[Federal Register: October 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 195)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57781-57820]
[DOCID:fr10oc07-13]

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

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034; FRL-8476-5]
RIN 2040-AE83

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 10, 2007.

    The compliance date for all of this final rule's provisions is 180
days after promulgation except if by that date, the primacy State has
not adopted this rule, in which case compliance with this final rule is
required the earlier of either the State's adoption of the rule, or two
years after December 10, 2007. For purposes of judicial review, this
rule is promulgated as of October 10, 2007 as provided in 40 CFR 23.7.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket

Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Water Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

Burneson, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Examples of  regulated
                 Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................................  Privately-owned CWSs and
                                             NTNCWSs.
State, Tribal, and local governments......  Publicly-owned CWSs and
                                             NTNCWSs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

B. Abbreviations Used in This Document

AL: Action Level
CCR: Consumer Confidence Report
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
CWS: Community Water System
CWSS: Community Water System Survey
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
ICR: Information Collection Request
LCR: Lead and Copper Rule
LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions
LSL: Lead Service Line
LSLR: Lead Service Line Replacement
LT2: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
MDL: Method Detection Limit
NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory Council
NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
O&M: Operation and Maintenance costs
OMB: Office of Management and Budget
PE: Public Education
POE: Point-of-Entry Devices
POU: Point-of-Use Devices
RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis
SBA: Small Business Administration
SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water Information System, Federal Version
UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

C. Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the Lead and Copper Rule?
    B. What Is the Regulatory History of the Lead and Copper Rule?
    C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR Short-Term Regulatory
Revisions?
II. What Do the LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions Require?
    A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
    B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods
    C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
    D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirements for Water
Systems That Intend to Make Any Long-Term Change in Water Treatment
or Add a New Source of Water
    E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That
Are Tested for Lead
    F. Public Education Requirements
    G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through
Testing
III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term Regulatory
Revisions and Clarifications
    A. Minimum Number of Samples Required
    1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Minimum Number of Samples
Required Revisions?
    3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Minimum
Number of Samples Required Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
    B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods
    1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Compliance and Monitoring
Period Definition Revisions?
    3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the
Compliance and

Monitoring Period Definition Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
    C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria
    1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reduced Monitoring Revisions?
    3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters on the Reduced
Monitoring Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    D. Advanced Notification and Approval Requirement for Water
Systems That Intend to Make Any Long-Term Changes in Water Treatment
or Add a New Source of Water
    1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Advanced Notification and
Approval of Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition of New Source
Revisions?
    3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Advanced
Notification and Approval of Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition
of New Source Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results to Consumers Who Occupy Homes or Buildings That
Are Tested for Lead
    1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Consumer Notice of Lead Tap
Water Monitoring Results Revisions?
    3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Consumer
Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results Revisions and EPA's
Response to These Issues?
    F. Public Education Requirements
    1. Message Content
    a. How Is EPA Revising the Message Content?
    b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Message Content Revisions?
    c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Message
Content Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    2. Delivery
    a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery Requirements?
    b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Delivery Requirements
Revisions?
    c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Delivery
Requirements Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    3. Timing
    a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing Provisions of the Rule?
    b. What Is EPA's Rationale for Revising the Timing Provisions of
the Rule?
    c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Timing
Provisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    4. Consumer Confidence Reports
    a. How Is EPA Revising CCR Requirements?
    b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the CCR Revisions?
    c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the CCR
Requirements Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through
Testing
    1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reevaluation of Lead Service
Lines Revisions?
    3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters on the
Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Revisions and EPA's Response to
These Issues?
    H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and Copper Rule
    1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Not Including Any of These Other
Issues in the Final Rule Revisions?
    3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on These Other
Issues and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    I. Compliance Dates
    1. What Are the New Compliance Dates for This Rule?
    2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Compliance Dates?
    3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the
Compliance Dates and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    J. State Implementation
    1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions Affect A State's Primacy
Program?
    2. What Does a State Have to Do to Apply?
    3. How Are Tribes Affected?
IV. Economic Analysis
    A. Direct Costs
    B. Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions
    C. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.A
    D. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.B
    E. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.C
    F. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.D
    G. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.E
    H. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.F
    I. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.G
    J. Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs
    K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and Implement Regulatory
Changes
    L. Indirect Costs
    M. Benefits
    N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the State
and System Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) and EPA's Response
to These Issues?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act
VI. References

I. Background

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

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

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

    EPA promulgated maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs
for lead and copper (LCR) on June 7, 1991. The goal of the LCR is to
provide maximum human health protection by reducing lead and copper
levels at consumers' taps to as close to the MCLGs as is feasible. To
accomplish this goal, the LCR establishes requirements for community
water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWSs) to optimize corrosion control and conduct periodic
monitoring. Systems are required to perform public education when there
are action level exceedances at more than 10 percent of the taps that
are sampled, treat source water if it contributes significantly to lead
and copper levels at the tap, and replace lead service lines in the
distribution system if the lead level at the tap continues to exceed
the action level after optimal corrosion control has been installed.
EPA proposed minor revisions to the LCR (LCRMR) in 1996 (60 FR 16348,
U.S. EPA 1996a) and finalized these minor revisions on January 12, 2000
(65 FR 1950, U.S. EPA 2000b). These minor revisions streamlined the
requirements of the LCR, promoted consistent national

implementation, and reduced the reporting burden to affected entities.
These minor revisions also addressed the areas of optimal corrosion
control demonstration, lead service line replacement requirements,
public education requirements, monitoring requirements, analytical
methods, reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and special primacy
considerations. The LCRMR did not change the action level, MCLG, or the
rule's basic requirements.

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

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

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

A. Minimum Number of Samples Required

1. Proposed Revision
    The proposed LCR Short-Term Regulatory Revisions (71 FR 40828, July
18, 2006, U.S. EPA 2006a) clarified and maintained that five samples
per monitoring period is the minimum number of samples required for
systems serving 100 people or fewer.
2. Final Revision
    EPA's final revision to the minimum number of samples requirement
adds a provision that gives States the discretion to allow water
systems with fewer than five taps for human consumption to collect one
sample per tap. Under this alternate sampling schedule, the sample with
the highest test result will be compared to the action level to
determine compliance. While fewer samples may be taken, comparing the
single highest level provides public health protection since it does
not allow water systems to ignore a potential problem by taking repeat
samples at taps that have low lead results when they get a high sample
result. See section III.A for more information on this regulatory
revision and also for EPA's response to significant public comments on
the proposal. A complete response to all comments on this rule is found
in the Lead and Copper Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods

1. Proposed Revision
    EPA's proposed revision clarified the ``compliance period'' as the
three year calendar period as defined at Sec.  141.2 and the
``monitoring period'' as the specific period in which water systems
must conduct required monitoring. EPA also proposed to revise several
sections of the LCR to more precisely define when the ``start date''
for the compliance calendar begins. EPA also proposed to clarify that
systems on reduced monitoring schedules must monitor during four
consecutive months, and systems on triennial monitoring must monitor
once every 3 calendar years, with a similar requirement for small
systems with a monitoring waiver to ensure they monitor every 9 years.
2. Final Revision
    EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for defining the
compliance and monitoring periods. Based on commenter concerns with
implementing the clarified definition of the term ``monitoring
period,'' EPA is allowing States flexibility in extending the timeframe
to complete public education activities after an action level (AL)
exceedance. For more information and EPA's response to significant
public comments, see section III.B of this notice.

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria

1. Proposed Revision
    EPA proposed a revision that would disallow water systems that
exceeded the lead action level from initiating or remaining on a
reduced lead and copper monitoring schedule based solely on the results
of their water quality parameter (WQP) monitoring. This proposed change
would modify the reduced monitoring provisions at Sec.  141.86(d)(4).
2. Final Revision
    EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for reduced monitoring
criteria. For more information and EPA's response to significant public
comments, see section III.C of this notice.

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

1. Proposed Revision
    EPA proposed to amend several sections of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) to require water systems to obtain prior approval by
the State to add a new source of water or change a treatment process
prior to implementation.
2. Final Revision
    EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for advanced
notification and approval requirements with a slight modification to
clarify EPA's intention. In finalizing this regulatory revision, EPA is
clarifying the requirements for advance notification and approval to
apply to those treatment changes that would have long-term impacts on
water quality. EPA has provided examples of long-term treatment changes
in Sec.  141.90(a)(3) of this final rule. EPA believes that this
clarification will prevent water systems from notifying the State and
requesting approval for changes that are operational in nature or made
on a daily basis. See section III.D of this notice for more information
regarding this regulatory revision and EPA's response to significant
public comments on this issue.

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

1. Proposed Revision
    EPA proposed revisions to require water systems to notify consumers
in homes or buildings tested for lead of their results. Specifically,
systems must provide written notification to household occupants within
30 days after the water system learns the results for samples collected
from that household and post or otherwise notify occupants of non-
residential buildings of the results of lead testing. EPA also
indicated that the consumer notification must contain an explanation of
lead health effects, list steps consumers can take to reduce lead
drinking water exposure, provide utility contact information, and
include the lead maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG, lead action
level, and definitions of each from Sec.  141.153(c)(1).
2. Final Revision
    EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed to consumer
notification language. EPA is also adding language to Sec.
141.85(d)(4), which provides an example of an alternative mechanism of
consumer notification for NTNCWSs. For more information and EPA's
response to significant public comments, see section III.E of this
notice.

F. Public Education Requirements

1. Proposed Revision
    EPA proposed to revise the public education requirements of the LCR
in the areas of message content, delivery requirements, and the
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). The proposed revisions would modify
the mandatory language in public education to make it shorter and
easier to understand; require water systems to deliver material to new
organizations, engage in new outreach activities, post lead information
on water bills, issue two press releases during periods of lead action
level exceedance; and modify the CCR such that all CWSs with lead
detects above the method detection limit (MDL) of 0.001 mg/L would have
to include information about the risks of lead in drinking water in the
CCR on a regular basis.
2. Final Revision
    EPA is maintaining the proposed revisions to the public education
requirements, but is adding a provision that water systems must submit
public education language for State review and approval at the option
of the State. Generally, EPA is retaining the delivery requirements as
proposed, but has made modifications to address challenges with water
system jurisdiction and delivery of materials. EPA is now requiring
that all systems have a simple informational statement about lead in
their CCR because the actual level of lead exposure for drinking water
varies between individual homes and levels detected by the system for
compliance and would not necessarily reflect the risk faced by
consumers. EPA also realizes there are situations where the most
vulnerable populations may be exposed to elevated levels of lead for
many months before being notified. In addition, this simplifies
compliance tracking and enforcement of this requirement. See section
III.F of this notice for more information on the final public education
requirements and for EPA's responses to significant public comments.

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing

1. Proposed Revision
    EPA proposed to require water systems to reevaluate lead service
lines classified as ``replaced'' through testing if they resume lead
service line replacement programs.
2. Final Revision
    EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for reevaluation of
lead service line replacement, but is adding a provision to allow an
alternative time schedule for systems that have completed a 15-year
replacement program before re-exceeding the lead action level. For more
information and EPA's response to significant public comments, see
section III.G of this notice.

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

A. Minimum Number of Samples Required

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    EPA is clarifying the minimum sampling requirement for small water
systems that have fewer than five taps by making revisions to Sec.
141.86(c). These revisions include a clarification that the term
``taps'' means ``taps that can be used for human consumption,'' as
opposed to outlets such as hose bibs or taps at utility sinks. In
addition, the revisions clarify what a system must do to meet the
minimum five number of samples requirement when the system physically
has fewer than five taps. In this situation, the water system must
sample all taps at least once and then take repeat samples on different
days until a total of five samples are obtained.
    EPA is, however, adding a provision to Sec.  141.86(c) that gives
States the discretion to allow water systems that have fewer than five
taps, to collect one sample per tap that can be used for human
consumption. To qualify for this provision, the water system must make
a request to the State in writing and the State must approve the
request in writing or by onsite verification. Under this alternate
sampling schedule for all water systems collecting fewer than five
samples, the sample with the highest test result will be compared to
the lead action level to determine compliance. If any sample result is
above the action level, the system is deemed to be exceeding the action
level and must complete compliance actions (e.g., public education,
corrosion control treatment, and lead service line replacement). EPA is
adding regulatory text to Sec.  141.80 to describe this new compliance
determination. The alternate sampling schedule may also be applicable
for water systems that are on reduced monitoring and EPA is adding a
provision to Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(i) for those systems. The provision
allows the water system to reduce sampling frequency to once per year,
but in no case can the number of samples required be reduced below the
minimum of one sample per tap that can be used for human consumption.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Minimum Number of Samples Required
Revisions?
    In the original Lead and Copper Rule of 1991, the term ``site'' is
used to refer to the number of samples collected, and there has been
confusion as to whether ``site'' refers to taps or physical locations.
EPA is clarifying that sampling ``sites'' refer to ``taps that can be
used for human consumption.'' The phrase ``that can be used for human
consumption,'' is being added to the regulations to ensure that samples
are taken from taps which would pose the highest risk for exposure to
lead, rather than from taps that are not typically used for human
consumption.
    EPA is also making clarifications for water systems that have fewer
than five taps that can be used for human consumption. In the proposal
for this rule, EPA maintained that systems must take a minimum of five
samples in order to adequately capture the variability of lead levels
and that it was more cost effective for small systems to take more
samples than install corrosion control or

source treatment based on a small pool of samples taken (71 FR 40828 at
40831, U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is maintaining that systems must take a
minimum of five samples as part of this rule. However, EPA is also
giving States the discretion to offer an alternative requirement, on
which it requested comment in the proposed rule, described as follows.
    EPA requested comment on an alternative sampling requirement for
NTNCWS with fewer than five taps that can be used for human
consumption. The water systems would be required to sample 100 percent
of the taps that can be used for human consumption. Under the
alternative sampling provision, systems collecting fewer than five
samples will compare the sample with the highest result to the action
level to determine if they must complete compliance actions such as
public education, corrosion control treatment installation, and/or lead
service line replacement. EPA believes that requiring systems to use
the highest sample result to determine compliance is health protective
because it does not allow water systems to take repeat samples at taps
that have low levels of lead when they get a high sample result. In
addition, the alternative sampling schedule alleviates the cost burden
associated with taking repeat samples. After evaluating comments, EPA
has determined that the alternative sampling provision will also be
made available to CWS with fewer than five taps for human consumption,
such as washeterias in Alaska and Navajo hauling points.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Minimum Number
of Samples Required Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    The majority of commenters did not agree with EPA's proposal to
require water systems with fewer than five taps to collect repeat
samples from the same taps and they supported the idea of allowing
small water systems to sample 100 percent of taps available for human
consumption. Commenters stated that repeat sampling would be a cost
burden imposed on the smallest sized systems. Some commenters also
stated that repeat sampling was an unfair requirement for small systems
since large systems are not required to take repeat samples or sample
all of their available taps for compliance. To address these concerns,
EPA is giving discretion to the States to allow small systems with
fewer than five taps to take fewer than five samples. EPA stresses,
however, that the requirement is not less stringent, since systems
collecting fewer than 5 samples must compare the sample with the
highest concentration to the action level. By taking fewer than 5
samples, systems with fewer than 5 taps are giving up the opportunity
to take repeat samples at taps with low lead results.
    Two States supported not changing the minimum number of samples
requirement because of the administrative burden of verifying available
taps. Although other commenters believed that there was no better
statistical representation than sampling 100 percent of taps in a
system, one of the States stated that it is statistically ``risky'' to
base compliance on a single sample since lead levels vary greatly even
with corrosion control treatment in place. The other State that did not
favor the alternative suggested that EPA offer States discretion to
allow the alternative of sampling 100 percent of taps. EPA agrees with
the State and has made changes in this rule to reflect this suggestion.
Because the alternative is not mandatory, those States which do not
agree with the provision are not required to allow water systems to
utilize the alternative sampling schedule.
    In their comments, a few States indicated that small systems with
fewer than 5 taps are ``primarily'' NTNCWSs, thus indicating that some
are CWSs. The commenters who supported this approach did not provide
any reason for limiting this to NTNCWSs and in fact, the reasons for
supporting the alternative would apply equally well to any small system
with fewer than 5 taps. As a result, States can approve the alternative
monitoring for both CWSs and NTNCWSs with fewer than five taps. In
expanding this alternative monitoring to CWSs, EPA emphasizes that this
is only allowed for systems such as washeterias in Alaska and Navajo
hauling points, where there are physically fewer than five taps within
the system. Small CWSs with more than five taps cannot use this
alternative monitoring to take fewer than the required number of
samples pursuant to the table in Sec.  141.86(c).

B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    EPA is making a number of clarifications throughout the LCR to
clearly explain when compliance and monitoring periods begin and end.
In addition, the Agency is also clarifying the timing of actions
following a lead or copper action level exceedance and the timing of
monitoring activities with regard to reduced monitoring schedules.
    EPA is clarifying that the term ``compliance period'' is a three-
year calendar year period within a nine-year compliance cycle, which is
consistent with the definition in Sec.  141.2. EPA is also defining the
term ``monitoring period'' as the specific time period during which a
water system must perform the required monitoring (e.g., June-
September).
    In this case and consistent with these definitions, systems will be
deemed to be exceeding the action level as of the date on which the
monitoring period ended (i.e., on September 30). EPA is modifying
several sections of the LCR that describe the timing of actions after
an action level exceedance, including corrosion control treatment steps
in Sec.  141.81(e), source water monitoring and treatment
recommendations to the State in Sec.  141.83(a), lead service line
replacement in Sec.  141.84(b)(1), public education for community water
systems in Sec.  141.85(b)(2) and for non-transient non-community water
systems in Sec.  141.85(b)(4), source water monitoring requirements in
Sec.  141.88(b) and (d), and the reporting requirements in Sec.
141.90(a) and (e).
    Also, for systems on reduced monitoring, the monitoring period is
from June to September or some other consecutive four-month period
during normal operation when the highest lead levels are most likely to
occur. EPA has modified the reduced monitoring provisions in Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) to reflect this requirement. In addition, the
Agency is clarifying when a system may begin reduced monitoring in
Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(i) and (ii), as well as when a system on reduced
monitoring must resume standard monitoring according to Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B). In addition, the timing for water quality
parameter monitoring is now more clearly defined in Sec.  141.87(d) and
(e).
    Lastly, systems on triennial monitoring must conduct their
monitoring during a four-month consecutive period every three years and
are therefore not allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the first
compliance period and during Year 3 of the second compliance period.
The Agency is modifying the reduced monitoring provisions for lead and
copper sampling in Sec.  141.86(d)(4)(iii), for water quality parameter
sampling in Sec.  141.87(e)(2)(ii), and for triennial source water
monitoring in Sec.  141.88(d)(1)(i). EPA is making a similar change for
small systems with monitoring waivers to ensure that they monitor every
nine years, which modifies Sec. Sec.  141.86(g)(4)(i) and 141.88(e).

2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Compliance and Monitoring Period
Definition Revisions?
    EPA is making revisions regarding monitoring and compliance periods
in order to clarify the meaning of these terms, to address the issues
associated with the timing of actions following a lead or copper action
level exceedance, and to address the timing of samples that should be
taken under reduced monitoring schedules.
    Under the previous regulations, there was uncertainty about when a
system was determined to have exceeded the action level and the
corresponding deadlines for completing corrosion control studies, lead
service line replacement and public education (e.g., end of December or
the end of September for systems monitoring June to September). The
changes made in this final rule clarify that a system is deemed to be
exceeding the action level on the last day of the monitoring period in
which the exceedance occurred.
    The clarified timing of actions following a lead or copper action
level exceedance is also intended to ensure that the system and the
State begin actions to reduce exposure (e.g., corrosion control, public
education, and lead service line replacement) as soon as possible. The
deadlines for completing these follow-up activities will be calculated
from the date the system is determined to be exceeding the action level
(i.e., end of the monitoring period), with some discretion for States
to extend the deadline for completing public education activities on a
case-by-case basis.
    The timing of samples that should be taken for systems on reduced
monitoring schedules ensures that States and systems have an accurate
assessment of the effectiveness of corrosion control. This relates to
both the duration and frequency of monitoring. Under this requirement,
samples must be taken during four consecutive months. For most systems,
this will mean monitoring during June to September during one of the
three years in the three-year compliance period. For systems where the
State has approved some other 4-month period, all samples must be taken
during that 4-month period. Sampling during a short, fixed time period
will allow the system to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of
the corrosion control treatment than will collecting the same number of
samples over a 3-year period. In addition, systems on triennial
monitoring are also not allowed to monitor during Year 1 of the first
compliance period and during Year 3 of the second compliance period
because that would allow five years to pass between monitoring rounds.
Similarly, systems on nine-year monitoring waivers are not allowed to
monitor during Year 1 of the first nine-year period and Year 9 of the
second nine-year period.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Compliance and
Monitoring Period Definition Revisions and EPA's Response to These
Issues?
    Most commenters agreed with the definitions of monitoring and
compliance periods in the proposed revisions, but some had
implementation concerns. Two commenters agreed that four months is
reasonable for monitoring activities, including distribution,
collection, and initiation of lab processing. However, several
expressed concern that the clock for compliance actions should not
start until compliance has been determined after the end of the
monitoring period or that States should be given flexibility to alter
compliance action schedules. In response to these commenters, EPA is
modifying Sec.  141.85(b)(3)(iv) to allow States flexibility in
extending the timeframe on a case-by-case basis to complete public
education activities after an action level exceedance. However, systems
must start these activities and States must approve in writing any
deadline extension within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period
in which the exceedance occurred. This ensures that the system and the
State begin public education actions to reduce exposure as soon as
possible, but allows these actions to continue past the 60-day
timeframe as needed for effective implementation. States should still
make every effort to get public water systems to complete their public
education activities within 60 days after the end of the monitoring
period.
    In addition, one commenter indicated that under the current version
of the LCR, small and medium systems exceeding the action level must
perform water quality parameter monitoring within the same monitoring
period. The commenter then stated that the systems may not obtain their
sample results and identify that they have exceeded the action level
until after the monitoring period has ended. As a result, this
requirement effectively sets systems up for water quality parameter
monitoring violations. In the 1991 LCR, EPA recognized that many
factors influence water corrosivity and because of this, decided to
require small and medium water systems detecting lead and/or copper
above the action levels to measure for water quality parameters (56 FR
26460 at 26526, U.S. EPA, 1991a). However, EPA recognizes that under
the monitoring period clarifications made in this final rule, systems
on reduced monitoring that exceed the action level will most likely not
be taking water quality parameters and would have automatically
incurred a violation based on the requirement in Sec.  141.87(d). The
end of the 6-month period in which small and medium water systems must
sample for water quality parameters would have corresponded to the end
of the 4-month monitoring period in which they must sample for lead and
copper under Sec.  141.86(d)(4). For example, a system that takes lead
and copper tap samples between June and September and exceeds the
action level, would only have until the end of September to take all of
their water quality parameters. The system would most likely not be
aware of the exceedance until the end or after the end of the
monitoring period and would incur a violation for not having already
completed water quality parameter monitoring. Therefore, EPA is
revising the requirement in Sec.  141.87(d) to require the start of the
6-month period in which the system must take water quality parameters
to correspond with the start of the 4-month monitoring period in which
they must sample for lead and copper under Sec.  141.86(d)(4). This
revision will allow small and medium systems on reduced monitoring that
exceed the action level two months to take water quality parameter
samples after the end of the 4-month monitoring period in which they
had to take lead and copper tap samples. For example, a system that
takes lead and copper tap samples between June and September and
exceeds the action level, would have until the end of November to take
water quality parameter samples. This provision is intended primarily
for systems that are not aware of the exceedance until the end of the
lead and copper monitoring period. Those systems that are aware of the
action level exceedance earlier in the 4-month lead and copper
monitoring period should conduct their monitoring once they become
aware of the exceedance to better capture the water quality conditions
at the time of the exceedance.

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    EPA is no longer allowing water systems that exceed the lead action
level to initiate or remain on a reduced lead and copper monitoring
schedule based solely on the results of their water

quality parameter monitoring. This change modifies the reduced
monitoring provisions in Sec.  141.86(d)(4), specifically subsections
(ii), (iii) and (iv). These sections discuss when small and large water
systems may reduce the required number of lead and copper samples in
accordance with paragraph (c) of Sec.  141.86.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reduced Monitoring Revisions?
    EPA is making this change because the Agency believes that reduced
monitoring should only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that
corrosion control treatment is both effective and reliable. Compliance
with water quality parameters alone may not always indicate that
corrosion control is effective.
    Monitoring lead levels is particularly critical for systems that
are exceeding the lead action level for several reasons. First, it will
assist systems in evaluating the effectiveness of corrosion control
treatment. The rule previously allowed systems eligibility for reduced
monitoring even if they exceeded the lead or copper action level if
they could demonstrate their corrosion control treatment was effective
by meeting the State-designated water quality parameters. However, as
shown by the events in the District of Columbia and as stated above,
compliance with water quality parameters alone may not always indicate
that corrosion control is effective, especially after a treatment or
source change. Continued exceedance of the lead action level may
indicate that a particular method of corrosion control treatment is not
effective for a particular system and knowledge of this continued
exceedance may result in the system implementing an alternative and
more effective corrosion control treatment strategy. In addition, a
system must know if it continues to exceed the lead action level after
installing corrosion control treatment in order to determine how long
its lead service line replacement requirements remain in effect.
Continued understanding of the range of lead levels detected within the
system can also help the system implement an effective public education
program.
    Second, continued monitoring will allow primacy agencies to gain a
more accurate picture of lead levels in drinking water in their States.
Many systems within States share water sources, have similar treatment
technologies, and have similar materials in their distribution systems.
States and other primacy agencies with knowledge of effective corrosion
control for one system may be able to aid other systems within their
jurisdiction in lowering lead levels in water. Having a more accurate
characterization of lead levels in drinking water that is exceeding the
action level will allow States and systems to better inform consumers
and, thereby, create greater confidence in their efforts to reduce lead
levels.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters on the Reduced
Monitoring Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    The majority of commenters agreed with EPA that a system must
remain under the action level to continue operating on reduced
monitoring. States and others supported the current requirement to
allow systems that exceed the copper action level to continue on
reduced monitoring if water quality parameters are met. Therefore, the
Agency is not making any changes that differ from the proposal with
regard to this provision.
    Some commenters did feel that systems that exceed the copper action
level should not be allowed to reduce their monitoring requirements. As
stated in the proposal, EPA did consider requiring that all systems
meet both the lead and the copper action levels as criteria for
eligibility for reduced monitoring. However, the Agency determined that
copper issues should be considered as part of longer term revisions to
the rule. EPA also believes that adding the copper action level
requirement could impose a large monitoring increase on some small and
medium systems that are currently limited in their ability to reduce
copper below the action level due to their source water (e.g., high
alkalinity ground waters). For these systems, the States currently have
flexibility in the existing rule to limit systems from proceeding to
reduced lead and copper tap monitoring. Under Sec. Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(ii) and 141.86(d)(4)(iii), a State may review and revise
its determination to allow a system to proceed with reduced monitoring
when the system submits new monitoring or treatment data, or when other
data relevant to the number and frequency of tap sampling becomes
available. Therefore, the Agency is not requiring that systems that
meet the lead action level and water quality parameter requirements
must also meet the copper action level to be eligible for reduced lead
and copper monitoring.
    Other commenters stated that systems which make treatment changes
or add new sources of water should also be required to monitor for lead
and copper for two consecutive 6-month periods. Currently, Sec.
141.86(d)(4)(vii) provides States authority to require systems that
either add a new source of water or change any water treatment to
resume standard monitoring. In addition, Sec. Sec.  141.81(b)(3)(iii)
and 141.86(g)(4)(iii) allows the State to require any system adding a
new source of water or changing any water treatment to conduct
additional monitoring. EPA is not changing these requirements as part
of this rule. EPA believes States should continue to have the
flexibility to require systems to resume standard monitoring after
making a treatment change or adding a new source of water that could
impact corrosion control.

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

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    This final rule amends Sec. Sec.  141.81(b)(3)(iii),
141.86(d)(4)(vii), 141.86(g)(4)(iii), and 141.90(a)(3) to require water
systems to obtain prior approval by the State to add a new source of
water or make any long-term change in water treatment process prior to
implementation. The final regulatory language allows as much time as
needed for water systems and States to consult before making these
changes. To assist the State in making its determinations, EPA
published a March 2007 Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual for the
Long Term 2 and Stage 2 DBP Rules (US EPA, 2007b). This document will
be an aid to the State in identifying those situations where optimal
corrosion control can be affected by long-term changes in treatment or
source water.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Advanced Notification and Approval of
Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition of New Source Revisions?
    Previously, the rule required that systems notify the State within
60 days of making a change in treatment or adding a new source. EPA
proposed that systems be required to provide advance notification of
any change in treatment or addition of a new source and receive
approval from the State prior to making the change. The final rule
requires systems to provide advanced notification of any long-term
change in treatment or addition of a new source and receive approval
from the State before implementing the change. When a water system
makes long-term changes to its treatment process or adds a new source
of water, it can unintentionally affect the system's optimal corrosion
control. EPA believes that State review

and approval of changes in long-term treatment or addition of a new
source will provide an opportunity to minimize any potential impacts on
optimal corrosion control.
    For this final rule, EPA has clarified the intent of this provision
by stating that it applies to long-term changes in treatment. Examples
of long-term treatment changes include the addition of a new treatment
process or modification of an existing treatment process. Examples of
modifications include switching secondary disinfectants (e.g., chlorine
to chloramines), switching coagulants (e.g., alum to ferric chloride),
and switching corrosion inhibitor products (e.g., orthophosphate to
blended phosphate). Long-term changes can include dose changes to
existing chemicals if the system is planning long-term changes to its
finished water pH or residual inhibitor concentration. Long-term
treatment changes would not include chemical dose fluctuations
associated with daily raw water quality changes.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Advance
Notification and Approval of Long-Term Treatment Changes or Addition of
New Source Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    Many commenters supported the concept of advance notification and
approval of treatment changes that could affect optimal corrosion
control, but were concerned that the rule language as proposed was too
broad and could include daily operational changes. Commenters were
concerned that review and approval of daily changes that are dictated
by the raw water quality could not be done in a timely manner and could
be detrimental to public health if they were covered by the advance
notification and approval requirement. It was not EPA's intention to
include these daily operational activities. In response, EPA has
revised the final rule to require advance notification and State
approval of long-term treatment changes or addition of new source.
Daily dose fluctuations due to changes in raw water quality would not
be considered a long-term treatment change and would not require
advance notification and State approval.
    EPA requested comment on whether it should revise the existing rule
language on ``addition of new source'' to ``source change,'' but did
not propose to make this change. Many commenters stated that revising
the rule to cover any source change would be too prescriptive and that
this could also include daily changes. Source changes occur on a daily
basis due to changes in demand and commenters expressed concern that
State review and approval of these changes could not be done in a
timely manner and therefore could be detrimental to public health. EPA
has retained the language of ``addition of new source'' in the final
rule rather than use the term ``source change.'' EPA believes that it
would be difficult to define a long-term source change because the
source mixture can constantly change due to demand or changes in
availability of sources. EPA discussed several scenarios in the
proposed rule, including switching from 100% surface water to 100%
ground water, switching from 100% surface water to 50% ground water and
50% surface water, and a change in proportion of moving from 75% ground
water and 25% surface water to 25% ground water and 75% surface water.
EPA believes that the existing language ``addition of new source''
covers the first two scenarios. Notification and approval would not be
necessary if the switch is repeated on an annual basis.
    The optimal corrosion control treatment for systems with mixed
sources (ground water and surface water) should consider the impact of
changing the proportions. Section 141.87(a)(1)(i) states that the tap
samples shall be representative of water quality throughout the
distribution system taking into account the number of persons, the
different sources of water, the different treatment methods employed by
the system, and seasonal variability. Both water source and water
treatment methods can produce different finished water pH values or
other critical water quality parameters. For example, if the finished
water pH values from both the surface sources and ground water sources
are very similar, then this can mitigate the impact of changing the
proportions of the various sources. Systems with waters that have
different finished pH values should consider monitoring at the
representative sites in the distribution system after making a major
change in the proportions of the sources (75% ground water to 25%
ground water). EPA will provide guidance to help systems identify
source water changes (such as changing the mixture) that could impact
optimal corrosion control.
    Some commenters stated that State approval of the treatment change
or addition of a new source is not necessary and would delay changes
needed by the system. EPA disagrees with these commenters. EPA believes
that clarifying the revision to focus on long-term treatment changes
will address concerns that this requirement would affect a system's
ability to address daily water quality treatment changes. State
notification and approval of long-term treatment changes is important
because these changes could adversely impact optimal corrosion control.
As EPA noted in the proposed rule, this approach allows the State to
evaluate the change prior to implementation and, if needed, to design a
monitoring program to ensure that optimal corrosion control is
maintained after the change. EPA expects that States will review and
approve long-term treatment changes and additions of new sources
expeditiously and will avoid unnecessary delays to long-term changes
that are needed by the system.

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

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    EPA is amending the public education requirements described in
Sec.  141.80(g) and is adding a new notification requirement to Sec.
141.85(d) that will require water systems to provide consumers who
occupy homes or buildings that are part of the utility's monitoring
program with the testing results when their drinking water is tested
for lead. EPA is also adding a reporting requirement to Sec.  141.90(f)
for systems to certify they have completed this new consumer
notification requirement.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results Revisions?
    Although some utilities may have provided customers with the
results of analyses conducted to meet requirements of the regulations,
utilities were not previously required by EPA to notify occupants of
the lead levels found in their drinking water. While samples are
primarily collected to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion control
or to evaluate the corrosivity of the utility's water across the entire
service area, the results of lead monitoring can provide useful
information to the occupants of the household from which the samples
were taken. Occupants can evaluate the results of lead tests for their
drinking water and use that information to inform any decisions they
might make to take action to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking
water.

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Consumer Notice
of Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results Revisions and EPA's Response to
These Issues?
    EPA received a range of comments regarding the inclusion of the
maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the action level for lead,
along with the definitions for these two terms from Sec.  141.153(c) in
the consumer notice of lead tap results. Some commenters stated that
listing the MCLG was unnecessary and would be confusing. However, other
commenters expressed that it was appropriate to include the MCLG and
many commenters stated that there should be some reference to the
action level. Some of these commenters stated that the consumer notice
should just indicate whether the result was above or below the action
level, while others stated that there should be an acknowledgment that
the action level is not health-based. Still others wanted EPA to
provide a level of lead that is a health concern along with information
on how to interpret results.
    EPA disagrees that the MCLG is unnecessary and would cause
confusion, since the definition of the term in Sec.  141.153(c)(1)
clearly states that it is the level of a contaminant in drinking water
below which there is no known or expected risk to health, allowing for
a margin of safety. In 1991, EPA set the MCLG for lead as zero based on
the following considerations: (1) The occurrence of a variety of low
level health effects for which it is difficult to identify clear
threshold exposure levels below which there are no risks of adverse
health effects; (2) the Agency's policy goal that drinking water should
contribute minimal lead to total lead exposures because a portion of
the sensitive population already exceeds acceptable blood lead levels;
and (3) the classification of lead as a probably human carcinogen (56
FR 26460 at 26467, U.S. EPA 1991a). EPA believes that individuals who
have their homes tested for lead should be aware of the levels below
which there is no known or expected risk to health and should have the
knowledge that there are steps they can take to further reduce
exposure. Therefore, this final rule includes the provision to include
the MCLG along with its definition from Sec.  141.153(c)(1).
    EPA agrees that there should be a reference to the lead action
level, since this is the level at which systems are required to take
actions (e.g., public education, corrosion control treatment, lead
service line replacement). This rule includes a requirement to include
the term ``action level'' and its definition from Sec.  141.153(c)(3).
EPA is not requiring that systems include an explicit sentence that the
level is not health based, but notes that this rule does not preclude a
system from adding such a statement to the notice.
    In response to providing a level of lead that is a health concern,
EPA believes the current MCLG is the best estimate below which there is
no known or expected risk to health from lead in drinking water. EPA is
currently working toward better defining the correlation between
drinking water lead levels and adverse health effects. With regard to
how to interpret results, EPA believes that including the required
information in the consumer notice allows consumers to make informed
decisions regarding their lead levels and provides actions they might
take to reduce their lead exposure.
    In addition, some commenters expressed confusion about who would
receive the result where testing occurred in buildings with many units,
such as apartment buildings. Many of these commenters cited landlord-
tenant issues that may arise by sending results to all residents. EPA's
intent in the proposal was that the sample results go to the individual
residence where the sample was taken and this final revision clarifies
the intent was not to extend notification of the result from one unit
to all units in a building.
    A number of commenters were concerned with the burden on non-
transient non-community water systems which, they presumed, would have
to notify all users of a facility. It was not EPA's intent to have
these systems notify all of their users of the results of testing, but
to have them post results in a public place under an alternative
mechanism. In order to clarify this intent, EPA has added language to
Sec.  141.85(d)(4) that provides an example of an alternative mechanism
as follows: ``For example, upon approval by the State, a non-transient
non-community water system could post the results on a bulletin board
in the facility to allow users to review the information.''
    Some states were concerned about the burden associated with
tracking and enforcement of this requirement. In response, EPA is
requiring in this final rule that systems certify to the State that
notification was sent consistent with the requirements in Sec.
141.85(d), as part of the reporting requirements for public education
in Sec.  141.90(f).
    Lastly, one commenter stated that the consumer notice requirement
needed its own unique citation, because citing it under Sec.  141.85
implied that it only applied to the public education activities
triggered by a lead action level exceedance. The proposed revisions did
contain a reference to the consumer notice requirements in Sec.
141.80, which stated that all water systems must provide a consumer
notice to persons served at the sites that are tested. In addition,
there is a similar statement in Sec.  141.85. In order to clarify that
all systems must complete this requirement, EPA reordered the sentences
in Sec.  141.80 and Sec.  141.85 to state the consumer notification
requirements up front. The Agency feels that this adequately clarifies
that all systems must provide notification of tap results to consumers
at sites that are tested.

F. Public Education Requirements

    EPA is changing the public education requirements of the Lead and
Copper Rule in Sec.  141.85. Water systems are still required to
deliver public education materials after a lead action level
exceedance. However, EPA is making significant modifications to the
content of the written public education materials (message content) and
adding a new set of delivery requirements. EPA is also making revisions
to Sec.  141.154 that will require all community water systems (CWSs)
to include an educational statement about lead in their Consumer
Confidence Reports.
1. Message Content
a. How Is EPA Revising the Message Content?
    EPA is changing the required content of the message provided to
consumers after a lead action level exceedance by shortening and
simplifying the mandatory language. Previously, Sec.  141.85 required
written materials to include mandatory language consisting of over
1,800 words describing health effects, levels of lead in drinking
water, steps to reduce exposure, and how to obtain additional
information. In this revision, the mandatory language will consist of
an opening statement, health effects language and sources of further
information. The health effects language has been revised to provide
greater specificity on the health problems that can result from
exposure to lead (e.g., the original health effects language indicated
that lead can cause damage to the brain, while the new language
specifies that this damage is associated with lower IQ in children).
Although the new language includes mandatory language related to health
effects, water systems will have the flexibility to tailor some of the
topics of the public education message, as mentioned above, to fit
their community and situation. For

example, previous public education language required water systems to
instruct consumers to flush their faucet for 15-30 seconds or one
minute (if the home has a lead service line) before drinking the water.
This rule allows systems to tailor flushing directions to their
specific situations. Water systems will have to submit the public
education materials to the State for review and approval prior to the
delivery to consumers. However, the State has the flexibility to not
require this approval.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Message Content Revisions?
    During EPA's national review of the LCR, many stakeholders stated
that the public education requirements needed improvement. At the 2004
EPA Public Education Expert workshop, a number of concerns were raised
about the effectiveness of the existing public education language and
requirements. Workshop participants stated that the mandatory language
in the rule was too long, cumbersome, and complex. EPA is revising the
public education requirements to ensure that the delivered information
is meaningful and useful to consumers. In addition, by simplifying the
language, EPA hopes that systems can more effectively convey steps to
their customers that they can take to reduce their exposure to lead in
drinking water.
    EPA also identified compliance as an issue in its review of LCR
implementation. Because many water utilities did not conduct the
required public education, at-risk populations did not get information
they needed to reduce their exposure from lead in drinking water (71 FR
40828 at 40835, U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is revising the public education
requirements of the LCR in an effort to improve compliance by
simplifying the mandatory language and to reduce potential adverse
health effects by ensuring that consumers, specifically at-risk
populations, receive the information they need in a timely manner to
limit their exposure to lead in drinking water.
    With some modifications, EPA has included the public education
language developed by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC) in this rule as a replacement of the existing public education
requirements of the LCR. The revised public education information is
more clear and concise and also encourages the public to take an
appropriate course of action to reduce their exposure to lead. The
health effects language section was revised by EPA to improve consumer
awareness and understanding of potential effects of exposure to lead.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Message Content
Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    While most of the commenters supported the proposed flexibility in
the development of public education materials, one suggested that EPA
provide a template for small and medium-sized systems that may lack the
expertise to draft the public education materials. EPA is in the
process of developing guidance that will include templates for the
public education materials. Generally, commenters did support
shortening the mandatory language. While some commenters believed that
the revised language is clearer and easier to understand, most
commenters did not like the recommended health effects language,
stating that it was too alarming and complex. A few commenters
preferred the existing health effects language to what EPA proposed.
EPA believes the language should convey the need for consumers to pay
attention to the message and understand the risks of exposure. In
addition, the new health effects language is more specific about the
health effects of greatest concern than was the prior language.
However, EPA agrees that the complexity of the proposed mandatory
health effects language would limit its utility in conveying to the
general public an understanding of the risk posed by lead in drinking
water and an appropriate course of action. Therefore, the Agency
revised the health effects statement in this final rule to simplify the
language--to a reading level that is appropriate for the general
public--while retaining its specificity regarding the health effects of
greatest concern.
    Some commenters believed that the health effects language should
promote awareness of the potential effects of lead in drinking water
and put them in context with respect to other sources of lead in the
environment. EPA believes exposure of humans to lead from any source is
a reason for concern and has added the following statement to the
mandatory health effects language: ``Lead can cause serious health
problems if too much enters your body from drinking water or other
sources.'' In addition, this rule contains a provision in Sec.
141.85(a)(iii) that provides for an explanation of other important
sources of lead exposure in the public education message.
    A few commenters believed that EPA should provide scientific
support for the statements about health effects in the revision to
substantiate the changes to the health effects language. EPA's most
recent comprehensive analysis of lead health effects may be found in
the final document, Air Quality Criteria for Lead (US EPA, 2006b),
which provides a thorough discussion of lead health effects and
includes citations for the studies that support the statements made in
the public education language in this rule.
    Some commenters wanted the public education materials to explain
that a 90th percentile result above the action level does not mean all
customers are exposed to water above the action level. EPA did not
include any additional mandatory language to this effect in the
revision, but believes that there is enough flexibility for a water
system to include this type of language if they believe it is
important.
    Most commenters thought it would be a burden to require States to
approve water systems' public education materials before distribution.
EPA recognizes that distribution of public education materials
following an action level exceedance should not be delayed if States
cannot review materials in an expedient manner. Therefore, this rule
allows States to determine if they will require State approval of a
water system's public education materials before distribution.
    EPA requested comment on whether there should be a mandatory
requirement to include the contact information for the State drinking
water primacy agency. Although large systems most likely will have a
representative who can answer customer questions about lead in drinking
water, very small systems may not have the expertise to answer all
questions. In these cases it may be useful to have State contact
information included in the public education materials. Most commenters
did not support the addition of State contact information in the public
education materials, stating this would create a burden for the States.
Some commenters believed that the individual States should make the
decision whether to include their State contact information in the
public education materials. EPA has therefore not added a mandatory
requirement for State contact information as part of the public
education content, but believes there is enough flexibility in this
final rule for States to make the decision whether to include it.
    Two commenters suggested that, rather than using the proposed
regulatory language with regard to communicating with customers in
their native tongue, EPA should use the existing language in the Public
Notification Rule (PNR), Sec.  141.205(c)(2)(i). For public water

systems serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers,
as determined by the State, the public education materials must contain
information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of
the notice or contain a telephone number or address where persons
served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the
public education materials or to request assistance in the appropriate
language. EPA agrees with this suggestion and has changed the rule
language accordingly.
2. Delivery
a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery Requirements?
    EPA is revising the delivery requirement associated with public
education materials. EPA is requiring water systems to deliver
materials to additional organizations (e.g., licensed childcare
facilities, obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and preschools)
and to include an informational notice with the public education
materials explaining the importance of sharing the information with
their customers or users. Water systems are required to contact the
local health agency via phone or in-person, rather than relying solely
on mailing, to request their assistance in distributing information on
lead in drinking water and how people can reduce their exposure to
lead. Systems must contact the local public health agency even if it is
located outside the service area of the water system. Furthermore, the
local public health agency may provide a water system with a specific
list of additional community-based organizations serving target
populations, which may include organizations outside the service area
of the water system. If such lists are provided, systems must deliver
materials to all organizations on the provided lists.
    Under the previous regulation, systems serving less than 500 people
could limit their distribution to only those facilities and
organizations frequented by the most vulnerable population without
approval from the State, but systems serving 501-3,300 persons could
only do so if they received written approval from the State. This rule
allows all small systems serving 3,300 or fewer people to limit their
distribution to only those places frequented by the most vulnerable
populations without written approval from the State.
    EPA is also requiring water systems to do additional outreach
activities, but offers a list of activities from which they may choose
in consultation with the State. Systems serving more than 3,300 people
are required to do three additional public education activities from
this list, while systems serving 3,300 or fewer people must do one
additional activity. Primacy agencies can choose to waive the mandatory
press release requirement if there are no media outlets that
specifically reach the target population.
    In addition, this rule removes the requirement for medium and large
systems to provide two public service announcements (PSAs), which
differ from press releases, per year. Under this rule, all water
systems must post information on water bills (no less than quarterly)
and issue press releases throughout the period during which the system
is exceeding the lead action level. However, EPA did add a provision
which provides State discretion to allow systems to deliver the
information in a separate mailing if the informational statement cannot
be included on the water bill.
    In addition, water systems will have to distribute two press
releases as opposed to the one required by the previous Lead and Copper
Rule. Larger systems (serving a population >100,000 persons) must also
post and keep information on their Web site until the system tests
below the action level.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Delivery Requirements Revisions?
    In recognition of the importance of distributing information to the
at-risk populations (e.g., pregnant women, infants, and young children)
on the hazards of lead and how one can protect themselves from exposure
to lead, EPA has added additional organizations (e.g., licensed
childcare facilities, obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and
preschools) to the list of organizations a water system must contact
when a lead action level exceedance occurs to ensure that the
information reaches all potential bill paying and non-bill paying
customers. This is based on NDWAC's recommendation.
    EPA believes the informational notice water systems must include,
along with the public education materials explaining the importance of
sharing this information with their customers/patients, will encourage
the organizations that receive the information to share in the task of
promoting public awareness. EPA recognizes that local health agencies
play an important role in ensuring that consumers who are most
vulnerable receive critical information on how one can reduce their
exposure to lead. Therefore, EPA is requiring water systems to directly
contact the local health agencies via telephone or in person.
    In addition, since EPA believes that communication with consumers
is important in promoting public awareness, this rule requires systems
to continually communicate with consumers as long as they continue to
exceed the lead action level. EPA believes the additional activities
required in the rule following a lead action level exceedance (e.g.,
including information on the water bill; two presses releases per year
as opposed to the current rule, which requires only one per year;
posting information on systems' Web sites) will appropriately bring the
seriousness of lead exposure to the attention of consumers.
    To ensure that systems employ the appropriate delivery mechanism
and content in terms of developing the most effective way of reaching a
system's target population, water systems must work in consultation
with the State. System, State and consumer representatives on the NDWAC
Working Group all agreed that what works in one community does not
always work best in another. In order to make the public education as
effective as possible, EPA is giving systems some flexibility in how
they deliver their public education materials. They are still required
to disseminate information to people served by their system, but they
have some flexibility in how they complete their program. For instance,
a large system in an urban area may choose to use a public service
announcement and paid advertisements to reach consumers, while a system
in a rural area may find the best way to reach customers is through
displaying information in frequently visited public areas or conducting
public meetings. Realizing that small systems may have difficulty in
completing these requirements, EPA offers States the option to waive
the press release requirement if there are no media outlets that target
the population served by the system. Furthermore, small systems
(serving 3,300 or less people) may limit their distribution to those
places frequented by the most vulnerable populations without written
approval from the State. EPA recognizes that small systems are
typically aware of the constituents in their community and often have
the capability to target specific populations through personal
relationships. By removing the requirement to obtain State approval,
this provision allows these systems to send public education materials
to their vulnerable populations as soon as

possible and reduces burden on both the system and the State.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Delivery
Requirements Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    Many commenters expressed concern that it would be an
implementation burden to deliver public education materials and
maintain relationships with the new organizations (e.g., licensed child
care facilities, obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives, and
preschools). Some commenters believed that water systems should rely on
local health departments to provide contact information for the new
organizations. As stated in the proposal, EPA believes that the local
health agencies play an important role in making sure consumers who are
most vulnerable receive the information they need to reduce their
exposure to lead in drinking water. However, EPA cannot mandate that
health departments generate and provide contact information for the new
organizations and is not assuming that local health agencies will have
the contact information for these organizations readily available in
all cases. As discussed below, this rule has provisions for systems to
request that the local health department provide lists of the
additional organizations that may or may not only be those within the
water system's service area, or the system must make a good faith
effort by other means to contact those organizations within their
service area.
    Some commenters expressed concerns with EPA's proposed regulatory
language, which indicated that water systems should make a good faith
effort to contact all customers who are most at risk by delivering
materials to specified organizations. The commenters stated that ``good
faith effort'' was too open-ended and difficult to enforce. EPA
employed the terminology ``good faith effort'' to cover the unforeseen
situations outside of the water system's control when they would not be
able to deliver public education materials to organizations (e.g., non-
cooperative organization, a new obstetrician-gynecologist office
opening up after or right before public education materials are
distributed by the water system, and no contact information is
available) and allows States the flexibility to address the public
education challenges a water system might face. Some commenters stated
that requiring water systems to contact their local health agencies and
rely on them to provide contact information for the new organizations
would constitute a good faith effort. EPA believes this may be
considered a good faith effort but suggests that a water system attempt
to find contact information for these organizations by some other means
if the local public health agency cannot provide the information.
    Some commenters indicated that contacting the new organizations
should be in guidance and not a requirement. EPA disagrees. It is
important to alert the at-risk populations of how to reduce their
exposure to lead. EPA believes the addition of the new organizations to
the public education requirements accomplishes two goals: (1) It
increases the likelihood that information reaches the most vulnerable
populations (i.e., pregnant women, infants and young children) or their
caregivers; and (2) It ensures that critical information reaches not
only bill paying customers, but also non-bill paying consumers. The
non-bill paying consumers may be contacted through these organizations
if the organizations are provided with the necessary information and
encouraged to share the task of improving public awareness.
    Some commenters stated that requiring distribution of material
outside of the water system's service area is a burden for the water
systems as well as being inconsistent with other drinking water rules.
However, EPA believes that if the local public health agency can
identify organizations that potentially serve target populations, then
a water system should deliver public education materials to this
organization even if it is not within the water system's service area.
EPA believes there could also be instances where an individual does not
reside within the system's service area but is served by the water
system in another capacity (e.g., a child lives in another county but
spends a large part of their day at a child care facility that is
served by a water system with a lead action level exceedance).
    Some commenters were concerned that States do not have the means to
oversee or verify that systems are fulfilling the requirement to
contact the new organizations. Systems that are subject to public
education requirements are required as part of Sec.  141.90(f) of this
rule to send written documentation to the State that includes a
demonstration that the system has delivered the public education
materials that meet content requirements of Sec.  141.85(a) and the
delivery requirements in Sec.  141.85(b). EPA believes that systems may
provide a copy of the contact lists to the State as part of this
requirement.
    EPA also proposed that systems include a cover letter with the
printed materials that they send to organizations to explain the
importance of sharing this information with their customers/patients.
Some commenters were concerned that this was too prescriptive. Other
commenters suggested that the Agency create a template. EPA has revised
this requirement to require that systems include an informational
notice instead of a cover letter, since this will give systems
flexibility in the exact format. In addition, EPA will provide
templates as part of separate guidance.
    Some States commented that the proposed new requirements were
excessive, especially as compared to other rules. However, some
commenters supported the requirement that water systems have to conduct
the additional activities and believed that the flexibility in the
selection of the public education delivery activities would enhance the
effectiveness of communication with the public. EPA disagrees with
commenters who believe the requirements are excessive; EPA believes
these changes better ensure that at-risk populations receive
information to enable them to act to reduce their exposure. In
addition, the new requirements are based on recommendations from NDWAC,
which are modeled after the public education requirements in two
existing EPA rules: The Consumer Confidence Report Rule (63 FR 44526,
August 19, 1998, U.S. EPA, 1998) and the Public Notification Rule (65
FR 25982, May 4, 2000, U.S. EPA, 2000c).
    Commenters supported the revision that provides small water systems
(serving 3,300 or less people) the authority to limit their public
education distribution to the organizations and places frequented by
the most vulnerable populations without State approval. Commenters also
supported the provision that would allow States to waive the press
release requirement for a small system if there were no media outlets
that would reach the target population.
    Many commenters thought there were logistical challenges with
including an informational statement in water bills when a lead action
level exceedance occurs. Some systems do not have the ability to add
any information to their water bill especially where they bill using a
postcard. Accordingly, EPA added a provision to this final rule which
provides State discretion to allow systems to deliver the information
in a separate mailing if the informational statement cannot be included
on the water bill. Some commenters indicated that many systems do not
bill monthly,

so those consumers will not receive the same degree of notification as
customers of systems that do bill monthly. In response, EPA has added
text to the provision to indicate that when systems notify customers
via their water bill, they must do so no less than quarterly. While
some customers might receive more notification, EPA believes that no
less than quarterly is the maximum time a water system should allow to
elapse between notifications during a lead action level exceedance to
ensure that the issue still holds customers' attention.
3. Timing
a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing Provisions of the Rule?
    EPA is requiring that water systems that exceed the lead action
level conduct public education within 60 days after the end of the
monitoring period in which the exceedance occurred. However, as
mentioned in section III.B of this notice, States may extend the
timeframe to complete the public education activities as long as a
water system has started the public education activities within the 60-
day period.
    b. What Is EPA's Rationale for Revising the Timing Provisions of
the Rule?
    NDWAC was concerned about the lag time between testing water
samples, receiving the results, calculating the 90th percentile, and
finally sending out public education materials. They were concerned
that an individual, particularly an infant or child, could be drinking
water with high lead levels for months before the individual or
caretaker knows of the problem. As a result, they recommended changes
to increase the timeliness of public education on lead in drinking
water. The NDWAC recommendations are, in part, modeled after the public
education information under two existing EPA rules, the Consumer
Confidence Report Rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart O) and the Public
Notification Rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart Q). The NDWAC recommendations
form the basis for the changes to Sec.  141.85 in this final rule.
    While the revision requires systems to complete public education
activities within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period in which
the exceedance occurred, there is flexibility for the State to allow
additional time for completion of these activities. However, systems
must receive State approval within the 60-day window for an extension.
This ensures that the system and the State begin public education
actions to reduce exposure as soon as possible, but allows these
actions to continue past the 60-day timeframe on a case-by-case basis
as needed for effective implementation.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Timing
Provisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    Commenters indicated that the 60-day timeframe for a system to
complete public education requirements was sufficient for most but not
all systems. In response, EPA has added a provision to the final rule
providing that the State may extend the 60-day window under certain
conditions. However, EPA believes that systems should make every effort
to complete their public education activities within 60 days after the
end of the monitoring period.
4. Consumer Confidence Reports
a. How Is EPA Revising CCR Requirements?
    EPA is revising requirements of the Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR) Rule. Previously, all community water systems (CWSs) that
detected lead above the action level in more than five percent of the
homes sampled and up to and including 10 percent of homes, had to
include an informational statement in their CCR about lead in drinking
water. EPA is now requiring that all CWSs include an informational
statement about lead in their CCRs. In addition, the proposed CCR
language that referred to ``home plumbing'' as the source of high lead
levels has been broadened to include service lines, and the National
Lead Information Center phone number has been replaced with the phone
number for the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline.
b. What Is EPA's Rationale for the CCR Revisions?
    EPA believes that exposure to lead can be a localized phenomenon
and has revised the rule based on concerns that exposure to lead may be
taking place, even though the action level is not exceeded; consumers,
therefore, currently may not receive sufficient information on how to
reduce their exposure to lead. Furthermore, in the situation where
there has been a lead action level exceedance, NDWAC expressed concern
that public education materials may not be delivered immediately;
therefore, vulnerable populations may drink water with high levels of
lead for months before knowing of the risk.
    Under the previous regulations and as stated above, all water
systems which detect lead above the action level in more than 5 percent
of the homes sampled had to include a short informational notice about
lead in their CCR. EPA is now requiring that all community water
systems provide information in their CCRs on lead in drinking water
regardless if a system did or did not detect lead. This short statement
will be educational in nature and help to ensure that all vulnerable
populations or their caregivers receive information (at least once a
year) on how to reduce their risk to lead in drinking water. In this
revision, EPA is incorporating NDWAC's recommended changes to the
informational notice, which would serve to clarify the risk of lead in
drinking water, including basic steps on how to reduce exposure to lead
in drinking water and where to go for more information. Additionally,
requiring all systems to have one statement simplifies compliance with
this provision of the rule for the systems and the States. The new
language is intended to help consumers understand the health effects
associated with lead, that lead levels can vary from home to home, that
they can take steps to reduce their exposure, and where to get more
information.
c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the CCR
Requirements and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    Most of the comments that EPA received were directed towards the
proposed detection limit threshold for requiring statements about lead
in the CCR. Some commenters agreed that the method detection limit for
lead of 0.001 mg/L should be used as the threshold for the inclusion of
the lead statement. Others suggested that requiring the lead statement
should be based on the practical quantitation limit for lead of 0.005
mg/L, a 90th percentile lead action level exceedance, or a lead
detection in drinking water at a level determined to have adverse
health effects. Some commenters even suggested that no changes be made
to the CCR requirements. EPA realizes, however, there are situations
where the most vulnerable populations may be exposed to elevated levels
of lead for many months before or without being notified, as can occur
in the case of a system that has elevated lead levels but only in less
than 10 percent of compliance samples. EPA believes, therefore, that
the CCR is a good mechanism to communicate with all customers the
health risks of lead in drinking water in the interest of being
proactive. EPA also believes the CCR is another opportunity to remind
customers that they share responsibility for reducing their exposure to
lead with their water system.

    Some commenters thought there should be a different information
statement for water systems samples above the lead action level than
for systems below the lead action level and above the MDL. Other
commenters were concerned that multiple, varying notices would unduly
complicate compliance tracking and enforcement of this requirement.
Furthermore, a large percentage (>95%) of the water systems would have
detects above the MDL and therefore be required to have an
informational statement in their CCR. Because the actual level of lead
exposure for drinking water varies with individual homes, EPA concluded
that levels detected in the system would not necessarily reflect the
risk faced by consumers. As a result, and because of the concern over
the logistics of compliance and tracking multiple different lead
statements in CCRs, EPA concluded that all systems should have a simple
informational statement about lead in their CCR, which would be
educational in nature.
    Some commenters indicated that the CCR is a good way to educate the
public about lead in drinking water. On the other hand, some viewed the
proposed CCR requirement as redundant with the other public education
requirements and not an effective way to reach populations before there
is a major problem with lead in the water system. Consistent with the
NDWAC recommendations, EPA believes that the combination of methods for
delivering this urgent message (through public education materials,
CCR, and consumer notice of tap water results) will provide a more
effective way to reach the customer in a timely and appropriate basis.
Some commenters thought that additional CCR language would pose an
undue burden on systems that are in compliance with the LCR and that
the required text would be too alarming. Some commenters believed that
the CCR requirement for lead was inconsistent with the public
notification regulations for other inorganic contaminants. However,
while a water system may be in full compliance with the LCR, a home
served by that water system may have elevated levels of lead in their
tap water. Lead is unlike many other contaminants in that it is
primarily introduced into drinking water as the water passes through
plumbing materials from the distribution main into the household. As a
result, and due to the particular concern that it is critically
important to reach vulnerable populations in a timely manner to avoid
as much lead exposure for those populations as possible, EPA believes a
special lead notice is appropriate.
    Some commenters stated that the proposed language on the sources of
lead required to be included in the Consumer Confidence Report focused
too much on household plumbing materials as the source of lead exposure
in drinking water and did not consider the other sources of lead in the
distribution system. To address this concern, EPA has modified the text
by adding ``service lines'' to more fully characterize sources of lead
in drinking water.

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    EPA is requiring water systems to reevaluate lead service lines
classified as ``replaced through testing'' if they resume lead service
line replacement programs. This will only apply to a system that had
(1) initiated a lead service line replacement program, then (2)
discontinued the program, and then (3) subsequently resumed the
program. When resuming the program, this system will have to reconsider
for replacement any lead service lines previously deemed replaced
through the testing provisions in Sec.  141.84(c) during the initial
program. This change adds a subsection to the lead service line
replacement requirements in Sec.  141.84(b) to include provisions for
systems resuming lead service line replacement programs. Systems will
have to update the inventory of lead service lines to include those
that were classified as ``replaced through testing.'' The system will
then divide the updated number of remaining lead service lines by the
number of remaining years in the program to determine the number of
lines that must be replaced per year (seven percent lead service line
replacement is based on a 15-year replacement program so, for example,
systems resuming lead service line replacement after previously
conducting two years of replacement would divide the remaining
inventory by 13).
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines
Revisions?
    Lead service line replacement is intended as an additional step to
reduce lead exposure when corrosion control treatment is unsuccessful.
The provision in Sec.  141.84(c), which allows systems to leave in
place an individual lead service line if the lead concentration in all
service line samples from that line is less than or equal to 0.015 mg/
L, is intended to maximize the exposure reduction achieved per service
line replaced by avoiding the disruption and cost of replacing lines
that are not leaching elevated levels of lead. However, samples taken
from a lead service line pursuant to Sec.  141.84(c) cannot predict
future conditions of the system or of the service line. Systems can
discontinue a lead service line replacement program by meeting the lead
action level for two consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. Therefore,
EPA is requiring these systems to reconsider any lines previously
determined to not require replacement if they exceed the action level
again in the future and resume the lead service line replacement
program.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Reevaluation of
Lead Service Lines Revisions and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    Commenters generally agreed that all existing lead service lines
should be considered when resuming a lead service line replacement
program. However, there were some commenters who had concerns with the
timing and believed that the 15-year clock should be reset when
resuming a replacement program. In 1991, EPA established the maximum
replacement schedule of 15 years for all systems in order to ensure
that public health is adequately protected (56 FR 26460 at 26507-26508,
U.S. EPA, 1991a). The Agency continues to believe that systems that are
exceeding the action level should have no more than 15 years to replace
all of their lead service lines, as intended by the original rule.
Sites that met the test-out provision would need to be re-evaluated or
replaced within the remaining timeframe. This approach provides an
incentive to physically replace the portion of the lead service line
under the control of the system. Many lead service lines are over 70
years old and may need to be replaced soon simply based on their age.
    Some commenters also recommended that flexibility be given to the
State to determine when treatment or source changes are significant
enough to require reevaluation of lead service lines. This rule does
not change the requirements that trigger lead service line replacement.
Systems that have installed optimal corrosion control and that
subsequently exceed the lead action level must perform lead service
line replacement. If a system makes a treatment or source change that
does not affect the system's optimal corrosion control and the system
continues to comply with the LCR, then it is not necessary for the
system to perform lead service line replacement. If a system

makes a treatment or source change that does affect the optimal
corrosion control and the system subsequently exceeds the lead action
level, then the system must perform lead service line replacement. This
rule does not preclude any system currently meeting the lead action
level from optionally replacing lead service lines.
    Some commenters expressed concern that a system could complete a
15-year lead service line replacement program and then meet the action
level only to re-exceed it and be triggered into lead service line
replacement. Under this scenario, there would be no time left to re-
evaluate or replace lead service lines. EPA has added the following
provision to address this specific situation. For those systems that
have completed a 15-year lead service line replacement program, the
State will determine a schedule for replacing or retesting lines that
were previously tested out under the replacement program when the
system re-exceeds the action level. However, once a system has been in
a lead service line replacement program for more than five years, the
system may want to consider physically replacing the portion of all
lead service lines under their control rather than continuing to use
the test-out provision. Replacing the line would eliminate the
possibility of having to go back and re-evaluate it or replace it if
the action level is re-exceeded. In addition, many systems currently
replace lead service lines when they find them regardless of their 90th
percentile.

H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and Copper Rule

1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule?
    EPA has decided not to make any further rule changes at this time
to address the following issues that EPA requested comment on in
section III.H of the proposed rule (71 FR 40828 at 40839, U.S. EPA,
2006a): Plumbing component replacement; point-of-use (POU) and point-
of-entry (POE) treatment; site selection in areas with water softeners
and POU treatment units; and water quality parameter monitoring.
2. What Is EPA's Rationale for Not Including Any of These Other Issues
in the Final Rule Revisions?
    EPA concluded that sufficient flexibility exists under the current
rule for small systems to utilize plumbing fixture replacement or
point-of-use/point-of-entry devices to meet the action level and be
deemed optimized under Sec.  141.81(b)(1). Under the current rule,
small non-transient, non-community water systems, where 100% of the
plumbing fixtures and components are directly controlled by the system,
may replace them and be optimized once the system has met the action
levels for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods. Small water
systems may also install point-of-use (POU) devices, if they meet the
SDWA requirements for their use, and be deemed optimized by meeting the
action levels for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods. In the
preamble to the proposed rule, EPA noted that where a State does not
require a corrosion control study, systems have 24 months after an
action level is exceeded before the State specifies optimal corrosion
control treatment (71 FR 40828 at 40840, U.S. EPA, 2006a). The fixture
replacement or POU installation would need to be completed within 12
months of exceeding the action level in order to complete two
consecutive six-month monitoring periods before the State specifies
optimal corrosion control. Additionally, systems will still need to
recommend optimal corrosion control treatment to the State within six
months of the action level exceedance. Plumbing fixture replacement may
not be successful in meeting the action level or the system may be
unable to secure participation from all sites under a POU approach, so
the system may need to install the optimal corrosion control treatment.
    There is also additional flexibility under the existing rule.
States could require a corrosion control study for systems that have
made progress towards completing either a plumbing replacement or POU
approach. The study would need to be completed within 18 months or 30
months after the action level exceedance. This would provide an
additional six-month monitoring period to meet the optimization
requirement pursuant to Sec.  141.81(b)(1), while having the system
develop an optimal corrosion control recommendation if the plumbing
replacement is not successful or the POU approach cannot be
implemented. The State will designate optimal corrosion control six
months after the completion of the corrosion control study. When a
corrosion control study is required by the State, systems can have up
to three years after the action level exceedance to meet the action
level for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods before they
would need to install the optimal corrosion control specified by the
State.
    EPA also requested comment on two monitoring issues. The first was
whether the Lead and Copper Rule should be amended to allow sampling at
locations with POU/POE devices used to remove inorganic contaminants in
exceptional cases (such as systems with a high prevalence of water
softeners), and, if so, how high risk sites should be identified. The
second was whether the Lead and Copper Rule should be amended to
require systems to synchronize required water quality parameter
sampling with lead and copper tap sampling. Due to the complexity of
the issue, EPA has determined that rule changes on site selection and
synchronization should be addressed as part of the broader monitoring
revisions. For the POU/POE site selection issue, EPA notes that there
may be additional flexibility under Sec.  141.86(a)(5) which states:
``A community water system with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3
sampling sites shall complete its sampling pool with representative
sites throughout the distribution system. For the purpose of this
paragraph, a representative site is a site in which the plumbing
materials used at that site would be commonly found at other sites
served by the water system.'' EPA believes that the current rule
provisions and guidance on this issue are sufficient at this time.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on These Other Issues
and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    EPA received a range of comments on the issue about whether there
is enough flexibility under the existing rule to use plumbing
replacement without specifying it as optimal corrosion control. Some
commenters stated that the existing timeframes are sufficient for
systems to implement plumbing replacement and that the rule should not
be revised to call it an optimal corrosion control treatment. Other
commenters asserted that EPA should specify plumbing replacement as
optimal corrosion control treatment. As noted above, EPA believes that
there is sufficient flexibility under the existing rule for a small
system to pursue a fixture replacement strategy without listing it as
an optimal corrosion control treatment. Because fixture replacement may
not be successful in reducing lead below the action levels if some lead
sources remain in the plumbing system, systems will need to prepare an
optimal corrosion control treatment recommendation (either with or
without a corrosion control study) and be prepared to install it if the
action level is still exceeded. EPA noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule that plumbing fixture replacement is not a corrosion
control technique and would not have applicable water quality

parameters that could be set by the State if the system continued to
exceed the action level.
    EPA also received a range of comments on the issue about whether
there is enough flexibility under the existing rule to use POU or POE
without specifying it as corrosion control. Some commenters stated that
the existing timeframes are sufficient for systems to implement a POU
strategy and that the rule should not be revised to call it an optimal
corrosion control treatment. Other commenters said that EPA should
specify POU/POE as an optimal corrosion control treatment. As noted
above, EPA believes that there is sufficient flexibility under the
current rule for a small system to pursue a POU strategy without
listing it as an optimal corrosion control treatment. Unless the POU
option was limited to only those systems that control 100% of the
distribution system (as was suggested by several commenters), the
system may not be able to secure participation from all sites and may
need to install corrosion control. Even if EPA limited the option to
only those systems that control 100% of the distribution system, EPA
does not believe that POU should be listed as an optimal corrosion
control treatment. Under the existing rule, the action levels serve as
screens for optimization, but systems can exceed the action levels and
still be in compliance with the LCR by meeting the optimal water
quality parameters specified by the State. Commenters who supported POU
as an optimal corrosion control treatment did not provide any
alternatives on how to demonstrate compliance with the treatment
technique when the action level is exceeded. Many commenters agreed
with EPA's concern that because there are lead-containing materials in
plumbing after POE devices, it may not be successful in meeting the
action level. EPA does not believe that POE should be listed as an
optimal corrosion control treatment because of these unaddressed lead
sources.
    Most of the comments on the issue of sampling sites with POU and
POE devices indicated that a rule change was not necessary and that the
prohibition should remain in Sec.  141.86(a)(1). EPA agrees with those
commenters and does not plan to codify the guidance.
    The final issue on which EPA requested comment was synchronization
of water quality parameter sampling with lead and copper tap sampling.
While many commenters supported the scientific rationale for this
proposed change, a number of comments received expressed concern over
which synchronization timeframe would be appropriate and the
feasibility of implementing a synchronized sampling approach. Several
large systems noted that homeowners are the ones who collect the lead
and copper tap samples and send them back to the utility. These
commenters expressed that since the utility does not know the exact
date that the samples will be taken by the homeowner, synchronizing
water quality parameter and lead and copper tap samples would be
difficult to coordinate. Some commenters noted that current water
quality parameter sampling requirements for systems on reduced
monitoring require these systems to take their water quality parameter
samples throughout the year in order to capture seasonal variability.
EPA also received input that in many States, water quality parameter
sampling for small and medium systems is not started until after all
tap samples are collected and the determination made that a water
system does not meet the 90th percentile action level, consistent with
the specific language of the LCR. Due to the complexity of issues,
challenges with implementation, and potential burden, EPA has decided
not to revise the LCR to require water quality parameter
synchronization at this time, but will revisit this issue in future
revisions to the rule.

I. Compliance Dates

1. What Are the New Compliance Dates for This Rule?
    Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that a
proposed national primary drinking water regulation (and any
amendments) take effect on the date that is three years after the date
of promulgation, unless the Administrator determines that an earlier
date is practical. EPA proposed that the revisions take effect for
purposes of compliance three years after the promulgation of the final
rule. EPA requested comment on the practicality of implementing the
following specific changes within 60 days of final rule promulgation:
Minimum Number of Samples Required (III.A), Definitions for Compliance
and Monitoring Periods (III.B), Consumer Notification of Lead Tap Water
Monitoring Results (III.E) and Public Education Requirements (III.F).
EPA also requested comment upon whether all of the proposed revisions
should have an effective date earlier than three years after
publication of the final rule. After reviewing comments, EPA is
adopting a compliance date for all of the final rule provisions, of 180
days after publication in the Federal Register or the effective date of
any State program changes needed to implement the rule, whichever is
later. However, EPA is also requiring an outside compliance date of two
years after promulgation, which coincides with the date by which States
are required to adopt and submit revised programs adopting this rule
under 40 CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this rule after six months
but before two years, this rule will become effective on the date that
the State rule is effective, as long as it is before the date two years
after promulgation of this rule.
 2. What Is EPA's Rationale for the Compliance Dates?
    There were several considerations behind this compliance date.
First, EPA believes that States and systems will not need three years
to implement any of the rule changes. These rule changes are all
modifications of existing requirements and procedures under the LCR or
CCR. EPA believes States and systems will not need extensive training
or program development to implement these revisions. Additionally, none
of the revisions require systems to undertake new capital improvements
prior to implementation. Second, many of these changes are important
improvements to the LCR, which should help improve critical consumer
information about lead and reduce lead exposure, so they should be
established as quickly as possible. Third, EPA is also aware that
because many of these requirements are procedural in nature, having
dual Federal and State requirements at the same time is confusing to
systems, the public, and the regulators. As a result, it is important
to try to make the Federal changes and State changes coincide as much
as possible. Finally, EPA received helpful comments from the public
urging that the requirements should take effect no earlier than six
months after promulgation.
    EPA therefore decided to adopt a compliance date structure that is
similar to the one used for the public notification rule revisions in
2000. This rule, therefore, provides a minimum compliance date of 180
days after promulgation, after which the rule will be in effect where
EPA has primacy (Wyoming, DC, and most Indian territories) and where
States incorporate EPA's drinking water regulations by reference. EPA
is also providing a maximum compliance date of two years after
promulgation, which coincides with the date by which States are
required to adopt and submit revised programs adopting this rule under
40 CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this rule after six months but
before two

years, this rule will become effective on the date that the State rule
is effective, as long as it is before the date two years after
promulgation of this rule. This gives States the flexibility of
choosing early implementation, enabling the water systems to take
advantage of the efficiencies in the new regulations in less than two
years, or provides States two years to accomplish the preparatory
activities needed to implement the revisions.
3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Compliance
Dates and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    Some commenters indicated that an early compliance date would
impose additional burden on the States and utilities (e.g., conduct
staff training, inform water systems, revise rules and submit primacy
revisions) and suggested the compliance date be three years after final
rule promulgation. Some commenters had concerns about the feasibility
of a 60-day effective date and proposed an effective date within 180
days of final rule promulgation. EPA agrees that 60 days may not offer
States enough time to conduct training, review guidance and distribute
information to water systems about the new requirements; therefore, EPA
has revised the compliance date to 180 days after final rule
promulgation. EPA believes there are a number of improvements in this
rule that States will want to utilize and that 180 days is a feasible
timeframe for the States to conduct the necessary preparatory actions.
One commenter noted that EPA should not make the requirements effective
before the State has time to adopt the change to avoid complications in
meeting both State and Federal requirements. EPA agrees and is revising
the date to give a broad timeframe during which the State may adopt the
rule (180 days to 2 years).

J. State Implementation

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

                   Table III.1.--Final Rule Revisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Is the
         CFR citation            requirement more         Revision
                                    stringent?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   141.80(a)(2)...........  No...............  Technical correction
                                                    that deletes
                                                    effective dates of
                                                    the LCR which no
                                                    longer apply.
Sec.   141.80(c)(3)(v)........  No...............  PWS allowed by the
                                                    State to collect
                                                    fewer than five
                                                    samples must compare
                                                    the highest sample
                                                    result to the action
                                                    level.
Sec.   141.80(g)..............  Yes..............  PWSs will be required
                                                    to provide consumers
                                                    with the results of
                                                    lead testing who are
                                                    located at sites
                                                    that are part of the
                                                    utility's monitoring
                                                    program.
Sec.   141.81(b)(3)(iii), Sec.  Yes..............  States must approve
   141.86(d)(4)(vii), Sec.                          new sources or long-
 141.86(g)(4)(iii), Sec.                            term changes in
 141.90(a)(3).                                      water treatment
                                                    before PWS
                                                    implementation.
Sec.   141.81(e)(1)...........  Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
                                                    tap sampling and
                                                    timing for PWS
                                                    recommending optimum
                                                    corrosion treatment.
Sec.   141.81(e)(2)...........  Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
                                                    monitoring period
                                                    and timing for State
                                                    requiring corrosion
                                                    control studies.
Sec.   141.81(e)(2)(i), Sec.    Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
 141.81(e)(2)(ii).                                  monitoring period
                                                    and timing for State
                                                    specifying optimum
                                                    corrosion control
                                                    treatment.
Sec.   141.83(a)(1)...........  Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
                                                    source water
                                                    monitoring period
                                                    and timing for
                                                    recommending source
                                                    water treatment to
                                                    the State.
Sec.   141.84(b)(1)...........  Yes..............  Clarifies beginning
                                                    of the first year
                                                    for lead service
                                                    line replacement.
Sec.   141.84(b)(2)...........  Yes..............  Requires updating
                                                    inventory and yearly
                                                    replacement of lead
                                                    lines when resuming
                                                    lead service line
                                                    replacement program.
Sec.   141.90(e)(2)(ii).......  Yes..............  Clarifies resumption
                                                    of line replacement.
Sec.   141.85.................  Yes..............  New public education
                                                    requirements that
                                                    replace the ones
                                                    that exist in the
                                                    current rule. New
                                                    requirement for PWS
                                                    to provide a notice
                                                    to consumers who are
                                                    part of the
                                                    utility's lead
                                                    testing program with
                                                    sampling results.
                                                    New content and
                                                    delivery
                                                    requirements for
                                                    public education
                                                    materials. New
                                                    requirement for PWS
                                                    to target specific
                                                    audiences for
                                                    increased awareness.
Sec.   141.88 (b), Sec.         Yes..............  Clarifies end of the
 141.90(a)(1), Sec.                                 monitoring period.
 141.90(e)(1), Sec.   141.90
 (e)(2).
Sec.   141.86(c)..............  No...............  Requires PWS to
                                                    collect a specified
                                                    number of samples.
                                                    Allows State
                                                    discretion to allow
                                                    PWS to sample 100
                                                    percent of taps if
                                                    there are fewer than
                                                    five taps that can