the costs associated with those activities were included in the original
LCR cost estimates as presented in the 1991 RIA, those costs are not
included in this analysis.

C.  Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.A

	Regulatory Change III.A clarifies EPA’s intent that a minimum of five
samples must be taken when conducting compliance monitoring. If a system
has fewer than the minimum number of taps required for sampling, then
those systems will have to collect multiple samples on different days
from the same tap so that the total number of samples per monitoring
period is five.  States, however, have the discretion to allow water
systems with fewer than five taps for human consumption to collect one
sample per tap. Under this alternate sampling schedule, the sample with
the highest test result will be compared to the action level to
determine compliance.

		Although some systems may change the number of samples taken in
response to these provisions, there is very limited available data on
the number of these systems and on the frequency with which they conduct
lead and copper monitoring.  Because of lack of data, EPA has not
quantified the annual direct costs or savings associated with Regulatory
Change III.A.  EPA has quantified the one-time implementation costs for
water systems with fewer than five taps to request permission to collect
one sample per available tap and for States to review and decide upon
these requests to collect one sample per available tap.  Those costs are
given in section IV.K.

D.  Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.B

Regulatory Change III.B clarifies the meaning of “monitoring period”
and “compliance period,” addressing in particular the date on which
actions are triggered by an exceedance and the timing of samples under
reduced monitoring schedules.  Based on the rule change, if a system
exceeds the lead action level during a monitoring period, non-compliance
starts at the end of the monitoring period (for most systems on
September 30).  Under the previous language, it was not clear whether
non-compliance began at the end of the calendar year (December 31) or at
the end of the monitoring period (September 30).

As a result of this rule change, activities triggered by an action level
exceedance could begin three months earlier (i.e., at the end of
September versus the end of December), but the duration of these
activities would not likely be longer.  The net result is a change in
the timing of activities, with a difference of three months having
negligible, if any, impact on costs.

Regulatory Change III.B also requires that systems on reduced
monitoring, such as triennially or once every nine years, must take all
compliance samples within the same calendar year during the
June-September monitoring period.  Under the existing rule, a system
could collect compliance samples over multiple calendar years, as long
as they were taken during the June-September time frame and during the
three-year compliance period. In addition, systems on triennial
monitoring must monitor no later than every third calendar year.
Similarly, systems on nine-year monitoring schedules must monitor no
later than every ninth calendar year. Since this rule change does not
alter the number of samples to be taken, but the timing of samples, the
direct cost impact is expected to be negligible.

E. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.C

1.  Activities resulting from regulatory change

As a result of Regulatory Change III.C, utilities that have 90th
percentile LCR monitoring samples that exceed the lead action level, and
are currently on reduced monitoring, will be required to resume standard
monitoring schedules for monitoring lead at taps.  In addition to
monitoring activities, utilities will have to meet reporting
requirements to the State/primacy agency.  State/primacy agencies will
be required to review utility monitoring reports.

2.  Costs to utilities

The direct costs to utilities, summarized in Table IV.3, are estimated
to be $2.7

million annually including $2.5 million in labor costs and $0.2 million
in materials costs. Detailed estimates are provided in the Economic
Analysis, Appendix C.

The systems that will incur costs under this regulatory change are those
systems that exceed the lead action level and that had been on reduced
monitoring.  The number of systems EPA estimates to exceed the lead
action level each year is 994 as shown in Table IV.2.   This estimate is
based upon 2003 lead action level exceedances reported by States to
EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System for systems serving more
than 3,300 people.  For purposes of this analysis, EPA used this data to
estimate that 1.4 percent of systems (including system serving fewer
than 3,300 people) will exceed the action level each year.

Table IV.2: Systems Exceeding the Action Level Since 2003

	<3,3001	3,300<50,000	>50,000	Total

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

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

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

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

Source: For medium and large systems, January 2005 Summary of lead
action level,   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/lead_data.html"
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lcrmr/lead_data.html ; for small systems,
Summary, lead action level exceedances for public water systems subject
to the Lead and Copper Rule (For data through September 13, 2004).

The number of systems on reduced monitoring was estimated using State
responses to the EPA State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule
survey (State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA
2004b).   States provided estimates of the percent of systems on reduced
LCR monitoring.  Based on this data, 91 percent of systems are on
reduced lead and copper monitoring. This analysis assumes that systems
that are likely to exceed the lead action level, and are on reduced
monitoring, are likely to exceed at the same rate as all systems.
Therefore, EPA assumes that 1.4 percent of the 91 percent of the systems
estimated as likely to exceed the action level are on reduced monitoring
and will therefore incur costs due to Regulatory Change III.C.  EPA
notes that this assumption likely over-estimates the number of systems
that will be affected by this regulatory change because systems that are
likely to have exceedances are generally less likely to be on reduced
monitoring in the first place.

For the number of additional monitoring events, it is assumed that each
utility will conduct five additional monitoring events in each three
year period by switching from a reduced monitoring schedule (triennial)
to standard tap monitoring (semi-annual).  While reduced monitoring
could refer to either monitoring once every year or once every three
years, it is not possible to distinguish, from the State responses to
the EPA survey, between systems monitoring once every year and systems
monitoring once every three years. This analysis assumes that all
systems on reduced monitoring are on a one sample every three years
schedule, an assumption that might slightly over-estimate costs.
Likewise, the number of samples collected in each monitoring period will
change when the utility switches from reduced monitoring to standard
monitoring. Thus, a system that was on reduced monitoring, but is placed
on regular monitoring after an action level exceedance under Regulatory
Change III.C, will incur an additional five monitoring events over a
three year period (six monitoring events in three years under regular
monitoring instead of one monitoring event in three years under reduced
monitoring), with an increased number of samples collected in each
event.  The required number of samples varies by system size, with the
smallest systems (serving less than or equal to 100 people) required to
take five samples per monitoring event under both standard and reduced
monitoring, and the largest systems (serving > 100,000 people) required
to take 100 samples per monitoring event under standard monitoring and
50 samples per monitoring event under reduced monitoring.

3.  Costs to States

Regulatory Change III.C will require  State/Primacy agencies to review
utility monitoring reports as a result of resuming standard monitoring
schedules. The direct costs to State/Primacy agencies is estimated to be
$82,000 annually including $81,000 in labor costs and $1,000 in
materials costs, as summarized in Table IV.3.  Detailed estimates are
included in the Economic Analysis, Appendix C.

Table IV.3 : Summary of Estimated Direct Costs to Systems and
State/Primacy Agencies Associated with Regulatory Change III.C (2006
dollars)

Annual Labor	Annual Materials	Total Annual

Costs to Systems

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

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

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

Costs to State/Primacy Agencies

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

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

F. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.D

1.  Activities resulting from regulatory change

Regulatory Change III.D requires water systems to obtain prior approval
by the State/Primacy agency to add a new source of water or to make a
long-term treatment change prior to implementation.  New system
activities will include an assessment of the implications of long-term
treatment or source changes on corrosion control prior to the change and
a letter to the state.  New State/Primacy agency activities will include
the review of the system data on the implications of a long-term
treatment or source change on corrosion control prior to a change,
preparation of conclusions, and coordination with utilities.  The
estimated costs to the affected systems and State primacy agencies are
summarized in Table IV.4.

2.  Costs to utilities

EPA estimates that the direct costs to utilities range from $506,000 to
$765,000 annually.  These direct costs are strictly labor costs;
materials costs are expected to be negligible.  Detailed estimates are
provided in Appendix D (Table 6.1) of the Economic Analysis.

In order to estimate the annual cost of this provision to utilities,
information is needed on the number of systems that would likely
implement a long-term treatment change or add a source each year, as
well as the number of systems that are located in States that already
have a review and approval requirement. Systems located in these States
will not incur additional costs under this provision.

As determined during EPA’s review of the implementation of LCR
requirements by States, many States already have a review and approval
process for treatment or source changes.  For the purposes of this
analysis, two estimates were used for the number of States that already
have a review and approval process that would include information on
corrosion control issues: 14 States for a high end of the cost range and
31 States for a low end.  Under the alternative in which only the 14
States with explicit review and approval are excluded from the count,
53,372 systems (of 72,213 CWSs and NTNCWSs based on 4th quarter 2004
SDWIS/FED) may incur costs for the regulatory change. Under the
alternative in which States with permitting and plan review are also
excluded from the count, 27,615 systems may incur costs for this
regulatory provision.

An estimate was also needed of the number of systems projected to
undertake a long-term treatment change or add a source annually, in
order to estimate the cost of this provision to utilities.  Long-term
treatment changes over the next several years are likely, as systems
will be faced with new regulatory requirements, including changes to
comply with the promulgated Arsenic Rule, the Long Term 2 Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2) and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 D/DBP).  EPA estimated the number of systems
that would undertake treatment changes for the following new regulatory
requirements:

Arsenic – 4,100 systems (Data source: Arsenic in Drinking Water EA,
pp. 6-25, 6-27;

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

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

Together, these regulatory requirements are estimated to cause 9,243
systems to institute a treatment change, although not all of these
treatment changes will affect corrosion control. Additionally, the
compliance periods for these regulations varies.  For example, the Stage
2 D/DBP and LT2 treatment changes are projected to take place within a
six year compliance period for large systems (with the possibility of
two-year extension) and eight years for small systems (with the
possibility of two-year extension).   To account for these expected
treatment changes, and to account for treatment changes unrelated to the
Arsenic, LT2, and Stage 2 D/DBP rules, EPA assumed (based on the
projected rule-related treatment changes and expert judgment) that
approximately 20 percent of the systems affected by the LCR will
institute a treatment change in the next 10 years.  For purposes of this
analysis, it is assumed that these changes will occur uniformly over
that 10-year period, so that approximately one-tenth of these systems
(or two percent of the total) institute a treatment change each year.

Using the two percent estimate, 1,067 (53,372 X .02) systems each year
will report a treatment change or source addition.  However, systems in
States that already have a permitting or plan approval process in place
will not incur additional costs to report the treatment change or source
addition, since their States already require them to report treatment
changes or source additions through these processes. The annual estimate
of the number of systems in States that currently do not have a
permitting or plan approval process in place and that will, therefore,
incur costs is 552.

EPA anticipates that systems will incur additional costs under this rule
change as systems and States more carefully review and consider possible
corrosion impacts of treatment changes or source additions.  In the
absence of information on the current prevalence of these activities,
EPA has used best professional judgment to estimate the range of
potential activities and associated costs resulting from the review and
approval process. All systems, regardless of size or complexity, are
assumed to undertake additional activities related to data collection
and evaluation, preparation of a submittal to the State, and
coordination with the State.   For small systems or systems making
relatively simple changes, considering the corrosion impacts of the
change may be a rather basic process of reviewing water quality data and
previous lead monitoring results.  For these systems, additional effort
will be incurred by system staff in coordinating with State personnel to
assemble water quality parameter and lead data and evaluate the
potential impacts.  EPA estimates the burden for this additional effort
at 7.5 hours per system, at an average cost of $231 per system.  For
larger or more complex systems making major treatment changes,
activities would be more extensive, including conducting engineering
studies to evaluate impacts on corrosion control.  Based on best
professional judgment, EPA estimates that between 10 percent and 20
percent of medium and large systems may need to conduct additional
engineering studies on corrosion impacts at a cost of $20,000. To some
extent, systems may already evaluate the impacts of treatment or source
changes on corrosion. EPA has considered these current activities in
estimating the portion of systems that would require an engineering
study.

3.  Costs to States

The direct costs to State primacy agencies are estimated to range from
$163,000 to $348,000 annually. These direct costs are strictly labor
costs; materials costs are expected to be negligible. Estimates are
summarized in Table IV.4.  Activities that States will undertake include
review of system data, preparation of conclusions and letters to
systems, and coordination with utilities.  Because the level of effort
associated with these activities is expected to vary based on the
complexity of the change and the type of submittal (amount and type of
information), EPA included a range of State review time  from four to
eight hours.

Those States incurring additional costs due to Regulatory Change III.D
are those that do not already have a review and approval process that
considers the corrosion control implications of treatment changes.  For
the States that will incur new costs as they review and approve changes
before they are made, rather than simple review after the change has
been made, which is the existing requirement, new State primacy
activities will include review of the system data on the corrosion
control implications of a long-term treatment or source change prior to
a change, preparation of conclusions and coordination with utilities.

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

Annual Cost – Low Estimate1	Annual Cost – High Estimate2

	Costs to Systems

Reporting	$506,000	$765,000

	Total System Costs	$506,000	$765,000

	Costs to State/Primacy Agencies

	Review Costs	$163,000	$348,000

	Total State Costs	$163,000	$348,000

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

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

G. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.E

1.  Activities resulting from regulatory change

		Regulatory Change III.E requires CWSs to provide written notification
to each owner/occupant of the lead level found in the tap sample
collected for LCR compliance monitoring.  Compliance for NTNCWSs will be
determined by their circumstances and may consist of posting a notice on
community bulletin boards or Web sites.  Systems must also prepare a
letter that self-certifies that they have distributed the sampling
results as appropriate and submit it to the State.  While State/Primacy
agencies may review sample customer letters/notices from each utility
for each monitoring period, such a review is not required by the
regulatory change and thus is not considered a direct cost of the
regulatory change.  States will be required to review, track, and store
the self-certification letters.  Supporting calculations and information
regarding costs to utilities and States associated with this regulatory
change are included in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E.

2.  Costs to utilities

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

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

3.  Costs to States

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

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

Annual Labor	Annual Materials	Total Annual

Costs to Systems

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

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

Costs to States

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

     $163,000

Total State Costs	                  $163,000

      $163,000

H.  Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.F

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

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

Table IV.6

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

System Size

Category	i. Public Service Announcements	ii. Paid

Advertisements	iii. Display

in Public Areas	iv. Internet

Notification	v. Public

Meetings	vi. Delivery to

Every Household	vii. Targeted

Contact	viii. Materials Directly

to Multi-Family & Institutions	Average Per System

All Activities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Costs to Utilities

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

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

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

Activity	Requirement	Annual Labor 	Annual Materials	Total System Cost

a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials

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

b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d.  Changes to the Required Timing

No cost impact

e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report

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

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

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

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

3. Costs to States

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

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

Annual Labor	Annual Materials 	Total Annual

III.F Costs to States

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

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

I. Direct Costs Associated with Regulatory Change III.G

1.  Activities resulting from regulatory change

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

2.  Costs to utilities

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

		In the responses to the 50-State survey on lead implementation, which
is available in the public docket for this rulemaking, 11 States
responded that at least one system in their State has been involved in a
lead service line replacement program.  Six States provided sufficient
information to derive the number of systems within that State required
to perform lead service line replacement – a total of 28 systems.
Based on an average of five systems per State for the six States that
provided data, for purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes that the
remaining five States have five systems, plus one system for DC (which
did not respond to the survey) for a total of 54 systems that have been
required to perform lead service line replacement.

	Because there is insufficient information to determine how many of the
54 systems suspended their lead replacement programs, and later
restarted the programs due to an exceedance, EPA assumed the worst case
scenario that all of these systems suspended their lead replacement
programs and that the rate of subsequent exceedance was the same as for
the universe of systems subject to the LCR, as shown in Table IV.2.
Thus, EPA assumed that 1.4 percent of the 54 systems or one system will
exceed the action level and will therefore be triggered back into lead
service line replacement each year.

       	EPA does not have information on the number of systems using the
test out provisions rather than physically replacing lines, so this
approach likely overestimates the number of affected systems, because it
assumes that all systems in a lead service line replacement program are
using the test out provisions.  Systems removing lead service lines are
not impacted by this change.  While the rate at which systems are
triggered back into lead service line replacement might be higher than
the initial rate, it is offset by the  assumptions regarding systems
using the test out provisions and the universe of systems that would
stop their lead service line replacement program and later resume it
because of this regulatory change.  Please see the Economic Analysis for
the final rule, Appendix F, for additional details on the assumptions
EPA made to derive the estimated costs for this provision.

3.  Costs to States

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

J.	Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs

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

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

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

	Reporting	Monitoring	Consumer Notice	Total

III.A	-	-	-	-	-	-

III.B	-	-	-	-	-	-

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

III.D Low

III.D High	$506,000

$765,000	-	-	$506,000

$765,000	$163,000

$348,000	$669,000

$1,113,000

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

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

III.G	-	$110,000	-	$110,000	-	$110,000

TOTAL Low

TOTAL High	$736,000

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

$5,677,000	$471,000

$657,000	$5,890,000

$6,335,000

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

K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and Implement Regulatory Changes

1.  Activities resulting from regulatory change

Systems and State/Primacy Agencies will incur one-time upfront costs
associated with reviewing and implementing this rule.  For systems,
activities include reviewing the rule changes, training staff, and
verification costs associated with Regulatory Change III.A.  For
States/Primacy Agencies, activities include regulation adoption, program
development, and miscellaneous training.

2.  Total costs to utilities

	Direct costs to utilities are estimated to be approximately $11
million, as summarized in Table IV.10.  Detailed estimates of costs to
utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis Appendix G.  Direct
costs to utilities are based solely on labor; no materials costs are
expected for these one-time upfront costs.

3.  Total costs to States

Direct costs to the States are estimated to be $1,650,000 as summarized
in Table IV.10 and detailed in Appendix G of the Economic Analysis.
Similar to the one-time costs for utilities, these direct costs are
based solely on upfront labor costs. Fifty-seven State/Primacy agencies
will review and implement these LCR revisions.

Table IV.10: Summary of One-time Direct Costs Associated with Rule
Review and Implementation (2006 dollars)

One Time  Labor Costs

Costs to Systems

Review & Communication

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

$104,000

Total System Costs	$11,075,000

Costs to State/Primacy Agencies

	Regulation Adoption

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

$162,000

Total State Costs	$1,650,000

TOTAL Rule Implementation Costs	$12,725,000

L.  Indirect Costs

		Previous sections focused on the direct costs of this rulemaking,
costs resulting from activities specified by the rule change, such as
costs for additional monitoring or distribution of consumer notices.  A
second type of cost, an indirect cost, may also result when systems and
States use the information generated by the rule-required activities to
modify or enhance practices to reduce lead levels.  Indirect costs may
also result if systems or States decide to undertake additional
information-gathering activities not required by the rule.

		The revisions will require some systems to generate new information
which, in some cases, may be provided to States and customers.  The
information that is generated may suggest lead and copper risks that
would not otherwise have been discovered (or such risks might be
discovered sooner than otherwise).  Upon obtaining this information, a
system itself, the State, or some of the system’s customers may take
actions to address these risks, incurring the costs of those actions.
For example, a system may redesign a planned treatment change following
State review of the planned change, or a system may replace a lead
service line that was previously “tested out.”  System customers,
upon receiving notification of the lead content of their tap samples,
may take some action, and in the process, incur a cost.

		It is both difficult to project what the content will be of the
information generated pursuant to the regulation, and difficult to
predict how systems and individuals might act in response to the new
information generated as a result of these regulatory changes.  Because
of the uncertainty in tracing the linkages from the regulation to new
information to exposure prevention measures, EPA is unable to quantify
the indirect costs that might ensue from these regulatory changes.

		It is also possible that some additional information-gathering
activities may result from this rule.  For example, a system may decide
to undertake a new study of the corrosion implications of a rule change.
 Or a State may decide to review sample system customer letters of
notification to owner/occupants about the lead levels found in their
collected tap samples.  These activities would also result in indirect
costs associated with this final rule.

M.	 Benefits

The intent of this rulemaking is to improve implementation of the lead
and copper regulations by clarifying monitoring requirements, improving
customer awareness, and modifying the lead service line test out
procedure. These revisions do not affect the action levels, corrosion
control requirements, line replacement requirements, or other provisions
in the existing rule that directly determine the degree to which the
rule reduces risks from lead and copper.

However, the increase in administrative activities that will result from
the revisions will generate new information (e.g., more monitoring data,
some of which may show exceedances), and may prompt some systems or
individuals to respond to this new information by taking measures to
abate lead and copper exposures and thus reduce the associated risk.
Also, the requirement that long-term treatment changes be approved by
the primacy agency prior to implementation will provide an additional
opportunity to identify possible adverse impacts due to treatment
changes, which may lower the risk to consumers.

Because the precise impact of these revisions on the behavior of
individuals and systems is not known, EPA has not quantified the changes
in associated health benefits.  However, EPA does expect that overall
benefits from the LCR will increase, as a result of the indirect effects
of the revisions on the actions of individual consumers and systems.

N.  What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters On the State and
System Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) and EPA’s Response to
those Issues?

Many commenters stated that EPA underestimated the overall burden of the
proposed rule, both for systems and for States.  Many commenters
thought, for example, that both systems and States would need more time
to read and understand the rule.  EPA agrees with these commenters and
has revised the burden and cost estimates for some sections of the rule,
and for the implementation activities.  In particular, EPA made an
upward revision to the burden estimate for the larger systems,
estimating that it would take them an average of 40 hours to read,
understand, and communicate the rule’s significance to required
personnel.  EPA also reviewed and revised the State implementation
burden and cost, significantly increasing these estimates (from 312
hours to 600 hours).

One commenter stated that some NTNCWSs (e.g., schools, child care
centers, and small businesses) do not have staff to satisfactorily
implement new drinking water rules and respond to public inquiries
regarding lead in drinking water.  EPA agrees with this comment and has
increased the state burden assumptions for this final rule.  EPA
recognizes that "operators" at NTNCWSs typically have many other job
functions and are often not professional water system managers, and that
States, therefore, must continually educate, assist, and enforce
regulations to ensure compliance.   Commenters also stated that EPA
underestimated the impact to States regarding the requirement to provide
a consumer notice of lead tap water monitoring results.  EPA agrees with
this comment and has revised the consumer notice estimates to indicate
that additional funding will be required for this activity.

Some commenters asserted that EPA did not address the implications for a
regulatory program assigned to “approve” rather than simply
“review” treatment changes, and specifically that EPA underestimated
the costs of requiring advanced State approval. Commenters also thought
that every PWS would need to have additional and more intensive
interaction with the State prior to making any change in water treatment
or source water.  While the Agency agrees with this comment, EPA has
narrowed the scope of this provision in the final rule to only long-term
changes in treatment.  Since this will considerably reduce the potential
burden of the requirement by removing the daily water quality treatment
changes from consideration, EPA is not revising the cost estimate for
this change from the proposal.

V.  Statutory and Executive Order Requirements

 Executive Order 12866:  Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) this action
is a "significant regulatory action."  Accordingly, EPA submitted this
action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO
12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

	In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term
Regulatory Revisions (U.S. EPA, 2007a).  A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
summarized in section IV of this notice.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this rule have been submitted
for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  The information
collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.

	EPA requires comprehensive and current information on lead and copper
contamination and associated enforcement activities to implement its
program oversight and enforcement responsibilities mandated by the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).   Highly publicized incidences of elevated
drinking water lead levels prompted EPA to review and evaluate the
implementation and effectiveness of the LCR on a national basis. As a
result of this multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rule
changes that clarify the intent of the LCR and ensure and enhance
protection of public health through reduction in lead exposure. EPA will
use the information collected as a result of the short-term revisions to
the LCR to support the responsibilities outlined in SDWA by
strengthening the implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring,
customer awareness, and lead service line replacement. The rule
revisions described in section III of this notice are intended to
improve the implementation of the LCR, and do not alter the original
maximum contaminant level goals or the fundamental approach to
controlling lead and copper in drinking water.

Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires that there must be “criteria and
procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably
complies with such maximum contaminant levels; including accepted
methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance
with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the
system  ....” Furthermore, section 1445(a)(1) of SDWA requires that
every person who is a supplier of water “shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide
such information as the Administrator may reasonably require by
regulation to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations… in
determining whether such person has acted or is acting in compliance”
with this title.  In addition, section 1413(a)(3) of SDWA requires
States to “keep such records and make such reports...as the
Administrator may require by regulation.”

Section 1412(b) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires the Agency to
publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate NPDWRs for
contaminants that may have an adverse effect on the health of persons,
are known to or anticipated to occur in PWSs, or, in the opinion of the
Administrator, present an opportunity for health risk reduction. The
NPDWRs specify maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques for
drinking water contaminants (42 USC 300g-1).  Section 1412 (b)(9)
requires that EPA, no less than every 6 years review, and if
appropriate, revise existing drinking water standards.  Promulgation of
the LCR complies with these statutory requirements.

1.  Burden Estimate

The universe of respondents for this ICR is comprised of 52,838 CWSs and
19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of 72,213 systems (4th Quarter 2004
SDWIS/FED), and 57 State primacy agencies.  The activities that take
place during the 3-year period covered by the ICR will vary based on the
timing of State implementation of the final rule.  The rule is
structured to allow for early implementation by States within 180 days
of rule publication.  Alternatively, States have up to 2 years to
implement rule provisions as described in section III.I of this notice.
Because there is some uncertainty in predicting which States will adopt
early implementation versus those that will take 2 years, EPA estimates
an upper and lower bound on ICR burden and cost estimates.  The upper
bound estimate assumes all States will adopt early implementation while
the lower bound estimate assumes States will take 2 years to implement
the rule.

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

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

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

Upper and Lower Bound Estimates (2006 dollars)

	Lower Bound	Upper Bound

Number of Respondents

72,270 =72,213

+57

         72,270=72,213

+57

Public water systems

States

Total Annual Responses

186,524 =171,849

+14,675

426,483 =391,671

+34,812

Public water system responses

State responses

Number of Responses per PWS

2.4 =171,849

 /72,213

5.4 =391,671

/ 72,213

Total annual PWS responses from above

Total public water systems from above

Number of Responses per State

257 =14,675

/57

611=34,812

/57

Total annual State responses from above

Total States from above

Total Annual Respondent Burden Hours

206,997 =189,369

+17,628

297,122 =271,997

+25,125

Public water system hours

State hours

Hours per System

for Public Water Systems

2.6  = 189,369

/72,213

3.8 = 271,997

/72,213

Total PWS annual hours from above

Total PWS from above

Hours per State for States

309 =17,628

/57

441 =25,125

/57

Total State annual hours from above

Total States from above

Annual O&M Costs

$118,717 = $117,886

+$831

 $295,205=$293,920

+$1,284

Public water system O&M costs

State O&M costs

Total Annual Respondent Cost

$6,353,532

=$5,584,289

+ $769,243

$9,520,866

=$8,423,108

+$1,097,758

Public water system costs

State costs

Total Annual Hours (respondent plus Agency)

206,997  =206,997

+0

297,122  =297,122

+0

Total respondent hours

Total EPA hours

Total Annual Cost (respondent plus Agency)

$6,353,532

=$6,353,532

+$0

$9,520,866

 =$9,520,866

+$0

Total respondent cost

Total EPA cost

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

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

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.  The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.  When this ICR is approved by
OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in
the Federal Register to display the OMB control number for the approved
information collection requirements contained in this final rule.

 Regulatory Flexibility Act

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions.

The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
Small entities are defined under the RFA as: (1) a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any
“not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.”  However, the RFA also authorizes
an agency to use alternative definitions for each category of small
entity, “which are appropriate to the activities of the agency”
after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the Federal Register
and taking comment.  5 USC 601(3) - (5). In addition, to establish an
alternative small business definition, agencies must consult with
SBA’s Chief Counsel for Advocacy.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small entities,
EPA defined small entities as public water systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this
alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7606, February 13,
1998), requested public comment, consulted with the Small Business
Administration (SBA), and finalized the alternative definition in the
Consumer Confidence Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19, 1998).
As stated in that Final Rule, EPA applied the alternative definition to
this regulation as well.

After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
certification is based on EPA’s established definition of small
entities as public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons.  The
small entities directly regulated by this final rule are small public
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people on an annual basis.  We
have determined that 68,286 small systems will be affected by the
changes to the LCR.  Table V.2 provides a summary of these small
systems, by size category and system type.

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

Size	CWS	NTNCWS	TOTAL Small

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

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

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

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

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

Total	48,925	19,361	68,286

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

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

Regulatory Change	Small Systems Impacted Per Year

Regulatory Change III.A	3,682

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

Regulatory Change III.C	854

Regulatory Change III.D	1,009

Regulatory Change III.E	60,735

Regulatory Change III.F	49,337

Regulatory Change III.G	1

	Activities and Costs Associated With Rule Changes for Small Systems

EPA has estimated the burden and costs associated with the regulatory
changes, as described in the Economic Analysis for this final rule.  The
basis for many of these input values and assumptions are described in
detail in the Economic Analysis, Section 4. The following summarizes the
costs estimated for small systems.

One-Time Activities

All small systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule will be expected
to incur some costs to read the rule changes and communicate
requirements as necessary. The level of effort associated with these
activities could range from 5 - 8 hours for all small systems. The
average cost per system for these activities is estimated at $138, for a
total cost of $9,404,000 for all 68,286 small systems. This assumes an
hourly fully loaded labor cost for small system employees ranging from
$23.86 to $33.96 (see Appendix B of the Economic Analysis).

Activities for Regulatory Change III.A

Under Regulatory Change III.A, small systems with fewer than 5 taps in
States that allow 1 sample per tap will prepare and submit to the State
a one-time letter verifying the applicable number of taps and requesting
the use of the alternative sampling.  Eleven States supported the
alternative sampling in their comments on the proposed rule.  However,
two States did not support the alternative sampling.  For purposes of
estimating costs, EPA assumed that the States that did not support the
alternative and States that did not comment on the rule provision would
not allow systems to implement the alternative since the default
requirement in the rule is that systems take a minimum of five samples.
Based on data from SDWIS/FED on these 11 States, EPA estimates that
there are 3,692 systems with fewer than 5 taps.  Preparing the one-time
request letter results in a one time cost of $28 per system. Total costs
for all small systems are estimated at $104,000 per year.

Activities for Regulatory Change III.C

Under Regulatory Change III.C, all systems that exceed the lead action
level are triggered into regularly scheduled lead tap monitoring.
Additional costs are associated with taking lead samples more frequently
and reporting the results to States. EPA estimates that 854 small
systems exceed the lead action level each year. Changing from reduced
tap monitoring to regularly scheduled tap monitoring would result in an
average cost increase of $2,258 per year per system. Total costs for all
small systems are estimated at $1,929,000 per year.

Activities for Regulatory Change III.D

Small systems that are changing treatment or adding a source would incur
additional costs under Regulatory Change III.D to prepare data in
support of treatment changes or source addition, to submit the data to
the State for review, and to coordinate with the State during the
review. These activities are estimated to take an additional 7.5 hours
per system for each treatment change or source addition. The cost for
each small system that is changing treatment or adding a source is
estimated at $196. The total cost for all small systems is estimated at
$198,000 per year.

Activities for Regulatory Change III.E

Most small systems are expected to incur additional costs under
Regulatory Change III.E when they are required to notify consumers of
tap monitoring results. The activities associated with notifying
customers vary based on the type and size of the system and include the
effort to prepare a self-certification letter to the State. The average
cost for small systems to notify customers is estimated at approximately
$17 annually. This estimate assumes one labor hour to prepare a customer
notification letter per system, 0.12 hours to prepare the
self-certification letter, and $0.43 in material costs per sample for
CWSs.  EPA assumed one labor hour plus 0.12 hours for NTNCWSs, with
negligible material costs.  It is important to note that the majority of
small systems are assumed to meet the lead action level and are assumed
to be on triennial monitoring.  Therefore, this requirement will only
affect them once every three years. The total cost to all small systems
is estimated at $1,060,000.

Activities for Regulatory Change III.F

Different provisions of Regulatory Change III.F apply to different
subsets of systems. All small community water systems will incur costs
to include a statement on lead in the Consumer Confidence Report, at an
average cost of $7 per system, based on the assumption of 0.25 hours to
add an informational statement on lead to the CCR. Small community water
systems that exceed the lead action level will incur costs from a
variety of public education activities, at an average cost per system of
$265. The total cost for all small systems is estimated at $569,000.

Activities for Regulatory Change III.G

Regulatory Change III.G applies to systems that had “tested out”
lead service lines as part of a lead service line replacement program
and then re-exceed the action level. For the purposes of subsequent lead
service line replacement efforts, the previously “tested-out” lines
would go back into the inventory for possible re-testing and/or
replacement. Only a handful of systems are expected to be in this
situation, estimated at 1 system per year. This analysis assumes that
the 1 system is not a small system.  There is no evidence that small
systems would be triggered into this regulatory change cost any more
frequently than other systems.

Total Small System Costs

Table V.4 summarizes the estimated annual costs associated with all
regulatory changes. Table V.5 summarizes the one-time costs to small
systems.

Table V.4 - Total Estimated Annual Small System Costs (2006 dollars)

 	Annual Labor	Annual Materials	Total Annual

Regulatory Change III.A	 $                  -   	 $              -   	 $
                -

Regulatory Change III.B	 $                  -   	 $              -   	 $
                -

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Change III.G	 $                   0 	 $             	 $
            0

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

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

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

 	One-Time Costs

Regulatory Change III.A	     $104,000

Implementation	$9,404,000

Total	$9,508,000

Average Costs Per Small System

The estimated average compliance cost for all small systems covered by
the LCR for the final rule changes is minimal:  $55 per system in annual
costs. However, there is a fairly wide range in the costs that a system
could face. EPA expects that all systems will incur the $138 one-time
implementation cost.  The additional annual costs could be as low as $0
for small NTNCWSs that already notify customers of tap monitoring
results. Systems that do not already notify customers of results could
incur $17 per year.  EPA estimates that small CWSs will incur $7 per
year to include a statement on the CCR. The roughly 2 percent of systems
that are making a treatment change or source addition are estimated to
incur an additional $196 in the year they make the change.

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

Measuring Significant Impact of Rule Costs

The costs to small systems are compared against average revenues for
small systems from all revenue sources.  Small systems can be one of
three types of small entities – small businesses, small governments,
or small non-profits.  The revenue estimate used for assessing impacts
to small systems in this rule is derived from two sources:  (1) EPA’s
2000 Community Water System Survey (CWSS) and (2) the 2002 Census of
Governments.  Data from these two sources are used to calculate an
average revenue estimate for all small systems serving less than 10,000
customers.  The weighted average revenue from all revenue sources for a
small system is estimated at $2,166,700 per year.  EPA updated its
revenue analysis from the proposal.

Using the average cost of the regulatory changes for small systems, the
one-time costs represent roughly 0.008 percent of annual revenues from
all revenue sources.  The estimated $55 average annual compliance costs
per system represent 0.003 percent of average annual revenues from all
revenue sources.  EPA estimates that roughly 1.4 percent of the systems
would incur annual costs of $2,523, which is approximately 0.0116
percent of revenues from all sources.  This maximum annual cost is
approximately 0.127 percent of annual revenues from all sources.

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

1.  What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis and EPA's Response to These Issues?

	EPA received one comment on its Regulatory Flexibility analysis
supporting the proposed rule.  The commenter agreed with EPA’s
certification that the LCR will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, and recommended that EPA
further subcategorize regulated small entities in order to better
understand the economic impacts of the proposed rule on small water
systems of varying size.  EPA appreciates the viewpoint expressed by
this commenter, but notes that the RFA does not require EPA to
subcategorize industries for purposes of preparing regulatory
flexibility analysis.  Furthermore, as explained below, EPA does not
believe that a disaggregated cost/revenue approach for assessing impacts
on small entities is appropriate for this rule.

	For purposes of assessing the economic impacts of regulatory costs on
small entities in this rule, EPA defined small entities as public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons.  As required by the RFA, EPA
proposed using this alternative definition in the Federal Register (63
FR 7606, February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with
the Small Business Administration (SBA), and finalized the alternative
definition in the Consumer Confidence Reports regulation (63 FR 44511,
August 19, 1998).  As stated in that Final Rule, EPA applied the
alternative definition to this regulation as well.

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

	EPA is, however, working to improve its estimation of small system
revenues.  The new CWSS, estimated for completion in early 2009, is
expected to better enable EPA to assess the impacts of future regulatory
actions on small systems.  In the new CWSS, actions that we are taking
steps to improve response rate, particularly with respect to water
system revenue estimates.  Examples of these steps include linking
municipal government revenues to the system surveyed in that
municipality, rather than reliance on the Census of Governments data;
decreasing item non-response on revenue source through system site
visits; and gaining a better understanding of how a water system pays
for its system operations in systems that report no revenue, through an
additional survey question.  These improvements to the new CWSS will
help EPA to gain a better understanding of the revenue sources available
to small water systems and improve our ability to accurately understand
the revenue streams available to these systems.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

	Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit

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

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA has determined that this rule does not contain
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. The total upfront costs of this action
to States and public water systems are estimated at $12.7 million, with
estimated annual costs to States and public water systems ranging from
$5.9 to $6.3 million.  Systems and State/Primacy agencies incur one-time
upfront costs associated with reviewing and implementing the overall LCR
regulatory changes.  For systems, activities include reviewing the rule
changes and training staff.  For States/Primacy agencies, activities
include regulation adoption, program development, and miscellaneous
training.  Systems and States also incur annual costs consisting of the
costs to implement the regulation.  Annual costs to systems include the
costs of reporting, monitoring, and public education.  Annual costs to
States consist of the costs of reviewing water system information.
Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and
205 of the UMRA.

EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.  The rule
is consistent with, and only makes revisions to, the requirements under
the current NPDWR for lead and copper.  The existing rule imposes
requirements on PWSs to ensure that water delivered to users is
minimally corrosive; the rule requires removal of lead service lines and
the provision of public education where necessary to ensure public
health protection.  This final rule does not make any significant
changes to these requirements, but makes revisions and clarifications to
the rule’s requirements to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of
current rule requirements.

	Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with State and
local officials (including small entity representatives) early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development.  EPA held five
workshops in 2004-2005 to elicit concerns and suggestions from
stakeholders on various issues related to lead in drinking water.  These
workshops covered the topic areas of simultaneous compliance, sampling
protocols, public education, lead service line replacement, and lead in
plumbing.  Expert participants from utilities, academia, state
governments, consumer and environmental groups, and other stakeholder
groups participated in these workshops to identify issues, propose
solutions, and offer suggestions for modifications and improvements to
the LCR.  These workshops are described in greater detail in the
Economic Analysis for this final rule.

Executive Order 13132:  Federalism

	Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
“meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.”
 “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

	This final rule does not have federalism implications.  It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132.  The rule is consistent with, and
only makes revisions to, the requirements under the current NPDWR for
lead and copper.  The existing rule imposes requirements on PWSs to
ensure that water delivered to users is minimally corrosive; the rule
requires removal of lead service lines and the provision of public
education where necessary to ensure public health protection.  This
final rule does not make any significant changes to these requirements,
but makes revisions and clarifications to the rule’s requirements to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of current rule requirements.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

	Nevertheless, EPA did consult with State and local officials in
developing this final rule as described in Section V.D, Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.  In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the
proposed rule from State and local officials.

Executive Order 13175:  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments

	Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.”  This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.  It does not
significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal
governments, nor does it impose substantial direct compliance costs on
those communities.  The provisions of this final rule apply to all
community and non-transient non-community water systems.  Tribal
governments may be owners or operators of such systems; however, nothing
in this rule’s provisions uniquely affects them.  Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant”
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children.  If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

	While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it
is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, we
nonetheless have reason to believe that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on
children. This final rule does not change the core LCR requirements in
place to assure the protection of children from the effects of lead in
drinking water; rather, these changes improve the implementation of
these provisions.  Moreover, EPA believes that this final rule is
consistent with Executive Order 13045 because it further strengthens the
protection to children from exposure to lead via drinking water, as it
enhances the implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring,
customer awareness, and lead service line replacement.  This final rule
also clarifies the intent of some  provisions in the LCR.  These changes
are expected to ensure and enhance more effective protection of public
health through the reduction in lead exposure.

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

	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 This rule is not a “significant energy
action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy.  The rule provides clarifications and modifications to the
existing LCR requirements only.

	This final rule does not affect the supply of energy as it does not
regulate power generation.  The public and private utilities that are
affected by this final regulation do not, as a rule, generate power.
The revisions to the LCR do not regulate any aspect of energy
distribution as the utilities that are regulated by the LCR already have
electrical service.  Finally, these regulatory revisions do not
adversely affect the use of energy as EPA does not anticipate that a
significant number of drinking water utilities will add treatment
technologies that use electrical power to comply with these regulatory
revisions.  As such, EPA does not anticipate that this rule will
adversely affect the use of energy.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

As noted in the proposed rule, Section 12(d) of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No.
104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.

The final rule may involve voluntary consensus standards in that it
requires additional monitoring for lead and copper in certain
situations, and monitoring and sample analysis methodologies are often
based on voluntary consensus standards.  However, the final rule does
not change any methodological requirements for monitoring or sample
analysis, only, in some cases, the required frequency and number of
samples.  Also, EPA’s approved monitoring and sampling protocols
generally include voluntary consensus standards developed by agencies
such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other such
bodies wherever EPA deems these methodologies appropriate for compliance
monitoring.

Congressional Review Act

 The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the
rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a
“major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be
effective [insert date 60 days after date of publication in FR].

VI.  References

US EPA, 1991a. Federal Register.   Vol. 56, No. 110.  Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
for Lead and Copper; Final Rule (Fri. Jun. 7, 1991), 26460-26564. [56 FR
26460].

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

US EPA, 1996a. Federal Register. Vol. 60, No. 72.  Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
Copper; Proposed Rule (Friday, April 12, 1996), 16348-16371. [60 FR
16348].

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

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

US EPA, 2000a. Federal Register. Vol 65, No.8. National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Wed, January 12,
2000), 1950-2015. [65 FR 1950]

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

US EPA 2004a. Information Collection Request for Disinfection
Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules. OMB Control Number:
2040-0204. EPA Tracking Number: 1896.03.  Appendix H, page H-43, table
entitled “Tap Monitoring for Lead & Copper – Monitoring, Burden, and
Cost Assumptions.”  September, 2004.

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

US EPA. 2006a. Federal Register.  Vol. 71, No. 137 National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper:  Short-term Regulatory
Revisions and Clarifications; Proposed Rule (July 18, 2006),
40828-40863. [71 FR 40828]

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

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

US EPA. 2007b. Final Information Collection Request.

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

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

Dated:

Stephen L. Johnson,

Administrator.

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

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

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

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

Section 141.80  General requirements.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) * * *

(3) * * *

(i)  * * *

(ii) * * *

(iii) * * *

(iv) * * *

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

* * * * *

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

 * * * * *

    3. Section 141.81 is amended as follows by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

    (b) * * *

    (3) * * *

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

* * * * *

    (e) * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

Section 141.83 Source water treatment requirements.

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

    5. Section 141.84 is amended as follows by:

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

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

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

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

Section 141.84 Lead service line replacement requirements.

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

    6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as follows:

Section  141.85  Public education and supplemental monitoring

requirements.

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

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

    (a) Content of written public education materials.  (1) Community
water systems and Non-transient non-community water systems. Water
systems must include the following elements in printed materials (e.g.,
brochures and pamphlets) in the same order as listed below. In addition,
paragraphs (a)(1)(i)-(ii) and (a)(1)(vi) must be included in the
materials, exactly as written, except for the text in brackets in these
paragraphs for which the water system must include system-specific
information. Any additional information presented by a water system must
be consistent with the information below and be in plain language that
can be understood by the general public.  Water systems must submit all
written public education materials to the State prior to delivery.  The
State may require the system to obtain approval of the content of
written public materials prior to delivery.

    (i) Opening Statement. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR
DRINKING WATER. [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found elevated levels of
lead in drinking water in some homes/buildings. Lead can cause serious
health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children.
Please read this action closely to see what you can do to reduce lead in
your drinking water.

    (ii) Health effects of lead. Lead can cause serious health problems
if too much enters your body from drinking water or other sources (see
below).  It can cause damage to the brain and kidneys, and can interfere
with the production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of
your body.  The greatest risk of lead exposure is to infants, young
children, and pregnant women.  Scientists have linked the effects of
lead on the brain with lowered IQ in children.  Adults with kidney
problems and high blood pressure can be affected by low levels of lead
more than healthy adults. Lead is stored in the bones, and it can be
released later in life.  During pregnancy, the child receives lead from
the mother's bones, which may affect brain development.

.

    (iii) Sources of Lead. (A) Explain what lead is.

    (B) Explain possible sources of lead in drinking water and how lead
enters drinking water. Include information on home/building plumbing
materials and service lines that may contain lead.

    (C) Discuss other important sources of lead exposure in addition to
drinking water (e.g., paint).

    (iv) Steps you can take to reduce your exposure to lead in drinking
water. (A) Encourage running the water to flush out the lead.

    (B) Explain concerns with using hot water from the tap and
specifically caution against the use of hot water for preparing baby
formula.

    (C) Explain that boiling water does not reduce lead levels.

    (D) Discuss other options consumers can take to reduce exposure to
lead in drinking water, such as alternative sources or treatment of
water.

   (E)  Suggest that parents have their child’s blood tested for lead.

    (v) What happened to cause the elevated lead levels and what is
being done about the elevated lead levels?

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

    (B) Discuss what the water system is doing to reduce the lead levels
in homes/buildings in this area.

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

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

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

    (B) Discuss lead in plumbing components and the difference between
low lead and lead free.

    (b) Delivery of public education materials. (1) For public water
systems serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as
determined by the State, the public education materials must contain
information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of
the notice or contain a telephone number or address where persons served
may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the public
education materials or to request assistance in the appropriate
language.  (2) A community water system that exceeds the lead action
level on the basis of tap water samples collected in accordance with
§141.86, and that is not already conducting public education tasks
under this section, must conduct the public education tasks under this
section, within 60 days after the end of the monitoring period in which
the exceedance occurred:

    (i) Deliver printed materials meeting the content requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section to all bill paying customers.

     (ii)(A) Contact customers who are most at risk by delivering
materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to local public health agencies even if they are not located
within the water system’s service area, along with an informational
notice that encourages distribution to all the organization’s
potentially affected customers or community water system’s users.  The
water system must contact the local public health agencies directly by
phone or in person.   The local public health agencies may provide a
specific list of additional community based organizations serving target
populations, which may include organizations outside the service area of
the water system.   If such lists are provided, systems must deliver
materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to all organizations on the provided lists.

     (ii) (A) (1) Contact customers who are most at risk by delivering
materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section to the following organizations listed in 1 through 6 that are
located within the water system’s service area, along with an
informational notice that encourages distribution to all the
organization’s potentially affected customers or community water
system’s users:

1. Public and private schools or school boards.

2. Women Infants and Children (WIC) and Head Start programs.

3. Public and private hospitals and medical clinics.

4. Pediatricians.

5. Family planning clinics.

6.  Local welfare agencies.

(ii) (B) Make a good faith effort to locate the following organizations
within the service area and deliver materials that meet the content
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to them, along with an
informational notice that encourages distribution to all potentially
affected customers or users.   The good faith effort to contact at-risk
customers may include requesting a specific contact list of these
organizations from the local public health agencies, even if the
agencies are not located within the water system’s service area:

1. Licensed childcare centers

2. Public and private preschools.

3. Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives.

    (iii) No less often than quarterly, provide information on or in
each water bill as long as the system exceeds the action level for lead.
 The message on the water bill must include the following statement
exactly as written with the addition of the system's name and Web site:
[INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found high levels of lead in drinking
water in some homes. Lead can cause serious health problems. For more
information please call [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] [or visit (INSERT
YOUR WEB SITE HERE)].  The message or delivery mechanism can be modified
in consultation with the State; specifically, the State may allow a
separate mailing of public education materials to customers if the water
system cannot place the information on water bills.

    (iv) Post material meeting the content requirements of paragraph (a)
on the water system's Web site if the system serves a population greater
than 100,000.

    (v) Submit a press release to newspaper, television and radio
stations.

    (vi) In addition to paragraphs (b)(2)(i)-(v) of this section,
systems must implement at least three activities from one or more
categories listed below. The educational content and selection of these
activities must be determined in consultation with the State.

    (A) Public Service Announcements.

    (B) Paid advertisements.

    (C) Display Information in Public Areas.

    (D) Internet such as emails to customers.

    (E) Public Meetings.

    (F) Delivery to every household.

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

    (H) Provide materials directly to all multi-family homes and
institutions.

    (I) Other methods approved by the State.

    (vii) For systems that are required to conduct monitoring annually
or less frequently, the end of the monitoring period is September 30 of
the calendar year in which the sampling occurs, or, if the State has
established an alternate monitoring period, the last day of that period.

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

    (i) A community water system shall repeat the tasks contained in
paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (ii) and (vi) of this section every 12 months.

    (ii) A community water system shall repeat tasks contained in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section with each billing cycle.

    (iii) A community water system serving a population greater than
100,000 shall post and retain material on a publicly accessible Web site
pursuant to (b)(2)(iv) of this section.

    (iv) The community water system shall repeat the task in (b)(2)(v)
of this section twice every 12 months on a schedule agreed upon with the
State. The State can allow activities in (b)(2) of this section to
extend beyond the 60-day requirement if needed for implementation
purposes on a case-by-case basis; however, this extension must be
approved in writing by the State in advance of the 60-day deadline.

    (4) Within 60 days after the end of the monitoring period in which
the exceedance occurred (unless it already is repeating public education
tasks pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section), a non-transient
non-community water system shall deliver the public education materials
specified by paragraph (a) of this section as follows:

    (i) Post informational posters on lead in drinking water in a public
place or common area in each of the buildings served by the system; and

    (ii) Distribute informational pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in
drinking water to each person served by the non-transient non-community
water system. The State may allow the system to utilize electronic
transmission in lieu of or combined with printed materials as long as it
achieves at least the same coverage.

    (iii) For systems that are required to conduct monitoring annually
or less frequently, the end of the monitoring period is September 30 of
the calendar year in which the sampling occurs, or, if the State has
established an alternate monitoring period, the last day of that period.

    (5) A non-transient non-community water system shall repeat the
tasks contained in paragraph (b)(4) of this section at least once during
each calendar year in which the system exceeds the lead action level.
The State can allow activities in (b)(4) of this section to extend
beyond the 60-day requirement if needed for implementation purposes on a
case-by-case basis; however, this extension must be approved in writing
by the State in advance of the 60-day deadline.

    (6) A water system may discontinue delivery of public education
materials if the system has met the lead action level during the most
recent six-month monitoring period conducted pursuant to §141.86. Such
a system shall recommence public education in accordance with this
section if it subsequently exceeds the lead action level during any
monitoring period.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (4) Delivery. The consumer notice must be provided to persons served
at the tap that was tested, either by mail or by another method approved
by the State.  For example, upon approval by the State, a non-transient
non-community water system could post the results on a bulletin board in
the facility to allow users to review the information. The system must
provide the notice to customers at sample taps tested, including
consumers who do not receive water bills.

    7. Section 141.86 is amended as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

    (c) * * * A public water system that has fewer than five drinking
water taps, that can be used for human consumption meeting the sample
site criteria of §141.86(a) to reach the required number of sample
sites listed in §141.86(c), must collect at least one sample from each
tap and then must collect additional samples from those taps on
different days during the monitoring period to meet the required number
of sites.  The State may allow a public water system to collect a number
of samples less than the number of sites specified at §141.86(c),
provided that 100 percent of all taps that can be used for human
consumption are sampled. The State must approve this reduction of the
minimum number of samples in writing based on a request from the system
or onsite verification by the State. * * *

* * * * *

    (d) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) * * * A public water system collecting fewer than the required
number of samples specified at §141.86(c), that meets the lead and
copper action levels during each of two consecutive six-month monitoring
periods may reduce the frequency of sampling to once per year.  In no
case can the system reduce the number of samples required below the
minimum of one sample per available tap, except as specified at
§141.86(c).  This sampling shall begin during the calendar year
immediately following the end of the second consecutive six-month
monitoring period.

    (ii) Any water system that meets the lead action level and maintains
the range of values for the water quality control parameters reflecting
optimal corrosion control treatment specified by the State under
§141.82(f) during each of two consecutive six-month monitoring periods
may reduce the frequency of monitoring to once per year and reduce the
number of lead and copper samples in accordance with paragraph (c) of
this section if it receives written approval from the State. This
sampling shall begin during the calendar year immediately following the
end of the second consecutive six-month monitoring period. The State
shall review monitoring, treatment, and other relevant information
submitted by the water system in accordance with §141.90, and shall
notify the system in writing when it determines the system is eligible
to commence reduced monitoring pursuant to this paragraph. The State
shall review, and where appropriate, revise its determination when the
system submits new monitoring or treatment data, or when other data
relevant to the number and frequency of tap sampling becomes available.

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

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

    (iv) * * *

    (A) The State, at its discretion, may approve a different period for
conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for systems collecting a
reduced number of samples. Such a period shall be no longer than four
consecutive months and must represent a time of normal operation where
the highest levels of lead are most likely to occur. For a non-transient
non-community water system that does not operate during the months of
June through September, and for which the period of normal operation
where the highest levels of lead are most likely to occur is not known,
the State shall designate a period that represents a time of normal
operation for the system. This sampling shall begin during the period
approved or designated by the State in the calendar year immediately
following the end of the second consecutive six-month monitoring period
for systems initiating annual monitoring and during the three-year
period following the end of the third consecutive calendar year of
annual monitoring for systems initiating triennial monitoring.

* * * * *

    (vi) ***

    (B) Any water system subject to the reduced monitoring frequency
that fails to meet the lead action level during any four-month
monitoring period or that fails to operate at or above the minimum value
or within the range of values for the water quality parameters specified
by the State under §141.82(f) for more than nine days in any six-month
period specified in §141.87(d) shall conduct tap water sampling for
lead and copper at the frequency specified in paragraph (d)(3) of this
section, collect the number of samples specified for standard monitoring
under paragraph (c) of this section, and shall resume monitoring for
water quality parameters within the distribution system in accordance
with §141.87(d). This standard tap water sampling shall begin no later
than the six-month period beginning January 1 of the calendar year
following the lead action level exceedance or water quality parameter
excursion. Such a system may resume reduced monitoring for lead and
copper at the tap and for water quality parameters within the
distribution system under the following conditions:

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

    (g) * * *

    (4) * * *

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

* * * * *

    (iii) Any water system with a full or partial waiver shall notify
the State in writing in accordance with §141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming
long-term change in treatment or addition of a new source, as described
in that section.  The State must review and approve the addition of a
new source or long-term change in water treatment before it is
implemented by the water system.* * *

*****

    8. Section 141.87 is amended as follows by:

    a. Revising  paragraph (d);

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

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

Section 141.87 Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.

* * * * *

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

    (e) * * *

    (2) * * *

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

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

later than every third calendar year.

* * * * *

    9. Section 141.88 is amended as follows by:

    a. Revising paragraph (b);

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

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

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

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

Section 141.88  Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in source

water.

* * * * *

    (b) Monitoring frequency after system exceeds tap water action
level. Any system which exceeds the lead or copper action level at the
tap shall collect one source water sample from each entry point to the
distribution system no later than six months after the end of the
monitoring period during which the lead or copper action level was
exceeded. For monitoring periods that are annual or less frequent, the
end of the monitoring period is September 30 of the calendar year in
which the sampling occurs, or if the State has established an alternate
monitoring period, the last day of that period.

* * * * *

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) * * * Triennial samples shall be collected every third calendar
year.

    (ii) A water system using surface water (or a combination of surface
and groundwater) shall collect samples once during each calendar year,
the first annual monitoring period to begin during the year in which the
applicable State determination is made under paragraph (d)(1) of this
section.

* * * * *

    (e) * * *

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

    10. Section 141.90 is amended as follows by:

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

    b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);

    c. Revising paragraph (e)(1);

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

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

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

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

    h. Adding paragraph (f)(3).

Section  141.90  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

    (e) * * *

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

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

    (i) * * *

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

*****

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

Section  141.154  Required additional health information.

* * * * *

Every report must include the following:

(1)  A short informational statement about lead in drinking water and
its effects on children.  The statement must include the following
information:

If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems,
especially for pregnant women and young children.  Lead in drinking
water is primarily from materials and components associated with service
lines and home plumbing.  [NAME OF UTILITY] is responsible for providing
high quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials
used in plumbing components.  When your water has been sitting for
several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by
flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for
drinking or cooking.  If you are concerned about lead in your water, you
may wish to have your water tested.  Information on lead in drinking
water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is
available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.

(2)  A system may write its own educational statement, but only in
consultation with the Primacy Agency.

* * * * *

 PAGE

 PAGE   9