
small systems would be triggered into this regulatory change cost any
more frequently than other systems. If this system were a small system,
a lower number of lead service lines would be replaced or tested out
than was assumed in the Economic Analysis. The average number of
service connections per system for systems serving fewer than 10,000 is
289. For the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis we assume
that all 289 of these service connections are lead service lines. The
resulting cost per system for the retesting is estimated at $1,311 per
year for a small system based on the approach described earlier in the
Economic Analysis for Regulatory Change III.G. The percent assumed to
be tested out rather than replaced is estimated at 76 percent based on
one year of data from DC WASA. This means that 76 percent of the 289
service connection lines would need to be retested over a 15 year
period.
8. Total Small System Costs
    Table V.6 summarizes the estimated annual costs associated with all
proposed regulatory changes after those changes have been implemented.
An additional $7,193,000 in one-time rule implementation costs will
also be incurred during the three year period prior to implementation
of the changes.

                                      Table V.6.--Total Small System Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                                                                   Annual  labor     materials     Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Regulatory Change III.B................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
Regulatory Change III.C................................      $1,625,000        $162,000      $1,787,000
Regulatory Change III.D................................         203,000  ..............         203,000
Regulatory Change III.E................................         779,000          99,000         878,000
Regulatory Change III.F................................         513,000           4,000         517,000
Regulatory Change III.G................................           1,178             133           1,311
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................       3,121,000         265,000       3,386,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Average Costs Per Small System
    The average compliance cost for all small systems covered by the
LCR for the proposed rule change is minimal: $50 per system in annual
costs. However, there is a fairly wide range in the costs that a system
could face. All systems will incur a $105 one-time cost, but the
additional annual costs could be as low as $0 for small systems that
already notify customers of tap monitoring results and who do not
detect lead in their compliance sampling. Systems that do not already
notify customers of results will incur a cost of $14 per year. Systems
that detect any level of lead above the method detection limit of 0.001
mg/L in their compliance sample will incur a cost of $6 per year to
include a statement in their CCR. The roughly 1.5 percent of systems
that are making a treatment change or source addition would incur an
additional $201 in the year they make the change.
    At the high end, the roughly 1.4 percent of small systems that
exceed the Action Level would incur an additional $2,440 per year.
Under the assumptions in the Economic Analysis, only .0015 percent of
systems (1 per year) could possibly incur both the additional tap
monitoring costs and lead service line testing costs after an Action
Level exceedance, at a total cost of $1,311 per year. If a system
incurred all annual costs, the total would be $3,972 per year.
10. Measuring Significant Impact of Rule Costs
    The costs to small systems are first 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. In the Economic Analysis for the
final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, EPA
calculates the average revenues from all revenue sources for small
systems serving fewer than 10,000 for each of the small entity types
and then estimates a weighted average revenue from all revenue sources
based on the proportion of small systems in each type of entity (U.S.
EPA 2005c). The weighted average revenue from all revenue sources for
small systems is estimated at $3 million per year.
    Using the average cost of the regulatory changes for small systems,
the one-time implementation costs represent roughly 0.004 percent of
annual revenues from all revenue sources. The $50 average annual costs
represent 0.002 percent of average annual revenues from all revenue
sources. Roughly 1.4 percent of the systems would incur annual costs of
$2,440, which is approximately .082 percent of revenues from all
sources. Only 1 system could face the maximum annual costs of $3,972.
This maximum cost is approximately 0.13 percent of annual revenues from
all sources.
    In summary, the costs for the average small system due to the
regulatory changes are estimated to be less than 1 percent of revenues
(0.002 percent). In addition, fewer than 100 systems (1 system per
year) are expected to experience economic impacts of approximately 0.13
percent of the revenue.
    Based on this analysis, EPA has concluded that the proposed rule
changes will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities by
considering several alternatives to the proposed regulatory changes
that could minimize impact to small systems while still meeting the
objectives of the rule.
11. Regulatory Changes III.A
    These changes clarify the original intent of the LCR that very
small NTNCWSs serving 100 persons or fewer take a minimum of five
samples for each sampling period, even if the system has fewer than
five sampling locations. EPA is requesting comment on an option
suggested by a work group comprised of representatives from EPA's
regional offices and several States that would limit the number of
samples these systems would have to take to one for each location
(i.e., tap). Taking fewer than five samples for each monitoring event
would reduce the monitoring burden for small systems. However, as
explained in the preamble to the proposed regulatory changes, EPA
believes that taking fewer than five samples for a system would likely
compromise the statistical objectives of monitoring for lead and
copper.
12. Regulatory Change III.C
    Regulatory Change III.C requires systems that have exceeded the
Lead Action Level to resume tap monitoring for lead on a regular,
rather than reduced, schedule. Originally, EPA had considered extending
this requirement to both lead and copper monitoring. Based on
suggestions from the work group to minimize impacts on small systems,
EPA limited the requirement to only Lead Action Level exceedances.
13. Regulatory Change III.E
    Regulatory Change III.E requires systems to provide lead monitoring
results to consumers. The work group discussed including copper
monitoring results in the notification, but deferred that suggestion
for future consideration, thereby limiting the increase in burden for
small systems. Section H of this proposal also provides some important
clarifications of alternatives to corrosion control for small systems.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 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 the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.

    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The total upfront costs of this action to
States and public water systems are estimated at $8.8 million, with
estimated annual costs to States and public water systems ranging from
approximately $5.1 to $5.5 million. Systems and State/Primacy agencies
will 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
will 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 proposal 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 regulation applies to all owners/operators of public
water systems, not uniquely to those owners/operators that are small
entities, and, for most systems, requires minimal expenditure of
resources. Since these regulatory revisions affect all system sizes and
the impact on the average small system will be 0.13 percent of
revenues, the regulatory revisions to the LCR are not subject to the
requirements of section 203 of UMRA.
    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 proposed rule.
    The Agency has developed fact sheets that describe requirements of
the short-term regulatory revisions and clarifications to the LCR.
These fact sheets are available by calling the Safe Drinking Water
Hotline at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are 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 proposed 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 national
primary drinking water regulations for lead and copper. The existing
rule imposes requirements on public water systems to ensure that water
delivered to users is minimally corrosive, remove lead service lines
and provide public education where necessary to ensure public health
protection. This proposed 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
requirements.
    Nevertheless, EPA did consult with State and local officials early
in the process of developing the proposed regulation as described in
section V.D, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Several States also
participated in EPA's workgroup that developed this proposal.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
    This proposed 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 the proposed rule apply to all community and non-
transient non-community water systems. tribal governments may be the
owners or operators of such systems, however, nothing in this
proposal's provisions uniquely affects them. EPA therefore concludes
that this proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits additional
comment on this proposed rule from Tribal officials.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866.
This proposed 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 the proposed changes will improve the
implementation of these provisions. Moreover, EPA believes that this

proposal is consistent with Executive Order 13045 because it will
further strengthen protection to children from exposure to lead and
copper via drinking water, as this proposal enhances the implementation
of the LCR in the areas of monitoring, customer awareness, and lead
service line replacement. This proposal also clarifies the intent of
some unclear provisions in the LCR. These changes are expected to
ensure and enhance more effective protection of public health through
the reduction in lead exposure.

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

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The rule provides
clarifications and modifications to the existing LCR rule language
only.
    This proposed rule does not affect the supply of energy as it does
not regulate power generation. The public and private utilities that
will be affected by this proposed regulation do not, as a rule,
generate power. The proposed revisions to the LCR do not regulate any
aspect of energy distribution as the utilities that are regulated by
the LCR already have electrical service. Finally, these regulatory
revisions do not adversely affect the use of energy as EPA does not
anticipate that a significant number of drinking water utilities will
add treatment technologies that use electrical power to comply with
these regulatory revisions. As such, EPA does not anticipate that this
rule will adversely affect the use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 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 proposed 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 proposed 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.

VI. References

    The public docket is available as described at the beginning of
this document. The following references are referred to in this
document and are included in the public docket:

U.S. EPA. 1988. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper (Draft).
Prepared by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. (June 1, 1988).
U.S. EPA. 1990. Variability of Household Water Lead Levels In
American Cities.
U.S. EPA 1991a. Final Information Collection Request for National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. April, 1991.
U.S. EPA 1991b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. April, 1991.
U.S. EPA. 1991c. Memorandum from Jeff Cohen to the Record on
Required Number of Samples (May 6, 1991).
U.S. EPA. 1991d. Federal Register. Vol 56, No. 110. Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule (Fri. Jun. 7, 1991),
26460-26564. [56 FR 26460].
U.S. EPA. 1996a. Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum EPA 812-B-96-
002, January 1996.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. Federal Register. Vol 60, No. 72 Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper (Apr. 12, 1996), 16348-16371. [72 FR
16348].
U.S. EPA. 1998a. Federal Register. Vol 63, No. 160 National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: Consumer Confidence Reports (Aug. 19,
1998), 44512-44536. [63 FR 44512].
U.S. EPA. 1999a. Information Collection Request: National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. June 1999. EPA ICR
Number: 1912.01.
U.S. EPA. 2000a. Federal Register. Vol 65, No. 8 National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule (Wed.
Jan. 12, 2000), 1950-2015. [65 FR 1950].
U.S. EPA. 2000b. Federal Register. Vol 65 No. 87 National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification Rule (Thurs. May 4,
2000), 25982-26049. [65 FR 25982].
U.S. EPA. 2002. Lead and Copper Monitoring and Reporting Guidance
for Public Water Systems. February, 2002.
U.S. EPA. 2004a. Expert Panel Workshop Public Education Under the
Lead and Copper Rule and Drinking Water Risk Communication Summary.
September 14-15, 2004. Hilton Philadelphia Airport, Philadelphia, PA
(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/lead_review.html).

U.S. EPA. 2004b. Information Collection Request for Disinfectants/
Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules, OMB
Control Number: 2040-0204, EPA Tracking Number: 1896.03. September,
2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004c. Information Collection Request for Disinfection
Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules, OMB Control Number:
2040-0204, EPA Tracking Number: 1896.03. Appendix H, page H-43,
table entitled ``Tap Monitoring for Lead & Copper-Monitoring,
Burden, and Cost Assumptions.'' September, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004d. State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule.
July, 2004.
U.S. EPA. 2004e. Summary Lead Action Level Exceedances for Public
Water Systems Subject to the Lead and Copper Rule. September 13,
2004.
U.S. EPA. 2005. Federal Register. Vol. 70, No. 177 National Drinking
Water Advisory Council's Working Group on Public Education
Requirements of the Lead and Copper Rule Meeting Announcement (Wed.
Sept. 14, 2005), 54375. [70 FR 54375].
U.S. EPA. 2006a. Lead and Copper Rule State File Review: National
Report. March, 2006.
U.S. EPA. 2006b. Economic and Supporting Analysis Short Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. May, 2006.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

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

    Dated: July 6, 2006.
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 proposed to be 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) and by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.80  General Requirements

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

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    Any water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control
pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the State in writing pursuant
to Sec.  141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming change in treatment or addition
of a new source. The State must review and approve the addition of a
new source or change in water treatment before it is implemented by the
water system.
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * * A system exceeding the lead or copper action level shall
recommend optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(a)) within
six months after the end of the monitoring period during which it
exceeds one of the action levels.
    (2) Step 2: Within 12 months after the end of the monitoring period
during which a system exceeds the lead or copper action level, the
State may require the system to perform corrosion control studies
(Sec.  141.82(b)). * * *
    (i) For medium-size systems, within 18 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.
    (ii) ``For small systems, within 24 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.''
* * * * *
    4. Section 141.83(a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  141.83  Source water treatment requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * * (1) Step 1: A system exceeding the lead or copper action
level shall complete lead and copper source water monitoring (Sec.
141.88(b)) and make a treatment recommendation to the State (Sec.
141.83(b)(1)) no later than 6 months 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)''.

Sec.  141.84  Lead service line replacement requirements.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * * The first year of lead service line replacement shall
begin on the date after 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 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 replacement
is based on a 15-year replacement program, so, for example, systems
resuming after conducting two years of replacement would divide the
updated inventory by 13).
* * * * *
    6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  141.85  Public education and supplemental monitoring
requirements.

    A water system that exceeds the Lead Action Level based on tap
water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86 shall deliver
the public education materials contained in paragraph (a) of this
section in accordance with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section. Water systems that exceed the Lead Action Level must sample
the tap water of any customer who requests it in accordance with
paragraph (c) of this section. 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) 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 (such
as brochures and pamphlets) in the same order as listed below. In
addition, paragraphs (a)(1)(i)-(ii) and (a)(1)(vi) must be included
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 lay people.
    (i) Opening Statement. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR
DRINKING WATER. [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found high levels of lead
in drinking water in some homes/buildings. Lead can cause serious
health problems, especially for pregnant women and children 6 years and
under. Please read this notice 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. It can cause damage to the brain and
kidneys and can decrease the number of red blood cells (a risk factor
for anemia). The greatest risk is to infants, young children, and
pregnant women. Small amounts slow down normal mental development in
growing children and alter the development of other organs and systems.
The effects of lead on the brain are associated with lowered IQ in
children. Adults with kidney problems and high blood pressure are more
likely to be affected by low levels of lead than the general
population. Lead is stored in the bones allowing it to be released even
after exposure stops. The presence in

bone increases the concern for exposure at all points of the life
cycle.
    (iii) Sources of Lead. (A) Explain what lead is.
    (B) Explain possible sources of lead and how lead enters drinking
water. Include information on home/building plumbing 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 and specifically caution
against the use of hot water for 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.
    (v) What happened and What is being done?
    (A) Explain why there are high 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 http://www.epa.gov/lead
, call the National Lead Information Center at 1-800-424-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) In communities
where a significant proportion of the population speaks a language
other than English the system must also provide the public education
materials in the appropriate language(s).
    (2) A community water system that exceeds the Lead Action Level on
the basis of tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.
141.86, and that is not already conducting public education tasks under
this section, must, 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) Make a good faith effort to contact all customers who are most
at risk by delivering materials that meet the content requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section to the following organizations along with
a cover letter that encourages distribution by the organization to all
its potentially affected customers or users.
    (A) Local Public Health Agencies--The water system must deliver
materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to the local public health agencies and must directly contact
(by phone or in person) the local public health agencies. The local
public health agencies may provide a specific contact list of
additional community based organizations serving targeted populations.
    (B) Public and private schools or school boards.
    (C) Licensed childcare centers.
    (D) Public and private pre-schools.
    (E) Women Infants and Children (WIC) and Head Start programs.
    (F) Public and private hospitals and medical clinics.
    (G) Pediatricians.
    (H) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives.
    (I) Family planning clinics.
    (J) Local welfare agencies.
    (iii) 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.
    (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 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 3 activities from one or more
categories listed below. The content 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 described in 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 material on a publicly accessible internet 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)(iii) and (b)(2)(vi)
of this section to extend beyond the 60-day requirement if needed for
implementation purposes; 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.
    (6) A water system may discontinue delivery of public education
materials if the system has met the Lead Action Level during the most
recent six-month monitoring period conducted pursuant to Sec.  141.86.
Such a system shall recommence public education in accordance with this
section if it subsequently exceeds the Lead Action Level during any
monitoring period.
    (7) A community water system may apply to the State, in writing,
(unless the State has waived the requirement for prior State approval)
to use only the text specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section in
lieu of the text in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section and to
perform the tasks listed in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this
section in lieu of the tasks in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this
section if:
    (i) The system is a facility, such as a prison or a hospital, where
the population served is not capable of or is prevented from making
improvements to plumbing or installing point of use treatment devices;
and
    (ii) The system provides water as part of the cost of services
provided and does not separately charge for water consumption.
    (8) A community water system serving 3,300 or fewer people may
limit certain aspects of their public education programs as follows:
    (i) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of
this section, a system serving 3300 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 3300 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
3300 or fewer persons as long as system distributes notices to every
household served by the system.
    (c) Supplemental monitoring and notification of results. A water
system that fails to meet the Lead Action Level on the basis of tap
samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86 shall offer to sample
the tap water of any customer who requests it. The system is not
required to pay for collecting or analyzing the sample, nor is the
system required to collect and analyze the sample itself.
    (d) Notification of results--(1) Reporting requirement. All water
systems must provide a consumer notice of lead tap water monitoring
results carried out to meet requirements under Sec.  141.86 to all
persons served by the water system at the sampling sites in Sec.
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 Sec.  141.153(c)(1).
    (4) Delivery. The consumer notice must be provided to all persons
served at the site by mail or other methods approved by the State. The
system must provide the notice to all customers, including consumers
who do not get water bills.
    7. Section 141.86 is amended as follows:
    a. In the introductory paragraph of (c), adding a sentence after
the third sentence;
    b. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add as 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. Revising paragraph (g)(4)(iii).

Sec.  141.86  Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.

* * * * *
    (c) * * * A non-transient non-community public water system that
serves 100 people or less and that does not have enough drinking water
taps meeting the sample site criteria of Sec.  141.86(a) to reach the
required number of sample sites listed in Sec.  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. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * * 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 Sec.  141.82(f) during each of two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods may reduce the frequency of monitoring to once per
year and reduce the number of lead and copper samples in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section if it receives written approval from
the State. This sampling shall begin during the calendar year
immediately following the end of the second consecutive six-month
monitoring period. The State shall review monitoring, treatment, and
other relevant information submitted by the water system in accordance
with Sec.  141.90, and shall notify the system in writing when it
determines the system is eligible to commence reduced monitoring
pursuant to this paragraph. The State shall review, and where
appropriate, revise its determination when the system submits new
monitoring or treatment data, or when other data relevant to the number
and frequency of tap sampling becomes available.
    (iii) A small or medium-size water system that meets the lead and
copper action levels during three consecutive years of monitoring may
reduce the frequency of monitoring for lead and copper from annually to
once every three years. Any water system that meets the Lead Action
Level and maintains the range of values for the water quality control
parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control treatment specified by
the State under Sec.  141.82(f) during three consecutive years of
monitoring may reduce the frequency of monitoring from annually to once
every three years if it receives

written approval from the State. Samples collected once every three
years shall be collected no later than every third calendar year. The
State shall review monitoring, treatment, and other relevant
information submitted by the water system in accordance with Sec.
141.90, and shall notify the system in writing when it determines the
system is eligible to reduce the frequency of monitoring to once every
three years. The State shall review, and where appropriate, revise its
determination when the system submits new monitoring or treatment data,
or when other data relevant to the number and frequency of tap sampling
becomes available.
    (iv) * * *
    (A) The State, at its discretion, may approve different period for
conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for systems collecting a
reduced number of samples. This sampling shall begin no later than the
six-month period beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the
reduced monitoring exceedance. 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 tare 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
calendar year immediately following the end of the second consecutive
six-month monitoring period for systems resuming annual monitoring and
during the three-year period following the end of the third consecutive
calendar year of annual monitoring for systems resuming triennial
monitoring.
    (B) Any water system subject to the reduced monitoring frequency
that fails to meet the Lead Action Level during any four-month
monitoring period or that fails to operate at or above the minimum
value or within the range of values for the water quality parameters
specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(f) for more than nine days in
any six-month period specified in Sec.  141.87(d) shall conduct tap
water sampling for lead and copper at the frequency specified in
paragraph (d)(3) of this section and collect the number of samples
specified for standard monitoring for water quality parameters within
the distribution system in accordance with Sec.  141.87(d). This
standard tap water sampling shall begin no later than the six-month
period beginning January 1 of the calendar year following the 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 Sec.  141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming change in
treatment or addition of a new source. The State must review and
approve the addition of a new source or change in water treatment
before it is implemented by the water system. * * *
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) * * * Samples collected every nine years shall be collected no
later than every ninth calendar year.
* * * * *
    (iii) Any water system with a full or partial waiver shall notify
the State in writing in accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(3) of any
upcoming change in treatment or addition of a new source. The State
must review and approve the addition of a new source or change in water
treatment before it is implemented by the water system. The State has
the authority to require the system to add or modify waiver conditions
(e.g., require recertification that the system is free of lead-
containing and/or copper-containing materials, require additional
rounds(s) of monitoring), if it deems such modifications are necessary
to address treatment or source water changes at the system. * * *
    8. Section 141.87 is amended as follows by:
    a. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (d);