Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short- Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications; Final Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57782 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For ICR: Information Collection Request AGENCY technical inquiries, contact Jeffrey LCR: Lead and Copper Rule Kempic, Office of Ground Water and LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142 Drinking Water (MC 4607M), Revisions LSL: Lead Service Line [EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0034; FRL–8476–5] Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 LSLR: Lead Service Line Replacement Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, LT2: Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water RIN 2040–AE83 DC 20460; telephone number: (202) Treatment Rule 564–4880; e-mail address: MCLG: Maximum Contaminant Level Goal National Primary Drinking Water [email protected]. For regulatory MDL: Method Detection Limit Regulations for Lead and Copper: inquiries, contact Eric Burneson, Office NDWAC: National Drinking Water Advisory Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and of Ground Water and Drinking Water Council Clarifications (MC 4607M), Environmental Protection NPDWR: National Primary Drinking Water Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Regulation AGENCY: Environmental Protection NTNCWS: Non-Transient Non-Community Agency (EPA). Washington, DC 20460; telephone Water System ACTION: Final rule. number: (202) 564–5250; e-mail address: O&M: Operation and Maintenance costs [email protected]. OMB: Office of Management and Budget SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing seven SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PE: Public Education targeted regulatory changes to the POE: Point-of-Entry Devices National Primary Drinking Water I. General Information POU: Point-of-Use Devices Regulations (NPDWR) for lead and A. Does This Action Apply to Me? RFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act copper. This final rule strengthens the RIA: Regulatory Impact Analysis Entities potentially affected by the SBA: Small Business Administration implementation of the Lead and Copper Lead and Copper Rule Short-Term SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act Rule (LCR) in the following areas: Regulatory Revisions final rulemaking SDWIS/FED: Safe Drinking Water monitoring, treatment processes, public are public water systems (PWSs) that are Information System, Federal Version education, customer awareness, and classified as either community water UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform Act lead service line replacement. These systems (CWSs) or non-transient non- C. Table of Contents changes provide more effective community water systems (NTNCWSs). protection of public health by reducing Regulated categories and entities I. Background exposure to lead in drinking water. include: A. What Is the Statutory Authority for the DATES: This final rule is effective on Lead and Copper Rule? B. What Is the Regulatory History of the December 10, 2007. Examples of Lead and Copper Rule? Category regulated entities The compliance date for all of this C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR final rule’s provisions is 180 days after Industry ...... Privately-owned Short-Term Regulatory Revisions? promulgation except if by that date, the CWSs and II. What Do the LCR Short-Term Regulatory primacy State has not adopted this rule, NTNCWSs. Revisions Require? in which case compliance with this State, Tribal, and local Publicly-owned A. Minimum Number of Samples Required final rule is required the earlier of either governments. CWSs and B. Definitions for Compliance and NTNCWSs. Monitoring Periods the State’s adoption of the rule, or two C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria years after December 10, 2007. For D. Advanced Notification and Approval purposes of judicial review, this rule is This table is not intended to be Requirements for Water Systems That promulgated as of October 10, 2007 as exhaustive, but rather provides a guide Intend to Make Any Long-Term Change provided in 40 CFR 23.7. for readers regarding entities likely to be in Water Treatment or Add a New ADDRESSES: EPA has established a regulated by this action. This table lists Source of Water docket for this action under Docket ID the types of entities that EPA is now E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer No. EPA–HQ–OW–2005–0034. All aware could potentially be regulated by Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring this action. Other types of entities not Results to Consumers Who Occupy documents in the docket are listed on Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for the www.regulations.gov Web site. listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your Lead Although listed in the index, some F. Public Education Requirements information is not publicly available, facility is regulated by this action, you G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines e.g., CBI or other information whose should carefully examine the definition Deemed Replaced Through Testing disclosure is restricted by statute. of ‘‘public water system’’ in § 141.2, the III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper Rule Certain other material, such as section entitled ‘‘Coverage’’ of § 141.3, Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and copyrighted material, is not placed on and the applicability criteria in Clarifications the Internet and will be publicly § 141.80(a) of title 40 of the Code of A. Minimum Number of Samples Required Federal Regulations. If you have 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? available only in hard copy form. 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Publicly available docket materials are questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult Minimum Number of Samples Required available either electronically through Revisions? www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at one of the persons listed in the 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by the Water Docket, EPA Docket Center, preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Commenters on the Minimum Number of EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 CONTACT section. Samples Required Revisions and EPA’s Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, B. Abbreviations Used in This Response to These Issues? B. Definitions for Compliance and DC. The Public Reading Room is open Document from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday Monitoring Periods 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? through Friday, excluding legal AL: Action Level CCR: Consumer Confidence Report 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the holidays. The telephone number for the CFR: Code of Federal Regulations Compliance and Monitoring Period Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, CWS: Community Water System Definition Revisions? and the telephone number for the Water CWSS: Community Water System Survey 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Docket is (202) 566–2426. EPA: Environmental Protection Agency Commenters on the Compliance and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57783

Monitoring Period Definition Revisions G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Significantly Affect Energy Supply, and EPA’s Response to These Issues? Deemed Replaced Through Testing Distribution, or Use C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? I. National Technology Transfer and 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Advancement Act 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Reduced Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines J. Congressional Review Act Monitoring Revisions? Revisions? VI. References 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By Commenters on the Reduced Monitoring Commenters on the Reevaluation of Lead I. Background Revisions and EPA’s Response to These Service Lines Revisions and EPA’s A. What Is the Statutory Authority for Issues? Response to These Issues? the Lead and Copper Rule? D. Advanced Notification and Approval H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and Requirement for Water Systems That Copper Rule The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Intend to Make Any Long-Term Changes 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) requires EPA to in Water Treatment or Add a New 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for Not establish maximum contaminant level Source of Water Including Any of These Other Issues in goals (MCLGs) and National Primary 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? the Final Rule Revisions? Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for Advanced 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by for contaminants that may have an Notification and Approval of Long-Term Commenters on These Other Issues and Treatment Changes or Addition of New EPA’s Response to These Issues? adverse effect on the health of persons, Source Revisions? I. Compliance Dates may occur in public water systems at a 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by 1. What Are the New Compliance Dates for frequency and level of public concern, Commenters on the Advanced This Rule? and in the sole judgment of the Notification and Approval of Long-Term 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Administrator, regulation of the Treatment Changes or Addition of New Compliance Dates? contaminant would present a Source Revisions and EPA’s Response to 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by meaningful opportunity for health risk These Issues? Commenters on the Compliance Dates reduction for persons served by public E. Requirements to Provide a Consumer and EPA’s Response to These Issues? water systems (section 1412(b)(1)(A)). Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring J. State Implementation The 1986 amendments to SDWA Results to Consumers Who Occupy 1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for Affect A State’s Primacy Program? established a list of 83 contaminants for Lead 2. What Does a State Have to Do to Apply? which EPA is to develop MCLGs and 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 3. How Are Tribes Affected? NPDWRs, which included lead and 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the IV. Economic Analysis copper. The 1991 NPDWR for Lead and Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water A. Direct Costs Copper (56 FR 26460, U.S. EPA, 1991a) Monitoring Results Revisions? B. Overall Cost Methodologies and fulfilled the requirements of the 1986 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Assumptions SDWA amendments with respect to lead Commenters on the Consumer Notice of C. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory and copper. Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results Change III.A Revisions and EPA’s Response to These D. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory B. What Is the Regulatory History of the Issues? Change III.B Lead and Copper Rule? F. Public Education Requirements E. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory 1. Message Content Change III.C EPA promulgated maximum a. How Is EPA Revising the Message F. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory contaminant level goals (MCLGs) and Content? Change III.D NPDWRs for lead and copper (LCR) on b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Message G. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory June 7, 1991. The goal of the LCR is to Content Revisions? Change III.E provide maximum human health c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by H. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory protection by reducing lead and copper Commenters on the Message Content Change III.F levels at consumers’ taps to as close to Revisions and EPA’s Response to These I. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish Issues? Change III.G this goal, the LCR establishes 2. Delivery J. Summary of National Average Annual a. How Is EPA Revising the Delivery Direct Costs requirements for community water Requirements? K. Total Upfront Costs to Review and systems (CWSs) and non-transient non- b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Delivery Implement Regulatory Changes community water systems (NTNCWSs) Requirements Revisions? L. Indirect Costs to optimize corrosion control and c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by M. Benefits conduct periodic monitoring. Systems Commenters on the Delivery N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by are required to perform public Requirements Revisions and EPA’s Commenters on the State and System education when there are action level Response to These Issues? Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) exceedances at more than 10 percent of 3. Timing and EPA’s Response to These Issues? the taps that are sampled, treat source a. How Is EPA Revising the Timing V. Statutory and Executive Order Provisions of the Rule? Requirements water if it contributes significantly to b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for Revising the A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory lead and copper levels at the tap, and Timing Provisions of the Rule? Planning and Review replace lead service lines in the c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by B. Paperwork Reduction Act distribution system if the lead level at Commenters on the Timing Provisions C. Regulatory Flexibility Act the tap continues to exceed the action and EPA’s Response to These Issues? D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act level after optimal corrosion control has 4. Consumer Confidence Reports E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism been installed. EPA proposed minor a. How Is EPA Revising CCR F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation revisions to the LCR (LCRMR) in 1996 Requirements? and Coordination With Indian Tribal (60 FR 16348, U.S. EPA 1996a) and b. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the CCR Governments Revisions? G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of finalized these minor revisions on c. What Were the Key Issues Raised by Children From Environmental Health January 12, 2000 (65 FR 1950, U.S. EPA Commenters on the CCR Requirements Risks and Safety Risks 2000b). These minor revisions Revisions and EPA’s Response to These H. Executive Order 13211: Actions streamlined the requirements of the Issues? Concerning Regulations That LCR, promoted consistent national

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57784 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

implementation, and reduced the II. What Do the LCR Short-Term the clarified definition of the term reporting burden to affected entities. Regulatory Revisions Require? ‘‘monitoring period,’’ EPA is allowing States flexibility in extending the These minor revisions also addressed A. Minimum Number of Samples timeframe to complete public education the areas of optimal corrosion control Required demonstration, lead service line activities after an action level (AL) replacement requirements, public 1. Proposed Revision exceedance. For more information and education requirements, monitoring The proposed LCR Short-Term EPA’s response to significant public requirements, analytical methods, Regulatory Revisions (71 FR 40828, July comments, see section III.B of this reporting and recordkeeping 18, 2006, U.S. EPA 2006a) clarified and notice. requirements, and special primacy maintained that five samples per C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria considerations. The LCRMR did not monitoring period is the minimum change the action level, MCLG, or the number of samples required for systems 1. Proposed Revision serving 100 people or fewer. rule’s basic requirements. EPA proposed a revision that would C. Why Is EPA Promulgating the LCR 2. Final Revision disallow water systems that exceeded Short-Term Regulatory Revisions? EPA’s final revision to the minimum the lead action level from initiating or number of samples requirement adds a remaining on a reduced lead and copper The purpose of the Lead and Copper provision that gives States the discretion monitoring schedule based solely on the Rule (LCR) is to protect populations to allow water systems with fewer than results of their water quality parameter from exposure to lead and copper in five taps for human consumption to (WQP) monitoring. This proposed drinking water and reduce potential collect one sample per tap. Under this change would modify the reduced health risks associated with lead and alternate sampling schedule, the sample monitoring provisions at § 141.86(d)(4). copper. In 2004, the District of with the highest test result will be 2. Final Revision Columbia experienced incidences of compared to the action level to elevated drinking water lead levels, determine compliance. While fewer EPA is maintaining the revision as which prompted EPA to initiate a samples may be taken, comparing the proposed for reduced monitoring comprehensive national review of the single highest level provides public criteria. For more information and LCR to evaluate the implementation and health protection since it does not allow EPA’s response to significant public effectiveness of the rule. The purpose of water systems to ignore a potential comments, see section III.C of this the review was to determine whether problem by taking repeat samples at notice. elevated drinking water lead levels were taps that have low lead results when D. Advanced Notification and Approval a national problem; if a large percentage they get a high sample result. See Requirements for Water Systems That of the population received water that section III.A for more information on Intend To Make Any Long-Term Change exceeded the lead action level; if a this regulatory revision and also for EPA’s response to significant public in Water Treatment or Add a New significant number of systems failed to Source of Water meet the action level; how well the comments on the proposal. A complete existing LCR worked to reduce drinking response to all comments on this rule is 1. Proposed Revision water lead levels; and if the regulation found in the Lead and Copper Docket at is currently being effectively www.regulations.gov. EPA proposed to amend several sections of the Code of Federal implemented, especially with respect to B. Definitions for Compliance and Regulations (CFR) to require water monitoring and public education Monitoring Periods systems to obtain prior approval by the requirements. EPA’s comprehensive 1. Proposed Revision State to add a new source of water or review consisted of several elements, change a treatment process prior to EPA’s proposed revision clarified the including a series of workshops implementation. designed to solicit issues, comments, ‘‘compliance period’’ as the three year and suggestions from stakeholders on calendar period as defined at § 141.2 2. Final Revision particular issues; a review of monitoring and the ‘‘monitoring period’’ as the data to evaluate the effectiveness of the specific period in which water systems EPA is maintaining the revision as proposed for advanced notification and LCR; and a review of the LCR must conduct required monitoring. EPA approval requirements with a slight implementation by States and water also proposed to revise several sections modification to clarify EPA’s intention. utilities. As a result of this multi-part of the LCR to more precisely define In finalizing this regulatory revision, review, EPA identified seven targeted when the ‘‘start date’’ for the compliance calendar begins. EPA also EPA is clarifying the requirements for rule changes intended to strengthen the advance notification and approval to implementation of the LCR in the areas proposed to clarify that systems on reduced monitoring schedules must apply to those treatment changes that of monitoring, customer awareness, and monitor during four consecutive would have long-term impacts on water lead service line replacement in the months, and systems on triennial quality. EPA has provided examples of short-term. The short-term changes monitoring must monitor once every 3 long-term treatment changes in finalized in this action are expected to calendar years, with a similar § 141.90(a)(3) of this final rule. EPA ensure and enhance protection of public requirement for small systems with a believes that this clarification will health by reducing exposure to lead in monitoring waiver to ensure they prevent water systems from notifying drinking water. This final rule does not monitor every 9 years. the State and requesting approval for amend the portion of the regulations changes that are operational in nature or related to copper, however provisions 2. Final Revision made on a daily basis. See section III.D addressing copper will be considered EPA is maintaining the revision as of this notice for more information for future revisions to the rule. EPA will proposed for defining the compliance regarding this regulatory revision and propose any future regulatory changes and monitoring periods. Based on EPA’s response to significant public under a separate regulatory action. commenter concerns with implementing comments on this issue.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57785

E. Requirements To Provide a Consumer approval at the option of the State. this situation, the water system must Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring Generally, EPA is retaining the delivery sample all taps at least once and then Results to Consumers Who Occupy requirements as proposed, but has made take repeat samples on different days Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for modifications to address challenges until a total of five samples are Lead with water system jurisdiction and obtained. EPA is, however, adding a provision 1. Proposed Revision delivery of materials. EPA is now requiring that all systems have a simple to § 141.86(c) that gives States the EPA proposed revisions to require informational statement about lead in discretion to allow water systems that water systems to notify consumers in their CCR because the actual level of have fewer than five taps, to collect one homes or buildings tested for lead of lead exposure for drinking water varies sample per tap that can be used for their results. Specifically, systems must between individual homes and levels human consumption. To qualify for this provide written notification to detected by the system for compliance provision, the water system must make household occupants within 30 days and would not necessarily reflect the a request to the State in writing and the after the water system learns the results risk faced by consumers. EPA also State must approve the request in for samples collected from that realizes there are situations where the writing or by onsite verification. Under household and post or otherwise notify most vulnerable populations may be this alternate sampling schedule for all occupants of non-residential buildings exposed to elevated levels of lead for water systems collecting fewer than five of the results of lead testing. EPA also many months before being notified. In samples, the sample with the highest indicated that the consumer notification addition, this simplifies compliance test result will be compared to the lead must contain an explanation of lead tracking and enforcement of this action level to determine compliance. If health effects, list steps consumers can requirement. See section III.F of this any sample result is above the action take to reduce lead drinking water notice for more information on the final level, the system is deemed to be exposure, provide utility contact public education requirements and for exceeding the action level and must information, and include the lead EPA’s responses to significant public complete compliance actions (e.g., maximum contaminant level goal or comments. public education, corrosion control MCLG, lead action level, and definitions treatment, and lead service line of each from § 141.153(c)(1). G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines replacement). EPA is adding regulatory Deemed Replaced Through Testing 2. Final Revision text to § 141.80 to describe this new 1. Proposed Revision compliance determination. The EPA is maintaining the revision as alternate sampling schedule may also be proposed to consumer notification EPA proposed to require water applicable for water systems that are on language. EPA is also adding language systems to reevaluate lead service lines reduced monitoring and EPA is adding to § 141.85(d)(4), which provides an classified as ‘‘replaced’’ through testing a provision to § 141.86(d)(4)(i) for those example of an alternative mechanism of if they resume lead service line systems. The provision allows the water consumer notification for NTNCWSs. replacement programs. system to reduce sampling frequency to For more information and EPA’s 2. Final Revision once per year, but in no case can the response to significant public number of samples required be reduced comments, see section III.E of this EPA is maintaining the revision as below the minimum of one sample per notice. proposed for reevaluation of lead tap that can be used for human service line replacement, but is adding F. Public Education Requirements consumption. a provision to allow an alternative time 1. Proposed Revision schedule for systems that have 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the completed a 15-year replacement Minimum Number of Samples Required EPA proposed to revise the public Revisions? education requirements of the LCR in program before re-exceeding the lead the areas of message content, delivery action level. For more information and In the original Lead and Copper Rule requirements, and the Consumer EPA’s response to significant public of 1991, the term ‘‘site’’ is used to refer Confidence Report (CCR). The proposed comments, see section III.G of this to the number of samples collected, and revisions would modify the mandatory notice. there has been confusion as to whether ‘‘site’’ refers to taps or physical language in public education to make it III. Discussion of the Lead and Copper locations. EPA is clarifying that shorter and easier to understand; require Rule Short-Term Regulatory Revisions sampling ‘‘sites’’ refer to ‘‘taps that can water systems to deliver material to new and Clarifications organizations, engage in new outreach be used for human consumption.’’ The activities, post lead information on A. Minimum Number of Samples phrase ‘‘that can be used for human water bills, issue two press releases Required consumption,’’ is being added to the regulations to ensure that samples are during periods of lead action level 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? exceedance; and modify the CCR such taken from taps which would pose the that all CWSs with lead detects above EPA is clarifying the minimum highest risk for exposure to lead, rather the method detection limit (MDL) of sampling requirement for small water than from taps that are not typically 0.001 mg/L would have to include systems that have fewer than five taps used for human consumption. information about the risks of lead in by making revisions to § 141.86(c). EPA is also making clarifications for drinking water in the CCR on a regular These revisions include a clarification water systems that have fewer than five basis. that the term ‘‘taps’’ means ‘‘taps that taps that can be used for human can be used for human consumption,’’ consumption. In the proposal for this 2. Final Revision as opposed to outlets such as hose bibs rule, EPA maintained that systems must EPA is maintaining the proposed or taps at utility sinks. In addition, the take a minimum of five samples in order revisions to the public education revisions clarify what a system must do to adequately capture the variability of requirements, but is adding a provision to meet the minimum five number of lead levels and that it was more cost that water systems must submit public samples requirement when the system effective for small systems to take more education language for State review and physically has fewer than five taps. In samples than install corrosion control or

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57786 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

source treatment based on a small pool fewer than 5 samples must compare the timing of monitoring activities with of samples taken (71 FR 40828 at 40831, sample with the highest concentration regard to reduced monitoring schedules. U.S. EPA, 2006a). EPA is maintaining to the action level. By taking fewer than EPA is clarifying that the term that systems must take a minimum of 5 samples, systems with fewer than 5 ‘‘compliance period’’ is a three-year five samples as part of this rule. taps are giving up the opportunity to calendar year period within a nine-year However, EPA is also giving States the take repeat samples at taps with low compliance cycle, which is consistent discretion to offer an alternative lead results. with the definition in § 141.2. EPA is requirement, on which it requested Two States supported not changing also defining the term ‘‘monitoring comment in the proposed rule, the minimum number of samples period’’ as the specific time period described as follows. requirement because of the during which a water system must EPA requested comment on an administrative burden of verifying perform the required monitoring (e.g., June–September). alternative sampling requirement for available taps. Although other NTNCWS with fewer than five taps that In this case and consistent with these commenters believed that there was no can be used for human consumption. definitions, systems will be deemed to better statistical representation than The water systems would be required to be exceeding the action level as of the sampling 100 percent of taps in a sample 100 percent of the taps that can date on which the monitoring period system, one of the States stated that it be used for human consumption. Under ended (i.e., on September 30). EPA is is statistically ‘‘risky’’ to base the alternative sampling provision, modifying several sections of the LCR compliance on a single sample since systems collecting fewer than five that describe the timing of actions after lead levels vary greatly even with samples will compare the sample with an action level exceedance, including corrosion control treatment in place. the highest result to the action level to corrosion control treatment steps in The other State that did not favor the determine if they must complete § 141.81(e), source water monitoring compliance actions such as public alternative suggested that EPA offer and treatment recommendations to the education, corrosion control treatment States discretion to allow the alternative State in § 141.83(a), lead service line installation, and/or lead service line of sampling 100 percent of taps. EPA replacement in § 141.84(b)(1), public replacement. EPA believes that agrees with the State and has made education for community water systems requiring systems to use the highest changes in this rule to reflect this in § 141.85(b)(2) and for non-transient sample result to determine compliance suggestion. Because the alternative is non-community water systems in is health protective because it does not not mandatory, those States which do § 141.85(b)(4), source water monitoring allow water systems to take repeat not agree with the provision are not requirements in § 141.88(b) and (d), and samples at taps that have low levels of required to allow water systems to the reporting requirements in lead when they get a high sample result. utilize the alternative sampling § 141.90(a) and (e). In addition, the alternative sampling schedule. Also, for systems on reduced schedule alleviates the cost burden In their comments, a few States monitoring, the monitoring period is associated with taking repeat samples. indicated that small systems with fewer from June to September or some other After evaluating comments, EPA has than 5 taps are ‘‘primarily’’ NTNCWSs, consecutive four-month period during determined that the alternative thus indicating that some are CWSs. The normal operation when the highest lead sampling provision will also be made commenters who supported this levels are most likely to occur. EPA has available to CWS with fewer than five approach did not provide any reason for modified the reduced monitoring taps for human consumption, such as limiting this to NTNCWSs and in fact, provisions in § 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) to washeterias in Alaska and Navajo the reasons for supporting the reflect this requirement. In addition, the hauling points. alternative would apply equally well to Agency is clarifying when a system may any small system with fewer than 5 begin reduced monitoring in 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by taps. As a result, States can approve the § 141.86(d)(4)(i) and (ii), as well as Commenters on the Minimum Number alternative monitoring for both CWSs when a system on reduced monitoring of Samples Required Revisions and must resume standard monitoring EPA’s Response to These Issues? and NTNCWSs with fewer than five taps. In expanding this alternative according to § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B). In The majority of commenters did not monitoring to CWSs, EPA emphasizes addition, the timing for water quality agree with EPA’s proposal to require that this is only allowed for systems parameter monitoring is now more water systems with fewer than five taps such as washeterias in Alaska and clearly defined in § 141.87(d) and (e). to collect repeat samples from the same Navajo hauling points, where there are Lastly, systems on triennial taps and they supported the idea of physically fewer than five taps within monitoring must conduct their allowing small water systems to sample the system. Small CWSs with more than monitoring during a four-month 100 percent of taps available for human five taps cannot use this alternative consecutive period every three years consumption. Commenters stated that monitoring to take fewer than the and are therefore not allowed to monitor repeat sampling would be a cost burden required number of samples pursuant to during Year 1 of the first compliance imposed on the smallest sized systems. the table in § 141.86(c). period and during Year 3 of the second Some commenters also stated that compliance period. The Agency is repeat sampling was an unfair B. Definitions for Compliance and modifying the reduced monitoring requirement for small systems since Monitoring Periods provisions for lead and copper sampling large systems are not required to take 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? in § 141.86(d)(4)(iii), for water quality repeat samples or sample all of their parameter sampling in § 141.87(e)(2)(ii), available taps for compliance. To EPA is making a number of and for triennial source water address these concerns, EPA is giving clarifications throughout the LCR to monitoring in § 141.88(d)(1)(i). EPA is discretion to the States to allow small clearly explain when compliance and making a similar change for small systems with fewer than five taps to take monitoring periods begin and end. In systems with monitoring waivers to fewer than five samples. EPA stresses, addition, the Agency is also clarifying ensure that they monitor every nine however, that the requirement is not the timing of actions following a lead or years, which modifies §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i) less stringent, since systems collecting copper action level exceedance and the and 141.88(e).

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57787

2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the the second compliance period because measure for water quality parameters Compliance and Monitoring Period that would allow five years to pass (56 FR 26460 at 26526, U.S. EPA, Definition Revisions? between monitoring rounds. Similarly, 1991a). However, EPA recognizes that EPA is making revisions regarding systems on nine-year monitoring under the monitoring period monitoring and compliance periods in waivers are not allowed to monitor clarifications made in this final rule, order to clarify the meaning of these during Year 1 of the first nine-year systems on reduced monitoring that terms, to address the issues associated period and Year 9 of the second nine- exceed the action level will most likely with the timing of actions following a year period. not be taking water quality parameters and would have automatically incurred lead or copper action level exceedance, 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by a violation based on the requirement in and to address the timing of samples Commenters on the Compliance and § 141.87(d). The end of the 6-month that should be taken under reduced Monitoring Period Definition Revisions period in which small and medium monitoring schedules. and EPA’s Response to These Issues? water systems must sample for water Under the previous regulations, there Most commenters agreed with the was uncertainty about when a system quality parameters would have definitions of monitoring and corresponded to the end of the 4-month was determined to have exceeded the compliance periods in the proposed action level and the corresponding monitoring period in which they must revisions, but some had implementation sample for lead and copper under deadlines for completing corrosion concerns. Two commenters agreed that control studies, lead service line § 141.86(d)(4). For example, a system four months is reasonable for that takes lead and copper tap samples replacement and public education (e.g., monitoring activities, including end of December or the end of between June and September and distribution, collection, and initiation of exceeds the action level, would only September for systems monitoring June lab processing. However, several to September). The changes made in this have until the end of September to take expressed concern that the clock for all of their water quality parameters. final rule clarify that a system is deemed compliance actions should not start to be exceeding the action level on the The system would most likely not be until compliance has been determined aware of the exceedance until the end last day of the monitoring period in after the end of the monitoring period or which the exceedance occurred. or after the end of the monitoring period that States should be given flexibility to and would incur a violation for not The clarified timing of actions alter compliance action schedules. In following a lead or copper action level having already completed water quality response to these commenters, EPA is parameter monitoring. Therefore, EPA is exceedance is also intended to ensure modifying § 141.85(b)(3)(iv) to allow that the system and the State begin revising the requirement in § 141.87(d) States flexibility in extending the to require the start of the 6-month actions to reduce exposure (e.g., timeframe on a case-by-case basis to corrosion control, public education, and period in which the system must take complete public education activities water quality parameters to correspond lead service line replacement) as soon as after an action level exceedance. possible. The deadlines for completing with the start of the 4-month monitoring However, systems must start these period in which they must sample for these follow-up activities will be activities and States must approve in calculated from the date the system is lead and copper under § 141.86(d)(4). writing any deadline extension within This revision will allow small and determined to be exceeding the action 60 days of the end of the monitoring medium systems on reduced monitoring level (i.e., end of the monitoring period), period in which the exceedance that exceed the action level two months with some discretion for States to occurred. This ensures that the system to take water quality parameter samples extend the deadline for completing and the State begin public education after the end of the 4-month monitoring public education activities on a case-by- actions to reduce exposure as soon as period in which they had to take lead case basis. possible, but allows these actions to and copper tap samples. For example, a The timing of samples that should be continue past the 60-day timeframe as system that takes lead and copper tap taken for systems on reduced needed for effective implementation. samples between June and September monitoring schedules ensures that States should still make every effort to and exceeds the action level, would States and systems have an accurate get public water systems to complete assessment of the effectiveness of their public education activities within have until the end of November to take corrosion control. This relates to both 60 days after the end of the monitoring water quality parameter samples. This the duration and frequency of period. provision is intended primarily for monitoring. Under this requirement, In addition, one commenter indicated systems that are not aware of the samples must be taken during four that under the current version of the exceedance until the end of the lead and consecutive months. For most systems, LCR, small and medium systems copper monitoring period. Those this will mean monitoring during June exceeding the action level must perform systems that are aware of the action to September during one of the three water quality parameter monitoring level exceedance earlier in the 4-month years in the three-year compliance within the same monitoring period. The lead and copper monitoring period period. For systems where the State has commenter then stated that the systems should conduct their monitoring once approved some other 4-month period, may not obtain their sample results and they become aware of the exceedance to all samples must be taken during that 4- identify that they have exceeded the better capture the water quality month period. Sampling during a short, action level until after the monitoring conditions at the time of the fixed time period will allow the system period has ended. As a result, this exceedance. to more accurately evaluate the requirement effectively sets systems up C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria effectiveness of the corrosion control for water quality parameter monitoring treatment than will collecting the same violations. In the 1991 LCR, EPA 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? number of samples over a 3-year period. recognized that many factors influence EPA is no longer allowing water In addition, systems on triennial water corrosivity and because of this, systems that exceed the lead action level monitoring are also not allowed to decided to require small and medium to initiate or remain on a reduced lead monitor during Year 1 of the first water systems detecting lead and/or and copper monitoring schedule based compliance period and during Year 3 of copper above the action levels to solely on the results of their water

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57788 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

quality parameter monitoring. This within their jurisdiction in lowering States authority to require systems that change modifies the reduced monitoring lead levels in water. Having a more either add a new source of water or provisions in § 141.86(d)(4), specifically accurate characterization of lead levels change any water treatment to resume subsections (ii), (iii) and (iv). These in drinking water that is exceeding the standard monitoring. In addition, sections discuss when small and large action level will allow States and §§ 141.81(b)(3)(iii) and 141.86(g)(4)(iii) water systems may reduce the required systems to better inform consumers and, allows the State to require any system number of lead and copper samples in thereby, create greater confidence in adding a new source of water or accordance with paragraph (c) of their efforts to reduce lead levels. changing any water treatment to § 141.86. 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised By conduct additional monitoring. EPA is 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the Commenters on the Reduced Monitoring not changing these requirements as part Reduced Monitoring Revisions? Revisions and EPA’s Response to These of this rule. EPA believes States should Issues? continue to have the flexibility to EPA is making this change because require systems to resume standard the Agency believes that reduced The majority of commenters agreed monitoring after making a treatment monitoring should only be permitted with EPA that a system must remain change or adding a new source of water where it has been demonstrated that under the action level to continue that could impact corrosion control. corrosion control treatment is both operating on reduced monitoring. States effective and reliable. Compliance with and others supported the current D. Advanced Notification and Approval water quality parameters alone may not requirement to allow systems that Requirement for Water Systems That always indicate that corrosion control is exceed the copper action level to Intend To Make Any Long-term Change effective. continue on reduced monitoring if water in Water Treatment or Add a New Monitoring lead levels is particularly quality parameters are met. Therefore, Source of Water critical for systems that are exceeding the Agency is not making any changes 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? the lead action level for several reasons. that differ from the proposal with regard First, it will assist systems in evaluating to this provision. This final rule amends the effectiveness of corrosion control Some commenters did feel that §§ 141.81(b)(3)(iii), 141.86(d)(4)(vii), treatment. The rule previously allowed systems that exceed the copper action 141.86(g)(4)(iii), and 141.90(a)(3) to systems eligibility for reduced level should not be allowed to reduce require water systems to obtain prior monitoring even if they exceeded the their monitoring requirements. As stated approval by the State to add a new lead or copper action level if they could in the proposal, EPA did consider source of water or make any long-term demonstrate their corrosion control requiring that all systems meet both the change in water treatment process prior treatment was effective by meeting the lead and the copper action levels as to implementation. The final regulatory State-designated water quality criteria for eligibility for reduced language allows as much time as needed parameters. However, as shown by the monitoring. However, the Agency for water systems and States to consult events in the District of Columbia and determined that copper issues should be before making these changes. To assist as stated above, compliance with water considered as part of longer term the State in making its determinations, quality parameters alone may not revisions to the rule. EPA also believes EPA published a March 2007 always indicate that corrosion control is that adding the copper action level Simultaneous Compliance Guidance effective, especially after a treatment or requirement could impose a large Manual for the Long Term 2 and Stage source change. Continued exceedance of monitoring increase on some small and 2 DBP Rules (US EPA, 2007b). This the lead action level may indicate that medium systems that are currently document will be an aid to the State in a particular method of corrosion control limited in their ability to reduce copper identifying those situations where treatment is not effective for a particular below the action level due to their optimal corrosion control can be system and knowledge of this continued source water (e.g., high alkalinity affected by long-term changes in exceedance may result in the system ground waters). For these systems, the treatment or source water. implementing an alternative and more States currently have flexibility in the 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for effective corrosion control treatment existing rule to limit systems from strategy. In addition, a system must proceeding to reduced lead and copper Advanced Notification and Approval of know if it continues to exceed the lead tap monitoring. Under Long-Term Treatment Changes or action level after installing corrosion §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and 141.86(d)(4)(iii), Addition of New Source Revisions? control treatment in order to determine a State may review and revise its Previously, the rule required that how long its lead service line determination to allow a system to systems notify the State within 60 days replacement requirements remain in proceed with reduced monitoring when of making a change in treatment or effect. Continued understanding of the the system submits new monitoring or adding a new source. EPA proposed that range of lead levels detected within the treatment data, or when other data systems be required to provide advance system can also help the system relevant to the number and frequency of notification of any change in treatment implement an effective public education tap sampling becomes available. or addition of a new source and receive program. Therefore, the Agency is not requiring approval from the State prior to making Second, continued monitoring will that systems that meet the lead action the change. The final rule requires allow primacy agencies to gain a more level and water quality parameter systems to provide advanced accurate picture of lead levels in requirements must also meet the copper notification of any long-term change in drinking water in their States. Many action level to be eligible for reduced treatment or addition of a new source systems within States share water lead and copper monitoring. and receive approval from the State sources, have similar treatment Other commenters stated that systems before implementing the change. When technologies, and have similar materials which make treatment changes or add a water system makes long-term changes in their distribution systems. States and new sources of water should also be to its treatment process or adds a new other primacy agencies with knowledge required to monitor for lead and copper source of water, it can unintentionally of effective corrosion control for one for two consecutive 6-month periods. affect the system’s optimal corrosion system may be able to aid other systems Currently, § 141.86(d)(4)(vii) provides control. EPA believes that State review

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57789

and approval of changes in long-term and commenters expressed concern that would affect a system’s ability to treatment or addition of a new source State review and approval of these address daily water quality treatment will provide an opportunity to minimize changes could not be done in a timely changes. State notification and approval any potential impacts on optimal manner and therefore could be of long-term treatment changes is corrosion control. detrimental to public health. EPA has important because these changes could For this final rule, EPA has clarified retained the language of ‘‘addition of adversely impact optimal corrosion the intent of this provision by stating new source’’ in the final rule rather than control. As EPA noted in the proposed that it applies to long-term changes in use the term ‘‘source change.’’ EPA rule, this approach allows the State to treatment. Examples of long-term believes that it would be difficult to evaluate the change prior to treatment changes include the addition define a long-term source change implementation and, if needed, to of a new treatment process or because the source mixture can design a monitoring program to ensure modification of an existing treatment constantly change due to demand or process. Examples of modifications changes in availability of sources. EPA that optimal corrosion control is include switching secondary discussed several scenarios in the maintained after the change. EPA disinfectants (e.g., chlorine to proposed rule, including switching from expects that States will review and chloramines), switching coagulants (e.g., 100% surface water to 100% ground approve long-term treatment changes alum to ferric chloride), and switching water, switching from 100% surface and additions of new sources corrosion inhibitor products (e.g., water to 50% ground water and 50% expeditiously and will avoid orthophosphate to blended phosphate). surface water, and a change in unnecessary delays to long-term Long-term changes can include dose proportion of moving from 75% ground changes that are needed by the system. changes to existing chemicals if the water and 25% surface water to 25% E. Requirements To Provide a Consumer system is planning long-term changes to ground water and 75% surface water. its finished water pH or residual EPA believes that the existing language Notice of Lead Tap Water Monitoring inhibitor concentration. Long-term ‘‘addition of new source’’ covers the Results to Consumers Who Occupy treatment changes would not include first two scenarios. Notification and Homes or Buildings That Are Tested for chemical dose fluctuations associated approval would not be necessary if the Lead with daily raw water quality changes. switch is repeated on an annual basis. 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? The optimal corrosion control 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by treatment for systems with mixed Commenters on the Advance EPA is amending the public education sources (ground water and surface Notification and Approval of Long-Term requirements described in § 141.80(g) water) should consider the impact of Treatment Changes or Addition of New and is adding a new notification changing the proportions. Section Source Revisions and EPA’s Response to requirement to § 141.85(d) that will 141.87(a)(1)(i) states that the tap These Issues? require water systems to provide samples shall be representative of water consumers who occupy homes or Many commenters supported the quality throughout the distribution buildings that are part of the utility’s concept of advance notification and system taking into account the number monitoring program with the testing approval of treatment changes that of persons, the different sources of results when their drinking water is could affect optimal corrosion control, water, the different treatment methods but were concerned that the rule employed by the system, and seasonal tested for lead. EPA is also adding a language as proposed was too broad and variability. Both water source and water reporting requirement to § 141.90(f) for could include daily operational treatment methods can produce systems to certify they have completed changes. Commenters were concerned different finished water pH values or this new consumer notification that review and approval of daily other critical water quality parameters. requirement. changes that are dictated by the raw For example, if the finished water pH 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the water quality could not be done in a values from both the surface sources Consumer Notice of Lead Tap Water timely manner and could be detrimental and ground water sources are very Monitoring Results Revisions? to public health if they were covered by similar, then this can mitigate the the advance notification and approval impact of changing the proportions of Although some utilities may have requirement. It was not EPA’s intention the various sources. Systems with provided customers with the results of to include these daily operational waters that have different finished pH analyses conducted to meet activities. In response, EPA has revised values should consider monitoring at requirements of the regulations, utilities the final rule to require advance the representative sites in the were not previously required by EPA to notification and State approval of long- distribution system after making a major notify occupants of the lead levels term treatment changes or addition of change in the proportions of the sources found in their drinking water. While new source. Daily dose fluctuations due (75% ground water to 25% ground samples are primarily collected to to changes in raw water quality would water). EPA will provide guidance to evaluate the effectiveness of corrosion not be considered a long-term treatment help systems identify source water control or to evaluate the corrosivity of change and would not require advance changes (such as changing the mixture) notification and State approval. that could impact optimal corrosion the utility’s water across the entire EPA requested comment on whether control. service area, the results of lead it should revise the existing rule Some commenters stated that State monitoring can provide useful language on ‘‘addition of new source’’ to approval of the treatment change or information to the occupants of the ‘‘source change,’’ but did not propose to addition of a new source is not household from which the samples were make this change. Many commenters necessary and would delay changes taken. Occupants can evaluate the stated that revising the rule to cover any needed by the system. EPA disagrees results of lead tests for their drinking source change would be too prescriptive with these commenters. EPA believes water and use that information to and that this could also include daily that clarifying the revision to focus on inform any decisions they might make changes. Source changes occur on a long-term treatment changes will to take action to reduce their exposure daily basis due to changes in demand address concerns that this requirement to lead in drinking water.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57790 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by term ‘‘action level’’ and its definition activities triggered by a lead action level Commenters on the Consumer Notice of from § 141.153(c)(3). EPA is not exceedance. The proposed revisions did Lead Tap Water Monitoring Results requiring that systems include an contain a reference to the consumer Revisions and EPA’s Response to These explicit sentence that the level is not notice requirements in § 141.80, which Issues? health based, but notes that this rule stated that all water systems must EPA received a range of comments does not preclude a system from adding provide a consumer notice to persons regarding the inclusion of the maximum such a statement to the notice. served at the sites that are tested. In In response to providing a level of contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the addition, there is a similar statement in lead that is a health concern, EPA action level for lead, along with the § 141.85. In order to clarify that all believes the current MCLG is the best definitions for these two terms from systems must complete this estimate below which there is no known § 141.153(c) in the consumer notice of requirement, EPA reordered the or expected risk to health from lead in lead tap results. Some commenters sentences in § 141.80 and § 141.85 to drinking water. EPA is currently stated that listing the MCLG was state the consumer notification working toward better defining the unnecessary and would be confusing. requirements up front. The Agency feels correlation between drinking water lead However, other commenters expressed that this adequately clarifies that all levels and adverse health effects. With systems must provide notification of tap that it was appropriate to include the regard to how to interpret results, EPA MCLG and many commenters stated results to consumers at sites that are believes that including the required tested. that there should be some reference to information in the consumer notice the action level. Some of these allows consumers to make informed F. Public Education Requirements commenters stated that the consumer decisions regarding their lead levels and EPA is changing the public education notice should just indicate whether the provides actions they might take to result was above or below the action requirements of the Lead and Copper reduce their lead exposure. Rule in § 141.85. Water systems are still level, while others stated that there In addition, some commenters should be an acknowledgment that the required to deliver public education expressed confusion about who would materials after a lead action level action level is not health-based. Still receive the result where testing occurred others wanted EPA to provide a level of exceedance. However, EPA is making in buildings with many units, such as significant modifications to the content lead that is a health concern along with apartment buildings. Many of these information on how to interpret results. of the written public education commenters cited landlord-tenant issues materials (message content) and adding EPA disagrees that the MCLG is that may arise by sending results to all unnecessary and would cause a new set of delivery requirements. EPA residents. EPA’s intent in the proposal is also making revisions to § 141.154 confusion, since the definition of the was that the sample results go to the term in § 141.153(c)(1) clearly states that that will require all community water individual residence where the sample systems (CWSs) to include an it is the level of a contaminant in was taken and this final revision drinking water below which there is no educational statement about lead in clarifies the intent was not to extend their Consumer Confidence Reports. known or expected risk to health, notification of the result from one unit allowing for a margin of safety. In 1991, to all units in a building. 1. Message Content EPA set the MCLG for lead as zero based A number of commenters were a. How Is EPA Revising the Message on the following considerations: (1) The concerned with the burden on non- Content? occurrence of a variety of low level transient non-community water systems health effects for which it is difficult to which, they presumed, would have to EPA is changing the required content identify clear threshold exposure levels notify all users of a facility. It was not of the message provided to consumers below which there are no risks of EPA’s intent to have these systems after a lead action level exceedance by adverse health effects; (2) the Agency’s notify all of their users of the results of shortening and simplifying the policy goal that drinking water should testing, but to have them post results in mandatory language. Previously, contribute minimal lead to total lead a public place under an alternative § 141.85 required written materials to exposures because a portion of the mechanism. In order to clarify this include mandatory language consisting sensitive population already exceeds intent, EPA has added language to of over 1,800 words describing health acceptable blood lead levels; and (3) the § 141.85(d)(4) that provides an example effects, levels of lead in drinking water, classification of lead as a probably of an alternative mechanism as follows: steps to reduce exposure, and how to human carcinogen (56 FR 26460 at ‘‘For example, upon approval by the obtain additional information. In this 26467, U.S. EPA 1991a). EPA believes State, a non-transient non-community revision, the mandatory language will that individuals who have their homes water system could post the results on consist of an opening statement, health tested for lead should be aware of the a bulletin board in the facility to allow effects language and sources of further levels below which there is no known users to review the information.’’ information. The health effects language or expected risk to health and should Some states were concerned about the has been revised to provide greater have the knowledge that there are steps burden associated with tracking and specificity on the health problems that they can take to further reduce enforcement of this requirement. In can result from exposure to lead (e.g., exposure. Therefore, this final rule response, EPA is requiring in this final the original health effects language includes the provision to include the rule that systems certify to the State that indicated that lead can cause damage to MCLG along with its definition from notification was sent consistent with the the brain, while the new language § 141.153(c)(1). requirements in § 141.85(d), as part of specifies that this damage is associated EPA agrees that there should be a the reporting requirements for public with lower IQ in children). Although reference to the lead action level, since education in § 141.90(f). the new language includes mandatory this is the level at which systems are Lastly, one commenter stated that the language related to health effects, water required to take actions (e.g., public consumer notice requirement needed its systems will have the flexibility to tailor education, corrosion control treatment, own unique citation, because citing it some of the topics of the public lead service line replacement). This rule under § 141.85 implied that it only education message, as mentioned above, includes a requirement to include the applied to the public education to fit their community and situation. For

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57791

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57792 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57793

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57794 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57795

Some commenters thought there believes a special lead notice is reduction achieved per service line should be a different information appropriate. replaced by avoiding the disruption and statement for water systems samples Some commenters stated that the cost of replacing lines that are not above the lead action level than for proposed language on the sources of leaching elevated levels of lead. systems below the lead action level and lead required to be included in the However, samples taken from a lead above the MDL. Other commenters were Consumer Confidence Report focused service line pursuant to § 141.84(c) concerned that multiple, varying notices too much on household plumbing cannot predict future conditions of the would unduly complicate compliance materials as the source of lead exposure system or of the service line. Systems tracking and enforcement of this in drinking water and did not consider can discontinue a lead service line requirement. Furthermore, a large the other sources of lead in the replacement program by meeting the percentage (>95%) of the water systems distribution system. To address this lead action level for two consecutive 6- would have detects above the MDL and concern, EPA has modified the text by month monitoring periods. Therefore, therefore be required to have an adding ‘‘service lines’’ to more fully EPA is requiring these systems to informational statement in their CCR. characterize sources of lead in drinking reconsider any lines previously Because the actual level of lead water. determined to not require replacement if they exceed the action level again in the exposure for drinking water varies with G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines future and resume the lead service line individual homes, EPA concluded that Deemed Replaced Through Testing replacement program. levels detected in the system would not necessarily reflect the risk faced by 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by consumers. As a result, and because of EPA is requiring water systems to Commenters on the Reevaluation of the concern over the logistics of reevaluate lead service lines classified Lead Service Lines Revisions and EPA’s compliance and tracking multiple as ‘‘replaced through testing’’ if they Response to These Issues? different lead statements in CCRs, EPA resume lead service line replacement Commenters generally agreed that all concluded that all systems should have programs. This will only apply to a existing lead service lines should be a simple informational statement about system that had (1) initiated a lead considered when resuming a lead lead in their CCR, which would be service line replacement program, then service line replacement program. educational in nature. (2) discontinued the program, and then However, there were some commenters (3) subsequently resumed the program. Some commenters indicated that the who had concerns with the timing and When resuming the program, this CCR is a good way to educate the public believed that the 15-year clock should system will have to reconsider for about lead in drinking water. On the be reset when resuming a replacement replacement any lead service lines other hand, some viewed the proposed program. In 1991, EPA established the previously deemed replaced through the CCR requirement as redundant with the maximum replacement schedule of 15 testing provisions in § 141.84(c) during other public education requirements years for all systems in order to ensure the initial program. This change adds a and not an effective way to reach that public health is adequately subsection to the lead service line populations before there is a major protected (56 FR 26460 at 26507–26508, replacement requirements in § 141.84(b) U.S. EPA, 1991a). The Agency continues problem with lead in the water system. to include provisions for systems Consistent with the NDWAC to believe that systems that are resuming lead service line replacement exceeding the action level should have recommendations, EPA believes that the programs. Systems will have to update no more than 15 years to replace all of combination of methods for delivering the inventory of lead service lines to their lead service lines, as intended by this urgent message (through public include those that were classified as the original rule. Sites that met the test- education materials, CCR, and consumer ‘‘replaced through testing.’’ The system out provision would need to be re- notice of tap water results) will provide will then divide the updated number of evaluated or replaced within the a more effective way to reach the remaining lead service lines by the remaining timeframe. This approach customer in a timely and appropriate number of remaining years in the provides an incentive to physically basis. Some commenters thought that program to determine the number of replace the portion of the lead service additional CCR language would pose an lines that must be replaced per year line under the control of the system. undue burden on systems that are in (seven percent lead service line Many lead service lines are over 70 compliance with the LCR and that the replacement is based on a 15-year years old and may need to be replaced required text would be too alarming. replacement program so, for example, soon simply based on their age. Some commenters believed that the CCR systems resuming lead service line Some commenters also recommended requirement for lead was inconsistent replacement after previously conducting that flexibility be given to the State to with the public notification regulations two years of replacement would divide determine when treatment or source for other inorganic contaminants. the remaining inventory by 13). changes are significant enough to However, while a water system may be require reevaluation of lead service in full compliance with the LCR, a home 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the lines. This rule does not change the served by that water system may have Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines requirements that trigger lead service elevated levels of lead in their tap water. Revisions? line replacement. Systems that have Lead is unlike many other contaminants Lead service line replacement is installed optimal corrosion control and in that it is primarily introduced into intended as an additional step to reduce that subsequently exceed the lead action drinking water as the water passes lead exposure when corrosion control level must perform lead service line through plumbing materials from the treatment is unsuccessful. The provision replacement. If a system makes a distribution main into the household. in § 141.84(c), which allows systems to treatment or source change that does not As a result, and due to the particular leave in place an individual lead service affect the system’s optimal corrosion concern that it is critically important to line if the lead concentration in all control and the system continues to reach vulnerable populations in a timely service line samples from that line is comply with the LCR, then it is not manner to avoid as much lead exposure less than or equal to 0.015 mg/L, is necessary for the system to perform lead for those populations as possible, EPA intended to maximize the exposure service line replacement. If a system

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57796 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

makes a treatment or source change that water systems, where 100% of the locations with POU/POE devices used does affect the optimal corrosion control plumbing fixtures and components are to remove inorganic contaminants in and the system subsequently exceeds directly controlled by the system, may exceptional cases (such as systems with the lead action level, then the system replace them and be optimized once the a high prevalence of water softeners), must perform lead service line system has met the action levels for two and, if so, how high risk sites should be replacement. This rule does not consecutive six-month monitoring identified. The second was whether the preclude any system currently meeting periods. Small water systems may also Lead and Copper Rule should be the lead action level from optionally install point-of-use (POU) devices, if amended to require systems to replacing lead service lines. they meet the SDWA requirements for synchronize required water quality Some commenters expressed concern their use, and be deemed optimized by parameter sampling with lead and that a system could complete a 15-year meeting the action levels for two copper tap sampling. Due to the lead service line replacement program consecutive six-month monitoring complexity of the issue, EPA has and then meet the action level only to periods. In the preamble to the proposed determined that rule changes on site re-exceed it and be triggered into lead rule, EPA noted that where a State does selection and synchronization should be service line replacement. Under this not require a corrosion control study, addressed as part of the broader scenario, there would be no time left to systems have 24 months after an action monitoring revisions. For the POU/POE re-evaluate or replace lead service lines. level is exceeded before the State site selection issue, EPA notes that there EPA has added the following provision specifies optimal corrosion control may be additional flexibility under to address this specific situation. For treatment (71 FR 40828 at 40840, U.S. § 141.86(a)(5) which states: ‘‘A those systems that have completed a 15- EPA, 2006a). The fixture replacement or community water system with year lead service line replacement POU installation would need to be insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier 3 program, the State will determine a completed within 12 months of sampling sites shall complete its schedule for replacing or retesting lines exceeding the action level in order to sampling pool with representative sites that were previously tested out under complete two consecutive six-month throughout the distribution system. For the replacement program when the monitoring periods before the State the purpose of this paragraph, a system re-exceeds the action level. specifies optimal corrosion control. representative site is a site in which the However, once a system has been in a Additionally, systems will still need to plumbing materials used at that site lead service line replacement program recommend optimal corrosion control would be commonly found at other sites for more than five years, the system may treatment to the State within six months served by the water system.’’ EPA want to consider physically replacing of the action level exceedance. believes that the current rule provisions the portion of all lead service lines Plumbing fixture replacement may not and guidance on this issue are sufficient under their control rather than be successful in meeting the action level at this time. or the system may be unable to secure continuing to use the test-out provision. 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by participation from all sites under a POU Replacing the line would eliminate the Commenters on These Other Issues and approach, so the system may need to possibility of having to go back and re- EPA’s Response to These Issues? evaluate it or replace it if the action install the optimal corrosion control EPA received a range of comments on level is re-exceeded. In addition, many treatment. the issue about whether there is enough systems currently replace lead service There is also additional flexibility flexibility under the existing rule to use lines when they find them regardless of under the existing rule. States could plumbing replacement without their 90th percentile. require a corrosion control study for systems that have made progress specifying it as optimal corrosion H. Other Issues Related to the Lead and towards completing either a plumbing control. Some commenters stated that Copper Rule replacement or POU approach. The the existing timeframes are sufficient for study would need to be completed systems to implement plumbing 1. How Is EPA Revising This Rule? within 18 months or 30 months after the replacement and that the rule should EPA has decided not to make any action level exceedance. This would not be revised to call it an optimal further rule changes at this time to provide an additional six-month corrosion control treatment. Other address the following issues that EPA monitoring period to meet the commenters asserted that EPA should requested comment on in section III.H optimization requirement pursuant to specify plumbing replacement as of the proposed rule (71 FR 40828 at § 141.81(b)(1), while having the system optimal corrosion control treatment. As 40839, U.S. EPA, 2006a): Plumbing develop an optimal corrosion control noted above, EPA believes that there is component replacement; point-of-use recommendation if the plumbing sufficient flexibility under the existing (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) replacement is not successful or the rule for a small system to pursue a treatment; site selection in areas with POU approach cannot be implemented. fixture replacement strategy without water softeners and POU treatment The State will designate optimal listing it as an optimal corrosion control units; and water quality parameter corrosion control six months after the treatment. Because fixture replacement monitoring. completion of the corrosion control may not be successful in reducing lead study. When a corrosion control study below the action levels if some lead 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for Not is required by the State, systems can sources remain in the plumbing system, Including Any of These Other Issues in have up to three years after the action systems will need to prepare an optimal the Final Rule Revisions? level exceedance to meet the action corrosion control treatment EPA concluded that sufficient level for two consecutive six-month recommendation (either with or without flexibility exists under the current rule monitoring periods before they would a corrosion control study) and be for small systems to utilize plumbing need to install the optimal corrosion prepared to install it if the action level fixture replacement or point-of-use/ control specified by the State. is still exceeded. EPA noted in the point-of-entry devices to meet the action EPA also requested comment on two preamble to the proposed rule that level and be deemed optimized under monitoring issues. The first was plumbing fixture replacement is not a § 141.81(b)(1). Under the current rule, whether the Lead and Copper Rule corrosion control technique and would small non-transient, non-community should be amended to allow sampling at not have applicable water quality

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57797

parameters that could be set by the State synchronization timeframe would be State program changes needed to if the system continued to exceed the appropriate and the feasibility of implement the rule, whichever is later. action level. implementing a synchronized sampling However, EPA is also requiring an EPA also received a range of approach. Several large systems noted outside compliance date of two years comments on the issue about whether that homeowners are the ones who after promulgation, which coincides there is enough flexibility under the collect the lead and copper tap samples with the date by which States are existing rule to use POU or POE without and send them back to the utility. These required to adopt and submit revised specifying it as corrosion control. Some commenters expressed that since the programs adopting this rule under 40 commenters stated that the existing utility does not know the exact date that CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this timeframes are sufficient for systems to the samples will be taken by the rule after six months but before two implement a POU strategy and that the homeowner, synchronizing water years, this rule will become effective on rule should not be revised to call it an quality parameter and lead and copper the date that the State rule is effective, optimal corrosion control treatment. tap samples would be difficult to as long as it is before the date two years Other commenters said that EPA should coordinate. Some commenters noted after promulgation of this rule. specify POU/POE as an optimal that current water quality parameter corrosion control treatment. As noted 2. What Is EPA’s Rationale for the sampling requirements for systems on Compliance Dates? above, EPA believes that there is reduced monitoring require these sufficient flexibility under the current systems to take their water quality There were several considerations rule for a small system to pursue a POU parameter samples throughout the year behind this compliance date. First, EPA strategy without listing it as an optimal in order to capture seasonal variability. believes that States and systems will not corrosion control treatment. Unless the EPA also received input that in many need three years to implement any of POU option was limited to only those States, water quality parameter the rule changes. These rule changes are systems that control 100% of the sampling for small and medium systems all modifications of existing distribution system (as was suggested by is not started until after all tap samples requirements and procedures under the several commenters), the system may are collected and the determination LCR or CCR. EPA believes States and not be able to secure participation from made that a water system does not meet systems will not need extensive training all sites and may need to install the 90th percentile action level, or program development to implement corrosion control. Even if EPA limited consistent with the specific language of these revisions. Additionally, none of the option to only those systems that the LCR. Due to the complexity of the revisions require systems to control 100% of the distribution system, issues, challenges with implementation, undertake new capital improvements EPA does not believe that POU should and potential burden, EPA has decided prior to implementation. Second, many be listed as an optimal corrosion control not to revise the LCR to require water of these changes are important treatment. Under the existing rule, the quality parameter synchronization at improvements to the LCR, which should action levels serve as screens for this time, but will revisit this issue in help improve critical consumer optimization, but systems can exceed future revisions to the rule. information about lead and reduce lead the action levels and still be in exposure, so they should be established compliance with the LCR by meeting I. Compliance Dates as quickly as possible. Third, EPA is the optimal water quality parameters 1. What Are the New Compliance Dates also aware that because many of these specified by the State. Commenters who for This Rule? requirements are procedural in nature, supported POU as an optimal corrosion having dual Federal and State control treatment did not provide any Section 1412(b)(10) of the Safe requirements at the same time is alternatives on how to demonstrate Drinking Water Act requires that a confusing to systems, the public, and compliance with the treatment proposed national primary drinking the regulators. As a result, it is technique when the action level is water regulation (and any amendments) important to try to make the Federal exceeded. Many commenters agreed take effect on the date that is three years changes and State changes coincide as with EPA’s concern that because there after the date of promulgation, unless much as possible. Finally, EPA received are lead-containing materials in the Administrator determines that an helpful comments from the public plumbing after POE devices, it may not earlier date is practical. EPA proposed urging that the requirements should take be successful in meeting the action that the revisions take effect for effect no earlier than six months after level. EPA does not believe that POE purposes of compliance three years after promulgation. should be listed as an optimal corrosion the promulgation of the final rule. EPA EPA therefore decided to adopt a control treatment because of these requested comment on the practicality compliance date structure that is similar unaddressed lead sources. of implementing the following specific to the one used for the public Most of the comments on the issue of changes within 60 days of final rule notification rule revisions in 2000. This sampling sites with POU and POE promulgation: Minimum Number of rule, therefore, provides a minimum devices indicated that a rule change was Samples Required (III.A), Definitions for compliance date of 180 days after not necessary and that the prohibition Compliance and Monitoring Periods promulgation, after which the rule will should remain in § 141.86(a)(1). EPA (III.B), Consumer Notification of Lead be in effect where EPA has primacy agrees with those commenters and does Tap Water Monitoring Results (III.E) and (Wyoming, DC, and most Indian not plan to codify the guidance. Public Education Requirements (III.F). territories) and where States incorporate The final issue on which EPA EPA also requested comment upon EPA’s drinking water regulations by requested comment was whether all of the proposed revisions reference. EPA is also providing a synchronization of water quality should have an effective date earlier maximum compliance date of two years parameter sampling with lead and than three years after publication of the after promulgation, which coincides copper tap sampling. While many final rule. After reviewing comments, with the date by which States are commenters supported the scientific EPA is adopting a compliance date for required to adopt and submit revised rationale for this proposed change, a all of the final rule provisions, of 180 programs adopting this rule under 40 number of comments received days after publication in the Federal CFR 142.12. For States that adopt this expressed concern over which Register or the effective date of any rule after six months but before two

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57798 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

years, this rule will become effective on submit primacy revisions) and should not make the requirements the date that the State rule is effective, suggested the compliance date be three effective before the State has time to as long as it is before the date two years years after final rule promulgation. adopt the change to avoid complications after promulgation of this rule. This Some commenters had concerns about in meeting both State and Federal gives States the flexibility of choosing the feasibility of a 60-day effective date requirements. EPA agrees and is early implementation, enabling the and proposed an effective date within revising the date to give a broad water systems to take advantage of the 180 days of final rule promulgation. timeframe during which the State may efficiencies in the new regulations in EPA agrees that 60 days may not offer adopt the rule (180 days to 2 years). less than two years, or provides States States enough time to conduct training, J. State Implementation two years to accomplish the preparatory review guidance and distribute activities needed to implement the information to water systems about the revisions. States with approved primacy new requirements; therefore, EPA has programs under 40 CFR part 142 subpart 3. What Were the Key Issues Raised by revised the compliance date to 180 days B must revise their programs to adopt Commenters on the Compliance Dates after final rule promulgation. EPA any changes to the Lead and Copper and EPA’s Response to These Issues? believes there are a number of Rule that are more stringent than their Some commenters indicated that an improvements in this rule that States approved program. The primacy early compliance date would impose will want to utilize and that 180 days is revision crosswalk table lists all the additional burden on the States and a feasible timeframe for the States to provisions that States must adopt to utilities (e.g., conduct staff training, conduct the necessary preparatory retain primacy. Table III.1 summarizes inform water systems, revise rules and actions. One commenter noted that EPA the rule revisions.

TABLE III.1.—FINAL RULE REVISIONS

Is the requirement more CFR citation stringent? Revision

§ 141.80(a)(2) ...... No ...... Technical correction that deletes effective dates of the LCR which no longer apply. § 141.80(c)(3)(v) ...... No ...... PWS allowed by the State to collect fewer than five samples must compare the highest sample result to the action level. § 141.80(g) ...... Yes ...... PWSs will be required to provide consumers with the results of lead testing who are located at sites that are part of the utility’s monitoring program. § 141.81(b)(3)(iii), § 141.86(d)(4)(vii), § 141.86(g)(4)(iii), Yes ...... States must approve new sources or long-term § 141.90(a)(3). changes in water treatment before PWS implementa- tion. § 141.81(e)(1) ...... Yes ...... Clarifies end of the tap sampling and timing for PWS recommending optimum corrosion treatment. § 141.81(e)(2) ...... Yes ...... Clarifies end of the monitoring period and timing for State requiring corrosion control studies. § 141.81(e)(2)(i), §141.81(e)(2)(ii) ...... Yes ...... Clarifies end of the monitoring period and timing for State specifying optimum corrosion control treatment. § 141.83(a)(1) ...... Yes ...... Clarifies end of the source water monitoring period and timing for recommending source water treatment to the State. § 141.84(b)(1) ...... Yes ...... Clarifies beginning of the first year for lead service line replacement. § 141.84(b)(2) ...... Yes ...... Requires updating inventory and yearly replacement of lead lines when resuming lead service line replace- ment program. § 141.90(e)(2)(ii) ...... Yes ...... Clarifies resumption of line replacement. § 141.85 ...... Yes ...... New public education requirements that replace the ones that exist in the current rule. New requirement for PWS to provide a notice to consumers who are part of the utility’s lead testing program with sampling results. New content and delivery requirements for public education materials. New requirement for PWS to target specific audiences for increased awareness. § 141.88 (b), § 141.90(a)(1), § 141.90(e)(1), § 141.90 Yes ...... Clarifies end of the monitoring period. (e)(2). § 141.86(c) ...... No ...... Requires PWS to collect a specified number of sam- ples. Allows State discretion to allow PWS to sample 100 percent of taps if there are fewer than five taps that can be used for human consumption in the sys- tem. § 141.86(d)(4)(i), (ii), (iii), § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B)(1), Yes ...... Clarifies sample collection periods for reduced moni- § 141.86(g)(4)(i), § 141.87(e)(2)(ii), § 141.88(d)(1)(i), toring. § 141.88(d)(1)(ii), § 141.88(e)(1), § 141.88(e)(2). § 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii), § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)(B) ...... Yes ...... Requires all systems must meet the lead action level as a condition for reduced monitoring. § 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A) ...... Yes ...... Specifies time period to resume standard tap water monitoring.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57799

TABLE III.1.—FINAL RULE REVISIONS—Continued

Is the requirement more CFR citation stringent? Revision

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

1. How Do These Regulatory Revisions § 142.12 (c)(3), EPA can request EPA Regions implement the rules for all Affect a State’s Primacy Program? supplemental information as necessary the other Tribes under section States must revise their programs to for a specific State submittal on a case- 1451(a)(1) of SDWA. by-case basis. Therefore, the Agency is adopt any part of this final rule which IV. Economic Analysis is more stringent than the approved waiving the Attorney General’s State program. Primacy revisions must statement required in § 142.12(c)(1)(iii), This section describes the estimates of as allowed by § 141.12(c)(2). be completed in accordance with 40 annual costs for the seven regulatory CFR 142.12 and 142.16. States must 2. What Does a State Have To Do To changes to utilities’ and States’ submit their revised primacy Apply? requirements, including costs associated application to the Administrator for To maintain primacy for the Public with administrative, monitoring, approval. State requests for final Water System Supervision (PWSS) sampling, reporting, and notification approval must be submitted to the program and to be eligible for interim activities for this final rule. One-time, Administrator no later than two years primacy enforcement authority for upfront costs of rule review and rule after promulgation of a new standard future regulations, States must adopt implementation are also described. unless the State requests and is granted this final rule. A State must submit a There are two types of annual costs that an additional two-year extension. request for approval of program may result from the rule changes— For revisions of State programs, 40 revisions that adopt the regulations and direct and indirect. Direct costs are from CFR 142.12 requires States to submit, implement those regulations within two those activities that are specified by the among other things, any additional years of promulgation unless EPA rule change, such as costs for additional materials that are listed in 40 CFR approves an extension under monitoring or distribution of consumer 142.16 of this part for a specific EPA § 142.12(b). Interim primacy notices. Indirect costs may also result regulation, as appropriate 40 CFR enforcement authority allows States to when systems and States use the 142.12(c)(1)(ii). For the final revisions to implement and enforce drinking water the lead and copper rule, EPA believes information generated by directly- regulations once State regulations are related rule activities to modify or that requirements in § 142.12(c) will effective and the State has submitted a provide sufficient information for EPA enhance practices to reduce lead levels. complete and final primacy revision These indirect costs, and related health review of the State revision. The side- application. To obtain interim primacy, risk reductions, are not quantified for by-side comparison of requirements a State must have primacy with respect the purposes of this analysis, but are required in § 142.12(c)(1)(i) will consist to each existing NPDWR. Under interim of sections revised to adopt the changes primacy enforcement authority, States described qualitatively in section IV.K required for the revised lead and copper are effectively considered to have of this notice and in Chapter 5 of the rule and any other revisions requested primacy during the period that EPA is Economic and Supporting Analyses: by the State. Because the rule consists reviewing their primacy revision Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the of changes to an already approved application. Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA, Federal NPDWR in primacy States, EPA 2007a). Table IV.1 summarizes the believes that the State’s existing statutes 3. How Are Tribes Affected? expected direct and indirect cost and regulations will already have At this time the Navajo Nation has impacts for the seven regulatory received extensive legal review. Under primacy to enforce the PWSS program. changes.

TABLE IV.1.—SUMMARY OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPLICATIONS OF THE LCR SHORT TERM RULE CHANGES

Indirect cost and health risk Rule change Direct cost implications implications

Regulatory Change III.A (Number of samples) ...... Yes ...... Yes. Regulatory Change III.B (Monitoring Period) ...... Unquantified ...... None. Regulatory Change III.C (Reduced Monitoring Criteria) ...... Yes ...... Yes. Regulatory Change III.D (Advanced Notification and Approval) ...... Yes ...... Yes. Regulatory Change III.E (Consumer Notice of Lead Results) ...... Yes ...... Yes. Regulatory Change III.F (Public Education) ...... Yes ...... Yes. Regulatory Change III.G (Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines) ...... Yes ...... Yes.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57800 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

A. Direct Costs assumption, previous analyses of LCR change, if a system exceeds the lead The revisions in this final rule will requirements were reviewed to action level during a monitoring period, result in direct costs to utilities and determine if a suitable estimate was non-compliance starts at the end of the States from activities that are specified available. The 1991 Regulatory Impact monitoring period (for most systems on by rule changes, including Analysis (RIA) (Final Regulatory Impact September 30). Under the previous administrative, monitoring, sampling, Analysis of National Primary Drinking language, it was not clear whether non- reporting, and notification activities. Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, compliance began at the end of the These costs will result in an increase in U.S. EPA 1991b), the 1996 RIA calendar year (December 31) or at the the overall costs associated with the Addendum (Regulatory Impact Analysis end of the monitoring period Addendum, U.S. EPA 1996b), and the LCR. (September 30). The most recent cost estimates to various Information Collection Requests As a result of this rule change, utilities and States of the LCR can be were all used as sources of information activities triggered by an action level and assumptions. found in the 2004 Information exceedance could begin three months For the rule revisions that clarify the Collection Request for Disinfectants/ earlier (e.g., at the end of September existing LCR rule language, if the costs Disinfection Byproducts, Chemical, and versus the end of December), but the associated with those activities were duration of these activities would not Radionuclides Rules (Information included in the original LCR cost likely be longer. The net result is a Collection Request for Disinfection estimates as presented in the 1991 RIA, change in the timing of activities, with Byproducts, Chemical, and those costs are not included in this a difference of three months having Radionuclides Rules, U.S. EPA, 2004a). analysis. The 2004 ICR estimates administrative negligible, if any, impact on costs. burden and costs associated with the C. Direct Costs Associated With Regulatory Change III.B also requires LCR for systems and States. System Regulatory Change III.A that systems on reduced monitoring, costs are estimated for community water Regulatory Change III.A clarifies such as triennially or once every nine systems and non-transient non- EPA’s intent that a minimum of five years, must take all compliance samples community water systems to perform samples must be taken when conducting within the same calendar year during the following activities: Monitor for compliance monitoring. If a system has the June–September monitoring period. water quality parameters, tap sampling fewer than the minimum number of taps Under the existing rule, a system could of lead levels for action level required for sampling, then those collect compliance samples over compliance, review of sample data, systems will have to collect multiple multiple calendar years, as long as they including the calculation of lead and samples on different days from the same were taken during the June–September copper 90th percentile levels, tap so that the total number of samples time frame and during the three-year submission to the State of monitoring per monitoring period is five. States, compliance period. In addition, systems data and any other documents or however, have the discretion to allow on triennial monitoring must monitor reports, and recording and maintaining water systems with fewer than five taps no later than every third calendar year. information. In addition, some systems for human consumption to collect one Similarly, systems on nine-year must submit corrosion control studies, sample per tap. Under this alternate monitoring schedules must monitor no recommend and submit information sampling schedule, the sample with the later than every ninth calendar year. regarding the completion of corrosion highest test result will be compared to Since this rule change does not alter the control treatment (CCT) or source water the action level to determine number of samples to be taken, but the treatment installation, conduct public compliance. timing of samples, the direct cost impact education, or conduct lead service line Although some systems may change is expected to be negligible. (LSL) monitoring, notification, and the number of samples taken in replacement. In the 2004 ICR, the response to these provisions, there is E. Direct Costs Associated With average annual cost to CWSs and very limited available data on the Regulatory Change III.C NTNCWSs for the LCR requirements number of these systems and on the 1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory was estimated to be $57.9 million frequency with which they conduct lead Change (2006$) and the burden was estimated to and copper monitoring. Because of lack be 1.72 million hours for reporting of data, EPA has not quantified the As a result of Regulatory Change III.C, (including lead service line replacement annual direct costs or savings associated utilities that have 90th percentile LCR reporting), recordkeeping, and public with Regulatory Change III.A. EPA has monitoring samples that exceed the lead education activities of the LCR. For quantified the one-time implementation action level, and are currently on States, the annual cost and burden costs for water systems with fewer than reduced monitoring, will be required to incurred by primacy agencies for five taps to request permission to collect resume standard monitoring schedules activities associated with the LCR were one sample per available tap and for for monitoring lead at taps. In addition estimated to be $6.8 million and 0.21 States to review and decide upon these to monitoring activities, utilities will million hours, respectively. requests to collect one sample per have to meet reporting requirements to the State/primacy agency. State/primacy B. Overall Cost Methodologies and available tap. Those costs are given in section IV.K. agencies will be required to review Assumptions utility monitoring reports. D. Direct Costs Associated With As part of its comprehensive review 2. Costs to Utilities of the Lead and Copper Rule, EPA Regulatory Change III.B collected and analyzed new data on Regulatory Change III.B clarifies the The direct costs to utilities, various aspects of LCR implementation. meaning of ‘‘monitoring period’’ and summarized in Table IV.3, are estimated When available and appropriate, this ‘‘compliance period,’’ addressing in to be $2.7 million annually including new information has been used in particular the date on which actions are $2.5 million in labor costs and $0.2 estimating the incremental costs of this triggered by an exceedance and the million in materials costs. Detailed rule. If new information was not timing of samples under reduced estimates are provided in the Economic available about a cost item or monitoring schedules. Based on the rule Analysis, Appendix C.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57801

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

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% 1The 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 Sep- tember 13, 2004).

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57802 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57803

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

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

Total System Costs ...... 1,098,000 150,000 1,248,000 Costs to States: Review, track and store self-certification letters ...... 163,000 ...... 163,000

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

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57804 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

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

TABLE IV.6.—ANNUAL COST PER SYSTEM ESTIMATE FOR ADDITIONAL ACTIVITIES TO BETTER REACH AT-RISK POPULATIONS (2006 DOLLARS)

viii. Mate- i. Public ii. Paid ad- iii. Display vi. Delivery rials directly Average per System size cat- service an- vertise- in public iv. Internet v. Public to every vii. Targeted to multi-fam- system all egory nounce- ments areas notification meetings household contact ily & institu- activities ments tions

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

TABLE IV.7.—SUMMARY OF COSTS TO SYSTEMS DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS)

Annual Annual Total sys- Activity Requirement labor materials tem cost

a. Changes to the Mandatory Text of the Written Materials:

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

b. Changes to Better Reach At-Risk Populations:

III.F(b)(1) ...... Notify Additional Organizations ...... 21,900 21,400 43,300 III.F(b)(2) ...... Additional Activities i–viii ...... 292,700 0 292,700 III.F(b)(2) ...... Consult with State on Activities ...... 33,500 300 33,700

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

III.F(c)(1) ...... Customer Bills ...... 47,400 0 47,400 III.F(c)(2) ...... Post on Website ...... 100 0 100 III.F(c)(3) ...... PSAs and Press Releases ...... ¥3,700 ¥500 ¥4,200

d. Changes to the Required Timing:

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57805

TABLE IV.7.—SUMMARY OF COSTS TO SYSTEMS DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS)— Continued

Annual Annual Total sys- Activity Requirement labor materials tem cost

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

TABLE IV.8.—SUMMARY OF COSTS TO STATES DUE TO LCR PUBLIC EDUCATION CHANGES (2006 DOLLARS)

Annual Annual labor materials Total annual

III.F Costs to States: Review and consultation ...... $63,000 $0 $63,000

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

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57806 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

3. Costs to States reports, these costs are attributed to the J. Summary of National Average Annual No direct costs are projected for States 1991 LCR rather than this rule. Direct Costs as a result of Regulatory Change III.G. The estimates of annual direct costs Although the States will review utility for the final regulatory changes are LSL replacement program annual 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 annual Regulatory change Consumer direct costs direct costs Reporting Monitoring notice Total to states

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 TABLE IV.10.—SUMMARY OF ONE- which, in some cases, may be provided Implement Regulatory Changes TIME DIRECT COSTS ASSOCIATED to States and customers. The information that is generated may 1. Activities Resulting From Regulatory WITH RULE REVIEW AND IMPLEMEN- TATION (2006 DOLLARS) suggest lead and copper risks that Change would not otherwise have been Systems and States will incur one- One time labor discovered (or such risks might be time upfront costs associated with costs discovered sooner than otherwise). Upon obtaining this information, a reviewing and implementing this rule. Costs to Systems: system itself, the State, or some of the For systems, activities include Review & Communication $10,971,000 system’s customers may take actions to reviewing the rule changes, training Verification (III.A) ...... 104,000 address these risks, incurring the costs staff, and verification costs associated Total System Costs: ...... 11,075,000 of those actions. For example, a system with Regulatory Change III.A. For may redesign a planned treatment States/Primacy Agencies, activities Costs to State/Primacy Agencies: change following State review of the include regulation adoption, program Regulation Adoption ...... 1,488,000 planned change, or a system may development, and miscellaneous Verification (III.A) ...... 162,000 replace a lead service line that was training. previously ‘‘tested out.’’ System Total State Costs ...... 1,650,000 2. Total Costs to Utilities customers, upon receiving notification Total Rule Implementa- of the lead content of their tap samples, Direct costs to utilities are estimated tion Costs ...... 12,725,000 may take some action, and in the to be approximately $11 million, as process, incur a cost. summarized in Table IV.10. Detailed L. Indirect Costs It is both difficult to project what the estimates of costs to utilities are content will be of the information provided in the Economic Analysis Previous sections focused on the generated pursuant to the regulation, Appendix G. Direct costs to utilities are direct costs of this rulemaking, costs and difficult to predict how systems and resulting from activities specified by the based solely on labor; no materials costs individuals might act in response to the rule change, such as costs for additional are expected for these one-time upfront new information generated as a result of monitoring or distribution of consumer costs. these regulatory changes. Because of the notices. A second type of cost, an uncertainty in tracing the linkages from 3. Total Costs to States indirect cost, may also result when the regulation to new information to systems and States use the information exposure prevention measures, EPA is Direct costs to the States are estimated generated by the rule-required activities unable to quantify the indirect costs that to be $1,650,000 as summarized in to modify or enhance practices to might ensue from these regulatory Table IV.10 and detailed in Appendix G reduce lead levels. Indirect costs may changes. of the Economic Analysis. Similar to the also result if systems or States decide to It is also possible that some additional one-time costs for utilities, these direct undertake additional information- information-gathering activities may costs are based solely on upfront labor gathering activities not required by the result from this rule. For example, a costs. Fifty-seven States will review and rule. system may decide to undertake a new implement these LCR revisions. The revisions will require some study of the corrosion implications of a systems to generate new information rule change. Or a State may decide to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57807

review sample system customer letters to required personnel. EPA also In addition, EPA has prepared an of notification to owner/occupants reviewed and revised the State analysis of the potential costs and about the lead levels found in their implementation burden and cost, benefits associated with this action. collected tap samples. These activities significantly increasing these estimates This analysis is contained in the would also result in indirect costs (from 312 hours to 600 hours). Economic and Supporting Analyses: associated with this final rule. One commenter stated that some Short-Term Regulatory Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule (U.S. EPA, M. Benefits NTNCWSs (e.g., schools, child care centers, and small businesses) do not 2007a). A copy of the analysis is The intent of this rulemaking is to have staff to satisfactorily implement available in the docket for this action improve implementation of the lead and new drinking water rules and respond and the analysis is briefly summarized copper regulations by clarifying to public inquiries regarding lead in in section IV of this notice. monitoring requirements, improving customer awareness, and modifying the drinking water. EPA agrees with this B. Paperwork Reduction Act lead service line test out procedure. comment and has increased the state The information collection These revisions do not affect the action burden assumptions for this final rule. requirements in this rule have been levels, corrosion control requirements, EPA recognizes that ‘‘operators’’ at submitted for approval to the Office of lead service line replacement NTNCWSs typically have many other Management and Budget (OMB) under requirements, or other provisions in the job functions and are often not the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. existing rule that directly determine the professional water system managers, 3501 et seq. The information collection degree to which the rule reduces risks and that States, therefore, must requirements are not enforceable until from lead and copper. continually educate, assist, and enforce OMB approves them. However, the increase in regulations to ensure compliance. EPA requires comprehensive and administrative activities that will result Commenters also stated that EPA current information on lead and copper from the revisions will generate new underestimated the impact to States contamination and associated information (e.g., more monitoring data, regarding the requirement to provide a enforcement activities to implement its some of which may show exceedances), consumer notice of lead tap water program oversight and enforcement and may prompt some systems or monitoring results. EPA agrees with this responsibilities mandated by the Safe individuals to respond to this new comment and has revised the consumer Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Highly information by taking measures to abate notice estimates to indicate that publicized incidences of elevated lead and copper exposures and thus additional funding will be required for drinking water lead levels prompted reduce the associated risk. Also, the this activity. EPA to review and evaluate the requirement that long-term treatment Some commenters asserted that EPA implementation and effectiveness of the changes be approved by the State prior did not address the implications for a LCR on a national basis. As a result of to implementation will provide an regulatory program assigned to this multi-part review, EPA identified additional opportunity to identify ‘‘approve’’ rather than simply ‘‘review’’ seven targeted rule changes that clarify possible adverse impacts due to treatment changes, and specifically that the intent of the LCR and ensure and treatment changes, which may lower the EPA underestimated the costs of enhance protection of public health risk to consumers. requiring advanced State approval. through reduction in lead exposure. Because the precise impact of these Commenters also thought that every EPA will use the information collected revisions on the behavior of individuals PWS would need to have additional and as a result of the short-term revisions to and systems is not known, EPA has not more intensive interaction with the the LCR to support the responsibilities quantified the changes in associated State prior to making any change in outlined in SDWA by strengthening the health benefits. However, EPA does water treatment or source water. While implementation of the LCR in the areas expect that overall benefits from the the Agency agrees with this comment, of monitoring, customer awareness, and LCR will increase as a result of the EPA has narrowed the scope of this lead service line replacement. The rule indirect effects of the revisions on the provision in the final rule to only long- revisions described in section III of this actions of individual consumers and term changes in treatment. Since this notice are intended to improve the systems. will considerably reduce the potential implementation of the LCR and do not burden of the requirement by removing alter the original maximum contaminant N. What Were the Key Issues Raised by level goals or the fundamental approach Commenters on the State and System the daily water quality treatment changes from consideration, EPA is not to controlling lead and copper in Burden Estimates (Economic Analysis) drinking water. and EPA’s Response to These Issues? revising the cost estimate for this change from the proposal. Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires Many commenters stated that EPA that there must be ‘‘criteria and underestimated the overall burden of V. Statutory and Executive Order procedures to assure a supply of the proposed rule, both for systems and Requirements drinking water which dependably for States. Many commenters thought, A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory complies with such maximum for example, that both systems and Planning and Review contaminant levels; including accepted States would need more time to read methods for quality control and testing and understand the rule. EPA agrees Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 procedures to insure compliance with with these commenters and has revised (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this such levels and to insure proper the burden and cost estimates for some action is a ‘‘significant regulatory operation and maintenance of the sections of the rule, and for the action.’’ Accordingly, EPA submitted system * * *’’ Furthermore, section implementation activities. In particular, this action to the Office of Management 1445(a)(1) of SDWA requires that every EPA made an upward revision to the and Budget (OMB) for review under EO person who is a supplier of water ‘‘shall burden estimate for the larger systems, 12866 and any changes made in establish and maintain such records, estimating that it would take them an response to OMB recommendations make such reports, conduct such average of 40 hours to read, understand, have been documented in the docket for monitoring, and provide such and communicate the rule’s significance this action. information as the Administrator may

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57808 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

reasonably require by regulation to less than every 6 years review, and as and lower bound on ICR burden and assist the Administrator in establishing appropriate, revise existing drinking cost estimates. The upper bound regulations * * * in determining water standards. Promulgation of the estimate assumes all States will adopt whether such person has acted or is LCR complies with these statutory early implementation while the lower acting in compliance’’ with this title. In requirements. bound estimate assumes States will take addition, section 1413(a)(3) of SDWA 1. Burden Estimate 2 years to implement the rule. requires States to ‘‘keep such records The total annual average respondent and make such reports * * * as the The universe of respondents for this ICR is comprised of 52,838 CWSs and burden associated with this ICR is Administrator may require by estimated to be 206,997–297,122 burden regulation.’’ 19,375 NTNCWSs, for a total of 72,213 systems (4th Quarter 2004 SDWIS/FED), hours. The corresponding total annual Section 1412(b) of SDWA, as and 57 States. The activities that take average respondent costs are estimated amended in 1996, requires the Agency place during the 3-year period covered to be $6.4 to $9.5 million. to publish maximum contaminant level by the ICR will vary based on the timing EPA estimates the annual respondent goals and promulgate NPDWRs for of State implementation of the final burden for PWSs to be 189,369–271,997 contaminants that may have an adverse rule. The rule is structured to allow for hours. Annual respondent costs for effect on the health of persons, are early implementation by States within PWSs are estimated to be $5.6 to $8.4 known to or anticipated to occur in 180 days of rule publication. million. The Agency estimates that the PWSs, or, in the opinion of the Alternatively, States have up to 2 years annual respondent burden for States is Administrator, present an opportunity to implement rule provisions as 17,628–25,125 hours. The for health risk reduction. The NPDWRs described in section III.I of this notice. corresponding annual average specify maximum contaminant levels or Because there is some uncertainty in respondent costs for States are estimated treatment techniques for drinking water predicting which States will adopt early to be $0.8 to $1.1 million. Table V.1 contaminants (42 U.S.C 300g.–1). implementation versus those that will presents a summary of total burden and Section 1412(b)(9) requires that EPA, no take 2 years, EPA estimates an upper 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 2.6 = 189,369/72,213 3.8 = 271,997/72,213 Total PWS annual hours from Water Systems. above. Total PWS from above. Hours per State for States ...... 309 = 17,628/57 441 = 25,125/57 Total State annual hours from above. Total States from above. Annual O&M Costs ...... $118,717 = $117,886 + $831 $295,205 = $293,920 + $1,284 Public water system O&M costs. State OM costs. Total Annual Respondent Cost ..... $6,353,532 = $5,584,289 + $9,520,866 = $8,423,108 + Public water system costs. $769,243 $1,097,758 State costs. Cost Per Response ...... $32 $21 Public water system cost. $52 $32 State cost.

Total Annual Hours (respond- 206,997 = 206,997 + 0 297,122 = 297,122 + 0 Total respondent hours. ent plus Agency). Total EPA hours.

Total Annual Cost (respond- $6,353,532 = $6,353,532 + $0 $9,520,866 = $9,520,866 + $0 Total respondent cost. ent plus Agency). 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 and systems for the purposes of requirements; train personnel to be able financial resources expended by persons collecting, validating, and verifying to respond to a collection of to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose information, processing and information; search data sources; or provide information to or for a maintaining information, and disclosing complete and review the collection of Federal agency. This includes the time and providing information; adjust the information; and transmit or otherwise needed to review instructions; develop, existing ways to comply with any disclose the information. acquire, install, and utilize technology previously applicable instructions and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57809

An agency may not conduct or regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 7606, February 13, 1998), requested sponsor, and a person is not required to small governmental jurisdiction that is a public comment, consulted with the respond to a collection of information government of a city, county, town, Small Business Administration (SBA), unless it displays a currently valid OMB school district or special district with a and finalized the alternative definition control number. The OMB control population of less than 50,000; and (3) in the Consumer Confidence Reports numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 a small organization that is any ‘‘not-for- regulation (63 FR 44511, August 19, CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. profit enterprise which is independently 1998). EPA stated in that Final Rule that owned and operated and is not it would apply the alternative definition C. Regulatory Flexibility Act dominant in its field.’’ However, the to future drinking water regulations The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) RFA also authorizes an agency to use (including this one) as well. generally requires an agency to prepare alternative definitions for each category After considering the economic a regulatory flexibility analysis of any of small entity, ‘‘which are appropriate impacts of this final rule on small rule subject to notice and comment to the activities of the agency’’ after entities, I certify that this action will not rulemaking requirements under the proposing the alternative definition(s) in have a significant economic impact on Administrative Procedure Act or any the Federal Register and taking a substantial number of small entities. other statute unless the agency certifies comment. 5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(5). In This certification is based on EPA’s that the rule will not have a significant addition, to establish an alternative established definition of small entities economic impact on a substantial small business definition, agencies must as public water systems serving 10,000 number of small entities. Small entities consult with SBA’s Chief Counsel for or fewer persons. The small entities include small businesses, small Advocacy. directly regulated by this final rule are organizations, and small governmental For purposes of assessing the impacts small public water systems serving jurisdictions. of this rule on small entities, EPA 10,000 or fewer people on an annual The RFA provides default definitions defined small entities as public water basis. We have determined that 68,286 for each type of small entity. Small systems serving 10,000 or fewer small systems may be affected by the entities are defined under the RFA as: persons. As required by the RFA, EPA changes to the LCR. Table V.2 provides (1) A small business as defined by the proposed using this alternative a summary of these small systems, by Small Business Administration’s (SBA) definition in the Federal Register (63 FR 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 Activities and Costs Associated With $33.96 (see Appendix B of the Economic entities will incur direct costs for all of Rule Changes for Small Systems Analysis). the final regulatory changes. In many cases, only a relatively small subset of EPA has estimated the burden and 2. Activities for Regulatory Change III.A costs associated with the regulatory these systems will have to change Under Regulatory Change III.A, small changes, as described in the Economic practices to comply with the regulatory systems with fewer than 5 taps in States Analysis for this final rule. The basis for changes. Table V.3 provides an estimate that allow 1 sample per tap will prepare many of these input values and of the number of small systems that will and submit to the State a one-time letter assumptions are described in detail in incur direct costs for each of the verifying the applicable number of taps the Economic Analysis, Section 4. The regulatory changes. and requesting the use of the alternative following summarizes the costs sampling. Eleven States supported the TABLE V.3.—THE NUMBER OF SMALL estimated for small systems. alternative sampling in their comments SYSTEMS AFFECTED BY EACH REG- 1. One-Time Activities on the proposed rule. However, two ULATORY CHANGE States did not support the alternative All small systems subject to the Lead sampling. For purposes of estimating Small systems and Copper Rule will be expected to costs, EPA assumed that the States that Regulatory change impacted per incur some costs to read the rule year did not support the alternative and changes and communicate requirements States that did not comment on the rule Regulatory Change III.A ..... 3,692 as necessary. The level of effort provision would not allow systems to Regulatory Change III.B ..... (1) associated with these activities could implement the alternative since the Regulatory Change III.C ..... 854 range from 5–8 hours for each small default requirement in the rule is that Regulatory Change III.D ..... 1,009 system. The average cost per system for systems take a minimum of 5 samples. Regulatory Change III.E ..... 60,735 these activities is estimated at $138, for Based on data from SDWIS/FED on Regulatory Change III.F ..... 49,337 a total cost of $9,404,000 for all 68,286 these 11 States, EPA estimates that there Regulatory Change III.G ..... 1 small systems. This assumes an hourly are 3,692 systems with fewer than 5 1 None—Clarifications of definitions with no fully loaded labor cost for small system taps. Preparing the one-time request direct cost impact. employees ranging from $23.86 to letter results in a one time cost of $28

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57810 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

per system. Total costs for all small Regulatory Change III.D is estimated at Confidence Report (CCR), at an average systems likely to be affected by $198,000 per year. cost of $7 per system, based on the Regulatory Change III.A are estimated at assumption of 0.25 hours to add an 5. Activities for Regulatory Change III.E $104,000 per year. informational statement on lead to the Most small systems are expected to CCR. Small community water systems 3. Activities for Regulatory Change III.C incur additional costs under Regulatory that exceed the lead action level will Under Regulatory Change III.C, all Change III.E when they are required to incur costs from a variety of public systems that exceed the lead action level notify consumers of tap monitoring education activities, at an average cost are triggered into regularly scheduled results. The activities associated with per system of $265. The total cost for all lead tap monitoring. Additional costs notifying customers vary based on the small systems likely to be affected by are associated with taking lead samples type and size of the system and include Regulatory Change III.F is estimated at more frequently and reporting the the effort to prepare a self-certification $569,000. results to States. EPA estimates that 854 letter to the State. The average cost for small systems exceed the lead action small systems to notify customers is 7. Activities for Regulatory Change III.G level each year. Changing from reduced estimated at approximately $17 Regulatory Change III.G applies to tap monitoring to regularly scheduled annually. This estimate assumes one systems that had ‘‘tested out’’ lead tap monitoring would result in an labor hour to prepare a customer service lines as part of a lead service average cost increase of $2,258 per year notification letter per system, 0.12 hours line replacement program and then re- per system. Total costs for all small to prepare the self-certification letter, exceeded the action level. For the systems likely to be affected by and $0.43 in material costs per sample purposes of subsequent lead service line Regulatory Change III.C are estimated at for CWSs. EPA assumed one labor hour replacement efforts, the previously $1,929,000 per year. plus 0.12 hours for NTNCWSs, with ‘‘tested-out’’ lines would go back into negligible material costs. It is important the inventory for possible re-testing 4. Activities for Regulatory Change III.D to note that the majority of small and/or replacement. Only a handful of Small systems that are changing systems are assumed to meet the lead systems are expected to be in this treatment or adding a source would action level and are assumed to be on situation, estimated at 1 system per incur additional costs under Regulatory triennial monitoring. Therefore, this year. This analysis assumes that the 1 Change III.D to prepare data in support requirement will only affect them once system is not a small system. There is of treatment changes or source addition, every three years. The total cost to all no evidence that small systems would to submit the data to the State for small systems likely to be affected by be triggered into this regulatory change review, and to coordinate with the State Regulatory Change III.E is estimated at cost any more frequently than other during the review. These activities are $1,060,000. systems. estimated to take an additional 7.5 hours per system for each treatment 6. Activities for Regulatory Change III.F 8. Total Small System Costs change or source addition. The cost for Different provisions of Regulatory Table V.4 summarizes the estimated each small system that is changing Change III.F apply to different subsets of annual costs associated with all treatment or adding a source is systems. All small community water regulatory changes. Table V.5 estimated at $196. The total cost for all systems will incur costs to include a summarizes the one-time costs to small small systems likely to be affected by statement on lead in the Consumer 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- TABLE V.5.—TOTAL ESTIMATED ONE- 9. Average Costs Per Small System TIME SMALL SYSTEM COSTS (2006 TIME SMALL SYSTEM COSTS (2006 The estimated average compliance DOLLARS) ALL SYSTEMS SERVING DOLLARS) ALL SYSTEMS SERVING cost for all small systems covered by the LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE LESS THAN 10,000 PEOPLE—Con- LCR for the final rule changes is tinued minimal: $55 per system in annual One-time costs. However, there is a fairly wide costs One-time costs range in the costs that a system could Regulatory Change III.A ...... $104,000 face. EPA expects that all systems will Implementation ...... 9,404,000 Total ...... 9,508,000 incur the $138 one-time implementation cost. The additional annual costs could

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57811

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

TABLE V.6.—AVERAGE COSTS PER SYSTEM AND PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE [All revenue sources (2006$)]

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

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57812 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

and copper monitoring. Based on of future regulatory actions on small intergovernmental mandates, and guidance from the work group on systems. In the new CWSS, we are informing, educating, and advising minimizing impacts to small systems, taking steps to improve response rate, small governments on compliance with EPA limited the requirement to only particularly with respect to water the regulatory requirements. include lead action level exceedances. system revenue estimates. Examples of EPA has determined that this rule Regulatory Change III.E requires these steps include linking municipal does not contain a Federal mandate that systems to provide lead monitoring government revenues to the system may result in expenditures of $100 results to consumers. The regulatory surveyed in that municipality, rather million or more for State, local, and development work group considered than reliance on the Census of Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or including copper monitoring results in Governments data; decreasing item non- the private sector in any one year. The the consumer notice, but decided to response on revenue source through total upfront costs of this action to defer that suggestion for consideration system site visits; and gaining a better States and public water systems are in future regulatory revisions, thereby understanding of how a water system estimated at $12.7 million, with limiting the increase in burden to small pays for its system operations in estimated annual costs to States and systems. systems that report no revenue, through public water systems ranging from $5.9 to $6.3 million. Systems and State/ 11. What Were the Key Issues Raised by an additional survey question. These Primacy agencies incur one-time Commenters on the Regulatory improvements to the new CWSS will upfront costs associated with reviewing Flexibility Analysis and EPA’s Response help EPA to gain a better understanding and implementing the overall LCR to These Issues? of the revenue sources available to small water systems and improve our ability regulatory changes. For systems, EPA received one comment on its to accurately understand the revenue activities include reviewing the rule Regulatory Flexibility analysis streams available to these systems. changes and training staff. For States/ supporting the proposed rule. The Primacy agencies, activities include commenter agreed with EPA’s D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act regulation adoption, program certification that the LCR will not have Title II of the Unfunded Mandates development, and miscellaneous a significant economic impact on a Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. training. Systems and States also incur substantial number of small entities, but 104–4, establishes requirements for annual costs consisting of the costs to recommended that EPA provide more Federal agencies to assess the effects of implement the regulation. Annual costs detailed information concerning the their regulatory actions on State, local, to systems include the costs of economic impacts of these regulatory and Tribal governments and the private reporting, monitoring, and public changes to subcategories of small sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, education. Annual costs to States entities. In response to this commenter, EPA generally must prepare a written consist of the costs of reviewing water EPA provided additional information in statement, including a cost-benefit system information. Thus, this rule is the final rule on the potential impacts analysis, for proposed and final rules not subject to the requirements of to systems in the three smallest size with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. subcategories (those serving 25–500, result in expenditures to State, local, EPA has determined that this rule 501–3,300, and 3,301 to 10,000 people) and Tribal governments, in the contains no regulatory requirements that and has considered this information in aggregate, or to the private sector, of might significantly or uniquely affect evaluating impacts to small systems. $100 million or more in any one year. small governments. The rule is In certifying that these regulatory Before promulgating an EPA rule for consistent with, and only makes changes will not have a significant which a written statement is needed, revisions to, the requirements under the economic impact on a substantial section 205 of the UMRA generally current NPDWR for lead and copper. number of small entities, EPA assessed requires EPA to identify and consider a The existing rule imposes requirements the economic impacts of this final rule reasonable number of regulatory on PWSs to ensure that water delivered on small water systems by calculating alternatives and adopt the least costly, to users is minimally corrosive; the rule an average revenue estimate for systems most cost-effective or least burdensome requires removal of lead service lines serving less than 10,000 customers and alternative that achieves the objectives and the provision of public education comparing it to an average cost estimate of the rule. The provisions of section where necessary to ensure public health for systems serving less than 10,000. 205 do not apply when they are protection. This final rule does not EPA then evaluated data on the costs inconsistent with applicable law. make any significant changes to these and revenues per system for three small Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to requirements, but makes revisions and size subcategories as defined in the adopt an alternative other than the least clarifications to the rule’s requirements SDWA for affordability determinations costly, most cost-effective or least to enhance the efficiency and for small systems. EPA believes that for burdensome alternative if the effectiveness of current rule this rule this is a reasonable way to Administrator publishes with the final requirements. stratify the small system universe by rule an explanation why that alternative Nevertheless, in developing this rule, size for purposes of its RFA screening was not adopted. Before EPA establishes EPA consulted with State and local analysis as well. EPA is continuing to any regulatory requirements that may officials (including small entity examine issues associated with the significantly or uniquely affect small representatives) early in the process of significant variety of entities that governments, including Tribal developing the proposed regulation to operate small water systems and how governments, it must have developed permit them to have meaningful and best to analyze them under the RFA, under section 203 of the UMRA a small timely input into its development. EPA and may further refine its analytical government agency plan. The plan must held five workshops in 2004–2005 to approach for future rule makings. provide for notifying potentially elicit concerns and suggestions from EPA is also working to improve its affected small governments, enabling stakeholders on various issues related to estimation of small system revenues. officials of affected small governments lead in drinking water. These The new CWSS, estimated for to have meaningful and timely input in workshops covered the topic areas of completion in early 2009, is expected to the development of EPA regulatory simultaneous compliance, sampling better enable EPA to assess the impacts proposals with significant Federal protocols, public education, lead service

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57813

line replacement, and lead in plumbing. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation implementation of the LCR in the areas Expert participants from utilities, and Coordination With Indian Tribal of monitoring, customer awareness, and academia, state governments, consumer Governments lead service line replacement. This final and environmental groups, and other Executive Order 13175, entitled rule also clarifies the intent of some stakeholder groups participated in these ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with provisions in the LCR. These changes workshops to identify issues, propose Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR are expected to ensure and enhance solutions, and offer suggestions for 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA more effective protection of public modifications and improvements to the to develop an accountable process to health through the reduction in lead LCR. These workshops are described in ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by exposure. greater detail in the Economic Analysis tribal officials in the development of H. Executive Order 13211: Actions for this final rule. regulatory policies that have tribal Concerning Regulations That implications.’’ This final rule does not Significantly Affect Energy Supply, E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism have tribal implications, as specified in Distribution, or Use Executive Order 13132, entitled Executive Order 13175. It does not This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy ‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, significantly or uniquely affect the action’’ as defined in Executive Order 1999), requires EPA to develop an communities of Indian tribal 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations governments, nor does it impose accountable process to ensure That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, substantial direct compliance costs on ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May those communities. The provisions of and local officials in the development of 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have this final rule apply to all community regulatory policies that have federalism a significant adverse effect on the and non-transient non-community water supply, distribution, or use of energy. implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have systems. Tribal governments may be federalism implications’’ is defined in The rule provides clarifications and owners or operators of such systems; modifications to the existing LCR the Executive Order to include however, nothing in this rule’s requirements only. regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct provisions uniquely affects them. Thus, This final rule does not affect the effects on the States, on the relationship Executive Order 13175 does not apply supply of energy as it does not regulate between the national government and to this rule. power generation. The public and the States, or on the distribution of G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of private utilities that are affected by this power and responsibilities among the final regulation do not, as a rule, various levels of government.’’ Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks generate power. The revisions to the This final rule does not have LCR do not regulate any aspect of federalism implications. It will not have Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of energy distribution as the utilities that Children from Environmental Health substantial direct effects on the States, are regulated by the LCR already have Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, on the relationship between the national electrical service. Finally, these April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: government and the States, or on the regulatory revisions do not adversely (1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically distribution of power and affect the use of energy as EPA does not significant’’ as defined under Executive anticipate that a significant number of responsibilities among the various Order 12866, and (2) concerns an levels of government, as specified in drinking water utilities will add environmental health or safety risk that treatment technologies that use Executive Order 13132. The rule is EPA has reason to believe may have a electrical power to comply with these consistent with, and only makes disproportionate effect on children. If regulatory revisions. As such, EPA does revisions to, the requirements under the the regulatory action meets both criteria, not anticipate that this rule will current NPDWR for lead and copper. the Agency must evaluate the adversely affect the use of energy. The existing rule imposes requirements environmental health or safety effects of on PWSs to ensure that water delivered the planned rule on children, and I. National Technology Transfer and to users is minimally corrosive; the rule explain why the planned regulation is Advancement Act requires removal of lead service lines preferable to other potentially effective As noted in the proposed rule, and the provision of public education and reasonably feasible alternatives Section 12(d) of the National where necessary to ensure public health considered by the Agency. Technology Transfer and Advancement protection. This final rule does not While this final rule is not subject to Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. make any significant changes to these the Executive Order because it is not 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) requirements, but makes revisions and economically significant as defined in directs EPA to use voluntary consensus clarifications to the rule’s requirements Executive Order 12866, we nonetheless standards in its regulatory activities to enhance the efficiency and have reason to believe that the unless to do so would be inconsistent effectiveness of current rule environmental health or safety risk with applicable law or otherwise requirements. Thus, Executive Order addressed by this action has a impractical. Voluntary consensus 13132 does not apply to this rule. disproportionate effect on children. This standards are technical standards (e.g., final rule does not change the core LCR materials specifications, test methods, Nevertheless, EPA did consult with requirements in place to assure the sampling procedures, and business State and local officials in developing protection of children from the effects of practices) that are developed or adopted this final rule as described in Section lead in drinking water; rather, these by voluntary consensus standards V.D, Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In changes improve the implementation of bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and these provisions. Moreover, EPA provide Congress, through OMB, consistent with EPA policy to promote believes that this final rule is consistent explanations when the Agency decides communications between EPA and State with Executive Order 13045 because it not to use available and applicable and local governments, EPA specifically further strengthens the protection to voluntary consensus standards. solicited comment on the proposed rule children from exposure to lead via The final rule may involve voluntary from State and local officials. drinking water as it enhances the consensus standards in that it requires

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57814 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

additional monitoring for lead and Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final I 2. Section 141.80 is amended by copper in certain situations, and Rule. (Wed, January 12, 2000), 1950– removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2), monitoring and sample analysis 2015 (65 FR 1950). by adding paragraph (c)(3)(v), and by methodologies are often based on U.S. EPA, 2000c. Federal Register. Vol. 65, revising paragraph (g) to read as follows: voluntary consensus standards. No. 87. Public Notification of Drinking Water Violations (May 4, 2000) (65 FR § 141.80 General requirements. However, the final rule does not change 26035). any methodological requirements for U.S. EPA, 2004a. Information Collection * * * * * monitoring or sample analysis, only, in Request for Disinfection Byproducts, (c) * * * some cases, the required frequency and Chemical, and Radionuclides Rules. (3) * * * number of samples. Also, EPA’s OMB Control Number: 2040–0204. EPA (v) For a public water system that has approved monitoring and sampling Tracking Number: 1896.03. Appendix H, been allowed by the State to collect protocols generally include voluntary page H–43, table entitled ‘‘Tap fewer than five samples in accordance consensus standards developed by Monitoring for Lead & Copper— with § 141.86(c), the sample result with agencies such as the American National Monitoring, Burden, and Cost the highest concentration is considered Assumptions.’’ September, 2004. the 90th percentile value. Standards Institute (ANSI) and other U.S. EPA, 2004b. State Implementation of the such bodies wherever EPA deems these Lead and Copper Rule. July, 2004. * * * * * methodologies appropriate for U.S. EPA, 2005a. Economic Analysis for the (g) Public education requirements. compliance monitoring. Final Long Term 2 Enhances Surface Pursuant to § 141.85, all water systems Water Treatment Rule. Office of Ground J. Congressional Review Act must provide a consumer notice of lead Water and Drinking Water, EPA 815–R– tap water monitoring results to persons The Congressional Review Act, 5 06–001, December 2005. served at the sites (taps) that are tested. U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small U.S. EPA, 2005b. Economic Analysis for the Any system exceeding the lead action Business Regulatory Enforcement Final Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Office of level shall implement the public Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides education requirements. that before a rule may take effect, the Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA 815–R–05–010, December 2005. * * * * * agency promulgating the rule must U.S. EPA, 2006a. Federal Register. Vol. 71, I 3. Section 141.81 is amended as submit a rule report, which includes a No. 137. National Primary Drinking copy of the rule, to each House of the follows by: Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: I Congress and to the Comptroller General Short-term Regulatory Revisions and a. Removing the first sentence in of the United States. EPA will submit a Clarifications; Proposed Rule (July 18, paragraph (b)(3)(iii) and adding in its report containing this rule and other 2006), 40828–40863 (71 FR 40828). place the following two sentences; required information to the U.S. Senate, U.S. EPA, 2006b. EPA Air Quality Criteria for I b. Revising the last sentence in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Lead (Final). U.S. Environmental paragraph (e)(1); the Comptroller General of the United Protection Agency, Washington, DC, I c. Revising the first sentence in EPA/600/R–05/144aF–bF, October, 2006. paragraph (e)(2) introductory text; States prior to publication of the rule in U.S. EPA, 2007a. Economic and Supporting the Federal Register. A Major rule I d. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and Analyses: Short-Term Regulatory I e. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii). cannot take effect until 60 days after it Changes to the Lead and Copper Rule. is published in the Federal Register. Office of Ground Water and Drinking § 141.81 Applicability of corrosion control This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as Water, EPA–815–R0–7022, September treatment steps to small, medium-size and defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 2007. large water systems. will be effective December 10, 2007. U.S. EPA, 2007b. Simultaneous Compliance Guidance Manual for the Long Term 2 * * * * * VI. References and Stage 2 DBP Rules. U.S. (b) * * * Environmental Protection Agency. EPA (3) * * * U.S. EPA, 1991a. Federal Register. Vol. 56, (iii) Any water system deemed to have No. 110. Maximum Contaminant Level 815–R–07–017, March 2007. Goals and National Primary Drinking optimized corrosion control pursuant to List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 141 and this paragraph shall notify the State in Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; 142 Final Rule (Fri. Jun. 7, 1991), 26460– writing pursuant to § 141.90(a)(3) of any 26564. (56 FR 26460). Environmental protection, Chemicals, upcoming long-term change in U.S. EPA, 1991b. Final Regulatory Impact Indians—lands, Intergovernmental treatment or addition of a new source as Analysis of National Primary Drinking relations, Radiation protection, described in that section. The State Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. Reporting and recordkeeping must review and approve the addition Prepared by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. (April 1991). requirements, Water supply. of a new source or long-term change in U.S. EPA, 1996a. Federal Register. Vol. 60, Dated: September 25, 2007. water treatment before it is No. 72. Maximum Contaminant Level Stephen L. Johnson, implemented by the water system. Goals and National Primary Drinking *** Administrator. Water Regulations for Lead and Copper; * * * * * I For the reasons set forth in the Proposed Rule (Friday, April 12, 1996), (e) * * * 16348–16371. (60 FR 16348). preamble, title 40, chapter I, of the Code (1) * * * A system exceeding the lead U.S. EPA, 1996b. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Federal Regulations is amended as or copper action level shall recommend Addendum. EPA 812–B–96–002, January follows: 1996. optimal corrosion control treatment U.S. EPA, 1998. Federal Register. Vol. 63, PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY (§ 141.82(a)) within six months after the No. 160. Consumer Confidence Reports DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS end of the monitoring period during (August 19, 1998) (63 FR 44526). which it exceeds one of the action U.S. EPA, 2000a. Arsenic in Drinking Water I 1. The authority citation for part 141 levels. Rule Economic Analysis. Office of continues to read as follows: Ground Water and Drinking Water, EPA (2) Step 2: Within 12 months after the 815–R–00–026, December 2000. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, end of the monitoring period during U.S. EPA, 2000b. Federal Register. Vol. 65, 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, which a system exceeds the lead or No. 8. National Primary Drinking Water 300j–9, and 300j–11. copper action level, the State may

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57815

require the system to perform corrosion number of remaining years in the in drinking water in some homes/ control studies (§ 141.82(b)). * * * program to determine the number of buildings. Lead can cause serious health (i) For medium-size systems, within lines that must be replaced per year (7 problems, especially for pregnant 18 months after the end of the percent lead service line replacement is women and young children. Please read monitoring period during which such based on a 15-year replacement this information closely to see what you system exceeds the lead or copper program, so, for example, systems can do to reduce lead in your drinking action level. resuming lead service line replacement water. (ii) For small systems, within 24 after previously conducting two years of (ii) Health effects of lead. Lead can months after the end of the monitoring replacement would divide the updated cause serious health problems if too period during which such system inventory by 13). For those systems that much enters your body from drinking exceeds the lead or copper action level. have completed a 15-year lead service water or other sources. It can cause * * * * * line replacement program, the State will damage to the brain and kidneys, and determine a schedule for replacing or can interfere with the production of red I 4. Section 141.83(a)(1) is revised to retesting lines that were previously blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts read as follows: tested out under the replacement of your body. The greatest risk of lead § 141.83 Source water treatment program when the system re-exceeds the exposure is to infants, young children, requirements. action level. and pregnant women. Scientists have * * * * * * * * * * linked the effects of lead on the brain (a) * * * (1) Step 1: A system I 6. Section 141.85 is revised to read as with lowered IQ in children. Adults exceeding the lead or copper action follows: with kidney problems and high blood level shall complete lead and copper pressure can be affected by low levels of source water monitoring (§ 141.88(b)) § 141.85 Public education and lead more than healthy adults. Lead is supplemental monitoring requirements. and make a treatment recommendation stored in the bones, and it can be to the State (§ 141.83(b)(1)) no later than All water systems must deliver a released later in life. During pregnancy, 180 days after the end of the monitoring consumer notice of lead tap water the child receives lead from the period during which the lead or copper monitoring results to persons served by mother’s bones, which may affect brain action level was exceeded. the water system at sites that are tested, development. as specified in paragraph (d) of this * * * * * (iii) Sources of Lead. section. A water system that exceeds the (A) Explain what lead is. I 5. Section 141.84 is amended as lead action level based on tap water (B) Explain possible sources of lead in follows by: samples collected in accordance with drinking water and how lead enters I a. Redesignating paragraph (b) as § 141.86 shall deliver the public drinking water. Include information on (b)(1); education materials contained in home/building plumbing materials and I b. Revising the last sentence in the paragraph (a) of this section in service lines that may contain lead. newly designated (b)(1) and adding two accordance with the requirements in (C) Discuss other important sources of sentences to the end of the paragraph; paragraph (b) of this section. Water lead exposure in addition to drinking I c. Adding paragraph (b)(2); and systems that exceed the lead action level water (e.g., paint). I d. In paragraph (f), revise ‘‘paragraph must sample the tap water of any (iv) Discuss the steps the consumer (b)’’ to read ‘‘paragraph (b)(2)’’. customer who requests it in accordance can take to reduce their exposure to lead with paragraph (c) of this section. in drinking water. § 141.84 Lead service line replacement (a) Content of written public requirements. (A) Encourage running the water to education materials. (1) Community flush out the lead. * * * * * water systems and Non-transient non- (B) Explain concerns with using hot (b)(1) * * * The first year of lead community water systems. Water water from the tap and specifically service line replacement shall begin on systems must include the following caution against the use of hot water for the first day following the end of the elements in printed materials (e.g., preparing baby formula. monitoring period in which the action brochures and pamphlets) in the same (C) Explain that boiling water does level was exceeded under paragraph (a) order as listed below. In addition, not reduce lead levels. of this section. If monitoring is required language in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (D) Discuss other options consumers annually or less frequently, the end of (ii) and (a)(1)(vi) of this section must be can take to reduce exposure to lead in the monitoring period is September 30 included in the materials, exactly as drinking water, such as alternative of the calendar year in which the written, except for the text in brackets sources or treatment of water. sampling occurs. If the State has in these paragraphs for which the water (E) Suggest that parents have their established an alternate monitoring system must include system-specific child’s blood tested for lead. period, then the end of the monitoring information. Any additional information (v) Explain why there are elevated period will be the last day of that presented by a water system must be levels of lead in the system’s drinking period. consistent with the information below water (if known) and what the water (2) Any water system resuming a lead and be in plain language that can be system is doing to reduce the lead levels service line replacement program after understood by the general public. Water in homes/buildings in this area. the cessation of its lead service line systems must submit all written public (vi) For more information, call us at replacement program as allowed by education materials to the State prior to [INSERT YOUR NUMBER] [(IF paragraph (f) of this section shall update delivery. The State may require the APPLICABLE), or visit our Web site at its inventory of lead service lines to system to obtain approval of the content [INSERT YOUR WEB SITE HERE]]. For include those sites that were previously of written public materials prior to more information on reducing lead determined not to require replacement delivery. exposure around your home/building through the sampling provision under (i) IMPORTANT INFORMATION and the health effects of lead, visit paragraph (c) of this section. The system ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR DRINKING EPA’s Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ will then divide the updated number of WATER. [INSERT NAME OF WATER lead or contact your health care remaining lead service lines by the SYSTEM] found elevated levels of lead provider.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57816 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

(2) Community water systems. In informational notice that encourages (A) Public Service Announcements. addition to including the elements distribution to all the organization’s (B) Paid advertisements. specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this potentially affected customers or (C) Public Area Information Displays. section, community water systems must: community water system’s users: (D) E-mails to customers. (i) Tell consumers how to get their (1) Public and private schools or (E) Public Meetings. water tested. school boards. (F) Household Deliveries. (ii) Discuss lead in plumbing (2) Women, Infants and Children (G) Targeted Individual Customer components and the difference between (WIC) and Head Start programs. Contact. low lead and lead free. (3) Public and private hospitals and (H) Direct material distribution to all (b) Delivery of public education medical clinics. multi-family homes and institutions. materials. (1) For public water systems (4) Pediatricians. (I) Other methods approved by the serving a large proportion of non- (5) Family planning clinics. State. English speaking consumers, as (6) Local welfare agencies. (vii) For systems that are required to determined by the State, the public (C) Make a good faith effort to locate conduct monitoring annually or less education materials must contain the following organizations within the frequently, the end of the monitoring information in the appropriate service area and deliver materials that period is September 30 of the calendar language(s) regarding the importance of meet the content requirements of year in which the sampling occurs, or, the notice or contain a telephone paragraph (a) of this section to them, if the State has established an alternate number or address where persons along with an informational notice that monitoring period, the last day of that served may contact the water system to encourages distribution to all period. obtain a translated copy of the public potentially affected customers or users. (3) As long as a community water education materials or to request The good faith effort to contact at-risk system exceeds the action level, it must assistance in the appropriate language. customers may include requesting a repeat the activities pursuant to (2) A community water system that specific contact list of these paragraph (b)(2) of this section as exceeds the lead action level on the organizations from the local public described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through basis of tap water samples collected in health agencies, even if the agencies are (iv) of this section. accordance with § 141.86, and that is not located within the water system’s (i) A community water system shall not already conducting public education service area: repeat the tasks contained in paragraphs tasks under this section, must conduct (1) Licensed childcare centers (b)(2)(i), (ii) and (vi) of this section every the public education tasks under this (2) Public and private preschools. 12 months. section within 60 days after the end of (3) Obstetricians-Gynecologists and (ii) A community water system shall the monitoring period in which the Midwives. repeat tasks contained in paragraph exceedance occurred: (iii) No less often than quarterly, (b)(2)(iii) of this section with each (i) Deliver printed materials meeting provide information on or in each water billing cycle. the content requirements of paragraph bill as long as the system exceeds the (iii) A community water system (a) of this section to all bill paying action level for lead. The message on the serving a population greater than customers. water bill must include the following 100,000 shall post and retain material (ii)(A) Contact customers who are statement exactly as written except for on a publicly accessible Web site most at risk by delivering education the text in brackets for which the water pursuant to paragraph (b)(2)(iv) of this materials that meet the content system must include system-specific section. requirements of paragraph (a) of this information: [INSERT NAME OF (iv) The community water system section to local public health agencies WATER SYSTEM] found high levels of shall repeat the task in paragraph even if they are not located within the lead in drinking water in some homes. (b)(2)(v) of this section twice every 12 water system’s service area, along with Lead can cause serious health problems. months on a schedule agreed upon with an informational notice that encourages For more information please call the State. The State can allow activities distribution to all the organization’s [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to potentially affected customers or [or visit (INSERT YOUR WEB SITE extend beyond the 60-day requirement community water system’s users. The HERE)]. The message or delivery if needed for implementation purposes water system must contact the local mechanism can be modified in on a case-by-case basis; however, this public health agencies directly by phone consultation with the State; specifically, extension must be approved in writing or in person. The local public health the State may allow a separate mailing by the State in advance of the 60-day agencies may provide a specific list of of public education materials to deadline. additional community based customers if the water system cannot (4) Within 60 days after the end of the organizations serving target populations, place the information on water bills. monitoring period in which the which may include organizations (iv) Post material meeting the content exceedance occurred (unless it already outside the service area of the water requirements of paragraph (a) of this is repeating public education tasks system. If such lists are provided, section on the water system’s Web site pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this systems must deliver education if the system serves a population greater section), a non-transient non- materials that meet the content than 100,000. community water system shall deliver requirements of paragraph (a) of this (v) Submit a press release to the public education materials specified section to all organizations on the newspaper, television and radio by paragraph (a) of this section as provided lists. stations. follows: (B) Contact customers who are most at (vi) In addition to paragraphs (b)(2)(i) (i) Post informational posters on lead risk by delivering materials that meet through (v) of this section, systems must in drinking water in a public place or the content requirements of paragraph implement at least three activities from common area in each of the buildings (a) of this section to the following one or more categories listed below. The served by the system; and organizations listed in 1 through 6 that educational content and selection of (ii) Distribute informational are located within the water system’s these activities must be determined in pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in service area, along with an consultation with the State. drinking water to each person served by

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57817

the non-transient non-community water system serving 3,300 or fewer people I b. In paragraph (c) introductory text system. The State may allow the system may limit the distribution of the public by adding three sentences after the third to utilize electronic transmission in lieu education materials required under that sentence; of or combined with printed materials paragraph to facilities and organizations I c. In paragraph (d)(4)(i) add three as long as it achieves at least the same served by the system that are most likely sentences after the last sentence; coverage. to be visited regularly by pregnant I d. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(ii); (iii) For systems that are required to women and children. I e. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iii); conduct monitoring annually or less (iii) With respect to the requirements I f. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A); frequently, the end of the monitoring of paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section, the I g. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B) period is September 30 of the calendar State may waive this requirement for introductory text; year in which the sampling occurs, or, systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons I h. Adding a sentence to the end of if the State has established an alternate as long as system distributes notices to paragraph (d)(4)(vi)(B)(1); monitoring period, the last day of that every household served by the system. I i. Removing the first sentence in period. (c) Supplemental monitoring and paragraph (d)(4)(vii), and adding in its (5) A non-transient non-community notification of results. A water system place the following two sentences; water system shall repeat the tasks that fails to meet the lead action level I j. Adding a sentence to the end of contained in paragraph (b)(4) of this on the basis of tap samples collected in paragraph (g)(4)(i); and section at least once during each accordance with § 141.86 shall offer to I k. Removing the first sentence in calendar year in which the system sample the tap water of any customer paragraph (g)(4)(iii) and adding in its exceeds the lead action level. The State who requests it. The system is not place two new sentences: required to pay for collecting or can allow activities in (b)(4) of this § 141.86 Monitoring requirements for lead section to extend beyond the 60-day analyzing the sample, nor is the system and copper in tap water. requirement if needed for required to collect and analyze the * * * * * implementation purposes on a case-by- sample itself. (d) Notification of results. (1) (c) * * * A public water system that case basis; however, this extension must has fewer than five drinking water taps, be approved in writing by the State in Reporting requirement. All water systems must provide a notice of the that can be used for human advance of the 60-day deadline. consumption meeting the sample site (6) A water system may discontinue individual tap results from lead tap criteria of paragraph (a) of this section delivery of public education materials if water monitoring carried out under the to reach the required number of sample the system has met the lead action level requirements of § 141.86 to the persons sites listed in paragraph (c) of this during the most recent six-month served by the water system at the section, must collect at least one sample monitoring period conducted pursuant specific sampling site from which the from each tap and then must collect to § 141.86. Such a system shall sample was taken (e.g., the occupants of additional samples from those taps on recommence public education in the residence where the tap was tested). different days during the monitoring accordance with this section if it (2) Timing of notification. A water period to meet the required number of subsequently exceeds the lead action system must provide the consumer sites. Alternatively the State may allow level during any monitoring period. notice as soon as practical, but no later (7) A community water system may than 30 days after the system learns of these public water systems to collect a apply to the State, in writing (unless the the tap monitoring results. number of samples less than the number State has waived the requirement for (3) Content. The consumer notice of sites specified in paragraph (c) of this prior State approval), to use only the must include the results of lead tap section, provided that 100 percent of all text specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this water monitoring for the tap that was taps that can be used for human section in lieu of the text in paragraphs tested, an explanation of the health consumption are sampled. The State (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section and to effects of lead, list steps consumers can must approve this reduction of the perform the tasks listed in paragraphs take to reduce exposure to lead in minimum number of samples in writing (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section in lieu of drinking water and contact information based on a request from the system or the tasks in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) for the water utility. The notice must onsite verification by the State. * * * of this section if: also provide the maximum contaminant * * * * * (i) The system is a facility, such as a level goal and the action level for lead (d) * * * prison or a hospital, where the and the definitions for these two terms (4) * * * population served is not capable of or is from § 141.153(c). (i) * * * A small or medium water prevented from making improvements (4) Delivery. The consumer notice system collecting fewer than five to plumbing or installing point of use must be provided to persons served at samples as specified in paragraph (c) of treatment devices; and the tap that was tested, either by mail this section, that meets the lead and (ii) The system provides water as part or by another method approved by the copper action levels during each of two of the cost of services provided and does State. For example, upon approval by consecutive six-month monitoring not separately charge for water the State, a non-transient non- periods may reduce the frequency of consumption. community water system could post the sampling to once per year. In no case (8) A community water system results on a bulletin board in the facility can the system reduce the number of serving 3,300 or fewer people may limit to allow users to review the information. samples required below the minimum of certain aspects of their public education The system must provide the notice to one sample per available tap. This programs as follows: customers at sample taps tested, sampling shall begin during the (i) With respect to the requirements of including consumers who do not calendar year immediately following the paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of this section, a receive water bills. end of the second consecutive six- system serving 3,300 or fewer must I 7. Section 141.86 is amended as month monitoring period. implement at least one of the activities follows: (ii) Any water system that meets the listed in that paragraph. I a. In paragraph (b)(5) remove the lead action level and maintains the (ii) With respect to the requirements citation ‘‘§ § 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)’’ and range of values for the water quality of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a add in its place ‘‘§ 141.85(b)(7)’’; control parameters reflecting optimal

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57818 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

corrosion control treatment specified by a time of normal operation where the before it is implemented by the water the State under § 141.82(f) during each highest levels of lead are most likely to system. * * * of two consecutive six-month occur. For a non-transient non- * * * * * monitoring periods may reduce the community water system that does not (g) * * * frequency of monitoring to once per operate during the months of June (4) * * * year and reduce the number of lead and through September, and for which the (i) * * * Samples collected every copper samples in accordance with period of normal operation where the nine years shall be collected no later paragraph (c) of this section if it receives highest levels of lead are most likely to than every ninth calendar year. written approval from the State. This occur is not known, the State shall * * * * * sampling shall begin during the designate a period that represents a time (iii) Any water system with a full or calendar year immediately following the of normal operation for the system. This partial waiver shall notify the State in end of the second consecutive six- sampling shall begin during the period writing in accordance with month monitoring period. The State approved or designated by the State in § 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming long- shall review monitoring, treatment, and the calendar year immediately following term change in treatment or addition of other relevant information submitted by the end of the second consecutive six- a new source, as described in that the water system in accordance with month monitoring period for systems section. The State must review and § 141.90, and shall notify the system in initiating annual monitoring and during approve the addition of a new source or writing when it determines the system the three-year period following the end long-term change in water treatment is eligible to commence reduced of the third consecutive calendar year of before it is implemented by the water monitoring pursuant to this paragraph. annual monitoring for systems initiating system.* * * The State shall review, and where triennial monitoring. * * * * * appropriate, revise its determination * * * * * I 8. Section 141.87 is amended as when the system submits new (vi) * * * monitoring or treatment data, or when (B) Any water system subject to the follows by: I a. Revising paragraph (d); other data relevant to the number and reduced monitoring frequency that fails I b. Revising paragraph (e)(2)(i); and frequency of tap sampling becomes to meet the lead action level during any I c. Adding a sentence to the end of available. four-month monitoring period or that paragraph (e)(2)(ii). (iii) A small or medium-size water fails to operate at or above the minimum system that meets the lead and copper value or within the range of values for § 141.87 Monitoring requirements for action levels during three consecutive the water quality parameters specified water quality parameters. years of monitoring may reduce the by the State under § 141.82(f) for more frequency of monitoring for lead and * * * * * than nine days in any six-month period copper from annually to once every (d) Monitoring after State specifies specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct three years. Any water system that water quality parameter values for tap water sampling for lead and copper meets the lead action level and optimal corrosion control. After the at the frequency specified in paragraph maintains the range of values for the State specifies the values for applicable (d)(3) of this section, collect the number water quality control parameters water quality control parameters of samples specified for standard reflecting optimal corrosion control reflecting optimal corrosion control monitoring under paragraph (c) of this treatment specified by the State under treatment under § 141.82(f), all large § 141.82(f) during three consecutive section, and shall resume monitoring for systems shall measure the applicable years of monitoring may reduce the water quality parameters within the water quality parameters in accordance frequency of monitoring from annually distribution system in accordance with with paragraph (c) of this section and to once every three years if it receives § 141.87(d). This standard tap water determine compliance with the written approval from the State. sampling shall begin no later than the requirements of § 141.82(g) every six Samples collected once every three six-month period beginning January 1 of months with the first six-month period years shall be collected no later than the calendar year following the lead to begin on either January 1 or July 1, every third calendar year. The State action level exceedance or water quality whichever comes first, after the State shall review monitoring, treatment, and parameter excursion. Such a system specifies the optimal values under other relevant information submitted by may resume reduced monitoring for § 141.82(f). Any small or medium-size the water system in accordance with lead and copper at the tap and for water system shall conduct such monitoring § 141.90, and shall notify the system in quality parameters within the during each six-month period specified writing when it determines the system distribution system under the following in this paragraph in which the system is eligible to reduce the frequency of conditions: exceeds the lead or copper action level. monitoring to once every three years. (1) * * * This sampling shall begin For any such small and medium-size The State shall review, and where during the calendar year immediately system that is subject to a reduced appropriate, revise its determination following the end of the second monitoring frequency pursuant to when the system submits new consecutive six-month monitoring § 141.86(d)(4) at the time of the action monitoring or treatment data, or when period. level exceedance, the start of the other data relevant to the number and * * * * * applicable six-month monitoring period frequency of tap sampling becomes (vii) Any water system subject to a under this paragraph shall coincide available. reduced monitoring frequency under with the start of the applicable (iv) * * * paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall monitoring period under § 141.86(d)(4). (A) The State, at its discretion, may notify the State in writing in accordance Compliance with State-designated approve a different period for with § 141.90(a)(3) of any upcoming optimal water quality parameter values conducting the lead and copper tap long-term change in treatment or shall be determined as specified under sampling for systems collecting a addition of a new source as described in § 141.82(g). reduced number of samples. Such a that section. The State must review and (e) * * * period shall be no longer than four approve the addition of a new source or (2)(i) Any water system that maintains consecutive months and must represent long-term change in water treatment the range of values for the water quality

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 57819

parameters reflecting optimal corrosion (ii) A water system using surface months, the end of the monitoring control treatment specified by the State water (or a combination of surface and period is the last date samples can be under § 141.82(f) during three ground water) shall collect samples collected during that period as specified consecutive years of monitoring may once during each calendar year, the first in §§ 141.86 and 141.87. reduce the frequency with which it annual monitoring period to begin * * * * * collects the number of tap samples for during the year in which the applicable (3) At a time specified by the State, or applicable water quality parameters State determination is made under if no specific time is designated by the specified in this paragraph (e)(1) of this paragraph (d)(1) of this section. State, then as early as possible prior to section from every six months to * * * * * the addition of a new source or any annually. This sampling begins during (e) * * * long-term change in water treatment, a the calendar year immediately following (1) A water system using only ground water system deemed to have optimized the end of the monitoring period in water may reduce the monitoring corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3), a which the third consecutive year of six- frequency for lead and copper in source water system subject to reduced month monitoring occurs. Any water water to once during each nine-year monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4), system that maintains the range of compliance cycle (as that term is or a water system subject to a values for the water quality parameters defined in § 141.2) provided that the monitoring waiver pursuant to reflecting optimal corrosion control samples are collected no later than § 141.86(g), shall submit written treatment specified by the State under every ninth calendar year and if the documentation to the State describing § 141.82(f), during three consecutive system meets one of the following the change or addition. The State must years of annual monitoring under this criteria: review and approve the addition of a paragraph may reduce the frequency * * * * * new source or long-term change in with which it collects the number of tap (2) A water system using surface treatment before it is implemented by samples for applicable water quality water (or a combination of surface water the water system. Examples of long-term parameters specified in paragraph (e)(1) and ground water) may reduce the treatment changes include the addition of this section from annually to every monitoring frequency in paragraph of a new treatment process or three years. This sampling begins no (d)(1) of this section to once during each modification of an existing treatment later than the third calendar year nine-year compliance cycle (as that term process. Examples of modifications following the end of the monitoring is defined in § 141.2) provided that the include switching secondary period in which the third consecutive samples are collected no later than disinfectants, switching coagulants (e.g., year of monitoring occurs. every ninth calendar year and if the alum to ferric chloride), and switching (ii) * * * Monitoring conducted system meets one of the following corrosion inhibitor products (e.g., every three years shall be done no later criteria: orthophosphate to blended phosphate). than every third calendar year. * * * * * Long-term changes can include dose * * * * * changes to existing chemicals if the I 9. Section 141.88 is amended as § 141.89 [Amended] system is planning long-term changes to follows by: I 10. Section 141.89 is amended as its finished water pH or residual I a. Revising paragraph (b); follows by: inhibitor concentration. Long-term I b. Adding a sentence to the end of I a. In paragraph (a)(1)(iii) remove the treatment changes would not include paragraph (d)(1)(i); citation ‘‘§ 141.88(a)(1)(iii)’’ and add in chemical dose fluctuations associated I c. Revising paragraph (d)(1)(ii); its place ‘‘§ 141.88(a)(1)(iv)’’; with daily raw water quality changes. I d. Revising paragraph (e)(1) I b. In paragraph (a)(1)(iv) remove the * * * * * introductory text; and citation ‘‘(a)(2)’’ and add in its place I e. Revising paragraph (e)(2) (e) * * * ‘‘(a)(1)’’. (1) No later than 12 months after the introductory text. I 11. Section 141.90 is amended as end of a monitoring period in which a § 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead follows by: system exceeds the lead action level in and copper in source water. I a. Removing the colon and adding a sampling referred to in § 141.84(a), the * * * * * period in its place at the end of system must submit written (b) Monitoring frequency after system paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; documentation to the State of the exceeds tap water action level. Any I b. Adding a sentence to the end of material evaluation conducted as system which exceeds the lead or paragraph (a)(1) introductory text; required in § 141.86(a), identify the copper action level at the tap shall I c. In paragraph (a)(2) introductory text initial number of lead service lines in its collect one source water sample from remove the citation ‘‘§§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) distribution system at the time the each entry point to the distribution and (ii)’’ and add in its place system exceeds the lead action level, system no later than six months after the ‘‘§ 141.85(b)(7)’’; and provide the system’s schedule for I end of the monitoring period during d. Revising paragraph (a)(3); annually replacing at least 7 percent of I which the lead or copper action level e. Revising paragraph (e)(1); the initial number of lead service lines I f. Revising paragraph (e)(2) was exceeded. For monitoring periods in its distribution system. introductory text; (2) No later than 12 months after the that are annual or less frequent, the end I g. Revising the last sentence of of the monitoring period is September end of a monitoring period in which a paragraph (e)(2)(ii); system exceeds the lead action level in 30 of the calendar year in which the I h. Revising paragraph (f)(1) sampling referred to in § 141.84(a), and sampling occurs, or if the State has introductory text; every 12 months thereafter, the system established an alternate monitoring I i. Revising paragraph (f)(1)(i); and period, the last day of that period. I j. Adding paragraph (f)(3). shall demonstrate to the State in writing * * * * * that the system has either: (d) * * * § 141.90 Reporting requirements. * * * * * (1) * * * * * * * * (ii) * * * In such cases, the total (i) * * * Triennial samples shall be (a) * * * (1)* * * For monitoring number of lines replaced and/or which collected every third calendar year. periods with a duration less than six meet the criteria in § 141.84(c) shall

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3 57820 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations

equal at least 7 percent of the initial § 141.154 Required additional health (2) A system may write its own number of lead lines identified under information. educational statement, but only in paragraph (e)(1) of this section (or the * * * * * consultation with the State. percentage specified by the State under (d) Every report must include the * * * * * § 141.84(e)). following lead-specific information: * * * * * PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY (f) * * * (1) Any water system that is (1) A short informational statement DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS subject to the public education about lead in drinking water and its IMPLEMENTATION requirements in § 141.85 shall, within effects on children. The statement must ten days after the end of each period in include the following information: I 13. The authority citation for part 142 which the system is required to perform If present, elevated levels of lead can continues to read as follows: public education in accordance with cause serious health problems, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g–1, 300g–2, § 141.85(b), send written documentation especially for pregnant women and 300g–3, 300g–4, 300g–5, 300g–6, 300j–4, to the State that contains: young children. Lead in drinking water 300j–9, and 300j–11. (i) A demonstration that the system is primarily from materials and I 14. Section 142.14 is amended by has delivered the public education components associated with service revising paragraph (d)(8)(xi) to read as materials that meet the content lines and home plumbing. [NAME OF follows: requirements in § 141.85(a) and the UTILITY] is responsible for providing § 142.14 Records kept by States. delivery requirements in § 141.85(b); high quality drinking water, but cannot and control the variety of materials used in * * * * * * * * * * plumbing components. When your (d) * * * (3) No later than 3 months following water has been sitting for several hours, (8) * * * the end of the monitoring period, each you can minimize the potential for lead (xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)—system- system must mail a sample copy of the exposure by flushing your tap for 30 specific determinations regarding use of consumer notification of tap results to seconds to 2 minutes before using water non-first-draw samples at non-transient the State along with a certification that for drinking or cooking. If you are non-community water systems, and the notification has been distributed in concerned about lead in your water, you community water systems meeting the a manner consistent with the may wish to have your water tested. criteria of § 141.85(b)(7)(i) and (ii) of requirements of § 141.85(d). Information on lead in drinking water, this chapter, that operate 24 hours a * * * * * testing methods, and steps you can take day; I 12. Section 141.154 is amended by to minimize exposure is available from * * * * * revising paragraph (d) to read as the Safe Drinking Water Hotline or at [FR Doc. E7–19432 Filed 10–9–07; 8:45 am] follows: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:37 Oct 09, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10OCR3.SGM 10OCR3 pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES3