be used for human
                                                    consumption in the
                                                    system.
Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(i), (ii),   Yes..............  Clarifies sample
 (iii), Sec.                                        collection periods
 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)(1), Sec.                       for reduced
  141.86(g)(4)(i), Sec.                             monitoring.
 141.87(e)(2)(ii), Sec.
 141.88(d)(1)(i), Sec.
 141.88(d)(1)(ii), Sec.
 141.88(e)(1), Sec.
 141.88(e)(2).
Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(ii) and     Yes..............  Requires all systems
 (iii), Sec.                                        must meet the lead
 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B).                               action level as a
                                                    condition for
                                                    reduced monitoring.
Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)....  Yes..............  Specifies time period
                                                    to resume standard
                                                    tap water
                                                    monitoring.

Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)....  Yes..............  Specifies time period
                                                    to resume water
                                                    quality parameter
                                                    monitoring.
Sec.   141.86(d)(4)(ii).......  Yes..............  Clarifies monitoring
                                                    frequency.
Sec.   141.87(d), Sec.          Yes..............  Clarifies time period
 141.87(e)(2)(i).                                   for water quality
                                                    parameter
                                                    monitoring.
Sec.   141.90 (f)(1), Sec.      Yes..............  Revised public
 141.90 (f)(1)(i), Sec.                             education program
 141.90 (f)(3).                                     reporting
                                                    requirements based
                                                    on amendments to
                                                    Sec.   141.85.
Sec.   141.154 (d)(1) and (2).  Yes..............  All CWSs must include
                                                    a statement about
                                                    lead, health effects
                                                    language and ways to
                                                    reduce exposure in
                                                    every CCR released
                                                    to the public.
                                                    Flexibility is given
                                                    to CWSs to write its
                                                    own educational
                                                    statement, but only
                                                    in consultation with
                                                    the Primacy Agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions Affect a State's Primacy Program?
    States must revise their programs to adopt any part of this final
rule which is more stringent than the approved State program. Primacy
revisions must be completed in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12 and
142.16. States must submit their revised primacy application to the
Administrator for approval. State requests for final approval must be
submitted to the Administrator no later than two years after
promulgation of a new standard unless the State requests and is granted
an additional two-year extension.
    For revisions of State programs, 40 CFR 142.12 requires States to
submit, among other things, any additional materials that are listed in
40 CFR 142.16 of this part for a specific EPA regulation, as
appropriate 40 CFR 142.12(c)(1)(ii). For the final revisions to the
lead and copper rule, EPA believes that requirements in Sec.  142.12(c)
will provide sufficient information for EPA review of the State
revision. The side-by-side comparison of requirements required in Sec.
142.12(c)(1)(i) will consist of sections revised to adopt the changes
required for the revised lead and copper rule and any other revisions
requested by the State. Because the rule consists of changes to an
already approved Federal NPDWR in primacy States, EPA believes that the
State's existing statutes and regulations will already have received
extensive legal review. Under Sec.  142.12 (c)(3), EPA can request
supplemental information as necessary for a specific State submittal on
a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the Agency is waiving the Attorney
General's statement required in Sec.  142.12(c)(1)(iii), as allowed by
Sec.  141.12(c)(2).
2. What Does a State Have To Do To Apply?
    To maintain primacy for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS)
program and to be eligible for interim primacy enforcement authority
for future regulations, States must adopt this final rule. A State must
submit a request for approval of program revisions that adopt the
regulations and implement those regulations within two years of
promulgation unless EPA approves an extension under Sec.  142.12(b).
Interim primacy enforcement authority allows States to implement and
enforce drinking water regulations once State regulations are effective
and the State has submitted a complete and final primacy revision
application. To obtain interim primacy, a State must have primacy with
respect to each existing NPDWR. Under interim primacy enforcement
authority, States are effectively considered to have primacy during the
period that EPA is reviewing their primacy revision application.
3. How Are Tribes Affected?
    At this time the Navajo Nation has primacy to enforce the PWSS
program. EPA Regions implement the rules for all the other Tribes under
section 1451(a)(1) of SDWA.

IV. Economic Analysis

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

   Table IV.1.--Summary of Direct and Indirect Implications of the LCR
                         Short Term Rule Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Indirect cost and
           Rule change                Direct cost         health risk
                                     implications        implications
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A (Number   Yes...............  Yes.
 of samples).
Regulatory Change III.B           Unquantified......  None.
 (Monitoring Period).
Regulatory Change III.C (Reduced  Yes...............  Yes.
 Monitoring Criteria).
Regulatory Change III.D           Yes...............  Yes.
 (Advanced Notification and
 Approval).
Regulatory Change III.E           Yes...............  Yes.
 (Consumer Notice of Lead
 Results).
Regulatory Change III.F (Public   Yes...............  Yes.
 Education).
Regulatory Change III.G           Yes...............  Yes.
 (Reevaluation of Lead Service
 Lines).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Direct Costs

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

B. Overall Cost Methodologies and Assumptions

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

C. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.A

    Regulatory Change III.A clarifies EPA's intent that a minimum of
five samples must be taken when conducting compliance monitoring. If a
system has fewer than the minimum number of taps required for sampling,
then those systems will have to collect multiple samples on different
days from the same tap so that the total number of samples per
monitoring period is five. States, however, have the discretion to
allow water systems with fewer than five taps for human consumption to
collect one sample per tap. Under this alternate sampling schedule, the
sample with the highest test result will be compared to the action
level to determine compliance.
    Although some systems may change the number of samples taken in
response to these provisions, there is very limited available data on
the number of these systems and on the frequency with which they
conduct lead and copper monitoring. Because of lack of data, EPA has
not quantified the annual direct costs or savings associated with
Regulatory Change III.A. EPA has quantified the one-time implementation
costs for water systems with fewer than five taps to request permission
to collect one sample per available tap and for States to review and
decide upon these requests to collect one sample per available tap.
Those costs are given in section IV.K.

D. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.B

    Regulatory Change III.B clarifies the meaning of ``monitoring
period'' and ``compliance period,'' addressing in particular the date
on which actions are triggered by an exceedance and the timing of
samples under reduced monitoring schedules. Based on the rule change,
if a system exceeds the lead action level during a monitoring period,
non-compliance starts at the end of the monitoring period (for most
systems on September 30). Under the previous language, it was not clear
whether non-compliance began at the end of the calendar year (December
31) or at the end of the monitoring period (September 30).
    As a result of this rule change, activities triggered by an action
level exceedance could begin three months earlier (e.g., at the end of
September versus the end of December), but the duration of these
activities would not likely be longer. The net result is a change in
the timing of activities, with a difference of three months having
negligible, if any, impact on costs.
    Regulatory Change III.B also requires that systems on reduced
monitoring, such as triennially or once every nine years, must take all
compliance samples within the same calendar year during the June-
September monitoring period. Under the existing rule, a system could
collect compliance samples over multiple calendar years, as long as
they were taken during the June-September time frame and during the
three-year compliance period. In addition, systems on triennial
monitoring must monitor no later than every third calendar year.
Similarly, systems on nine-year monitoring schedules must monitor no
later than every ninth calendar year. Since this rule change does not
alter the number of samples to be taken, but the timing of samples, the
direct cost impact is expected to be negligible.

E. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.C

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
    As a result of Regulatory Change III.C, utilities that have 90th
percentile LCR monitoring samples that exceed the lead action level,
and are currently on reduced monitoring, will be required to resume
standard monitoring schedules for monitoring lead at taps. In addition
to monitoring activities, utilities will have to meet reporting
requirements to the State/primacy agency. State/primacy agencies will
be required to review utility monitoring reports.
2. Costs to Utilities
    The direct costs to utilities, summarized in Table IV.3, are
estimated to be $2.7 million annually including $2.5 million in labor
costs and $0.2 million in materials costs. Detailed estimates are
provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix C.

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

                           Table IV.2.--Systems Exceeding the Action Level Since 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   < 3,300
                                                                    \1\      3,300<50,000    >50,000     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of systems above action level since 2003................        884              96         14        994
    Total number of systems....................................     64,382           7,388        819     72,589
Percent of systems with monitoring results since 2003 over AL..       1.4%            1.3%       1.7%       1.4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The Estimate for systems <3,300 is based upon data from systems >3,300.
Source: For medium and large systems, January 2005 Summary of lead action level, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
  lcrmr/lead--data.html; for small systems, Summary, lead action level exceedances for public water systems

  subject to the Lead and Copper Rule (For data through September 13, 2004).

    The number of systems on reduced monitoring was estimated using
State responses to the EPA State Implementation of the Lead and Copper
Rule survey (State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule, U.S. EPA
2004b). States provided estimates of the percent of systems on reduced
LCR monitoring. Based on this data, 91 percent of systems are on
reduced lead and copper monitoring. This analysis assumes that systems
that are likely to exceed the lead action level, and are on reduced
monitoring, are likely to exceed at the same rate as all systems.
Therefore, EPA assumes that 1.4 percent of the 91 percent of the
systems estimated as likely to exceed the action level are on reduced
monitoring and will therefore incur costs due to Regulatory Change
III.C. EPA notes that this assumption likely over-estimates the number
of systems that will be affected by this regulatory change because
systems that are likely to have exceedances are generally less likely
to be on reduced monitoring in the first place.
    For the number of additional monitoring events, it is assumed that
each utility will conduct five additional monitoring events in each
three year period by switching from a reduced monitoring schedule
(triennial) to standard tap monitoring (semi-annual). While reduced
monitoring could refer to either monitoring once every year or once
every three years, it is not possible to distinguish, from the State
responses to the EPA survey, between systems monitoring once every year
and systems monitoring once every three years. This analysis assumes
that all systems on reduced monitoring are on a one sample every three
years schedule, an assumption that might slightly over-estimate costs.
Likewise, the number of samples collected in each monitoring period
will change when the utility switches from reduced monitoring to
standard monitoring. Thus, a system that was on reduced monitoring, but
is placed on regular monitoring after an action level exceedance under
Regulatory Change III.C, will incur an additional five monitoring
events over a three year period (six monitoring events in three years
under regular monitoring instead of one monitoring event in three years
under reduced monitoring), with an increased number of samples
collected in each event. The required number of samples varies by
system size, with the smallest systems (serving less than or equal to
100 people) required to take five samples per monitoring event under
both standard and reduced monitoring, and the largest systems (serving
>100,000 people) required to take 100 samples per monitoring event
under standard monitoring and 50 samples per monitoring event under
reduced monitoring.
3. Costs to States
    Regulatory Change III.C will require States to review utility
monitoring reports as a result of resuming standard monitoring
schedules. The direct costs to States is estimated to be $82,000
annually including $81,000 in labor costs and $1,000 in materials
costs, as summarized in Table IV.3. Detailed estimates are included in
the Economic Analysis, Appendix C.

  Table IV.3.--Summary of Estimated Direct Costs to Systems and States Associated With Regulatory Change III.C
                                                 (2006 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                                                                   Annual labor      materials     Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
    Reporting...................................................         $60,000          $1,000         $61,000
    Tap Monitoring..............................................       2,442,000         193,000       2,635,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total System Costs......................................       2,502,000         194,000       2,696,000
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
    Review Costs................................................          81,000           1,000          82,000
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total State Costs.......................................          81,000           1,000          82,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.D

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
    Regulatory Change III.D requires water systems to obtain prior
approval by the State to add a new source of water or to make a long-
term treatment change prior to implementation. New system activities
will include an assessment of the implications of long-term treatment
or source changes on corrosion control prior to the change and a letter
to the state. New State activities will include the review of the
system data on the implications of a long-term treatment or source
change on corrosion control prior to a change, preparation of
conclusions, and coordination with utilities. The estimated costs to
the affected systems and States are summarized in Table IV.4.
2. Costs to Utilities
    EPA estimates that the direct costs to utilities range from
$506,000 to $765,000 annually. These direct costs are strictly labor
costs; materials costs are expected to be negligible. Detailed
estimates are provided in Appendix D (Table 6.1) of the Economic
Analysis.
    In order to estimate the annual cost of this provision to
utilities, information is needed on the number of systems that would
likely implement a long-term treatment change or add a source each
year, as well as the number of systems that are located in States that
already have a review and approval requirement. Systems located in
these States will not incur additional costs under this provision.
    As determined during EPA's review of the implementation of LCR
requirements by States, many States already have a review and approval
process for treatment or source changes. For the purposes of this
analysis, two estimates were used for the number of States that already
have a review and approval process that would include information on
corrosion control issues: 14 States for a high end of the cost range
and 31 States for a low end. Under the alternative in which only the 14
States with explicit review and approval are excluded from the count,
53,372 systems (of 72,213 CWSs and NTNCWSs based on 4th quarter 2004
SDWIS/FED) may incur costs for the regulatory change. Under the
alternative in which States with permitting and plan review are also
excluded from the count, 27,615 systems may incur costs for this
regulatory provision.
    An estimate was also needed of the number of systems projected to
undertake a long-term treatment change or add a source annually in
order to estimate the cost of this provision to utilities. Long-term
treatment changes over the next several years are likely as systems
will be faced with new regulatory requirements, including changes to
comply with the promulgated Arsenic Rule, the Long Term 2 Surface Water
Treatment Rule (LT2) and the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 D/DBP). EPA estimated the number of systems
that would undertake treatment changes for the following new regulatory
requirements:
     Arsenic--4,100 systems (Data source: Arsenic in Drinking
Water Rule Economic Analysis, pp. 6-25, 6-27, U.S. EPA, 2000a);
     LT2--2,882 systems (Data source: Economic Analysis for the
Final Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, Exhibit 6-1,
page 6-3, U.S. EPA, 2005a);
     Stage 2 D/DBP--2,261 systems (Data source: Economic
Analysis for the Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule, Exhibit ES-7a, page ES-17, U.S. EPA, 2005b).
    Together, these regulatory requirements are estimated to cause
9,243 systems to institute a treatment change, although not all of
these treatment changes will affect corrosion control. Additionally,
the compliance periods for these regulations varies. For example, the
Stage 2 D/DBP and LT2 treatment changes are projected to take place
within a six year compliance period for large systems (with the
possibility of two-year extension) and eight years for small systems
(with the possibility of two-year extension). To account for these
expected treatment changes, and to account for treatment changes
unrelated to the Arsenic, LT2, and Stage 2 D/DBP rules, EPA assumed
(based on the projected rule-related treatment changes and expert
judgment) that approximately 20 percent of the systems affected by the
LCR will institute a treatment change in the next 10 years. For
purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that these changes will occur
uniformly over that 10-year period, so that approximately one-tenth of
these systems (or two percent of the total) institute a treatment
change each year.
    Using the two percent estimate, 1,067 (53,372 x .02) systems each
year will report a treatment change or source addition. However,
systems in States that already have a permitting or plan approval
process in place will not incur additional costs to report the
treatment change or source addition, since their States already require
them to report treatment changes or source additions through these
processes. The annual estimate of the number of systems in States that
currently do not have a permitting or plan approval process in place
and that will, therefore, incur costs is 552.
    EPA anticipates that systems will incur additional costs under this
rule change as systems and States more carefully review and consider
possible corrosion impacts of treatment changes or source additions. In
the absence of information on the current prevalence of these
activities, EPA has used best professional judgment to estimate the
range of potential activities and associated costs resulting from the
review and approval process. All systems, regardless of size or
complexity, are assumed to undertake additional activities related to
data collection and evaluation, preparation of a submittal to the
State, and coordination with the State. For small systems or systems
making relatively simple changes, considering the corrosion impacts of
the change may be a rather basic process of reviewing water quality
data and previous lead monitoring results. For these systems,
additional effort will be incurred by system staff in coordinating with
State personnel to assemble water quality parameter and lead data and
evaluate the potential impacts. EPA estimates the burden for this
additional effort at 7.5 hours per system, at an average cost of $231
per system. For larger or more complex systems making major treatment
changes, activities would be more extensive, including conducting
engineering studies to evaluate impacts on corrosion control. Based on
best professional judgment, EPA estimates that between 10 percent and
20 percent of medium and large systems may need to conduct additional
engineering studies on corrosion impacts at a cost of $20,000. To some
extent, systems may already evaluate the impacts of treatment or source
changes on corrosion. EPA has considered these current activities in
estimating the portion of systems that would require an engineering
study.
3. Costs to States
    The direct costs to States are estimated to range from $163,000 to
$348,000 annually. These direct costs are strictly labor costs;
materials costs are expected to be negligible. Estimates are summarized
in Table IV.4. Activities that States will undertake include review of
system data, preparation of conclusions and letters to systems, and
coordination with utilities. Because the level of effort associated
with these

activities is expected to vary based on the complexity of the change
and the type of submittal (amount and type of information), EPA
included a range of State review time from four to eight hours.
    Those States incurring additional costs due to Regulatory Change
III.D are those that do not already have a review and approval process
that considers the corrosion control implications of treatment changes.
For the States that will incur new costs as they review and approve
changes before they are made, rather than simple review after the
change has been made, which is the existing requirement, new State
activities will include review of the system data on the corrosion
control implications of a long-term treatment or source change prior to
a change, preparation of conclusions and coordination with utilities.

    Table IV.4.--Estimated Direct Costs to Systems and State/Primacy
     Agencies Associated With Regulatory Change III.D (2006 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Annual cost--   Annual cost--
                                           low estimate    high estimate
                                                \1\             \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
    Reporting...........................        $506,000        $765,000
                                         -------------------------------
        Total System Costs..............         506,000         765,000
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
    Review Costs........................         163,000         348,000
                                         -------------------------------
        Total State Costs...............         163,000        348,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. 10 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study
  and 4 hours for State review.
2. 20 percent medium and large systems conduct engineering study and 8
  hours for State review.

G. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.E

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
    Regulatory Change III.E requires CWSs to provide written
notification to each owner/occupant of the lead level found in the tap
sample collected for LCR compliance monitoring. Compliance for NTNCWSs
will be determined by their circumstances and may consist of posting a
notice on community bulletin boards or Web sites. Systems must also
prepare a letter that self-certifies that they have distributed the
sampling results as appropriate and submit it to the State. While
States may review sample customer letters/notices from each utility for
each monitoring period, such a review is not required by the regulatory
change and thus is not considered a direct cost of the regulatory
change. States will be required to review, track, and store the self-
certification letters. Supporting calculations and information
regarding costs to utilities and States associated with this regulatory
change are included in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E.
2. Costs to Utilities
    The direct costs to utilities for compliance with Regulatory Change
III.E are summarized in Table IV.5 and estimated to be $1,248,000
annually including $1,098,000 in labor costs and $150,000 in materials
costs for envelopes and postage. This is based on an estimated 310,510
notices being provided to customers each year, with associated labor.
Detailed estimates are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix E-2.
    In order to estimate the additional costs associated with
Regulatory Change III.E, an estimate is needed of the number of systems
that already notify customers of tap monitoring results. Based on
feedback from participants in workshops and interactions with States,
some systems already notify customers of monitoring results. These
systems would not incur costs under the regulatory change. Of 72,213
CWSs and NTNCWSs (per 4th quarter 2004 SDWIS/FED) subject to the LCR,
EPA estimates that approximately 11 percent of these systems are
estimated to already notify owner/occupants of tap sample results.
Therefore, this regulatory change will apply to the remaining 89
percent of systems.
3. Costs to States
    The direct costs to States to comply with Regulatory Change III.E
are presented in Table IV.5. States are required to review, track, and
store the self-certification letters.

           Table IV.5--Summary of Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.E (2006 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Annual
                                                                   Annual labor      materials     Total annual
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
    Customer Notice of Lead Results Costs and self-certification      $1,098,000        $150,000      $1,248,000
     letters....................................................
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total System Costs......................................       1,098,000         150,000       1,248,000
Costs to States:
    Review, track and store self-certification letters..........         163,000  ..............         163,000

        Total State Costs.......................................         163,000  ..............         163,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.F

    Regulatory Change III.F changes the public education requirements
of the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) in Sec.  141.85. Water systems would
still be required to deliver public education materials after a lead
action level exceedance, but the text of the message to be provided to
consumers, how the materials are delivered to consumers, and the
timeframe in which materials must be

delivered would change. The changes to the delivery requirements
include additions to the list of organizations systems must partner
with to disseminate the message to at-risk populations as well as
changes to the media used to ensure water systems reach consumers when
there is an action level exceedance. Table IV.6 presents a summary of
the additional activities for reaching at-risk populations and the
associated annual costs per system.
    In addition to the changes to Sec.  141.85 of the LCR, EPA is also
revising Sec.  141.154(d) of the CCR rule (40 CFR 141, Subpart O),
which requires all community water systems to send an annual report to
billed customers containing information relevant to the quality of the
drinking water provided by the system.

                Table IV.6.--Annual Cost Per System Estimate for Additional Activities To Better Reach At-Risk Populations (2006 Dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                viii.
                                                                   iii.                                   vi.                    Materials
                                   i. Public       ii. Paid     Display in  iv. Internet   v. Public   Delivery       vii.      directly to  Average per
      System size category          service     advertisements    public    notification   meetings    to every     Targeted   multi-family   system all
                                 announcements                     areas                               household    contact          &        activities
                                                                                institutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-100.........................           $98           $105           $24          $24          $48          $7          $34           $12          $44
101-500........................           101            105            26           26           51          30           35            15           49
501-3,300......................           105            180           111           28           55         166           37            27           89
3.3K-10K.......................           118            180           137          420          900         435           44            81          289
10K-50K........................         1,400            850           696          596        2,400       1,114           66           303          928
50K-100K.......................         1,400          5,000         1,392          596        3,000       2,448          138           945        1,865
>100K..........................         1,400          5,000         3,943        1,035        5,000       3,874          563         5,035        3,231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Details of how these unit costs were calculated are provided in
Appendices H-6 through H-20 of the Economic Analysis for this final
rule.
    States are required to review the language in the utility's notice
to consumers to make sure the utility is including the required
information. States are also required to consult with each system with
an action level exceedance. States will no longer be required to
approve a waiver for notifications for each system that exceeds the
lead action level that serves a population of 501-3,300.
2. Costs to Utilities
    The annual direct costs to utilities resulting from Regulatory
Change III.F are estimated to be $859,200. The annual system labor cost
is estimated to be $837,900 and the annual system materials are
estimated to cost $21,200. Estimates of costs associated with each
activity are presented in Table IV.7. Detailed estimates of costs to
utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F.
    The requirement to provide information about lead in the CCR is new
only for systems that currently do not detect lead above the action
level in 95 percent or more of their sites, since systems in which the
95th percentile result is above the action level are already required
to provide such information. However, EPA does not have data on such
systems. Rather, EPA has data on the (smaller) number of systems that
currently detect lead below the action level in 90 percent of their
sites, and has subtracted this value from the universe of systems to
estimate the number of systems that would incur new costs under this
requirement. Underestimating the current baseline of systems that
currently detect lead at the 95th percentile level, by using data on
systems that detect lead at the 90th percentile level (a smaller number
of systems), overestimates the remaining number of systems that do not
currently report lead information in their CCR. EPA's estimate assumes
that 52,257 additional systems would have to provide information about
lead in their CCR each year, with an additional associated labor of
0.25 hours per system per year.

           Table IV.7.--Summary of Costs to Systems Due to LCR Public Education Changes (2006 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Annual       Annual       Total
                 Activity                            Requirement              labor      materials   system cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(a)(1)...............................  Customer Notification........      $91,400           $0      $91,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(b)(1)...............................  Notify Additional                   21,900       21,400       43,300
                                             Organizations.
III.F(b)(2)...............................  Additional Activities i-viii.      292,700            0      292,700
III.F(b)(2)...............................  Consult with State on               33,500          300       33,700
                                             Activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Changes to Help Systems Maintain Communication with Consumers Throughout the Exceedance:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(c)(1)...............................  Customer Bills...............       47,400            0       47,400
III.F(c)(2)...............................  Post on Website..............          100            0          100
 III.F(c)(3)..............................  PSAs and Press Releases......       -3,700         -500       -4,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Changes to the Required Timing:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                 No cost impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Changes to Consumer Confidence Report:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F(e)(1)...............................  CCR Statement................      354,600            0      354,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Costs to Systems for PE Requirements (III.F):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.....................................  .............................      837,900       21,200     859,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

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

   Table IV.8.--Summary of Costs to States Due to LCR Public Education
                         Changes (2006 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Annual       Annual       Total
                                      labor      materials      annual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.F Costs to States:
Review and consultation..........      $63,000           $0      $63,000
                                  --------------------------------------
    III.F Total State Costs......       63,000            0       63,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.G

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
    Under this regulatory change, utilities that have 90th percentile
LCR samples that exceed the lead action level will need to identify all
lead service lines (LSL) that had previously been determined to be
replaced via sampling. These utilities will be affected by Regulatory
Change III.G if they exceed the action level again and renew a LSL
replacement program. These utilities must put these ``tested out'' LSLs
back into their inventory of lead service lines that could be
considered for replacement. To estimate the impact of this change, we
assume these formerly ``tested out'' LSLs will be retested and that
some of them will exceed the lead action level. The primary activities
as a result of this regulatory change include collecting and analyzing
samples from these LSLs. Replacement of lines that were previously
tested out may also occur as a result of this change.
2. Costs to Utilities
    The direct costs to utilities as a result of Regulatory Change
III.G are estimated to be $110,000 annually, which includes $101,000 in
labor costs and $9,000 in materials costs. Detailed estimates of costs
to utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis, Appendix F.
Estimating the costs to utilities requires an estimate of the number of
systems who have been involved in a lead service line replacement
program, the number of systems likely to discontinue such a program due
to low tested lead levels, and the fraction of those systems likely to
subsequently exceed the action level and restart their lead service
line replacement program.
    In the responses to the 50-State survey on lead implementation
(U.S. EPA, 2004b), which is available in the public docket for this
rulemaking, 11 States responded that at least one system in their State
has been involved in a lead service line replacement program. Six
States provided sufficient information to derive the number of systems
within that State required to perform lead service line replacement--a
total of 28 systems. Based on an average of five systems per State for
the six States that provided data, for purposes of this analysis, EPA
assumes that the remaining five States have five systems, plus one
system for DC (which did not respond to the survey) for a total of 54
systems that have been required to perform lead service line
replacement.
    Because there is insufficient information to determine how many of
the 54 systems suspended their lead replacement programs, and later
restarted the programs due to an exceedance, EPA assumed the worst case
scenario that all of these systems suspended their lead replacement
programs and that the rate of subsequent exceedance was the same as for
the universe of systems subject to the LCR, as shown in Table IV.2.
Thus, EPA assumed that 1.4 percent of the 54 systems or one system will
exceed the action level and will therefore be triggered back into lead
service line replacement each year.
    EPA does not have information on the number of systems using the
test out provisions rather than physically replacing lines, so this
approach likely overestimates the number of affected systems, because
it assumes that all systems in a lead service line replacement program
are using the test out provisions. Systems removing lead service lines
are not impacted by this change. While the rate at which systems are
triggered back into lead service line replacement might be higher than
the initial rate, it is offset by the assumptions regarding systems
using the test out provisions and the universe of systems that would
stop their lead service line replacement program and later resume it
because of this regulatory change. Please see the Economic Analysis for
the final rule, Appendix F, for additional details on the assumptions
EPA made to derive the estimated costs for this provision.

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

J. Summary of National Average Annual Direct Costs

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

Table IV.9.--Summary of Annual Direct Costs to Systems and States From All Regulatory Changes (2006 Dollars) \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Annual direct costs to systems               Annual       Total
                                   ----------------------------------------------------    direct       annual
         Regulatory change                                      Consumer                 costs  to      direct
                                     Reporting    Monitoring     notice       Total        states       costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III.A.............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
III.B.............................  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
III.C.............................      $61,000   $2,635,000  ...........   $2,696,000      $82,000   $2,778,000
III.D Low.........................      506,000  ...........  ...........      506,000      163,000      669,000
III.D High........................      765,000  ...........  ...........      765,000      348,000    1,113,000
III.E.............................      136,000  ...........    1,112,000    1,248,000      163,000    1,411,000
III.F.............................       34,000  ...........      825,000      859,000       63,000      922,000
III.G.............................  ...........      110,000  ...........      110,000  ...........      110,000
                                   -------------                          --------------------------------------
    Total Low.....................      736,000  ...........  ...........    5,418,000      471,000    5,890,000
                                                --------------------------
                                    ...........    2,745,000    1,938,000  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Total High....................      995,000  ...........  ...........    5,677,000      657,000   6,335,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: 1. Totals may not add due to independent rounding.

K. Total Upfront Costs To Review and Implement Regulatory Changes

1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory Change
    Systems and States will incur one-time upfront costs associated
with reviewing and implementing this rule. For systems, activities
include reviewing the rule changes, training staff, and verification
costs associated with Regulatory Change III.A. For States/Primacy
Agencies, activities include regulation adoption, program development,
and miscellaneous training.
2. Total Costs to Utilities
    Direct costs to utilities are estimated to be approximately $11
million, as summarized in Table IV.10. Detailed estimates of costs to
utilities are provided in the Economic Analysis Appendix G. Direct
costs to utilities are based solely on labor; no materials costs are
expected for these one-time upfront costs.
3. Total Costs to States
    Direct costs to the States are estimated to be $1,650,000 as
summarized in Table IV.10 and detailed in Appendix G of the Economic
Analysis. Similar to the one-time costs for utilities, these direct
costs are based solely on upfront labor costs. Fifty-seven States will
review and implement these LCR revisions.

   Table IV.10.--Summary of One-Time Direct Costs Associated With Rule
                Review and Implementation (2006 dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          One time labor
                                                               costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs to Systems:
  Review & Communication................................     $10,971,000
  Verification (III.A)..................................         104,000
                                                         ---------------
    Total System Costs:.................................      11,075,000
Costs to State/Primacy Agencies:
  Regulation Adoption...................................       1,488,000
  Verification (III.A)..................................         162,000
                                                         ---------------
    Total State Costs...................................       1,650,000
                                                         ---------------
    Total Rule Implementation Costs.....................      12,725,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Indirect Costs

    Previous sections focused on the direct costs of this rulemaking,
costs resulting from activities specified by the rule change, such as
costs for additional monitoring or distribution of consumer notices. A
second type of cost, an indirect cost, may also result when systems and
States use the information generated by the rule-required activities to
modify or enhance practices to reduce lead levels. Indirect costs may
also result if systems or States decide to undertake additional
information-gathering activities not required by the rule.
    The revisions will require some systems to generate new information
which, in some cases, may be provided to States and customers. The
information that is generated may suggest lead and copper risks that
would not otherwise have been discovered (or such risks might be
discovered sooner than otherwise). Upon obtaining this information, a
system itself, the State, or some of the system's customers may take
actions to address these risks, incurring the costs of those actions.
For example, a system may redesign a planned treatment change following
State review of the planned change, or a system may replace a lead
service line that was previously ``tested out.'' System customers, upon
receiving notification of the lead content of their tap samples, may
take some action, and in the process, incur a cost.
    It is both difficult to project what the content will be of the
information generated pursuant to the regulation, and difficult to
predict how systems and individuals might act in response to the new
information generated as a result of these regulatory changes. Because
of the uncertainty in tracing the linkages from the regulation to new
information to exposure prevention measures, EPA is unable to quantify
the indirect costs that might ensue from these regulatory changes.
    It is also possible that some additional information-gathering
activities may result from this rule. For example, a system may decide
to undertake a new study of the corrosion implications of a rule
change. Or a State may decide to

review sample system customer letters of notification to owner/
occupants about the lead levels found in their collected tap samples.
These activities would also result in indirect costs associated with
this final rule.

M. Benefits

    The intent of this rulemaking is to improve implementation of the
lead and copper regulations by clarifying monitoring requirements,
improving customer awareness, and modifying the lead service line test
out procedure. These revisions do not affect the action levels,
corrosion control requirements, lead service line replacement
requirements, or other provisions in the existing rule that directly
determine the degree to which the rule reduces risks from lead and
copper.
    However, the increase in administrative activities that will result
from the revisions will generate new information (e.g., more monitoring
data, some of which may show exceedances), and may prompt some systems
or individuals to respond to this new information by taking measures to
abate lead and copper exposures and thus reduce the associated risk.
Also, the requirement that long-term treatment changes be approved by
the State prior to implementation will provide an additional
opportunity to identify possible adverse impacts due to treatment
changes, which may lower the risk to consumers.
    Because the precise impact of these revisions on the behavior of
individuals and systems is not known, EPA has not quantified the
changes in associated health benefits. However, EPA does expect that
overall benefits from the LCR will increase as a result of the indirect
effects of the revisions on the actions of individual consumers and
systems.

N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the State and
System Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) and EPA's Response to These
Issues?

    Many commenters stated that EPA underestimated the overall burden
of the proposed rule, both for systems and for States. Many commenters
thought, for example, that both systems and States would need more time
to read and understand the rule. EPA agrees with these commenters and
has revised the burden and cost estimates for some sections of the
rule, and for the implementation activities. In particular, EPA made an
upward revision to the burden estimate for the larger systems,
estimating that it would take them an average of 40 hours to read,
understand, and communicate the rule's significance to required
personnel. EPA also reviewed and revised the State implementation
burden and cost, significantly increasing these estimates (from 312
hours to 600 hours).
    One commenter stated that some NTNCWSs (e.g., schools, child care
centers, and small businesses) do not have staff to satisfactorily
implement new drinking water rules and respond to public inquiries
regarding lead in drinking water. EPA agrees with this comment and has
increased the state burden assumptions for this final rule. EPA
recognizes that ``operators'' at NTNCWSs typically have many other job
functions and are often not professional water system managers, and
that States, therefore, must continually educate, assist, and enforce
regulations to ensure compliance. Commenters also stated that EPA
underestimated the impact to States regarding the requirement to
provide a consumer notice of lead tap water monitoring results. EPA
agrees with this comment and has revised the consumer notice estimates
to indicate that additional funding will be required for this activity.
    Some commenters asserted that EPA did not address the implications
for a regulatory program assigned to ``approve'' rather than simply
``review'' treatment changes, and specifically that EPA underestimated
the costs of requiring advanced State approval. Commenters also thought
that every PWS would need to have additional and more intensive
interaction with the State prior to making any change in water
treatment or source water. While the Agency agrees with this comment,
EPA has narrowed the scope of this provision in the final rule to only
long-term changes in treatment. Since this will considerably reduce the
potential burden of the requirement by removing the daily water quality
treatment changes from consideration, EPA is not revising the cost
estimate for this change from the proposal.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under EO 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB
recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action.
    In addition, EPA has prepared an analysis of the potential costs
and benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
the Economic and Supporting Analyses: Short-Term Regulatory Changes to
the Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA, 2007a). A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and the analysis is briefly
summarized in section IV of this notice.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
    EPA requires comprehensive and current information on lead and
copper contamination and associated enforcement activities to implement
its program oversight and enforcement responsibilities mandated by the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Highly publicized incidences of
elevated drinking water lead levels prompted EPA to review and evaluate
the implementation and effectiveness of the LCR on a national basis. As
a result of this multi-part review, EPA identified seven targeted rule
changes that clarify the intent of the LCR and ensure and enhance
protection of public health through reduction in lead exposure. EPA
will use the information collected as a result of the short-term
revisions to the LCR to support the responsibilities outlined in SDWA
by strengthening the implementation of the LCR in the areas of
monitoring, customer awareness, and lead service line replacement. The
rule revisions described in section III of this notice are intended to
improve the implementation of the LCR and do not alter the original
maximum contaminant level goals or the fundamental approach to
controlling lead and copper in drinking water.
    Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires that there must be ``criteria
and procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably
complies with such maximum contaminant levels; including accepted
methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance
with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the
system * * *'' Furthermore, section 1445(a)(1) of SDWA requires that
every person who is a supplier of water ``shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide
such information as the Administrator may

reasonably require by regulation to assist the Administrator in
establishing regulations * * * in determining whether such person has
acted or is acting in compliance'' with this title. In addition,
section 1413(a)(3) of SDWA requires States to ``keep such records and
make such reports * * * as the Administrator may require by
regulation.''
    Section 1412(b) of SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires the Agency to
publish maximum contaminant level goals and promulgate NPDWRs for
contaminants that may have an adverse effect on the health of persons,
are known to or anticipated to occur in PWSs, or, in the opinion of the
Administrator, present an opportunity for health risk reduction. The
NPDWRs specify maximum contaminant levels or treatment techniques for
drinking water contaminants (42 U.S.C 300g.-1). Section 1412(b)(9)
requires that EPA, no less than every 6 years review, and as
appropriate, revise existing drinking water standards. Promulgation of
the LCR complies with these statutory requirements.
1. Burden Estimate
    The universe of respondents for this ICR is comprised of 52,838
CWSs and 19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of 72,213 systems (4th Quarter
2004 SDWIS/FED), and 57 States. The activities that take place during
the 3-year period covered by the ICR will vary based on the timing of
State implementation of the final rule. The rule is structured to allow
for early implementation by States within 180 days of rule publication.
Alternatively, States have up to 2 years to implement rule provisions
as described in section III.I of this notice. Because there is some
uncertainty in predicting which States will adopt early implementation
versus those that will take 2 years, EPA estimates an upper and lower
bound on ICR burden and cost estimates. The upper bound estimate
assumes all States will adopt early implementation while the lower
bound estimate assumes States will take 2 years to implement the rule.
    The total annual average respondent burden associated with this ICR
is estimated to be 206,997-297,122 burden hours. The corresponding
total annual average respondent costs are estimated to be $6.4 to $9.5
million.
    EPA estimates the annual respondent burden for PWSs to be 189,369-
271,997 hours. Annual respondent costs for PWSs are estimated to be
$5.6 to $8.4 million. The Agency estimates that the annual respondent
burden for States is 17,628-25,125 hours. The corresponding annual
average respondent costs for States are estimated to be $0.8 to $1.1
million. Table V.1 presents a summary of total burden and costs for
this ICR.

     Table V.1.--Bottom Line Average Annual Burden and Costs Upper and Lower Bound Estimates (2006 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Lower bound                 Upper bound
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Respondents.............  72,270 = 72,213 + 57        72,270 = 72,213 + 57        Public water
                                                                                systems.
                                                                                States.
Total Annual Responses............  186,524 = 171,849 + 14,675  426,483 = 391,671 + 34,812  Public water system
                                                                                responses.
                                                                                State responses.
Number of Responses per PWS.......  2.4 = 171,849/72,213        5.4 = 391,671/72,213        Total annual PWS
                                                                                responses from
                                                                                above.
                                                                                Total public water
                                                                                systems from above.
Number of Responses per State.....  257 = 14,675/57             611 = 34,812/57             Total annual State
                                                                                responses from
                                                                                above.
                                                                                Total States from
                                                                                above.
Total Annual Respondent Burden      206,997 = 189,369 + 17,628  297,122 = 271,997 + 25,125  Public water system
 Hours.                                                                                hours.
                                                                                State hours.
Hours per System for Public Water   2.6 = 189,369/72,213        3.8 = 271,997/72,213        Total PWS annual
 Systems.                                                                                hours from above.
                                                                                Total PWS from
                                                                                above.
Hours per State for States........  309 = 17,628/57             441 = 25,125/57             Total State annual
                                                                                hours from above.
                                                                                Total States from
                                                                                above.
Annual O&M Costs..................  $118,717 = $117,886 + $831  $295,205 = $293,920 +       Public water system
                                                                 $1,284                      O&M costs.
                                                                                State OM costs.
Total Annual Respondent Cost......  $6,353,532 = $5,584,289 +   $9,520,866 = $8,423,108 +   Public water system
                                     $769,243                    $1,097,758                  costs.
                                                                                State costs.
Cost Per Response.................  $32                         $21                         Public water system
                                                                                cost.
                                    $52                         $32                         State cost.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Hours (respondent  206,997 = 206,997 + 0       297,122 = 297,122 + 0       Total respondent
     plus Agency).                                                                           hours.
                                                                                Total EPA hours.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Cost (respondent   $6,353,532 = $6,353,532 +   $9,520,866 = $9,520,866 +   Total respondent
     plus Agency).                   $0                          $0                          cost.
                                                                                Total EPA cost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding. EPA burden and cost estimated under PWSS
  program.

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

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    The RFA provides default definitions for each type of small entity.
Small entities are defined under the RFA as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any ``not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.'' However, the RFA also
authorizes an agency to use alternative definitions for each category
of small entity, ``which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency'' after proposing the alternative definition(s) in the Federal
Register and taking comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-(5). In addition, to
establish an alternative small business definition, agencies must
consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for Advocacy.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, EPA defined small entities as public water systems serving
10,000 or fewer persons. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using
this alternative definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 7606,
February 13, 1998), requested public comment, consulted with the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and finalized the alternative definition
in the Consumer Confidence Reports regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19,
1998). EPA stated in that Final Rule that it would apply the
alternative definition to future drinking water regulations (including
this one) as well.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
certification is based on EPA's established definition of small
entities as public water systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. The
small entities directly regulated by this final rule are small public
water systems serving 10,000 or fewer people on an annual basis. We
have determined that 68,286 small systems may be affected by the
changes to the LCR. Table V.2 provides a summary of these small
systems, by size category and system type.

   Table V.2.--The Number of Small Systems Affected by the Final Rule
                                 Changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total
                  Size                      CWS       NTNCWS     small
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< =100..................................     13,766      9,548     23,314
101-500................................     16,240      6,997     23,237
501-1,000..............................      5,914      1,925      7,839
1,001-3,300............................      8,298        795      9,093
3,301-10,000...........................      4,707         96      4,803
                                        --------------------------------
    Total..............................     48,925     19,361     68,286
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

   Table V.3.--The Number of Small Systems Affected by Each Regulatory
                                 Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Small systems
                   Regulatory change                       impacted per
                                                               year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A................................            3,692
Regulatory Change III.B................................            (\1\)
Regulatory Change III.C................................              854
Regulatory Change III.D................................            1,009
Regulatory Change III.E................................           60,735
Regulatory Change III.F................................           49,337
Regulatory Change III.G................................               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ None--Clarifications of definitions with no direct cost impact.

Activities and Costs Associated With Rule Changes for Small Systems

    EPA has estimated the burden and costs associated with the
regulatory changes, as described in the Economic Analysis for this
final rule. The basis for many of these input values and assumptions
are described in detail in the Economic Analysis, Section 4. The
following summarizes the costs estimated for small systems.
1. One-Time Activities
    All small systems subject to the Lead and Copper Rule will be
expected to incur some costs to read the rule changes and communicate
requirements as necessary. The level of effort associated with these
activities could range from 5-8 hours for each small system. The
average cost per system for these activities is estimated at $138, for
a total cost of $9,404,000 for all 68,286 small systems. This assumes
an hourly fully loaded labor cost for small system employees ranging
from $23.86 to $33.96 (see Appendix B of the Economic Analysis).
2. Activities for Regulatory Change III.A
    Under Regulatory Change III.A, small systems with fewer than 5 taps
in States that allow 1 sample per tap will prepare and submit to the
State a one-time letter verifying the applicable number of taps and
requesting the use of the alternative sampling. Eleven States supported
the alternative sampling in their comments on the proposed rule.
However, two States did not support the alternative sampling. For
purposes of estimating costs, EPA assumed that the States that did not
support the alternative and States that did not comment on the rule
provision would not allow systems to implement the alternative since
the default requirement in the rule is that systems take a minimum of 5
samples. Based on data from SDWIS/FED on these 11 States, EPA estimates
that there are 3,692 systems with fewer than 5 taps. Preparing the one-
time request letter results in a one time cost of $28

per system. Total costs for all small systems likely to be affected by
Regulatory Change III.A are estimated at $104,000 per year.
3. Activities for Regulatory Change III.C
    Under Regulatory Change III.C, all systems that exceed the lead
action level are triggered into regularly scheduled lead tap
monitoring. Additional costs are associated with taking lead samples
more frequently and reporting the results to States. EPA estimates that
854 small systems exceed the lead action level each year. Changing from
reduced tap monitoring to regularly scheduled tap monitoring would
result in an average cost increase of $2,258 per year per system. Total
costs for all small systems likely to be affected by Regulatory Change
III.C are estimated at $1,929,000 per year.
4. Activities for Regulatory Change III.D
    Small systems that are changing treatment or adding a source would
incur additional costs under Regulatory Change III.D to prepare data in
support of treatment changes or source addition, to submit the data to
the State for review, and to coordinate with the State during the
review. These activities are estimated to take an additional 7.5 hours
per system for each treatment change or source addition. The cost for
each small system that is changing treatment or adding a source is
estimated at $196. The total cost for all small systems likely to be
affected by Regulatory Change III.D is estimated at $198,000 per year.
5. Activities for Regulatory Change III.E
    Most small systems are expected to incur additional costs under
Regulatory Change III.E when they are required to notify consumers of
tap monitoring results. The activities associated with notifying
customers vary based on the type and size of the system and include the
effort to prepare a self-certification letter to the State. The average
cost for small systems to notify customers is estimated at
approximately $17 annually. This estimate assumes one labor hour to
prepare a customer notification letter per system, 0.12 hours to
prepare the self-certification letter, and $0.43 in material costs per
sample for CWSs. EPA assumed one labor hour plus 0.12 hours for
NTNCWSs, with negligible material costs. It is important to note that
the majority of small systems are assumed to meet the lead action level
and are assumed to be on triennial monitoring. Therefore, this
requirement will only affect them once every three years. The total
cost to all small systems likely to be affected by Regulatory Change
III.E is estimated at $1,060,000.
6. Activities for Regulatory Change III.F
    Different provisions of Regulatory Change III.F apply to different
subsets of systems. All small community water systems will incur costs
to include a statement on lead in the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR),
at an average cost of $7 per system, based on the assumption of 0.25
hours to add an informational statement on lead to the CCR. Small
community water systems that exceed the lead action level will incur
costs from a variety of public education activities, at an average cost
per system of $265. The total cost for all small systems likely to be
affected by Regulatory Change III.F is estimated at $569,000.
7. Activities for Regulatory Change III.G
    Regulatory Change III.G applies to systems that had ``tested out''
lead service lines as part of a lead service line replacement program
and then re-exceeded the action level. For the purposes of subsequent
lead service line replacement efforts, the previously ``tested-out''
lines would go back into the inventory for possible re-testing and/or
replacement. Only a handful of systems are expected to be in this
situation, estimated at 1 system per year. This analysis assumes that
the 1 system is not a small system. There is no evidence that small
systems would be triggered into this regulatory change cost any more
frequently than other systems.
8. Total Small System Costs
    Table V.4 summarizes the estimated annual costs associated with all
regulatory changes. Table V.5 summarizes the one-time costs to small
systems.

Table V.4.--Total Estimated Annual Small System Costs (2006 Dollars) All
                 Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Annual       Annual       Total
                                      labor      materials      annual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A..........            0            0            0
Regulatory Change III.B..........            0            0            0
Regulatory Change III.C..........    1,783,000      146,000    1,929,000
Regulatory Change III.D..........      198,000            0      198,000
Regulatory Change III.E..........      946,000      114,000    1,060,000
Regulatory Change III.F..........      566,000        4,000      569,000
Regulatory Change III.G..........            0            0            0
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total........................    3,492,000      264,000   3,755,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Detail may not add exactly to total due to independent rounding.
  Because this table represents annual costs, some fields include zero
  values. While there are regulatory costs associated with Regulatory
  Change III.A, these costs are one-time in nature and thus do not
  include any annual costs.

 Table V.5.--Total Estimated One-Time Small System Costs (2006 Dollars)
               All Systems Serving Less Than 10,000 People
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               One-time
                                                                costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Change III.A....................................     $104,000
Implementation.............................................    9,404,000
                                                            ------------
    Total..................................................    9,508,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Average Costs Per Small System
    The estimated average compliance cost for all small systems covered
by the LCR for the final rule changes is minimal: $55 per system in
annual costs. However, there is a fairly wide range in the costs that a
system could face. EPA expects that all systems will incur the $138
one-time implementation cost. The additional annual costs could

be as low as $0 for small NTNCWSs that already notify customers of tap
monitoring results. Systems that do not already notify customers of
results could incur $17 per year. EPA estimates that small CWSs will
incur $7 per year to include a statement on the CCR. The roughly 2
percent of systems that are making a treatment change or source
addition are estimated to incur an additional $196 in the year they
make the change.
    At the high end, if a system incurred all estimated annual costs,
the total would be $2,743 per year. As EPA estimates that only 854
small systems will exceed the lead action level, at most only 854 small
systems or 1.3 percent of all small systems could potentially incur all
estimated annual costs. Those systems that do not exceed the lead
action level face a maximum potential annual cost of $220.
10. Measuring Significant Economic Impact of Rule Costs
    The costs to small systems are compared against average revenues
for small systems from all revenue sources. Small systems can be one of
three types of small entities--small businesses, small governments, or
small non-profits. The revenue estimate used for assessing impacts to
small systems in this rule is derived from two sources: (1) EPA's 2000
Community Water System Survey (CWSS) and (2) the 2002 Census of
Governments. Data from these two sources are used to calculate an
average revenue estimate for all small systems serving less than 10,000
customers and for each of 3 size categories: Those serving 25-500
customers, those serving 501-3300 customers, and those serving 3301-
10,000 customers. Analyzing impacts separately for these 3 categories
of small systems allows EPA to better identify potential impacts to the
smallest systems, which tend to have the lowest revenues. Estimates of
total revenue are shown in Table V.6 and reflect updates to EPA's
revenue analysis in the proposed rule. For more information on EPA's
revenue estimates for the small system size subcategories, please see
the Economic Analysis for the final rule.
    Using average revenues and the average cost of the regulatory
changes for all small systems, the one-time costs represent roughly
0.006 percent of annual revenues from all revenue sources. The
estimated $55 average annual compliance costs per system represent
0.003 percent of average annual revenues from all revenue sources. EPA
estimates that roughly 1.3 percent of the systems serving 10,000 or
less customers would incur all annual costs of $2,743, which is
approximately 0.127 percent of annual revenues from all sources.
    Costs as a percentage of revenues for the 3 size categories
separately are shown in Table V.6. This table compares the average
costs of the regulatory changes to the average revenues. As shown in
Table V.6, average economic impacts to small systems from these
regulatory revisions are all less than one percent of average revenue
for each of the small system size subcategories. However, as discussed
in section V.C.1 of this notice, substantial data limitations exist in
our revenue data which may limit our ability to accurately describe the
revenues available to small water systems.

                         Table V.6.--Average Costs per System and Percentage of Revenue
                                          [All revenue sources (2006$)]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
                                                                             Average                 annual cost
                         System size                           Number of   annual cost    Revenues        as
                                                                systems     per system  per system*   percentage
                                                                                of revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25-500......................................................       46,551          $41   **$550,000        0.007
501-3,300...................................................       16,932           67    1,448,000        0.005
3,301-10K...................................................        4,803          153   12,643,000        0.001
Aggregate: 25-10K...........................................       68,286           55    2,167,000        0.003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: *Includes water revenues and non-water related revenues (e.g., revenues related to the primary business
  for private entities that operate a water system to support their business or municipal general revenue for
  publicly owned and operated systems). **Estimated Total Average Revenue per system for systems serving 25-100
  is $220,000.

    In summary, the average costs for each of the small size
subcategories below 10,000 represent less than 1 percent of average
revenue from all sources. To provide additional information on the
potential economic impacts of the LCR on small entities, EPA also
examined the range of potential costs relative to revenues for the
smallest system size category (those serving 25-500 people). Average
total annual revenue for this system size is estimated to be $550,000.
As stated above, the maximum number of small systems (serving less than
10,000 people) that could possibly incur all annual total costs of
$2,743 is 854, those that exceed the lead action level. This maximum
cost represents approximately 0.5 percent of average revenues from all
sources for systems in the smallest size subcategory. However, because
of our limited data on small system revenues, we do not have the
ability to develop a distribution of revenues in this subcategory for
comparison. For those systems that do not exceed the lead action level,
the maximum potential cost that could be incurred by systems in the
smallest size category is $220, or 0.04 percent of revenue from all
sources. This analysis further supports our conclusion that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. For
Regulatory Change III.A, EPA added a provision that gives States the
discretion to allow water systems with fewer than 5 taps for human
consumption to collect one sample per tap. Under this alternative
sampling schedule, the sample with the highest test result will be
compared to the action level to determine compliance. Taking fewer than
5 samples for each monitoring event will reduce the monitoring burden
for small systems while still being protective of public health.
Comparing the single highest sample value 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.
    Regulatory Change III.C requires systems that exceed the lead
action level to resume tap monitoring for lead on a regular basis,
rather than on a reduced schedule. Originally EPA considered extending
this requirement to both lead

and copper monitoring. Based on guidance from the work group on
minimizing impacts to small systems, EPA limited the requirement to
only include lead action level exceedances.
    Regulatory Change III.E requires systems to provide lead monitoring
results to consumers. The regulatory development work group considered
including copper monitoring results in the consumer notice, but decided
to defer that suggestion for consideration in future regulatory
revisions, thereby limiting the increase in burden to small systems.
11. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Commenters on the Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis and EPA's Response to These Issues?
    EPA received one comment on its Regulatory Flexibility analysis
supporting the proposed rule. The commenter agreed with EPA's
certification that the LCR will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, but recommended that EPA
provide more detailed information concerning the economic impacts of
these regulatory changes to subcategories of small entities. In
response to this commenter, EPA provided additional information in the
final rule on the potential impacts to systems in the three smallest
size subcategories (those serving 25-500, 501-3,300, and 3,301 to
10,000 people) and has considered this information in evaluating
impacts to small systems.
    In certifying that these regulatory changes will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
EPA assessed the economic impacts of this final rule on small water
systems by calculating an average revenue estimate for systems serving
less than 10,000 customers and comparing it to an average cost estimate
for systems serving less than 10,000. EPA then evaluated data on the
costs and revenues per system for three small size subcategories as
defined in the SDWA for affordability determinations for small systems.
EPA believes that for this rule this is a reasonable way to stratify
the small system universe by size for purposes of its RFA screening
analysis as well. EPA is continuing to examine issues associated with
the significant variety of entities that operate small water systems
and how best to analyze them under the RFA, and may further refine its
analytical approach for future rule makings.
    EPA is also working to improve its estimation of small system
revenues. The new CWSS, estimated for completion in early 2009, is
expected to better enable EPA to assess the impacts of future
regulatory actions on small systems. In the new CWSS, we are taking
steps to improve response rate, particularly with respect to water
system revenue estimates. Examples of these steps include linking
municipal government revenues to the system surveyed in that
municipality, rather than reliance on the Census of Governments data;
decreasing item non-response on revenue source through system site
visits; and gaining a better understanding of how a water system pays
for its system operations in systems that report no revenue, through an
additional survey question. These improvements to the new CWSS will
help EPA to gain a better understanding of the revenue sources
available to small water systems and improve our ability to accurately
understand the revenue streams available to these systems.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. The total upfront costs of this action to
States and public water systems are estimated at $12.7 million, with
estimated annual costs to States and public water systems ranging from
$5.9 to $6.3 million. Systems and State/Primacy agencies incur one-time
upfront costs associated with reviewing and implementing the overall
LCR regulatory changes. For systems, activities include reviewing the
rule changes and training staff. For States/Primacy agencies,
activities include regulation adoption, program development, and
miscellaneous training. Systems and States also incur annual costs
consisting of the costs to implement the regulation. Annual costs to
systems include the costs of reporting, monitoring, and public
education. Annual costs to States consist of the costs of reviewing
water system information. Thus, this rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The rule is consistent with, and only makes revisions to,
the requirements under the current NPDWR for lead and copper. The
existing rule imposes requirements on PWSs to ensure that water
delivered to users is minimally corrosive; the rule requires removal of
lead service lines and the provision of public education where
necessary to ensure public health protection. This final rule does not
make any significant changes to these requirements, but makes revisions
and clarifications to the rule's requirements to enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of current rule requirements.
    Nevertheless, in developing this rule, EPA consulted with State and
local officials (including small entity representatives) early in the
process of developing the proposed regulation to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA held five
workshops in 2004-2005 to elicit concerns and suggestions from
stakeholders on various issues related to lead in drinking water. These
workshops covered the topic areas of simultaneous compliance, sampling
protocols, public education, lead service

line replacement, and lead in plumbing. Expert participants from
utilities, academia, state governments, consumer and environmental
groups, and other stakeholder groups participated in these workshops to
identify issues, propose solutions, and offer suggestions for
modifications and improvements to the LCR. These workshops are
described in greater detail in the Economic Analysis for this final
rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule is consistent with, and
only makes revisions to, the requirements under the current NPDWR for
lead and copper. The existing rule imposes requirements on PWSs to
ensure that water delivered to users is minimally corrosive; the rule
requires removal of lead service lines and the provision of public
education where necessary to ensure public health protection. This
final rule does not make any significant changes to these requirements,
but makes revisions and clarifications to the rule's requirements to
enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of current rule requirements.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
    Nevertheless, EPA did consult with State and local officials in
developing this final rule as described in Section V.D, Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the
proposed rule from State and local officials.

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

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

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

    Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    While this final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
we nonetheless have reason to believe that the environmental health or
safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect on
children. This final rule does not change the core LCR requirements in
place to assure the protection of children from the effects of lead in
drinking water; rather, these changes improve the implementation of
these provisions. Moreover, EPA believes that this final rule is
consistent with Executive Order 13045 because it further strengthens
the protection to children from exposure to lead via drinking water as
it enhances the implementation of the LCR in the areas of monitoring,
customer awareness, and lead service line replacement. This final rule
also clarifies the intent of some provisions in the LCR. These changes
are expected to ensure and enhance more effective protection of public
health through the reduction in lead exposure.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

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

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

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A Major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective December 10, 2007.

VI. References

U.S. EPA, 1991a. Federal Register. Vol. 56, No. 110. Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule (Fri. Jun. 7, 1991),
26460-26564. (56 FR 26460).
U.S. EPA, 1991b. Final Regulatory Impact Analysis of National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared by
Wade Miller Associates, Inc. (April 1991).
U.S. EPA, 1996a. Federal Register. Vol. 60, No. 72. Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (Friday, April 12,
1996), 16348-16371. (60 FR 16348).
U.S. EPA, 1996b. Regulatory Impact Analysis Addendum. EPA 812-B-96-
002, January 1996.
U.S. EPA, 1998. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 160. Consumer
Confidence Reports (August 19, 1998) (63 FR 44526).
U.S. EPA, 2000a. Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Economic Analysis.
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA 815-R-00-026,
December 2000.
U.S. EPA, 2000b. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 8. National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Wed,
January 12, 2000), 1950-2015 (65 FR 1950).
U.S. EPA, 2000c. Federal Register. Vol. 65, No. 87. Public
Notification of Drinking Water Violations (May 4, 2000) (65 FR
26035).
U.S. EPA, 2004a. Information Collection Request for Disinfection
Byproducts, Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules. OMB Control Number:
2040-0204. EPA Tracking Number: 1896.03. Appendix H, page H-43,
table entitled ``Tap Monitoring for Lead & Copper--Monitoring,
Burden, and Cost Assumptions.'' September, 2004.
U.S. EPA, 2004b. State Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule.
July, 2004.
U.S. EPA, 2005a. Economic Analysis for the Final Long Term 2
Enhances Surface Water Treatment Rule. Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, EPA 815-R-06-001, December 2005.
U.S. EPA, 2005b. Economic Analysis for the Final Stage 2
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, EPA 815-R-05-010, December 2005.
U.S. EPA, 2006a. Federal Register. Vol. 71, No. 137. National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-term
Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications; Proposed Rule (July 18,
2006), 40828-40863 (71 FR 40828).
U.S. EPA, 2006b. EPA Air Quality Criteria for Lead (Final). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-05/144aF-
bF, October, 2006.
U.S. EPA, 2007a. Economic and Supporting Analyses: Short-Term
Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, EPA-815-R0-7022, September 2007.
U.S. EPA, 2007b. Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual for the
Long Term 2 and Stage 2 DBP Rules. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA 815-R-07-017, March 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

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

    Dated: September 25, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 141.80 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(a)(2), by adding paragraph (c)(3)(v), and by revising paragraph (g) to
read as follows:

Sec.  141.80  General requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) For a public water system that has been allowed by the State to
collect fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(c), the
sample result with the highest concentration is considered the 90th
percentile value.
* * * * *
    (g) Public education requirements. Pursuant to Sec.  141.85, all
water systems must provide a consumer notice of lead tap water
monitoring results to persons served at the sites (taps) that are
tested. Any system exceeding the lead action level shall implement the
public education requirements.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 141.81 is amended as follows by:
0
a. Removing the first sentence in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding in
its place the following two sentences;
0
b. Revising the last sentence in paragraph (e)(1);
0
c. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (e)(2) introductory text;
0
d. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and
0
e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii).

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (iii) Any water system deemed to have optimized corrosion control
pursuant to this paragraph shall notify the State in writing pursuant
to Sec.  141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming long-term change in treatment or
addition of a new source as described in that section. The State must
review and approve the addition of a new source or long-term change in
water treatment before it is implemented by the water system. * * *
* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * * A system exceeding the lead or copper action level shall
recommend optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(a)) within
six months after the end of the monitoring period during which it
exceeds one of the action levels.
    (2) Step 2: Within 12 months after the end of the monitoring period
during which a system exceeds the lead or copper action level, the
State may

require the system to perform corrosion control studies (Sec.
141.82(b)). * * *
    (i) For medium-size systems, within 18 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.
    (ii) For small systems, within 24 months after the end of the
monitoring period during which such system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 141.83(a)(1) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  141.83  Source water treatment requirements.

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

0
5. Section 141.84 is amended as follows by:
0
a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as (b)(1);
0
b. Revising the last sentence in the newly designated (b)(1) and adding
two sentences to the end of the paragraph;
0
c. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and
0
d. In paragraph (f), revise ``paragraph (b)'' to read ``paragraph
(b)(2)''.

Sec.  141.84  Lead service line replacement requirements.

* * * * *
    (b)(1) * * * The first year of lead service line replacement shall
begin on the first day following the end of the monitoring period in
which the action level was exceeded under paragraph (a) of this
section. If monitoring is required annually or less frequently, the end
of the monitoring period is September 30 of the calendar year in which
the sampling occurs. If the State has established an alternate
monitoring period, then the end of the monitoring period will be the
last day of that period.
    (2) Any water system resuming a lead service line replacement
program after the cessation of its lead service line replacement
program as allowed by paragraph (f) of this section shall update its
inventory of lead service lines to include those sites that were
previously determined not to require replacement through the sampling
provision under paragraph (c) of this section. The system will then
divide the updated number of remaining lead service lines by the number
of remaining years in the program to determine the number of lines that
must be replaced per year (7 percent lead service line replacement is
based on a 15-year replacement program, so, for example, systems
resuming lead service line replacement after previously conducting two
years of replacement would divide the updated inventory by 13). For
those systems that have completed a 15-year lead service line
replacement program, the State will determine a schedule for replacing
or retesting lines that were previously tested out under the
replacement program when the system re-exceeds the action level.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  141.85  Public education and supplemental monitoring
requirements.

    All water systems must deliver a consumer notice of lead tap water
monitoring results to persons served by the water system at sites that
are tested, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. A water
system that exceeds the lead action level based on tap water samples
collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86 shall deliver the public
education materials contained in paragraph (a) of this section in
accordance with the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section.
Water systems that exceed the lead action level must sample the tap
water of any customer who requests it in accordance with paragraph (c)
of this section.
    (a) Content of written public education materials. (1) Community
water systems and Non-transient non-community water systems. Water
systems must include the following elements in printed materials (e.g.,
brochures and pamphlets) in the same order as listed below. In
addition, language in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (ii) and (a)(1)(vi)
of this section must be included in the materials, exactly as written,
except for the text in brackets in these paragraphs for which the water
system must include system-specific information. Any additional
information presented by a water system must be consistent with the
information below and be in plain language that can be understood by
the general public. Water systems must submit all written public
education materials to the State prior to delivery. The State may
require the system to obtain approval of the content of written public
materials prior to delivery.
    (i) IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR DRINKING WATER.
[INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found elevated levels of lead in drinking
water in some homes/buildings. Lead can cause serious health problems,
especially for pregnant women and young children. Please read this
information closely to see what you can do to reduce lead in your
drinking water.
    (ii) Health effects of lead. Lead can cause serious health problems
if too much enters your body from drinking water or other sources. It
can cause damage to the brain and kidneys, and can interfere with the
production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of your
body. The greatest risk of lead exposure is to infants, young children,
and pregnant women. Scientists have linked the effects of lead on the
brain with lowered IQ in children. Adults with kidney problems and high
blood pressure can be affected by low levels of lead more than healthy
adults. Lead is stored in the bones, and it can be released later in
life. During pregnancy, the child receives lead from the mother's
bones, which may affect brain development.
    (iii) Sources of Lead.
    (A) Explain what lead is.
    (B) Explain possible sources of lead in drinking water and how lead
enters drinking water. Include information on home/building plumbing
materials and service lines that may contain lead.
    (C) Discuss other important sources of lead exposure in addition to
drinking water (e.g., paint).
    (iv) Discuss the steps the consumer can take to reduce their
exposure to lead in drinking water.
    (A) Encourage running the water to flush out the lead.
    (B) Explain concerns with using hot water from the tap and
specifically caution against the use of hot water for preparing baby
formula.
    (C) Explain that boiling water does not reduce lead levels.
    (D) Discuss other options consumers can take to reduce exposure to
lead in drinking water, such as alternative sources or treatment of
water.
    (E) Suggest that parents have their child's blood tested for lead.
    (v) Explain why there are elevated levels of lead in the system's
drinking water (if known) and what the water system is doing to reduce
the lead levels in homes/buildings in this area.
    (vi) For more information, call us at [INSERT YOUR NUMBER] [(IF
APPLICABLE), or visit our Web site at [INSERT YOUR WEB SITE HERE]]. For
more information on reducing lead exposure around your home/building
and the health effects of lead, visit EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/lead
 or contact your health care provider.

    (2) Community water systems. In addition to including the elements
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, community water systems
must:
    (i) Tell consumers how to get their water tested.
    (ii) Discuss lead in plumbing components and the difference between
low lead and lead free.
    (b) Delivery of public education materials. (1) For public water
systems serving a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers,
as determined by the State, the public education materials must contain
information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of
the notice or contain a telephone number or address where persons
served may contact the water system to obtain a translated copy of the
public education materials or to request assistance in the appropriate
language.
    (2) A community water system that exceeds the lead action level on
the basis of tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.
141.86, and that is not already conducting public education tasks under
this section, must conduct the public education tasks under this
section within 60 days after the end of the monitoring period in which
the exceedance occurred:
    (i) Deliver printed materials meeting the content requirements of
paragraph (a) of this section to all bill paying customers.
    (ii)(A) Contact customers who are most at risk by delivering
education materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a)
of this section to local public health agencies even if they are not
located within the water system's service area, along with an
informational notice that encourages distribution to all the
organization's potentially affected customers or community water
system's users. The water system must contact the local public health
agencies directly by phone or in person. The local public health
agencies may provide a specific list of additional community based
organizations serving target populations, which may include
organizations outside the service area of the water system. If such
lists are provided, systems must deliver education materials that meet
the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to all
organizations on the provided lists.
    (B) Contact customers who are most at risk by delivering materials
that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to
the following organizations listed in 1 through 6 that are located
within the water system's service area, along with an informational
notice that encourages distribution to all the organization's
potentially affected customers or community water system's users:
    (1) Public and private schools or school boards.
    (2) Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and Head Start programs.
    (3) Public and private hospitals and medical clinics.
    (4) Pediatricians.
    (5) Family planning clinics.
    (6) Local welfare agencies.
    (C) Make a good faith effort to locate the following organizations
within the service area and deliver materials that meet the content
requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to them, along with an
informational notice that encourages distribution to all potentially
affected customers or users. The good faith effort to contact at-risk
customers may include requesting a specific contact list of these
organizations from the local public health agencies, even if the
agencies are not located within the water system's service area:
    (1) Licensed childcare centers
    (2) Public and private preschools.
    (3) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and Midwives.
    (iii) No less often than quarterly, provide information on or in
each water bill as long as the system exceeds the action level for