National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications, 57782-57820 [E7-19432]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 10, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57782-57820]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19432]



[[Page 57781]]

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 10, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 57782]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

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


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0034. All documents in the docket are listed on the 
www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically through 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket, EPA Docket 
Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone 
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone 
number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical inquiries, contact 
Jeffrey Kempic, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-4880; e-mail address: 
kempic.jeffrey@epa.gov. For regulatory inquiries, contact Eric 
Burneson, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC 4607M), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-5250; e-mail address: 
burneson.eric@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

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

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

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

B. Abbreviations Used in This Document

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

C. Table of Contents

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

[[Page 57783]]

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

I. Background

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

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

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

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

[[Page 57784]]

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

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

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

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

A. Minimum Number of Samples Required

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

B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods

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

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria

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

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

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

[[Page 57785]]

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

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

F. Public Education Requirements

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

G. Reevaluation of Lead Service Lines Deemed Replaced Through Testing

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

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

A. Minimum Number of Samples Required

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

[[Page 57786]]

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

B. Definitions for Compliance and Monitoring Periods

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

[[Page 57787]]

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

C. Reduced Monitoring Criteria

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

[[Page 57788]]

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

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

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

[[Page 57789]]

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

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

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

[[Page 57790]]

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

F. Public Education Requirements

    EPA is changing the public education requirements of the Lead and 
Copper Rule in Sec.  141.85. Water systems are still required to 
deliver public education materials after a lead action l