ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

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

RIN 2040-AE83

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

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Final Rule.

SUMMARY:  EPA is finalizing seven targeted regulatory changes to the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) for lead and copper.
 This final rule strengthens the implementation of the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR) in the following areas:  monitoring, treatment processes,
public education, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement.
 These changes provide more effective protection of public health by
reducing exposure to lead in drinking water.

DATES: This final rule is effective on [insert date 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register].  The compliance date for all of
this final rule’s provisions is 180 days after promulgation except if
by that date, the primacy State has not adopted this rule, in which case
compliance with this final rule is effective the earlier of either the
State's adoption of the rule, or two years after [insert date 60 days
after publication in the Federal Register].  For purposes of judicial
review, this rule is promulgated as of [insert date of publication in
the Federal Register] as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

ADDRESSES:  EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034.  All documents in the docket are listed on the
 HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  web site.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.  Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form.  Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket
Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., and NW.
Washington, DC.  The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For technical inquiries, contact
Jeffrey Kempic, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
 HYPERLINK<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>.
For regulatory inquiries, contact Eric Burneson, Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water (MC 4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
564-5250; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I.   General Information

A.  Does this Action Apply to Me?

Entities potentially affected by the Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term
Regulatory Revisions final rulemaking are public water systems (PWSs)
that are classified as either community water systems (CWSs) or
non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs).  Regulated
categories and entities include:

Category	Examples of regulated entities

Industry	Privately-owned CWSs and NTNCWSs

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

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

B.	Abbreviations Used in This Document

ALE: Action Level Exceedance

ANSI: American National Standards Institute

CCR: Consumer Confidence Report

CCT: Corrosion Control Treatment

CFR: Code of Federal Regulations

CWS: Community Water System

CWSS: Community Water System Survey

DDBP: Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

FTE: Full-Time Equivalents

ICR: Information Collection Request

LCR: Lead and Copper Rule

LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions

LSL: Lead Service Line

LSLR: Lead Service Line Replacement

LT2: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule

MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

MDL: Method Detection Limit

NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory Council

NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation

NSF: National Science Foundation

NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community Water System

O&M: Operation and Maintenance costs

OMB: Office of Management and Budget

PE: Public Education

POE: Point-of-Entry devices

POU: Point-of-Use devices

RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act

RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis

SBA: Small Business Administration

SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water Information System, Federal Version

UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

WQP: Water Quality Parameter monitoring

C.	Table of Contents

I.  Background

	A.  What Is the Statutory Authority for the Lead and Copper Rule?

	B.  What Is the Regulatory History of the Lead and Copper Rule?

	C.  Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions?

II.  What Do the LCR Short-Term Revisions Require?

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

	A.  Minimum Number of Samples Required

	1.  How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

	2.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For the Minimum Number of Samples
Required Revisions?

	3.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the Minimum Number
of Samples Required Revisions and EPA’s Response to These Issues?

	B.  Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods

	 1.  How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

	2.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For the Compliance and Monitoring Period
Definition Revisions?

	3.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the Compliance and
Monitoring Period Definition Revisions and EPA’s Response to These
Issues?

	C.  Reduced Monitoring Criteria

	1.  How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

	2.  What is EPA’s Rationale For the Reduced Monitoring Revisions?

	3.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the Reduced
Monitoring Revisions and EPA’s Response to These Issues?

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

	1.  How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

	2.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For Advanced Notification and Approval of
Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition of New Source Revisions?

	3.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters on the Advanced
Notification and Approval of Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition of
New Source Revisions and EPA’s Response To These Issues?

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

	1.  How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

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

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

	F.  Public Education Requirements

	1.  Message Content

	a.  How Is EPA Revising the Message Content?

	b.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For the Message Content Revisions?

	c.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the Message
Content Revisions and EPA’s Response To These Issues?

	2.  Delivery

	a.  How Is EPA Revising the Delivery Requirements?

	b.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For the Delivery Requirements Revisions?

	c.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the Delivery
Requirements Revisions and EPA’s Response To These Issues?

	3.  Timing

	a.  How Is EPA Revising the Timing Provisions Of the Rule?

	b.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For Revising the Timing Provisions Of the
Rule?

	c.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the Timing
Provisions and EPA’s Response To These Issues?

	4.  Consumer Confidence Reports

	a.  How Is EPA Revising CCR Requirements?

	b.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For the CCR Revisions?

	c.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the CCR
Requirements Revisions and EPA’s Response To These Issues?

	G.  Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing

	1.  How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

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

	3.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the Reevaluation
Of Lead Service Lines Revisions and EPA’s Response To These Issues?

	H.  Other Issues Related To the Lead and Copper Rule

	1.  How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

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

	3.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On These Other Issues
and EPA’s Response To These Issues?

	I.  Compliance Dates

	1.  What Are the New Compliance Dates For This Rule?

	2.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For the Compliance Dates?

	3.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the Compliance
Dates and EPA’s Response To These Issues?

	J.  State Implementation

	1.  How Do These Regulatory Revisions Affect A State’s Primacy
Program?

	2.  What Does A State Have To Do To Apply?

	3.  How Are Tribes Affected?

IV.  Economic Analysis

Direct Costs

Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.A

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.B

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.C

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.D

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.E

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.F

Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.G

Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs

Total Upfront Costs to Review and Implement Regulatory Changes

Indirect Costs

Benefits

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

Statutory and Executive Order Requirements

Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Paperwork Reduction Act

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

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

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

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Congressional Review Act

VI. References

I. Background

A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Lead and Copper Rule?

	The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires
EPA to establish maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants that may
have an adverse effect on the health of persons, may occur in public
water systems at a frequency and level of public concern, and in the
sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of the contaminant would
present a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons
served by public water systems [section 1412(b)(1)(A)].   The 1986
amendments to the SDWA established a list of 83 contaminants for which
EPA is to develop MCLGs and NPDWRs, which included lead and copper.  The
1991 NPDWR for Lead and Copper (56 FR 26460, U.S. EPA, 1991a) fulfilled
the requirements of the 1986 SDWA amendments.

B. What Is the Regulatory History of the Lead and Copper Rule?

EPA promulgated maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs for
lead and copper (LCR) in 1991.  The goal of the LCR is to provide
maximum human health protection by reducing lead and copper levels at
consumers’ taps to as close to the MCLGs as is feasible.  To
accomplish this goal, the LCR establishes requirements for community
water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWSs) to optimize corrosion control and conduct periodic monitoring.
 Systems are required to perform public education when there are action
level exceedances at more than 10 percent of the taps that are sampled,
treat source water if it contributes significantly to lead and copper
levels at the tap, and replace lead service lines in the distribution
system if the lead level at the tap continues to exceed the action level
after optimal corrosion control has been installed.  EPA proposed minor
revisions to the LCR (LCRMR) in 1996 (60 FR 16348, US EPA 1996a) and
finalized these minor revisions on January 12, 2000 (65 FR 1950, US EPA
2000a).  These minor revisions streamlined the requirements of the LCR,
promoted consistent national implementation, and reduced the reporting
burden to affected entities.  These minor revisions also addressed the
areas of optimal corrosion control demonstration, lead service line
replacement requirements, public education requirements, monitoring
requirements, analytical methods, reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and special primacy considerations.  The LCRMR did not
change the action level, MCLG, or the rule’s basic requirements.

C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions?

The purpose of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is to protect populations
from exposure to lead and copper in drinking water and reduce potential
health risks associated with lead and copper.  In 2004, the District of
Columbia experienced incidences of elevated drinking water lead levels,
which prompted EPA to initiate a comprehensive national review of the
LCR to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the rule.  The
purpose of the review was to determine whether elevated drinking water
lead levels were a national problem; if a large percentage of the
population received water that exceeded the lead action level; if a
significant number of systems failed to meet the action level; how well
the existing LCR worked to reduce drinking water lead levels; and if the
regulation is currently being effectively implemented, especially with
respect to monitoring and public education requirements.  EPA’s
comprehensive review consisted of several elements, including a series
of workshops designed to solicit issues, comments, and suggestions from
stakeholders on particular issues; a review of monitoring data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the LCR; and a review of the LCR
implementation by States and water utilities.  As a result of this
multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rule changes intended
to strengthen the implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring,
customer awareness, and lead service line replacement in the short-term.
 The short-term changes finalized in this action are expected to ensure
and enhance more effective protection of public health by reducing
exposure to lead in drinking water.  This final rule does not amend the
portion of the regulations related to copper, however provisions
addressing copper will be considered for future revisions to the rule.
EPA will propose any future regulatory changes under a separate
regulatory action.

II. What Do the LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions Require?

A.  Minimum Number of Samples Required

1.  Proposed Revision

	The proposed LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions (71 FR 40828, U.S. EPA
2006a) clarified and maintained that five samples per monitoring period
is the minimum number of samples required for systems serving 100 people
or fewer.

2.  Final Revision

EPA’s final revision to the minimum number of samples requirement adds
a provision that gives States the discretion to allow water systems with
fewer than five taps for human consumption to collect one sample per
tap. Under this alternate sampling schedule, the sample with the highest
test result will be compared to the action level to determine
compliance.  While fewer samples may be taken, comparing the single
highest level provides public health protection since it does not allow
water systems to ignore a potential problem by taking repeat samples at
taps that have low lead results when they get a high sample result.  See
section III.A for more information on this regulatory revision and also
for EPA’s response to significant public comments on the proposal.  A
complete response to all comments on this rule is found in the Lead and
Copper Docket at   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov .

B.  Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods

1.  Proposed Revision

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

2.  Final Revision

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

C.  Reduced Monitoring Criteria

1.  Proposed Revision

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

2.  Final Revision

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

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

1.  Proposed Revision

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

2.  Final Revision

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

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

1.  Proposed Revision

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

2. Final Revision

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

F.  Public Education Requirements

1.  Proposed Revision

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

2. Final Revision

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

G.  Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing

1.  Proposed Revision

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

2. Final Revision

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

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

A. Minimum Number of Samples Required

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

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

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

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

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

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

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

	The alternative sampling requirement applies to public water systems
with fewer than five taps that can be used for human consumption. The
water systems would be required to sample 100 percent of the taps that
can be used for human consumption. Under the alternative sampling
provision, systems collecting fewer than five samples will compare the
sample with the highest result to the action level to determine if they
must complete compliance actions such as public education, corrosion
control treatment installation, and/or lead service line replacement.
EPA believes that requiring systems to use the highest sample result to
determine compliance is health protective because it does not allow
water systems to take repeat samples at taps that have low levels of
lead when they get a high sample result.  In addition, the alternative
sampling schedule alleviates the cost burden associated with taking
repeat samples.

3. What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Minimum Number
Of Samples Required Revisions And EPA's Response To These Issues?

The majority of commenters did not agree with EPA’s proposal to
require water systems with fewer than five taps to collect repeat
samples from the same taps and they supported the idea of allowing small
water systems to sample 100 percent of taps available for human
consumption.  Commenters stated that repeat sampling would be a cost
burden imposed on the smallest sized systems.  Some commenters also
stated that repeat sampling was an unfair requirement for small systems
since large systems are not required to take repeat samples or sample
all of their available taps for compliance.  To address these concerns,
EPA is giving discretion to the States to allow small systems with fewer
than five taps to take fewer than five samples.  EPA stresses, however,
that the requirement is not less stringent, since these systems must
compare the sample with the highest concentration to the action level,
which does not allow systems to take repeat samples at taps with low
lead results.

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

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

B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

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

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

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

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

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

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale For The Compliance And Monitoring Period
Definition Revisions?

EPA is making revisions regarding monitoring and compliance periods in
order to clarify the meaning of these terms, to address the issues
associated with the timing of actions following a lead or copper action
level exceedance, and to address the timing of samples that should be
taken under reduced monitoring schedules.

Under the previous regulations, there was uncertainty about when a
system was determined to have exceeded the action level and the
corresponding deadlines for completing corrosion control studies, lead
service line replacement and public education (e.g., end of December or
the end of September for systems monitoring June to September).  The
changes made in this final rule clarify that a system is deemed to be
exceeding the action level on the last day of the monitoring period in
which the exceedance occurred.

The clarified timing of actions following a lead or copper action level
exceedance is also intended to ensure that the system and the State
begin actions to reduce exposure (e.g., corrosion control, public
education, and lead service line replacement) as soon as possible. The
deadlines for completing these follow-up activities will be calculated
from the date the system is determined to be exceeding the action level
(i.e., end of the monitoring period), with some discretion for States to
extend the deadline for completing public education activities on a
case-by-case basis.

	The timing of samples that should be taken for systems on reduced
monitoring schedules ensures that States and systems have an accurate
assessment of the effectiveness of corrosion control.  This relates to
both the duration and frequency of monitoring. Under this requirement,
samples must be taken during four consecutive months. For most systems,
this will mean monitoring during June to September during one of the
three years in the three-year compliance period. For systems where the
State has approved some other four-month period, all samples must be
taken during that four-month period.  Sampling during a short, fixed
time period will allow the system to more accurately evaluate the
effectiveness of the corrosion control treatment than will collecting
the same number of samples over a three-year period.  In addition,
systems on triennial monitoring are also not allowed to monitor during
Year 1 of the first compliance period and during Year 3 of the second
compliance period because that would allow five years to pass between
monitoring rounds.  Similarly, systems on nine-year monitoring waivers
are not allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the first nine-year period
and Year 9 of the second nine-year period.

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

Most commenters agreed with the definitions of monitoring and compliance
periods in the proposed revisions, but some had implementation concerns.
 Two commenters agreed that four months is reasonable for monitoring
activities, including distribution, collection, and initiation of lab
processing.  However, several expressed concern that the clock for
compliance actions should not start until compliance has been determined
after the end of the monitoring period or that States should be given
flexibility to alter compliance action schedules.  In response to these
commenters, EPA is modifying §141.85(b)(3)(iv) to allow States
flexibility in extending the timeframe on a case-by-case basis to
complete public education activities after an action level exceedance.
However, systems must start these activities and States must approve in
writing any deadline extension within 60 days of the end of the
monitoring period in which the exceedance occurred.  This ensures that
the system and the State begin public education actions to reduce
exposure as soon as possible, but allows these actions to continue past
the 60-day timeframe as needed for effective implementation.  States
should still make every effort to get public water systems to complete
their public education activities within 60 days after the end of the
monitoring period.

In addition, one commenter indicated that under the current version of
the LCR, small and medium systems exceeding the action level must
perform water quality parameter monitoring within the same monitoring
period.  The commenter then stated that as a result, the systems may not
obtain their sample results and identify that they have exceeded the
action level until after the monitoring period has ended.  This
requirement effectively sets systems up for water quality parameter
monitoring violations.  In the 1991 LCR, EPA recognized that many
factors influence water corrosivity and because of this, decided to
require small and medium water systems detecting lead and/or copper
above the action levels to measure for water quality parameters (56 FR
26460 at 26526, U.S. EPA, 1991a).  However, EPA recognizes that under
the monitoring period clarifications made in this final rule, systems on
reduced monitoring that exceed the action level will most likely not be
taking water quality parameters and would have automatically incurred a
violation based on the requirement in §141.87(d).  The end of the
6-month period in which small and medium water systems must sample for
water quality parameters would have corresponded to the end of the
4-month monitoring period in which they must sample for lead and copper
under §141.86(d)(4).  For example, a system that takes lead and copper
tap samples between June and September and exceeds the action level,
would only have until the end of September to take all of their water
quality parameters.  The system would most likely not be aware of the
exceedance until the end or after the end of the monitoring period and
would incur a violation for not having already completed water quality
parameter monitoring. Therefore, EPA is revising the requirement in
§141.87(d) to require the start of the 6-month period in which the
system must take water quality parameters to correspond with the start
of the 4-month monitoring period in which they must sample for lead and
copper under §141.86(d)(4).  This revision will allow small and medium
systems on reduced monitoring that exceed the action level two months to
take water quality parameter samples after the end of the 4-month
monitoring period in which they had to take lead and copper tap samples.
 For example, a system that takes lead and copper tap samples between
June and September and exceeds the action level, would have until the
end of November to take water quality parameter samples.  This provision
is intended primarily for systems that are not aware of the exceedance
until the end of the lead and copper monitoring period.  Those systems
that are aware of the action level exceedance earlier in the four-month
lead and copper monitoring period should conduct their monitoring once
they become aware of the exceedance to better capture the water quality
conditions at the time of the exceedance.

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

EPA is no longer allowing water systems that exceed the lead action
level to initiate or remain on a reduced lead and copper monitoring
schedule based solely on the results of their water quality parameter
monitoring. This change modifies the reduced monitoring provisions in
§141.86(d)(4), specifically subsections (ii), (iii) and (iv). These
sections discuss when small and large water systems may reduce the
required number of lead and copper samples in accordance with paragraph
(c) of §141.86.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

This final rule amends §§141.81(b)(3)(iii), 141.86(d)(4)(vii),
141.86(g)(4)(iii), and 141.90(a)(3) to require water systems to obtain
prior approval by the State primacy agency to add a new source of water
or make any long-term change in water treatment process prior to
implementation.  The final regulatory language allows as much time as
needed for water systems and States to consult before making these
changes. To assist the State in making its determinations, EPA published
a June 2006 “Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual (Draft) for the
Final Stage 2 M-DBP Rules.”  This document will be revised in 2007 and
can be an aid to the State in identifying those situations where optimal
corrosion control can be affected by long-term changes in treatment or
source water.

What Is EPA’s Rationale For Advanced Notification And Approval Of
Long-Term Treatment Changes Or Addition Of New Source Revisions?

Previously, the rule required that systems notify the State within 60
days of making a change in treatment or adding a new source. EPA
proposed that systems be required to provide advance notification of any
change in treatment or addition of a new source and receive approval
from the State prior to making the change.  The final rule requires
systems to provide advanced notification of any long-term change in
treatment or addition of a new source and receive approval from the
State before implementing the change.  When a water system makes
long-term changes to its treatment process or add a new source of water,
it can unintentionally affect the system’s optimal corrosion control.
EPA believes that State review and approval of changes in long-term
treatment or addition of a new source will provide an opportunity to
minimize any potential impacts on optimal corrosion control.

For this final rule, EPA has clarified the intent of this provision by
stating that it applies to long-term changes in treatment.  Examples of
long-term treatment changes include the addition of a new treatment
process or modification of an existing treatment process.  Examples of
modifications include switching secondary disinfectants (e.g., chlorine
to chloramines), switching coagulants (e.g., alum to ferric chloride),
and switching corrosion inhibitor products (e.g., orthophosphate to
blended phosphate).  Long-term changes can include dose changes to
existing chemicals if the system is planning long-term changes to its
finished water pH or residual inhibitor concentration.  Long-term
treatment changes would not include chemical dose fluctuations
associated with daily raw water quality changes.

What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Advance
Notification And Approval Of Long-Term Treatment Changes Or Addition Of
New Source Revisions And EPA’s Response To Those Issues?

	Many commenters supported the concept of advance notification and
approval of treatment changes that could affect optimal corrosion
control, but were concerned that the rule language as proposed was too
broad and could include daily operational changes.  Commenters were
concerned that review and approval of daily changes that are dictated by
the raw water quality could not be done in a timely manner and could be
detrimental to public health if they were covered by the advanced
notification and approval requirement.  It was not EPA’s intention to
include these daily operational activities.  In response, EPA has
revised the final rule to require advanced notification and State
approval of long-term treatment changes or addition of new source.
Daily dose fluctuations due to changes in raw water quality would not be
considered a long-term treatment change and would not require advanced
notification and State approval.

	EPA requested comment on whether it should revise the existing rule
language on “addition of new source” to “source change,” but did
not propose to make this change.  Many commenters stated that revising
the rule to cover any source change would be too prescriptive and that
this could also include daily changes.  Source changes occur on a daily
basis due to changes in demand and commenters expressed concern that
State review and approval of these changes could not be done in a timely
manner and therefore could be detrimental to public health.  EPA has
retained the language of “addition of new source” in the final rule
rather than use the term “source change.”  EPA believes that it
would be difficult to define a long-term source change because the
source mixture can constantly change due to demand or changes in
availability of sources.  EPA discussed several scenarios in the
proposed rule, including switching from 100% surface water to 100%
ground water, switching from 100% surface water to 50% ground water and
50% surface water, and a change in proportion of moving from 75% ground
water and 25% surface water to 25% ground water and 75% surface water.
EPA believes that the existing language “addition of new source”
covers the first two scenarios.  Notification and approval would not be
necessary if the switch is repeated on an annual basis.

The optimal corrosion control treatment for systems with mixed sources
(ground water and surface water) should consider the impact of changing
the proportions.  Section 141.87(a)(1)(i) states that the tap samples
shall be representative of water quality throughout the distribution
system taking into account the number of persons, the different sources
of water, the different treatment methods employed by the system, and
seasonal variability.   Both water source and water treatment methods
can produce different finished water pH values or other critical water
quality parameters.  For example, if the finished water pH values from
both the surface sources and ground water sources are very similar, then
this can mitigate the impact of changing the proportions of the various
sources.  Systems with waters that have different finished pH values
should consider monitoring at the representative sites in the
distribution system after making a major change in the proportions of
the sources (75% ground water to 25% ground water). EPA will provide
guidance to help systems identify source water changes (such as changing
the mixture) that could impact optimal corrosion control.

	Some commenters stated that State approval of the treatment change or
addition of a new source is not necessary and would delay changes needed
by the system.  EPA disagrees with these commenters.  EPA believes that
clarifying the revision to focus on long-term treatment changes will
address concerns that this requirement would affect a system’s ability
to address daily water quality treatment changes.  State notification
and approval of long-term treatment changes is important because these
changes could adversely impact optimal corrosion control.  As EPA noted
in the proposed rule, this approach allows the State to evaluate the
change prior to implementation and, if needed, to design a monitoring
program to ensure that optimal corrosion control is maintained after the
change.  EPA expects that  States will review and approve long-term
treatment changes and additions of new sources expeditiously and will
avoid unnecessary delays to long-term changes that are needed by the
system.

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

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A number of commenters were concerned with the burden on non-transient
non-community water systems which, they presumed, would have to notify
all users of a facility.  It was not EPA’s intent to have these
systems notify all of their users of the results of testing, but to have
them post results in a public place under an alternative mechanism.  In
order to clarify this intent, EPA has added language to §141.85(d)(4)
that provides an example of an alternative mechanism as follows: “For
example, upon approval by the State, a non-transient non-community water
system could post the results on a bulletin board in the facility to
allow users to review the information.”

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

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

F.  Public Education Requirements

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

1.  Message Content

a.  How Is EPA Revising The Message Content?

EPA is changing the required content of the message provided to
consumers after a lead action level exceedance by shortening and
simplifying the mandatory language. Previously, §141.85 required
written materials to include mandatory language consisting of over 1,800
words describing health effects, levels of lead in drinking water, steps
to reduce exposure, and how to obtain additional information.  In this
revision, the mandatory language will consist of an opening statement,
health effects language and sources of further information. The health
effects language has been revised to provide greater specificity on the
health problems that can result from exposure to lead (e.g., the
original health effects language indicated that lead can cause damage to
the brain, while the new language specifies that this damage is
associated with lower IQ in children). Although the new language
includes mandatory language related to health effects, water systems
will have the flexibility to tailor some of the topics of the public
education message, as mentioned above, to fit their community and
situation. For example, previous public education language required
water systems to instruct consumers to flush their faucet for 15-30
seconds or one minute (if the home has a lead service line) before
drinking the water. This rule allows systems to tailor flushing
directions to their specific situations. Water systems will have to
submit the public education materials to the State for review and
approval prior to the delivery to consumers.  However, the State has the
flexibility to not require this approval.

b.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For The Message Content Revisions?

During EPA's national review of the LCR, many stakeholders stated that
the public education requirements needed improvement. At the 2004 EPA
Public Education Expert workshop, a number of concerns were raised about
the effectiveness of the existing public education language and
requirements. Workshop participants stated that the mandatory language
in the rule was too long, cumbersome, and complex. EPA is revising the
public education requirements to ensure that the delivered information
is meaningful and useful to consumers. In addition, by simplifying the
language, EPA hopes that systems can more effectively convey steps to
their customers that they can take to reduce their exposure to lead in
drinking water.

EPA also identified compliance as an issue in its review of LCR
implementation. Because many water utilities did not conduct the
required public education, at-risk populations did not get information
they needed to reduce their exposure from lead in drinking water (137 FR
40828 at 40835, US EPA, 2006a). EPA is revising the public education
requirements of the LCR in an effort to improve compliance by
simplifying the mandatory language and to reduce potential adverse
health effects by ensuring that consumers, specifically at-risk
populations, receive the information they need in a timely manner to
limit their exposure to lead in drinking water.

With some modifications, EPA has included the public education language
developed by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) in
this rule as a replacement of the existing public education requirements
of the LCR.  The revised public education information is more clear and
concise and also encourages the public to take an appropriate course of
action to reduce their exposure to lead. The health effects language
section was revised by EPA to improve consumer awareness and
understanding of potential effects of exposure to lead.

c.  What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Message Content
Revisions And EPA's Response To These Issues?

While most of the commenters supported the proposed flexibility in the
development of public education materials, one suggested that EPA
provide a template for small and medium-sized systems that may lack the
expertise to draft the public education materials. EPA is in the process
of developing guidance that will include templates for the public
education materials.  Generally, commenters did support shortening the
mandatory language. While some commenters believed that the revised
language is clearer and easier to understand, most commenters did not
like the recommended health effects language, stating that it was too
alarming and complex. A few commenters preferred the existing health
effects language to what EPA proposed.  EPA believes the language should
convey the need for consumers to pay attention to the message and
understand the risks of exposure.  In addition, the new health effects
language is more specific about the health effects of greatest concern
than was the prior language. However, EPA agrees that the complexity of
the proposed mandatory health effects language would limit its utility
in conveying to the general public an understanding of the risk posed by
lead in drinking water and an appropriate course of action. Therefore,
the Agency revised the health effects statement to simplify the
language—to a reading level that is appropriate for the general
public—while retaining its specificity regarding the health effects of
greatest concern.

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

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

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

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

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

Two commenters suggested that, rather than using the proposed regulatory
language with regard to communicating with customers in their native
tongue, EPA should use the existing language in the Public Notification
Rule (PNR), §141.205(c)(2)(i). For public water systems serving a large
proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by the
State, the public education materials must contain information in the
appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of the notice or
contain a telephone number or address where persons served may contact
the water system to obtain a translated copy of the public education
materials or to request assistance in the appropriate language.  EPA's
agrees with this suggestion and has changed the rule language
accordingly.

2.  Delivery

a.  How Is EPA Revising The Delivery Requirements?

	EPA is revising the delivery requirement associated with public
education materials. EPA is requiring water systems to deliver materials
to additional organizations (e.g., licensed childcare facilities,
obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and preschools) and to include
an informational notice with the public education materials explaining
the importance of sharing the information with their customers or users.
Water systems are required to contact the local health agency via phone
or in-person, rather than relying solely on mailing, to request their
assistance in distributing information on lead in drinking water and how
people can reduce their exposure to lead.  Systems must contact the
local public health agency even if it is located outside the service
area of the water system.   Furthermore, the local public health agency
may provide a water system with a specific list of additional
community-based organizations serving target populations, which may
include organizations outside the service area of the water system.  If
such lists are provided, systems must deliver materials to all
organizations on the provided lists.

	Under the previous regulation, systems serving less than 500 people
could limit their distribution to only those facilities and
organizations frequented by the most vulnerable population without
approval from the State, but systems serving 501-3,300 persons could
only do so if they received written approval from the State. This rule
allows all small systems serving 3,300 or fewer people to limit their
distribution to only those places frequented by the most vulnerable
populations without written approval from the State.

	EPA is also requiring water systems to do additional outreach
activities, but offers a list of activities from which they may choose
in consultation with the State. Systems serving more than 3,300 people
are required to do three additional public education activities from
this list, while systems serving 3,300 or fewer people must do one
additional activity. Primacy agencies can choose to waive the mandatory
press release requirement if there are no media outlets that
specifically reach the target population.

In addition, this rule removes the requirement for medium and large
systems to provide two public service announcements (PSAs) per year.
Under this rule, all water systems must post information on water bills
(no less than quarterly) and issue press releases throughout the period
during which the system is exceeding the lead action level. However, EPA
did add a provision which provides State discretion to allow systems to
deliver the information in a separate mailing if the informational
statement cannot be included on the water bill.

	In addition, water systems will have to distribute two press releases
as opposed to the one required by the previous Lead and Copper Rule.
Larger systems (serving a population >100,000 persons) must also post
and keep information on their Web site until the system tests below the
action level.

b.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For The Delivery Requirements Revisions?

In recognition of the importance of distributing information to the
at-risk populations (e.g., pregnant women, infants, and young children)
on the hazards of lead and how one can protect themselves from exposure
to lead, EPA has added additional organizations (e.g., licensed
childcare facilities, obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and
preschools) to the list of organizations a water system must contact
when a lead action level exceedance occurs to ensure that the
information reaches all potential bill paying and non-bill paying
customers.  This is based on NDWAC’s recommendation.

EPA believes the informational notice water systems must include, along
with the public education materials explaining the importance of sharing
this information with their customers/patients, will encourage the
organizations that receive the information to share in the task of
promoting public awareness.  EPA recognizes that local health agencies
play an important role in ensuring that consumers who are most
vulnerable receive critical information on how one can reduce their
exposure to lead.  Therefore, EPA is requiring water systems to directly
contact the local health agencies via telephone or in-person.

In addition, since EPA believes that communication with consumers is
important in promoting public awareness, this rule requires systems to
continually communicate with consumers as long as they continue to
exceed the lead action level. EPA believes the additional activities
required in the rule following a lead action level exceedance (e.g.,
including information on the water bill; two presses releases per year
as opposed to the current rule, which requires only one per year;
posting information on systems' Web sites) will appropriately bring the
seriousness of lead exposure to the attention of consumers.

To ensure that systems employ the appropriate delivery mechanism and
content in terms of developing the most effective way of reaching a
system's target population, water systems must work in consultation with
the State. System, State and consumer representatives on the NDWAC
Working Group all agreed that what works in one community does not
always work best in another. In order to make the public education as
effective as possible, EPA is giving systems some flexibility in how
they deliver their public education materials. They are still required
to disseminate information to people served by their system, but they
have some flexibility in how they complete their program. For instance,
a large system in an urban area may choose to use a public service
announcement and paid advertisements to reach consumers, while a system
in a rural area may find the best way to reach customers is through
displaying information in frequently visited public areas or conducting
public meetings.  Realizing that small systems may have difficulty in
completing these requirements, EPA offers States the option to waive the
press release requirement if there are no media outlets that target the
population served by the system. Furthermore, small systems (serving
3,300 or less people) may limit their distribution to those places
frequented by the most vulnerable populations without written approval
from the State.  EPA recognizes that small systems are typically aware
of the constituents in their community and often have the capability to
target specific populations through personal relationships. By removing
the requirement to obtain State approval, this provision allows these
systems to send public education materials to their vulnerable
populations as soon as possible and reduces burden on both the system
and the State.

c.  What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Delivery
Requirements Revisions And EPA's Response To These Issues?

Many commenters expressed concern that it would be an implementation
burden to deliver public education materials and maintain relationships
with the new organizations (e.g., licensed child care facilities,
obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and preschools). Some
commenters believed that water systems should rely on local health
departments to provide contact information for the new organizations. As
stated in the proposal, EPA believes that the local health agencies play
an important role in making sure consumers who are most vulnerable
receive the information they need to reduce their exposure to lead in
drinking water.  However, EPA cannot mandate that health departments
generate and provide contact information for the new organizations nor
is EPA assuming that local health agencies will have the contact
information for these organizations readily available in all cases. As
discussed below, this rule has provisions for systems to request that
the local health department provide lists of the additional
organizations that may or may not only be those within the water
system’s service area, or the system must make a good faith effort by
other means to contact those organizations within their service area.

Some commenters expressed concerns with EPA's proposed regulatory
language, which indicated that water systems should make a good faith
effort to contact all customers who are most at risk by delivering
materials to specified organizations. The commenters stated that “good
faith effort” was too open-ended and difficult to enforce. EPA
employed the terminology “good faith effort” to cover the unforeseen
situations outside of the water system’s control when they would not
be able to deliver public education materials to organizations (e.g.,
non-cooperative organization, a new obstetrician-gynecologist office
opening up after or right before public education materials are
distributed by the water system, and no contact information is
available) and allows States the flexibility to address the public
education challenges a water system might face.  Some commenters stated
that requiring water systems to contact their local health agencies and
rely on them to provide contact information for the new organizations
would constitute a good faith effort. EPA believes this may be
considered a good faith effort but suggests that a water system attempt
to find contact information for these organizations by some other means
if the local public health agency cannot provide the information.

Some commenters indicated that contacting the new organizations should
be in guidance and not a requirement.  EPA disagrees.  It is important
to alert the at-risk populations of how to reduce their exposure to
lead.   EPA believes the addition of the new organizations to the public
education requirements accomplishes two goals: 1) It increases the
likelihood that information reaches the most vulnerable populations
(pregnant women, infants and young children) or their caregivers; and 2)
It ensures that critical information reaches not only bill paying
customers, but also non-bill paying consumers.  The non-bill paying
consumers may be contacted through these organizations if the
organizations are provided with the necessary information and encouraged
to share the task of improving public awareness.

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

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

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

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

Commenters supported the revision that provides small water systems
(serving 3,300 or less people) the authority to limit their public
education distribution to the organizations and places frequented by the
most vulnerable populations without State approval.  Commenters also
supported the provision that would allow States to waive the press
release requirement for a small system if there were no media outlets
that would reach the target population.

Many commenters thought there were logistical challenges with including
an informational statement in water bills when a lead action level
exceedance occurs.  Some systems do not have the ability to add any
information to their water bill especially where they bill using a
postcard.  Accordingly, EPA added a provision to this final rule which
provides State discretion to allow systems to deliver the information in
a separate mailing if the informational statement cannot be included on
the water bill.  Some commenters indicated that many systems do not bill
monthly so those consumers will not receive the same degree of
notification as customers of systems that do bill monthly.  In response,
EPA has added text to the provision to indicate that when systems notify
customers via their water bill, they must do so no less than quarterly.
While some customers might receive more notification, EPA believes that
no less than quarterly is the maximum time a water system should allow
to elapse between notifications during a lead action level exceedance to
ensure that the issue still holds customers’ attention.

3.  Timing

a.  How Is EPA Revising The Timing Provisions Of The Rule?

EPA is requiring that water systems that exceed the lead action level
conduct public education within 60 days after the end of the monitoring
period in which the exceedance occurred. However, as mentioned in
section III.B of this notice, States may extend the timeframe to
complete the public education activities as long as a water system has
started the public education activities within the 60-day period.

b.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For Revising The Timing Provisions Of The
Rule?

NDWAC was concerned about the lag time between testing water samples,
receiving the results, calculating the 90th percentile, and finally
sending out public education materials. They were concerned that an
individual, particularly an infant or child, could be drinking water
with high lead levels for months before the individual or caretaker
knows of the problem. As a result, they recommended changes to increase
the timeliness of public education on lead in drinking water. The NDWAC
recommendations are, in part, modeled after the public education
information under two existing EPA rules, the Consumer Confidence Report
Rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart O) and the Public Notification Rule (40 CFR
141, Subpart Q). The NDWAC recommendations form the basis for the
changes to 40 CFR 141.85 in this final rule.

While the revision requires systems to complete public education
activities within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period in which
the exceedance occurred, there is flexibility for the State to allow
additional time for completion of these activities.  However, systems
must receive State approval within the 60-day window for an extension.
This ensures that the system and the State begin public education
actions to reduce exposure as soon as possible, but allows these actions
to continue past the 60-day timeframe on a case-by-case basis as needed
for effective implementation.

c.  What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Timing
Provisions And EPA's Response To These Issues?

Commenters indicated that the 60-day timeframe for a system to complete
public education requirements was sufficient for most but not all
systems. In response, EPA has added a provision to the final rule
providing that the State may extend the 60-day window under certain
conditions.  However, EPA believes that systems should make every effort
to complete their public education activities within 60 days after the
end of the monitoring period.

4.  Consumer Confidence Reports

a.  How Is EPA Revising CCR Requirements?

	EPA is revising requirements of the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)
Rule. Previously, all community water systems (CWSs) that detected lead
above the action level in more than five percent of the homes sampled
and up to and including 10 percent of homes, had to include an
informational statement in their CCR about lead in drinking water. EPA
is now requiring that all CWSs include an informational statement about
lead in their CCRs. In addition, the proposed CCR language that referred
to “home plumbing” as the source of high lead levels has been
broadened to include service lines, and the National Lead Information
Center phone number has been replaced with the phone number for the EPA
Safe Drinking Water Hotline.

b.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For The CCR Revisions?

EPA believes that exposure to lead can be a localized phenomenon and has
revised the rule based on concerns that exposure to lead may be taking
place, even though the action level is not exceeded; consumers,
therefore, currently may not receive sufficient information on how to
reduce their exposure to lead. Furthermore, in the situation where there
has been a lead action level exceedance, NDWAC expressed concern that
public education materials may not be delivered immediately; therefore,
vulnerable populations may drink water with high levels of lead for
months before knowing of the risk.

Under the previous regulations and as stated above, all water systems
which detect lead above the action level in more than 5 percent of the
homes sampled had to include a short informational notice about lead in
their CCR. EPA is now requiring that all community water systems provide
information in their CCRs on lead in drinking water regardless if a
system did or did not detect lead. This short statement will be
educational in nature and help to ensure that all vulnerable populations
or their caregivers receive information (at least once a year) on how to
reduce their risk to lead in drinking water. In this revision, EPA is
incorporating NDWAC's recommended changes to the informational notice,
which would serve to clarify the risk of lead in drinking water,
including basic steps on how to reduce exposure to lead in drinking
water and where to go for more information. Additionally, requiring all
systems to have one statement simplifies compliance with this provision
of the rule for the systems and the States. The new language is intended
to help consumers understand the health effects associated with lead,
that lead levels can vary from home to home, that they can take steps to
reduce their exposure, and where to get more information.

c.  What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The CCR
Requirements And EPA's Response To These Issues?

 	Most of the comments that EPA received were directed towards the
proposed detection limit threshold for requiring statements about lead
in the CCR.  Some commenters agreed that the method detection limit for
lead of 0.001 mg/L should be used as the threshold for the inclusion of
the lead statement.  Others suggested that requiring the lead statement
should be based on the practical quantitation limit for lead of 0.005
mg/L, a 90th percentile lead action level exceedance, or a lead
detection in drinking water at a level determined to have adverse health
effects.  Some commenters even suggested that no changes be made to the
CCR requirements.  EPA realizes, however, there are situations where the
most vulnerable populations may be exposed to elevated levels of lead
for many months before or without being notified, as can occur in the
case of a system that has elevated lead levels but only in less than 10
percent of compliance samples.  EPA believes, therefore, that the CCR is
a good mechanism to communicate with all customers the health risks of
lead in drinking water in the interest of being proactive.  EPA also
believes the CCR is another opportunity to remind customers that they
share responsibility for reducing their exposure to lead with their
water system.

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

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

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

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

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

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

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

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

Commenters generally agreed that all existing lead service lines should
be considered when resuming a lead service line replacement program.
However, there were some commenters who had concerns with the timing and
believed that the 15-year clock should be reset when resuming a
replacement program. In 1991, EPA established the maximum replacement
schedule of 15 years for all systems in order to ensure that public
health is adequately protected (56 FR 26460 at 26507–26508, U.S. EPA,
1991a). The Agency continues to believe that systems that are exceeding
the action level should have no more than 15 years to replace all of
their lead service lines, as intended by the original rule. Sites that
met the test-out provision would need to be re-evaluated or replaced
within the remaining timeframe.  This approach provides an incentive to
physically replace the portion of the lead service line under the
control of the system.  Many lead service lines are over 70 years old
and may need to be replaced soon simply based on their age.

Some commenters also recommended that flexibility be given to the State
to determine when treatment or source changes are significant enough to
require reevaluation of lead service lines.  This rule does not change
the requirements that trigger lead service line replacement.  Systems
that have installed optimal corrosion control and that subsequently
exceed the lead action level must perform lead service line replacement.
 If a system makes a treatment or source change that does not affect the
system’s optimal corrosion control and the system continues to comply
with the LCR, then it is not necessary for the system to perform lead
service line replacement.  If a system makes a treatment or source
change that does affect the optimal corrosion control and the system
subsequently exceeds the lead action level, then the system must perform
lead service line replacement.  This rule does not preclude any system
currently meeting the lead action level from optionally replacing lead
service lines.

Some commenters expressed concern that a system could complete a 15-year
lead service line replacement program and then meet the action level
only to re-exceed it and be triggered into lead service line
replacement.  Under this scenario, there would be no time left to
re-evaluate or replace lead service lines.  EPA has added the following
provision to address this specific situation.  For those systems that
have completed a 15-year lead service line replacement program, the
State will determine a schedule for replacing or retesting lines that
were previously tested out under the replacement program when the system
re-exceeds the action level.  However, once a system has been in a lead
service line replacement program for more than five years, the system
may want to consider physically replacing the portion of all lead
service lines under their control rather than continuing to use the
test-out provision.   Replacing the line would eliminate the possibility
of having to go back and re-evaluate it or replace it if the action
level is re-exceeded.  In addition, many systems currently replace lead
service lines when they find them regardless of their 90th percentile.

H.  Other Issues Related to the Lead and Copper Rule

1.  How Is EPA Revising This Rule?

	EPA has decided not to make any further rule changes at this time to
address the following issues that EPA requested comment on in section
III.H of the proposed rule (137 FR 40828 at 40839, US EPA, 2006a):
plumbing component replacement; point-of- use (POU) and point-of-entry
(POE) treatment; site selection in areas with water softeners and POU
treatment units; and water quality parameter monitoring.

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

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

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

     	EPA also requested comment on two monitoring issues.  The first
was whether the Lead and Copper Rule should be amended to allow sampling
at locations with POU/POE devices used to remove inorganic contaminants
in exceptional cases (such as systems with a high prevalence of water
softeners), and, if so, how high risk sites should be identified.  The
second was whether the Lead and Copper Rule should be amended to require
systems to synchronize required water quality parameter sampling with
lead and copper tap sampling.  Due to the complexity of the issue, EPA
has determined that rule changes on site selection and synchronization
should be addressed as part of the broader monitoring revisions.  For
the POU/POE site selection issue, EPA notes that there may be additional
flexibility under §141.86(a)(5) which states:  “A community water
system with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 sampling sites shall
complete its sampling pool with representatives sites throughout the
distribution system.  For the purpose of this paragraph, a
representative site is a site in which the plumbing materials used at
that site would be commonly found at other sites served by the water
system.”  EPA believes that the current rule provisions and guidance
on this issue are sufficient at this time.

3.  What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On These Other Issues
And EPA’s Response To Those Issues?

     EPA received a range of comments on the issue about whether there
is enough flexibility under the existing rule to use plumbing
replacement without specifying it as optimal corrosion control.  Some
commenters stated that the existing timeframes are sufficient for
systems to implement plumbing replacement and that the rule should not
be revised to call it an optimal corrosion control treatment.  Other
commenters asserted that EPA should specify plumbing replacement as
optimal corrosion control treatment.  As noted above, EPA believes that
there is sufficient flexibility under the existing rule for a small
system to pursue a fixture replacement strategy without listing it as an
optimal corrosion control treatment.  Because fixture replacement may
not be successful in reducing lead below the action levels if some lead
sources remain in the plumbing system, systems will need to prepare an
optimal corrosion control treatment recommendation (either with or
without a corrosion control study) and be prepared to install it if the
action level is still exceeded.  EPA noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule that plumbing fixture replacement is not a corrosion
control technique and would not have applicable water quality parameters
that could be set by the State if the system continued to exceed the
action level.

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

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

     	The final issue on which EPA requested comment was synchronization
of water quality parameter sampling with lead and copper tap sampling.
While many commenters supported the scientific rationale for this
proposed change, a number of comments received expressed concern over
which synchronization time frame would be appropriate and the
feasibility of implementing a synchronized sampling approach.  Several
large systems noted that homeowners are the ones who collect the lead
and copper tap samples and send them back to the utility.  These
commenters expressed that since the utility does not know the exact date
that the samples will be taken by the homeowner, synchronizing water
quality parameter and lead and copper tap samples would be difficult to
coordinate.  Some commenters noted that current water quality parameter
sampling requirements for systems on reduced monitoring require these
systems to take their water quality parameter samples throughout the
year in order to capture seasonal variability.  EPA also received input
that in many states, water quality parameter sampling for small and
medium systems is not started until after all tap samples are collected
and the determination made that a water system does not meet the 90th
percentile action level, consistent with the specific language of the
LCR.  Due to the complexity of issues, challenges with implementation,
and potential burden, EPA has decided not to revise the LCR to require
water quality parameter synchronization at this time, but will revisit
this issue in future revisions to the rule.

I.  Compliance Dates

1.  What Are The New Compliance Dates For This Rule?

     	Section 1412 (b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that
a proposed national primary drinking water regulation (and any
amendments ) take effect on the date that is three years after the date
of promulgation, unless the Administrator determines that an earlier
date is practical. EPA proposed that the revisions take effect for
purposes of compliance three years after the promulgation of the final
rule.  EPA requested comment on the practicality of implementing the
following changes within 60 days of final rule promulgation: Minimum
Number of Samples Required (III.A), Definitions for Compliance and
Monitoring Periods (III.B), Consumer Notification of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results (III.E) and Public Education Requirements (III.F).
EPA is adopting a compliance date for all of the final rule provisions
of 180 days after publication in the Federal Register.   However, EPA is
also allowing maximum compliance date of two years after promulgation,
which coincides with the date by which States are required to adopt and
submit revised programs adopting this rule under 40 CFR 142.12.  For
States that adopt this rule after six months but before two years,
compliance with this rule will become effective on the date that the
State rule is effective, as long as it is before the date two years
after promulgation of this rule.

     2.  What Is EPA’s Rationale For The Compliance Dates?

	There were several considerations behind this compliance date.  First,
as discussed in the proposal, EPA believes that none of these
requirements in this rule needs three full years for compliance because
none involve capital improvements or extensive training or system
modifications.  These rule changes are all modifications of existing
requirements and procedures under the LCR or CCR.  At the same time,
many of these changes are important improvements to the LCR, which
should help improve critical consumer information about lead and reduce
lead exposure, so they should be established as quickly as possible.
Second, EPA is also aware that because many of these requirements are
procedural in nature, having dual Federal and State requirements at the
same time is confusing to systems, the public, and the regulators.  As a
result, it is important to try to make the Federal changes and State
changes coincide as much as possible.  EPA also received helpful
comments from the public urging that the requirements should take effect
no earlier than six months after promulgation.

	EPA therefore decided to adopt a compliance date structure that is
similar to the one used for the public notification rule revisions in
2000.  This rule, therefore, provides a minimum compliance date of 180
days after promulgation, after which the rule will be in effect where
EPA has primacy (Wyoming, DC, and most Indian territories) and where
States incorporate EPA’s drinking water regulations by reference.  EPA
is also providing a maximum compliance date of two years after
promulgation, which coincides with the date by which States are required
to adopt and submit revised programs adopting this rule under 40 CFR
142.12.  For States that adopt this rule after six months but before two
years, this rule will become effective on the date that the State rule
is effective, as long as it is before the date two years after
promulgation of this rule. This gives States the flexibility of choosing
early implementation, enabling the water systems to take advantage of
the efficiencies in the new regulations in less than two years, or
provides States two years to accomplish the preparatory activities
needed to implement the revisions.

3.  What Were The Key Issues Raised By Commenters On The Compliance
Dates And EPA's Response To These Issues?

Some commenters indicated that an early compliance date would impose
additional burden on the States and utilities (e.g., conduct staff
training, inform water systems, revise rules and submit primacy
revisions) and suggested the compliance date be three years after final
rule promulgation. Some commenters had concerns about the feasibility of
a 60-day effective date and proposed an effective date within 180 days
of final rule promulgation.  EPA agrees that 60 days may not offer State
primacy agencies enough time to conduct training, review guidance and
distribute information to water systems about the new requirements;
therefore, EPA has revised the compliance date to 180 days after final
rule promulgation.  EPA believes there are number of improvements in
this rule that States will want to utilize and that 180 days is a
feasible timeframe for the States to conduct the necessary preparatory
actions.  One commenter noted that EPA should not make the requirements
effective before the State has time to adopt the change to avoid
complications in meeting both State and Federal requirements.  EPA
agrees and is revising the  date to give a broad time frame during which
the State may adopt the rule (180 days to 2 years).

J.  State Implementation

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

TABLE III.1.—Final Rule Revisions

CFR citation	Is the requirement more stringent?	Revision

§141.80(a)(2)

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

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

§141.80(g)

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

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

§141.90(a)(3).	Yes

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

§141.81(e)(1)

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

§141.81(e)(2)

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

§141.81(e)(2)(i), §141.81(e)(2)(ii)

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

§141.83(a)(1)

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

§141.84(b)(1)

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

§141.84(b)(2)

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

§141.90(e)(2)(ii)

	Yes	Clarifies resumption of line replacement.

§141.85

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

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

	Yes	Clarifies end of the monitoring period.

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

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

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

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

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

§141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)

	Yes	Specifies time period to resume standard tap water monitoring.

§141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)

	Yes	Specifies time period to resume water quality parameter monitoring.

§141.86(d)(4)(ii)

	Yes	Clarifies monitoring frequency.

§141.87(d), §141.87(e)(2)(i)

	Yes	Clarifies time period for water quality parameter monitoring.

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

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

§141.154 (d)(1) and (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.    How are Tribes affected?

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

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

IV.  Economic Analysis

This section describes the estimates of annual costs for the seven
regulatory changes to utilities’ and States’ requirements, including
costs associated with administrative, monitoring, sampling, reporting,
and notification activities for this final rule.  One-time, upfront
costs of rule review and rule implementation are also described.  There
are two types of annual costs that may result from the rule changes –
direct and indirect.  Direct costs are from those activities that are
specified by the rule change, such as costs for additional monitoring or
distribution of consumer notices.   Indirect costs may also result when
systems and States use the information generated by directly–related
rule activities to modify or enhance practices to reduce lead levels.
These indirect costs, and related health risk reductions, are not
quantified for the purposes of this analysis, but are described
qualitatively in section IV.K of this notice and in Chapter 5 of the
Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term
Regulatory Revisions (U.S. EPA, 2007a).  Table IV.1 summarizes the
expected direct and indirect cost impacts for the seven regulatory
changes.

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

Rule Change	Direct Cost Implications	Indirect Cost and Health Risk
Implications

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

Regulatory Change III.B (Monitoring Period)	Unquantified 	None

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

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

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

Regulatory Change III.F  (Public Education)	Yes	Yes

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

A.   Direct Costs

		The revisions in this final rule will result in direct costs to
utilities and States from activities that are specified by rule changes,
including administrative, monitoring, sampling, reporting, and
notification activities.  These costs will result in an increase in the
overall costs associated with the LCR.

		The most recent cost estimates to utilities and States of the LCR can
be found in the 2004 Information Collection Request for
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules
(Information Collection Request for Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical,
and Radionuclides Rules, USEPA, 2004a).  The 2004 ICR estimates
administrative burden and costs associated with the LCR for systems and
States.  System costs are estimated for community water systems and
non-transient non-community water systems to perform the following
activities: monitor for water quality parameters, tap sampling of lead
levels for action level compliance, review of sample data, including the
calculation of lead and copper 90th percentile levels, submission to the
State of monitoring data and any other documents or reports, and
recording and maintaining information.  In addition, some systems must
submit corrosion control studies, recommend and submit information
regarding the completion of corrosion control treatment (CCT) or source
water treatment installation, conduct public education, or conduct lead
service line (LSL) monitoring, notification, and replacement.  In the
2004 ICR, the average annual cost to CWSs and NTNCWSs for the LCR
requirements was estimated to be $57.9 million (2006$) and the burden
was estimated to be 1.72 million hours for reporting (including lead
service line replacement reporting), recordkeeping, and public education
activities of the LCR. For States, the annual cost and burden incurred
by primacy agencies for activities associated with the LCR were
estimated to be $6.8 million and 0.21 million hours, respectively.

B.	Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions

	As part of its comprehensive review of the Lead and Copper Rule, EPA
collected and analyzed new data on various aspects of LCR
implementation. When available and appropriate, this new information has
been used in estimating the incremental costs of this rule.  If new
information was not available about a cost item or assumption, previous
analyses of LCR requirements were reviewed to determine if a suitable
estimate was available. The 1991 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) (Final
Regulatory Impact Analysis of National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper, U.S. EPA 1991b), the 1996 RIA Addendum
(Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum, U.S. EPA 1996b), and the various
Information Collection Requests were all used as sources of information
and assumptions.

	For the rule revisions that clarify the existing LCR rule language, if