815-Z-99-005
Wednesday
January 12, 2000
Part H

Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 9, 141, and 142
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
Rule

-------
1950
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,-2000/Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 9,141 and 142 '

[FRL-6515-6]
RIN 214O-AC27

National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper

AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is making several minor
revisions to the national primary
drinking water regulations (NPDWRs)
for lead and copper to improve
implementation. The intended effect of
this action is to'eliminate unnecessary
requirements, streamline and reduce
reporting burden, and promote
consistent national implementation. The
changes promulgated in today's action
do not affect the lead or copper
maximum contaminant level goals, the
action levels, or the basic regulatory
requirements. In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
action also amends the table that lists
the Office of Managment and Budget
(OMB) control numbers issued under
the PRA for NPDWRs for Lead and
Copper.
DATES: This final rule is effective April
11, 2000.
  For judicial review purposes, this
final rule is promulgated as of 1 p.m.,
eastern time on January 26, 2000, as
provided in 40 CFR 23.7.
ADDRESSES: The rulemaking record,
including public comments on the
proposed revisions and EPA's
responses, applicable Federal Register
notices, other major supporting
documents, and a copy of the index to
the public docket for this  rulemaking,
are available for review at EPA's Water
Docket; 401 M Street, S.W., Washington,
DC 20460. For access to the Docket
materials, call (202) 260-3027 between
9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time for
an appointment and directions to room
EB57.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The
Safe Drinking Water Hotline, toll free
(800) 426-4791, or Judy Lebowich;
Standards and Risk Management
Division; Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water; EPA (4607); 401 M
Street S.W.; Washington, DC 20460;
telephone (202) 260-7595.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
'  Entities potentially regulated by this
Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions
                          (LCRMR) 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:
Category
Industry
State, Tribal, and
local governments.
Examples of
regulated entities
Privately-owned
CWSs and
NTNCWSs.
Publicly-owned CWSs
and NTNCWSs.
                            This table is not intended to be'
                          exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
                          for readers regarding entities regulated
                          by the LCRMR. This table lists the types
                          of entities that EPA is now aware could
                          potentially be regulated by the LCRMR.
                          Other types of entities not listed in the
                          table could also be regulated. To
                          determine whether your facility is
                          regulated by the LCRMR, you should
                          carefully examine the applicability
                          criteria in §§ 141.3 and 141.80(a) of title
                          40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
                          (CFR). If you have questions regarding
                          the applicability of the LCRMR to a
                          particular entity, consult the person
                          listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
                          INFORMATION CONTACT Section.

                          Effective Date
                            Section  1412(b)(10) of the Safe
                          Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
                          Amendments of 1996 specifies that any
                          amendments to a NPDWR promulgated
                          under SDWA section 1412 shall take
                          effect on the date that is 3 years after the
                          'date on which the regulation is
                          promulgated "unless the Administrator
                          determines that an earlier date is
                          practicable, except that the
                          Administrator, or a State (in the case of
                          an individual system), may allow up to
                          2 additional years to comply with a
                          maximum contaminant level or
                          treatment technique if the Administrator
                          or State (in the case of an individual
                          system) determines that additional time
                          is necessary for capital improvements."
                            Section  1445 (a) of the SDWA, which
                          authorizes EPA to establish
                          recordkeeping, reporting and
                          monitoring requirements, does not
                          specifically address when such
                          requirements shall become effective.
                          The Agency's authority to establish
                          effective dates for requirements under
                          this provision, therefore, is governed by
                          the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
                          U.S.C. 553(d), which provides that an
                          Agency publish a final rule in the
                          Federal Register not less than 30 days
                          before its effective date, although an
                          earlier effective date can be established
                          under certain circumstances.
  The Agency believes that a delay of
three years is not necessary, or
appropriate. The revisions in today's
action are effective April 11, 2000. Until
today's action takes effect, the existing
requirements of the NPDWRs for Lead
and Copper, and applicable State
requirements, remain in effect and are
enforceable.
  As noted above, section 1412(b)(10)
provides the Agency with flexibility to
establish an effective date for a NPDWR
earlier than 3 years after promulgation
where "practicable". In addition, under
section 1445(a), EPA has the flexibility
to establish an effective date for
recordkeeping, reporting, and
monitoring requirements any time not
shorter than 30 days after promulgation.
EPA is promulgating the recordkeeping,
reporting, and monitoring requirements
under both sections 1445 and 1412 of
the SDWA, and the remainder of the
rule under section 1412. EPA believes
that a 90-day effective date is
appropriate under both of these
provisions. For purposes of its effective
date under section 1412,  EPA believes it
is practicable for systems to implement
the revised rule requirements in today's
rule in 90  days. First, the revisions to
the existing regulation are minor and
generally do not require any installation
of new or different treatment by PWSs.
Second, this rule in many respects
streamlines existing requirements and
some of the benefits of the regulation
will not be realized if implementation
were to be delayed for three years.
Because the effective date is well in
advance of the deadline for State
adoption of these revised regulations,
EPA will take steps to enter into a
cooperative agreement with the States to
ensure that the primacy States (rather
than EPA) continue to be the lead entity
implementing these new requirements.
Although EPA will enforce the new
regulations until States get primacy for
the revised regulations, States will share
information with EPA about water
system compliance with the new
requirements.

More Stringent State Provisions
  For water systems in those States that
have primary enforcement
responsibility for the 1991 Lead and
Copper Rule (LCR), State program
requirements that are more stringent
than revisions in today's  rule will
continue to govern until the primacy
State incorporates these revisions into
its approved Primacy program. As
discussed in the next section, States
have two years, from the  date of
promulgation, to revise their Primacy
program to incorporate the revisions in
today's rule, unless they qualify for an

-------
             Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                                                1951
 extension. Table I identifies which
 provisions in today's rule, which are
 less stringent than the 1991 LCR and
 which, therefore, must be adopted into
                       the primacy State's regulations before
                       they can be implemented by water
                       systems within the State's jurisdiction.
                       Water systems, therefore, should check
 with their Primacy Agency before
 implementing any of these less stringent
 provisions.
                TABLE 1.—LCRMR PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION
    CFR Section
                                                                  Revision
 141.81
 141.82
 141.85
 141.86
141.87
141.88
141.89
141.90
 Deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under § 141.81 (b)(3)(i).
 Compliance determinations under § 141.82(g).
 All revisions to section.
 Following revisions:
 •  Eliminate justification letters for too few tier 1 sites (formerly under § 141.86(a)(8)) and/or lead service line sample sites
   (formerly under § 141.86(a)(9));
 •  NTNCWSs and special-case CWSs without sufficient first-draw sites under §§ 141.86(b)(1), (2), and (5);
 •  Minimum holding time for acidified lead and copper samples prior to analysis under §.141.86(b)(2);
 •  Eliminate requirement for systems subject to water quality parameter monitoring to explicitly request approval for re-
   duced monitoring under §§ 141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (iii);
 •  Use of alternate period to conduct reduced lead and copper tap monitoring under §141.86(d)(4)(iv);
 •  Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead and copper at the tap under § 14i.86(d)(4)(v);
 •  Sample invalidation under § 141.86(f); and
 •  Monitoring waivers under §141.86(g).
 All revisions to section except the table at the end of the section.
 Reduced source water monitoring for systems without maximum permissible source water levels.
 All revisions to section.
 All revisions to §§141.90(a)(1), 141.90(a)(2), 141.90(a)(4), 141.90(a)(5), and 141.90(h).
Primacy State Program Revisions

  States with primary enforcement
responsibility ("primacy") under 40
CFR Part 142 subpart B must adopt, and
submit to EPA for approval, a primacy
program revision to incorporate all new
and revised EPA regulations into their
approved primacy program. As a
condition of primacy, a State is required
to adopt, a State rule that is no less
stringent than EPA's regulations. Table
2 identifies those provisions in today's
action that States must adopt to retain
primacy. The requirements States must
meet to receive primacy are listed in
§ 142.10 and requirements to revise an
approved primacy program are in
§ 142.12. Special primacy requirements
unique to specific regulations are in
§142.16.
                        On April 28,1998, EPA amended its
                      State primacy regulations at 40 CFR
                      142.12 (EPA 1998d, 63 FR 23362). In
                      accordance with these regulations,
                      States must adopt the LCRMR by
                      January 14, 2002; however, under
                      certain circumstances States may
                      receive an extension of up to two years.
                      These State primacy regulations also
                      incorporate the new process identified
                      in the 1996 SDWA amendments for
                      granting primary enforcement authority
                      to States while their applications to
                      modify their primacy programs are
                      under review. The new process grants
                      interim primary enforcement authority
                      for a new  or revised regulation during
                      the period in which EPA is making a
                      determination with regard to primacy
                      for that new or revised regulation. This
                      interim enforcement authority begins on
                      the date of the primacy application
submission or the effective date of the
new or revised State regulation,
whichever is later, and ends when EPA
makes a final  determination. However,
this interim primacy authority is only
available to a  State whose existing
approved primacy program is current
with respect to every existing NPDWR
in effect when the new regulation is
promulgated.  As a result, States that
have primacy for every existing NPDWR
already in effect may obtain interim
primacy for this rule, beginning on the
date that the State submits its complete
and final application for primacy for
this rule to EPA, or the effective date  of
its revised regulations, whichever is
later. In addition, a State which wishes
to obtain interim primacy for future
NPDWRs must obtain primacy for this
rule.
                   TABLE 2.—LCRM PROVISIONS REQUIRING STATE ADOPTION TO MAINTAIN PRIMACY
   CFR Section
                                                                 Revision
141.81
141.82
141.84
141.86
141.88
141.90
All revisions to section except deemed to have optimized corrosion control criterion under §141.81 (b)(3)(i).
All revisions to section except compliance determinations under §141.82(g).
All revisions to section.
Following revisions:
• Requirement to use representative sites under §§141.86(a)(5) and (a)(7) when the system has insufficient tier 1, 2, or 3
  sites;
• Requirement that reduced monitoring must be representative and that States may specify sampling locations for re-
  duced monitoring under §141.86(c); and
• Requirement to notify the State of a change in treatment or additional of a new source for sysems on reduced moni-
  toring under §141.86(d)(4)(vii).
Resampling triggers for composite source water samples, if the State allows compositing
All revisions to §§ 141.90(a)(3), 141.90(f).

-------
 1952
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January  12, 2000/Rules and  Regulations
 Table of Contents

 List of Tables

 Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions
 Used in This Document
 A. Background
   1. Reason for this rulemaking
   2. Overview of public comments received
   3. Impacts on costs and benefits
 B. Continued exclusion of transient non-
     community water systems
   1. Overview and summary of Agency
     position
   2. Detailed discussion of rationale
   a. Background
   b. Occurrence and exposure at transient
     systems
   c. Health effects of lead
   d. Objections to the exclusion
 C. Revisions to 40 CFR141, requirements for
     public water systems
   1. Revisions to § 141.81
   a. Clarification of the requirement to install
     and maintain operation of optimal
     corrosion control
   (i) Proposed revision and background
   (ii) Comments and analysis
   (iii) Today's action
   b. Water systems deemed to be optimized
    pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2)
   (i) Proposed revision and background
   (ii) Comments and analysis
   (iii) .Today's action
,  c. Water systems deemed to have
    optimized corrosion control under
    §141.81(b)(3)
   (i) Copper action level requirements
   (A) Proposed revision and background
   (B) Comments and analysis
   (C) Today's action
   (ii) Routine monitoring for lead and copper
    at the tap
   (A) Proposed revision and background
   (B) Comments and analysis
   (C) Today's action
   (iii) State discretion to impose additional
    requirements
   (A) Proposed revision and background
   (B) Comments and analysis
   (C) Today's action
  (iv) Systems triggered into corrosion
    control
  (A) Proposed revision and background
  (B) Comments and analysis
  (C) Today's action
  (v) Difference between source water lead
    concentrations and 90th percentile lead
    levels
  (A) Proposed revision and background
  (B) Comments and analysis
  (C) Today's action
  2. Revisions to §141.82
  a. Clarification of requirement to operate
    and maintain optimal corrosion control
  b. Excursions from State-designated
    optimal water quality parameter ranges
    or values
  (i) Proposed revision and background
  (ii) Comments and analysis
  (iii) Today's action
  3. Revisions to § 141.84
  a. Proposed revision and background
  b. Comments and analysis
  (i) Definition of "control"
  (ii) Elimination of the rebuttable
   presumption
                               (iii) Possible adverse health effects
                                 associated with partial LSL replacement
                               (iv) Resident notification of partial LSL
                                 replacement
                               (v) Reporting of post-replacement sampling
                                 results to the State
                               (vi) Financial impacts of LSL replacement
                               (vii) Other LSL comments
                               c. Today's action
                               4. Revisions to § 141.85
                               a. Changes affecting content of written
                                 materials
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action
                               b. Public education delivery requirements
                               (i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people
                               (A) Proposed revision and background
                               (B) Comments and analysis
                               (C) Today's action
                               (ii) Timing and method of distribution
                               (A) Proposed revision and background
                               (B) Comments and analysis
                               (C) Today's action
                               c. Schedule for reporting completion of
                                 public education tasks
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action
                               5. Revisions to § 141.86 •
                               a. Systems with an insufficient number of
                                tier 1, 2, and 3 sample sites
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action
                               b. Elimination of justification letters for use
                                of non-tier 1 sample sites and
                                insufficient lead service line sample sites
                               (i) Proposed revision'and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action
                               c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to
                                provide first-draw samples
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action
                               d. Minimum holding time for acidified
                                lead and copper samples prior to
                                analysis
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action
                               e. Selection  of sample sites under reduced
                                monitoring
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action f. State determination
                                of eligibility for reduced monitoring
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action
                               g. Timing of sample collection under
                                reduced monitoring
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (iii) Today's action
                               h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for lead
                                and copper at the tap
                               (i) Proposed revision and background
                               (ii) Comments and analysis
                               (A) Using the PQL as the lead threshold
                               (B) Usefulness of proposed provision
                               (C) Accelerated reduced monitoring for
                                only one contaminant
                               (D) Monitoring less frequently than
                                biennially
 (E) Prior State approval
 (iii) Today's action
 i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead and
   copper tap water monitoring
 j. Requirements for systems subject to
   reduced monitoring that change
   treatment or source water
 (i) Proposed revision and background
 (ii) Comments and analysis
 (iii) Today's action
 k. Sample invalidation
 (i) Proposed revision and background
 (ii) Comments and analysis
 (iii) Today's action
 1. Monitoring waivers for small systems
 (i) Proposed revision and background
 (ii) Comments and analysis
 (A) Materials specification
 (B) Monitoring issues
 (C) Changes potentially affecting
   monitoring waivers
 (D) Waiver renewals
 (E) Partial waivers
 (F) Pre-existing waivers
 (iii) Today's action
 6. Revisions to § 141.87
 a. Monitoring for optimal water quality
   parameters
 b. Use of representative sites for entry
   point water quality parameter
   monitoring at ground water systems
 (i) Proposed revision and background
 (ii) Comments and analysis
 (iii)  Today's action
 c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for
   water quality parameters at the tap
 (i) Proposed revision and background
 (ii) Comments and analysis
 (iii)  Today's action
 d. Summary of water quality monitoring
   requirements
 7. Revisions to §141.88
 a. Resampling triggers for composite source
   water samples
 (i) Proposed revision and background
 (ii) Comments and analysis
 (iii) Today's action
 b. Reduced source water monitoring for
  systems without State-designated
  maximum permissible source water
  levels
 (i) Proposed revision and background
 (ii) Comments and analysis
 (iii) Today's action
 8. Revisions to laboratory certification
  requirements in § 141.89
 a. Proposed revision and background-
b. Comments and analysis
 c. Today's action
 9. Revisions to system reporting
  requirements in § 141.90
a. Timing of reporting of tap water
  monitoring for lead and copper and
  water quality parameter monitoring
 (i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
b. Elimination of certification requirements
  pertaining to first-draw samples
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis
(iii) Today's action
c. State calculation/reporting of 90th
  percentile levels
(i) Proposed revision and background
(ii) Comments and analysis

-------
             Federal  Register /VoL 65,  No. 8 /Wednesday, January  12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                       1953
  (iii) Today's action
  10. Revisions to § 141.43
D. Revisions to requirements for States
  1. Records kept by States
  2. Reporting requirements for States
  a. Proposed revision and background
  b. Comments and analysis
  c. Today's action
  3. Special primacy considerations
E. Burden reduction suggestions not adopted
  1. Reduced frequency of water quality
    parameter monitoring at entry points for
    systems subject to water quality
    parameter monitoring requirements
  a. Burden reduction suggestion and
    background
  b. Comments and analysis
  2. Use of flushing/bottled water at
    NTNCWSs in lieu of corrosion control
    treatment
  a. Burden reduction suggestion and
    background
  b. Comments and analysis
  3. Requirement for water systems to justify
    corrosion control  methods not
    recommended
  a. Burden reduction suggestion and
    background
  b. Comments and analysis
  4. Use of alternatives to tap samples to
    assess corrosion control effectiveness
  a. Burden reduction suggestion and
    background
  b. Comments and analysis
  5. Reduced frequency for State reporting of
    90th percentile and milestone data
  a. Burden reduction suggestion and
    background
  b. Comments and analysis
F. Simultaneous compliance comments
  1. Request for comments and background
  2. Comments and analysis
  3. Today's action
G. Administrative requirements
  1. Executive Order 12866
  2. Regulatory Flexibility Act
  3. Paperwork Reduction Act
  4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
  5. Executive Orders  on Federalism
  6. Consultation with Indian tribal
    governments
  7. Risk to children analysis
  8. National Technology Transfer and
    Advancement Act
  9. Likely effect of compliance with the
    LCRMR on the technical, financial, and
    managerial capacity of public water
    systems
  10. Submission to Congress and the
    General Accounting Office
H. References

List of Tables

Table 1—LCRMR provisions requiring State
    adoption prior to implementation
Table 2—LCRMR provisions requiring State
    adoption to maintain primacy
Table 3—Summary of monitoring
    requirements for water quality
    parameters
Table 4—Summary of changes to system
    reporting requirements
Table 5—Net Effect of LCRMR on Average
    Annual Recordkeeping and Reporting
    Burden and Cost
Glossary of Abbreviations and
Definitions Used in This Document
  The following definitions are
presented to assist the reader in
understanding acronyms and other
short-hand phrases used in the
preamble.
  (b)(l) System: A small or medium-size
water system that is deemed to have
optimized corrosion control pursuant to
40 CFR 141.81(b)(l).
  (b)(2) System: A water system that is
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(2).
  (b)(3) System: A water system that is
deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to 40 CFR 141.81(b)(3).
  ug/D: Micrograms per day.
  |ig/L: Micrograms per liter.
  1991 Rule: Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals and National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead
and Copper as promulgated on June 7,
1991 (56 FR 26460) and subsequently
modified by technical amendments
published on July 15,1991 (56 FR
32113), June 29,1992 (57 FR 28786) and
June 30,1994 (59 FR 33860).
  90th Percentile Value: The
concentration of lead or copper in tap
water exceeded by 10 percent of the
sites sampled during a monitoring
period.
  Action Level: The 90th percentile
value for lead or copper in water that
determines, in some cases, whether a
water system must install corrosion
control treatment, monitor source water,
replace lead service lines, and
undertake a public education program.
  April 1996 Proposal: Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (61 FR
16348, April 12, 1996) requesting public
comments on proposed minor revisions
to the 1991 Rule.
  April 1998 Notice: Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR
20038, April 22,1998) containing
additional data and regulatory options
relating to the April 1996 Proposal and
requesting public comment on these
new data and options.
  August 1998 Notice: Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals and National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule (63 FR
44214, August 18,1998) requesting
public comment on a refinement of a
regulatory option discussed in the April
1998 Notice.
  ASDWA: Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators.
  A WWA: American Water Works
Association.
   CCT: Corrosion control treatment.
   CFR: Code of Federal Regulations.
   CWS: Community Water System.
   DDBP: National Primary Drinking
 Water Regulations—Disinfectants and
 Disinfection Byproducts; Final Rule (63
 FR 69389, Dec. 16,1998).
   DSC: Data Sharing Committee.
   EPA: Environmental Protection
 Agency.
   Excursion: A "daily value"
 (calculated pursuant to § 141.82(g)) for a
 water quality parameter at a sampling
 location that is below the minimum
 value or outside the range of values
 designated by the State under § 141.82(f)
 as representing optimal corrosion
 control for the water system.
 .  FDA: Food and Drug Administration.
   FR: Federal  Register.
   IESWTR: National Primary Drinking
 Water Regulations—Interim Enhanced
. Surface Water Treatment; Final Rule (63
 FR 69477, Dec. 16, 1998).
   Large System: For purposes of the
 Lead and Copper Rule only, a water
 system serving more than 50,000
 people.
 '  LCR: Lead and Copper Rule.
   LCRMR: Lead and Copper Rule Minor
 Revisions.
   LSL: Lead service line.
   MCLG: Maximum contaminant level
 goal.
   MDL: Method Detection Limit.
   Medium-Size System: For purposes of
 the Lead and Copper Rule only, a water
 system serving from 3,301 to 50,000
 people.
   mg/L: Milligrams per liter.
   NAS: National Academy of Sciences.
   NPDWRs: National Primary Drinking
 Water Regulations.
   NRDC: National Resources Defense
 Council.
   NSF: National Sanitation Foundation.
   NTNCWS: Non-transient non-
 community water system.
   OCCT: Optimal corrosion control
 treatment.
   OMB: Office of Management and
 Budget
   OWQP: Optimal water quality
 parameter.
   PE: Performance evaluation.
   pH: Negative logarithm of the
 effective hydrogen-ion concentration.
   Phase I Rule: National Primary
 Drinking Water Regulations Synthetic
 Organic Chemicals; Monitoring for
 Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule
 (52 FR 25690, Jul. 8,1987).
   Phase II Rule: National Revised
 Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
 Synthetic Organic Chemicals and
 Inorganic Chemicals; Monitoring for
. Unregulated Contaminants; National
 Primary Drinking Water Regulations
 Implementation; National Secondary

-------
 1954       Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 Drinking Water Regulations (56 FR
 3526, Jan. 30, 1991).
   Phase VRule: National Primary and
 Secondary Drinking Water Regulations;
 Synthetic Organic Chemicals and
 Inorganic Chemicals; Final Rule (57, FR
 31776, Jul. 17, 1992).
   pp&.-Part per billion.
   PQL: Practical quantitation level.
   PBA: Paperwork Reduction Act.
   PWS: Public water system.
   UFA: Regulatory Flexibility Act.
   SDWA: Safe Drinking Water Act.
   SDWIS: Safe Drinking Water
 Information System.
   Small System: For purposes of the
 Lead and Copper Rule only, a water
 system serving 3,300 or fewer people.
   TNCWS: Transient non-community
 water system.
   UMRA: Unfunded Mandates Reform
 Act.
       : Water quality parameter.
 A. Background
   1. Reason for this rulemaking. EPA
 promulgated maximum contaminant
 level goals (MCLGs) and NPDWRs for
 lead and copper in 1991 (56 FR 26460,
 June 7; 1991). The goal of the LCR is to
 provide maximum human health
  Erotection by reducing lead and copper
  svels at consumers' taps to as close to
 the MCLGs as is feasible. To accomplish
 this goal, the LCR establishes
 requirements for CWSs and NTNCWSs.
 These systems must conduct periodic
 monitoring and optimize corrosion
 control. In addition, these systems must
 perform public education when the
 level of lead at the tap exceeds the lead
 action level, treat source water if it is
 found to contribute significantly to high
 levels of lead or copper at the tap, and
 replace lead service lines in the
 distribution system if the level of lead
 at the tap continues to exceed the lead
 action level after optimal corrosion
 control has been installed.
  In April 1996, EPA proposed a
 number of minor revisions to the LCR
 (60 FR 16348, April 12, 1996). The
 proposed revisions do not affect the lead
 and copper MCLGs, action levels, or
 basic regulatory requirements. EPA
 proposed some of the minor revisions to
 streamline and reduce regulatory
 burden where such changes can be
 made without jeopardizing the level of
 public health protection or protection of
 the environment. The Agency proposed
 other minor changes to clarify
 requirements and to improve the rule's
 implementation. Finally, the Agency
addressed two issues that were the
subject of a judicial remand. The April
1996 Proposal also requested comment
on several provisions for which no
 specific regulatory changes were
 proposed.
   In an April 1998 Notice, the Agency
 published, and made available for
 public review and comment, new data
 relating to two of the provisions
 discussed in the April 1996 proposal
 and several additional regulatory
 options that the Agency was considering
 (63 FR 20038, April 22,1998). Finally,
 in August 1998, EPA requested
 additional public comment on a
 refinement of one of the options
 discussed in the April 1996 Notice (63
 FR 44214, August 18,1998).
   2. Overview of public comments
 received. EPA received approximately
 900 comments from 97 commenters in
 response to the April 1996 Proposal.
 With the exception of the proposed
 definition of "control" as it applies to
 lead service line (LSL) replacement,
 commenters generally supported the
 proposed minor revisions; however,
 many suggested possible refinements of
 specific provisions. A few commenters
 also expressed frustration that the
 proposed changes were "too little" and
 "too late" to benefit many systems. The
 Agency received comments from 30
 commenters in response to the April
 1998 Notice and 26 commenters
 responded to the August 1998 Notice.
 Most of the commenters to the 1998
 Notices supported the additional
 regulatory options in concept, however,
 were concerned with the draft rule
 language discussed.
   The comments pertaining to topics
 addressed in these Notices and EPA's
 response are summarized by topic in
 sections B through F of this preamble.
 The verbatim comments and EPA's
 responses to them are contained in
 EPA's Response to Comments on the
 Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions
 (EPA, 1999e).
   3. Impacts on costs and benefits.
 Today's action does not affect fhe
 treatment-related costs (e.g., capital
 improvements) associated with the LCR.
 The revisions affect costs associated
 with the monitoring and reporting
 requirements of the LCR, however, and
 these estimated impacts have been
 calculated as part of the Information
 Collection Request (EPA, 1999a)
 developed in support of today's action.
 These impacts are discussed in section
 H.3. of this preamble.
  As discussed in the April 1996
 Proposal, the revisions in today's action
 are not expected to change the level of
 public health protection resulting from
 implementation of the lead and copper
regulations. The Agency therefore has
not identified any quantifiable benefits
 associated with today's action. EPA
believes there should be some non-
 quantifiable benefits, however, because
 improved implementation should result
 in some health benefits being achieved
 sooner.

 B. Continued Exclusion of Transient
 Non-community Water Systems
   1. Overview and summary of Agency
 position. In the preamble to the April
 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that the
 Natural Resources Defense Council
 (NRDC) had challenged the rule's
 exclusion of transient non-community
 water systems (TNCWSs, also referred to
 as "transient systems") on the grounds
 that persons served by these systems
 may be at risk of non-carcinogenic
 adverse effects. The court granted the
 Agency's  request for a voluntary remand
 so that the Agency could provide a more
 detailed justification of this exclusion.1
 In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
 indicated that the Agency was collecting
 additional information relevant to this
 issue and would make this new
 information available for public review
 and comment prior to the promulgation
 of a final rule. EPA also requested
 public comment regarding the
 continued appropriateness of the
 exclusion, whether modification of the
 current exclusion would be appropriate
 and, if so, what alternative approaches
 are available for addressing those
 systems. EPA included the new
 information in the April 1998 Notice
 and signaled its preliminary
 conclusions that the new information
 does not resolve significant data gaps or
 present a compelling argument to
 change the Agency's policy of excluding
 TNCWSs from the provisions of the
 LCR.
   Eighteen commenters submitted
 comments on the appropriateness of the
 continued exclusion in response to the
 April 1996 Proposal. All of the
 commenters supported the continued
 exclusion. No new data were submitted;
 however, most commenters cited
 reasons for continuing the TNCWS
 exclusion. These reasons included: the
 absence of data suggesting there are  .
 adverse health effects resulting from
 short-term exposure to lead; the limited
 exposure that is likely to occur at
 transient systems; the potential that
 subjecting transient systems to the rule's
 requirements will cause many of them
 to close, with the possible unintended
 consequence that consumers would
 utilize other, less protected, sources  of
  1 This issue was one of several issues included in
legal challenges to the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule
brought by the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) and the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC). (.American Water Works
Association, etal. v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C.Cir.,
1994).

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1955
 drinking water (e.g., untreated lakes and
 streams in National Forests); concern
 that the rule's monitoring and treatment
 requirements were not appropriate for
 transient systems; and the tremendous
 added burden that would be placed on
 limited State resources. EPA received 18
 comments in response to the April 1998
 Notice. Only one of these commenters
 raised concerns with the exclusion. This
 commenter recommended that
 TNCWSs, except those meeting the
 materials criteria for monitoring waivers
 that EPA proposed in 1996,2 should be
 required to monitor tap and source
 water lead and copper levels at least
 once every nine years. The commenter
 argued that transient systems, where the
 difference between the source water and
 the tap water exceeds five (5) parts per
 billion (ppb) lead, should not be
 excluded from the Rule's provisions. As
 discussed in the following paragraph,
 EPA disagrees with this commenter.
  After consideration of the additional
 information collected by the Agency
 and the public comments received, EPA
 believes that it is appropriate to retain
 the current exclusion. EPA believes that
 maintaining the longstanding exclusion
 of transient systems from coverage of
 the NPDWR for lead is warranted in
 light of the de  minimis risk of adverse
 health effects cited by NRDC as
 justification for regulating these
 systems. Very high levels of lead have
 clinically evident effects on the brain
 (acute  encephalopathy). However, the
 Agency was not able to identify any
 studies that demonstrate critical
 neurochemical responses to short-term,
 moderate lead exposures. The data on
 which the Agency based its health
 assessment for short term exposures to
 lead came from studies by Cools et al,
 (1976), Schlegel and Kufner, (1979) and
 Struik, (1974) which indicate that the
 most likely adverse effect of the
 moderate levels of lead that might on
 occasion be encountered at a TNCWS
 would be temporary suppression of one
 of the enzymes responsible for the
 synthesis of hemoglobin, the oxygen
 carrying protein in the blood. However,
the data suggest that there are no
 clinical effects of the enzyme
 suppression unless it continues for a
more extended exposure period than .
would typically occur for persons who
 drink water at transient systems such as
rest stops, motels, gas stations and
restaurants, which serve  customers for
 only short periods of time. Morever,
EPA does not believe that even those
persons who may drink water from
transient systems on a more continuous
 2 See section C.5.1. of this preamble for a
discussion of the monitoring waiver provisions.
 basis (e.g., employees) would be at
 health risk given the likely levels of lead
 to which they would be exposed.
 2. Detailed discussion of rationale
   a. Background. A public water system
 is classified as a community water
 system if it has at least 15 service
 connections used by year-round
 residents or if it regularly serves at least
 25 year-round residents. All other
 public water systems are non-
 community water systems and are
 considered to be either "non-transient"
 or "transient" depending on the number
 of the same people regularly served over
 6 months of the year. A non-community
 water system that does not regularly
 serve at least 25 of the same persons
 over 6 months of the year is classified
 as a transient non-community water
 system. Examples of transient systems
 include highway rest stops, gas stations,
 and recreational facilities where fewer
 than 25 of the same individuals
 consume the water over an extended
 period of time (i.e., at least six months
 of the year). In addition, the vast
 majority of people who consume water
 from such systems (i.e., customers and
 members of the public who are at the
 facility) generally consume small
 quantities over short periods of time.
  EPA's longstanding policy is to
 exclude transient systems from drinking
 water regulations except for those
 contaminants, such as nitrate, that EPA
 believes have the potential to cause
 immediate adverse human health effects
 resulting from short-term exposure.
 These are known as "acute
 contaminants" because the adverse
 health effects may occur after limited
 exposure. Other drinking water
 contaminants are considered to be
 "chronic contaminants" because
 adverse effects on human health
 generally have been associated with
 extended periods of exposure. In the
 preamble to the final Phase I Rule, EPA
 explained that the Agency does not
 believe it necessary to regulate water
 systems that only serve transient
 populations for chronic contaminants
 because exposure to these contaminants
 for only brief periods of time, such as
 that which occurs at transient systems,
 does not pose a long-term health risk (52
 FR 25695, first column). For the reasons
 discussed in the following section, EPA
 considers lead to be a chronic
 contaminant.
  b. Occurrence and exposure at
 transient systems. In 1995, the
 Environmental Quality Institute at the
 University of North Carolina at
 Asheville conducted a survey to collect
 actual data on lead in drinking water
from transient systems in order to better
 characterize potential exposure risks. Of
 8,000 systems throughout the country
 invited to receive free lead testing, 115
 participated. The relatively small
 number prevents conclusive analysis,
 although a fairly representative range of
 system types across the country is
 included.
   First draw (1-liter) and one-minute
 purged (30 milliliters) samples were
 collected at each site. The median and
 average concentrations of the first draw
 samples were relatively low (2.3 and 9.2
 ppb, respectively). Approximately 12
 percent of the sites (13) exceeded the
 action level of 15 ppb. The average one-
 minute purged sample was  2.3 ppb,
 with a 90th percentile of 3.4 ppb. The
 purged samples had much lower
 concentrations (75% lower  on average)
 and less variable readings than the first
 draw samples. The maximum value
 reported from all sampling was 229 ppb.
 The flushed sample for this sampling
 site had a value of 0.7 ppb, raising the
 distinct possibility that the results of the
 first sample may have been  the result of
 sampling error such as contamination of
 the sample. (EPA, 1995c).
   While extensive information is not
 currently available, EPA believes that
 the results of the University of North
 Carolina survey indicate generally that
 the levels of lead in transient systems
 are not dissimilar to the levels found in
 non-transient systems. With both
 transient and non-transient  systems, it
 appears that the levels of lead are
 associated strongly with the length of
 time that the water has been standing in
 household plumbing prior to use.
   c. Health effects of lead. Lead is
 considered a chronic contaminant that
 impairs and damages the nervous
 system and other systems or processes
 after extended periods of exposure. Lead
 toxicity is believed to be a function of
 repeated exposures over time that result
 in a gradual accumulation of lead in the
 soft tissues and the skeleton. Lead
 moves from its storage sites  to the blood
 resulting in adverse effects even after
 exposures have diminished.
  The Agency decision to exclude
 TNCWSs from the LCR is supported by
 toxicological data from studies in adults
 which identified increased
 concentrations of erythrocyte
 protoporphrine and depressed activity
 of aminolevulinic acid dehydratase as
the critical effects from short-term lead
 exposures (Cools et al., 1976; Schlegel
and Kufner, 1979; Struik, 1974). These
effects are markers for inhibition of
heme synthesis (ATSDR, 1998;
Hindmarsh, 1986). Aminolevulinic acid
 dehydratase is the key enzyme
regulating the rate of heme synthesis
and erythrocyte protoporphrine is a

-------
 1956
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 precursor to heme and, thus, a
 biomarker for heme production. Heme is
 the iron containing component of
 hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying
 pigment in red blood cells.
   A study by Struik (1974)
 demonstrated the effects of short-team
 lead exposure on heme synthesis in
 adults. Two groups of 5 women and one
 group of 5 men were orally
 administered 1.4 or 2.1 mg/day lead in
 the form of lead acetate for three weeks.
 Suppression of the activity of
 erythrocyte aminolevulinic acid
 dehydratase became apparent by the
 third day of exposure. The degree of
 suppression increased until day 14 and
 then remained constant for the
 remainder of the study. Effects on
 erythrocyte protoporphrine were noted
 in the women but not the men after 2
 weeks of exposure. Blood lead levels
 had increased to 40 ug/dL or higher
 before effects on erythrocyte
 protoporphrine were noted. The effects
 on aminolevulinic acid dehydratase and
 erythrocyte protoporphrine are
 reversible and do not persist after
 exposure has ceased. A short term
 deficit in heme production is not
 immediately manifest in a decreased
 supply of red blood cells. The average
 red cell remains in circulation for about
 120 days and physiological controls on
 their turnover insure that there is a
 continuous replacement of aging and
 damaged cells (Montgomery et al.,
 1990). Therefore, a short term  deficit in
 heme production will not immediately
 cause anemia or diminish the  oxygen
 transporting properties of the blood.
 Moreover, the  lead levels used in this
 study were several orders of magnitude
 greater than the median lead levels
 observed in TNCWSs in the University
 of North Carolina study (EPA,  1995c).
   As discussed above, there is very
 limited information that can assist in
 estimating the levels of lead that may be
 of concern due to short-term exposures
 from drinking water. Because of the
 limited data EPA does not believe that
 it is possible to develop guidance at this
 time. However, based on the data that
 are available, from the Struik study,
 EPA estimates that average, short-term,
 lead exposures would have to exceed
 500 ppb for adults and 60 ppb  for
 infants or children and would  have to
 persist for an extended period  of time to
 cause even a transient effect on the
 oxygen carrying capacity of the blood
 (EPA, 1998b). The value for infants is
 lower than that for adults because
 infants are able to absorb greater
 amounts of lead from the
gastrointestinal track. In the University
of'North Carolina study, the average first
 draw sample was less than 10 ppb, and
                          the average fully flushed sample was
                          approximately 2 ppb. The 90th.
                          percentile value of first draw samples
                          was 20 ppb, and the 90th percentile
                          fully flushed sample was approximately
                          3 ppb. Taking into account the available
                          data regarding acute exposures to lead at
                          TNCWSs, EPA does not believe there is
                          any significant risk that exposures
                          through drinking water at the
                          concentrations monitored would result
                          in adverse acute health effects among
                          users of transient systems, including
                          infants and children.
                           d. Objections to the exclusion
                           As noted above, all but one
                          commenter during this rulemaking
                          supported maintaining the exclusion of
                          transient systems. In its comments on
                          the original rule—and in subsequent
                          litigation—NRDC argued that EPA's
                          exclusion of transient systems from the
                          rule was both inconsistent with  the
                          SDWA and not justified by the science.
                          According to NRDC, the Act mandates
                          that NPDWRs apply to all PWSs without
                          exception, and therefore EPA lacks the
                          authority to fashion a de minimis
                          exclusion for transient systems.  NRDC
                          also argued that, even if EPA had the
                          legal authority to exclude transient
                          systems, lead causes acute adverse
                          health effects from short-term exposure,
                          and that employees of transient systems
                          would be at risk from longer term
                          exposures.
                           EPA first disagrees that the SDWA
                          does not permit the Agency to fashion
                          an appropriate de minimis exclusion for
                          transient systems from regulation of
                          contaminants like lead. It is the
                          exceptional case in which an agency
                          does not possess such authority. In
                          Alabama Power  Co. v. Costle,~636 F.2d
                          323 (D.C. Cir. 1979), the D.C. Circuit
                          reviewed EPA's decision to create a de
                          minimis exclusion under the Clean Air
                          Act. The court stated that, "[u]nless
                          Congress has been extraordinarily rigid,
                          there is likely a basis for an implication
                          of de minimis authority to provide
                          exemption when the burdens of
                          regulation yield a gain of trivial or no
                          value." 636 F.2d at 360-361. EPA does
                          not believe that the SDWA falls within
                          the very narrow class of statutes  that
                          precludes fashioning appropriate
                          exclusions for activities with de
                          minimis impact.
                           Congress has in numerous respects
                          accorded EPA substantial flexibility in
                          focusing implementation on areas of
                          cognizable public health risks. Indeed,
                          such flexibility was a theme of the most
                         recent comprehensive amendments to
                         the  Act in 1996. A major impetus for
                         this legislation was the "need for a more
                         streamlined and flexible approach to
                         controlling drinking water          ,
 contamination consistent with
 continued protection of public health."
 House Report 104-632,104th Cong., 2d
 Sess., at 8. For example, Congress was
 concerned that the 1986 amendments to
 the Act required EPA to regulate 25 new
 contaminants every three years, a
 requirement that had "imposed
 significant burdens at the State, local
 and Federal level, and have led to
 questions about whether the Act is
 focused on the most significant risks to
 public health." Id. at 9. In numerous
 ways, the 1996 amendments reflected
 Congress' desire for EPA to focus its
 efforts taking into account risks to
 public health, as well as the benefits
 and costs involved in setting standards
 under the Act. See, e.g., SDWA section
 1412(b)(l)(C) (directing EPA to
 prioritize selection of contaminants for
 regulation based on consideration of
 those "that present the greatest public
 health concern"); sections 1412(b)(3)
 and (b)(6) (directing EPA to consider
 information regarding the incremental
 costs and benefits in establishing
 NPDWRs). While none of these
 amendments addressed the precise
 question of what PWSs must be covered
 by NPDWRs, in light of Congress'
 overall concern with encouraging
 flexibility and priority-setting in the
 Act's implementation, EPA does not
 believe it is logical or sensible to
 conclude that Congress intended to
 deprive EPA of its inherent
 administrative authority to fashion
 appropriate de minimis exclusions from
 the Act's requirements where negligible
 risks are present. Moreover, EPA's
 policy of excluding transient systems
 from NPDWRs for contaminants posing
 chronic health risks has been in place
 for over a decade. At no time during this
 period has Congress sought to modify
 EPA's approach.
  NRDC has also contended that, even
 if EPA has the legal authority to create
 a cfe minimis exclusion, EPA's decision
 was unlawful because lead does pose
 non-carcinogenic adverse health effects
 from short-term, acute exposures. EPA
 believes that this contention is based on
 misunderstandings by NRDC of several
 factors. NRDC's claim that lead is an
 acute contaminant was based on
 information from three reports: The
 National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
report, Drinking Water and Health
 (1982), a study of lead exposure in
 infants, and EPA's recommendation
regarding lead in school drinking water
 fountains. The Agency disagrees with
NRDC that these citations support
 classification of lead as an acute
contaminant. The Agency's conclusions

-------
            Federal Register / Vol.  65, No. 8 / Wednesday,  January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1957
are discussed in the following
paragraph.
  NRDG's reference to the NAS (1982)
report on Drinking Water and Health
focused on the "maximum daily
exposure recommendations for
children" cited in that report. The NAS
report cites Mahaffey (1977) who
recommended that lead intake for
children less than 6 months of age
should be no more than 100 Jig/day and
the intake for children between 6
months and 2 years of age should be no
more than 150 ug/day. These values
would translate to 100 ppb and 150 ppb,
assuming a daily water intake for
children of 1 liter per day and no
exposure from other sources. Mahaffey
(1977) concluded that water containing
50 ppb lead would not be a hazard to
infants and children when other lead
exposures were minimized. These
values were derived based on an
assumption of chronic exposure, not
short-term exposures similar to those
that would occur at a TNGWS and, thus,
are not relevant. In fact, NAS
determined that there were "no
adequate data to derive health-based
guidelines for acute exposures, i.e.  a 24-
hour or a 7-day  'Suggested No-Adverse
Response Level'."
  In its comments on EPA's prior
rulemaking, NRDC cited a study by
Shannon and Graef (1992) which they
claimed showed that for 15 percent of
the lead poisoned infants at one clinic,
the primary source of the lead was
infant formula made with drinking
water. This is not quite what the authors
reported. Although formula preparation
with lead-contaminated water was the
apparent cause for elevated blood lead
levels in 9 of 50 children (18%), lead in
unboiled, "first  draw" water was the
problem for only one case (2%).
Excessive boiling of contaminated tap
water for formula preparation was the
problem in 5 cases (10%) and use of a
leaded vessel for the heating of the
water (tap or spring) was the problem
for the other three cases (6%). hi
analysis of formula samples, lead
concentrations as high as 200,000 ppb
were detected, values far greater than
the levels observed at transient
facilities. The blood lead levels of the
children exposed through formula were
similar to those  children exposed
through other routes (paint chips,
household renovation), but hemoglobin
and red cell volumes were lower
indicating that the exposures had been
chronic rather than acute.
  Finally, NRDC claims that the reason
that the EPA recommends that any
school drinking water outlets that are
found to have more than 20 M-g/L lead
in a 250 mL sample be removed from
 service is to protect against acute health
 risks to young children. This is
 incorrect. The Agency developed that
 policy to protect children who are
 exposed to lead in drinking water on a
 chronic, not acute, basis.
  NRDC has also argued that transient
 systems should not be excluded from
 regulation because frequent users of
 these systems, such as employees, could
 be exposed to lead in the drinking water
 over an extended period of time. Such
 persons could include pregnant women
 and children, who are particularly
 vulnerable to adverse effects of chronic
 lead exposure. While such users may
 consume water from the same system
 repeatedly, EPA does not share NRDC's
 concern that such persons can
 realistically be said to be at risk of
 adverse health effects from exposure to
 lead. As explained in detail in EPA's
 1991 rulemaking, levels of lead at the
 tap correlate with the length of time that
 water has been sitting motionless in
 plumbing materials containing lead. The
 longer the water sits, the more likely
 lead will leach from lead-bearing
 plumbing materials into the water.
 Typically, the highest levels of lead in
 the water are contained in the first liter
 from the tap after the water has been
 sitting for some time. In order to have
 the best understanding of the extent to
 which corrosivity of the water is causing
 leaching of lead, the LCR requires that
 sampling be done with such "first
 flush" water after the tap has not been
 used for at least six hours. This
 sampling protocol was designed to
 ensure that the water system had the
 benefit of the best information regarding.
 the extent to which water chemistry was
 interacting with lead-bearing materials
 to cause leaching into drinking water,
 and also recognized that some users
 could, under some scenarios, repeatedly
 drink first flush water.
  However, transient systems such as
 restaurants and gas stations by their
 nature would serve a large number of
 persons throughout the day. The vast
 majority of the users are, in fact,
 "transient." In addition, the nature of
 these facilities would mean that taps are
 in fairly constant use, reducing the
 likelihood of lead leaching into standing
 water. Also, given the types of
 populations served by transient systems,
 we would anticipate that it would be
 extremely unlikely that the same
 persons would repeatedly be exposed to
the  water that has been sitting for an
 extended period of time. Data collected
by EPA regarding occurrence of lead in
transient systems suggests that even
 frequent users are not at risk.  Since it is
 unlikely that the same persons would
repeatedly be exposed to "first flush"
water in these systems, the vast majority
of water would consist of fully flushed
water. The median level of lead in
running water in transient systems
found by the University of North
Carolina (EPA, 1995c) survey was 0.7
ppb, and the average level was
approximately 2 ppb. The median first
flush level was approximately 2 ppb,
and the average level was 9 ppb, levels
below those of health concern. Thus,
information collected by EPA strongly
supports its conclusion that there are
only de minimis risks in transient
systems from exposure to lead.
  Given the de minimis risks posed by
lead in these systems, EPA continues to
believe that excluding these systems
from the lead NPDWR is appropriate.
EPA believes, in fact, that including
them within the regulation could even
have the unintended effect of harming
public health. In the face of monitoring
and treatment requirements for lead,
EPA anticipates, based on the public
comments received and other anecdotal
data, that many transient systems will
opt to stop providing water rather than
to assume the extra burden of the rule's
requirements. This would leave
consumers in the position of finding
their own alternative source of drinking
water. In some cases, the alternative
source may be less protective of public
health than the transient system. For
example, if National or State parks were
to no longer provide drinking water,
visitors may drink untreated water
directly from nearby lakes, rivers and
streams.
C. Revisions to 40 CFR141,
Requirements for Public Water Systems
1. Revisions to §141.81
  a. Clarification of the requirement to
install and maintain operation of
optimal corrosion control, (i) Proposed
revision and background. In the April
1998 Notice, EPA requested comment
on possible revisions to the regulatory
language of § 141.8l'(b)  and the first
sentence of § 141.82(g) to clarify that all
water systems are required to operate
and maintain optimal corrosion control
even if there are no specific Federal
requirements for the system to monitor
for water quality parameters (WQPs). As
EPA explained in that Notice, there are
several "pathways" by which systems
may be considered to be optimized.
Many, but not all, require that corrosion
control treatment (CCT) be physically
installed. The Agency is concerned that
some systems deemed to be optimized
pursuant to § 141.81(b)  may
misinterpret the absence of specific
Federal controls in the regulatory
language as meaning that they have

-------
 1958	Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 license to "turn off' or depart from
 optimal corrosion control treatment
 (OCCT) between Federally-prescribed
 monitoring periods.
   (ii) Comments and analysis. With one
 exception, commenters supported the
 proposed clarification. The one
 commenter who objected to the
 proposed clarification argued that it is
 not necessary since his State already
 had established such controls. EPA
 believes clarification is appropriate. The
 Agency notes that while most States
 have reasonable process controls in
 place to assure consistent and proper
 operation of CCT, some do not. EPA
 believes that it is appropriate to clarify
 that all systems are expected to
 maintain optimal corrosion control even
 if they are not subject to Federally-
 prescribed WQP monitoring.
  Several commenters predicated their
 support on the presumption that States
 would retain flexibility to determine the
 specific nature of the process controls
 for (b)(l)  and (b)(3) systems. EPA agrees
 that such flexibility is appropriate.
 Today's action, therefore, does not
 prescribe specific operating
 requirements for water systems to meet
 the criteria of § 141.81 (b)(l) or (b)(3).
  A few commenters expressed concern
 that the proposed language changes
 would preclude a (b)(l) or a (b)(3)
 system from ever changing its treatment
 once it has been deemed to be
 optimized. EPA recognizes that water
 systems need to make treatment
 changes, on occasion, to react to
 changing circumstances (e.g., new
 requirements, changes in source water
 quality, and changes in the distribution
 system). Nothing in today's action is
 intended to prevent a State from
 approving treatment changes when they
 are warranted and appropriate. Rather,
 the intent of today's action is to ensure
 that any such treatment changes are
 consistent with the Rule's goal of
 minimizing levels of lead and copper at
 the tap to the maximum extent
 practicable. The Agency believes the
 phrase "and meet any requirements that
 the State determines appropriate to
 ensure such treatment is maintained"
 provides States sufficient flexibility to
 approve appropriate treatment changes
 that may be warranted by emerging
 conditions at the water system.
  One commenter requested that EPA
 clarify in the rule language that (b)(2)
 systems are not required to have CCT
 physically present. EPA disagrees that
 this is appropriate. Section 141.81(b)(2)
 applies only to those water systems that
completed corrosion control steps
equivalent to those specified in
§ 141.81(d) or (e) before the  effective
date of the LCR. The Agency's intent is
 to relieve such systems of the need to
 repeat those steps merely to comply
 with the Rule's milestones. Assuming a
 water system had completed an
 equivalent corrosion control study and
 installed appropriate CCT prior to the
 effective date of the Rule, EPA believes
 the Rule is clear that additional
 treatment may not be warranted if the
 State believes the system's CCT already
 is optimized. For large water systems,
 § 141.81(b)(2) does not eliminate the
 need to have any CCT in place, unless
 the water system can demonstrate to the
 satisfaction of the State that such
 treatment will have no effect on
 reducing the levels of lead and copper
 at the tap. Merely meeting the lead and
 copper action levels is not a sufficient
 test for large systems since the Rule
 requires these systems to reduce
 corrosion to the maximum extent
 possible to be considered optimized.
 EPA expects few, if any, large water
 systems  can make this demonstration
 without  CCT.
   (iii) Today's action. After considering
 the comments received, the Agency has
 decided  to promulgate the revisions to
 § 141.81 (b) and the first sentence of
 § 141.82(g) as follows. The introductory
 text of §  141.81(b) has been revised to
 read: "A system is deemed to have
 optimized corrosion control and is not
 required to complete the applicable
 corrosion control treatment steps
 identified in this section if the system
 satisfies  one of the criteria specified in
 paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(3) of this
 section. Any such system deemed to
 have optimized corrosion control under
 this paragraph, and which has treatment
 in place, shall continue to operate and
 maintain optimal corrosion control
 treatment and meet any requirements
 that the State determines appropriate to
 ensure optimal corrosion  control
 treatment is maintained." The first
 sentence (following the paragraph title)
 of § 141.82(g) has been revised to read:
 "All systems that have installed
 treatment optimizing corrosion control
 shall continue to operate and maintain
 optimal corrosion control treatment,
 including maintaining water quality
 parameters at or above minimum values
 or within ranges designated by the State
 under paragraph (f) of this section, in
 accordance with this paragraph for all
 samples collected under §§ 141.87(d)-
 (f)."
  This revision necessitates a change to
the State  recordkeeping requirements in
Part 142.  A requirement has been added
as a new  § 142.14(d)(8)(i)3 to require
  3 As discussed in Section D.I. of this preamble,
today's action renumbers existing paragraphs of
§ 142.14(d)(8).
 States to retain records of any
 conditions imposed by the State on
 specific water systems deemed to be
 optimized under § 141.81(b)(l) or (b)(3)
 to ensure the continued operation and
 maintenance of treatment in place.
   These wording changes make clear
 the Agency's intent in the 1991 Rule
 that all systems operate and maintain
 optimal corrosion control. They do not
 add any new requirements.
   b. Water systems deemed to be
 optimized pursuant to §141.81(b)(2).
   (i) Proposed revision and background.
 In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
 requested comment on a regulatory
 option that would result in minor
 wording changes to the language of
 § 141.81(b)(2) to clarify that systems
 deemed to have optimized corrosion
 control pursuant to that paragraph are
 required to continue WQP monitoring
 after State designation of optimal water
 quality parameters (OWQPs). The
 Agency proposed this change to
 eliminate possible confusion about
 monitoring requirements after the
 installation of CCT for these systems.
   (ii) Comments and analysis. EPA
 received several comments on the
 proposed clarification. None of the
 commenters opposed the proposed
 revision, however,  one commenter
 raised concerns about how the
 requirement would be applied in those
 instances where no treatment is
 installed. The commenter also noted
•that the requirement to monitor WQPs
 at every entry point could be onerous at
 such a system, particularly if it were  a'
 ground water system with many wells.
 EPA developed the § 141.81(b)(2)
 optimization criteria to address those ,
 water systems that had both completed
 a corrosion control study comparable to
 that required by the LCR and installed
 an appropriate CCT process prior to the
Rule's schedule. To be comparable, the
study would have had to include an
 evaluation of the three corrosion control
options—pH and alkalinity adjustment,
calcium hardness adjustment, and
inhibitor addition. This study also
would have had to use some of the
testing methods specified in the Rule to
evaluate the options. EPA believes that
studies that meet the § 141.81 (b)(2)
requirements would indicate that the
installation of a CCT process was
warranted and that  it is therefore
appropriate to require (b)(2) systems
deemed to be optimized pursuant to
§ 141.81(b)(2) to meet State-designated
OWQPs.
  EPA recognizes that it may not be
necessary to install treatment at every
entry point, however, especially at
ground water systems. As discussed in
section C.6.b. of this preamble, EPA also

-------
             Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No.  8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                       1959
 is making a change to § 141.87(c)(3) that
 will allow ground water systems to limit
 entry point WQP sampling to those
 entry points that are representative of
 water quality and CCT throughout the
 system. This provision means that a
 ground water system deemed to be
 optimized pursuant to § 141.81(b)(2)
 may be able to reduce—but not
 eliminate entirely—the number of entry
 point WQP samples that must be
 collected.
   (iii) Today's action. EPA therefore is
 revising § 141.81(b)(2), as proposed, by
 inserting a sentence after the second
 sentence in § 141.81(b)(2) to clarify
 WQP monitoring requirements for
 systems deemed to have optimized
 corrosion control. The inserted sentence
 reads: "Water systems deemed to have
 optimized corrosion control under this
 paragraph shall operate in compliance
 with the State-designated optimal water
 quality control parameters in
 accordance with § 141.82(g) and
 continue to conduct lead and  copper tap
 and water quality parameter sampling in
 accordance with § 141.86(d)(3) and
 § 141.87(d), respectively."
  c. Water systems deemed to have
 optimized corrosion control under
 §141.81(b)(3).
  (i) Copper action level requirements.
  (A) Proposed revision and
 background. In 1996, EPA proposed that
 water systems demonstrating,  pursuant
 to § 141.81(b)(3), that very little lead
 corrosion is occurring in the
 distribution system (i.e., (b)(3) systems)
 be required to meet the copper action
 level. The Agency proposed such a
 requirement to correct an oversight in
 the 1991 Rule.
  (B) Comments and analysis. EPA
 received mixed comments on this
 proposed change. Several commenters
 viewed the revision as a new
 requirement that could lead to treatment
 modifications in some systems. In the
 preamble to the proposed rule, EPA
 acknowledged that a few systems may
 be triggered into  CCT because  of the
 requirement that (b)(3) systems meet the
 copper action level. EPA agrees that
 there will be additional costs incurred
by the systems if installation/
 modification of CCT processes are
 necessary. The goal of the LCR,
however, is to minimize the risk from
both lead and copper. EPA believes that
this change is appropriate to better
conform with the stated goal of the LCR.
The copper action level is equivalent to
the copper MCLG, so adverse health
effects from copper should be avoided if
systems meet the action level. Since
(b)(3) systems that do not meet the
copper action level are not triggered into
CCT processes until 18 months after the
 LCRMR is published in the Federal
 Register, (b)(3) systems that exceeded
 the copper action level during the initial
 rounds of monitoring have time to make
 changes to reduce copper levels before
 being triggered out of (b)(3) status.
   (C) Today's action. In addition to the
 1991 (b)(3) criteria, today's action
 prevents systems that exceeded the
 copper action level on or after July 12,
 2001, from being considered to be a
 (b)(3) system. This requirement is
 specified at § 141.81(b)(3)(iv).
   (ii) Routine monitoring for lead and
 copper at the tap.
   (A) Proposed revision and
 background. EPA proposed to correct
 another oversight in the 1991 Rule by
 requiring (b) (3) systems to continue
 routine monitoring for lead and copper
 at the tap at least once every three
 calendar years (triennially) at the
 reduced number of sites specified in
 § 141.86(c). This proposed revision
 included a start date for resumption of
 monitoring no later than the first full
 summer (i.e., June through September
 time frame) after the effective date of the
 revision.
   (B) Comments and analysis.
 Commenters generally supported the
 reduced monitoring frequency;
 however,  several preferred less frequent
 monitoring cycles, such as once every
 six or nine years. EPA disagrees with
 the commenters who advocate
 monitoring less frequently than once
 every three years for (b)(3) systems.
 Large systems comprise most, if not all,
 of the (b)(3) systems because most small
 and medium-size systems that satisfy
 § 141.81(b)(3) criteria can also meet the
 less onerous criteria of § 141.81(b)(l)
 that do not require source water
 monitoring. Since (b)(3) systems are not
 required to monitor their corrosion
 control process using WQPs, lead and
 copper tap monitoring is the only
 mechanism for determining whether
 levels of lead and copper at the tap
 remain low. For this reason, EPA does
 not believe that monitoring should be
 less frequent than once every 3 years for
 these systems.
  EPA also received comments on the
 proposed deadline for the resumption of
 monitoring. As proposed,  (b)(3) systems
 would have been required to resume
 monitoring the first full June through
 September after publication of the
 LCRMR. This requirement would apply
 only to those  (b)(3) systems that had not
 monitored during the three years
 immediately preceding promulgation of
the LCRMR. Several commenters did
not realize that the schedule for the
resumption of monitoring would not
apply to those (b)(3) systems that
already are monitoring regularly and
 that have conducted at least one round
 of monitoring in the past three years.
   (C) Today's action. EPA has added
 provisions at § 141.81(b)(3)(ii)
 pertaining to the routine monitoring
 requirement in today's action. The
 proposed requirement that routine lead
 and copper tap water monitoring occur
 at least-once every three years has been
 retained. The Rule language has been
 clarified to indicate that those (b)(3)
 systems that have conducted a round of
 standard or reduced monitoring after
 September 30,1997, may continue
 monitoring at the reduced number of
 sites every three years based on the date
 of their most recent monitoring. All
 other (b)(3) systems must conduct a
 round of tap water monitoring for lead
 and copper no later than September 30,
 2000.
   (iii) State discretion to impose
 additional requirements.
   (A) Proposed revision and
 background. The April 1996 proposed
 revision to § 141.81(b)(3) states: "The
 State may require any system deemed to
 have optimized corrosion control
 pursuant to this paragraph to conduct
 additional monitoring or to take other
 action the State deems appropriate to
 ensure that such systems maintain
 minimal levels of corrosion in the
 distribution system (e.g., if there is a
 change in treatment or a new source is
 added)." EPA proposed this provision to
 provide States sufficient flexibility to
 require additional actions in those cases
 where such actions are necessary to
 ensure the system maintains minimal
 corrosion in the distribution system.
   (B) Comments and analysis. Several
 commenters raised concern that this
 provision could require  (b)(3) systems to
 conduct lead and copper tap sampling
 whenever treatment changes or a new
 source is added. The decision to require
 additional monitoring will be made by
 the State only after considering the
 impact of the treatment change or
 addition of a new source on the
 corrosion control process. The rule does
 not, and is not intended to categorically
 require monitoring when treatment
 changes are made. The additional
 monitoring is not limited to lead and
 copper monitoring. The  State could
 require WQP monitoring and/or source
 water monitoring instead of, or in
 addition to, lead and copper tap
 monitoring.
  (C) Today's action. EPA has included
the following provision at
 § 141.81(b)(3)(iii). "Any water system
 deemed to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to this paragraph shall
notify the State in writing pursuant to
 § 141.90(a)(3) of any change in treatment
or the addition of a new source. The

-------
 I960
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 State may require any such system, to
 conduct additional monitoring or to take
 other action the State deems appropriate
 to ensure that such systems maintain
 minimal levels of corrosion in the
 distribution system". EPA also has
 added a corresponding State
 recordkeeping requirement in a new
 §142.14(d)(8)(ix).
  Section C.5.J. of this preamble
 describes the reporting requirement,  and
 EPA's rationale for adding it, in more
 detail. While the proposed revised
 § 141.81(b)(3) rule language did not
 explicitly require (b)(3) systems to
 notify the State when a new source is
 added or changes in water treatment
 occur, the requirement was implicit in
 the proposed reporting requirement for
•any system subject to a reduced lead
 and copper tap water monitoring
 frequency. Today's action clarifies that
 (b)(3) systems are included in this
 category.
  (iv) Systems triggered into corrosion
 control.
  (A) Proposed revision and
 background. Because it would no longer
 be possible for large water systems
 newly triggered into CCT requirements
 to meet the date-specific milestones of
 the 1991 Rule, EPA proposed in 1996
 that any system triggered into CCT steps
 because it no longer meets the
 § 141.81(b)(3) criteria comply with the
 treatment step and deadline
 requirements of § I41.81(e) with any
 such large system adhering to the
 schedule specified in that paragraph for
 medium-size systems.
  (B)  Comments and analysis. EPA did
 not receive any comments objecting to
 this provision.
  (Cj  Today's action. Section
 141.81(b)(3) has been revised to add a
provision at § 141.81(b)(3)(v) requiring
any system triggered into CCT steps
because it no longer meets the
 § 141.81(b)(3) criteria to comply with
the treatment steps and deadline
requirements in § 141.81(e). Any such
large system shall adhere to the
schedule specified in that paragraph for
medium-size systems.
  (v) Difference between source water
lead concentrations and  90th percentile
lead levels.
  (A)  Proposed revision and
background. The April 1996 Proposal
did not include any changes to the 1991
criterion that allowed water systems to
demonstrate that the difference between
the highest source water lead
concentration and the 90th percentile
lead tap level is less than the Practical
Quantitation Level (PQL) for lead.
Nevertheless, one commenter suggested
that EPA modify the lead criterion of
§ 141.81 (b)(3) because, as written, a
                          system with very low 90th percentile
                          lead levels and undetectable source
                          water lead levels may be precluded from
                          becoming a (b)(3) system.
                            (B) Comments and analysis. EPA
                          agrees with the commenter. Section
                          141.89(a)(3) requires that all
                          measurements below the Method
                          Detection Limit (MDL) be reported as
                          zero, whereas measurements between
                          the MDL and the PQL of 0.005 mg/L
                          may be reported as one-half the PQL
                          (0.0025 mg/L). A system with source
                          water lead levels just below an MDL of
                          0.001  mg/L and a 90th percentile tap
                          level of 0.005  mg/L would not be
                          deemed to be  optimized using the 1991
                          (b)(3) criteria which  requires the
                          difference to be less  than 0.005 mg/L. In
                          this example,  the difference would be
                          0.005 mg/L (i.e., 0.005 mg/L-Omg/
                          L=0.005 mg/L). On the other hand,
                          assuming a lead MDL of 0.001  mg/L, a
                          system with source water lead levels of
                          0.0011 mg/L and a 90th percentile of
                          0.006 mg/L would be considered to be
                          optimized under the 1991 (b)(3) criteria
                          since the source water levels could be
                          reported as 0.0025 mg/L. In this
                          example, the difference would be 0.0035
                          mg/L (i.e., 0.006 mg/L —0.0025 mg/
                          L=0.0035 mg/L).
                            (C) Today's action. Therefore, EPA is
                          making a slight revision to § 141.81(b)(3)
                          to address the problem. The following
                          provision has  been added as
                          § 141.81(b)(3)(i): "Those systems having
                          source water lead levels below the
                          Method Detection Limit may also be
                          deemed to have optimized corrosion
                          control under this paragraph if the 90th
                          percentile tap water  lead level  is less
                          than or equal to the Practical
                          Quantitation Level for lead for two
                          consecutive 6-month monitoring
                          periods."

                          2. Revisions to § 141.82
                            a. Clarification of requirement to
                          operate and maintain optimal corrosion
                          control. As discussed in section C.l.a.,
                          EPA is revising the first sentence of
                          § 141.82(g) to clarify  that all systems
                          deemed to have optimized corrosion
                          control pursuant to § 141.81 (b) are
                          required to continuously operate and
                          maintain any installed CCT properly.
                            b. Excursions from State-designated
                          optimal water quality parameter ranges
                          or values.
                            (i) Proposed revision and background.
                          In the April 1998 Notice, EPA requested
                          public comment on a regulatory option
                          that would revise the way in which
                          compliance with State-designated
                          OWQPs is determined under
                          § 141.82(g). Under the 1991 Rule, a
                          water system would be out of
                          compliance with the  requirements of
 § 141.82(g) if the results of any WQP
 sample were below the minimum value
 or outside the range of values
 designated by the State under
 § 141.82(f). Systems could take a
 confirmation sample within three days
 of the original sample, however. If such
 a confirmation sample were taken, the
 results of the original sample and the
 confirmation sample were to be
 averaged to determine compliance.
 Several commenters responding to
 issues raised in the 1996 Proposal
 expressed concern about this method of
 determining compliance. These
 commenters, while advocating frequent
 WQP sampling, noted that the Rule's
 approach for determining  compliance
 creates a significant disincentive for
 sampling more frequently than required,
 since the more frequently  measurements
 are taken, the greater the potential that
 some of the results will be outside the
 State-specified limits. These
 commenters urged EPA to adopt a
 percentage-based approach to
 determining compliance.
  The April 1998 Notice contained a
 regulatory option that would replace the
 confirmation-sample concept with a
 repeat-sample concept. Under the
 repeat-sample concept, a water system
 whose initial monitoring results were
 below the minimum value or outside
 the range of values designated by the
 State could take a repeat sample within
 three days of the original sample. If
 taken, the results of the repeat sample
 would be used to determine compliance
 under § 141.82(g); otherwise, the results
 of the original sample would be used.
  In the August 1998 Notice, EPA
 sought public comment on a refinement
 of the repeat-sample concept in order to
 better address issues associated with
 measuring WQPs more frequently than
 once a day. Under the refined option,
 compliance with § 141.82(g) would be
 determined quarterly. To be in
 compliance for the quarter, a water
 system would need to be in compliance
 for each applicable WQP at each
 sampling location at which that WQP is
 measured during the quarter. The
 method of determining compliance for a
 WQP at a sampling location would
 depend on the frequency with which
 that parameter is measured at that
 sampling location during the quarter.
Where the measurements are taken once
 a day or less often, compliance would
be determined using a repeat-sample
approach similar to the one described in
the April 1998 Notice. That is, if the
result of any measurement is below the
minimum value or outside the range
designated by the State under
 § 141.82(f), the system may take a repeat
sample within 72 hours of the original

-------
            Federal Register/Vol.  65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1961
sample; if a repeat sample is taken,
those results would be used to
determine compliance, otherwise the
results of the original sample would be
used. For sampling locations where the
parameter is measured more frequently
than once a day, a system would be in
compliance with the requirements of
§ 141.82(g) so long as at least 95 percent
of the measurements taken for the
parameter at the sampling location
during the quarter are within the State-
designated limits and no single
excursion lasts more than 72 hours. In
those instances where monitoring is
continuous, systems would be required
to record the results at least every four
hours and to use the recorded results for
determining compliance. Finally, the
August 1998 option also would revise
the reporting requirements at
§ 141.90(a)(l) to clarify that systems
would be required to report to the State
on a quarterly basis, all water quality
parameter results collected during the
quarter, unless the State specified a
more frequent reporting schedule.
  (ii) Comments and analysis. While
commenters responding to the April
1998 Notice thought the repeat-sample
approach represented an improvement
over the confirmation-sample approach,
most expressed concern that the repeat-
sample approach did not eliminate the
disincentives for frequent monitoring or
the problems in determining
compliance that would occur when
WQPs were measured more frequently
than once a day. These commenters
continued to urge EPA to allow a
percentage-based approach, at least in
those instances where WQPs are
measured frequently.
  Most commenters to the refined
approach discussed in the August 1998
Notice expressed support for a
percentage-based approach; however,
many disagreed with some of the
specific provisions proposed. Several
commenters, for example, advocated
using a lower percentage than that
proposed by the Agency as the basis for
determining compliance with the
requirements of § 141.82(g). A number
of commenters suggested that 90 percent
would be more appropriate since lead
and copper action level exceedances are
determined based on the 90th percentile
lead and copper tap water values.  Other
commenters supported the use of 90
percent because of system-specific or
uncontrollable factors that may affect
water quality. They argued that, if 10
percent, or more, of the water quality
measurements were allowed to be
outside OWQP limits, the State would
tend to set narrower OWQP ranges than
in those instances where 95 percent of
the  results were required to be within
 the State-specified OWQP limits. A few
 commenters suggested that EPA allow
 States the flexibility to determine the
 percent of samples that must be within
 acceptable levels.
  EPA believes setting the performance
 measure at 95 percent is appropriate.
 Today's action adopts a percent-of-time
 approach to determining compliance. If
 the performance measure were set at 90
 percent, for example, a water system
 could be out of compliance with WQP
 requirements for more than 18 days in
 a six-month period or 36 days in a
 twelve-month period. The Agency does
 not believe that allowing this much
 deviation from OWQPs provides
 adequate levels of public health
 protection. Since States will have the
 results of the  two 6-month rounds of
 follow-up monitoring after the
 installation of corrosion  control before
 designating OWQPs, the Agency
 believes it is reasonable for States to set
 OWQPs that water systems should be
 able to maintain at least 95 percent of
 the time. The Agency also believes that
 determination of OWQP compliance
 (intended to demonstrate proper
 operation and maintenance of a
 treatment process) is not sufficiently
 analogous to determination of action
 level exceedances (intended to indicate
 a need for treatment) to justify the use
 of the same percentage for both just to
 maintain consistency in the
 calculations.
  No commenter objected to using a
 percentage-based approach for water
 systems that measure WQPs more than
 once per day. Many commenters
 advocated use of the percentage
 approach for systems that collect daily
 samples and some advocated using the
 percentage approach across-the-board
 for the sake of simplicity. EPA agrees
 that it is reasonable for a single
 approach to be used when determining
 compliance, as long as the approach can
 accommodate large variations in
 sampling frequency. To maintain
 reasonable fairness between systems
that collect entry point measurements
biweekly and those that collect entry
 point  measurements several times a day,
the Agency has adopted the suggestion
 made by several commenters to shift
 from a percent-of samples calculation to
a percent-of-time calculation. EPA also
has revised the compliance-
 determination period from quarterly to
 every six months. To remain in
 compliance, a water system may have
no more than  nine days during a six-
month monitoring period when any
 excursions occur (or persist). This
corresponds to having no excursions
approximately 95 percent of the time.
Where a system measures a parameter
 several times a day at the same location,
 the daily value for the purposes of
 determining compliance with
 § 141.82(g) will be calculated by
 averaging all results collected during the
 day unless EPA has approved an
 alternative formula under
 § 142.16(d)(l)(ii) in the State's
 application for a primacy revision.
  A few commenters also disagreed
 with the approach outlined in the
 August 1998 Notice that would require
 each sampling location to be in
 compliance in order for the system to be
 considered in compliance. The Agency
 disagrees that aggregating the results
 from all sampling locations before
 determining whether or not an
 excursion has occurred provides
 sufficient health protection. Aggregating
 the results from multiple locations
 could mask a problem that affects only
 a part of the system. EPA has therefore
 retained the requirement that excursions
 be determined for each WQP and .
 sampling location.
  Some commenters raised concern
 over the requirement that repeat
 samples be collected within 72 hours of
 the original sample. These commenters
 noted that it might not be possible to
 make necessary adjustments within 72
 hours, particularly if the problem occurs
 just before a weekend or holiday and the
 system is unable to obtain a necessary
 part for several days or if several days
 are necessary before the effects of
 treatment changes are apparent at
 distribution system monitoring sites.
 EPA believes the modified approach for
 determining compliance in today's
 action  will provide some relief to those
 systems that need several  days to effect
 necessary repairs. At the same time, the
 Agency believes it is essential to
 minimize excursion durations to the  ,
 maximum extent possible. One study,
 for example, suggests that disruptions of
 four to five days in CCT may potentially
 affect levels of lead at the tap adversely
 (Colling, et al, 1992). The Agency has
 no data that suggest the impact on
 copper levels would be any different.
 The Agency believes it is appropriate,
therefore, for those systems with
 chronic equipment problems  to develop
 and implement appropriate sampling
 schedules and contingency plans to
 minimize possible "down" time. Since
the LCR does not require frequent
 sampling at distribution system tap
 locations, the Agency believes systems
 should have sufficient flexibility to
avoid sample collection at these
locations during times of known
 equipment problems or other factors not
representative of normal operations.
  Today's action eliminates the repeat-
sample approach and makes no

-------
 1962
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and  Regulations
 distinction for compliance purposes
 between samples collected at entry
 points and those collected from
 distribution system taps. The duration
 of an excursion for a WQP measured
 less frequently than daily at a sampling
 location is the number of days between
 the excursion and the day a  subsequent
 sample taken for the same parameter at
 the same sampling location is within the
 State-specified limits. The day on which
 the daily value is outside the State-
 specified limits is the first day of the
" excursion. The day preceding the day
 that a subsequent sample taken for the
 same parameter at the same  sampling
 location is again within the State-
 specified limits is the last day of the
 excursion. Thus, if a distribution system
 tap location has an excursion (e.g., on a
 Monday) and the system collects
 another sample three days later (e.g., on
 Thursday) that is within the limits, the
 system has had an excursion of with a
 duration of 3 days and will remain in
 compliance if it does not have more
 than six other days in the six-month
 period during which an excursion
 occurs at any sampling location.
   The August 1998 Notice proposed
 that where a water system is conducting
 continuous monitoring, the results be
 recorded every four hours for the
 purpose of determining compliance
 with § 141.82(g). Some commenters
 expressed concern that this requirement
 could be burdensome for some systems.
 One State noted that such a requirement
 wouloi necessitate a change to State
• reporting forms which currently only
 have room for the system to  record a
 daily value for each WQP. Other
 commenters noted that the proposed
 provisions did not address those
 instances where continuous monitoring
 equipment is not working properly. EPA
 has dropped the requirement to record
 continuous monitoring results every
 four hours. States have the discretion to
 specify the frequency of recording
 continuous monitoring results. Today's
 action makes no distinction between
 continuous monitoring results and grab
 sample results. If both are collected on
 the  same day, both must be included in
 the  calculation of the daily value.
   Several commenters objected to the
 proposed requirement that OWQP
 compliance be determined quarterly and
 suggested that a more appropriate
 frequency would be annual or every six
 months. A few of these commenters
 expressed the opinion that a quarterly
 compliance determination would be
 more stringent than the 1991
 requirements. EPA disagrees with this
 interpretation. Under the 1991
 requirements, a water system could
 incur a violation any time the results of
                          a sample (or the results of a sample
                          averaged with the results of a
                          confirmation sample taken within three
                          days of the original sample) were below
                          the minimum value or outside the range
                          of values designated by the State under
                          § 141.82(f). A system could thus incur a
                          violation as frequently as every two
                          weeks. Under the revisions proposed in
                          the August 1998 Notice, a water system
                          would incur no more than one OWQP
                          violation a quarter. Nevertheless, the
                          Agency agrees that determining
                          compliance with OWQPs once every six
                          months, instead of once every three
                          months, is more consistent with other
                          monitoring frequencies in the LCR. For
                          these reasons, today's action requires
                          OWQP compliance to be determined
                          every six months.
                            Finally, a few commenters responded
                          that they did not believe the proposed
                          modifications made clear the
                          circumstances that would remove a
                          system's eligibility for reduced
                          monitoring under §§ 141.86 and 141.87.
                          Today's action includes some additional
                          changes to the language of §§ 141.86 and
                          141.87 to clarify that failure to comply
                          with the requirements of § 141.82(g)
                          removes a system's eligibility for
                          reduced monitoring for lead and copper
                          at the tap as well as reduced WQP
                          monitoring within the distribution
                          system. Systems that lose this eligibility
                          must requalify in accordance with the
                          requirements of § 141.86(d)(4) in order
                          to resume reduced monitoring for lead
                          and copper at the tap and must requalify
                          in accordance with the requirements of
                          § 141.87(e) in order to resume reduced
                          monitoring for WQPs at the tap.
                            (iii) Today's action. After considering
                          the comments received, EPA has
                          modified the OWQP compliance
                          requirements- of § 141.82(g) as follows:
                            • Compliance will be calculated for
                          each 6-month period specified in
                          § 141.87(d) during which the water
                          system is required to conduct WQP
                          monitoring, regardless of the frequency
                          of WQP monitoring. The first six-month
                          period begins on the date the State
                          specifies the OWQPs under § 141.82(f).
                          A water system with excursions (see
                          following paragraph) occurring/
                          persisting on more than nine (9) days
                          during the six-month period would be
                          out of compliance. The 9 days need not
                          be consecutive, but may be.
                            • An excursion is defined as a "daily
                          value" for a parameter that is below the
                          minimum value or outside the range of
                          values designated by the State under
                          § 141.82(f) as representing optimal
                          corrosion control.
                            • "Daily values" will be determined
                          for each parameter at each sampling
                          location. The daily values are to be
calculated based on the frequency of
sampling for the parameter at the
sampling location. If measurements for
the parameter are collected at the
sampling location more frequently than
once a day, the daily value will be
calculated by averaging all of the results
measured at the sampling location for
the parameter during the day (regardless
of whether the results are measured
through continuous monitoring, grab
samples, or both) unless EPA has
approved an alternative formula under
§ 142.16 as a part of the State's
application for a primacy revision
submitted pursuant to § 142.12. If
measurements for the parameter are
collected only once a day at a sampling
location, the daily value will be the
daily measurement. If measurements for
the parameter are collected less
frequently than once a day at the
sampling point, the daily value will be
the most recent measurement taken,
even if that measurement was collected
during a previous monitoring period.
  Under this calculation, there is no
distinction between a measurement
taken at an entry point and one
collected from a distribution system tap.
The Agency recognizes that systems
subject to reduced monitoring for WQPs
at the tap may not collect samples from
every site during each six-month period.
In such cases, where the system does
not collect any samples for a
distribution system tap sampling
location during the  six-month period,
the sampling location would have no
excursions if the most recent
measurements at that site were within
the State-specified limits. If, on the
other hand, the system's most recent
measurements were taken at the
distribution system tap sampling
location during the previous monitoring
period and were outside the State-
specified limits, the system would be
out of compliance with § 141.82(g) and
would therefore be triggered back into
standard WQP monitoring.
  Corresponding revisions have been
made to the language of §§ 141.86,
141.87, and 141.90. EPA has revised the
language of §§ 141.86(d)(4)(v)—
redesignated as § 141.86(d)(4)(vi)—and
141.87(e)(4) to clarify that any water
system that is out of compliance with
the requirements of § 141.82(g) is
ineligible to conduct reduced
monitoring for lead  and copper at the
tap  and for WQPs within the
distribution system. Systems that lose
their eligibility for reduced monitoring
cannot resume reduced monitoring for
lead and copper at the tap or for WQPs
within the distribution system until
they have completed two consecutive
six-month rounds of monitoring that

-------
            Federal Register/Vol.  65,  No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1963
 meet the requirements of §§ 141.86(d)(4)
 and 141.87(e), respectively.
  Section 141.87(d) has been revised to
 define the six-month periods for the
 purpose of WQP monitoring once the
 State has designated OWQPs under
 § 141.82(f). The first such period shall
 begin on the date the State specifies the
 OWQPs. For small and medium-size
 systems conducting reduced monitoring
 for lead and copper at the tap that are
 triggered into WQP monitoring pursuant
 to § 141.87(d), the end of the six-month
 period for monitoring under § 141.87(d)
 shall be synchronized with the end of
 the reduced monitoring period under
 § 141.86(d)(4) during which the action
 level exceedance occurred. The wording
 of § 141.87(d) has been streamlined by
 referencing, but not repeating, the
 compliance requirements specified in
 § 141.82(g). The Agency has revised the
 requirements of § 141.90(a)(l) to require
 that the WQP monitoring results be
 provided to the State no less frequently
 than ten days after the end of each six-
 month monitoring period, unless the
 State has specified a more frequent
 reporting requirement.
  Finally, today's action revises the
 provisions of § 142.16(d)(l) to add an
'optional special primacy condition for
 States that want to use a formula, other
 than that specified in § 141.82(g), to
 calculate the daily value when multiple
 measurements are taken on the same
 day for a water quality parameter at the
 same sampling location.
 3. Revisions to §141.84
  a. Proposed revision and background.
 Section 141.84 requires systems that fail
 to meet the lead action level after
 installing CCT and/or source water
 treatment to replace lead service lines
 (LSLs). As promulgated in  1991,
 § 141.84(d) required a water system to
 replace the entire LSL, up to the
 building inlet, unless the system
 demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
 State that it controlled less than the
 entire service line. EPA promulgated a
 definition of "control" that was
 subsequently vacated and remanded to
 EPA as a result of a judicial.challenge
 to this aspect of the Rule to the extent
 the definition of control applied to
 portions of the line beyond a water
 system's ownership.4 The court in that
 case ruled that EPA did not provide an
 opportunity for the public to comment
 on the Agency's expansive  definition of
 control. The court did not address the
 question of whether the definition was
 within EPA's authority under SDWA. In
 the April 1996 Proposal, EPA requested
 comment on a revised definition of
  *AWWA v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
"control" that would include the  '
portion of the line the water system
owns as well as any additional portion
over which it has the authority to
replace. The Agency explained that it
was concerned that the LSL replacement
requirements in the 1991 LCR, which
obligated systems to also replace the
privately-owned portion of the line
where the system had the authority to
replace, repair, or maintain the line, or
had other forms of authority over the
line, could result in confusion and delay
in implementation of the Rule.
Confusion could result from different
perceptions of the precise scope of the
system's legal authority, and resolution
of such disputes could require the
intervention of the State in a potentially
time-consuming process. EPA also
proposed to remove the rebuttable
presumption in § 141.84(e) that the
water system controls the entire length
of the LSL.
  EPA is aware of some information
indicating that partial replacement of
LSLs may result in transitory increases
in levels of lead at the tap immediately
following replacement (see 56 FR 26505,
middle of second column, Jun. 7,1991).
The Agency believes'that the entire
length of the service line should be
replaced wherever such replacement is
possible. For this reason, the 1996
proposed revision to § 141.84(d) did not
include any changes to the requirement
that water systems offer to replace the
privately-owned portion of the LSL (at
the building owner's expense) and, if
requested by the resident(s), collect a
post-partial replacement sample and
report the results to the resident(s)
within 14 days of the partial LSL
replacement.
  In light of commenter concerns about
the retention of partial LSL replacement
requirements in the April  1996
Proposal, EPA included a  request for
comment in the April 1998 Notice on
additional changes to the LSL
requirements. Specifically, EPA
requested comment on the following: (1)
Clarifying that a system should make
the offer to replace the privately-owned
portion of the LSL to the owner, rather
than the user; (2) adding a requirement
that the system notify the  resident(s) of
the building(s) served by the LSL at
least 45 days prior to partial LSL
replacement and provide guidance on
possible short-term lead level increases
and preventive measures consumers can
take to minimize exposure; (3) replacing
the 1991 LCR requirement for a
resident-requested follow-up sample
within 14 days of partial LSL
replacement with a requirement to
collect a sample within 24 hours of
partial LSL  replacement, and to notify
the resident(s) within 3 days of the
system's receipt of the results; and (4)-
adding flexibility in the method of
resident notification.
  b. Comments and analysis.
  (i) Definition of "control." In the April
1996 Proposal, the Agency solicited
comments, specifically regarding the
degree to which systems may have the
authority to replace the privately-owned
portions of LSLs. In addition, EPA
solicited comments regarding the option
of only requiring replacement of the
portion of the line owned by the water
system, explaining that such an
approach would further simplify
implementation of the rule because the
division in ownership between the
system and the user would be clear to
all parties.
  Three commenters supported the
definition of control that EPA proposed,
that is water systems must replace the
portion that they own as well as the
portion over which they have the
authority to replace. All other
commenters supported the more limited
definition that equates control with
ownership. Commenters felt that it is
appropriate to hold the water system
responsible only for the portion of the
service line the system owns. In
addition, the commenters felt that
defining control as ownership would
avoid confusion and ambiguities about
the scope of the water system's
authority to replace LSLs. These
commenters opposed the idea of also
requiring a water system to replace any
additional portion of the line that it
does not own but for which it has the
authority to replace. Their reasons for
opposing the proposed definition
included: lack of legal authority;
difficulty obtaining permission to
replace LSLs  on private property;
concern about using public funds to do
work on private property; and potential
conflicts/lawsuits involving utilities,
homeowners  and independent
contractors. Some commenters argued
that EPA does not have the statutory
authority to require LSL replacement by
the water supplier on private property.
  After consideration of these
comments, the Agency agrees that the
broader definition of "control" (that is,
the water system would be required to
replace the portion of the LSL that it
owns plus any additional portion of the
line that it has the authority to replace)
could result in unintended delays and
other complications. For this reason,
EPA believes it is appropriate to equate
"control" with "ownership" in order to
eliminate potential legal confusion and
delays in implementing the Rule.
  (ii) Elimination of the rebuttable
presumption. Most commenters did not

-------
 1964	Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
 explicitly address EPA's proposal to
 remove the rebuttable presumption that
 the water system controls the entire
 length of the LSL. Those who did
 address the issue supported the
 Agency's proposal. EPA is eliminating
 the rebuttable presumption as proposed,
 since it is no longer needed now that the
 definition of "control" equals
 ownership under today's rule.
   (iii) Possible adverse health effects
 associated with partial LSL
 replacement. A number of commenters
 to the April 1996 Proposal and the April
 1998 Notice expressed concern about
 the possible adverse health effects
 associated with partial replacement of
 LSLs. These concerns were similar to
 those expressed by commenters to the
 1988 proposed LCR. The commenters
 felt that replacing only part of the
 service line could actually increase the
 lead levels at the tap because of galvanic
 action, the disruption of the protective
 coating on the inside of the pipe and the
 entry of particulate lead to the supplied
 water. Some of the commenters on the
 April 1996 Proposal referred to the case
 studies (Britton and Richards, 1981;
 EPA, 1991b; Pocock, 1980) cited by the
 Agency in the preamble to the 1991
 LCR. EPA stated in the preamble that
 the Agency thought partial LSL
 replacement could increase lead levels,
 but that EPA believed increased levels,
 if they occur, will be temporary and will
 decrease over time. A number of
 commenters argued that these studies
 show increased lead levels from partial
 LSL replacement and that the levels do
 not necessarily decrease. EPA has
 reanalyzed the three case studies to
 better assess the lead level increases
 resulting from partial LSL replacement
 (EPA, 1998c). This reanalysis confirmed
 that lead levels at the tap, will in some
 instances, increase immediately after
 partial replacement of the LSL. The
 results of the same studies also revealed
 that subsequently, over the long run,
 lead levels will decrease below the pre-
 replacement levels after partial LSL
 replacement. The commenters on  both
 the 1996 and 1998 proposals also stated
 that several water systems which began
 voluntary programs to replace their
 portion of the LSL observed increased
 lead levels after replacement. However,
 no new data were submitted to the
 Agency for analysis. The Agency
 believes that the temporary rise in lead
 levels indicates not only the presence of
 lead materials in the distribution system
 (i.e., service lines, probably lead pipe),
but also poor corrosion control. It  is
expected that potential for temporary
increases in lead levels will be minimal
for those systems where corrosion
 control has been fully implemented and
 optimized as required by the Rule.
   Four case studies were examined to
 assess the impact of partial LSL
 replacement (EPA, 1998c). Only two of
 the case studies have adequate data to
 assess the impact on lead levels at the
 tap, relative to time elapsed after
 replacement. The first study was
 conducted in Scotland. Lead levels were
 observed at a residence after partial LSL
 replacement over a four-month period
 (Britton and Richards, 1981). The other
 study was conducted by EPA at several
 homes in  Oakwood, Ohio and lead
 levels were recorded for several weeks
 after replacement (EPA, 1991b).
   The study by Britton and Richards
 showed a temporary rise in lead levels
 at the tap. There were four monitoring
 periods in this case study: before
 replacement, one week after
 replacement, two months after
 replacement, and four months after
 replacement. During each period, 10
 first-draw and 10 random daytime
 samples were collected daily over a two-
 week period. First-draw samples were
 taken in the morning before any other
 water in the household had been run.
 The random daytime samples were
 taken later that day without running any
 water to waste before sampling.
  The elevated lead levels produced by
 partial LSL replacement were a short-
 term phenomenon. The average
 concentrations for the first-draw and
 random daytime samples taken "four
 months after replacement" are lower
 than the average concentrations of the
 "before replacement" samples. In
 addition, the first-draw and random
 daytime samples were averaged for each
 sampling period to better assess the
 impact of partial LSL replacement on
 lead levels at the site. The averages of
 all samples taken "four months after
 replacement" is 25 percent lower than
 the averages of all samples taken "before
 replacement." The percentage reduction
 is even larger when the average of the
 first-draw  samples are compared. The
 data on the range of concentrations and
 the percentages of samples above 0.100
 mg/L and 0.050 mg/L also support the
benefits of partial LSL replacement. The
 highest concentration in the first-draw
 samples taken "four months after
replacement" is less than half the
highest concentration taken in the first-
 draw samples taken "before
replacement." In addition, the
percentages of samples with
concentrations above 0.100 mg/L and
0.050 mg/L are lower in the data taken
"four months after replacement." This
trend is observed in both the first-draw
and the random daytime samples. This
study supports EPA's contention that
 although lead levels at the tap will in
 some instances increase immediately
 after partial replacement of the LSL,
 over the long run, lead levels will
 decrease below the before replacement
 levels.
   The EPA study was designed to
 observe the effects of partial LSL
 replacement. First-draw samples and
 service line samples were taken before
 and after replacement of LSLs at four
 sites in Oakwood, Ohio. One limitation
 of this study is that the lead levels
 before replacement were below the
 trigger of 0.015 mg/L. LSL replacement
 would not be required for these sites
 under the LCR. Another limitation is the
 duration of sampling. A complete set of
 post-replacement samples was not taken
 at every  site making it difficult to fully
 examine the impact of time on post-
 replacement lead levels. The third
 limitation is that the date of the partial
 LSL replacement for each of the four
 sites is not recorded in the summary.
   The results from the first round of
 post-replacement samples are very'
 similar to the pre-replacement results.
 The averages of the pre- and post-
 replacement samples for three of the
 sites were within 3 "u7L of one another,
 and all were at or below 10 u/L. The
 average service line lead level almost
 doubled  at one site and exceeded the
 action level of 15 u/L after replacement.
 However, the average for the three
 service line samples taken at this site
 the following week was dramatically
 lower. The averages for the service line
 samples taken at the other two sites
 during this sampling period  were also
 lower than the averages for the first after
 replacement sampling period. The
 results from the second round of post-
 replacement monitoring showed a
 significant decrease in lead levels when
 compared to the pre-replacement
 averages. The post-replacement averages
 from the  second monitoring period
 showed approximately a 50 percent
 reduction from the pre-replacement
 averages. The data from the third round
 of post-replacement monitoring only
 showed a slight additional decrease in
 lead levels. The levels are below 5 u7L,
 so further significant reductions would
 be unlikely. These data do not support
 the commenter's contentions that lead
 levels are elevated after partial LSL
 replacement and that lead levels do not
 necessarily decrease. These data do
 appear to indicate that requiring
replacement of lines where tap levels
 are already low (i.e., below 0.015 mg/1)
 might not result in dramatic
improvements in lead levels.
  In practice, EPA believes that many
systems required to replace LSLs will
receive consent to remove any privately-

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                      1965
 owned portions since it is in the
 homeowners' interest to completely
 remove this source of lead in their
 drinking water. In those cases where the
 PWS cannot obtain permission to
 remove the entire line, EPA still
 believes there are benefits to partial
 replacement. Partial removal of a LSL
 will reduce the likelihood of exposure
 to lead from drinking water because
 there will be a smaller volume of water
 in contact with the LSL. Consumers are
 more likely to consume water with
.elevated lead levels from longer lines
 because a larger volume of water will
 have elevated lead levels. As previously
 explained in detail in the 1991 LCR,
 data collected by Pocock (1980)  from
 over 2,000 homes in the United
 Kingdom support the view that the
 likelihood of elevated lead levels varies
 in relation to the length of the LSL.
 These findings are also consistent with
 Kuch and Wagner's (1983) mass transfer
 modeling, which predicted the
 dependence of lead levels on the length
 and diameter of a lead pipe (i.e., higher
 lead levels with longer lead pipe).
  The Agency believes the water system
 should replace the entire length of the
 line wherever possible. Today's  action
 therefore retains a requirement for the
 water supplier to offer to replace the
 privately-owned portion of the line.
 This requirement has been revised to
 exclude those instances where doing so
 is precluded by State, local or common
 law. There is no requirement for the
 system to bear the cost of replacing the
 privately-owned portion of the line.
 Thus, if the property  owner does not
 want to pay for removal of the privately-
 owned portion of the line, the system is
 only required to replace the portion it
 owns. The Agency believes that  the
 requirement for systems to offer
 assistance with replacement of
 privately-controlled service lines is an
 efficient and effective means of
 maximizing the public health benefits
 achieved by the rule.
  (iv) Resident notification of partial
 LSL replacement. In response to  the
 April 1998 Notice, no commenter
 objected to requiring the system  to
 contact the "owner" rather than  the
 "user" when offering to replace the
 privately-owned portion of the service
 line. Several commenters expressed
 concern that requiring notification to
 residents 45 days in advance of the
 partial replacement would present a
 hardship in instances where the  system
 is replacing the line in conjunction with
 making emergency repairs. A few
 commenters objected to the requirement
 that the water system be responsible for
 providing notification to residents of
 multi-family buildings and other non-
 billing unit residents and suggested this
 should be the responsibility of the
 building owner. Finally, several
 commenters expressed concern about
 the requirement for a post-replacement
 sample taken within 24 hours of the
 replacement. The concerns included
 timing problems associated with
 weekends and holidays, the likelihood
 that such a sample would not be
 representative of the lead levels after
 stabilization, and the added cost and
 burden associated with the requirement.
  To minimize the risk that residents
 will incur increased exposure because
 of partial line replacement, EPA is
 including the requirement that water
 systems provide a notice of the partial
 replacement to the residents at least 45
 days before commencing with the
 partial LSL replacement, inform
 residents that they may experience  a
 temporary increase of lead levels in
 their drinking water, and provide
 residents with guidance about the
 measures they can take to minimize
 their exposure to lead. The Agency  feels
 that 45 days is a sufficient amount of
 time for the recipients to study the
 guidance provided by the water
 supplier, to familiarize themselves with
 the potential ramifications associated
 with the partial LSL replacement, and to
 plan and implement appropriate
 measures to avoid exposure to lead. The
 Agency agrees with commenters,
 however, that a 45-day lead time is  not
 practicable in those instances when
 replacement is being done in
 conjunction with emergency repairs.
 EPA has therefore included provisions'
 giving States the discretion to allow for
 notification of less than 45 days in such
 instances. States will need to review
 such requests on a case-by-case basis
 unless they adopt appropriate State
 regulations to allow notification of less
 than 45 days in conjunction with
 emergency repairs.
  As an additional precautionary
 measure, the water system is required to
 collect a follow-up LSL sample, to
 determine whether the partial LSL
 replacement caused an increase of lead
 levels in the drinking water, and to
 provide the results to residents. The
 1991 LCR required the water supplier to
 inform residents served by partially-
 replaced LSLs that they were entitled to
 have a tap water sample drawn and
 analyzed within 14 days of the
 completion of the partial replacement.
Upon further consideration, the Agency
believes the requirement, as codified in
 1991, could place an undue burden  on
the water system in those instances
where  a line serves a large multi-family
residence because the system could  be
required to take a large number of
 samples if every unit requested one. The
 follow-up sampling that would be
 required by the changes to § 141.84(d)
 discussed in the April 1998 Notice is
 intended to show the "worst-case"
 effects of partial LSL replacement and is
 not intended to be used in 90th
 percentile calculations or for
 determining compliance with optimal
 corrosion control or source water
 treatment requirements. Under the
 revised requirement, the water system is
 required to collect only one sample for
 each partially-replaced LSL. EPA
 therefore does not believe that a large
 number of samples is required.
  EPA is including the requirement that
 the water system collect a tap water
 sample representative of the water in
 the service line for analysis of lead
 content as prescribed in § 141.86(b)(3)
 and provide the results to the residents
 quickly. Prior to collecting the follow-
 up sample, water must remain sitting in
 the pipe for at least 6 hours following
 partial LSL replacement. The Agency is
 sensitive to commenter concerns that
.collecting such a sample within 24
 hours of the partial replacement may
 cause additional burden. In those cases
 where the partial replacement is
 completed on a Friday or just before a
 holiday, staff may not be available
 outside of normal working hours to
 collect such a sample. For these reasons,
 EPA agrees with commenters that
 extending the time frame for collecting
 the follow-up sample from 24 hours to
 72 hours is reasonable and the Agency
 has done so in the final rule language.  '
 In response to  commenter suggestions,
 the Agency also is clarifying in the rule
 language that the water system is
 expected to pay for this sampling. EPA
 does not believe that the follow-up
 sampling and notification constitute a
 significant burden to the system
 compared with the cost of the partial
LSL replacement.
  The Agency believes that the affected
parties should  be provided with the test
results as quickly as possible so they
can implement appropriate measures,
commensurate with the findings, as
soon as they can to minimize their
exposure to lead. In addition,
unnecessary expenses and further
concerns on the part of consumers could
be alleviated in instances where the
analytical results indicate little or no
increase in lead levels, or an immediate
decrease in lead levels, resulting from
the partial removal of the LSL. EPA
therefore is retaining the requirement
that water systems provide the results of
this post-replacement sample to
consumers within three days of
receiving the results. The Agency has

-------
 1966
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 clarified the rule language to reflect that
 the three days are business days.
   While EPA is sensitive to the
 difficulties associated with providing
 notification to residents of non-billing
 units (for example, apartment buildings
 and other rental units), the Agency
 believes it is important that the water
 system take pro-active measures to
 notify these residents. The Agency
 therefore is including the requirement
 that the water system provide the pre-
 partial LSL replacement information
 and the post-replacement sample results
 to these residents as well as to the
 residents of billing units. In the case of
 single family residences, this notice
 must be made by mail unless another
 mechanism  is approved by the State. To
 avoid problems arising from delivery
 delays beyond the system's control,
 notifications which are postmarked
 within the required time will be
 considered acceptable. In the case of
 multi-family residences, the regulation
 gives the water supplier the option to
 post the information in a conspicuous
 place.
   (v) Reporting of post-replacement
 sampling results to the State. Most
 comm'enters supported the proposed
 requirement that water systems provide
 the State a copy of the results of samples
 collected immediately following partial
 LSL replacement within the first ten
 days of the month following the month
 in which the results are received from
 the laboratory. Two commenters,
 however, suggested that EPA provide
 States flexibility in the manner, format,
 and timing of reporting; three other
 commenters opposed the requirement
 altogether. After consideration of these
 comments, EPA has retained the
 reporting requirement but has given
 States the flexibility to modify or
 eliminate it. Even if the State does not
 require these results to be reported,
 water systems are required to maintain
 records of the sampling results in
 accordance with § 141.91.
  (vi) Financial impacts of LSL
 replacement. Some commenters were
 concerned about the financial impacts
 associated with LSL replacement. They
 felt that compliance with the regulation
 will be particularly burdensome for
 some cities that have a high percentage
 of LSLs. One commenter stated the
 belief that EPA's 1991 LCR estimate of
 the average removal cost per line was
 extremely conservative when made and
 is now outdated, and actual costs could
 be significantly higher and submitted
 supporting data. The cost of the original
 LSL replacement requirements is
 outside the scope of this rulemaking.
EPA did not propose any changes to the
basic LSL replacement requirements nor
                          did EPA ask for comment on those '
                          requirements or otherwise reopen that
                          issue.
                            (vii) Other LSL comments. Some
                          commenters raised issues with the basic
                          LSL replacement requirements of the
                          rule, such as the requirement to replace
                          or sample 7 percent of lines each year
                          and the basic reasonableness of
                          requiring systems to replace some
                          portion of the line when levels at the tap
                          are above 15 ppb. These comments are
                          outside the scope of this rulemaking
                          because EPA did not propose revisions
                          to, or otherwise reopen, the basic LSL
                          replacement requirements in this
                          proceeding. Rather, the  only aspects of
                          the 1991 Rule addressed here are the
                          definition of "control" for purposes of
                          determining the portion of the service
                          line the system is required to replace,
                          and sampling and notification
                          requirements that relate to the potential
                          for partial LSL replacement.
                            c. Today's action. EPA has eliminated
                          the "control" terminology from the
                          Rule. Today's action revises § 141.84(d)
                          to require the water system to replace
                          only the portion of the LSL that it owns.
                          Water systems subject to LSL
                          replacement requirements continue to
                          be required to offer to replace the
                          privately-owned portion of the line,
                          however, § 141.84(d) has been revised to
                          clarify that the offer must be made to the
                          owner of the property, or the owner's
                          authorized agent, rather than the user.
                            Today's action  also revises the
                          requirements in § 141.84(d) that a water
                          system must satisfy when replacing only
                          a portion of the LSL. The requirement
                          that a water system offer to take a post-
                          replacement sample within 14 days of
                          the partial replacement has been
                          replaced with the following
                          requirements.
                            • At least 45 days prior to the partial
                          replacement, the water system must
                          notify all residents of the building
                          served by the line that the partial
                          replacement will  occur,  alert them that
                          they may experience a temporary
                          increase of lead levels in their drinking
                          water, provide them with guidance on
                          measures they can take to minimize
                          their exposure to  lead, and inform them
                          that the water system  will collect a
                          follow-up sample within 72 hours of
                          completing the partial replacement, and
                          notify them of the results of that sample.
                          The State has the discretion to allow
                          less than a 45-day advance notice in
                          those instances where the partial
                          replacement is being performed in
                          conjunction with emergency repairs.
                            • Within 72 hours ofcompleting the
                          partial LSL replacement, the water
                          system shall collect a  tap water sample
                          representative of the water in the service
line for analysis of lead content in
accordance with the procedures
specified in § 141.86(b)(3). The system
shall report the results of the analysis to
the owner and the resident(s) served by
the line within 3 business days of
receiving the results. Mailed notices
post-marked within 3 business days of
receiving the results shall be considered
"on time."
  • For the purpose of satisfying the
notification requirements of § 141.84(d),
the water system shall provide the
information to the residents of
individual dwellings by mail or by other
methods approved by the State. In
instances where multi-family dwellings
are served by the line, the water system
shall have the option to post the
information at a conspicuous location.
  Today's action also makes three other
changes in § 141.84. Section 141.84(e)
has been deleted, since the rebuttable
presumption is no longer appropriate.
Sections 141.84(f) through (h) have been
redesignated as §§ 141.84(e) through (g).
The Agency also has made a slight
modification to § 141.84(b) to explicitly
require the system to document, in
system files, the portion(s) of the LSL(s)
owned by the system. The third
sentence of § 141.84(b) has been revised
to read as follows: "The system shall
identify the initial number of lead
service lines in its distribution system,
including  an identification of the
portion(s)  owned by the system, based
on a materials evaluation, including the
evaluation required under § 141.86(a)
and relevant legal authorities (e.g.,
contracts, local ordinances)  regarding
the portion owned by the system." EPA
does not intend that systems provide
this information to the State; however,
the Agency thinks it is important for a
record to exist that documents the
baseline. These records should be
available for inspection at the system
upon request.
  The reporting requirement at
§ 141.90(e)(4), to submit documentation
if the system believes it does not control
the entire length of the line,  has been
replaced with a requirement that the
water system report the results of the
post-partial replacement sampling to the
State within the first ten days of the
month following the month  in which
the system receives the laboratory
results, unless otherwise specified by
the State. States, at their discretion,  may
eliminate this reporting requirement.
Systems shall also report additional
information as specified by the State,
and in a time and manner prescribed by
the State, to verify that all partial LSL
replacement activities have taken place.
  Finally,  these changes to § 141.84
necessitate conforming changes to

-------
            Federal Register/Vol.  65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1967
§ 141.85(a) and Part 142. EPA has
revised the language of § 141.85(a)
slightly to remove references to LSL
control. The phrase "each lead service
line that we control" in § 141.85(a)(l)(i)
(as redesignated) has been revised to
read "the portion of each lead service
line that we own." The discussion of
LSL replacement in
§ 141.85(a)(l)(iv)(B)(5) (as redesignated)
has been revised to reflect the
notification and post-partial
replacement sampling requirements in
today's action. Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii),
requiring States to maintain records of
their determination that a water system
does not control the entire length of the
LSL, has been deleted; however, two
new State recordkeeping requirements
have been added. Section
142.14(d)(8)(xvi) requires States to
maintain records of any system-specific
determinations regarding the
submission of information, including
post partial replacement test results, to
demonstrate compliance with partial
lead service line replacement
requirements. Section 142.14(d)(10)(ii)
has been added to include a
requirement that States maintain
records related to system compliance
with partial lead service line
replacement requirements. Section
142.16(d)(3) has been revised to
eliminate the requirement that States
describe in their primacy program
revision application how they plan to
make determinations that a water
system does not control the entire
length of the LSL. It has been replaced
with a requirement that States describe
in their primacy program revision how
they will verify that all partial LSL
replacement activities have been
completed properly.
4. Revisions to § 141.85
  a. Changes affecting content of written
materials.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
requested comment on a revision that
would provide separate mandatory
public education language for use by
NTNCWSs and certain CWSs, such as
prisons and hospitals, which is more
appropriate for these systems. The
proposed NTNCWS language would
eliminate references to "homes in the
community" and some suggestions for
reducing lead exposure which may be
beyond the control of consumers served
by such water systems. As a part of this
provision, the Agency proposed that the
CWSs approved to  use the NTNCWS
language also be permitted to deliver
their public education program as if
they were a NTNCWS. The Agency
proposed these changes to address
concerns of EPA Regions and States that
the mandatory language specified in the
1991 LCR may not be appropriate for
NTNCWSs or certain small CWSs (such
as prisons and hospitals) that primarily
serve confined populations. In order to
incorporate these changes into the LCR,
EPA proposed to renumber § 141.85(a)
as § 141.85(a)(l) and to incorporate the
NTNCWS language at § 141.85(a)(2).
EPA also proposed to add a paragraph
(c)(7) to § 141.85. This new paragraph   •
would identify the types of CWSs who
might be eligible to use the NTNCWS
language. As proposed, CWSs would
need State approval to use the NTNCWS
language, however, EPA also solicited
public comment on the necessity of this
up-front approval.
  (ii) Comments and analysis. While all
commenters supported the proposed
revisions, some offered additional
suggestions for consideration by EPA.
For example, suggestions were made to
allow CWSs to delete references to LSLs
where none exist, and to delete
references to building permit records
where the records are unavailable.
Another suggestion was to allow
NTNCWSs with internal e-mail systems
to distribute the required public
education information electronically in
lieu of printed format. EPA agrees with
these suggestions, and has incorporated
language which gives States the
flexibility to approve these minor
changes to the public education
language.
  Some commenters suggested that EPA
allow systems  additional flexibility to
tailor public education language. The
public education language specified in
the regulations is a mandatory
minimum. The mandatory language
specified in the regulations was
developed to provide consistent,
beneficial information to consumers
regarding lead in their water supply.
Systems may request approval from
States to include additional language, to
provide consumers with information
specific to a particular system. EPA
believes the LCR, as revised by today's
action, provides sufficient flexibility to
address system-specific circumstances.
  EPA received mixed comments on
whether up-front State approval  for
CWSs to use the NTNCWS public
education language should be required
for CWSs that meet the specified criteria
in the proposed § 141.85(c)(7). After
considering these comments, EPA
believes that the issue of whether to
require up-front approval should be
decided by the States. The language at
§ 141.85(c)(7) has been modified to
allow States to decide whether systems
that qualify to use the alternative public
education language need to request
State approval.
  (iii) Today's action. EPA has made the
following revisions to § 141.85 to reflect
the changes discussed above. The
Agency has redesignated paragraph (a),
except for the phrase, "Content of
written public education materials," as
paragraph (a)(l) and titled it as
"Community water systems." The
subordinate paragraphs have been
redesignated accordingly. The
introductory text of paragraph (a)(l) has
been expanded to allow CWSs, with
State approval, to delete information
pertaining to lead service lines if no
lead service lines exist anywhere in the
water system service area. As discussed
in section C.3.C. of this preamble, EPA
has replaced the phrase "each lead
service line that we control" in
paragraph (a)(l) with the phrase "the _
portion of each lead service line that we
own." Section 141.85(a)(l)(iv)(B)(5) also
has been revised to reflect that a water
system is only required to replace the
portion of the lead service line that it
owns and to reflect the notification and
post-partial-replacement sampling
requirements contained in § 141.84(d) of
today's action. Systems, however, may
continue to use pre-printed materials
with the old language, if they so choose.
  The language of § 141.85(a)(l) also has
been expanded to allow systems to
modify, with State approval, the
language at (a)(l)(iv)(B)(5) and
[a)(l)(iv)(D)(2) regarding building permit
record availability and consumer access
to these records if such information is
not available.
  EPA has  added new paragraphs at
(a)(2) to specify alternative mandatory
language for use by NTNCWSs. These
systems have the discretion to use either
the language in § 141.85(a)(l) or the
language in § 141.85(a)(2). The
introductory text of § 141.85(c)(4) also
has been revised to update the
paragraph'references applicable to
repeat public education tasks.
  EPA also has added a paragraph (7) to
§ 141*85(c). This paragraph specifies the
characteristics of CWSs that may be
eligible to use the NTNCWS language
and provides flexibility for eligible
CWSs to substitute posting and
distribution of informational pamphlets/
brochures in lieu of meeting the CWS
public education distribution
requirements. CWSs delivering public
education as if they were a NTNCWS
would be required to repeat public
education tasks only once per calendar
year in which the system exceeds the
lead action level. States have the
flexibility to waive the requirement for
prior State approval for these special-

-------
 1968
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2.000/Rules and Regulations
 case CWSs to deliver public education
 as if they are NTNCWSs.
  In addition, EPA has revised
 § 141.85(c)(4Xii) to permit a NTNCWS
 to utilize electronic transmission in lieu
 of or combined with printed materials
 as long as it achieves at least the same
 coverage.
  Finally, EPA has added provisions in
 a new § 142.14(d)(8)(x) that require
 States to maintain records pertaining to
 any system-specific decisions made
 under § 141.85 regarding the content of
 written public education materials and/
 or the distribution of these materials.
  b. Public education delivery
 requirements.
  (i) CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer
 people.
  (A) Proposed revision and
 background. The April 1996 Proposal
 included a provision to allow CWSs
 serving 500 or fewer people to forego
 the newspaper and electronic media
 notifications required as a part of public
 education because these systems  rarely
 are served by general circulation
 newspapers and radio/television
 stations that have audiences limited to
 the public water system's service area.
 The Agency explained that it believes
 such a revision is necessary to minimize
 the unintended burden resulting from a
 system needing to respond to numerous
 inquiries from individuals it does not
 serve. For the same reason, EPA also
 proposed to allow systems serving 500
 or fewer people to limit the distribution
 of informational brochures to facilities
 and organizations likely to be
 frequented by pregnant women and
 children. Finally, EPA requested public
 comment on a burden reduction
 suggestion to allow CWSs serving 501 to
 3,300 people to forego the public  service
 announcement requirements contained
 in § 141.85(c)(2)(iv) since the major
 radio/television stations usually
 broadcast to a much broader area  than
 that served by the water system.
  (B) Comments and analysis. Most of
 the commenters supported the proposed
 revision pertaining to the delivery of
 public education by CWSs serving 500
 or fewer people.  Several commenters
 noted discrepancies between the
 preamble discussion and the rule
 language, however, and expressed
 concern that the rule  language, as
 proposed, would not  accomplish  the
 intended objectives.
  One of the discrepancies involves the
 distribution of informational pamphlets
 or brochures to facilities and
 organizations visited  frequently by
pregnant women and children. In the
preamble, EPA stated the Agency's
intent that these materials be distributed
to appropriate facilities served by the
                          system and "only those locations
                          outside the system's service area that are
                          regularly visited by the system's
                          consumers." This latter requirement, to
                          provide informational materials to
                          facilities and organizations not served
                          by the system, was not included in the
                          proposed rule language. Several
                          commenters expressed concern that
                          including such a requirement would
                          result in the same confusion and
                          unintended consequences as the
                          original requirements. EPA agrees that
                          limiting the distribution of materials to
                          facilities/organizations within the
                          service area is appropriate and the final
                          rule language has been revised
                          accordingly.
                            The second discrepancy between the
                          1996 preamble and proposed rule
                          language involves the question of what,
                          if anything, the water system would be
                          required to do in lieu of newspaper and
                          electronic notification. In the preamble,
                          EPA indicated that the Agency was
                          proposing to require CWSs, that serve
                          500 or fewer people and that desire to
                          omit tasks requiring submission of
                          information to newspapers and radio
                          and television stations, to mail or hand
                          deliver lead public education materials
                          to all other regular consumers (e.g.,
                          tenants of multi-family residences
                          whose water is included in their rent),
                          in addition to mailing these  materials to
                          all billing units (60 FR16355, top of
                          third column). EPA inadvertently
                          omitted this requirement from the
                          proposed rule language. Even though
                          several commenters expressed concern
                          that such an alternative requirement
                          would be as burdensome as the original
                          requirements, the Agency believes that
                          such a requirement is appropriate when
                          newspaper notification and/or broad
                          distribution of pamphlets/brochures
                          does not occur. The purpose of these
                          activities is to ensure that as many
                          individuals served by the system as
                          possible receive timely public education
                          materials. For systems serving 500 and
                          fewer people, the Agency does not
                          believe that mailing or hand delivering
                          these materials to all households served
                          by the system, in lieu of these activities,
                          constitutes an undue  burden. The
                          revised provisions allow these systems
                          the flexibility to select the least
                          burdensome among the allowable
                          delivery mechanisms. The Agency has
                          therefore incorporated this requirement
                          into the final rule language.
                            The comments received also
                          supported the burden reduction
                          suggestion to eliminate the public
                          service announcement requirement for
                          CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people. EPA
                          agrees and today's action revises the
                          rule language accordingly.
  Several commenters recommended
that EPA also allow CWSs serving 501
to 3,300 people to forego newspaper
notification and broad distribution of
pamphlets and brochures to facilities
and organizations that are visited
frequently by pregnant women and
children. These commenters believe that
the problems associated with newspaper
notification and broad distribution of
informational pamphlets and brochures
affect most small systems. EPA concurs
that many systems serving between 501
and 3,300 people may be on the fringe
of an urban or suburban area and that
distribution of broad-based public
education for these systems may have
unintended consequences. The Agency
believes, however, that allowing these
systems to automatically limit
distribution of public education
materials is inappropriate. Such
systems, for example, are more likely to
be served by local newspapers in which
it may be appropriate to include
information about the system's lead
levels. EPA believes that States are in
the best position to determine the extent
to which CWSs serving 501 to 3,300
people should limit distribution  of
public education materials. The final
rule therefore gives States the authority,
either through State regulations or by
case-by-case written approval, to allow
CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people to
omit the newspaper notification
requirements and to limit the
distribution of materials to appropriate
facilities and organizations served by
the system.
  Finally, one commenter suggested
that the alternate delivery allowed for
NTNCWSs and some small CWSs
(institutions) should be extended to
mobile home parks, housing projects,
subdivisions and apartments. The
commenter believes such systems serve
a more or less confined population that
is readily accessible through a central
mail area and/or laundry area that
makes hand delivery much easier and
more effective. EPA believes that the
revisions discussed below provide
sufficient flexibility for the delivery of
public education by CWSs. EPA
therefore has no plans at this time to
make further changes to the public
education language requirements
beyond those contained in today's
action.
  (C) Today's action. EPA has revised
the rule to add a new paragraph at
§ 141.85(c)(8) to allow any CWS serving
less than or equal to 3,300 people to
omit the public service announcement
requirements of § 141.85(c)(2)(iv). Such
systems are not required to obtain prior
State approval to omit these
announcements, nor are they required to

-------
            Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      19B9
 substitute any other tasks, in lieu of
 public service announcements, as part
 of meeting the public education
 requirements.
  In addition to omitting the public
 service announcement task for small
 CWSs, the new § 141.85(c)(8) provides
 some flexibility for small CWSs to omit
 the newspaper notification required by
 § 141.85(c)(2)(ii) and to limit the
 distribution of informational pamphlets
 under § 141.85(c)(2)(iii) to appropriate
 facilities and organizations served by
 the water system. In addition to mailing
 lead public education materials to
 billing units, systems electing to limit/
 omit these activities must also mail or
 hand deliver the required public
 education materials to all other regular
 customers of the system (i.e.,
 households that are not billing units).
 CWSs serving 501 to 3,300 people must
 receive prior written approval from the
 State. State apprpval is not required for
 CWSs serving 500 or fewer people,
 however, §141.85(c)(8)(i)(A) gives
 States the authority to require such  a
 system to distribute to facilities and
 organizations not served by the system
 in those instances where the State
 believes that a broader distribution  is
 appropriate. As discussed above, today's
 action also adds the corresponding State
 recordkeeping requirements at a new
 § 142.14(d)(8)(x).
  Finally, § 141.85 (c)(8)(ii) clarifies that
 small CWSs that omit the public service
 announcement tasks are required to
 repeat public education tasks only once
 during each calendar year until such
 time as the results of lead and copper
 tap water monitoring indicate that they
 no longer exceed the lead action level.
  (ii) Timing and method of
 distribution.
  (A) Proposed revision and
 background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
 EPA sought comment on proposed
 changes pertaining to the mailing and
 timing of public education materials by
 CWSs that exceed the lead action level.
 Specifically, the Agency proposed two
 modifications to § 141.85(c)(2)(i) to: (a)
Allow a CWS having a billing cycle that
 does not include a billing within 60
 days of exceeding the lead action level
to mail the materials on the same
 schedule as the system's billing cycle as
 long as the mailing occurs within six
months after the exceedance; and (b)
 allow a CWS that cannot insert
 information in the water utility bill,
without making major changes to its
billing system, to use a separate mailing
to deliver the public education materials
as long as the information is delivered
within the required time frame. EPA
 also proposed to require CWSs utilizing
 a separate mailing to include an alert
with the materials to minimize the risk
that they would be discarded as.;"junk
mail." The Agency proposed these
changes to minimize the unintended
additional burden associated with
making changes in a water system's
billing cycle and/or process to
accommodate the rule's public  .
education requirements.
  (B) Comments and analysis.
Commenters generally were supportive
of these proposed changes, except for
one State which disagreed with
allowing systems up to six months to
deliver the public education materials
because of the potential health risks,
especially for pregnant women, if
customers are not informed in a timely
manner. After further consideration of
the public health issues, EPA has
decided to retain the current
requirement that all systems exceeding
the lead action level distribute public
education materials within 60 days of
the exceedance. The decision to retain
the 60-day requirement is based on
these considerations: (1) Extending the
time period to distribute public
education materials could lessen public
health protection. Pregnant women, in
particular, might not receive timely
notice if the system were allowed up to
six months after becoming aware of an
exceedance to provide the public
education materials. (2) Allowing
different time requirements based on
non-risk-related factors such as billing
cycles could provide unequal health
protection. (3) State administrative costs
would increase since the State would
need to be aware of a system's billing
cycle in order to determine compliance
with this requirement.
  EPA agrees with commenters,
however, that the mailing of public
education materials separately from the
water bill is appropriate in many
instances and is revising the public
education requirements accordingly.
The Agency believes that this change
will provide sufficient flexibility for
systems to meet the public education
requirements without incurring the
added burden of making substantial
changes to their billing processes.
  One commenter seems to have
misunderstood the requirements
pertaining to the timing of public
education if a CWS is required to repeat
public education tasks pursuant to
§ 141.85(c)(3). It is not EPA's intention
that such a system provide public
education materials within 60 days of
any subsequent exceedance as well as
repeat mailing of these materials every
12 months based on the initial
exceedance. Rather, the Agency intends
that public education materials be
mailed every 12 months for as long as
 the system continues to exceed the lead
 action level. There is nothing in the
 regulation, however, that precludes
 such a system from mailing the
 materials sooner than 12 months after
 the initial mailing, in order to
 synchronize the repeat mailing with its
 billing cycle.
   (C)  Today's action. EPA is revising
 § 141.85(c)(2)(i) to allow a CWS the
 option of using a separate mailing when
 the system's billing cycle does not
 include a mailing within 60 days of
 exceeding the action level or where the
 system cannot insert information with
 the water utility bill without making
 major changes in its billing system. The
 separate mailing must occur within 60
 days of exceeding the lead action level
 and the system must include an alert in
 the package or on the outside of the
 envelope containing the following
 message, in large print: SOME HOMES
 IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE
 ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN THEIR
 DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN POSE
 A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR
 HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE
 ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER
 INFORMATION.
   EPA also is revising the introductory
 text of §§ 141.85(c)(2) and 141.85(c)(4)
 to clarify that the requirement to deliver
 public education within 60 days of a
 lead action level exceedance applies
 only in the following instances:
   • The first time the water system
 exceeds the lead action level; or
   • The first time the water system
 again exceeds the lead action level after
 one (or more) round(s) of tap water
 monitoring for lead and copper where
. the system did'not exceed the lead
 action level.
   c. Schedule for Reporting Completion
 of Public Education Tasks.
   (i) Proposed revision and background.
 The April  1996 Proposal included a
 change in the deadline for a PWS to
 report completion of public education
 tasks to the State. Under the 1991 Rule,
 the deadline for reporting was December
 31 of each year in which the system was
 subject to the Rule's public education
 requirements. EPA proposed to replace
 the December 31 deadline with a
 requirement  for the water system to
 report completion of public education
 tasks to the State within 10 days after
 the date by which the system  is required
 to perform any such tasks. EPA
 proposed this revision because the
 Agency believes that the schedule for
 water systems to report, completion of
 public education tasks by December 31
 of each year (in which the system is
 required to conduct any public
 education task) fails to provide the
 States and EPA with information in a

-------
 1970
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
manner timely enough to oversee
systems" compliance with the public
education program requirements.
   (ii) Comments and analysis. '
Commenters were mixed in their
support for this revision. Those
opposing it believe this will
unnecessarily increase burden. Of those
supporting the revision, some support it
as written and some support it with
changes. Two of those supporting it
with changes wanted the reporting time
to increase from 10 days to 30 days, and
one supporting it with changes
expressed concern about submitting a
full packet of information each reporting
period.
  Several commenters who opposed
this revision wanted to retain the annual
reporting requirement. EPA recognizes
that this revision.will require those
CWSs that must deliver public service
announcements to radio and television
stations every six months to submit two
letters to the State during a calendar
year instead of the single letter initially
required. However, EPA believes that
accelerating the public education
reporting requirement will improve
compliance because, in addition to
making the requirements easier to
enforce, it also will encourage water-
systems that exceed the lead action level
to deliver the public education program
in a more timely manner.
  EPA also believes it is appropriate to
require reporting within 10 days after a
public education task is scheduled to be
completed. The 10 days allows systems
time to assemble records and notify the
State. Such a requirement is consistent
with the time frame allowed in other
reporting requirements, which allow 10
days for reporting to the State  after an
action or the end of a reporting period.
Very few systems should be required to
conduct public education tasks more
than once per year, since today's action
also eliminates public service
announcements for small CWSs. In
addition, since it is expected that not
many systems will continue to exceed
the lead action level after installation of
OCCT (EPA, 1999b), EPA believes that
this new requirement will not increase
burden for most systems.
  As stated previously, one commenter
suggested that, for ongoing public
education, it should not be necessary for
a water system to submit the full packet
of information to the State for  each
subsequent public education task to
verify that all appropriate actions have
been taken, as long as the State receives
a letter indicating that the information
has been sent out and the letter includes
any changes to the original information.
The 1991 Rule requires that systems
provide sufficient documentation for
                          States to determine whether all
                          appropriate actions have been taken.
                          Today's action does not alter the
                          requirement that the demonstration be
                          supported with appropriate
                          documentation. The Agency agrees that
                          it may relieve some reporting burden for
                          systems if they are not required to
                          submit the same information more than
                          once. On the other hand, EPA
                          recognizes that eliminating the
                          requirement to submit the supporting
                          materials each time may increase the
                          State burden to determine compliance
                          since all of the information may not be
                          readily available at the time compliance
                          is assessed. For this reason, the Agency
                          believes it is most appropriate to leave
                          the decision to the State about the need
                          for repetitious submission of the same
                          information. If the State elects to
                          eliminate these repetitious submissions,
                          however, EPA believes it is appropriate
                          to require the water system to certify
                          that there have been no changes in the
                          supporting documentation. Regardless
                          of the State's decision on this matter,
                          § 142.14(d)(9) requires the State to
                          maintain records of system submittals
                          which should contain the initial and
                          any subsequent public education
                          information sent to the State. This
                          requirement is not affected by today's
                          action.
                            (iii) Today's action. EPA is revising
                          § 141.90(f) to require any water system,
                          subject to the public education
                          requirements of § 141.85, to report its
                          completion of all required public
                          education tasks to the State within 10
                          days after the date by which the system
                          is required to complete semi-annual/
                          annual public education tasks. The
                          Agency also is adding language to
                          § 141.90(f) that eliminates  the need for
                          systems to submit supporting
                          documentation that has been submitted
                          previously unless there is a change in
                          the information or the State requires
                          that the documentation be included
                          with each submission. Systems that do
                          not submit supporting documentation
                          must certify that there have been no
                          changes to the information. A new
                          § 142.14(d)(8)(xvii) requires States to
                          maintain records of any  system-specific
                          decisions made under §  141.90(f)
                          regarding the resubmission of detailed
                          documentation to demonstrate
                          completion of public education tasks.

                          5. Revisions to § 141.86
                            a. Systems with an insufficient
                          number of tier 1,2, and 3 sample sites.
                            (i) Proposed revision and background.
                          The April 1996 Proposal included new
                          language at § 141.86(a)(5) and
                          § 141.86(a)(7) which instructs CWSs and
                          NTNCWSs, respectively, to complete
their sampling pools with representative
sites throughout the distribution system
if they are unable to locate a sufficient
number of sample sites that meet the
tiering criteria specified in § 141.86(a).
EPA proposed this revision to clarify
that all systems are required to collect
samples from a minimum number of
sites in accordance with § 141.86(c),
even if a sufficient number of high-risk
sites are not available.
  (ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters agreed with the proposed
new language. However, one commenter
suggested that EPA provide a clear
definition or understanding of what
constitutes a "representative site". The
Agency believes that a "representative
site," in this context, is a site in which
the plumbing materials used at that site
would be commonly found at pther sites
served by the water system. This
definition for "representative site" is
specific to these two paragraphs and has
been added to the regulatory language at
§ 141.86(a)(5) and § 141.86(a)(7).
  One commenter suggested that, rather
than requiring a water system to identify
representative sites to complete its
sampling pool if it cannot identify a
sufficient number of tier 1, 2, or 3 sites
(if it is a CWS) or a sufficient number
of tier 1 or 2 sites (if it is a NTNCWS),
a CWS should be allowed to collect
samples from only those sites meeting
the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria, and a
NTNCWS should be allowed to collect
samples from only those sites meeting
the tier 1 or 2 criteria, if they provide
written justification, even if it means
collecting fewer than the minimum
number of required samples.
  EPA believes that if a water system
collects fewer than the required number
of samples, the water system will not be
able to accurately characterize a lead or
copper problem, if it exists. The number
of samples specified for initial
monitoring, follow-up monitoring and
reduced monitoring was established to
sufficiently account for variability of
lead and copper at taps while at the
same time being reasonable for a system
to implement. Since there can be
variability in lead and copper levels at
different taps within the same building
and even at the same tap at different
points in time, EPA believes that
systems that do not have the requisite
number of sites must sample at multiple
taps used to provide drinking water for
human consumption within available
buildings. Systems with too few taps
must collect multiple samples from
available taps used to provide drinking
water on different days during the
monitoring period to meet the
monitoring requirements. The Agency
therefore is not revising the minimum

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                       1971
 site requirement to allow fewer samples
 to be collected.
    (iii) Today's action. EPA has revised
 the language of § 141.86(a)(5) to require
 that a CWS complete its sampling pool
 with representative sites throughout the
 distribution system if it does not have
 a sufficient number of tier 1,2, and 3
 sampling sites available. Likewise, the
 Agency has revised the language of
 § 141.86 (a) (7) to require that a NTNCWS
 complete its sampling pool with
 representative sites throughout the
' distribution system if it does not have
 a sufficient number of tier 1 and tier 2
 sites available. The revised language of
 both provisions includes the definition
 of a "representative site," discussed
 above, that applies to these provisions.
   While today's action provides systems
 the flexibility to use any representative
 site, EPA strongly encourages CWSs that
 are unable to locate a sufficient number
 of tier 1, 2, or 3 sample sites and
 NTNCWSs that are unable to locate a
 sufficient number of tier 1 and 2 sample
 sites to add to their sampling pool those
 sites with copper plumbing installed
 subsequent to local implementation of
 the lead ban (typically 1988 or 1989),
 provided these sites can be considered
 "representative". Sample sites meeting
 the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria have a greater
 likelihood of experiencing high lead
 levels than sample sites not meeting the
 tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria because these sites
 typically contain the newest lead
 plumbing materials in a community or
 a facility. (Newer lead has a greater lead
 leaching potential than older lead.)
 These same sample sites, however, may
 actually have a lesser likelihood of
 experiencing high copper levels than
 sample sites not meeting these criteria
 because these sites may not contain the
 newest copper plumbing materials in a
 community or a facility. Including sites
 in the sample pool that have copper
 plumbing installed more recently than
 1988 or 1989 may  allow a water system
 to identify copper corrosion problems
 not apparent by sampling sites meeting
 the tier 1, 2, or 3 criteria.
  b. Elimination of justification letters
for use of non-tier 1 sample sites and
 insufficient lead service line sample
 sites.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
 One of the burden reduction measures
 that EPA proposed in April 1996 was to
 eliminate the requirement at
 §§ 141.86(a)(8) and 141.90(a)(2)-(3) that
 a system unable to locate a sufficient
 number of tier 1 sites send a letter to the
 State  justifying the selection of non-tier
 1 sites. EPA also proposed to eliminate
the requirement at §§ 141.86(a)(9) and
 141.90(a)(4) that a  system with LSLs,
that cannot identify a sufficient number
 of sampling sites served by a LSL for its
 sampling pool, send a letter to the State
 demonstrating why it is unable to do so.
 EPA explained that the original intent of
 these requirements was to help ensure
 that systems collect samples from high-
 risk sites. The Agency expected these
 justification letters to be completed
 prior to the start of initial monitoring.
 Water systems are having to adjust their
 sampling pools much more frequently
 than EPA anticipated because of the
 difficulty they are experiencing in
 obtaining continued access to the same
 sites. The requirement of constantly
 justifying the adjustments to the
 sampling pool is adding an unintended
 extra burden on systems, however, and
 the Agency believes that other
 appropriate tools available to States,
 such as periodic on-site inspections and
 file reviews, can be used to ensure that
 systems are routinely sampling at
 appropriate sites.
   fii) Comments and analysis.
 Commenters were supportive of these
 proposed changes. One commenter,
 however, objected to the basic
 requirement in § 141.86(a)(9)
 (redesignated by today's action as
 § 141.86(a)(8)) that requires that a
 system with LSLs collect 50 percent of
 the samples each monitoring period
 from taps served by LSLs. EPA did not
 propose to revise this requirement. The
 commenter noted that requiring the
 collection of samples at all sites
 identified in the sampling  plan is
 unrealistic, as not all homeowners
 identified in the sampling  plan are
 willing to participate. EPA recognizes
 that there may be times when the
 system may be denied access to targeted
 sites. In those instances, where there is
 an insufficient number of tier 1 sample
 sites or an insufficient number of
 willing participants served by lead
 service lines to constitute 50 percent of
 the sampling pool, the system is
 expected to collect samples from all
 such sites that it can. The system must
 then choose other sample sites from
 which  to collect the remaining number
 of samples. Sites where the homeowner
 refuses access are no  longer available  for
 inclusion in the sampling pool and the
 water system should  document the
 reason the site was not sampled in its
 files. EPA believes this issue is best
 clarified through guidance  rather than a
 change in rule language.
  (iii) Today's action. After considering
 the comments received, EPA is revising
the provisions of §§ 141.86(a)(8)-(9) and
 141.90(a)(2)-(4) as proposed in April
 1996. Specifically, §§ 141.86(a)(8) and
 141.90(a)(2)-(3), requiring the system  to
send a  letter to the State justifying the
use of non-tier 1 sites, have been
 deleted. Section 141.86(a)(9) has been
 redesignated as § 141.86(a)(8) and
 revised to eliminate reference to the
 reporting requirement that a water
 system with LSLs that does not have
 sufficient sites served by LSLs available
 to comprise 50 percent of the sampling
 pool send a letter to the State justifying
 why it cannot do so. Section
 141.90(a)(4), which contained the
 corresponding reporting requirement,
 has been replaced with a new reporting
 requirement pertaining to small system
 waivers  (see section C.5.1. of this
 preamble). Although the regulatory
 requirement to send these sample site
 justifications to the State has been
 eliminated, the Agency encourages
 systems  to provide this information to
 the State as a courtesy.
   c. NTNCWSs without enough taps to
 provide first-draw samples.
   (i) Proposed revision and background.
 One of the provisions that EPA
 proposed in April 1996 would allow
 NTNCWSs that do not have enough taps
 where the water will have stood in the
 plumbing for at least six hours to ask the
 State, in writing, for approval to sample
 from taps where the water will have
 stood for less than six hours. These
 systems would be required to collect
 first-draw samples from as many taps
 having at least a six-hour standing time
 as possible. For the remaining samples,
 systems would be required to identify
 and report to the State, sampling times
 and locations that would likely result in
 the longest standing time. Systems
 would then be required to sample at
 times and locations  approved by the
 State. EPA also requested comment on
 an alternative that would give the States
 flexibility to eliminate the requirement
 for up-front State approval of the
 sampling plan. Under this scenario,
 NTNCWSs would still be required to
 sample from taps with the longest
 standing times possible, however, States
 would not need to approve these sites
 prior to monitoring. In the preamble to
 the April 1996 Proposal, EPA noted that
 States would retain discretion to verify,
 at any time, that the proper sampling
 was done.
  EPA proposed this provision to
 address the problem many NTNCWSs
 that provide drinking water 24 hours a
 day (e.g., a factory operating on a 3-shift
 basis) face in complying with the LCR's
 requirements. Such systems may not
 have periods of normal operation during
 which the water will have stood
 motionless in the plumbing for at least
 six hours prior to collecting tap water
 lead and  copper samples. The Agency
believes that it is unnecessary to require
 such systems to shut down operations
in order to achieve a standing time that

-------
 1972
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 does normally exist. The proposed
 provision would allow these systems to
 sample at times and locations that are
 most likely to be representative of these
 systems' worst case scenarios.
   (ii) Comments and analysis. Most
 commenters supported allowing these
 NTNCWSs to substitute  non-first-draw
 samples for first-draw samples if they
 do not have enough taps that can
 achieve the required six-hour standing
 time. A few of these commenters,
 however, suggested that it is not always
 practical to try to determine which
 tap(s) have the longest standing times.
 Others suggested that repeat sampling,
 on separate days, at the tap(s) that meet
 the six-hour standing time requirement
 be permitted, rather than substituting
 samples that do not meet the six-hour
 standing time requirement.
   EPA believes that if a system cannot
 locate the requisite number of taps that
 satisfy the six-hour standing time
 requirement, it must make the effort to
 identify the taps having the longest
 standing times and collect substitute
 samples from these sites. Sampling at
 sites that have the longest standing time
 will assist the system in determining the
 maximum potential level of lead and
 copper exposure from drinking water.
 EPA also believes that it is more
 important to collect samples from the
 required number of sites (as long as
 these are sites that are typically used to
 provide drinking water) than it is to
 collect samples that have stood in the
 tap for six hours if a six-hour standing
 time is not typical at that NTNCWS
 because it is operating 24 hours per day.
 The minimum number of samples  for
 initial, follow-up, and reduced
 monitoring has been established to
 sufficiently account for the variability of
 lead and  copper at different taps while
 at the same time being reasonable for a
 system to implement. Collecting the
 required number of samples, but from
 fewer sample sites, does not address the
 variability issue as well, especially if the
 system has other taps that are typically
 used and that can be sampled. For these
 reasons, today's action retains the
 requirement to  collect at least the
 minimum number of samples specified
 in § 141.86(c).
  Many of the commenters supporting
 the substitution of non-first-draw
 samples did not address the issue of up-
 front State approval. Commenters who
 did address this issue were mixed in
 their support. While most commenters
 who supported up-front approval did
 not explain why they did so, one
 commenter suggested that up-front
 notification and approval may be easier
 for States to implement and control.
Another commenter supported up-front
                          approval but suggested that the system
                          should be free to proceed without
                          specific written concurrence from the
                          State if the State did not respond within
                          a reasonable period. Several
                          commenters supported substitution of
                          samples without prior State approval;
                          however, some supported such
                          flexibility only if States were allowed to
                          conduct verification inspections.
                            In consideration of these comments,
                          today's action gives States discretion  to
                          decide whether or not to require prior
                          State approval of sampling plans.
                          Systems in States not requiring prior
                          State approval must submit
                          documentation of their sampling plan to
                          the State, when they submit their
                          sampling results. This documentation
                          must include identification of the
                          substitute sample sites and the length of
                          standing time for each substitute
                          sample.
                            Some commenters also used this
                          opportunity to propose that NTNCWSs
                          that have fewer than five sample taps
                          where five samples are required, or
                          fewer than ten sample taps where ten
                          samples are required, be permitted to
                          collect only as many samples as there
                          are sample taps. EPA believes that it is
                          inappropriate to reduce the minimum
                          number of samples required. The LCR
                          requires all water systems to collect a
                          minimum number of samples
                          (dependent on size of population served
                          by the system) as per § 141.86(c). As
                          stated previously, the number of
                          samples specified for initial, follow-up,
                          and reduced monitoring has been
                          established to sufficiently account for
                          variability of lead and copper at taps
                          while at the same time being reasonable
                          for a system to implement. There is also
                          some variability in concentrations
                          across multiple samples from the same
                          tap collected at different points in time.
                          EPA believes that absent a sufficient
                          number of appropriate taps, the
                          variability in lead levels from samples
                          collected from the same tap at different
                          times warrants retaining the
                          requirement for the minimum number
                          of samples to be collected. Water
                          systems with fewer sample taps than
                          required should thus contact the State to
                          discuss an appropriate sampling plan
                          that would include collecting the
                          required number of samples at the
                          available sample taps.
                            Finally, one commenter noted that
                          there also are some CWSs (e.g., prisons,
                          nursing homes) that have similar
                          characteristics to NTNCWSs. EPA
                          agrees. Today's action therefore also
                          allows special-case CWSs, such as
                          prisons and hospitals, that do not have
                          a sufficient number of taps to provide
                          first-draw samples to sample from taps
where the water will have stood for less
than six hours.
  (iii) Today's action. EPA has added
provisions at § 141.86(b)(5) that require
a NTNCWS which does not have
enough taps that can supply first-draw
samples to collect as many first-draw
samples from appropriate sample taps
as possible and to complete the
sampling pool with locations that would
likely result in the longest standing time
for the remaining samples. These
provisions also apply to special-case
CWSs. Special-case CWSs are those
specified in  §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii)
where the system is a facility, such as
a prison or hospital, where the
population served is not capable of or is
prevented from making improvements
to plumbing or installing point-of-use
treatment devices and where the system
provides water as part of the cost of
services provided and does not
separately charge for water
consumption.
  States have discretion to decide
whether or not prior State approval is
required before a system can substitute
non-first-draw samples. EPA has added
provisions at § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) for States
to maintain records of any system-
specific decisions made regarding use of
non-first draw samples. Where prior
State approval is not required, systems
must submit documentation with the
sampling results that identify each  site
that does not meet the six-hour
minimum standing time and the length
of standing time for the sample(s)
collected from that site. Nothing in the •
rule language precludes verification
inspections by the State. A State
conducting a water system inspection
for any purpose can also use that
opportunity  to review the sampling plan
that should be available on-site. (Water
systems are required to retain all records
for at least 12 years, as per § 141.91.)
States opting to allow systems to
proceed with sampling without
requesting prior approval from the State
should inform the systems, before the
start of the monitoring period, that up-
front approval is not required.
  Today's action also modifies the
language at § 141.90(a)(2)5 to add the
corresponding reporting requirement. If
the State requires prior State approval,
the system must provide written
documentation to the State identifying
sampling times and locations of the
non-first-draw samples which the
system proposes to use to complete its
sampling pool prior to sampling. If the
  5As noted in section C.S.b. of this preamble, the
requirement previously codified at §141.90(a)(2) for
a CWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sampling sites
has been eliminated.

-------
            Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1973
 State does not require prior State
 approval, the modified language at
 § 141.90(a)(2) requires the system to
 identify each site that did not meet the
 6-hour minimum standing time and the
 length of standing time for that
 particular sample, and submit this
 information at the same time that it
 submits its lead and copper tap sample
 results.
  Finally, today's action makes a
 conforming revision to the language at
 § 141.86(b)(2) to require non-first-draw
 samples collected pursuant to
 § 141.86(b)(5) to be one liter in volume
 and to be collected at an interior tap
 from which water is typically drawn for
 consumption. This changed language
 provides coverage for those NTNCWSs
 and special-case CWSs that must
 complete their sampling pool with non-
 first-draw samples and is consistent
 with the requirement that first-draw
 samples be one liter in volume and be
 drawn from taps that are routinely used
 to provide drinking water.
  d. Minimum holding time for acidified
 lead and copper samples prior to
 analysis.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
 In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA sought
 comment on a revision to § 141.86(b)(2)
 to make the minimum length of time
 that a lead and copper sample must
 stand in the original container after
 acidification consistent with the
 analytical methods for other metals.
 Rather than explicitly specifying the
 holding time in subpart I, the proposed
 revision would require these samples to
 stand in the original container "for the
 time specified in the approved EPA
 method," eliminating the need to revise
 the LCR in the future to reflect methods
 changes. The Rule, as promulgated in
 1991, requires that a sample stand in the
 original container for at least 28 hours
 after acidification before sample
 analysis can occur. The analytical
 method requiring this minimum holding
 time was revised in 1994 to allow
 laboratories to analyze samples for
 metals other than lead and copper 16
 hours after acidification, instead of
 having to wait 28 hours before this
 analysis can occur (59 FR 62456,
December 5,1994). EPA believes the
revision to § 141.86(b)(2) relieves
 laboratories of the burden to have
 separate acidification holding times for
 lead and copper and increases the
number of samples that can be analyzed
 in a day.
  (ii) Comments and analysis. Two
 commenters had concerns about the
proposed change. One requested
 clarification as to why the change was
needed. As  explained above, EPA
believes this revision is appropriate to
maintain consistency with the analytical
methods for other metals. Another
commenter opposed the proposed
revision on the basis that it would
decrease the amount of time available
for sample analysis, thereby increasing
the potential for laboratory error
resulting in the need to collect
additional samples. This commenter
apparently interpreted the acidification
holding time as the maximum time that
can elapse between acidification and
analysis. In fact, the acidification
holding time is the minimum time that
must elapse after acidification before the
sample is analyzed. By reducing this
time, EPA believes that, if anything, the
potential for laboratory error will
decrease, as the amount of time
available for sample analysis will
increase.
  One commenter who supported the
revision noted that EPA also needs to
revise the laboratory licensure
requirements in the CFR to reflect this
change. Laboratory certification
requirements are defined in the
"Manual for the Certification of
Drinking Water Laboratories", not in the
CFR. EPA has revised this manual to
conform with the revised holding times
specified at § 141.86(b) (2).
  (iii) Today's action. Today's action
revises the next to last sentence of
§ 141.86(b)(2),  as proposed, to read:
"After acidification to resohibilize the
metals, the sample must stand in the
original container for the time specified
in the approved EPA method before the
sample can be  analyzed."
  e. Selection of sample sites under
reduced monitoring.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
The LCR specifies the number, location,
and timing of samples to be collected for
standard monitoring of lead and copper
at the tap. At a minimum, systems must
conduct standard monitoring initially
and as a follow-up to installing CCT.
The Rule also allows a reduced number
and frequency  of samples for certain
water systems once corrosion control
has been optimized. However, the rule
language promulgated in 1991 failed to
specify which of the previously tested
sampling sites  should be included in the
reduced sampling pool. To correct this
omission, in 1996, EPA proposed to
require reduced monitoring sites to be
representative of the sites required for
standard monitoring. EPA also proposed
to allow States the discretion to specify
which sites a system subject to reduced
monitoring should use if, in the
judgment of the State, such an action is
warranted.
  EPA proposed this language because
of the concern that some water systems,
if allowed to select sample sites under
reduced monitoring without any
restrictions, might be tempted to select
only those sites that had the lowest
analytical results during the initial
monitoring, thereby skewing the 90th
percentile calculations downward.
  (ii) Comments and analysis. In their
comments, some water systems raised
concern that States might require them
to select only those sites with the
highest analytical results during the
initial monitoring, which would skew
the 90th percentile calculation upward.
EPA does not want either of these
extremes to be used in the selection of
sites under reduced monitoring and is
therefore revising § 141.86(c) to require
that the sample sites selected under
reduced monitoring be representative of
those selected initially.
  Of the 18 comments received, only 1
commenter directly disagreed with the
proposal. That commenter felt the
proposal displayed a lack of trust in
water systems and increased the burden
on the States. EPA believes that the
revised wording in today's action
should not be construed as indicating a
lack of trust in all water system
decisions. The intent of the revised
wording is to allow most water systems
to make their own decisions, but to also
allow a State the option of specifying"
the sampling sites under reduced
monitoring,  if it believes that a system
needs assistance in identifying which of
the sample sites in the system's
sampling pool are truly representative of
the sampling pool. EPA expects that
States will allow most water systems to
specify reduced monitoring sample site
locations without State involvement.
However, if the State feels the need to
intervene, the Rule now clearly gives
them the authority to do so.
  Three commenters questioned the
requirement to draw 50 percent of the
tap  samples  from sites served by a LSL
during reduced monitoring. These
commenters believe that water systems
should be permitted to sample from any
of the original tap sites during reduced
monitoring. Two of these commenters
also believe that for a water system with
only a few LSLs, the requirement to
collect samples from all of the sites with
LSLs will provide a misleading
characterization of the sampling pool
and the distribution system in general.
The sampling scheme promulgated in
1991 was not established to characterize
lead and copper levels throughout the
entire water system. Rather, it was
established to ensure that systems
collect samples from residences most
likely to experience elevated levels of
lead in tap water due to corrosion (i.e.,
high-risk sites). EPA believes that these
high-risk locations should be accounted

-------
 1974
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 for in a monitoring plan to better ensure
 that high levels of lead are detected and
 that the system institutes treatment that
 provides uniform and adequate levels of
• public health protection throughout the
 entire distribution system. EPA feels
 that the reasoning that led to the
 requirement that 50 percent of the tap
 samples be drawn from sites served by
 a LSL during initial monitoring is just
 as valid for reduced monitoring and has
 thus not revised this requirement. In
 addition, just as for initial monitoring,
 systems with LSLs, which do not have
 enough sample sites with LSLs to
 comprise 50 percent of their sampling
 pool, must collect samples during
 reduced monitoring at as many homes
 with LSLs as they have access to.
 "  One commenter thought that EPA's
 language in § 141.86(c) could be
 interpreted to mean that a water system
 is required to collect only one sample in
 a round of monitoring (although that
 sample would have to represent the
 required number of sites, possibly by
 being a composite sample or possibly by
 being taken randomly from one of the
 sites) and suggested a revision to the
 wording that would require  at least one
 sample be collected from each of the
 number of sites specified.  EPA believes
 that the vast majority of water systems
 have been interpreting EPA's intent
 correctly and are collecting one sample
 per site during reduced monitoring. In
 addition, the Agency believes that the
 commenter's suggested wording change,
 that systems conducting reduced
 monitoring collect at least one sample
 from "each of the number of sites
 specified," might confuse those
 NTNCWSs that have fewer sites (i.e.,
 faucets) available than the number of
 samples they are required to collect in
 a monitoring period. Those systems
 must collect multiple samples from
 some sites in order to collect the
 required number of samples. The
 commenter's wording could be
 interpreted to mean that the system
 need only collect as many samples  as
 there are sample sites. Since this is not
 EPA's intent, the wording  has not been
 revised as suggested by the commenter.
   (iii) Today's action. For the reasons
 discussed above, EPA has revised the
 wording of §141.86(c), as proposed, to
 clarify that the reduced monitoring sites
 must be representative of the sites
 required for standard monitoring and to
 give States discretionary authority to
 specify the reduced monitoring sites. A
 corresponding State recordkeeping
 requirement, to maintain records
 pertaining to any State designations of
 reduced monitoring sites, has been
 added as § 142.14(d)(8)(xii).
                            f. State determination of eligibility for
                          reduced monitoring.
                            (i) Proposed revision and background.
                          Under the 1991 Rule, systems subject to
                          water quality parameter monitoring after
                          the installation of corrosion control
                          treatment must explicitly request State
                          approval to begin reduced monitoring
                          for lead and copper at the tap. In 1996,
                          EPA proposed to eliminate the
                          requirement for these systems to request
                          State approval. However, such systems
                          would still be required to receive
                          written approval from the State before
                          reducing the frequency of monitoring.
                          EPA proposed this provision as a
                          burden reduction measure. Since most
                          States routinely review eligibility for
                          reduced monitoring at the time they
                          review monitoring results and notify
                          those systems that have become eligible
                          to reduce monitoring, the requirement
                          that systems explicitly request the State
                          to determine eligibility is an
                          unnecessary administrative burden.
                            (ii) Comments and analysis. Most
                          commenters agreed with EPA's
                          proposed. Some, however, expressed
                          concern that systems may become
                          confused as to what their monitoring
                          requirements are; others expressed
                          concern that States might not routinely
                          provide timely notification unless
                          prompted by a request from the system.
                          These commenters suggested that EPA
                          at least provide States flexibility to
                          retain the current requirement. The
                          Agency does not believe that such
                          flexibility needs to be written into the
                          rule language. Nothing in the Federal
                          regulations precludes systems from
                          continuing to request State approval if
                          they believe that such a request will
                          ensure timely State notification.
                            Some commenters also raised the
                          question of whether the proposed
                          change effectively reduces burden or
                          merely shifts it from the system to the
                          State. The Agency believes that this
                          provision will reduce burden. EPA
                          estimates that the current requirement
                          imposes both a system burden
                          (requesting approval for reduced
                          monitoring) and a State burden
                          (reviewing the request and relevant
                          monitoring and treatment data and
                          providing written notification to the
                          system). The Agency estimates that the
                          system burden will be eliminated with
                          the revised provision and that no
                          increase in State burden will occur
                          because the State will determine a
                          system's eligibility for reduced
                          monitoring as part of its routine
                          determination of compliance with the
                          LCR monitoring requirements.
                            (iii)  Today's action. Sections
                          141.86(d)(4)(ii) and (d)(4)(iii) have been
                          revised to allow any water system that
maintains the range of values for the
WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the
State under § 141.82(f) to reduce the
frequency of monitoring to once per
year or once every three years,
respectively, if the system meets the
other conditions specified in
§§141.86(d)(4)(ii) or (d)(4)(iii),
respectively, and receives written
notification from the State that it can
reduce the frequency of monitoring. The
system reporting requirement at
§ 141.90(a)(5) for systems to request
approval for reduced monitoring has
been eliminated.
  g. Timing of sample collection under
reduced monitoring.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
The 1991 Rule language required water
systems subject to reduced monitoring
to conduct that monitoring during the
months of June, July, August, and/or
September. EPA imposed this
requirement because the Agency
believed that the highest levels of lead
at the tap were most likely to occur
during warm weather months. This
requirement, however, has had the
unintended consequence of forcing
seasonal NTNCWSs that do not operate
during the summer months to collect
samples during periods that are not
representative of normal operations. To
correct this problem, in 1996, EPA
proposed to allow a seasonal NTNCWS
that does not operate during the months
of June, July, August, or September, to
collect samples, under reduced
monitoring, during the system's
warmest month(s) of operation.
  (ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters supported this proposed
revision. A few commenters expressed
concern, however, that it would be
difficult to determine alternate
"warmest month(s) of operation" or that
the revised requirement would create a
hardship for laboratories by forcing all
monitoring into a single month. These
commenters suggested that EPA give
States the authority to designate the
alternative month(s) of sampling or
retain the current requirements. Two
commenters stated their belief that there
is no justification for requiring any
system to limit reduced monitoring to
warm weather months and suggested
EPA remove this requirement across the
board.
  EPA has reviewed recently published
data and analyses pertaining to the
effect of temperature on lead and copper
leaching. The Agency provided notice of
the availability of these data and
requested public comment in the April
1998 Notice on a regulatory option that
would allow systems conducting
reduced tap water monitoring for lead
and copper to collect samples during

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1975
 months of normal operation when lead
 levels are likely to be the highest, or as
 otherwise designated by the State.
   Although there is no definitive data,
 there are several factors which might
 explain why metal levels could
 frequently be higher in cold weather
 months, various combinations of which
 may be simultaneously present in a
 given water system. These factors
 include:
   • The intrinsic net solubility of many
 minerals, especially carbonates,
 increases  as the temperature decreases.
   • Corrosion inhibitors, especially
 orthophosphate, may react more slowly
 at lower temperatures, so passivating
 film formation is less effective in colder
 water.
   • Corrosion inhibitors and other
 treatment chemicals  may be more
 viscous at lower'temperatures.
 Therefore, the chemical feed rates may
 be lower when cold.
   • Many pipes are near heating
 systems, and in the winter the operation
 of the heating systems causes the pipes
 to be hotter. Plus, the change in
 temperature could also disrupt the
 existing protective films in the pipes
.built up over the earlier months of more
 stable temperatures.
   • Dissolved oxygen levels are often
 higher in colder waters, resulting in
 increased concentrations  of oxidants
 (e.g.,  oxygen, free chlorine, chloramines)
 in the water. This causes more rapid
 increases in metal levels through
 enhanced oxidation during short
 standing times (less than 16 hours).
   Only one commenter opposed such a
 revision, on the basis that such a change
 might be disruptive to utilities and
 laboratories. EPA disagrees. Since the
 revised language allows States to retain
 the requirement to conduct reduced
 monitoring during the months of June
 through September, the Agency believes
 the regulatory language provides
 sufficient flexibility to accommodate the
 scheduling issues raised by the
 commenter.
   Based on a review  of the current
 science and comments received in
 response to the April 1996 Proposal and
 the April 1998 Notice, EPA believes that
 the requirement to limit reduced
 monitoring to warm weather months is
 no longer justified. Today's action
 therefore revises § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to
 provide States some flexibility to
 specify an alternative time for the
 collection of samples under reduced
 monitoring.
  In the April 1998 Notice, EPA also
 requested public comment on the need
 for the rule language  to explicitly allow
 a transition period for those water
 systems, already on a reduced
monitoring schedule, that want to take
advantage of the greater flexibility in the
revised regulation. Most of the
commenters who addressed this
question strongly supported including
provisions for a transition period in the
rule language. EPA agrees that it is
appropriate to define a transition
period. It is not the Agency's intent that
systems already on reduced monitoring
be locked into the months of June
through September for sample
collection. Nor is it the Agency's intent
that such systems be penalized by being
forced into scheduling a subsequent
round of monitoring significantly earlier
than otherwise would be necessary just
to change the allowable months for
sample collection. EPA has therefore
included provisions for a transition
period in today's action!
  (iii) Today's action. EPA has revised
the language of § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) to
require that systems subject to reduced
monitoring collect samples during the
months of June, July, August, or
September unless the State has
approved a different sampling period.
The alternate sampling period must be
no longer than four consecutive months
and represent a time of normal
operation where the highest levels of
lead are most likely to occur. EPA
recognizes that in many cases it will be
difficult to predict when the highest
lead values might occur given a system's
water chemistry coupled with other
influencing physical factors. There may
be instances, however, where
monitoring data from similar systems  or
prior monitoring or survey experience at
a particular system is available to the
States that would suggest when the most
appropriate monitoring time(s) will
occur. If the State is unable to identify
an alternate monitoring period for a
system where the highest levels of lead
are most likely to occur, then the system
must continue monitoring during the
months of June, July, August, or
September. However, if the system is a
NTNCWS that does not operate during
the months of June through September,
the final rule allows these systems to
monitor during a period designated by
the State that represents a time of
normal operation for the system.
  For systems already on reduced
monitoring that have been collecting
samples during the June through
September time frame, the revision to
§ 141.86(d){4)(iv) specifies the deadline
for completing the first round of
monitoring using the alternate period.
Systems on an annual monitoring
schedule must collect their first round
of samples during the alternate months
during a time period that ends no later
than 21 months after the previous round
 of sampling. Systems on a triennial
 schedule must collect their first round
 of samples during the alternate months
 during a time period that ends no later
 than 45 months after the previous round
 of sampling. Thereafter, these systems
 must revert to an annual or triennial
 schedule based on the alternate months
 of sampling.
  This transition period allows systems
 conducting annual or triennial
 monitoring an extra nine months in
 which to make the transition without
 sampling significantly early or incurring
 a monitoring and reporting violation.
 For systems transitioning to an alternate
 sampling period that includes the
 period of March, April, or May, EPA
 believes it is not unreasonable that the
 first round of samples under the
 alternate months be collected slightly
 earlier than would otherwise be
 required. For similar reasons, the
 Agency does not believe it is necessary
 to specify a transition period for small
 water systems with monitoring waivers
 granted under § 141.86(g). The revised
 § 141.86(d)(4)(iv) therefore requires that
 the first round of monitoring using the
 alternate months be completed within 9
 years of the previous round of
 monitoring for systems with waivers.
  Finally, today's action makes two
 conforming changes to Part 142. EPA
 has added a State recordkeeping
 requirement at § 142.14(d)(8)(xiii).
 States must maintain records pertaining
 to any system-specific determinations to
 alternative  sample collection periods for
 systems subject to reduced monitoring.
EPA also has added a special primacy
 condition at § 141.16(d)(4) for States to
 describe how they plan to determine the
 months when the lead levels are likely
 to be the highest at community water
 systems subject to reduced monitoring
where tap water lead and copper
 samples will be collected in months
 other than June, July, August and/or
 September.
  h. Accelerated reduced monitoring for
lead and copper at the: tap.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
Under the provisions of
 § 141i86(d](4)(iii), a small or medium-
size water system may reduce the
frequency of lead and copper tap water
monitoring to once every three years if
it does not exceed either action level
 during three consecutive years of annual
monitoring. The regulations also allow
any water system that maintains the
range of values for the water quality
control parameters reflecting OCCT
specified by the State during three
consecutive years  of monitoring to
reduce the frequency of lead and copper
tap water monitoring to once every three
years, if approved by the State. In the

-------
 1976
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 April 1996 Proposal, in an effort to help
 water systems avoid significant
 unnecessary monitoring costs and
 minimize the inconvenience to
 homeowners in the sampling pool, EPA
 proposed that systems with very low
 levels of lead and copper at the tap
 during two consecutive six-month
 rounds of monitoring be allowed to
 immediately reduce the frequency of
 lead and copper tap water monitoring to
 once every three calendar years without
 having to conduct the required rounds
 of annual monitoring first. In the
 proposal, the thresholds for "very low
 levels of lead and copper at the tap"
 were defined as "less than or equal to
 the PQL for lead specified in
 §141.89(a)(l)(ii)," which is 0.005 mg/L,
 and "less than or equal to one-half the
 copper action level  specified in
 § 141.80(cH2)," which is 0.65 mg/L.
   (ii) Comments and analysis. While
 one commenter specifically disagreed
 with the proposal, the vast majority of
 commenters either agreed fully or
 agreed while raising one or more of the
 issues which EPA is addressing below.
   (A) Using the PQL as the lead
 threshold. A  number of commenters
 suggested that it is inconsistent to use
 the PQL as the threshold for lead while
 using one-half the action level as the
 threshold for copper. Some commenters
 suggested that using the PQL for lead is
 too restrictive and that one-half the lead
 action level should be used instead. In
 the preamble to the  April 1996 Proposal,
 EPA indicated that accelerated reduced
 monitoring would apply only to those
 systems whose 90th percentile lead and
 copper levels fall significantly below the
 lead and copper action levels during
 two consecutive six-month monitoring
 periods. The Agency's intent was to
 allow for a burden reduction but still
 provide adequate public health
 protection. Because of the high degree of
 variability in  lead and copper levels at
 household taps, EPA believes it is
 important to establish criteria that
 minimize the risk of allowing systems
 that may have elevated levels of lead or
 copper at the tap during subsequent •
 monitoring periods to be eligible for
 accelerated reduced monitoring. EPA
 believes that the criteria that minimize
 risk are the PQL for  lead and one-half
 the action level for copper.
  EPA disagrees with those commenters
 who believe there is an inconsistency
 between using the PQL for lead and one-
 half the action level  for copper when
 consideration is given to the
 relationship between the action level
and the MCLG for each. Consistency lies
in the fact that the minimized risk levels
 (i.e., the threshold levels for allowing
accelerated reduced monitoring) are
                          those levels most protective of public
                          health. This is explained as follows. The
                          MCLG is the level at which no known
                          or anticipated adverse effect on the
                          health of persons would occur and
                          which allows an adequate margin of
                          safety. EPA must regulate contaminants
                          in drinking water to a level as close to
                          the MCLG as is feasible. The action level
                          for copper is set at the MCLG of 1.3 mg/
                          L, thus there is no health concern at
                          copper levels equal to the action level
                          or, subsequently, at one-half the action
                          level (0.65 mg/L). In addition, EPA
                          believes that it is highly unlikely that a
                          water system having a 90th percentile
                          copper level equal to one-half the action
                          level might exceed the copper action
                          level during subsequent monitoring. In
                          contrast to copper, the action level for
                          lead is set at 0.015 mg/L, which is
                          higher than its MCLG of zero. Since it
                          is unreasonable to expect that most
                          systems can achieve a 90th percentile
                          lead level of zero, EPA established a
                          lead action level which the Agency
                          believes is achievable and sufficiently
                          protective of public health. However,
                          because there are health concerns for
                          any lead level above zero, EPA believes
                          that setting the threshold level for lead
                          for accelerated reduced monitoring at
                          the PQL (0.005 mg/L) is more protective
                          of public health than setting the level at
                          one-half the lead action level (0.0075
                          mg/L). In addition, EPA believes that it
                          is less likely that a system whose 90th
                          percentile lead level is equal to or less
                          than the PQL would exceed the lead
                          action level during a subsequent round
                          of monitoring than it is for a system
                          whose 90th percentile lead level is one-,
                          half the action level.
                            A few commenters expressed concern
                          that the PQL is hard to measure
                          accurately and therefore should not be
                          used as a threshold. EPA disagrees.
                          Performance evaluation (PE) studies
                          have confirmed that at least 75 percent
                          of EPA, State, and commercial
                          laboratories can analyze lead at 0.005
                          mg/L within ±30%. EPA believes that
                          specifying the PQL for lead as the
                          threshold for identifying very low levels
                          is appropriate on the basis of laboratory
                          capability.
                            (B)  Usefulness of proposed provision.
                          Several commenters, including the
                          commenter who specifically disagreed
                          with the proposal, mentioned that it is
                          too late for this provision to have any
                          effect for existing systems. EPA agrees
                          that this provision will be of no benefit
                          to those systems that are already
                          conducting monitoring on a triennial
                          basis. This provision may benefit new
                          systems, however, in addition to those
                          water systems that are in the process of
                          installing CCT and whose 90th
 percentile lead and copper levels meet
 the criteria for accelerated reduced
 monitoring after conducting the
 required two rounds of follow-up
 sampling subsequent to the installation
 of OCCT. It will also be available for
 systems that are triggered into a new set
 of two six-month rounds of full tap
 sampling due to changes in treatment or
 source water. For these reasons, the
 Agency still believes it is appropriate to
 add provisions for accelerated reduced
 monitoring to the LCR.
   (C) Accelerated reduced monitoring
 for only one contaminant. Two
 commenters suggested that States be
 given the option to authorize
 accelerated reduced monitoring for
 either lead or copper if a system is only
 able to meet the 90th percentile
 threshold for one of the contaminants
 but not the other. While EPA wishes to
 reduce monitoring burdens where
 possible, EPA meant for this provision
 to be  applicable only to those systems
 where there is little likelihood  of
 discovering elevated levels of either
 lead or  copper at the tap during
 subsequent monitoring periods. EPA
 believes that there  is less of a risk that
 there  may be an undetected problem if
 both lead and copper levels are below
 the threshold levels than if only one of
 the contaminant levels is less than the
 threshold level and that there is more
 uncertainty in the case where one of the
 contaminant levels is higher than the
 threshold level. To avoid this potential
 risk, the Agency has decided to not
 allow accelerated reduced monitoring
 for one contaminant when the other
 contaminant has a  90th percentile level
 above the specified threshold level.
   (D)  Monitoring less frequently than
 triennially. Another commenter
 suggested changing the frequency of
 reduced monitoring to once every nine
 years  (provided that there is no change
 in treatment or new source introduced)
 and suggested that  this would be
 consistent with the "reliably and'
 consistently" waivers allowed under the
 Phase II and Phase  V rules. The age
 range for the population at risk for lead
 is prenatal up to about six years of age.
 For systems that contain lead and
 copper materials, a nine-year
 monitoring cycle would allow large
 groups of the sensitive subpopulations
 to be exposed to water that was never
 tested during their  highest risk years.
EPA believes it is inappropriate to
reduce the monitoring to a frequency
where some children would not receive
the benefit of such monitoring. The
Agency considers a 9-year monitoring
 cycle  appropriate only for systems that
have no lead or copper materials present
and that meet the criteria for a

-------
             Federal Register / Vol.  65, No. 8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 monitoring waiver pursuant to
 § 141.86(g).
   (E) Prior State approval. One
 commenter suggested that written
 approval by the State should be required
 before a system is permitted to
 accelerate reduced monitoring.
 Elsewhere in § 141.86(d), written
 authorization by the State to reduce lead
 and copper tap monitoring is required
 only when the basis for the reduction is
 compliance with optimal water quality
 control parameters for two consecutive
 6-month monitoring periods or three
 consecutive years. Those cases are more
 complex and require greater State
 oversight. The basis for a system being
 able to accelerate reduced monitoring is
 straightforward and EPA does  not
 believe it is necessary to  mandate prior
 State approval in this case. Nothing in
 the rule language, however, prevents a
 State from requiring such approval.
  (iii) Today's action. After careful
 consideration of all comments
 pertaining to this issue, EPA has
 decided to promulgate the provisions
 for accelerated reduced monitoring as
 proposed in April 1996. EPA is adding
 these provisions to § 141.86(d)(4) by
 redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as
 '(d)(4)(vi) and adding a new paragraph
 (d)(4)(v). This new paragraph allows any
 water system that demonstrates for two
 consecutive six-month monitoring
  Eeriods that the 90th percentile lead
  svel is less  than or equal to 0.005 mg/
 L and the 90th percentile copper level
 is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L to
 reduce the frequency of sampling to
 once every three calendar years.
  i. Loss of eligibility for reduced lead
 and copper tap water monitoring. As
 discussed in section C.2.b. of this
 preamble, today's action contains a
 conforming change to the requirements
 of the newly designated
 § 141.86(d)(4)(vi) to clarify that a system
 subject to reduced monitoring that also
 is subject to the WQP monitoring
 requirements of § 141.87(d) or (e) loses
 its eligibility for reduced  monitoring for
 lead and copper at the tap (until such
 time when it may again qualify) if it
 fails to meet the compliance
 requirements of § 141.82(g). Today's
 action also corrects an error in  this
 paragraph. The  first sentence has been
 corrected to  read: "A small or medium-
 size water system * * * shall resume
 sampling in  accordance with paragraph
 (d)(3) of this section and collect the
 number of samples specified for
standard monitoring under paragraph
 (c) of this section." The paragraph
previously read: " * * * collect the
number of samples specified for
standard monitoring under paragraph
 (d) of this section."
   j. Requirements for systems subject to
 reduced monitoring that change.,
 treatment or source water.
   (i) Proposed revision and background.
 In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
 requested comment on a provision that
 would require water systems operating
 under reduced monitoring to report any
 changes in treatment or changes in
 source water to the State within 60 days.
 If the State believes the change merits
 additional monitoring, the State may
 require the system to resume standard
 monitoring, increase WQP monitoring,
 or re-evaluate its corrosion control and/
 or source water treatment given the
 potentially different water quality
 considerations. EPA proposed this
 requirement to help ensure that timely
 and appropriate action is taken to
 maintain optimal corrosion control
 when events occur that could
 significantly affect water quality.
   (ii) Comments and analysis. Most
 commenters supported the proposed
 change. Several commenters thought the
 proposed rule was too general and
 should include more information
 describing a reportable treatment
 change. These commenters provided
 language to limit reportable treatment
 changes to those that affect the WQPs or
 interfere with the efficacy of the
 corrosion control strategy. EPA
 disagrees with these-commenters. EPA
 does not believe that all systems
 understand the potential impacts of
 other treatments on corrosivity and,
 thus, is requiring that systems report all
 treatment changes to the State to avoid
 situations where systems could
 potentially overlook factors that
 influence corrosivity. The State will
 then review the treatment change and
 determine if additional monitoring or
 other action is necessary. EPA does
 agree, however, that it should not be
 necessary for the system to notify the
 State every time the system makes
 changes among approved sources of
 water. For this reason, today's action
 limits the reportable source water
 changes to those involving the addition
 of a new source of water.
  The only other major concern relayed
by commenters is that some believe that
water systems  may be required to
 conduct unnecessary monitoring every
time treatment is changed. EPA has
addressed this issue in section C.l.c. of
today's preamble as a part of the
 discussion pertaining to water systems
 deemed to have optimized corrosion
control in accordance with
§ 141.81(b)(3).
  (iii) Today's action. EPA has revised
the LGR by adding a provision at
§ 141.86(d)(4)(vii) requiring any water
system subject to reduced tap
 monitoring that either adds a new
 source of water or changes any water '
 treatment to inform the State in writing
 no later than 60 days after making the
 change or addition, unless the State
 requires earlier notification. The State
 has the authority to require the system
 to take appropriate steps to ensure that
 optimal treatment is maintained. The
 corresponding system reporting
 requirements have been added as a new
 § 141.90(a)(3).6 Corresponding State
 recordkeeping requirements have been
 included as a part of the
 § 142.14(d)(8Kix) provisions.
  k. Sample invalidation.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
 The April 1996 Proposal included
 provisions which defined four,
 conditions under which States could
 invalidate tap water lead and copper
 samples:
  • If the laboratory establishes that
 improper sample analysis caused
 erroneous results;
  • If the State determines that the
 sample was taken from a site that does
 not meet the site selection criteria of
 §141.86;
  • If the sample container is damaged
 in transit; or
  • if the State has substantial reason to
 believe that the sample was subject to
 tampering.
  The proposed provisions also
 specified documentation requirements
 and provided a window for replacement
 samples to be taken, if needed, to avoid
 a monitoring and reporting violation.
 EPA believes sample invalidation under
 any of the above-mentioned conditions
 is appropriate  to avoid the use of sample
 results that may not represent the tap
 water levels of lead and copper taken
 from the water system's high risk sites.
  (ii) Comments and analysis. Several
 States, PWSs, and water utility trade
 associations commented on the
 proposed sample invalidation
 provisions. None of the commenters
 objected to the four conditions
 proposed; however, several advocated
 providing States even more flexibility
 than proposed. A few commenters, for
 example, recommended that EPA allow
 States to invalidate any samples they
 believe are inappropriate. Other
 commenters suggested adding a fifth
 condition, such as allowing for sample
 invalidation when improper sample
 collection procedures are used or when
 the water has been standing in the pipes
 for longer than the six-hour standing
time required by the Rule. EPA believes
  6 As noted in section C.S.b. of this preamble, the
requirement previously codified at § 141.90(a)(3),
for a NTNCWS to justify the use of non-tier 1 sites,
has been eliminated.

-------
 1978
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 that the conditions proposed in April
 1996 will allow sufficient flexibility to
 ensure that samples can be invalidated
 where appropriate. Sample invalidation
 provisions are not intended to replace
 the need for proper guidance in the
 collection of samples. The Agency
 believes that proper education is a more
 appropriate method to address incorrect
 sample collection procedures.
   Although the 1996 Proposal did not
 address the provision that prohibits a
 system from challenging the results of
 samples collected by residents, several
 commenters objected to its retention.
 Those comments are outside the scope
 of this ralemaking because EPA did not
 reopen that provision in the 1991 Rule
 or otherwise solicit comment on that
 provision.
   One commenter requested that EPA
 clarify the rule language to specify that
 only one of the four conditions needs to
 be met for a sample to be invalidated.
 EPA agrees that clarification would be
 useful and has made this correction in
 today's action. Another commenter
 recommended that systems be allowed
 to proceed with follow-up samples and
 then submit all results including follow-
 up results with detailed documentation
 to the request for sample invalidation.
 The Agency believes  States have
 sufficient flexibility to decide whether
 to allow this without expressly adding
 this provision to the Rule. EPA also
 encourages water systems to collect
 more than the minimum number of
 required samples to minimize the need
 to collect replacement samples in the
 first place.
  The preamble to the April 1996
 Proposal stated the Agency's intent that
 States be prohibited from invalidating a
 sample solely on the grounds that the
 lead or copper concentration found in a
 follow-up sample is higher or lower
 than the lead or copper concentration
 found in the original sample. EPA
 inadvertently omitted this prohibition
 in the proposed rule language  for
 § 141.86(f)(3). Although a few
 commenters objected to this prohibition,
 the Agency believes it is appropriate. A
 number of factors may cause the levels
 of lead and copper at the tap to vary at
 times and the existence of an elevated
 result may be an indicator that
 additional treatment is warranted. The
 mere fact that the level in the follow-up
 sample has changed would not alone be
 an indicator that the sample is invalid,
 especially because lead levels can be so
 variable at the tap. EPA has therefore
 inserted this language in the final rule.
  (iii) Today's action. EPA is
promulgating sample invalidation
provisions, as proposed, in a new
 § 141.86(f). Section 141.86(0(1) defines
                          four circumstances, described above,
                          under which the State may invalidate a
                          sample. A water system requesting
                          sample invalidation must submit
                          appropriate documentation to the State
                          along with the results of all samples
                          collected, pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2). The
                          requirement for States to document all
                          decisions in writing and provide the
                          rationale for the decision is contained in
                          § 141.86(f)(3). This paragraph also
                          prohibits States from invalidating a
                          sample solely because a follow-up
                          sample has a higher or lower
                          concentration than the original sample.
                          Section 141.86(f)(4) requires that any
                          replacement samples for samples
                          invalidated pursuant to  § 141.86(f) be
                          taken as soon as possible, either within
                          20 days of the date the State invalidates
                          the sample or by the end of the
                          applicable monitoring period,
                          whichever is later. Replacement
                          samples are necessary only in those
                          instances where there otherwise would
                          be too few samples, due to the
                          invalidation of one or more of the
                          original samples, to meet minimum
                          sampling requirements.  Replacement
                          samples taken after the end of the
                          applicable monitoring period may not
                          also be used to meet the monitoring
                          requirements of a subsequent
                          monitoring period. This paragraph also
                          requires that any replacement sample be
                          taken at the same location as the
                          invalidated sample or, if that is not
                          possible, then at a location other than
                          one already used for sampling during
                          the monitoring period.
                           Today's action also includes a
                          revision to the system reporting
                          requirements in § 141.90. As proposed,
                          EPA is adding the requirement for a
                          system requesting sample invalidation
                          to submit the appropriate
                          documentation to the State at
                          § 141.90(a)(l)(ii). Corresponding State
                          recordkeeping requirements have been
                          added at § 142.14(d)(10)(iii).
                           1. Monitoring waivers for small
                          systems.
                           (i) Proposed revision and background.
                          The April 1996 Proposal included  a new
                          provision at § 141.86(g) that would
                          allow States to grant monitoring waivers
                          to small systems that satisfy specific
                          90th percentile lead and copper levels
                          and meet certain materials
                          requirements. The intent of the
                          proposed provision was  to provide
                          monitoring relief to small systems that
                          provide substantive documentation or
                          equivalent evidence that they are free of
                          sources of lead and copper
                          contamination. EPA believes that
                          monitoring relief is appropriate for these
                          systems because there is no value in
                          requiring States and water systems to
 invest limited resources on frequent
 monitoring where sources of lead and
 copper contamination appear to be non-
 existent.
   (ii) Comments and analysis. While all
 commenters supported this monitoring
 waiver concept, many commenters took
 issue with how § 141.86(g) and the
 preamble were worded. Section '
 141.86(g) has been reworded in today's
 action to address these comments.
 These changes should remove the
 ambiguity of the proposed rule and
 clarify requirements that were unclear
 in the proposal. The major comments
 received are discussed below.
   (A) Materials specification.
 Commenters raised several concerns
 with the language that addressed the
 materials requirements. Several of these
 commenters objected to the use of the
 terminology "all plastic system." These
 commenters felt that EPA's use of such
 terminology would send a message that
 EPA considers other plumbing materials
 unacceptable.  They pointed out that
 there are other plumbing materials that
 pose no concern from the standpoint of
 lead and copper contamination and
 identified the many benefits of metallic
 plumbing, including copper pipes. One
 commenter noted that copper from
 copper pipes contributes to meeting the
 essential nutrient requirements for
 humans. Commenters also noted that
 many manufacturers of brass and bronze
 fittings and fixtures (i.e., endpoint
 devices) are attempting to meet the
 standard established by National
 Sanitation Foundation (NSF)
 International for lead leaching for
 faucets and other drinking water
 plumbing components that contain low
 levels of lead or are completely free of
 lead-containing materials.
  EPA, in utilizing the terminology "all
 plastic system," did not intend to
 advocate the use of one particular type
 of plumbing over any other. The
 proposed rule used_the phrase "all
 plastic system" as short-hand for
 systems that are free of lead-containing
 and copper-containing materials that
 have the potential to adversely affect
 levels of lead and copper at the tap. The
Agency recognizes the benefits of many
 different types of plumbing materials.
EPA recognizes the confusion that the
 "all plastic system" terminology has
caused and agrees that the wording in
the proposal could be interpreted to
preclude the granting of a waiver to a
water system even if none of the
buildings  connected to the system have
any "lead-containing" or "copper-
containing" materials. EPA has dropped
the use of the "all plastic system"
terminology in today's action.

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, -2000/Rules and  Regulations
                                                                       1979
  The language in today's action is
 specific as to what materials are
 considered lead-containing and copper-
 containing. Lead-containing materials
 include: Plastic pipes and service lines
 which contain lead plasticizers; lead
 service lines; lead pipes; lead-soldered
 pipe joints; and leaded brass or bronze
 alloy fittings and fixtures that do not
 meet the specifications of any lead-
 leaching standard established pursuant
 to section 1417(e) of the SDWA
 Amendments of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 300g-
 6(e)). While the proposed rule did not
 specify the exclusion of plastic  pipes
 and service lines which contain lead
 plasticizers, this exclusion can be
 inferred from the proposed regulatory
 language since this kind of plastic pipe
 is a "lead-containing material."7 The
 language pertairiing to plastic pipes and
 service lines which contain lead
 plasticizers has been added to the final
 rule for the purpose of clarification.
 Copper-containing materials include
 copper pipes and copper service lines.
 EPA agrees that copper in drinking
 water can contribute to meeting dietary
 requirements. However, humans have
 limited tolerance to copper. Although
 low levels  of exposure (below the
 MCLG) are beneficial, higher levels,
 especially when present in water or
 beverages,  can cause nausea, vomiting
 and/or diarrhea. The MCLG for  copper
 in potable water was established to
 protect humans from these adverse
 effects. Thus, because changing
 circumstances at systems with copper-
 containing materials could result in
 copper levels above the MCLG, EPA
believes it would be inappropriate to
allow such systems to monitor for
copper less frequently than once every
three years.
  Today's action does not preclude
small water systems with leaded brass
or bronze alloy fittings and fixtures that
meet the "lead free" criteria defined
under sections 1417(d) and (e) of the
SDWA from qualifying for a monitoring
waiver. On August 22, 1997, EPA
published a Federal Register Notice
recognizing NSF Standard 61, Section 9,
as meeting the requirements for a
voluntary lead-leaching standard (62 FR
44686). This standard, developed with
the  assistance of EPA, the plumbing
industry, numerous State and local
regulatory officials, water utilities,
independent health consultants, and the
academic community covers endpoint
devices including kitchen and bar
faucets, lavatory faucets, water
  'Information regarding the suitability of different
plastic materials may be obtained by investigating
compliance with third-party standards such as NSF
Standard 61.
 dispensers, drinking fountains, water
 coolers, glass fillers, residential
 refrigerator ice makers, supply stops and
 endpoint control valves. Today's action
 does not incorporate specific reference
 to the NSF standard, however, in case
 other standards that meet the
 requirements of SDWA sections 1417(d)
 and (e)  are established in the future.
 Notification of additional third-party
 standards that meet these specifications
 will be  published in future Federal
 Registers as appropriate.
  The rule language remains silent on
 the materials composition of in-line
 devices, such as valves and meters. EPA
 has no data that suggest that in-line
 devices will contribute lead or copper at
 levels that will leach these materials in
 excess of the action levels. Thus, water
 systems with in-line devices containing
 lead or  copper components may apply
 for a waiver, if they meet the other
 eligibility requirements.
  Some commenters pointed out that
 the language in the proposed rule could
 preclude the issuance of any monitoring
 waivers because it would have required
 that all  "buildings" (rather than
 "plumbing") connected to the system be
 free of materials containing lead and
 copper. Commenters interpreted this to
 mean that water systems with buildings
 containing materials such as copper
 wiring,  brass screws, or any copper-
 containing or lead-containing materials
 in building wastewater systems, would
 be ineligible to receive a waiver.
 Today's action clarifies that the
 materials requirement applies only to
 the drinking water distribution or
 service  lines and the drinking water
 supply plumbing (including plumbing
 conveying drinking water within all
residences and buildings connected to
the system).
  Other commenters suggested that only
 a limited number of CWSs would be
able to qualify for a waiver, either
because it would be difficult for most
water systems to identify all the
plumbing materials used in all buildings
or because few water systems, when
examining all the buildings connected
to the water system, would actually be
able to meet the materials requirement.
EPA recognizes that it may be quite
difficult for CWSs to identify all the
plumbing materials used in all buildings
connected to the system and that it is
possible that very few systems may be
able to meet the materials requirement.
The Agency believes that some systems
will qualify, however, and is including
the waiver provisions in today's action
to benefit those systems.
  (B) Monitoring issues.  Under the
provisions proposed in 1996, a system
meeting the materials criteria could
 apply for a waiver once it had
 completed one six-month round of
 standard tap monitoring for lead and
 copper subsequent to becoming free of
 materials containing lead and copper.
 To qualify for the waiver, the system's
 90th percentile lead and copper levels
 could not exceed 0.005 mg/L for lead or
 0.65 mg/L for copper. Systems with
 waivers would be required to complete
 at least one round of monitoring, at the
 reduced number of sites specified in
 § 141.86(c) at least once every nine
 years.
   One commenter requested that the
 language be modified to require "at
 least" one six-month round of standard
 tap water monitoring to provide States
 some flexibility and authority to require
 additional testing if the State believes
 these additional data are needed to
 make the waiver decision. EPA agrees
 that this is appropriate and has
 incorporated this modification into
 today's action.
   A few commenters questioned the
 rationale for establishing the lead PQL
 (0.005 mg/L) as the lead threshold for
 waiver eligibility and suggested that the
 threshold be set at one-half the action
 level, as proposed for copper. EPA does
 not believe that setting the lead
 threshold for waivers at one-half the
 lead action level is as protective of
 public health as setting it at the PQL.8
 In addition, since systems receiving a
 monitoring waiver will be required to
 monitor lead and copper levels only
 once every 9 years, the Agency believes
 it is essential to minimize the risk that
 these systems will have elevated levels
 of lead at the tap. Requiring a lower
 90th percentile lead level for allowing
 waivers will help to minimize this risk.
 Today's action, therefore, retains using
 the lead PQL, for determining if a
 system may qualify for a waiver.
  Another commenter disagreed with
 setting the lead level for States to
 consider waivers at 0.005 mg/L because,
 under this requirement, source water
 with lead levels at or slightly above this
 level could exclude a system from
 qualifying for a waiver. EPA believes
 that if a system's 90th percentile lead
 level is above 0.005 mg/L, no matter
 what the reason, tap water lead levels
 should not go unchecked for as long as
 nine years.
  One commenter suggested that EPA
rethink and expand the waiver option
 included in the April 1996 Proposal to
 allow any system that "reliably and
 consistently" meets the action levels for
  8 Section C.S.h. of this preamble provides EPA's
rationale for utilizing the PQL for lead instead of
one-half the action level when establishing a
threshold lead level for implementing accelerated
reduced monitoring.

-------
 1980
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 lead and copper to reduce its
 monitoring to once every nine years.
 The commenter also pointed out that
 this concept would tie in to most of the
 existing State waiver programs. The
 Agency believes that a "reliably and
 consistently" waiver is appropriate for
 many inorganic and  organic
 contaminants regulated under the Phase
 II and Phase V rules because source
 water levels of these contaminants are
 not highly variable. Lead and copper
 levels, which are measured at the tap,
 can be highly variable. Tap water lead
 and copper levels can vary from day to
 day and even hour to hour at the same
 sample site. Because of this high
 variability, EPA does not believe a
 waiver program based solely on lead
 and copper analytical values is
 sufficiently protective of public health
 because there is a risk that such an
 approach would allow a system with an
 undetected lead or copper problem to
 reduce monitoring to a point where the
 population most at risk (children)
 would not receive the benefit of such
 monitoring if it occurred only once
 every nine years. The Agency has
 therefore coupled very low tap water
 lead and copper levels with the
 materials criteria to further reduce this
 risk.
   A few other commenters proposed
 that a system not be required to monitor
 at all once  it meets the materials
 requirements and demonstrates that its
 90th percentile lead level is less than or
 equal to 0.005 mg/L and its 90th
 percentile copper level is less than or
 equal to 0.65 mg/L. EPA has not
 incorporated this suggestion into the
 final rule. The Agency believes that the
 risks from ingesting copper and lead are
 too much of a health  hazard to totally
 ignore. Tap water monitoring (even if
 conducted only once every nine years)
 could point out use of lead-containing
 plumbing fixtures or  copper pipes that
 nave been installed unbeknownst to the
 system owner/operator in the years
 following receipt of a waiver.
  One commenter stated that if new
 systems are properly  installed under
 State specification and approval, if
 approved plumbing materials are used,
 and if there is no lead in the source
 water, there is little reason for
 conducting lead and copper monitoring.
The commenter also stated that the
standard number of sites to be sampled
is excessive for these systems even if
some confirmatory monitoring is
performed.
  EPA believes that monitoring for lead
and copper is still necessary in these
circumstances. Even if a system is
"properly installed,"  the water may be
corrosive to copper pipes and lead-
                          containing faucets used within the
                          homes and buildings served by this new
                          public water supply. Many faucets
                          purchased in the last ten years, although
                          labeled "lead free," may contain up to
                          8 percent lead, which had been allowed
                          under the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act
                          Amendments, and thus may leach high
                          levels of lead. Prior to August 6,1998,
                          States may have approved the use of the
                          aforementioned "lead-free" faucets
                          (although they may have required
                          warning labels on these faucets).
                            In addition, all States allow the use of
                          copper pipes in distribution systems
                          and/or interior building plumbing. New
                          copper pipes frequently leach high
                          levels of copper until the pipes stabilize.
                          Additionally, copper in source water
                          can still be a concern in systems with
                          no lead in the source water. While the
                          1996 SDWA Amendments require all
                          faucets introduced into commerce after
                          August 6,1998, to meet the
                          specifications of an approved lead-
                          leaching standard which will lessen the
                          amount of lead that can leach from a
                          tap, there is still the potential for some
                          lead to leach from some taps. With this
                          continued potential for lead leaching,
                          copper leaching, and copper in source
                          water, EPA disagrees with the
                          commenter's contention that there is
                          little reason for conducting lead and
                          copper monitoring if new systems are
                          properly installed under State
                          specification and approval, if approved
                          plumbing materials are used, and if
                          there is no lead in the source water.
                            EPA also disagrees with the
                          commenter's statement that the standard
                          number of sample sites is excessive for
                          new systems. Such systems have yet to
                          confirm that their water supply is
                          minimally corrosive. The number of
                          samples required for initial monitoring
                          was established to sufficiently account
                          for variability of lead and copper at taps
                          while at the same time being reasonable
                          for a system to implement. Assuming
                          these systems do not otherwise qualify
                          for a monitoring waiver, if testing does
                          confirm that these new systems are very
                          low in lead and copper (i.e., the
                          system's 90th percentile lead level is
                          less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L and the
                          system's 90th percentile copper level is
                          less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L) during
                          two consecutive six-month monitoring
                          periods, today's action allows these
                          systems to reduce sampling to once
                          every three years and allows systems
                          that collected 10 samples or more
                          during initial monitoring to reduce the
                          number of sample sites by half.9
                           9See section C.S.h. in this preamble for
                         discussion pertaining to "accelerated reduced
                         monitoring."
   (C) Changes potentially affecting
 monitoring waivers. The April 1996
 proposed rule language included a
 requirement for a water system subject
 to a monitoring waiver to notify the
 State within 60 days of the addition of
 a new source of water or any change in
 water treatment. EPA proposed to give
 the State discretion to require additional
 monitoring or other appropriate action,
 if the State believes such action is
 warranted in these cases, to ensure that
 low levels of tap water lead and copper
 are maintained. The proposed language
 also required a water system to revert to
 monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) if,
 as a result of new construction or
 repairs, the system could no longer
 certify it was free of lead-containing and
 copper-containing materials. Finally,
 the proposed language would have
 given States the discretion to require a
 system to revert to more frequent
 monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(3) or
 (4) and/or to take other appropriate
 action if the system's 90th percentile
 lead levels exceeded 0.005 mg/L and/or
 the 90th percentile copper levels
 exceeded  0.65 mg/L during a
 subsequent round of monitoring. No
 commenters addressed these provisions
 specifically; however, upon further
 consideration, the Agency believes a
 few modifications to these provisions
 are appropriate.
  The requirement for a water system
 subject to a monitoring waiver to notify
 the State if the system adds a new
 source of water or makes a change in
 water treatment has been revised
 slightly to keep it consistent with the
 comparable requirement for (b)(3)
 systems and other systems subject to
 reduced monitoring. Today's action
 clarifies that the notification must occur
 no later than 60 days after the change is
 made, unless the State requires earlier
 notification. The LCR does not require
 prior State approval of these changes;
 however, it may be required by other
 drinking water regulations or by the
 State. In those cases where prior State
 approval is not required, EPA
 nevertheless encourages water systems
 to notify the State before making the
 change to  minimize the risk that the
 change will result in unanticipated
 adverse effects on tap water lead and
 copper levels. Today's action does not
 prescribe that additional tap water
 monitoring for lead and copper occur as
 a part of these changes; however, States
have the authority to require additional
round(s) of monitoring and/or other
appropriate action, if the State thinks
 such action(s) are warranted to ensure
that the water system continues to meet
waiver eligibility criteria.

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                        1981
   Today's action also clarifies that a
 water system that becomes aware that it
 can no longer certify that it is free of
 lead-containing or copper-containing
 materials must notify the State within
 60 days of becoming aware of this
 situation. Such systems no longer are
 eligible for a monitoring waiver.
 Likewise, a system loses its waiver
 eligibility if it has a 90th percentile. lead
 level greater than 0.005 mg/L or a 90th
 percentile copper level greater than 0.65
 mg/L subsequent to receiving the
 waiver. Assuming a system that loses its
 waiver eligibility has not exceeded
 either action level, it must revert to a
 triennial monitoring frequency.10 Such
 systems may be able to take action to
 identify and remove source(s) of lead
 and/or copper before they are due to
 collect samples again and may reapply
 for a waiver. Systems exceeding an
 action level, however, must begin
 implementation of CCT in accordance
 with the deadlines in § 141.81(e). EPA
 believes these rule language
 modifications are consistent with the
 intent of the monitoring waiver program
 which only allows a system to monitor
 once every nine years if it can provide
 an acceptable materials certification and
 demonstrate acceptable 90th percentile
 lead and copper levels.
  '(D) Waiver renewals. The proposed
 rule language neglected to specifically
 address what happens with a waiver if
 the system continues to satisfy the
 waiver requirements. Some commenters
 suggested that systems be required to re-
 certify periodically that they remain free
 of lead-containing and copper-
 containing materials. EPA agrees that
 periodic re-certification is appropriate
 and has therefore included a
 requirement in today's action for the
 water system to submit the re-
 certification every nine years, along
 with its lead and copper tap water
 results and 90th percentile calculations.
 States may require re-certification
 sooner, for example, if the system adds
 a new source of water, modifies water
 treatment, or undergoes new
 construction. Any system that loses
 eligibility for a monitoring waiver must
 revert to more frequent monitoring and/
 or implement CCT as discussed above.
  (Ej Partial waivers. A few commenters
 suggested that a copper waiver should
 be available to those systems that are
 unable to meet the rule's lead waiver
 criteria because of lead-containing
 components within the system, if the
  10 EPA does not believe it is necessary that these
systems monitor more frequently than once every
three years since they would have been on a
triennial schedule already if the waiver had not
'been issued and they had reduced monitoring in
accordance with the schedule in § 141.86(d)(4).
 system could meet the copper-related
 waiver criteria. Similarly, a lead,waiver
 should be available to those systems
 that meet the waiver criteria with
 respect to lead but not with respect to
 copper. These commenters suggested
 that this would allow additional
 reductions in monitoring and reporting
 for such systems and would allow the
 States to focus more of their limited
 resources elsewhere. EPA has
 considered these suggestions. While the
 Agency questions  whether such
 provisions will significantly reduce
 burden, today's action gives States the
 discretion to grant a waiver for either
 lead or copper, if the system meets all
 the criteria relevant to that contaminant.
 The Agency is adding this provision
 because some water systems, if granted
 a waiver for either lead or copper,
 although still required to collect tap
 water samples every three years (or
 more often) for the non-waived
 contaminant, may be able to benefit
 from reduced analytical costs due to the
 fact that the tap water samples will only
 have to be analyzed for one of the
 contaminants in two of the three
 monitoring periods (assuming the non-
 waived contaminant is on a triennial
 schedule) that constitute the nine-year
 waiver period.
  On the other hand, the Agency also
 recognizes that the issuance of partial
 waivers may  add administrative burden
 to States who would now be required to
 track additional monitoring schedules.
 For this reason, EPA is leaving the
 decision whether,  or not, to issue partial
 waivers up to the State.
  (F) Pre-existing waivers. EPA is aware
 that several States  already may have
 issued monitoring  waiversfof small
 systems based on guidance provided to
 the EPA Regions in 1995 (EPA, 1995a).
 In some cases, the  State's
 implementation of waiver provisions is
 very similar to those contained in
 today's rule. That is, in addition to
 requiring that the system demonstrate it
 is free of lead-containing and copper-
 containing materials, the State required
that the system demonstrate, through at
 least one round of  standard tap water
monitoring, that the 90th percentile lead
level does not exceed 0.005 mg/L and
the 90th percentile copper level does
not exceed 0.65 mg/L. EPA believes that
monitoring waivers issued prior to April
 11, 2000 should remain in effect as long
as the water system meets the ongoing
waiver monitoring  requirements and
continues to meet the waiver eligibility
requirements. The  next round of
monitoring for such systems should
occur no later than nine years after the
date of the most recent lead and copper
tap water monitoring conducted by the
 system. EPA has incorporated these
 provisions into today's action.
   In some cases, however, States may
 have issued waivers without requiring
 any prior tap water lead and copper
 monitoring. Although such waivers
 were not precluded by the 1995
 guidance memo, they are inconsistent
 with the provisions of today's action
 that make clear the requirement that all
 community and non-transient non-
 community water systems conduct some
 monitoring to verify that they do not
 have undetected lead or copper
 problems. Today's action, therefore,
 requires water systems with waivers
 issued prior to April 11, 2000 that have
 hot conducted at least one round of tap
 water monitoring consistent with the
 requirements of § 141.86(g)(2) to
 complete a round of monitoring
 pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) no later than
 September 30, 2000. Assuming such a
 system continues to meet the waiver
 eligibility criteria, the next round of
 monitoring under the waiver would be
 due no later than nine years later.
   (iii) Today's action. After considering
 the comments received and other factors
 as discussed above, today's action
 includes new provisions at § 141.86(g)
 that allow States to grant monitoring
 waivers to small water systems if
 specified conditions are met. In order to
 qualify for a full waiver, a small water
 system must meet all of the materials
 criteria specified in § 141.86(g)(l) and
 tke monitoring criteria specified in
 § 141.86(g)(2). Specifically, the system
 must certify, with appropriate
 supporting documentation, that the
 distribution system and service lines
 and all drinking water supply plumbing,
 including plumbing conveying drinking
 water within all residences and
 buildings connected to the system, are
 free of lead-containing and copper-
 containing materials. A system is
 considered to be free of lead-containing
 materials if. it contains no plastic pipes
 with lead plasticizers or plastic service
 lines with lead plasticizers and if it is
 free of lead service lines, lead pipes,
 lead soldered pipe joints, and leaded
 brass or bronze fittings and fixtures,
 unless such fittings and fixtures meet
 the specifications of any lead-leaching
 standard established pursuant to 42
 U.S.C. 300g-6(e) (SDWA section
 1417(e)). Systems are considered free of
 copper-containing materials if they
 contain no copper pipes or copper
 service lines. Systems also must have
 completed at least one 6-month round of
 standard tap water monitoring for lead
 and copper, subsequent to becoming
 free of lead-containing and copper-
 containing materials, at sites approved
by the  State and from the number of

-------
 1982
Federal Register/Vol.  65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and  Regulations
 sites required for standard monitoring
 under § 141.86(c) that demonstrates that
 the 90th percentile levels of lead and
 copper at the tap do not exceed 0.005
 mg/L for lead and 0.65 mg/L for copper.
   If permitted by State regulation,
 § 141.86(g) also permits a small system
 that meets the lead-related criteria of
 §§ 141.86(g)(l) and (2), but not the
 copper-related criteria, to apply for a
 partial waiver for lead only (i.e., a lead
 waiver). Likewise, a small system that
 meets the copper-related criteria of
 §§141.86(g)(l) and (2), but not the lead-
 related criteria, may apply for a partial
 waiver for copper only (i.e., a copper
 waiver).
   Section 141.86(g)(3) requires the State
 to notify the system, in writing, of its
 waiver determination, setting forth the
 basis for the decision and any
 conditions of the waiver. States have the
 authority to impose conditions such as
 requiring limited monitoring in addition
 to the once every nine year monitoring
 required by § 141.86(g)(4) and/or
 requiring the system to provide periodic
 outreach to consumers to remind them
 to avoid installation of materials that
 might void the waiver. A system cannot
 reduce to a nine-year tap water
 monitoring frequency before it receives
 the written waiver approval from the
 State.
  Routine tap water monitoring
 requirements and requirements for
 reporting certain system changes
 between tap water monitoring events are
 specified in § 141.86(g)(4). Systems with
 waivers must conduct a round of
 monitoring for the waived
 contaminant(s) at least once every nine
 years at the reduced number of sites
 specified in § 141.86(c) and provide
 appropriate materials re-certification to
 the State along with the monitoring
 results.  Systems with partial waivers
 must continue to monitor for the non-
 waived  contaminant in accordance with
 the provisions of § 141.86(d)(l), (d)(3),
 or (d)(4), as appropriate. Systems with
 waivers must notify the State no later
 than 60 days after the addition of a new
 source of water or any changes in water
 treatment. As discussed above, systems
 may be required by other Federal
 drinking water regulations or State
 regulations to receive prior State
 approval before making any of these
 changes. Where prior State approval is
 not required, EPA encourages systems to
 notify the State before making the
 change to minimize the risk it will
 result in an unanticipated adverse effect
 on tap water lead and copper levels.
 States have the authority to impose
additional waiver conditions (e.g.,
requiring a materials re-certification
and/or requiring additional rounds (s) of
                           monitoring), if it deems such additional
                           conditions are necessary to assess and/
                           or address treatment or source water
                           changes at the system. A system with a
                           full or partial waiver also must notify
                           the State within 60 days of becoming
                           aware that it is no longer free of lead-
                           containing and/or copper-containing
                           materials.
                             As long as the water system is in
                           compliance with the requirements of
                           § 141.86(g)(4), continues to meet the
                           appropriate eligibility materials criteria
                           of § 141.86(g)(l), and maintains 90th
                           percentile lead levels that do not exceed
                           0.005 mg/L  (unless the system has a
                           copper waiver) and 90th percentile
                           copper levels that do not exceed 0.65
                           mg/L (unless the system has a lead
                           waiver), § 141.86(g)(5) specifies that the
                           waiver will  be renewed automatically
                           unless the State notifies the system
                           otherwise, in writing, setting forth the
                           basis of its decision. Systems with
                           waivers that have been revoked may re-
                           apply for a full or partial waiver, as
                           appropriate, at such time as it again
                           meets the eligibility criteria of
                           §§141.86(g)(l)and(g)(2).
                             Systems whose waivers have been
                           revoked must complete appropriate CCT
                           and/or lead  and copper tap water
                           monitoring requirements. This
                           provision is specified in § 141.86(g)(6).
                           In other words, if the system's waiver is
                           revoked because the system has
                           exceeded the lead or copper action
                           level, the system  must implement CCT
                           in accordance with the deadlines
                           specified in § 141.81(e). If the system's
                           waiver is revoked for other reasons, and
                           the system meets both action levels, the
                           system must monitor for lead and
                           copper at the tap  no less frequently than
                           once every three years using the
                          reduced number of sample sites
                          specified in  § 141.86(c).
                            Section 141.86(g)(7) addresses what, if
                          anything, a system with a full waiver''
                          granted prior to April  11, 2000 must do
                          for the waiver to remain in effect. Pre-
                          existing waivers issued to a small
                          system that have previously met the
                          eligibility requirements of both
                          §§ 141.86(g)(l) and (g)(2) remain in
                          effect so long as the system continues to
                          meet the waiver eligibility criteria of
                          § 141.86{g)(5). The first round of tap
                          water monitoring conducted pursuant to
                          § 141.86(g)(4) must be completed no
                          later than nine years after the last time
                            1' Waivers issued prior to April 11, 2000 would
                          have reflected guidance provided in a policy memo
                          issued by EPA in 1995 (EPA, 1995a). That memo
                          addressed systems that were free of both lead-
                          containing and copper-containing materials. EPA
                          therefore does not believe that there should be any
                          systems with partial waivers issued prior to the
                          effective date of the LCRMR.
 the system has monitored for lead and
 copper at the tap. If, on the other hand,
 the pre-existing waiver was issued to a
 small system that met the materials
 criteria in § 141.86(g)(l) but was not
 required to conduct any tap water
 monitoring and/or to meet the lead and
 copper threshold levels specified in
 § 141.86(g)(2), the waiver will remain in
 effect only if the system continues to
 meet the eligibility requirements of
 § 141.86(g)(5) and completes a round of
 standard monitoring for lead and copper
 at the tap by September 30, 2000 in
 which the 90th percentile lead and
 copper levels do not exceed 0.005 mg/
 L and 0.65 mg/L, respectively (i.e., meet
 the eligibility criteria of § 141.86(g)(2)).
 After completing this round of
 monitoring, the system must continue
 monitoring at a frequency of once every
 nine years.
  Today's action also makes two
 changes to the provisions of § 141.90(a)
 to reflect system reporting requirements
 associated with small system waivers.
 As discussed previously,12 § 141.90(a)(3)
 now specifies the reporting requirement
 for a water system monitoring for lead
 and copper at the tap less frequently
 than every six months to report, in
 writing, the addition of a new source or
 a change in water treatment to the State
 no  later than 60 days after the change
 has occurred, unless the State requires
 earlier notification. Section 141.90(a)(4)
 contains the reporting requirements
 associated with applying for a waiver
 and submitting appropriate
 documentation demonstrating whether
 or not the system continues to meet the
 continuing waiver eligibility criteria.
  Finally, two new changes in State
 recordkeeping requirements have been
 made to § 142.14. A new
 § 142.14(d)(8)(xiv) contains the
 requirement for States to maintain
 records pertaining to monitoring waiver
 determinations, waiver recertifications,
 and waiver revocations. As previously
 discussed, § 142.14(d)(8)(ix) contains
the State recordkeeping requirements
pertaining to systems monitoring less
frequently than every six months that
change treatment or add a new source
of water.

 6. Revisions to § 141.87
  a. Monitoring for optimal water
quality parameters. As discussed in
section C.2.b. of this preamble, today's
action revises the way in which
compliance with OWQPs is determined
under § 141.82(g). Corresponding
changes have been made to §§ 141.87(d)
and (e)(4). The language of § 141.87(d)
has been streamlined to refer to, but not
                                                                   12 see section C.S.j. of this preamble.

-------
             Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No.  8/ Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1983
 repeat, the compliance requirements of
 § 141.82(g). The language of
 § 141.87(e)(4) has been revised to clarify
 that a system subject to the reduced
 frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the
 tap must revert to standard WQP
 monitoring if it fails to comply with the
 requirements of § 141.82(g).
  b. Use of representative sites for entry
 point water quality parameter
 monitoring at ground water systems.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
 The April 1996 Proposal included a
 provision that would allow ground
 water systems to limit entry point WQP
 monitoring to those locations that are
 representative of the water quality
 conditions throughout the system. As
 explained in the 1996 preamble, some
.ground water systems, especially in the
 western States, can have dozens or even
 more than a hundred wells and it can
 be difficult and expensive to conduct
 biweekly monitoring at each entry
 point. The  Agency believes that
 monitoring at each entry point for large
 ground water systems may not be
 necessary in all cases. Ground water
 systems can limit entry point sampling
 to those entry points that are
 representative of water quality and
 treatment conditions throughout the
 system. If water from untreated ground
 water sources mixes with water from
 treated ground water sources, the
 system must monitor for WQPs both at
 representative entry points receiving
 treatment and representative entry-
 points receiving no treatment. For
 example, a ground water system with
 seven entry points may draw water from
 a distinct hydraulic zone (i.e., where
 water from the zone does not mix with
 water from any other zone). If the
 system can demonstrate to the
 satisfaction of the State that all seven
 entry points drawing water from the
 same distinct hydraulic zone have
 similar water quality characteristics,
 taking seasonal variability into account,
 the State can allow the system to
 conduct biweekly entry point
 monitoring at one or two of the entry
 points instead of all seven. However, if
 CCT is applied at one of the-seven entry
 points and  not at the other six entry
 points, then a representative sample or
 samples would need to be taken for the
 six entry points and a sample would
 also need to be taken at the entry point
 where the CCT is applied.
  (ii) Comments and analysis.
 Commenters generally supported this
 proposed revision. Two commenters
 expressed concern that the proposed
 changes still would require extensive
 monitoring for large water systems
 relying on ground water sources, even
 when no CCT is required. EPA believes
that entry point monitoring for WQPs at
least once every two weeks is
appropriate for large non-(b)(3) water
systems after the installation of CCT and
for those small and medium-size
systems that continue to exceed an
action level after the installation of CCT.
The regulations, as revised by today's
action, provide sufficient flexibility for
systems to meet this requirement
without imposing an unreasonable
monitoring burden where it is not
warranted.
  (iii) Today's action. The Agency
therefore is making the following
regulatory changes. First, EPA is
revising the wording of §§ 141.87(a)(2)
and (c)(2), slightly, to indicate that the
§ 141.87(c)(2) requirements apply to
entry point monitoring "except as
provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section" (which contains the provisions
pertaining to ground water systems).
EPA also has revised § 141.87(c)(2) to
clarify that  once every two weeks
(biweekly) is the minimum sampling
frequency for routine entry point WQP
monitoring. The Agency has replaced
the phrase,  "one sample  every two
weeks (biweekly)," with the phrase, "at
least one sample no less frequently than
every two weeks (biweekly)." Since
many systems are monitoring WQPs
more frequently than biweekly, EPA
believes this change is appropriate to
clarify that  entry point monitoring is to
be conducted no less frequently than
every two weeks.
  EPA is adding a new paragraph (c)(3)
to.§ 141.8.7 to allow ground water
systems subject to WQP monitoring
requirements after the installation of
CCT to limit their entry point
monitoring to those locations that are
representative of water quality
conditions throughout the system. At a
minimum, these systems must monitor
for WQPs both at some points receiving
treatment and at some points receiving
no CCT if the water from those points
mixes with  other source water in the
system that is treated. Systems taking
advantage of this provision are required
to provide sufficient documentation to
the State to demonstrate that the
locations monitored are, in fact,
representative of water quality
throughout  the system. The specific
documentation to be provided may vary
depending on the system's
characteristics and State reporting
requirements. For locations that are not
treated, for example, such
documentation might include complete
water analyses from the different wells
over time, or taken for the purpose of
determining equivalence. For wells
receiving treatment, documentation
might include records of chemical
identity, well flow rates and total
volumes per day into the distribution
system, observed chemical dosages per
unit of flow and usage rates that are
demonstrated to be the same as those at
the "equivalent" entry point(s). The
documentation supporting the selection
of these representative sites must be
submitted to the State prior to the start
of any routine WQP monitoring
pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3). EPA is
adding the corresponding system
reporting requirement at
§ 141.90(a)(5).13 EPA also is adding
§142.14(d)(8)(xv) to require States to
maintain records of any determinations
made pursuant to § 141.87(c)(3).
  c. Accelerated reduced monitoring for
water quality parameters at the tap.
  (i) Proposed revision  and background.
The April 1996 Proposal also included
new language at § 141.87(e)(2) that
would allow water systems meeting the
criteria for accelerated reduced
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap to also accelerate reduced
monitoring for WQPs at the tap to once
every three years, more rapidly than
previously allowed. This revision
applies primarily to large, non-(b)(3),
systems but could apply to any system
subject to the monitoring requirements
of § 141.87(d) or (e). As EPA explained
in the preamble to the April 1996
Proposal, this revision would not affect
the requirement that systems subject to
WQP monitoring after the installation of
CCT collect WQP samples at entry
points no less frequently than once
every two weeks, as specified in
§ 141.87(c)(2).
  (ii) Comments and analysis. In
general, commenters supported the
proposed accelerated reduced
monitoring of WQPs at the tap. Only
two commenters opposed the provisions
allowing accelerated reduced
monitoring for WQPs at the tap. Of
these, one advocated retaining the
current monitoring frequency; the other
suggested EPA require daily monitoring.
These commenters may have
misunderstood the intent of the
proposed revision and thought that EPA
was proposing to also reduce the
frequency of entry point WQP
monitoring. As explained in section E.I.
of this preamble, EPA is retaining the
requirement that water systems subject
to water quality parameter monitoring
requirements after the installation of
CCT continue to monitor WQPs at entry
points no less frequently than once
every two weeks. The Agency agrees
  13 The reporting requirement associated with
systems requesting approval for reduced
monitoring, previously codified at § 141.90(a)(5),
has been eliminated. See section C.S.f. of this
preamble.

-------
 1984
Federal Register/Vol.  65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12, 2000/Rules  and  Regulations
 that this monitoring is essential for good
 process control and encourages water
 systems to conduct such monitoring
 even more frequently than once every
 two weeks. The LCR already permits
 systems to reduce the frequency of
 water quality parameter monitoring
 within the distribution system to
 triennial. The proposed revision would
 allow this to occur more rapidly. EPA
 also encourages systems to perform this
 monitoring more frequently but has not
 made it a regulatory requirement
 because of the potential burden
 involved.
   Two commenters who supported the
 idea of accelerated reduced WQP
 monitoring at the tap suggested
 alternative eligibility criteria. One
 recommended the copper threshold be
 set at one-half the copper PQL instead
 of one-half the copper action level.
 EPA's rationale for setting the copper
 threshold at one half the copper action
                            level is discussed in section C.S.h. of
                            this preamble.
                              Another commenter pointed out a
                            discrepancy between the April 1996
                            preamble and the proposed revised  rule
                            language. The proposed rule language
                            would have required lead and copper
                            levels to be " less than" the lead PQL
                            and one-half the copper action level,
                            respectively; the preamble stated that
                            systems with lead and copper levels
                            "less than or equal to" the lead PQL and
                            one-half the copper action level,
                            respectively, would be eligible for
                            reduced monitoring. The preamble
                            language reflected EPA's intent and the
                            Agency has corrected this error in
                            today's action.
                              (iii) Today's action. EPA is
                            promulgating the following revisions to
                            § 141.87(e)(2). The existing paragraph
                            § 141.87(e)(2) has been redesignated as
                            § 141.87(e)(2)(i). A new paragraph,
                            § 141.87(e)(2)(ii] has been added to
                            allow a water system to reduce the
                    frequency with which it collects tap
                    samples for applicable WQPs specified
                    in § 141.87(e)(l) to every three years if
                    the system demonstrates during two
                    consecutive monitoring periods that its
                    tap water lead level at the 90th
                    percentile is less than or equal to the
                    PQL for lead specified in
                    § 141.89(a)(l)(ii), that its tap water
                    copper level at the 90th percentile is
                    less than or equal to one-half the action
                    level for copper (0.65 mg/L) in
                    § 141.8p(c)(2), and that it also has
                    maintained the range of values for the
                    WQPs reflecting OCCT specified by the
                    State under §  141.82(f).
                      d. Summary of water quality
                    monitoring requirements. The table
                    shown below  summarizes the WQP
                    monitoring requirements, and reflects
                    the clarification that entry point
                    monitoring after the installation of CCT
                    must occur no less frequently than every
                    two weeks.
                TABLE 3.—SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1
        Monitoring period
                            Parameters2
                                                            Location
                                        Frequency
 Initial Monitoring
After Installation of Corrosion Con-
  trol.
After  State  Specifies  Parameter
  Values  for  Optimal  Corrosion
  Control.
Reduced Monitoring
                   pH,  alkalinity, orthophosphate or
                    silica3,  calcium,  conductivity,
                    temperature.
                   pH,  alkalinity, orthophosphate or
                    silica3, calcium4.
                   pH,  alkalinity,  dosage rate  and
                    concentration  (if alkalinity ad-
                    justed as part of corrosion con-
                    trol), inhibitor  dosage rate and
                    inhibitor residuals.
                   pH,  alkalinity, orthophosphate or
                    silica3, calcium4.

                   pH,  alkalinity dosage rate  and
                    concentration  (if alkalinity ad-
                    justed as part of corrosion con-
                    trol), inhibitor  dosage rate and
                    inhibitor residuals.
                   pH,  alkalinity, orthophosphate or
                    silica3, calcium4.

                   pH,  alkalinity dosage rate  and
                    concentration  (if alkalinity ad-
                    justed as part of corrosion con-
                    trol), inhibitor  dosage rate and
                    inhibitor residual5.
Taps and at entry point(s) to dis-
  tribution system.
Taps
                                                               Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
                                                                tem6.
Taps
                                                               Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
                                                                tem6.
Taps
                                                              Entry point(s) to distribution sys-
                                                                tem6.
Every 6 months.
Every 6 months.

No less frequently than every two
  weeks.
Every 6 months.
                               No less frequently than every two
                                weeks.
Every 6  months,  annually7 or
  every 3 years8; reduced num-
  ber of sites.
No less frequently than every two
  weeks.
  1 Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements.
  2 Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for WQPs only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the lead or copper
action level.
  3 Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an
inhibitor containing silicate compound is used.
  4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control.
  8 Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used.
  8 Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.
  7WaJer systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from every six months to annually if they have maintained the range
of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring.
  8Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for WQPs at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if they have main-
tained the range of values for WQPs reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual monitoring. Water systems may
accelerate to triennial monitoring for WQPs at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile lead  levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th
percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of WQPs designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing opti-
mal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1985
 7. Revisions to §141.88
   a. Resampling triggers for composite
 source water samples.
   (i) Proposed revision and background.
 EPA proposed to revise § 141.88(a) to
 delete the reference to § 141.23, which
 pertains to inorganic chemical sampling
 requirements, and to spell out the
 specific requirements for lead and
 copper source water monitoring in
 § 141.88(a). The Agency explained that
 it believed it would be less confusing to
 specify the requirements regarding lead
 and copper in Subpart I, where all other
 lead and copper sampling is addressed.
 In addition, the Agency proposed to
 retain the resampling trigger for
 composite source water samples for lead
 at the detection limit of 0.001 mg/L and
to change the resampling trigger for
 composite source water samples for
 copper from the detection limits of
 0.001 mg/L and 0.020 mg/L to 0.160 mg/
 L.14 EPA also proposed adding rule
 language to clarify that compositing of
 samples must be done by certified
 laboratory personnel and to allow
 systems to use duplicates or, original
 samples, where possible, instead of
 resampling. The remaining
 requirements in § 141.88(a), pertaining
 to sample location and number of
 samples, were retained from § 141.23.
  (iij Comments and analysis. While
most commenters supported the
proposed revisions to § 141.88(a), a few
 commenters raised issues. One
 commenter asked how the 90th
percentile would be calculated when
 samples are composited. EPA would
like to clarify that compositing applies
to source water samples only. Tap
samples cannot be composited.
Therefore, compositing does not affect
the way in which the 90th percentile is
to be calculated.
  Another commenter discussed the
potential impact of rounding the
reported value for the composite
sample. The commenter was concerned
that if water systems with a source
water lead level just above 0.001 mg/L
rounded down to 0.001 mg/L, under the
proposed rule, resampling of the
composite sample would not need to
occur. EPA has addressed this potential
problem by revising the language in
today's action to change the resampling
triggers from lead levels greater than
  14 Since up to five samples may be composited for
analysis, in 1996, EPA proposed resampling triggers
that are one-fifth of the levels above which EPA
recommends source water treatment. (EPA's
guidance document Lead and Copper Rule
Guidance Manual Volume II: Corrosion Control
recommends source water treatment when the
concentration of lead in the source water is greater
than 0.005 mg/L or the concentration of copper in
source water is greater than 0.800 mg/L.)
 0.001 mg/L and copper levels greater
 than 0.160 mg/L to lead levels greater
 than or equal to 0.001 mg/L and copper
 levels greater than or equal to 0.160 mg/
 L.
  In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
 requested public comment on whether
 compositing should be allowed in light
 of the fact that the resampling trigger for
 composited lead source water samples
 is the detection limit and therefore, half
 the samples whose true value is at the
 MDL could be reported as false
 negatives. While no commenters
 suggested eliminating compositing due
 to the above-mentioned concern, several
 commenters wanted compositing to be
 eliminated because of a concern about
 the ability of laboratories to successfully
 analyze samples near the detection
 limit. The Agency does not believe that
 it is appropriate to eliminate flexibility
 and potential cost savings for some
 utilities because some laboratories may
 not be able to meet the criteria to
 perform compositing. Therefore,
 compositing is being retained in today's
 action.
  (iii) Today's action. EPA has made the
 following changes to § 14i.88(a)(l).  The
 requirements for source water sample  -
 location, number of source water
 samples, and collection methods have
 been incorporated directly into
 § 141.88(a)(l) and the reference to
 § 141.23 has been eliminated. Systems
 may composite up to five source water
 samples. The compositing must be done
 by certified laboratory personnel. If the
 lead concentration in the composite
 sample is greater than or equal to 0.001
 mg/L or the copper concentration in the
 composite sample is greater than or
 equal to 0.160 mg/L, then the system
 must take and analyze a follow-up
 sample at each sampling site used in the
 composite within 14 days; however, if
 duplicates of, or sufficient quantities
 from, the original samples from each
 sampling point used in the composite
 are available, the system may use these
 instead of resampling.
  b. Reduced source water monitoring
for systems without State-designated
 maximum permissible source water
 levels.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
 In 1996, EPA proposed to add
 provisions to the source water
 monitoring requirements that would
 allow the same reduction in the
 frequency of source water monitoring
 for systems that exceed an action level
 if the source water lead and copper
 levels are low and the State has
 determined that source water treatment
 is not required. This change would
 allow such systems to reduce the
 frequency of source water monitoring on
the same schedule as systems that are
treating their source water and
complying with the State-specified
maximum permissible source water
levels. EPA proposed that the systems
exceeding an action level after the State
has determined that source water
treatment is not required be allowed to
reduce the frequency of source water
monitoring if the source water lead
concentrations are less than 0.005 mg/
L and the source water copper
concentrations are less than 0.8 mg/L.
EPA proposed these levels since Agency'
guidance suggests these are the levels
above which  source water treatment
may be appropriate (EPA, 1992c).
  (ii) Comments and analysis. Several
commenters suggested refinements to
the rule language to make it more
consistent with other parts of the rule.
One of these commenters suggested that
reduced source water monitoring be
allowed if source water levels are "less
than or equal to" (instead of "less than")
0.005 mg/L lead and 0.8 mg/L copper.
EPA agrees that the lead and copper
concentrations should be "less than or
equal to" the source water threshold
levels and has made this change in
today's action.
  A second commenter suggested that
EPA set the same lead and copper
concentrations for reduced source water
monitoring as for accelerated reduced
lead and copper monitoring at the tap.
The Agency agrees that it is  less
confusing to use the same lead and
copper thresholds for both accelerated
reduced tap water monitoring and
reduced source water monitoring •where
the State has determined that source
water treatment is not required. Today's
action therefore establishes 0.65 mg/L as
the copper threshold for reduced source
water monitoring where the State has
determined that no source water
treatment is required. The Agency
estimates that less than one percent of
water systems have source water copper
levels between 0.65 mg/L and 0.8 mg/
L (EPA, 1988). EPA thus believes that
very few, if any, systems will be
precluded from reducing source water
monitoring as a consequence of
establishing this slightly more stringent
threshold than the Agency proposed in
1996.
  Another commenter criticized the
Agency for not proposing to revise the
reduced source water monitoring
frequency consistent with a 5/10/15
year monitoring framework for chemical
contaminants regulated by the Phase II/
V rules that the Agency was
considering. In 1997, EPA published an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that requested comment on
possible Chemical Monitoring Reform

-------
1986
Federal  Register /Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
and Permanent Monitoring Relief
provisions for the chemicals regulated
under the Phase II/V rales (62 FR 36100,
Jul. 3,1997). EPA has since decided not
to move forward with Chemical
Monitoring Reform. However, the
Agency has published Alternative
Monitoring Guidance (formerly known
as the Permanent Monitoring Relief) that
permit States meeting specified
conditions to issue five-year monitoring
waivers for contaminants to which the
State has determined the system is not
vulnerable (EPA, 1997b). Unless a
waiver has been issued, the system must
continue to monitor for the Phase n/V
chemicals within the 3/6/9 year
framework.
  The Agency agrees that a consistent
framework for chemical contaminants is
desirable to the extent that it does not
jeopardize public health protection or
the environment. EPA does not believe
it would be appropriate to revise the
monitoring frequency for lead and
copper in source water along the lines
being considered for the Chemical
Monitoring Reform/Permanent
Monitoring Relief, however. Other
regulated chemical contaminants
address chemicals where existing
contamination and vulnerability to
future contamination can be identified
relatively easily and where the public
health concern is overall lifetime
exposure. The issues pertaining to the
control of lead and copper are
significantly different. The health effect
of primary concern is exposure to lead
for children. Since systems triggered
into source water monitoring exceed
one or both action levels, EPA does not
believe it appropriate to reduce the
monitoring frequency for source water
lead and copper beyond the schedule in
today's action. While the Agency is
                          sensitive to the implementation
                          complications arising from different
                          frequencies, it does not believe that
                          adequate public health protection
                          should be sacrificed merely for the sake
                          of consistency.
                            One commenter pointed out a
                          discrepancy in the proposed language at
                          § 141.88(e) regarding whether systems
                          are required to monitor for both lead
                          and copper. The language in
                          § 141.88(e)(l) has been revised to clarify
                          that systems subject to source water
                          monitoring requirements must sample
                          for both lead and copper.
                            Finally, one commenter stated that in
                          making these revisions, EPA was setting
                          source water treatment levels by default.
                          EPA does not intend to set specific
                          levels requiring source water treatment.
                          EPA's intent is to specify the  levels of
                          lead and copper in source water which
                          will determine whether a system can
                          reduce source water monitoring.
                            (iii) Today's action. EPA has therefore
                          finalized the revision as proposed,
                          incorporating the clarification discussed
                          above. Sections 141.88(e)(l) and (2)
                          have been revised to allow water
                          systems that exceed the action level, but
                          for which the State has determined that
                          source water treatment is not needed, to
                          reduce the frequency of source water
                          monitoring if the system maintains
                          source water lead levels at or below
                          0.005 mg/L and source water copper
                          levels at or below 0.65 mg/L for three
                          consecutive monitoring periods, if using
                          an exclusively ground  water source, or
                          three consecutive years, if using a
                          surface water or combined surface and
                          ground water source.

                          8. Revisions to Laboratory Certification
                          Requirements in § 141.89
                            a. Proposed revision  and background.
                          EPA noted in the April 1996 Proposal
 that the proposed changes to the
 composite source water resampling
 triggers for lead and copper at
 § 141.88(a)(l)(iii) necessitate revisions
 to the laboratory certification
 procedures pertaining to composite
 source water samples at
 § 141.89(a)(l)(iii). EPA therefore
 proposed to delete the requirement for
 a laboratory to achieve the MDL for
 copper. It is no longer necessary to
 specify that laboratories be capable of
 achieving the copper MDL in order to
 accept composite source water samples.
 With the copper resampling trigger set
 at 0.160 mg/L, the laboratory will be
 sufficiently tested on its capabilities
 under § 141.89(a)(l)(ii)(B) where it is
 required to achieve a quantitative
 acceptance limit of ±10 percent of the
 actual amount of the performance
 evaluation sample when the actual
 amount is greater than or equal to 0.050
 mg/L.
  b. Comments and analysis. EPA did
 not receive any comments objecting to
•this revision.
  c. Today's action.  The Agency has
 revised § 141.89(a)(l)(iii) to delete the
 requirement for laboratories to achieve
 the copper MDL in order to accept
 composite samples. Sections
 141.89(a)(l)(iii)(A) and (B) have been
 eliminated since they no longer are
 necessary.

 9. Revisions to System Reporting
 Requirements in §141.90

  EPA is promulgating a number of
 changes to water system reporting
 requirements at § 141.90. The following
 chart summarizes these changes.
                     TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Paragraph
141.90(a)(1), introductory
text.
141.90(aK1MH) 	
141.90{aH1)(iH) 	
141.90(aH1)(iv) 	
141.90(aK1)(viil) 	
141.90(a)(2) 	
141.90{a)(3) 	

Revision
Remove reference to §141.88 and revise examples of "applicable monitoring periods" to in-
clude a 9-year monitoring period.
Remove requirement for certification of first-draw samples collected by the system
Replace with new requirement for documentation to accompany sample invalidation re-
quests.
Remove requirement for certification pertaining to first-draw samples collected by residents
and reserve paragraph.
Modify to address reporting requirement for those systems for which the State will be calcu-
lating the system's 90th percentile lead and copper levels.
Add requirement for reporting WQP monitoring results collected under §§141 87(c)— (f)
Remove requirement for CWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient num-
ber of Tier 1 sites cannot be located.
Replace with a new requirement for NTNCWSs that cannot find enough first-draw sampling
sites to identify non-first-draw sample times and locations.
Remove requirement for NTNCWSs to send letter to State demonstrating why a sufficient
number of Tier 1 sites cannot be located.
Preamble
discussion
C.9.a.
C 9 b
C.5.k.
C9b
C9c
C2b
C5b
C.5.C.
C5b


-------
             Federal Register/ Vol. 65, No.  8 / Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and  Regulations       1S97
                 TABLE 4.—SUMMARY OF CHANGES TO SYSTEM REPORTING REQUIREMENTS—Continued
        Paragraph
                                  Revision;
                          Preamble
                          discussion
 141.90(a)(4)


 141.90(a)(5)
 141.90(e)(2)
 141.90(e)(4)
 141.90(f) .
 141.90(h)
Replace with a new requirement for systems monitoring at the tap less frequently than once
  every 6 months to notify the State within 60 days if there are any changes in treatment or
  addition of a new source water.
Remove requirement to send letter to State demonstrating why 50% of sampling sites are
  not served by lead service lines.
Replace with new reporting requirement for small systems requesting a monitoring waiver ...
Remove reporting requirements associated with requesting reduced monitoring 	
Replace with new reporting requirement demonstrating representative locations for biweekly
  entry point water quality parameter monitoring after the installation of corrosion control
  treatment.
Revise all references to "§141.84(f)" to read "§141.84(e)"	
Remove reporting  requirements associated with rebutting presumption of control of entire
  length of LSL.
Add new requirement for systems collecting LSL samples after partial lead service line  re-
  placement to report results to the State.
Revise deadline for reporting completion of public education tasks	
Add new requirement for reporting lead  and copper concentrations where the State cal-
  culates a system's 90th percentile levels.
                                                                                                     C.5.J. & C.5.I.
                      C.5.b.

                      C.5.I.
                      C.5.f.
                      C.6.b.
                      C.S.b.
                      C.S.b.

                      C.S.b.

                      C-4.C.
                      C.9.C.
  Most of these changes are described in
more detail in other sections of the
preamble, as indicated in the table
above. The remaining changes to system
reporting requirements are described
below.
  a. Timing of reporting of tap water
monitoring for lead and copper and
water quality parameter monitoring.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
The introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l) of
the 1991 LCR requires a water system to
report monitoring data to the State for
all tap water samples within the first 10
days following the end of each
applicable monitoring period specified
in §§ 141.86,141.87, and 141.88. The
applicable monitoring periods listed in
the original rule were "every six-
months", "annually", and "every 3
years." Because the proposed revisions
included a provision that would allow
certain small water systems to conduct
tap water monitoring once every nine
years (see § 141.86(g)), EPA also
proposed a revision to the introductory
text of § 141.90(a)(l) to include "every
9 years" as one of the applicable
monitoring periods. In the August 1998
Notice, the Agency proposed to add
"quarterly" to this list to reflect the
proposed requirement that water
systems subject to the WQP monitoring
requirements of §§ 141.87(d) and (e)
report these results quarterly. Because
EPA was also proposing to give States
explicit discretion to require more
frequent reporting of WQP results, the
Agency also proposed to add a qualifier
to the introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l)
to make clear that the specific WQP
reporting requirements took precedence
over the general reporting requirements
wherever the two appeared to be in
conflict.
                 (ii) Comments and analysis. One
               commenter pointed out that EPA had
               apparently omitted the phrase, "below
               for," in the first sentence of the
               proposed rewording in the April 1996
               Proposal. EPA agrees that the phrase
               was inadvertently omitted from the
               April 1996 Proposal and has corrected
               the error in today's action. No
               commenter took issue with the
               proposed changes to the introductory
               text of § 141.90(a)(l) in response to
               either the April 1996 Proposal or the
               August 1998 Notice.
                 (iii) Today's action. The introductory
               text of § 141.90(a)(l) has been revised to
               reflect "every 9 years" as one of the
               applicable reporting frequencies.
               Today's action also revises the
               introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l) to
               include the qualifying phrase, "except
               as provided in paragraph (a)(l)(viii) of
               this section." Since today's action
               retains the requirement for a six-month
               monitoring period for WQPs after the
               State designates OWQPs under
               § 141.82(f), instead of revising this to a
               quarterly period, EPA has omitted
               "quarterly" from the list of applicable
               monitoring periods referenced in the
               introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l). The
               Agency believes that the language of
               § 141.90(a)(lKviii), added by today's
               language, makes clear that systems must
               report these WQP monitoring results to
               the State no less frequently than every
               six months.
                 Today's action also makes one
               technical correction to  the introductory
               text of § 141.90(a)(l). This language, as
               promulgated in 1991, referenced tap
               water samples collected in accordance
               with § 141.86, WQP samples collected
               in accordance with §'141.87, and source
               water samples collected in accordance
with § 141.88. Because the reporting
requirements for source water
monitoring are specified in § 141.90(b)
and not in § 141.90(a)(l), the reference
to § 141.88 has been deleted from the
introductory text of § 141.90(a)(l).
  b. Elimination of certification
requirements pertaining to first-draw
samples.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
Section 141.90(a)(l)(ii) of the LCR, as
promulgated in 1991, required water
systems to certify that each sample
collected by the system pursuant to
§ 141.86(d) was one-liter in volume and,
to the best of the system's knowledge,
had stood motionless in the service line
or in the interior plumbing of a
sampling site for at least six hours.
Section 141.90(a)(lXiii) required water
systems to certify that each tap sample
collected by residents was taken after
the water system informed the residents
of the proper sampling procedures. EPA
included these  requirements to help
ensure use of the proper sampling
protocol contained in § 141.86. Most
water systems have now completed at
least two rounds of monitoring for lead
and copper and have experience in
collecting first-draw samples. Because
the Agency believes that continuing to
require systems to provide these
certifications every monitoring period
imposes a burden that can no longer be
justified, EPA proposed eliminating
these two certification requirements in
the April 1996 Proposal.
  (ii) Comments and analysis. Most
commenters supported the proposal to
eliminate the requirement for written
certification of first-draw sample
collection. However, concern was
expressed that improper sample
collection might occur due to: new

-------
 1988
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and  Regulations
 homeowners who are not aware of
 collection requirements; staff turnover,
 particularly at NTNCWSs; and
 customers who forget proper sample
 collection procedures over time.
  EPA acknowledges that requiring
 written certification provides an extra
 level of assurance that samples have
 been collected correctly. However, EPA
 also believes that the reduced burden
 resulting from the elimination of these
 requirements outweighs the benefits of
 maintaining the certification
 requirements, especially since
 § 141.86(b)(2) still requires water
 systems to instruct residents regarding
 first-draw sample procedures. EPA also
 believes it is prudent to provide
 technical assistance, when necessary, to
 new water system staff, water system
 customers sampling for the first time,
 and customers who have previously
 sampled, to ensure proper sample
 collection. EPA has therefore eliminated
 these certification requirements.
  One commenter favored elimination
 of the certification requirement but
 suggested that public water systems
 should require a  certification from the
 homeowner. In addition, the commenter
 also suggested adding a requirement
 that a chain of custody be maintained
 until the laboratory has finished
 analyzing the sample. The LCR will
 continue to require (at § 141.86(b)(2))
 that water systems provide sampling
 instructions to residents who will be
 collecting first-draw samples. However,
 because EPA can only regulate water
 systems, the Rule cannot incorporate
 language that would require
 homeowners to provide a certification
 that they sampled correctly. Water
 systems are responsible for ensuring
 that reported results accurately reflect
 the samples collected. The absence of a
 Federal requirement for chain of
 custody does not preclude the State or
 the system from establishing these
 controls. EPA encourages States and
 systems to establish the necessary
 controls; however, the Agency has no
 plans to add a chain of custody
 requirement to the lead and copper
 regulations.
  (Hi) Today's action. The certification
 requirements pertaining to first-draw
 lead and copper tap water samples,
 previously codified at §§ 141.90(a)(l)(ii)
 and (iii), have been deleted. New
 requirements have been added at
 § 141.90(a)(l)(ii)  associated with
 requesting sample invalidation (see
 section C.S.k. of this preamble).
  c. State calculation/reporting of 90th
percentile levels.
  (i) Proposed revision and background.
Although no specific regulatory
language changes were proposed, the
                          preamble to the April 1996 Proposal
                          requested comment on a burden
                          reduction measure that would give
                          States the flexibility to eliminate the
                          requirement that systems calculate and
                          report 90th percentile lead and copper
                          values, provided that the State performs
                          the calculation. A number of water
                          systems, especially small water systems,
                          find it difficult to calculate these 90th
                          percentile values. Some States have
                          found that the 90th percentile lead and
                          copper values submitted by such
                          systems are incorrect. Consequently, a
                          number of these States routinely
                          recalculate the 90th percentile values
                          based on the individual tap  sample data
                          that systems are required to submit.
                          Granting States the option to calculate
                          the 90th percentile values in lieu of the
                          water system  would result in a burden
                          reduction for  those water systems who
                          are finding it  difficult and time
                          consuming to do the calculation on their
                          own and would not increase the burden
                          for those States who have already opted
                          to recalculate the systems' 90th
                          percentile values.
                             (ii) Comments and analysis. Many
                          commenters supported this  measure. A
                          few commenters, however, did not
                          support such  a change. One commenter
                          suggested that rather than eliminating
                          the requirement for systems to calculate
                          and report 90th percentile values, the
                          Rule should stipulate that it is up to the
                          State to determine whether systems
                          should report the results of all tap
                          samples, the 90th percentile values, or
                          both. The commenter maintained that
                          this change would be appropriate in
                          their State since the certified
                          laboratories are already required to
                          calculate and report the 90"th'percentile
                          values based  on the results of the lead
                          and copper tap samples that they have
                          just analyzed.
                            Because it is difficult to ensure that a
                          certified lab will report results to the
                          State within the reporting time frame
                          required of public water systems,
                          today's action does not include language
                          that allows States the flexibility to rely
                          on information reported to the State by
                          certified laboratories in lieu of system
                          reporting of the lead and copper tap
                          water results  and 90th percentile
                          calculations. EPA cannot impose
                          reporting requirements on certified labs
                          through the LCR and EPA does not have
                          authority to take enforcement action
                          against certified labs that do not report
                          data within the reporting time frame
                          required of public water systems.
                            A few commenters suggested that the
                          90th percentile reporting requirements
                          be eliminated for small systems only;
                          another commenter opposed the
                          proposed measure due to the belief that
requiring States to perform these
calculations would increase the data
manipulation load on already
overburdened State regulatory staff.
Some commenters suggested that
eliminating the requirement for systems
to calculate the 90th percentile lead and
copper values would result in systems
not having time to take appropriate
follow-up actions (such as collecting
WQP samples) within the required time
frame if the State reported the 90th
percentile values back to the system •
later in the monitoring period, or after
it had ended. Finally, several
commenters opposed allowing the
States to calculate systems'. 90th
percentile levels because they felt that
water system owner/operators need to
take responsibility for what is occurring
in their systems.
  EPA shares the concerns raised by
these commenters. Nevertheless, the
Agency believes that there may be
instances where it is least burdensome
overall for the State to perform the
calculations, as long as systems are
notified of the results sufficiently early
in the monitoring period to take any
required follow-up action. EPA
therefore has included provisions
providing States some flexibility to
eliminate the 90th percentile reporting
requirements for all systems, no
systems, or some subset (e.g., small
systems). Water systems for which the
State will calculate the 90th percentile
lead and copper levels must submit the
results of all lead and copper tap
samples to the State by a date
designated by the State. The State will
then calculate the system's 90th
percentile lead and copper
concentrations and will provide the
results of the calculations, in writing, to
the system prior to the end of the
applicable monitoring period.
  EPA agrees that if the State calculates
the 90th percentile lead and copper
levels, it is, possible that a water system
would not have sufficient time to collect
water quality parameter samples during
the same monitoring period that an
action level is exceeded. To avoid this
situation, EPA strongly encourages
States to provide the results of the 90th
percentile calculations to each system
well in advance of the  end of the
monitoring period. States will need to
advise systems when they must submit
lead and copper tap water sample
results to the State so that the State can
do these calculations in a timely
manner. While determining when the
systems must submit their lead and
copper tap results, the State should: (1)
Consider the length of time it will need
to review the lead and copper tap
results provided by all affected water

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules  and Regulations       1989
 systems; and (2) consider the length of
 time needed by water systems exceeding
 the lead and/or copper action level(s) to
 collect water quality parameter samples.
 If lead and copper tap results are not
 provided by the date required by the
 State, it becomes the system's
 responsibility to calculate their 90th
 percentile values.
  The Agency agrees that all systems
 should take responsibility for the
 quality of water delivered to their
 customers. However, it appears that
 some systems still find it difficult to
 calculate 90th percentile lead and
 copper levels correctly. Today's action
 allows States that are concerned with
 the accuracy of the systems' calculations
 to perform the calculations and then
 provide the results to the system before
 the end of the monitoring period so that
 the system can take appropriate action.
 EPA strongly encourages all water
 systems to calculate their 90th
 percentile lead and copper levels on
 their own using the "instructions"
 found in § 141.80(c)(3) even if the State
 has committed to performing these
 calculations and providing the results  of
 the calculations to the water system.
 Systems that determine that they have
 exceeded an action level may proceed
 with the appropriate follow-up
 requirements, such as WQP monitoring
 or lead public education. If, based on
 the same lead and copper tap results
 submitted by the system, the State
 determines that the system's 90th
 percentile lead and copper levels
 actually do not exceed either the lead or
 copper action levels, the system may
 discontinue with any follow-up actions
 it has begun.
  (iii) Today's action. EPA has therefore
 revised the requirement at
 § 141.90(a)(l)(iv), requiring system
 reporting of the 90th percentile lead and
 copper level calculations, to omit the
 requirement in those instances where
 the State will be performing the
 calculations in accordance with the
 provisions specified in a new
 § 141.90(h).  Section 141.90(h) contains
 the following requirements.
  • The State must have previously
 notified the  system that the State will
 calculate the 90th percentile lead and
 copper levels and have provided the
 system with a date, earlier than the end
 of the monitoring period, by which the
 system must provide the results of all
 lead and copper tap water samples
 collected during the monitoring period.
  • The system must provide the
 following information to the State by the
 date specified: The results of all lead
 and copper tap water samples,
including the location of each site and
the criteria under which the site was
 selected for the sampling pool, and'an
 identification of sampling sites utilized
 during the current monitoring period
 that were not sampled during previous
 monitoring periods along with an
 explanation why sampling sites have
 changed.
   •  The State must provide the results
 of the 90th percentile lead and copper
 calculations, in writing, to the water
 system before the end of the monitoring
 period.
   EPA is also revising § 142.14rdJ(9)"to
 make clear that States must maintain
 records pertaining to any State- .
 calculated 90th percentile levels along
 with records of data submitted pursuant
 to §141.90.
 W. Revisions to § 141.43
   Paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2) of § 141.43
 contain a one-time requirement for
 public water systems to identify and
 notify persons that may be affected by
 lead contamination of their drinking
 water. This requirement is obsolete.
 Notification pursuant to § 141.43 was to
 have occurred no later than June 1988.
 Moreover, the requirement for a water
 system to conduct public education
 pursuant to § 141.85 as long as the water
 system exceeds the lead action level is
 much more comprehensive and
 accomplishes the same goal of
 informing the public about the
 possibility of lead contamination. EPA
 has therefore deleted and reserved
 §§ 141.43(a)(2) and (b)(2). EPA believes
 this revision is appropriate to avoid
 confusion and redundancy.
  EPA also is revising § 141.43 to
 amend the definition of "lead free" to
 reflect the provisions of Sections
 1417(d) and (e) of the 1996 SDWA
 Amendments. Section 1417(a)(l) of the
 SDWA states that "no person may use
 any pipe, any pipe or plumbing fitting
 or fixture, any solder, or any flux, in the
 installation or repair of any public water
 system or any plumbing in a residential
 or nonresidential facility providing
 water for human consumption that is
 not lead free." Under section 1417(d),
 "lead free" means that solders and flux
 may not contain more than 0.2 percent
 lead; pipes, pipe fittings, and well
 pumps may not contain more  than 8.0
 percent lead; and plumbing fittings and
 fixtures must meet standards
 established under section 1417(e) (42
 U.S.C. 300g-6(e)). Section 1417(e) of the
 SDWA states that "lead free" with
regard to plumbing fittings and fixtures
intended to dispense water for human
consumption means those fittings and
fixtures that are in compliance with a
standard established under that section.
Today's action adds a paragraph (d)(3)
to § 141.43 to incorporate into the
 definition of "lead free" the following:
 "When used with respect to plumbing
 fittings and fixtures intended by the
 manufacturer to dispense water for
 human ingestion refers to fittings and
 fixtures that are in compliance with
 voluntary standards and testing
 protocols for the leaching of lead in
 accordance with 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(e)."
 As discussed previously (see section
 C.5.1.(ii)(A) of this preamble), EPA has
 recognized NSF International's Standard
 61, Section 9, as meeting the
 requirements for a voluntary lead-
 leaching standard under Section 1417(e)
 (62 FR 44686, Aug. 22,1997). If other
 standards that meet the requirements of
 SDWA sections 1417(d) and (e) are
 established in the future, EPA will
 publish appropriate notification in the
 Federal Register.

 D. Revisions to Requirements for States
  As discussed earlier in this preamble,
 primacy States must adopt and submit
 to EPA for approval a primacy program
 revision to incorporate the provisions of
 today's rule into their approved primacy
 program. In addition to the revised
 system requirements in Part 141, today's
 rule amends the State recordkeeping
 requirements of § 142.14, the LCR-
 specific State reporting requirements in
 § 142.15(c)(4), and the special primacy
 requirements unique to specific
 regulations in § 142.16. These revisions
 are discussed below.
  1. Records kept by States. As
 discussed in C. of this preamble, today's
 action contains several conforming
 changes to the State recordkeeping
 requirements associated with the LCR.
 These requirements are codified at
 § 142.14(d)(8). The following
 summarizes these revisions.
  •  Section 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been
 eliminated.
  •  Sections 142.14(d)(8)(i) through (vi)
 has been redesignated as
 §§ 142.14(d)(8)(ii) through (vii),
 respectively.
  • A new § 142.14(d)(8)(i) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of any system-specific
 requirements for (b)(l) and (b)(3)
 systems that have corrosion control
 treatment installed.
  • The newly designated
 § 142.14(d)(8)(vi) has been revised to
 eliminate the word "and" at the end of
 the paragraph.
  • The newly designated
 § 142.14(d)(8)(vii) has been revised to
 correct the punctuation at the end of the
paragraph.
  • Section § 142.14(d)(8)(viii) has been
revised to change the reference to
 "Section 141.84(f) to read "Section
 141.84(e)."

-------
 1990
Federal Register/Vol.  65,  No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules  and Regulations
   •  Section 142.14(d)C8)(ix) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of any determinations of
 monitoring or other requirements for
 systems monitoring for lead and copper
 at the tap less frequently than every six
 months that change treatment or add a
 new source of water.
   •  Section § 142.14(d)(8)(x) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of system-specific decisions
 regarding the content of written public
 education materials and/or distribution
 of these materials.
   •  Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xi) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of any system-specific
 determinations regarding use of non-
 first-draw samples under § 141.86(b)(5).
   •  Section §142.14(d)(8)(xii) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of any system-specific or case-
 by-case designations of sampling
 locations  for systems subject to reduced
 monitoring.
   •  Section § 142.l4(d)(8)(xiii) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of system-specific
 determinations pertaining to alternative
 sample collection periods for systems
 subject to reduced monitoring.
   •  Section § 142.l4(d)(8)(xiv) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of any determinations,
 including waiver renewals and
 revocations.
   •  Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xv) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of any determinations made
 regarding representative entry point
 monitoring locations at ground water
 systems.
  •  Section § 142.14(d)(8)(xvi) has been
 added to require States to maintain
 records of any system-specific
 determinations  made regarding the
 submission of information to
 demonstrate compliance with partial
 lead service line replacement
 requirements.
  •  Section §142.14(d)(8)(xvii) has
 been added to require States to maintain
 records of any system-specific decisions
 regarding the resubmission of detailed
 documentation  demonstrating
 completion of public education
 requirements.
  •  Section § 142.14(d)(9) has been
 revised to include any State-calculated
 90th percentile  values among records
 States must maintain relative to data
 submitted pursuant to § 141.90.
  •  Section §142.14(d)(10)  has been
 revised to include records of State
activities, and the results thereof, to
 determine compliance with the
requirements related to partial lead
service line replacement and to include
                          records of sample invalidation
                          determinations.
                             • Section § 142.14(d)(ll) has been
                          revised to change the reference to
                          "§§ 142.14(d)(8Xi) through (d)(8)(viii)"
                          to read "§§ 142.14(d)(8)(i) through
                          (d)(8Kxvii)."
                             2. Reporting requirements for States.
                             a. Proposed revision and background.
                          Under the 1991 Rule, States were
                          required to report up to eleven LCR
                          implementation milestones for each
                          water system. These milestones were:
                             • Lead action level exceedance and
                          date of the exceedance;
                             • Copper action level exceedance and
                          date of the exceedance;
                             • Corrosion control study required;
                             • Corrosion control study completed
                          and date State received the results of the
                          study;
                             • State designation of CCT and date
                          of the determination;
                             • State designation of source water
                          treatment and date of the determination;
                             • CCT installed;
                             • Source water treatment installed;
                             • State designation of optimal water
                          quality control parameters and date of
                          the determination;
                             • State designation of maximum
                          permissible source water levels; and
                             • Lead service line replacement
                          required, accelerated replacement
                          schedule (if any), and annual
                          compliance with the replacement
                          schedule.
                            Through implementation guidance,
                          EPA had also requested that States
                          report 90th percentile lead and copper
                          values in conjunction with lead action
                          level exceedance and copper action
                          level exceedance milestones,
                          respectively, and requested States to
                          provide all 90th percentile lead levels
                          for large systems  and for any medium-
                          size and small size system once they
                          had exceeded the lead action level
                          (EPA, 1992b).
                            In the April 1996 Proposal, EPA
                          requested comment on several revisions
                          to these milestones. These changes
                          included a requirement to report all
                          90th percentile lead values for large and
                          medium-size systems, elimination of the
                          two corrosion control study milestones,
                          the CCT installed milestone, and the
                          State designation of maximum
                          permissible source water levels
                          milestone. The proposed revisions also
                          would have added a date to the source
                          water treatment installed milestone and
                          streamlined the lead service line
                          replacement required milestone. In
                          addition, the Agency requested public
                          comment on whether it should require
                          the reporting of the optimal water
                          quality control parameter limits
                          designated by the State under
 § 141.82(f), require the reporting of the
 maximum permissible source water
 levels designated by the State under
 § 141.83(b)(4), and retain the
 requirement for States to report any
 accelerated lead service line
 replacement schedule established
 pursuant to § 141.84(f).
  In light of the public comments
 received and other, concurrent internal
 Agency discussions, EPA requested
 public comment in the April 1998
 Notice on another regulatory option
 pertaining to State reporting
 requirements. Under the April 1998
 option, EPA would require the
 following:
  • All lead 90th percentile values for
 large and medium-size systems;
  • 90th percentile values that exceed
 the lead action level for small systems;
  • 90th percentile copper values that
 exceed the copper action level for all
 systems;
  • A new "deemed" milestone,
 indicating the system has optimized
 corrosion control and the basis for that
 determination, and the  date of the
 determination;
  • The streamlined lead service line
 replacement required milestone
 proposed in 1996; and
  • A new "done" milestone, indicating
 the system had optimized corrosion
 control and completed any required
 source water treatment steps and lead
 service line replacement requirements,
 and the date of the determination.
  The "deemed" and "done" milestones
 would be reported for all systems. The
 lead service line replacement required
 milestone would continue to be
 reported only for those systems
 triggered into the requirement.
  b. Comments and analysis.
  EPA received mixed comments in
 response to the April 1996 Proposal.
 While some commenters agreed with
 the proposed revisions,  others took
 issue with some, or all,  of the
 milestones that EPA proposed to retain.
 In particular, several commenters took
 issue with the need to report many of
the interim milestones,  arguing that it is
 inconsistent with the concept of
performance partnerships for EPA to
track LCR implementation at the level
suggested by the milestones. Two
commenters objected to reporting all
 90th percentile lead values for large and
medium-size systems. One of these
commenters thought the information
would be confusing to the public; the
other commenter raised concern about
the burden implications. A third
commenter recommended that EPA
require the reporting of all 90th
percentile values for all systems. None
of the commenters supported reporting

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday,  January  12, 2000/Rules and Regulations       1991
 of the additional items (i.e., State-
 specified optimal water quality control
 parameters, State-specified maximum
 permissible source water levels, and
 accelerated lead service line
 replacement schedules) on which EPA
 requested comment. The reasons for
 opposing such requirements were
 similar to those expressed, in general,
 about State reporting requirements—
 lack of clear justification on the part of
 EPA, burden implications, and
 inconsistency with the concept of
 performance partnerships.
   In light of these comments, the
 Agency thoroughly re-examined its need
 for, and planned use of, system-specific
 LCR implementation data. EPA
 concluded that the Agency needs more
 information for this Rule than is
 generally true for other NPDWRs. The
 Agency's rationale is explained in the
 April 1998 Notice and is based on the
 fact that lead is a priority contaminant
 as well as the nature of the rule that
 provides States broad discretion in
 specifying precisely what constitutes
 compliance for each water system. The
 Agency also concluded, however, that
 the use of exception-based reportingIS
 for this Rule has resulted in
 unanticipated data anomalies that make
 the use of the reported milestones
 problematic. EPA therefore requested
 public comment on  a revised option that
 would eliminate all  but one of the
 original treatment milestones and
 replace the others with two newly
 defined milestones that would need to
 be reported for all systems.
  Commenters were more supportive of
 the April 1998 option than they were of
 the 1996 option. Several commenters
 continued to have concerns, however. A
 few commenters believe EPA still has
 not provided adequate justification for
 this reporting. In particular, several
 commenters opposed the requirement to
 report the "done" milestone for every
 system and suggested that it be required
 only for those systems that continue to
 exceed an action level after optimizing
 CCT. One commenter questioned
 whether a system would ever really be
 done, since new requirements and/or
 other changes at the system could
 necessitate adjustments in CCT or
trigger a system [back] into lead service
 line replacement requirements at some
  15 Under the 1991 requirements, States only
report a milestone if it is appropriate to a water
system. Thus, for example, there is no requirement
to report the CCT installed milestone for a small/
medium-size system that is deemed to be optimized
after demonstrating for two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods that it does not exceed either
the lead or the copper action level.
 time in the future.16 While the Agency
 believes that most systems not triggered
 into lead service line replacement
 requirements should be "done" at the
 time they are considered to have
 optimized corrosion control, the
 potential exists that this may not be
 true, especially since there is no way to
 discontinue source water treatment
 requirements once a State has
 determined that source water treatment
 is required. The Agency has eliminated
 all milestones that might otherwise
 indicate that a water system has been
 triggered into source water treatment.
 EPA therefore believes it is important
 for States to explicitly indicate that a
 system is "done," rather than for EPA to
 infer this based on the "deemed"
 milestone and the available 90th
 percentile level information. The
 Agency believes the additional burden
 of reporting this milestone will be
 minimal in those cases when the
 "deemed" and the "done" milestones
 occur at the same time. EPA
 acknowledges that future events may
 necessitate some "done" systems to
 revisit specific LCR treatment technique
 requirements. The Agency will address
 how these situations are to be reported
 in implementation guidance.
  A few commenters objected to
 reporting 90th percentile lead levels
 other than those reflecting action level
 exceedances. EPA would, like to receive
 all 90th percentile values and
 encourages States to provide them. In
 light of the reporting burden involved,
 however, the Agency is not requiring
 the reporting of either non-exceedance
 lead values for small systems or non-
 exceedance copper values for any size
 system. EPA plans to use the 90th
 percentile lead values to show how
 levels of lead at the tap have changed
 over time for large and medium-size
 systems and,  by extrapolation, for small
 systems. In terms of routine reporting,
 this is the only measure that the Agency
 has for showing the Rule's effectiveness.
 The goal of the LCR is to get lead levels
 at the tap to as close to zero as possible.
Without any 90th percentile lead data
below the action level, EPA would have
no way to measure progress toward the
goal.
  Several commenters who supported
the revisions to the reporting
requirements noted that  States would
need a long lead time to  implement the
changes. One commenter, for example,
mentioned that his State was in the
  i« Systems may cease lead service line
replacement before they have replaced all the lead
service lines they own if the 90th percentile lead
levels from routine tap water monitoring do not
exceed 0.015 mg/L for two consecutive monitoring
periods.
 process of developing an automated
 information system and that it would
 not be possible to incorporate the
 proposed revisions until some time after
 the new system was online. Other
 commenters questioned whether
 requisite resources would be available
 to make necessary changes to State
 information systems. EPA recognizes
 that a relatively long lead time is needed
 to give States time to make changes to
 automated data systems. EPA also needs
 time to make the necessary revisions to
 the Safe Drinking Water Information
 System (SDWISJ. Beginning May 15,
 2000, States may report in accordance
 with the new requirements; however,
 States have until January 14, 2002 to
 complete the transition to the new
 reporting requirements. States will not
 be required to report in accordance with
 the revised requirements until January
 14, 2002. Between May 15, 2000, and
 January 14, 2002, States have the option
 to report compliance with either the
 1991 reporting requirements or the
 revised requirements in today's action.
 Because of this compliance schedule,
 EPA has separately codified the new
 requirements at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). The
 requirements, codified in the 1991 Rule
 at §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii) have
 been redesignated as
 §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G),
 respectively, and introductory text
 added at § 142.15(c)(4)(i) to identify the
 period during which they are to be
 reported.
  Finally, the  Agency received a few
 comments in response to EPA's request
 for  comment on the need for the rule
 language to explicitly state that the
 Administrator of EPA would specify the
 format of reporting. No commenter
 objected to this revision, however, two
 commenters suggested that EPA adopt a
 consistent format for reporting drinking
 water data and adhere to it to minimize
 State burden. EPA agrees that the
reporting format for the LCR should be
 consistent with other drinking water
 data reporting and will publish specific
formatting instructions as a part of
implementation guidance.
  c. Today's action. After considering
the public comments received, EPA has
revised § 142.15(c)(4) along the lines of
the regulatory  option discussed in the
April 1998 Notice. Specifically, the
Agency has made the following
revisions.
  •  EPA has made two substantive
changes to the introductory text of
§ 142.15(c)(4).  (1) EPA has changed the
schedule of reporting from "May 15,
August 15, November 15, and February
15 of each year" to "quarterly."
Although the Agency has no plans to
change the actual due dates at the

-------
 1992
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
 current time, this revision provides
 flexibility to make such a change
 through guidance, rather than requiring
 another rulemaking, should it be
 appropriate to alter the schedule in the
 future. (2) The Rule now states that the
 Administrator [of EPA] will prescribe
 the format of reporting. As discussed
 above, this will be done through
 implementation guidance.
   • Sections 142.15(c)(4)(i) through (vii)
 have been redesignated as
 §§ 142.15(c)(4)(i)(A) through (G),
 respectively. Introductory text has been
 added at § 142.15(c)(4](i) to indicate that
 the requirements in that paragraph are
 effective through May 14, 2000.
   • A new paragraph had been added at
 § 142.15(c)(4)(ii) to indicate that States
 have the option to report in accordance
 with the requirements in either
 § 142.15(c)(4)(i) or § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)
 during the time period of May 15, 2000
 through January 14,2002.
   • A new set of reporting
 requirements, described below, has been
 added at § 142.15(c)(4)(iii). State must
 begin complying with these
 requirements on January 14, 2002.
 Under these revised reporting
 requirements, States no longer are
 required to submit the system name, as
 well as the system identification
 number. EPA deleted the requirement
 for the system name as a part  of LCR
 reporting since this information already
 is contained in EPA's information
 system through inventory data
 submitted under § 142.15(b).
  The other revised State reporting
 requirements are as follows.
  • The requirement to report lead and
 copper action level exceedances
 (§142.15(c)(4)(i)(A), as redesignated, of
 the 1991 Rule) has been eliminated. In
 its place, today's action requires the
 reporting of 90th percentile values and
 the first and last  date of the monitoring
 period for which the 90th percentile
 value was calculated as follows:
—All 90th percentile lead values,
  regardless of whether the lead action
  level is exceeded, for all large and
  medium-size systems, pursuant to
  §142.15(c)(4)(m)(A);
—90th percentile lead values for each
  small system for each monitoring
  period in which the system  exceeds
  the lead action level, pursuant to
  §142.15(c)(4)(iii)(B); and
—90th percentile copper values for each
  system for each monitoring  period in
  which the system exceeds the copper
  action level, pursuant to
  §142.15(c)C4)(iii)(C).
  • The reporting of interim treatment
milestones (§§142.15(cK4)(i)(B) through
(G), as redesignated, of the 1991 Rule)
                          has been eliminated. In their place,
                          today's action requires the reporting of
                          the following three milestones.
                          —A "deemed" milestone to be reported
                            for each public water system for
                            which the State has designated
                            optimal water quality control
                            parameters under § 141.82(f), or
                            which the State has deemed to have
                            optimized corrosion control under
                            § 141.81(b)(l) or (b)(3), and the date
                            and basis of the determination. This
                            milestone is to be reported for all
                            systems, pursuant to
                            § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(D). The Agency will
                            provide instructions on how to report
                            different scenarios (e.g., the system
                            adjusted existing treatment rather
                            than installing new CCT) in the
                            implementation guidance.
                          —Each public water system required to
                            begin replacing lead service lines as
                            specified in § 141.84 and the date the
                            system is to begin replacement,
                            pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(E).
                          —A "done" milestone to be reported for
                            each public water system that has
                            completed all of the following
                            requirements, as appropriate:
                            Optimization of corrosion control; any
                            applicable source water treatment
                            requirements under § 141.83; and any
                            applicable lead service line
                            replacement requirements under
                            § 141.84. States also are required to
                            report the date of the State's
                            determination that these requirements
                            have been completed. This milestone
                            is to be reported for all systems,
                            pursuant to § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(F).
                            3. Special primacy considerations. As
                          discussed in C of this preamble, today's
                          action contains several changes to the
                          language of § 142.16(d). These changes
                          are summarized below:
                            •  EPA has added provisions at
                          § 142.16(d)(l) for States to use an
                          alternative method of aggregating
                          multiple measurements taken during a
                          single day for a water quality parameter
                          at a sample location. States need not
                          submit anything under this paragraph if
                          they elect to use the formula for
                          aggregating these results specified in
                          § 141.82(g).
                            •  Section I42.16(d)(3) has been
                          revised to eliminate the requirement for
                          States to specify in their primacy
                          applications how they plan to verify
                          PWS demonstrations of limited control
                          over lead service lines.
                            •  A new § 142.16(d)(4) has been
                          added to require States to specify in
                          their primacy applications how they
                          plan to determine periods when lead
                          levels are likely to be the highest for
                          community water systems subject to
                          reduced monitoring that collect tap
 water lead and copper samples in
 months other than June, July, August,
 and/or September.

 E. Burden Reduction Suggestions Not
 Adopted
  In the preamble to the April 1996
 Proposal, EPA requested public
 comment on seven burden reduction
 suggestions that the Agency had
 received in the Summer of 1995 but
 which EPA had not evaluated
 thoroughly. EPA did not propose
 specific provisions in the April 1996
 Proposal, but indicated that the
 comments might be considered for
 further rulemaking after they had been
 fully evaluated. The Agency invited
 comments to provide suggestions as to
 how these suggestions might be
 implemented.
  After considering the comments
 received and other factors, EPA has
 decided to adopt two of the
 suggestions—flexibility for States to
 eliminate system reporting/calculation
 of 90th percentile levels and elimination
 of the public service announcement task
 under public education for small
 systems. These revisions are included in
 today's action and discussed in sections
 C.9.c. and C.4.b.(i), respectively of this
 preamble. The Agency has no plans to
 implement the other five suggestions. A
 summary of the comments received on
 these suggestions and EPA's rationale
 for not adopting them follows.

 1. Reduced Frequency of Water Quality
 Parameter Monitoring at Entry Points for
 Systems Subject to Water Quality
 Parameter Monitoring Requirements
  a.  Burden reduction suggestion  and
 background. The regulations require all
 large water systems  (except (b)(3)
 systems), and many small and medium-
 size  water systems that install OCCT to
 collect one sample at each entry point
 to the distribution system, at least every
 two weeks (biweekly), for pH, and, if
 alkalinity or a corrosion inhibitor is
 adjusted as part of OCCT, a reading of
 the dosage rate of the chemical used to
 adjust alkalinity or the inhibitor used,
 and the alkalinity concentration or
 concentration of orthophosphate or
 silica (whichever is applicable). In the
 April 1996 Proposal, EPA asked for
 comment on whether the frequency of
 this monitoring should be reduced from
biweekly to monthly.
  b.  Comments ana  analysis. EPA
received a number of comments on this
issue. Over half the commenters favored
revising the rule to allow less frequent
monitoring, at least for ground water
 systems not under the influence of
surface water. These commenters
 expressed the opinion that monthly, or

-------
            Federal Register / Vol. 65,  No. 8 / Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                      1993
even quarterly, entry point WQP
monitoring should provide sufficient
information for systems and States to
ensure maintenance of optimal
corrosion control. Several commenters
noted that biweekly monitoring
represents a major burden for many
ground water systems, especially those
which tend to have relatively stable
water chemistry and many entry points.
One commenter suggested that EPA
should give States the  discretion to
determine monitoring  frequency on a
case-by-case basis.
  The remaining commenters urged the
Agency to retain the current
requirement for biweekly monitoring;  a
few suggested that systems be required
to collect samples daily to ensure proper
operational control.  Several of the
commenters who opposed reducing the
frequency of monitoring thought that it
would be appropriate to reduce the
frequency of reporting the monitoring
results to the State, however, and
suggested that the reporting frequency
be reduced to monthly or quarterly.
  EPA disagrees with those commenters
who believe that monthly, or quarterly,
WQP monitoring at entry points will
provide sufficient information to ensure
the maintenance of optimal corrosion
control at most systems. The Agency
believes there are a number of variables,
such as pH and inhibitor concentration
that may affect levels of lead and copper
at the tap within a matter of days.
Frequent monitoring is required so that
appropriate measures can be taken to
adjust for these variables in a timely
manner. EPA therefore is retaining the
requirement for biweekly monitoring for
WQPs at entry points to the distribution
system and encourages water systems to
conduct even more frequent monitoring
for process control purposes. EPA has
revised the language at § 141.87(c)(2)
regarding the frequency of WQP
monitoring at the entry points to allow
States the flexibility to require more
frequent entry point monitoring. The
new language states  that systems must
conduct entry point  monitoring for
WQPs "no less frequently than every
two weeks (biweekly)."
  EPA is sensitive to the burden
biweekly entry point monitoring may
pose for some systems and is making a
change to help alleviate this burden. As
discussed in section C.G.b., EPA is
revising the LCR, as proposed, to allow
some ground water systems to collect
WQP samples at representative points
instead of requiring samples to be
collected at every entry point.
  As discussed in section C.2.b., today's
action also revises the  definition of what
constitutes compliance with State-
designated OWQPs. For entry point
WQP monitoring, the system will be
deemed to be in compliance with the
OWQPs so long as it has excursions
from the State-specified values/limits on
no more than 9 days in a six-month
period.
  A few commenters raised related
issues. One commenter, for example,
suggested that the frequency of WQP
monitoring be reduced to quarterly both
at entry points and within the
distribution system. This commenter
also noted that it was important that
States be able to adjust monitoring
frequencies to address seasonal
variability. EPA does not believe that
further rule changes are required to
address these concerns. The Agency
notes that nothing in the regulations
precludes a water system from
collecting routine distribution system
WQP samples on a quarterly basis.
Likewise, nothing in the rule prevents a
State from setting seasonal ranges, if
appropriate, to reflect seasonal
differences that might affect water
quality.
2. Use of Flushing/Bottled Water at
NTNCWSs in Lieu of Corrosion Control
Treatment
  a. Burden reduction suggestion and
background. EPA requested comments
on whether to allow NTNCWSs to use
flushing and/or bottled water in lieu of
installing CCT to ease the burden of
installing and operating CCT at these
systems.
  b. Comments and analysis. In general,
commenters supported the use of
flushing and/or bottled water, with
some commenters suggesting certain
restrictions. A few commenters
suggested allowing flushing and/or
bottled water for small CWSs as well.
  Commenters expressed many reasons
for supporting the use of flushing and/
or bottled water in lieu of CCT. The
main reasons for favoring flushing and/
or bottled water were the cost of
installing CCT, the lack of trained
personnel to operate and maintain the
treatment system, and  lack of facilities
to house treatment apparatus. Some
commenters believe that flushing and/or
bottled water is a more affordable,
practical solution, and may be more
protective of public health since it
eliminates the addition of chemicals
into the water supply by untrained
personnel. Commenters suggested that
automatic flushing devices are readily
available and inexpensive, and one
commenter suggested that public
education could be part of regular
mandatory safety meetings.
  Other commenters favored the use of
flushing and/or bottled water for
operational reasons. One commenter
explained that almost all of the water
used at their facility is for industrial
processes, but is conveyed in the same
piping as water used for non-potable
purposes. Bottled water is used for
drinking, but the piped water is still
used for hand-washing and the flushing
of toilets. The commenter notes that it
is not ingested and should therefore
pose no health risk from lead or copper.
Another system commented that bottled
water is already provided to employees
for aesthetic purposes. The commenters
felt that in these cases, the entire
volumes of water would need to be
treated at considerable cost, with no
additional health protection, and the
systems would still be paying for bottled
water.
  After considering all comments
received, EPA has concluded that, in
general, for the purposes of this
nationally-applicable rulemaking, the
use of flushing and/or bottled water for
NTNCWSs may not be as protective of
human health, may not provide any
significant relief to systems, and could
be a burden increase on States.
  EPA believes that in order for a
flushing and/or bottled water program
to be effective, and as protective of
human health as the installation of CCT,
the following criteria would have to be
met, at a minimum. A water system
using bottled  water would need to
ensure that the bottled water meets the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
lead and copper standards  (either via a
State-approved monitoring program or
via  certification from the bottled water
purveyor on an annual basis) and that
only the bottled water will be used for
human consumption at all  times. A
system relying on flushing would need
to utilize an automatic flushing device
that flushes all faucets used for
consumptive purposes at a State-
approved frequency identified through a
State-approved monitoring program.
  The flushing and/or bottled water
program would need to include '
additional monitoring and reporting,
well beyond what is presently included
in the LCR, and would also require more
State oversight. States would be
required to review and approve system
proposals, and review periodic
submittals by the system to determine
compliance with the flushing and/or
bottled water  program. Systems would
have to prepare and submit proposals to
the  States, perform plumbing
inspections and in most cases, install
automatic flushing devices or make
other plumbing modifications, which
could be costly. In addition, the State
would need to include provisions for
inspection of the automatic flushing
devices to ensure proper operation.

-------
 1994
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 Additional tap monitoring would need
 to be conducted by the systems before
 and after flushing, to determine how
 quickly lead and/or copper levels rise
 after flushing, and to determine an
 appropriate flushing frequency. Systems
 utilizing flushing could waste a
 significant amount of water on a daily
 basis which adds to cost and may be
 counter to conservation measures
 needed during periods when the water
 supply is low. These additional
 monitoring, reporting and program
 activities could increase the cost and
 burden on States and systems, which  is
 the opposite of what States and systems
 desire and EPA intended.
  EPA recognizes that there are some
 systems that may already be providing
 bottled water for aesthetic or other
 reasons, and the only piped water in use
 is utilized for washing hands and
 flushing toilets. These systems feel that
 the installation of CCT provides no
 added health protection from lead and
 copper. EPA also recognizes that there
 are systems which have unique
 circumstances which make compliance
 with some requirements seem
 unnecessary or very difficult. This is
 especially the case for small systems.  In
 the SDWA Amendments of 1996, EPA
 was directed to develop alternative
 compliance technologies to help
 systems comply with the drinking water
 regulations.  EPA has published a list of
 compliance technologies for certain
 system sizes that allows the use of
 point-of-use devices for compliance
 with the LCR (63 FR 42032, August 6,
 1998). EPA feels that these changes will
 offer systems a wider range of
 compliance options, and should
 eliminate the problems that systems
 have expressed regarding the
 installation of CCT. EPA also notes that
 there are numerous burden reduction
 features already incorporated in this
 rule. For the reasons stated, EPA has
 decided not  to incorporate the use of
 flushing and/or bottled water as an
 option for NTNCWSs under the LCR.
 3. Requirement for Water Systems to
Justify Corrosion Control Methods Not
Recommended
  a. Burden reduction suggestion  and
 background. The LCR requires the State
 to designate  OCCT for each system that
reaches the applicable step as outlined
 in §§ 141.81(d) and (e). Prior to this
 designation, most large systems must
perform corrosion control studies, and
small and medium systems exceeding
the lead or copper action level must
perform corrosion control studies if the
State specifically requires them to do so.
The studies must fulfill the
requirements in § 141.82(c). The
                          reporting requirements imposed on
                          these water systems by § 141.90(c)(3) are
                          that the systems must report the
                          information required by § 141.82(c).
                          This means that a water system must
                          report on its evaluation of each of the
                          three treatment categories specified and
                          then make a recommendation to the
                          State regarding which treatment it
                          thinks will provide optimal corrosion
                          control for that system. In the April
                          1996 Proposal, EPA requested comment
                          on a burden reduction suggestion to
                          eliminate the requirement that the
                          system report on those treatment
                          technologies which it does  not identify
                          as providing OCCT. The effect of such
                          a change would mean that a system
                          would only need to provide the
                          justification for its recommended
                          treatment to the State.
                            b. Comments and analysis. EPA
                          received comments on both sides of this
                          issue. States overwhelmingly opposed
                          the suggestion, pointing out that it
                          would greatly increase the burden on
                          them in designating OCCT and in
                          dealing with problems that might arise
                          later with some systems' corrosion
                          control. EPA agrees and believes that
                          those supporting the suggestion
                          generally overlooked the requirement
                          that CCT be optimal treatment, not just
                          any treatment that might reduce
                          corrosion in the distribution system.
                            The State is responsible for
                          designating OCCT for the system. In
                          order to determine what is optimal for
                          a given water system, the State needs
                          the complete picture in the form of all
                          the information developed by the water
                          system in the course of its evaluation of
                          the three treatment categories. The
                          suggestion, if implemented,'would not
                          relieve the water system of the effort to
                          evaluate the alternative treatments. It
                          would only have relieved the system of
                          the need to provide the results of that
                          evaluation to the State. The burden on
                          water systems to report the results of
                          their evaluations to the State is more
                          than offset by the States' need to make
                          informed decisions regarding OCCT for
                          those systems. Having all the
                          information from a water system up
                          front allows the State to make the right
                          decision the first time (which is actually
                          a form of burden reduction) and ensures
                          better public health protection.
                          Therefore, EPA has decided not to
                          implement the suggestion.

                          4. Use of Alternatives to Tap Samples to
                          Assess Corrosion Control Effectiveness
                            a. Burden reduction suggestion and
                          background. In the April 1996 Proposal,
                          EPA requested comment on a burden
                          reduction suggestion to allow
                          alternatives to tap water testing for lead
 and copper to assess the effectiveness of
 corrosion control. The Agency noted
 that it did not have data to develop
 alternative sampling methods that
 would provide information with as
 much certainty as direct sampling at
 taps. EPA invited the public to submit
 suggestions, and especially technical
 data, that could be used in developing
 reliable monitoring methods that do not
 involve household tap water sampling,
 that could be used to measure and
 predict actual and/or relative exposures
 of the public to lead and copper, and
 that could measure compliance with,
 and the efficacy of, CCT requirements.
  b. Comments and analysis. Many
 States, water utilities, municipalities,
 and water industry associations
 provided comments on this issue in
 1996; several of these reiterated their
 comments on the need for an alternative
 to tap lead/copper monitoring in
 response to the April 1998 Notice. Most
 commenters favor an alternative to
 residential sampling. Commenters cited
 major problems with the current
 monitoring requirements such as lack of
 control over sample collection,
 accessibility problems, insufficient sites,
 and disagreement with the
 appropriateness of triggering CCT
 requirements based on residential
 monitoring. Although EPA agrees that
 many of the problems cited are valid
 issues for some systems, the Agency has
 not been able to identify an acceptable
•alternative to tap water monitoring.
  While many commenters suggested
 conceptual alternative approaches to
 assess the effectiveness of corrosion
 control in lieu of residential lead and
 copper tap water monitoring, none
 provided specific technical data that
 would assist the Agency to develop
 acceptable alternative(s) to residential
 sampling. Some commenters, for
 example, felt that when pipe rigs, pipe
 loops, or corrosion test coupons were
 used,  many of these "surrogate" systems
 could be set up and operated in
 locations where there would be easy
 and controllable access  to utility
 personnel. Other commenters suggested
 that pipe loops placed in easily-
 accessible and controllable public
 buildings or other structures could be
 directly substituted for the residential
 sampling sites. None of these
 commenters provided any new data or
 proposals on exactly how the
 alternatives would be employed, and
 how the standards for performance of
 such systems would be developed and
 implemented to determine OCCT.
  EPA's basic rationale for tap
 monitoring is simply that no surrogate
 technique has been identified that can
 allow extrapolation to tap results with

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations       1995
 either accuracy, precision, or both. The
 Agency agrees that pipe loops, corrosion
 coupons, electrochemical rate
 measurements, and other kinds of test
 systems may be useful for many utilities
 to screen CCT strategies. In some studies
 for individual water systems, tap water
 concentrations were also predicted
 reasonably well, especially for copper.
 Establishing a regulatory standard based
 on corrosion rate or loop testing,
 however, would introduce additional
 complexity to the regulations. The
 concentrations or values obtained from
 these surrogate systems cannot be
 precisely and accurately related to the
 lead and copper levels at the tap since
 tap water levels also may be affected
 significantly by building-specific
• factors.
   After carefully evaluating information
 from many sources, EPA believes that
 the published research data at this point
 indicate that predicting tap water 90th
 percentile levels using surrogate
 systems (as described above) would be
 inherently imprecise on a national basis,
 and implementation of such an
 approach would be an expensive and
 impractical regulatory burden imposed
 on States, who would have to oversee
 the establishment and justification of
 surrogate systems on virtually a utility-
 by-utility basis. Additionally, EPA
 believes that the frequency and extent of
 sampling and analyses required to use
 the surrogate systems would not
 substantively reduce monitoring burden
 but would introduce greater uncertainty
 about the extent to which systems were
 reducing the lead and copper levels  at
 consumers' taps.
   Several commenters, including some
 of the trade organizations and States,
 suggested a different approach which
 EPA considers to be more promising
 because it should be easier to
 implement and should still provide
 sufficient public health protection.
 Although expressed slightly differently
 in each comment, the common theme is
 that once the physical and chemical
 nature of a distribution system is well-
 characterized through the current
 monitoring requirements, reliance could
 be placed on the continued maintenance
 of the optimized CCT.
   EPA believes that this might represent
 a scientifically-valid and feasible
 approach. However, to make this a
 viable regulatory option, additional
 research and several rule changes would
 be needed. For example, such an
 approach would require additional
 WQP monitoring both at the treatment
 plant and within the distribution
 system. It might also be necessary to
 make changes in the site targeting for
 copper and in the analytical methods
 used. In addition, EPA believes such an
 approach could result in an overall
 burden increase, especially for those
 small and medium-size systems that
 currently are not required to perform
 this type of process control monitoring
 and for the States who would need to
 designate OWQPs and determine
 compliance for these systems.
   Such changes are outside the scope of
 the current rulemaking. While EPA has
 no immediate plans to pursue this
 alternative, the Agency may choose to
 evaluate it at some point in the future
 if new data become available that
 suggest that a reliable and cost-effective
 approach could be developed and
 implemented effectively through a
 national regulation.
 5. Reduced Frequency for State
 Reporting of 90th Percentile and
 Milestone Data
   a. Burden reduction suggestion and
 background. In addition to reporting
 violations and follow-up enforcement
 actions to EPA quarterly, States are
 required to report exceedances  of lead
 and copper action levels and other LCR
 implementation milestones quarterly.
 Through guidance, the Agency  also has
 requested that 90th percentile values for
 lead be reported for all large and
 medium-size  systems. In the April 1996
 Proposal, EPA requested comment on a
 burden reduction suggestion to reduce
 the frequency of reporting 90th
 percentile data (including action level
 exceedances where appropriate) and
 LCR implementation milestone data to .
 once or twice a year.
  b.^Comments and analysis. The
 Agency received mixed comments on
 this suggestion. While some
 commenters supported it, a number of
 States noted that it does not matter what
 the frequency of reporting is—quarterly
 or less frequent—as long as they could
 continue to submit their  data to EPA
 quarterly.  Finally, one State wanted to
 retain the current requirement.
  After considering the comments
 received and the changes to the State
 reporting requirements discussed in
 section D.2. of this preamble, EPA has
 decided to retain the requirement to
 report 90th percentile and milestone
 data quarterly. In the Drinking Water
 Program, EPA reviews violations
 quarterly to ensure that timely and
 appropriate follow-up action is
 occurring. The Agency considers a
 water system's most recently reported
 90th percentile lead value in assessing
the severity of many LCR violations.
 Moreover, as discussed in section D.2.,
EPA has eliminated the reporting
requirements  for all but three
 implementation milestones. As
 explained in the April 1998 Notice, the
 Agency needs to have available in the
 national data base sufficient up-to-date
 information to provide a degree of
 oversight and to answer some basic
 questions. The Agency therefore
 believes it is appropriate for States to
 report quarterly information for those
 water systems that have achieved one or
 more of the three milestones.

 F. Simultaneous Compliance Comments
   1. Request for comments and
 background. The April 1998 Notice
 referenced comments that had been
 received on the Notice of Data
 Availability pertaining to the proposed
 rule for Disinfection/Disinfection By-
 Products (DDBP) (62 FR 59388,
 November 3,1997).  Commenters to the
 DDBP Notice had suggested that
 compliance with the proposed
 enhanced coagulation requirements
 could have an adverse effect on a water
 system's ability to maintain compliance
 with State-designated optimal water
 quality parameters under the LCR. In
 light of these concerns, in the April
 1998 Notice, EPA requested further
 public comment on  the following issues:
  •  How lowering pH and alkalinity
 during enhanced coagulation may cause
 LCR compliance problems, given that
 both pH and alkalinity levels can be
 adjusted to meet OWQPs prior to entry
 to the distribution system.
  • Whether decreasing the pH and
 alkalinity during enhanced coagulation
 and then increasing  them prior to
 distribution system entry may increase
 exceedances of lead  and copper action
 levels.
  • What issues should be addressed in
 guidance that EPA is developing to
 mitigate concerns about simultaneous
 compliance with enhanced coagulation
 and LCR requirements.
  • Whether additional regulatory
 provisions are necessary to address the
 simultaneous compliance issues
 pertaining to enhanced coagulation and
 LCR requirements, or whether guidance
 would be sufficient to mitigate potential
 compliance problems.
  2.  Comments and  analysis. Although
 a few commenters indicated that they
 did not anticipate simultaneous
 compliance problems, several others
 expressed concern about the ability of
water systems to simultaneously comply
with the enhanced coagulation
requirements of the DDBP rule and the
LCR. Commenters also were mixed as to
whether the issue of simultaneous
compliance could be addressed
adequately in guidance or whether
additional regulatory language was
needed.

-------
 1996
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
   Several commenters recommended
 that EPA establish a hierarchy of
 regulatory concerns. EPA does not
 believe that a hierarchy of regulatory
 concerns needs to be developed to deal
 with simultaneous compliance issues.
 EPA believes that the LCR is flexible
 enough that systems can comply with
 other rules that have conflicting
 treatment objectives without violating
 the LCR.
   EPA also received comments about
 providing flexibility to deal with
 regulatory conflicts related to different
 treatment objectives. The structure of
 the LCR provides flexibility to deal with
 the issue of simultaneous compliance
 with multiple rules. Section 141.2
 defines optimal corrosion control
 treatment, for purposes of complying
 with the LCR, as "the corrosion control
 treatment that minimizes the lead and
 copper concentration at users' taps
 while insuring that the treatment does
 not cause the water system to violate
 any national primary drinking water
 regulations." Section 141.82(c)(5) states
 that "The water system shall evaluate
 the effect of the chemicals used for
 corrosion control treatment on other
 water quality treatment processes."
 Section 141.82(d)(l) states that "When
 designating optimal treatment the State
 shall consider the effects that additional
 corrosion control treatment will have on
 water quality parameters and on other
 water quality treatment processes."
 Treatment changes to comply with
 another rule can affect the performance
 of corrosion control processes.
   As discussed previously, today's
 action adds provisions to the LCR
 requiring systems monitoring for lead
 and copper at the tap annually or less
 frequently to notify the State when
 treatment changes occur. EPA added
 this requirement because of concerns
 that changes in treatment may impact
 CCT. While the LCR does not require
 that this notification occur before the
 treatment change is implemented
 (unless  required by the State or other
 Federal drinking water regulations), the
 Agency encourages water systems to
 consult with the State before
 implementing a treatment change so as
 to minimize the risk that the treatment
 change will  have unanticipated adverse
 impacts on corrosion control. The State
 can require additional monitoring or the
 State can require the system to re-
 evaluate its CCT given the potentially
 different water quality considerations.
 One option may be to readjust the water
 quality to produce a finished water that
 meets the existing OWQPs. For
 example, pH and alkalinity can be
raised to counter the effect of enhanced
coagulation. Another option is that
                          different WQPs may need to be set to
                          define optimal corrosion control
                          depending upon the type of treatment
                          change. For example, a lower pH and
                          the addition of inhibitors may be the
                          solution to resolving the conflict
                          between pH and disinfection by-product
                          formation. Systems may change their
                          corrosion control approach from a high
                          pH passivation to an inhibitor
                          passivation process. A new set of
                          optimal corrosion control parameters
                          would need to be established by the
                          State under this scenario. The  system
                          would then need to meet those OWQPs.
                            EPA received several comments that a
                          comprehensive corrosion/corrosion by-
                          product regulation should be developed
                          that addresses other substances that
                          come into contact with drinking water
                          that could have a corrosive and/or
                          dissolving effect. EPA agrees that
                          control of corrosion of various materials
                          not directly related to health effects can
                          be a concern of water suppliers. EPA
                          believes that the corrosion control
                          treatment considerations discussed
                          above provide sufficient flexibility for
                          water systems to address water quality
                          aesthetic considerations. EPA is also
                          very conscious of the regulatory burden
                          imposed by the current SDWA
                          regulations, and believes that
                          promulgating corrosion-related
                          regulations to require utilities to meet
                          aesthetic performance standards is not
                          warranted. EPA does not have  exposure
                          or health effects data that show that the
                          other corrosion by-products merit a
                          NPDWR. Thus, EPA does not believe
                          that the scope of the corrosion  control
                          regulations should be expanded beyond
                          lead, copper and asbestos. Asbestos was
                          included in the Phase II rulemaking (56
                          FR 3526, Jan. 30,1991).
                            EPA also received comments related
                          to the cost of simultaneous compliance.
                          EPA recognizes that water chemistry
                          changes might result from either
                          optimization of corrosion control or
                          coagulation (or other treatment
                          processes). In order to meet all  finished
                          water quality objectives, systems may
                          need to modify an existing process or
                          install additional process equipment.
                          EPA considers these to be necessary
                          changes and costs to achieve the best
                          overall treatment and risk reduction.
                          EPA does not consider the cost of
                          chemical feed equipment to be
                          significant, especially when compared
                          to other types of drinking water
                          treatment technology.
                           3. Today's action. After considering
                          the comments received, EPA has
                          concluded that the LCR, as modified by
                          the revisions previously discussed in
                          today's action, provides water systems
                          sufficient flexibility to address issues
 arising from the need to simultaneously
 comply with other drinking water
 regulations. The Agency, therefore, does
 not plan to further revise the LCR to
 address these issues. The Agency has
 developed guidance that addresses the
 issue of simultaneous compliance with
 enhanced coagulation and LCR
 requirements (EPA, 1999c).

 G. Administrative Requirements

 1. Executive Order 12866
   Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
 51735, Oct. 4,1993), the Agency must
 determine whether the regulatory action
 is "significant" and therefore subject to
 Office of Management and Budget
 (OMB) review and the requirements of
 the Executive Order. The Order defines
 "significant regulatory action" as one
 that is likely to result in a rule that may:
   •  Have an annual effect on the
 economy of $100 million or more, or
 adversely affect in a material way the
 economy, a sector  of the economy,
 productivity, competition, jobs, the
 environment, public health or safety, or
 'State, local or tribal governments or
 communities;
   • Create a serious inconsistency or
 otherwise interfere with an action taken
 or planned by another agency;
   • Materially alter the budgetary
 impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
 or loan programs or the right and
 obligations of the recipients thereof; or
  • Raise novel legal or policy issues
 arising out of legal mandates, the
 President's priorities, or the principles .
 set forth in the Executive Order.
  Pursuant to the terms of Executive
 Order 12866, it has been determined
 that this rule is not a "significant
 regulatory action" and is therefore not
 subject to OMB review.

 2. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as
 Amended by the Small Business
 Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq.
  The RFA generally requires an agency
 to prepare a regulatory flexibility
 analysis for any rule subject to notice
 and comment rulemaking requirements
 under the Administrative Procedure Act
 or any  other statute unless the agency
 certifies that the rule will not have a
 significant economic impact on a
 substantial number of small entities.
 Small entities include small businesses,
 small organizations, and small
government jurisdictions.
  The RFA provides default definitions
for each type of small entity. It also
authorizes an agency to use alternative
 definitions for each category of small
entity,  "which are appropriate to the
activities of the agency" after proposing

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules  and Regulations
                                                                      1997
 the alternative definition(s) in the
 Federal Register and taking comment. 5
 U.S.C sees. 601 (3)-(5). In addition to
 the above, to establish an alternative
 small business definition, agencies must
 consult with SBA's Chief Counsel for
 advocacy.
  For purposes of assessing the impacts
 of today's rule on small entities, EPA
 considered small  entities to be those
 public water systems serving 10,000 or
 fewer customers. Public water systems
 include both publicly and privately
 owned water systems. In accordance
 with the RFA requirements, EPA
 proposed using this alternative
 definition for governmental
 jurisdictions, small businesses and
 small not-for-profit enterprises in the
 Federal Register (63 FR 7620-7621,
 February 13,1998), requested public
 comment, consulted with small
 Business administration (SBA) on the
 alternative definition as it relates to
 small businesses,  and finalized the
 alternative definition in the final
 Consumer Confidence Report regulation
 (63 FR 44512, Aug 19,1998). As stated
 in that Final Rule, the alternative
 definition would be applied to all future
 drinking water regulations.
  After considering the economic
 impacts of today's final rule on small
 entities, I certify that this action  will not
 have significant economic impact on a
 substantial number of small entities.
 The Lead and Copper Rule affects each
 water system in the the defined universe
 of small entities (drinking water  systems
 serving 10,000 or fewer customers) in a
 different way. For many small entities,
 the rule will result in a reduced
 economic impact. It will have a positive
 effect on the revenues of .all systems but
 the very smallest systems—those
 serving fewer then 500 customers. Even
 for these systems, however, the
 economic impact will not exceed one
 percent of their revenues during  the first
three years; beyond the first three years
 these systems also will experience
burden and cost savings. In these
 circumstances, EPA has concluded that
the Rule will not have a significant
 impact on a substantial  number of small
 entities. EPA estimates of the impacts of
this rule on small  entities are contained
 in Chapter 5 of the Information
 Collection Request (EPA, 1999a).
  Although this final rule will not have
 a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the
 impact of this rule on small entities.
Today's rule amends EPA's 1991 Lead
and Copper Rule to reduce the burden
on PWSs, especially smaller systems.
These revisions make a  number of
 changes including the establishment of
 differing compliance or reporting
 requirements for smaller systems that
 take into account the resources available
 to smaller water systems. In addition,
 the final regulation clarifies and
 simplifies the current compliance and
 reporting requirements and eliminates
 unnecessary or redundant requirements.
 The Agency has incorporated provisions
 into the rule that specifically benefit
 many small entities. These include
 monitoring waiver provisions where the
 risk of high levels of lead or copper at
 the tap are low and greater flexibility in
 the delivery of required public
 education materials. In addition, other
 provisions, while not specifically
 targeted for small entities, should
 further reduce burden for many small
 entities. These provisions include
 accelerated reduced monitoring, sample
 invalidation, elimination of sample site
 justifications and sample collection
 certifications, and flexibility for the
 State to calculate 90th percentile levels
 for the system.
 3. Paperwork Reduction Act
  The Office of Management and Budget
 (OMB) has approved the information
 collection requirements contained in
 this rule under the provisions of the
 Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB
 control number 2040-0210.
  This rule changes recordkeeping and
 reporting requirements  for some water
 systems and the States in the following
 categories: lead and copper tap  water
 monitoring; WQP monitoring; changes
 in treatment and addition of a new
 source; and LSL replacement. This rule
 also requires more frequent reporting of
 the completion  of public education
 tasks for CWSs serving more than 3,300.
 This information collection is necessary
 to evaluate system-specific needs,
 including determining compliance,
 examining  treatment effectiveness;
 adjusting monitoring frequencies and
 schedules to address possible public
 health concerns; and determining
 whether the public is receiving  timely
 notification of possible health risks
 associated with high levels of lead at the
 tap.
  In addition, this rule includes
requirements for States to report to EPA
 90th percentile lead and copper values
 for specified water systems; all systems
that have optimized, or  are deemed to
 have optimized CCT, and the basis of
that optimization determination; all
 systems that are triggered into LSL
replacement; and all systems that have
 completed the applicable CCT, source
water treatment, and LSL replacement
requirements. This  information will be
used to develop national trends and to
 help evaluate whether changes in
 national policy or regulations are
 necessary to protect public health.
 Reporting of all other LCR-related
 milestones has been eliminated.
   The information collection in this rule
 is mandatory and is authorized under
 the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
 information collected is not confidential
 and is considered public information.
 Many of the additional recordkeeping
 and reporting requirements in this rule
 are offset by other provisions of the rule
 that will reduce monitoring burden and
 eliminate some system and State
 reporting requirements.
   EPA is required to estimate the
 burden on water systems and States for
 complying with the final rule. Burden
 means the total time, effort, or financial
 resources expended by persons to
 generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
 provide information to or for a Federal
 agency. This includes the time needed
 to review instructions; develop, acquire,
 install, and utilize technology and
 systems for the purpose of collecting,
 validating, and verifying information,
 processing and maintaining
 information, and disclosing and
 providing information; adjust the
 existing ways to comply with any
 previously applicable instructions and
 requirements; train personnel to be able
 to respond to a collection of
 information; search data sources;
 complete and review the collection of
 information; and transmit or  otherwise
 disclose the information.
  For the first three years of
 implementation of this rule, EPA
 estimates that the annual burden on
 systems for reporting and recordkeeping
 will be 225,419 hours. This is based on
 an estimate that there are 75,945
 respondents per year who will each, on
 average, need to provide 58,813
 responses and that the average time per
 response will be 3.8 hours. The total
 annual cost burden for systems is
 estimated to be $3,380,500. This
 includes total annual labor costs of
 $3,349,000 and non-labor costs of
 $31,500 for the purchase of laboratory
 supplies, pre-printed public education
 materials, and postage. EPA also
 estimates that the annual burden on
 States for reporting and recordkeeping
 will be 69,296 hours. The total annual
 average cost for States is estimated to be
 $2,655,900. This is based on an estimate
that each of 56 State respondents will,
 on average, need to provide 77,523
responses and that the average response
will take 0.9 hours. This includes total
annual labor costs of $1,755,900 and
non-labor costs of $900,000 for
contractor support for the modification
of State data systems.

-------
 1998
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
   This action also contains a number of
 provisions intended to reduce burden
 and costs associated with implementing
 the 1991 requirements. These savings
                          offset much of the burden and cost
                          associated with today's action. Table 5
                          shows the estimated average annual
                          burden and cost savings and the net
 effect on burden and cost for the first
 three years of implementation.
     TABLE 5.—NET EFFECT OF LCRMR ON AVERAGE ANNUAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING BURDEN AND COST

Systems 	
States

Number of
respondents
75,945
56
New/revised requirements
Burden
hours
235,419
69,296
Total cost
($M)
"3,380.5
2,655.9
Reductions
Burden
hours
262 192
-19,241
Total cost
($M)
62044
4R7 ^

Net impact of LCRMR
Burden
hours
-36,773
50,055
Total cost
($M)
-2,823.9
2,168.4
   After the first three years, systems and
 States are expected to complete such
 activities as training, reading the
 regulations, and regulatory adoption.
• EPA estimates that the average annual
 burden and cost associated with today's
 action will decrease significantly at that
 time.
   An Agency may not conduct or
 sponsor, and a person is not required to
 respond to a collection of information
 unless  it displays a currently valid OMB
 control number. The OMB control
 numbers for EPA's regulations are listed
 in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
 15. EPA is amending the table in 40 CFR
 Part 9 of currently approved ICR control
 numbers issued by OMB for various
 regulations to list the information
 requirements contained in this final
 rule.
 4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

   Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
 Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
 Law 104—4, establishes requirements for
 Federal agencies to assess the effects of
 their regulatory actions on State, local,
 and tribal governments and the private
 sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
 EPA generally must prepare a written
 statement, including a cost-benefit
 analysis, for proposed and final rules
 with "Federal Mandates" that may
 result in expenditures to State, local,
 and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
 or to the private sector, of $100 million
 or more in any one year. Before
 promulgating an EPA rule for which a
 written statement is needed, section 205
 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
 identify and consider a reasonable
 number of regulatory alternatives and
 adopt the least costly, most cost-
 effective, or least burdensome
 alternative that achieves the objectives
 of the rule. The provisions of section
 205 do  not apply when they are
 inconsistent with applicable law.
 Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
 adopt an alternative other than the least
 costly, most cost-effective or least
burdensome alternative if the
                          Administrator publishes with the final
                          rule an explanation why that alternative
                          was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
                          any regulatory requirements that may
                          significantly or uniquely affect small
                          governments, including tribal
                          governments, it must have developed
                          under section 203 of the UMRA a small
                          government agency plan. The plan must
                          provide for notifying potentially
                          affected small governments, enabling
                          officials of affected small governments
                          to have meaningful and timely input in
                          the development of EPA regulatory
                          proposals with significant Federal
                          intergovernmental mandates and
                          informing, educating and advising small
                          governments on compliance with the
                          regulatory requirements.
                            EPA has determined that this rule
                          does not contain a Federal mandate that
                          may result in expenditures of $100
                          million or more for State, local, and
                          tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
                          the private sector, in any one year. The
                          overall effect of this  rule is estimated to
                          decrease overall expenditures to public
                          water systems (which include State,
                          local, and tribal governments as well as
                          the private sector) to comply with the
                          NPDWRs for lead and copper. Thus,
                          today's rule is not subject to the
                          requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
                          the UMRA.
                            This rule will establish requirements
                          that affect small water systems. EPA has
                          determined that this rule contains no
                          regulatory requirements that might
                          significantly or uniquely affect small
                          governments because the regulation
                          requires minimal expenditure of
                          resources and applies to all owners/
                          operators of public water systems, and
                          not uniquely to those owners/operators
                          that are small entities. Thus, this rule is
                          not subject to the requirements of
                          section 203 of UMRA.

                          5. Executive Order 13132
                            Executive Order 13132, entitled
                          "Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,
                          1999), requires EPA to develop an
                          accountable process  to ensure
                          "meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications." "Policies that have
federalism implications" is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have "substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government."
  Under Section 6 of Executive Order
13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute,
unless the Federal government provides
the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue  a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
  This final rule does not have
federalism implications. It will not  have
substantial direct effects on the  States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because the rule
is consistent with, and only makes
minor changes to,  the requirements
under the current national primary
drinking water regulations for lead  and
copper. The existing rule imposes
requirements on public water systems to
ensure that water delivered to users is
minimally corrosive, to treat source
water, remove lead service lines and
deliver public education where
necessary to ensure public health
protection. Today's rule does not make
any significant changes to these
treatment requirements but, as
explained elsewhere in today's notice,

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 65,  No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                       1999
makes minor adjustments to the rule's
requirements to enhance the efficiency
and effectiveness of current
requirements. In general, these changes
should result in slight burden
reductions for public water systems
(some of which are owned and operated
by local governmental entities). States
may, if they choose, maintain primary
enforcement authority for this rule by
adopting the revisions that are more
stringent than the existing rule (see
Table 2 in the section, "Primacy State
Program Revisions," in the beginning of
the preamble). EPA projects that States
choosing to maintain primacy for this
rule may incur a slight increase in
administrative costs due to the adoption
of these revisions, additional training,
and the modifications to the State
reporting requirements.  However, the
actual burdens incurred will vary from
State to State and, EPA projects that the
increased burden will not be significant
(see discussion of State impacts in
section G.3. of this preamble). In
addition, these revisions provide States
increased flexibility to make system-
specific decisions in some instances
(e.g., sample invalidation [Section
C.5.k.], small system waivers [Section
C.5.I.], alternative timing of sample
collection under reduced monitoring
[Section G.S.g.]  and representative
locations for entry point water quality
parameter monitoring at ground water
systems [Section C.6.b.]). Accordingly,
this rule will not have a substantial
direct effect on the States or on
intergovernmental relationships or
responsibilities. Thus, the requirements
of section 6 of the Executive Order do
not apply to this rule.
  Although section 6 of Executive Order
13132  does not apply to this rule, EPA
consulted with State and local
governments to enable them to provide
meaningful and timely input in the
development of this rule. Prior to the
April 1996 Proposal, EPA initiated a
number of activities to gain meaningful
input from State and local governments.
These activities included: Distribution
of a strawman proposal in August 1993;
State involvement in the development
of the April 1996 Proposal; and
distribution of newsletter articles
highlighting upcoming Federal Register
notices to organizations  representing
these governments. These activities are
discussed in greater detail in the
preamble to the April 1996 Proposal (61
FR 16364, middle column, Apr. 12,
1996).  In addition to continuing these
efforts, EPA has conducted the
following efforts to actively coordinate
with these groups.
  In 1997, in response to the comments
received to the April 1996 proposed
changes in State reporting requirements,
EPA worked with States through the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water's Data Sharing Committee (DSC)
to substantially revise these
requirements. Several States and the
Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators (ASDWA) participated
actively in this effort. The DSC
recommended the elimination of most
of the milestones required by the 1991
Rule, modifications to remaining
milestones including the reporting of
90th percentile data, and the addition of
two new milestones that the DSC
believes will provide more meaningful
data regarding the implementation
status of the LCR (EPA, 1997c). The
DSC's recommendations have been
incorporated into today's rule.17
  In April 1998 and August 1998, prior
to publishing additional Notices  for
comment, EPA again provided national,
local, and tribal organizations with brief
articles for inclusion in their newsletters
announcing upcoming plans to publish
the Notices and encouraging readers to
provide EPA comment on the additional
regulatory options described in those
notices. In addition, EPA coordinated
closely with several national
organizations and the States to provide
copies of the August 18,1998 Notice
directly to those water systems most
likely to be affected by the regulatory
option discussed in that notice,
including all water systems serving
more than 50,000 people  and any
smaller-size water system that is  likely
to continue to exceed an action level
after the installation of CCT. EPA also
requested review by a panel of State
Drinking Water Program Directors of the
Agency's estimated impacts on water
systems and States.
  In February  1999, EPA requested a
panel of six State Directors 18 to review
the EPA's revised estimate of Paperwork
Reduction Act-related burden and costs
associated with the LCR and the
LCRMR. EPA incorporated the
comments received from that review
(EPA, 1999d) in the final estimates
(EPA, 1999a).
  In general, State and local
governments support the provisions of
today's rule although many wanted EPA
to adopt more  burden reduction than is
included in today's action. Many of the
suggestions made by these commenters
have been incorporated into the final
rule. In particular, as described in
section C.2.b. in this preamble, EPA has
  "See Section D.2 of this preamble for a detailed
discussion of the State reporting requirement
revised the way in which compliance
with OWQPs is determined and
substantially revised State reporting
requirements primarily as a result of
these comments. Another concern
raised by these commenters, the
continuing requirement to collect tap
water lead and copper samples, is not
revised by today's rule because the goal
of the rule is to reduce the levels of lead
and copper at the tap to as close to the '
MCLGs as possible and the Agency does
not know of any alternatives that will
predict tap water lead and copper levels
with accuracy, precision, or both.19
Although the burden reductions are not
as extensive as some State and local
governments would like, EPA believes
that today's rule is necessary to effect as
many burden reductions as possible,
without jeppardizing the level of public
health protection, and to address a
number of implementation issues,
including lead service line replacement.
6. Consultation With Indian Tribal
Governments
  Under Executive Order 13084, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly or
uniquely affects the communities of
Indian tribal governments, and that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities, unless the
Federal Government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal
governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 13084'
requires EPA to provide the Office of
Management and Budget, in a separately
identified section of the preamble to the
rule, a description of the extent of EPA's
prior consultation with representatives
of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns,
and a statement supporting the need to
issue the regulation. In addition,
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting
elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal
governments "to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of
regulatory policies on matters that
significantly or uniquely affect their
communities."
  Today's rule does not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments, nor does it
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on those communities. The
provisions of today's rule apply to all
community and non-transient non-
  18 The panel consisted of the Directors of the
Drinking Water program from Iowa, Michigan,
Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas.
  19 See Section E.4 of this preamble for a more
detailed discussion of EPA's rationale for not
adopting an alternative to tap water monitoring.

-------
 2000
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 community water systems. Tribal
 governments may be the owners or
 operators of such systems, however,
 nothing in today's provisions uniquely
 affects them. The overall effect of
 today's rule should be to reduce water
 system operational costs slightly,
 depending on system-specific
 circumstances, with no change in the
 level of public health protection. EPA
 therefore concludes that today's rule
 does not significantly or uniquely affect
 the communities of Indian tribal
 governments. Accordingly, the
 requirements of section 3(b) of
 Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
 this rule.

 7. Bisk to Children Analysis

   Executive Order 13045: "Protection of
 Children from Environmental Health
 Risks and Safety Risks"  (62 FR19885,
 April 23,1997) applies to any rule that:
 (1) Is determined to be "economically
 significant" as defined under E.O.
 12866, and (2) concerns an
 environmental health or safety risk that
 EPA has reason to believe may have a
 disproportionate effect on children. If
 the regulatory action meets both criteria,
 the Agency must evaluate the
 environmental health or safety effects of
 the planned rule on children, and
 explain why the planned regulation is
 preferable to other potentially effective
 and reasonably feasible alternatives
 considered by the Agency. This Lead
 and Copper Rule Minor Revisions final
 rule is not subject to E.0.13045 because
 it is not "economically significant" as
 defined under E.0.12866.

 8. National Technology Transfer and
 Advancement Act

  Section 12(d) of the National
 Technology Transfer and Advancement
 Act of 1995 ("NTTAA"), Pub L. No.
 104-113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
 directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
 standards in its regulatory activities
 unless to do so would be inconsistent
 with applicable law or otherwise
 impractical. Voluntary consensus
 standards are technical standards (e.g.,
 materials specifications, test methods,
 sampling procedures, business
 practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standard bodies.
 The NTTAA directs EPA to provide
 Congress, through OMB, explanations
 when the Agency decides not to use
 available and applicable voluntary
 consensus standards.
  This action does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not.
consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
                          9. Likely Effect of Compliance With the
                          LCRMR on the Technical, Financial,
                          and Managerial Capacity of Public
                          Water Systems
                            Section 1420(d)(3) of the SDWA as
                          amended requires that, in promulgating
                          a NPDWR, the Administrator shall
                          include an analysis of the likely effect
                          of compliance with the regulation on
                          the technical, financial, and managerial
                          capacity of public water systems. The
                          following analysis has been performed
                          to fulfill this statutory obligation.
                            Overall water system capacity is
                          defined in guidance (EPA, 1998a) as the
                          ability to plan for, achieve, and
                          maintain compliance with applicable
                          drinking water standards. Capacity has
                          three components: technical,
                          managerial, and financial.
                            Technical capacity is the physical and
                          operational ability of a water system to
                          meet SDWA requirements. Technical
                          capacity refers to the physical
                          infrastructure of the water system,
                          including the adequacy of source water
                          and the adequacy of treatment, storage,
                          and distribution infrastructure. It also
                          refers to the ability of system personnel
                          to adequately operate and maintain the
                          system and to otherwise implement
                          requisite technical knowledge.
                            Managerial capacity is the ability of a
                          water system to conduct its affairs in a
                          manner enabling the system to achieve
                          and maintain compliance with SDWA
                          requirements. Managerial capacity refers
                          to the system's institutional and
                          administrative capabilities.
                            Financial capacity is a water system's
                          ability to acquire and manage sufficient
                          financial resources to allow the system
                          to achieve and maintain compliance
                          with SDWA requirements.

                          Key Points
                            There are 75,945 water systems
                          affected by this rule. Overall, these
                          systems are not expected to require
                          significantly increased technical,
                          financial, or managerial capacity as a
                          result of the LCRMR, as most of the
                          revisions reduce or clarify existing LCR
                          requirements. The few exceptions are
                          highlighted below.
                            •  There are an estimated 171 systems
                          deemed to have optimized corrosion
                          control treatment after demonstrating
                          that little or no lead corrosion is
                          occurring in the distribution system. A
                          few of these systems may be triggered
                          into the LCR's corrosion control
                          treatment requirements because they
                          exceed the copper action level. The 171
                          systems also will be required to conduct
                          monitoring for lead and copper at the
                          tap, and in source water, at least once
                          every three years. Some of these systems
 already are conducting such monitoring
 but, for a few systems, this LCRMR
 provision represents a new requirement.
 The affected systems predominantly
 serve more than 50,000 persons and are
 not expected to require significantly
 increased technical, financial, or
 managerial capacity to comply with
 these requirements. Certainly some
 individual facilities may have
 weaknesses in one or more of these
 areas but overall these systems with
 minimal corrosion in the distribution
 system should have or be able to easily
 obtain the capacity needed for these
 actions.
  •  There are an estimated 762 systems,
 592  of which serve 3,300 or fewer
 persons, subject to the LCR's lead
 service line replacement requirements.
 The LCRMR do not alter these basic
 requirements, and so do not affect the
 number of systems triggered into these
 requirements or significantly affect the
 amount of lead pipe to be replaced;
 however, the LCRMR do require
 additional consumer notification and
 modify post-replacement sampling and
 reporting requirements when the water
 system replaces less than the entire
 length of the lead  service line. These
 systems now will  be required to provide
 consumers served by the partially-
 replaced lead service line(s) 45-day
 advance notification of the replacement,
 guidance about possible short-term
 increases of lead levels at the tap, and
 steps consumers can take to minimize
 exposure. These systems also must take
 a post-replacement sample within three
 days of completing the replacement and
 provide the results to all affected
 consumers within three business days of
 receiving the results from the laboratory.
 These requirements strengthen the
 notification and post-partial
 replacement monitoring and reporting
 requirements of the 1991 LCR. The
 notification requirements may require
 an enhancement of technical,
 managerial, and financial capacity. EPA
 anticipates, however, that the post
 partial-replacement monitoring will
 require less capacity than the 1991 LCR
 because systems may now limit this
 monitoring to one sample per line
 (compared to one  sample per household
 served by the line) to comply with these
requirements. The net effect should
result in an overall decrease of
technical, managerial, and financial
 capacity required  to comply with these
requirements.
  • All 75,945 water systems
potentially are affected by new LCRMR
provisions requiring any water  system
subject to reduced monitoring for lead
and copper at the tap to notify the State
no later than 60 days after any change

-------
             Federal  Register/Vol.  65, No. 8/Wednesday, January  12,  200O/Rules and Regulations
                                                                       2OO1
 in treatment or the addition of a new
 source. The State, in response, may
 require the system to conduct some
 additional monitoring and/or to take
 other appropriate action to ensure that
 optimal corrosion control is maintained.
 Many States already impose comparable
 requirements as a condition of the
 operating permit and, thus, this
 provision will not represent a new
 requirement for many systems.
 Consequently, systems generally are not
 expected to require significantly
.increased technical, managerial, or
 financial capacity to deal with this
 requirement. Certainly some individual
 facilities may have weaknesses in one or
 more of these areas but overall, water
 systems should have or be able to easily
 obtain the capacity needed for these
 activities.
   •  There are an estimated 6,116
 systems, 5,552 of which serve 50,000 or
 fewer persons, required to monitor for
 water quality parameters after the
 installation of corrosion control
 treatment under the 1991 LCR. The
 LCRMR do not affect the monitoring
 requirement but makes changes in the
 way the results are to be evaluated to
 determine compliance with State-
 designated optimal water quality
 parameters. For some systems this
 revised approach for determining
 compliance is expected to require
 additional analysis to assess
 compliance, but to result in fewer
 systems incurring violations due to
 temporary short-term fluctuations in
 water quality. Some of these systems
 may need to enhance their technical,
 managerial, and financial capacity to
 comply with these requirements;
 however, most of the affected systems
 should have or easily be able to obtain
 the needed capacity because fewer
 resources will be required to address
 violations that likely would have
 occurred under the 1991 regulations.
 These violations, in turn, would have
 triggered activities including public
 notification and loss of eligibility for
 reduced monitoring that would have
 required technical, managerial, and
 financial capacity to address.
  • There are 4,649 CWSs and
 NTNCWSs that are estimated to
 continue to be required to conduct
 public education programs after the
 installation of treatment. 387 of these
 systems are CWSs that serve more than
 3,300 persons. Under the LCRMR, these
 387 systems will need to report
 completion of public education tasks to
the State twice a year, instead of once
 per year as required by the 1991 LCR.
The required supporting documentation
 for this second submission is minimal,
 since it need only include a list of the
 broadcast stations to which the system
 provided bi-annual public service
 announcements. Moreover, States have
 the discretion \o waive submission of
 the supporting documentation in some
 cases. The remaining 2,983 CWSs are no
 longer required to provide public
 service announcements and will
 continue to report completion of public
 education tasks on an annual basis.
 Therefore, water systems are not
 expected to require increased technical,
 financial, or managerial capacity to
 comply with this increased reporting
 requirement.
   Some of the LCRMR provisions clarify
 1991 LCR requirements. These
 clarifications include:
   • The requirement to properly
 operate and maintain optimal corrosion
 control;
   • The requirement that water systems
 deemed to have optimized corrosion
 control under § 141.81(b)(2) conduct
 routine water quality parameter
 monitoring;
   • The requirements pertaining to the
 number and location of tap water lead
 and copper sampling sites;
   • The requirements specifying the
 conditions under which a system must
 resume monitoring at the tap every six
 months;  and
   • The resampling triggers for
 composite source water samples.
   Certainly, there may be some
 individual facilities that need to
 enhance technical, financial, and
 managerial capacity to comply with
 these pre-existing requirements;
 however, most systems are expected to
 have or be able to easily obtain the
 capacity necessary for these activities.
   All 75,945 systems may benefit from
 one or more of the LCRMR provisions
 intended to reduce regulatory burden.
 There are an estimated 4,554 systems
 that are eligible to reduce the frequency
 of tap water monitoring to once every
 three years without first conducting
 several rounds of annual monitoring. An
 estimated 6,809 systems serving 3,300
 or fewer persons may be eligible for
 waivers that will reduce the frequency
 of monitoring for lead and/or copper at
 the tap to once every nine years. An
 estimated 397 of the 4,923 ground water
 systems subject to routine water quality
 parameter monitoring will be able to
reduce the number of samples by using
representative locations instead of
 sampling at every entry point. Some
 systems also will be able to reduce the
frequency of source water monitoring.
An estimated 6,116 systems subject to
routine water quality monitoring
requirements will be able to reduce
paperwork seeking approval for reduced
monitoring. All systems will be able to
 reduce the amount of supporting
 documentation that must accompany
 tap water monitoring results and an
 estimated 34,046 systems will be able to
 eliminate 90th percentile calculations.
 The 4,256 systems required to conduct
 public education will be able to take
 advantage of the LCRMR provisions
 allowing greater flexibility in the
 delivery of materials to homeowners
 and others in the community.
   Generally, it is expected that the
 reductions in regulatory burden will
 offset any enhanced technical, financial,
 and managerial capacity requirements
 resulting from the LCRMR. Certainly,
 some individual facilities may have
 weaknesses in one or more of these
 areas with respect to the basic LCR
 requirements, but overall, it is expected
 that the LCRMR will not exacerbate any
 weaknesses that already may exist.

 10. Submission to Congress and the
 General Accounting Office
   The Congressional Review Act, 5
 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
 Business Regulatory Enforcement
 'Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
 that before a rule may take effect, the
 agency promulgating the rule must
 submit a rule report, which includes a
 copy of the rule, to each House of the
 Congress and to the Comptroller General
 of the United States. EPA will submit a
 report containing this rule and other
 required information to the U.S. Senate,
 the U.S. House of Representatives, and
 the Comptroller General of the United
 States prior to publication of the rule in.
 the Federal Register. A major rule
 cannot take effect until 60 days after it
 is published in the Federal Register.
 This rule is not a major rule as defined
 by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).  This rule will be
 effective on April 11, 2000.

 H. References

 .American Water Works Association, et al. v.
  EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 D.G. Cir. (1994).
  [AWWAv.EPA]
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
  Registry (ATSDR). Aug. 1997.
  Toxicological Profile for Lead. Draft for
  Public Comment. Prepared by Research
  Triangle Institute for U.S. Department of
  Health & Human Services, Public Health
  Service, Atlanta, GA. Pages 27,104,132-
  133,166 [ATSDR, 1997]
Britton, A. and Richards, W.N. November
  1981. Factors Influencing Plumbosolvency
  in Scotland. Originally presented as: A
  potpourri on plumbosolvency. At a
  Scientific Section Symposium on
  Plumbosolvency. [Britton and Richards,
  1981]
Colling, J.H., Croll, B.T., Whincup, P.A.E.,
  and Harward, G. June 1992.
  Plumbosolvency Effects and Control in
  Hard Waters. J IWEM, 6:259-268. [Colling,
  et al., 1992]

-------
 2002
Federal Register/Vol. 65,  No.  8/Wednesday,  January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
 Cools, A., Salle, H.J.A., Verbeck, M.M.,
  Zielhuis, R.L. 1976. Biochemical Response
  of Male Volunteers Ingesting Inorganic
  Lead for 49 Days. Int. Arch. Occup.
  Environ. Health, 38:129-139. [Cools, etal.,
  1976]
 Dodrill, D.M. and Edwards, M. July 1995.
  Corrosion Control on the Basis of Utility
  Experience. Journal AWWA, 74-85.
  [Dodrill and Edwards, 1995]
 Edwards, M., Schock, M.R., and Meyer, T.E.
  March 1996. Alkalinity, pH, and Copper
  Corrosion By-Products Release. Journal
  AVVWA, 81-94. [Edwards, et al., 1996]
 Federal Register, Vol. 52, No. 130. National
  Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
  Synthetic Organic Chemicals; Monitoring
  for Unregulated Contaminants; Final Rule.
  (Wed., Jul. 8,1987), 25690-25717. [52 FR
  25690]
 Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 30. National
  Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
  Synthetic Organic Chemicals  and Inorganic
  Chemicals; Monitoring for Unregulated
  Contaminants; National Primary Drinking
  Water Regulations Implementation;
  National Secondary Drinking Water
  Regulations; Final Rule. (Wed., Jan. 30,
  1991), 3526-3614. [56 FR 3526]
 Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 110. Drinking
  Water Regulations—Maximum
  Contaminant Level Goals and National
  Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
  Lead and Copper; Final Rule. (Fri., Jun. 7,
. 1991), 26460-26564. [56 FR 26460]
 Federal Register, Vol. 56, No. 135. Drinking
  Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant
  Level Goals and National Primary Drinking
  Water Regulations for Lead and Copper;
  Final Rule; Correction. (Mon., Jul. 15,
  1991), 32113. [56 FR 32113]
 Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 125. Drinking
  Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant
  Level  Goals and National Primary Drinking
  Water Regulations for Lead and Copper;
  Final Rule; Correcting Amendments.
  (Mon., Jun. 29,1992), 28785-28789. [57 FR
  28785]
 Federal Register, Vol. 57, No. 138. National
  Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
  Synthetic Organic Chemicals and Inorganic
  Chemicals; Final Rule. (Fri., Jul. 17,1992),
  31776-31849. [57 FR 31776]
 Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 125. Drinking
  Water; Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
  and National Primary Drinking Water
  Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
  Rule; Technical Corrections. (Thu., Jun. 30,
  1994), 33860-33864. [59 FR 33860]
 Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 232. Analytical
  Methods for Regulated Drinking Water
  Contaminants;  Final Rule. (Mon., Dec. 5,
  1994), 62456-62471. [59 FR 62456]
 Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 125. National
  Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
  Regulations; Analytical Methods for
  Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants;
  Final Rule. (Thu., Jun. 29,1995), 34084-
  34086. [60 FR 34084]
 Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 72. Maximum
  Contaminant Level Goals and National
  Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
  Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Fri.,
  Apr. 12,1996), 16348-16371.  [60 FR
  16348]
Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 128. Drinking
  Water Monitoring Requirements for Certain
                              Chemical Contaminants—Chemical  '
                              Monitoring Reform (CMR) and Permanent
                              Monitoring Relief (PMR); Advance Notice
                              of Proposed Rulemaking. (Thur., Jul. 3,
                              1997), 36100-36136. [62 FR 36100]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 163.
                              Interpretation of New Drinking Water
                              Requirements Relating to Lead Free
                              Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures; Notice.
                              (Fri., Aug. 22, 1997), 44684-44685. [62 FR
                              44684]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 212. National
                              Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
                              Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts;
                              Notice of Data Availability; Proposed Rule.
                              (Mon., Nov. 3,1997), 59388-58484. [62 FR
                              59388]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 30. National
                              Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
                              Consumer Confidence; Proposed Rule.
                              (Fri., Feb. 13,1998), 7605-7633. [63 FR
                              7605]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 77. Maximum
                              Contaminant Level Goals and National
                              Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
                              Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Wed.,
                              Apr. 22,1998), 20038-20047. [63 FR
                              20038]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 63, No 81. Revisions
                              to State Primary Requirements to
                              Implement Safe Drinking Water Act
                              Amendments; Final Rule. (Tue., Apr. 28,
                              1998), 23361-23368. [63 FR 23361]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 6.3, No. 151.
                              Announcement of Small System
                              Compliance Technology Lists for Existing
                              National Primary Drinking Water
                              Regulations and Findings Concerning
                              Variance Technologies. (Thur., Aug. 6,
                              1998), 42032-42048. [63 FR 42032]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 159. Maximum
                              Contaminant Level Goals and National
                              Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
                              Lead and Copper; Proposed Rule. (Tue.,
                              Aug. 18,1998), 44214-44218. [63 FR
                              44214]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 241. National
                              Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
                              Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts;
                              Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16,1998), 69388-
                              69476. [62 FR 69388]
                            Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 241. National
                              Primary Drinking Water Regulations—
                              Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
                              Rule; Final Rule. (Tue., Dec. 16] 1998),
                              69477-69521. [63 FR 69521]
                            Gittelman, T.S., Luitweiler, P., and Yohe,
                              T.L. 1992. Evaluation of Lead Corrosion
                              Control Measures for a Multi-source Water
                              Utility. American Water Works
                              Association, 1992 Water Quality
                              Technology Conference Proceedings. Part I:
                              777-797. [Gittelman, et al., 1992]
                            Hindmarsh, J.T.  1986. The Porphrias: Recent
                              Advances. Clinical Chemistry, 32(7)a;
                              1255-1263. [Hindmarsh, 1986]
                            Kuch, A. and Wagner, 1.1983. A mass
                              transfer model to describe lead
                              concentrations in drinking water. Water
                              Research, 17(10): 1301. [Kuch and Wagner,
                              1983]
                            Mahaffey, K.R. 1977. Relation Between
                              Quantities of Lead Ingested and Health
                              Effects of Lead in Humans. Pediatrics,
                              59(3): 448-156. [Mahaffey, 1977]
                            Montgomery, R., Convoy, T.W, and Spector,
                              A.A. 1990. Biochemistry: A Case-Oriented
  Approach. C.V. Mosby Co., St. Louis.
  [Montgomery, et al., 1990]
Nakhoul, F., Kayne, L.E., Brantbar, N., Hu,
  N., McDonough, A., Eggena, P., Golut,
  M.S., Berger, M., Cheng, C., Jangotchian,
  N., and Lee, D.B.N. 1992. Rapid
  Hypertensiveogenic Effect of Lead Studies
  in Hypertensive Rat. Toxical. In. Health,
  8(1-2): 89-102. [Nakhoul, etal., 1992]
National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1982.
  Drinking Water and Health. Washington,
  DC: National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 4,
  pp.  179-183. [NAS, 1982]
Pocock, S.J. 1980. Factors Influencing
  Household Water Lead: A British National
  Survey. Arch, of Env. Health, 35(1): 45-51.
  [Pocock, 1980]
Rezania, L.W. and Anderl, W.H. 1996.
  Copper Corrosion and Iron Removal Plants.
  Conference Paper. Section of Drinking
  Water Protection, Minnesota Department of
  Health. [Rezania and Anderl, 1996]
Schlegel, H., Kufner, G. 1979. Long-term
  observation of biochemical effects of lead
  in human experiments. J Clin. Chem. Clin.
  Biochem., 17: 225-233. [Schlegel and
  Kufner, 1979]
Shannon, M.W. and Graef, J.W. 1992. Lead
  Intoxication in Infancy. Pediatrics, 89: 87—
  90. [Shannon and Graef, 1992]
Struik, E.J. 1974. Biochemical response of
  male and female volunteers to inorganic
  lead. Int. Arch. Arbeitsmed. 33: 83-97. •
  [Struik, 1974]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  Undated. An Evaluation of the Secondary
  Effects of Enhanced Coagulation,  With
  Emphasis on Corrosion Control.
  Conference Paper prepared by D.A. Lytle,
  M.R. Schock, and R.J. Miltner, Treatment
  and Technology Evaluation Branch, Water
  Supply and Water Resources Division,
  National Risk Management Research
  Laboratory. [EPA, undated]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Feb.
  23,1988. Memorandum to Arthur Perler,
  Science and Technology Branch from Jon
  Longtin, Water Supply Technology Branch,
  regarding Distribution Tables for NIRS
  Results. [EPA, 1988]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. April
  1991. Regulatory Impact Analysis of
  Proposed National Primary Drinking Water
  Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared
  by Wade Miller Associates, Inc. [EPA,
  1991a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: April
  1991. Summary: Peach Orchard'
  Monitoring; Lead Service Line
  Replacement Study. Prepared by Barbara   •
  Wysock, Office of Drinking Water
  .Technical Support Division. [EPA, 199lb]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.
  1991. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance
  Manual; Volume 1: Monitoring. Prepared
  by Black & Veatch, EGOS, Inc., and
  Malcolm Pirnie Inc. (NTIS PB 92-112101).
  [EPA, 1991c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Jan.
  10,1992. Memo  from Jeff Cohen, Chief
  Lead Task Force, Office of Ground Water
  and Drinking Water, to Regional Drinking
  Water Branch Chiefs. Consecutive Systems
  Regulated Under the National Primary
  Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and
  Copper. [EPA 1992a]

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                          20O3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May
  1992. Lead and Copper Rule; Definitions
  and Federal Reporting for Milestones,
  Violations and SNCs. (ERIC G405.-NTIS
  PB-93-156-131). IEPA, 1992b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.
  1992. Lead and Copper Rule Guidance
  Manual; Volume II: Corrosion Control
  Treatment. Prepared by Black & Veatch and
  Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (NTIS PB-93-
  101583). [EPA, 1992c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. May
  1994. Methods for Determination of Metals
  in Environmental Samples—Supplement  1.
  (NTIS PB-94-184942). [EPA, 1994]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Apr.
  4,1995. Memo from Robert J. Blanco,
  Director, Drinking Water Implementation
  Division, to O. Thomas Love, Chief, Water
  Supply Branch, Region 6. All Plastic
  Systems—Compliance with the Lead and
  Copper Rule. [EPA, 1995a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Oct.
  1995. National Primary Drinking Water
  Regulations for Lead and Copper: Analysis
  of Occurrence of Very Low 90th Percentile
  Lead Levels. (EPA 812-X-95-001; NTIS PB
  96-129077). [EPA, 1995b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.
  1995. A Survey Study of Lead in Drinking
  Water Supplied by Transient Water
  Systems. Prepared by R.P. Maas, S.C.
  Patch, D.M. Morgan, and G.M. Brown,
  Environmental Quality Institute, The
  University  of North Carolina at Ashville.
  Technical Report #95-019. [EPA, 1995c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mar.
  20,1996. Memo from Jeff Cohen to Connie
  [Bosma] and Judy [Lebowich]. Xead Rule
  for Transient Systems. [EPA, 1996a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.
  19.1996. Memorandum to Jeffrey B.
  Kempic, Office of Ground Water and
  Drinking Water from Michael R. Shock,
  Treatment and Technology Branch, Water
  Supply and Water Resources Division,
  National Risk Management Research
  Laboratory. Seasonal Monitoring Revision.
  (Note: References 5,6, and 7 cited in the
  memorandum are not publically available
  data and the data contained in these
  studies have not been factored into EPA's
  decision making.) [EPA, 1996b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  March 1997. Manual for the Certification of
  Laboratories in Analyzing Drinking
  Water—Criteria and Procedures Quality
  Assurance. Fourth Edition. EPA 815-B-
  97-001. [EPA 1997a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  August 1997. Alternative Monitoring
  Guidelines. [EPA-816-R-97-011]. [EPA,
  1997b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.
  26,1997. The Data Sharing Committee's
  Recommendations for the Lead and Copper
  Rule. Draft Report. Prepared for the Office
  of Ground Water and Drinking Water by
  the PWSS Data Sharing Committee. [EPA,
  1997c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. July
  1998. Guidance on Implementing the
  Capacity Development Provisions of the
  Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
  1996. EPA  816-R-98-006. [EPA 1998a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sep.
  22,1998. Health Effects from Short-Term
  Lead Exposure. Health and Ecological
  Criteria Division, Office of Science and
  Technology, Office of Water. [EPA, 1998b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Dec.
  28,1998. Memo to the Record from Jeffrey
  B. Kempic. Analysis of Partial Lead Service
  Line Replacement Data. [EPA, 1998c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June
  1999. Information Collection Request for
  the National Primary Drinking Water
  Regulations for Lead and Copper. Prepared
  by the Cadmus Group, Inc. [EPA, 1999a]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June
  19,1999. Memo from Anne Jaffe Murray,
  the Cadmus Group, Inc. to Judith
  Lebowich. Review of Data for Large
  Community Water Systems (CWSs) that
  Continue to Exceed the Action Level After
  Treatment is Installed. [EPA, 1999b]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  August 1999. Microbial Disinfection
  Byproducts Simultaneous Compliance
  Manual. EPA 815-R-99-015. [EPA, 1999c]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aug.
  2,1999. Memo to the Record by Judith
  Lebowich. Summary of State Panel Review
  of Estimated Lead and Copper Rule Minor
  Revisions Burden and Costs under the
  Paperwork Reduction Act. [EPA, 1999d]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
  September 30,1999. Response to Comment
  Document for The Lead and Copper Rule
  Minor Revisions. [EPA, 1999e]
Wagner, I. Jun. 18-22,1988. Effects of
  Inhibitors on Corrosion Rate and Metal
  Uptake. Proceedings of American Water
  Works Conference. [Wagner, 1988]

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 9

  Environmental protection, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 141
  Environmental protection, Chemicals,
Indians—lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Radiation protection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

  Administrative practice and
procedure, Chemicals, Indians—lands,
Radiation protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.

  Dated: December 20,1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
  For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40 chapter 1, parts 141
and 142 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 9—[AMENDED]

  1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y;
15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2601-2671;
21 U.S.C. 331), 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 etseq., 1311,1313d, 1314,1318,
1321, 1326, 1330,1342, 1344, 1345(d) and.
(e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241,
242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-1,
300J-2, 300J-3, 300J-4, 300J-9,1857 ef seq.,
6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542, 9601-9657,
11023,11048.

  2. In § 9.1 the table is amended under
the indicated heading by revising entry
"141.80-141.91," by removing entries
"142.10-142.15," and by adding new
entries in numerical order to read as
follows:

§ 9,1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.
       40 CFR citation
OMB control
    No.
National Primary Drinking
  Water Regulations.
141.80-141.91	   2040-0210
National Primary Drinking
  Water Regulations Implemen-
  tation.
142.10-142.14	   2040-0090
142.14(d)(8)-(11)	   2040-0210
142.15 	   2040-0090
142.15(c)(4)	   2040-0210
142.16(d) 	   2040-0210
PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY
DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

  3. The authority citation for part 141
continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4,
300J-9, and 300J-11.
  4. Section 141.43 is amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2),
removing the undesignatted paragraph
immediately following paragraph
(a)(2)(ii), and removing and reserving
(b)(2), and by revising paragraph (d) to
read as follows:

§ 141.43  Prohibition on use of lead pipes,
solder, and flux.
*     *.     *    *    *
  (d)  Definition of lead free. For
purposes of this section, the term lead
free:
  (1)  When used with respect to solders
and flux refers to solders and flux
containing not more than 0.2  percent
lead;

-------
 2004
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
   (2) When used with respect to pipes
 and pipe fittings refers to pipes and pipe
 fittings containing not more than 8.0
 percent lead; and
   (3) When used with respect to
 plumbing fittings and fixtures intended
 by the manufacturer to dispense water
 for human ingestion refers to fittings
 and fixtures that are in compliance with
 standards established in accordance
 with 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(e).
   5. Section 141.81 is amended by
 revising paragraph (b) introductory text,
 paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, and
 paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:

 § 141.81  Applicability of corrosion control
 treatment steps to small, medium-size and
 large water systems.
 *****
   (b) A system is deemed to have
 optimized corrosion control and is not
 required to complete the applicable
 corrosion control treatment steps
 identified in this section if the system
 satisfies one-of the criteria specified in
 paragraphs (b)(l) through (b)(3) of this
 section. Any such system deemed to
 have optimized corrosion control under
 this paragraph, and which has treatment
 in place, shall continue to operate and
 maintain optimal corrosion control
 treatment and meet any requirements
 that the State determines appropriate to
 ensure optimal corrosion control
 treatment is maintained.
  (!)•**
  (2) Any water system may be deemed
 by the State to have optimized corrosion
 control treatment if the system
 demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
 State that it has conducted activities
 equivalent to the corrosion control steps
 applicable to such system under this
 section. If the State makes this
 determination, it shall provide the
 system with written notice explaining
 the basis for its decision and shall
 specify the water quality control
 parameters representing optimal
 corrosion  control in accordance with
 § 141.82(fJ. Water systems deemed to
 have optimized corrosion control under
 this paragraph shall operate in
 compliance with the State-designated
 optimal water quality control
 parameters in accordance with
 § 141.82(g) and continue to conduct lead
 and copper tap and water quality
 parameter sampling in accordance with
 § 141.86(d)(3) and § 141.87(d),
 respectively. A system shall provide  the
 State with the following information in
 order to support a determination under
 this paragraph:
 *****
  (3) Any water system is deemed to
have optimized corrosion control if it
submits results of tap water monitoring
                          conducted in accordance with § 141.86
                          and source water monitoring conducted
                          in accordance with § 141.88 that
                          demonstrates for two consecutive 6-
                          month monitoring periods that the
                          difference between the 90th percentile
                          tap water lead level computed under
                          § 141.80(c)(3), and the highest source
                          water lead concentration is less than the
                          Practical Quantitation Level for lead
                          specified in § 141.89(a)(l)(ii).
                            (i) Those systems whose highest
                          source water lead level is below the
                          Method Detection Limit may also be
                          deemed to have optimized corrosion
                          control under this paragraph if the 90th
                          percentile tap water lead level is less
                          than or equal to the Practical
                          Quantitation Level for lead for two
                          consecutive 6-month monitoring
                          periods.
                            (ii) Any water system deemed to have
                          optimized corrosion control in
                          accordance with this paragraph shall
                          continue monitoring for lead and copper
                          at the tap no less frequently than once
                          every three calendar years using the
                          reduced number of sites specified in
                          § 141.86(c) and collecting the samples at
                          times and locations specified in
                          § 141.86(d)(4)(iv). Any such system that
                          has not conducted a round of
                          monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d) since
                          September 30,1997, shall complete a
                          round of monitoring pursuant  to this
                          paragraph no later than September 30,
                          2000.
                            (iii) Any water system deemed to have
                          optimized corrosion control pursuant to
                          this paragraph shall notify the State in
                          writing pursuant to § 141.90(a)(3) of any
                          change in treatment or the addition of
                          a new source. The State may require any
                          such system to conduct additional
                          monitoring or to take other action the
                          State deems appropriate to  ensure that
                          such systems maintain minimal levels
                          of corrosion in the distribution system.
                            (iv) As of July 12, 2001, a system is
                          not deemed to have optimized corrosion
                          control under this paragraph, and shall
                          implement corrosion control treatment
                          pursuant to paragraph (b)(3)(v) of this
                          section unless it meets the copper action
                          level.
                            (v) Any system triggered into
                          corrosion control because it is  no longer
                          deemed to have optimized corrosion
                          control under this paragraph shall
                          implement corrosion control treatment
                          in accordance with the deadlines in
                          paragraph (e) of this section. Any such
                          large system shall adhere to the
                          schedule specified in that paragraph for
                          medium-size systems, with the time
                          periods for completing each step being
                          triggered by the date the system is no
 longer deemed to have optimized
 corrosion control under this paragraph.
 *****
   6. Section 141.82 is amended by
 revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:

 § 141.82  Description of corrosion control
 treatment requirements.
 *****
   (g) Continued operation and
 monitoring. All systems optimizing
 corrosion control shall continue to
 operate and maintain optimal corrosion
 control treatment, including
 maintaining water quality parameters at
 or above minimum values or within
 ranges designated by the State under
 paragraph (fj of this section, in
 accordance with this paragraph for all
 samples collected under § 141.87(d)
 through (f). Compliance with the
 requirements of this paragraph shall be
 determined every six months, as
 specified under § 141.87(d). A water
 system is out of compliance with the
 requirements of this paragraph for a six-
 month period if it has excursions for
 any State-specified parameter on more
 than nine days during the period. An
 excursion occurs whenever the daily
 value for one or more of the water
 quality parameters measured at a
 sampling location is below the
 minimum value or outside the range
 designated by the State. Daily values are
 calculated as follows. States have
 discretion to delete results of obvious
 sampling errors from this calculation.
   (1J On days when more than one
 measurement for the water quality
 parameter is collected at the sampling
 location, the daily value shall be the
 average of all results collected during
 the day regardless of whether they are
 collected through continuous
 monitoring, grab sampling, or a
 combination of both. If EPA has
 approved an alternative formula under
 § 142.16 of this chapter in the State's
 application for a program revision
 submitted pursuant to § 142.12 of this
 chapter, the State's formula shall be
 used to aggregate multiple
 measurements taken at a sampling point
 for the water quality parameter in lieu
 of the formula in this paragraph.
  (2) On days when only one
 measurement for the water quality
 parameter is collected at the sampling
 location, the daily value shall be the
result of that measurement.
  (3) On days when no measurement is
collected for the water quality parameter
at the sampling location, the daily value
shall be the daily value calculated on
the most recent day on which the  water
quality parameter was measured at the
sample site.

-------
             Federal Register/Vol. 65,  No. 8/Wednesday; January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                       2OO5
   7. Section 141.84 is amended by
removing paragraph (e), redesignating
paragraphs (f) through (h) as (e) through
(g), and by revising paragraphs (b) and
(dj to read as follows:

§ 141.84  Lead service line replacement
requirements.
*****
   (b) A water system shall replace
annually at least 7 percent of the initial
number of lead service lines in its
distribution system. The initial number
of lead service lines is the number of
lead lines in place at the time the
replacement program begins. The
system shall identify the initial number
of lead service lines in its distribution
system, including an identification of
the portionfs) owned by the system,
based on a materials evaluation,
including the evaluation required under
§ 141.86(a) and relevant legal authorities
{e.g., contracts, local ordinances)
regarding the portion owned by the
system. The first year of lead service
line replacement shall begin on the date
the action level was exceeded in tap
sampling referenced in paragraph (a)  of
this section.
*    *    *   - *     *
   (d) A water system shall replace that
portion of the lead service line that it
owns. In cases where the system does
not own the entire lead service line, the
system shall notify the owner of the
line, or the owner's authorized agent,
that the system will replace the portion
of the service line that it owns and shall
offer to replace the owner's portion of
the line. A system is not required to bear
the cost of replacing the privately-
owned portion of the line, nor is it
required to replace the privately-owned
portion where the owner chooses not to
pay the cost of replacing the privately-
owned portion of the line, or where
replacing the privately-owned portion
would be precluded by State, local or
common law. A water system that does
not replace the entire length of the
service line also shall complete the
following tasks.
  (1) At least 45 days prior to
commencing with the partial
replacement of a lead service line, the
water system shall provide notice to the
resident(s) of all buildings served by the
line explaining that they may
experience a temporary increase of lead
levels in their drinking water, along
with guidance on measures consumers
can take to minimize their exposure to
lead. The State may allow the water
system to provide notice under the
previous sentence less than 45 days
prior to commencing partial lead service
line replacement where such
replacement is in conjunction with
 emergency repairs. In addition, the
 water system shall inform the
 resident(s) served by the line that the
 system will, at the system's expense,
 collect a .sample from each partially-
 replaced lead service line that is
 representative of the water in the service
 line for analysis of lead content, as
 prescribed under § 141.86(b)(3), within
 72 hours after the completion of the
 partial replacement of the service line.
 The system shall collect the sample and
 report the results of the analysis to the
 owner and the resident(s) served by the
 line within three business days of
 receiving the results. Mailed notices
 post-marked within three business days
 of receiving the results shall be
 considered "on time."
   (2] The water system shall provide the
 information required by paragraph (d)(l)
 of this section to the residents of
 individual dwellings by mail or by other
 methods approved by the State. In
 instances where multi-family dwellings
 are served by the line, the water system
 shall have the option to post the
 information at a conspicuous location.
 *     *     *     *    *
   8. Section 141.85 is amended by  •
 redesignating paragraphs (a)(l) through
 (a)(4)(v) as follows:
    Old paragraph
(a) Introductory text.
(a)(1) Introductory
  text.
(a)(4)(iv)
(a)(4)(v)
   New paragraph
                    (a)(1)(iv)(A).

                        ;iv)(B)(;
                        [iv)(B)(^).
                    (a)(1)(iv)(C).
(a)(1)(iv)(D).
                    (a)(1)(iv)(D)(3.
  8.a. Section 141.85 is further amended
by adding paragraphs (a) introductory
text, (a)(2), (c)(7), and (c)(8), by revising
all references to "each lead service line
that we control" in redesignated
paragraph (a)(l)(i) to read "the portion
of each lead service line that we own"
and by revising newly designated
paragraphs (a)(l), (a)(l)(iv)(B)(5), and by
revising paragraphs (c}(2) introductory
text and (c)(2Ki) through (iii), (c)(4)
introductory text, and (c)(4)(ii) to read
as follows:

§ 141.85  Public education and
supplemental monitoring requirements.
*****.
  (a) Content of written public
education materials. (1) Community
water systems. A community water
system shall include the following text
in all of the printed materials  it
distributes through its lead public
education program. Systems may delete
information pertaining to lead service
lines, upon approval by the State, if no
lead service lines exist anywhere in the
water system service area. Public
education language at paragraphs
(a)(lKiv)(B)(5) and (a)(l)(iv)(D)(2) of this
section may be modified regarding
building permit record availability and
consumer access to these records, if
approved by the State. Systems-may also
continue to utilize pre-printed materials
that meet the public education language
requirements in 40 CFR 141.85, effective
November 6,1991, and contained in the
40 CFR, parts 100 to 149, edition revised
as of July 1,1991. Any additional
information presented by a system shall
be consistent with the information
below  and be in plain English that can
be understood by lay people.
*****
  (iv)* * *
  (B) * *  *
 . (5) Determine whether or not the
service line that connects your home or
apartment to the water main is made of
lead. The best way to determine if your
service line is made of lead is  by either
hiring  a licensed plumber to inspect the
line or by contacting the plumbing
contractor who installed the line. You
can identify the plumbing contractor by
checking the city's record of building
permits which should be maintained in
the files of the [insert name of
department that issues building
permits]. A' licensed plumber can at the
same time check to see if your home's
plumbing contains lead solder, lead
pipes,  or pipe fittings that contain lead.
The public water system that delivers
water to your home should also
maintain records of the materials
located in the distribution system. If the
service line that connects your dwelling
to the water main contributes more than
15 ppb to drinking water, after our
comprehensive treatment program is in
place, we are required to replace the
portion of the line we own. If the line
is only partially owned by the [insert
the name of the city, county, or water
system that owns the line], we are
required to provide the owner of the
privately-owned portion of the line with

-------
 2006
Federal  Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
 information on how to replace the
 privately-owned portion of the service
 line, and offer to replace that portion of
 the line at the owner's expense. If we
 replace only the portion of the line that
 we own, we also are required to notify
 you in advance and provide you with
 information on the steps you can take to
 minimize exposure to any temporary
 increase in lead levels that may result
 from the partial replacement, to take a
 follow-up sample at our expense  from
 the line within 72 hours after the partial
 replacement, and to mail or otherwise
 provide you with the results of that
 sample within three business days of
 receiving the results. Acceptable
 replacement alternatives include
 copper, steel, iron, and plastic pipes.
 *****

   (2) Non-transient non-community
 water systems. A non-transient non-
 community water system shall either
 include the text specified in paragraph
 (a)(l) of this section or shall include the
 following text in all of the  printed
 materials it distributes through its lead
 public education program. Water
 systems may delete information
 pertaining to lead service lines upon
 approval by the State if no lead service
 lines exist anywhere in the water system
 service area. Any additional information
 presented by a system shall be
 consistent with the information below
 and be in plain English that can be
 understood by lay people.
   (i) Introduction. The United States
 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
 and [insert name of water supplier] are
 concerned about lead in your drinking
 water. Some drinking water samples
 taken from this facility have lead  levels
 above the EPA action level of 15 parts
 per billion (ppb), or 0.015 milligrams of
 lead per liter of water (mg/L). Under
 Federal law we are required to have a
 program in place to minimize lead in
 your drinking water by [insert date
 when corrosion control will be
 completed for your system]. This
 program includes corrosion control
 treatment, source water treatment, and
 public education. We are also required
 to replace the portion of each lead
 service line that we own if the line
 contributes lead concentrations of more
 than 15 ppb after we have completed
 the comprehensive treatment program.
 If you have any questions about how we
 are carrying out the requirements  of the
 lead regulation please give us a call at
 [insert water system's phone number].
This brochure explains the simple steps
you can take to protect yourself by
reducing your exposure to  lead in
drinking water.
                            (ii) Health effects of lead. Lead is
                          found throughout the environment in
                          lead-based paint, air, soil, household
                          dust, food, certain types of pottery
                          porcelain and'pewter, and water. Lead
                          can pose a significant risk to your health
                          if too much of it enters your body. Lead
                          builds up in the body over many years
                          and can cause damage to the brain, red
                          blood cells and kidneys. The greatest
                          risk is to young children and pregnant
                          women. Amounts of lead that won't
                          hurt adults can slow down normal
                          mental and physical development of
                          growing bodies. In addition, a child at
                          play often comes into contact with
                          sources of lead contamination—like dirt
                          and dust—that rarely affect an adult. It
                          is important to wash children's hands
                          and toys often, and to try to make sure
                          thev only put food in their mouths.
                            (lii) Lead in drinking water. (A) .Lead
                          in drinking water, although rarely the
                          sole cause of lead poisoning, can
                          significantly increase a person's total
                          lead exposure, particularly the exposure
                          of infants who drink baby formulas and
                          concentrated juices that are mixed with
                          water. The EPA estimates that drinking
                          water can make up 20 percent or more
                          of a person's total exposure to lead.
                            (Bj Lead is unusual among drinking
                          water contaminants in that it seldom
                          occurs naturally in water supplies like
                          rivers and lakes. Lead enters drinking
                          water primarily as a result of the
                          corrosion, or wearing away, of materials
                          containing lead in the water distribution
                          system and household plumbing. These
                          materials include lead-based solder
                          used to join copper pipe, brass and
                          chrome-plated brass faucets, and in
                          some cases, pipes made of lead that
                          connect houses and buildings to water
                          mains (service lines). In 1986, Congress
                          banned the use of lead solder containing
                          greater than 0.2% lead, and restricted
                          the lead content of faucets, pipes and
                          other plumbing materials to 8.0%.
                            (C) When water stands in lead pipes
                          or plumbing systems containing lead for
                          several hours or more, the lead may
                          dissolve into your drinking water. This
                          means the first water drawn from the
                          tap in the morning, or later in the
                          afternoon if the water has not been used
                          all day, can contain fairly high levels of
                          lead.
                            (iv) Steps you can take to reduce
                          exposure to lead in drinking water. (A)
                          Let the water run from the tap before
                          using it for drinking or cooking any time
                          the water in a faucet has gone unused
                          for more than six hours. The longer
                          water resides in plumbing the more lead
                          it may contain. Flushing the tap means
                          running the cold water faucet for about
                          15-30 seconds. Although toilet flushing
                          or showering flushes water through a
portion of the plumbing system, you
still need to flush the water in each
faucet before using it for drinking or
cooking. Flushing tap water is a simple
and inexpensive measure you can take
to protect your health. It usually uses
less than one gallon of water.
   (B) Do not cook with, or drink water
from the hot water tap. Hot water can
dissolve more lead more quickly than
cold water. If you need hot water, draw
water from the cold tap and then heat
it.
   (C) The steps described above will
reduce the lead concentrations in your
drinking water. However, if you are still
concerned, you may wish to use bottled
water for drinking and cooking.
   (D) You can consult a variety of
sources for additional information. Your
family doctor or pediatrician can
perform a blood test for lead and
provide you with information about the
health effects of lead. State and local
government agencies that can be
contacted include:
   (2) [insert the name or title of facility
official if appropriate] at [insert phone
number] can provide you with
information about your facility's water
supply; and
   (2) [insert the name or title of the
State Department of Public Health] at
[insert phone number] or the [insert the
name of the city or county health
department] at [insert phone number]
can provide you with information about
the health effects of lead.
*****
   (c) * * *
   (2) A community water system that
exceeds the lead action level on the
basis of tap water samples collected in
accordance with § 141.86, and that is
not already repeating public education
tasks pursuant to paragraph (c)(3), (c)(7),
or (c)(8), of this section, shall, within 60
days:
  (i) Insert notices in each customer's
water utility bill containing the
information in paragraph (a)(l) of this
section, along with the following alert
on the water bill itself in large print:
"SOME HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY
HAVE ELEVATED LEAD LEVELS IN
THEIR DRINKING WATER. LEAD CAN
POSE A SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR
HEALTH. PLEASE READ THE
ENCLOSED NOTICE FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION." A community water
system having a billing cycle that does
not include a billing within 60 days of
exceeding the action level, or that
cannot insert information in the water
utility bill without making major
changes to its billing system, may use a
separate mailing to deliver the
information in paragraph (a)(l) of this

-------
              Federal Register/Vol.  65, No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                        20O7
 section as long as the information is
 delivered to each customer within 60
 days of exceeding the action level. Such
 water systems shall also include the
 "alert" language specified in this
 paragraph.
   (ii) Submit the information in
 paragraph (a)(l) of this section to the
. editorial departments of the major daily
" and weekly newspapers circulated
" throughout the community.
   (iii) Deliver pamphlets and/or
 brochures that contain the public
 education materials in paragraphs
 (a)(l)(ii) and (a)(l)(iv) of this section to
 facilities and organizations, including .
 the following:
. *    *    *    *     *
   (4) Within 60 days after it exceeds the
 lead action level (unless it already is
 repeating public education tasks
 pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this
 section), a non-transient non-
 community water system shall deliver
 the public education materials specified
 by paragraph (a)(l) of this section or the
 public education materials specified by
 paragraph (a) (2) of this section as
 follows:
   (i) *  * *
   (ii) Distribute informational
 pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in
 drinking water to each person served by
 the non-transient non-community water
 system. The State may allow the system
 to utilize electronic transmission in lieu
 of or combined with printed materials
 as long as it achieves at least the same
 coverage.
 *****
   (7) A community water system may
 apply to the State, in writing, (unless
 the State has waived the requirement for
 prior State approval) to use the text
 specified in paragraph (a) (2) of this
 section in lieu of the text in paragraph
 (a)(l) of this section and to perform the
 tasks listed in paragraphs (c)(4) and
 (c)(5) of this section in lieu of the tasks
 in paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) of this
 section if:
   (i) The system is a facility, such as a
 prison or a hospital, where the
 population served is not capable of or is
 prevented from making improvements
 to plumbing or installing point of use
 treatment devices; and
   (ii) The system provides water as part
 of the cost of services provided and does
 not separately charge for water
 consumption.
   (8)(i) A community water system
 serving 3,300 or fewer people may omit
 the task contained in paragraph
 (c)(2)(iv) of this section. As long as it
 distributes notices containing the
 information contained in paragraph
 (a)(l) of this section to every household
 served by the system, such systems may
 further limit their public education
 programs as follows:
   (A) Systems serving 500 of fewer
 people may forego the task contained in
 paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section. Such
 a system may limit the distribution of
 the public education materials required
 under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section
 to facilities and organizations served by
 the system that are most likely to be
 visited regularly by pregnant women
 and children, unless it is notified by the
 State in writing that it must make a
 broader distribution.
   (B) If approved by the State in writing,
 a system serving 501 to 3,300 people
 may omit the task in paragraph (c)(2)(ii)
 of this section and/or limit the
 distribution of the public education
 materials required under paragraph
 (c)(2)(iii) of this section to facilities and
 organizations served by the system that
 are most likely to be visited regularly by
 pregnant women and children.
  (ii) A community water system
 serving 3,300 or fewer people that
 delivers public education in accordance
 with paragraph (c)(8)(i) of this section
 shall repeat the required public
 education tasks at least once during
 each calendar year in which the system
 exceeds the lead action level.
 *****
  9. Section 141.86 is amended by
 removing paragraph (a)(8), by
 redesignating paragraph (a)(9) as
 paragraph (a)(8) and revising it, by
 redesignating paragraph (d)(4)(v) as
 paragraph (d)(4)(vi) and revising it, by
 adding paragraphs (b)(5), (d)(4)(v),
 (d)(4)(vii), (f) and (g), and by revising
 paragraphs (a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(D, (b)(2), (c),
 and (d)(4)(ii) through (d)(4)(iv), to read
 as follows:

 §141.86  Monitoring requirements for lead
 and copper in tap water.
  (a)* *  *
  (5) Any community water system with
 insufficient tier 1 and tier 2 sampling
 sites shall complete its sampling pool
 with "tier 3 sampling sites", consisting
 of single family structures that contain
 copper pipes with lead solder installed
before 1983. A community water system
with insufficient tier 1, tier 2, and tier
 3 sampling sites shall complete its
sampling pool with representative sites
throughout the distribution system. For
the purpose of this paragraph, a
representative site is a site in which the
plumbing materials used at that site
would be commonly found at other sites
served by the water system.
 *****
  (7) A non-transient non-community
water system with insufficient tier 1
sites that meet the targeting criteria in
 paragraph (a)(6) of this section shall
 complete its sampling,pool with
 sampling sites that contain copper pipes
 with lead spider installed before 1983.
 If additional sites are needed to
 complete the sampling pool, the non-
 transient non-community water system
 shall use representative sites throughout
 the distribution system. For the purpose
 of this paragraph, a representative site is
 a site in which the plumbing materials
 used at that site would be commonly
 found at other sites served by the water
 system.
   (8) Any water system whose
 distribution system contains lead
 service lines shall draw 50 percent of
 the samples it collects during each
 monitoring period from sites that
 contain lead pipes, or copper pipes with
 lead solder, and 50 percent of the   ,
 samples from sites served by a lead
 service line. A water system that cannot
 identify a sufficient number of sampling
 sites  served by a lead service line shall
 collect first-draw samples from all of the
 sites  identified as being served by such
 lines.
 •  (b) Sample collection methods. (1) All
 tap samples for lead and copper
 collected in accordance with this
 subpart, with the exception of lead
 service line samples collected under
 § 141.84(c) and samples collected under
 paragraph (b)(5) of this section, shall be
 first-draw samples.
   (2)  Each first-draw tap sample for lead
 and copper shall be one liter in volume
 and have stood motionless in the
 plumbing system of each sampling site
 for at least six hours. First-draw samples'
 from  residential housing shall be
 collected from the cold water kitchen
 tap or bathroom sink tap. First-draw
 samples from a nonresidential building
 shall  be one liter in volume and shall be
 collected at an interior tap from which
 water is typically drawn for
 consumption. Non-first-draw samples
 collected in lieu of first-draw samples
 pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this
 section shall be one liter in volume and
 shall be collected at an interior tap from
 which water is typically drawn for
 consumption. First-draw samples may
 be collected by the system or the system
 may allow residents to collect first-draw
 samples after instructing the residents of
the sampling procedures specified in
this paragraph. To avoid problems of
residents handling nitric acid,
acidification of first-draw samples may
be done up to 14 days after the sample
is collected. After acidification to
resolubilize the metals, the sample must
stand in the original container for the
time specified in the approved EPA
method before the sample can be
analyzed. If a system allows residents to

-------
 2008
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday, January  12, 2 000/Rules and Regulations
 perform sampling, the system may not
 challenge, based on alleged errors in
 sample collection, the accuracy of
 sampling results.
 *****
   (5) A non-transient non-community
 water system, or a community water
 system that meets the criteria of
 §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that does not
 have enough taps that can supply first-
 draw samples, as defined in § 141.2,
 may apply to the State in writing to
 substitute non-first-draw samples. Such
 systems must collect as many first-draw
 samples from appropriate taps as
 possible and identify sampling times
 and locations that would likely result in
 the longest standing time for the
 remaining sites. The State has the
 discretion to waive the requirement for
 prior State approval of non-first-draw
 sample sites selected by the system,
 either through State regulation or
 written notification to the system.
   (c) Number of samples. Water systems
 shall collect at least one sample during
 each monitoring period specified in
 paragraph (d) of this section from the
 number of sites listed in the first
 column ("standard monitoring") of the
 table in this paragraph. A system
 conducting reduced monitoring under
 paragraph (d)(4) of this section shall
 collect at least one sample from the
 number of sites specified in the second
 column ("reduced monitoring") of the
 table in this paragraph during each
 monitoring period specified in
 paragraph (d)(4) of this section. Such
 reduced monitoring sites shall be
 representative of the sites required for
 standard monitoring. States may specify
 sampling locations when a system is
 conducting reduced monitoring.  The
 table is as follows:
System size (number of
people served)
>100,000 	 	 	
10,001 to 100,000 	
3,301 to 10,000 	
501 to 3,300 	
101 to 500 	
S100 	

(d)* * *
(4). . *
Number
of sites
(stand-
ard
moni-
toring)
100
60
40
20
10
5


Number
of sites
(reduced
moni-
toring)
50
30
20
10
5
5


  (ii) Any water system that maintains
the range of values for the water quality
control parameters reflecting optimal
corrosion control treatment specified by
the State under § 141.82(f) during each
of two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods may reduce the
frequency of monitoring to once per
                          year and reduce the number of lead'and
                          copper samples in accordance with
                          paragraph (c) of this section if it receives
                          written approval from the State. The
                          State shall review monitoring,
                          treatment, and other relevant
                          information submitted by the water
                          system in accordance with § 141.90, and
                          shall notify the system in writing when
                          it determines the system is eligible to
                          commence reduced monitoring
                          pursuant to this paragraph.  The State
                          shall review, and where appropriate,
                          revise its determination when the
                          system submits new monitoring or
                          treatment data, or when other data
                          relevant to the number and  frequency of
                          tap sampling becomes available.
                            (iii) A small or medium-size water
                          system that meets the lead and copper
                          action levels during three consecutive
                          years of monitoring may reduce the
                          frequency of monitoring for lead and
                          copper from annually to once every
                          three years. Any water system that
                          maintains the range of values  for the
                          water quality control parameters
                          reflecting optimal corrosion control
                          treatment specified by the State under
                          § 141.82(0 during three consecutive
                          years of monitoring may reduce the
                          frequency of monitoring from annually
                          to once every three years if it receives
                          written approval from the State. The
                          State shall review monitoring,
                          treatment, and other relevant
                          information submitted by the water
                          system in accordance with § 141.90, and
                          shall notify the system in writing when
                          it determines the system is eligible to
                          reduce the frequency of monitoring to
                          once every three years. The  State shall
                          review, and where appropriate, revise
                          its determination when the system
                          submits new monitoring or treatment
                          data, or when other data relevant to the
                          number and frequency of tap sampling
                          becomes available.
                            (iv) A water system that reduces the
                          number and frequency of sampling shall
                          collect these samples from
                          representative sites included in the pool
                          of targeted sampling sites identified in
                          paragraph (a) of this section. Systems
                          sampling annually or less frequently
                          shall conduct the lead and copper tap
                          sampling during the months of June,
                          July, August, or September unless  the
                          State has approved a different sampling
                          period in accordance with paragraph
                          (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section.
                           (A) The State, at its discretion, may
                          approve a different period for
                          conducting the lead and copper tap
                          sampling for systems collecting a
                          reduced number of samples. Such a
                          period shall be no longer than four
                          consecutive months and must represent
                          a time of normal operation where the
highest levels of lead are most likely to
occur. For a non-transient non-
community water system that does not
operate during the months of June
through September, and for which the
period of normal operation where the
highest levels of lead are most likely to
occur is not known, the State shall
designate a period that represents a time
of normal operation for the system.
  (B) Systems monitoring annually, that
have been collecting samples during the
months of June through September and
that receive State approval to alter their
sample collection period under
paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section,
must collect their next round of samples
during a time period that ends no later
than 21 months after the previous round
of sampling. Systems monitoring
triennially that have been collecting
samples during the months of June
through September, and receive State
approval to alter the sampling collection
period as per paragraph (d)(4)(ivJ(A) of
this section, must collect their next
round of samples during a time period
that ends no later than 45 months after
the previous round of sampling.
Subsequent rounds of sampling must be
collected annually or triennially, as
required by this section. Small systems
with waivers, granted pursuant to
paragraph (g) of this section, that have
been collecting samples during the
months of June through September and
receive State approval to alter their
sample collection period under
paragraph (d)(4)(iv)(A) of this section
must collect their next round of samples
before the end of the 9-year period.
  (v) Any water system that
demonstrates for two consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods that the tap
water lead level computed under
§ 141.80(c)(3) is less than or equal to
0.005 mg/L and the tap water copper
level computed under § 141.80(c)(3) is
less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L may
reduce the number of samples in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section and reduce the frequency of
sampling to once every three  calendar
years.
  (vi)(A) A small or  medium-size water
system subject to reduced monitoring
that exceeds the lead or copper action
level shall resume sampling in
accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this
section and collect the number of
samples specified for standard
monitoring under paragraph (c) of this
section. Such a system shall also
conduct water quality parameter
monitoring in accordance with
§ 141.87(b), (c) or (d) (as appropriate)
during the monitoring period in which
it exceeded the action  level. Any such
system may resume annual monitoring

-------
             Federal Register/Vol.  65,  No. 8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                       2009
 for lead and copper at the tap at the
 reduced number of sites specified in
 paragraph (c) of this section after it has
 completed two subsequent consecutive
 six-month rounds of monitoring that
 meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4)(i) of
 this section and/or may resume triennial
 monitoring for lead and copper at the
 reduced number of sites after it
 demonstrates through subsequent
 rounds of monitoring that it meets the
 criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or
 (d)(4)(v) of this section.
   (B) Any water system subject to the
 reduced monitoring frequency that fails
 to operate at or above the minimum
 value or within the range of values for
 the water quality parameters specified
 by the State under § 141.82(f) for more
 than nine days in any six-month period
 specified in § 141.87(d) shall conduct
 tap water sampling' for lead and copper
 at the frequency specified in paragraph
 (d)(3) of this section, collect the number
 of samples specified for standard
 monitoring under paragraph (c) of this
 section, and shall resume monitoring for
 water quality parameters within the
 distribution system in accordance with
 § 141.87(d). Such a system may resume
 reduced monitoring for lead and copper
 at the tap and for water quality
 parameters within the distribution
 system under the following conditions:
  (1) The system may resume annual
 monitoring for lead and copper at the
 tap at the reduced number of sites
 specified in paragraph (c) of this section
 after it has completed two subsequent
 six-month rounds of monitoring that
 meet the criteria of paragraph (d)(4){ii)
 of this section and the system has
 received written approval from the State
 that it is appropriate to resume reduced
 monitoring on an annual frequency.
  (2) The system may resume triennial
 monitoring for lead and copper at the
 tap at the reduced number of sites after
 it demonstrates through subsequent
 rounds of monitoring that it meets the
 criteria of either paragraph (d)(4)(iii) or
 (d)(4)(v) of this section and the system
 has received written approval from the
 State that it is appropriate to resume
 triennial monitoring.
  (3) The system may reduce the
 number of water quality parameter tap
water samples required in accordance
with § 141.87(e)(l) and the frequency
with which it collects such samples in
accordance with § 141.87(e)(2). Such a
system may not resume triennial
monitoring for water  quality parameters
at the tap until it demonstrates, in
accordance with the requirements of
 § 141.87(e)(2), that it has re-qualified for
triennial monitoring.
  (vii) Any water system subject to a
reduced monitoring frequency under
 paragraph (d)(4) of this section that
 either adds a new source of water or
 changes any water treatment shall
 inform the State in writing in
 accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The
 State may require the system to resume
 sampling in accordance with paragraph
 (d)(3) of this section and collect the
 number of samples specified for
 standard monitoring under paragraph
 (c) of this section or take other
 appropriate steps such as increased.
 water quality parameter monitoring or
 re-evaluation of its corrosion control
 treatment given the potentially different
 water quality considerations.
 *****
   (f) Invalidation of lead or copper tap
 water samples. A sample invalidated
 under this paragraph does not count
 toward determining lead or copper 90th
 percentile levels under § 141.80(c)(3) or
 toward meeting the minimum
 monitoring requirements of paragraph
 (c) of this section.
   (1) The State may invalidate a lead or
 copper tap water sample at least if one
 of the following conditions is met.
   (i) The laboratory establishes that
 improper sample analysis caused
 erroneous results.
   (ii) The State determines that the
 sample was taken from a site that did
 not meet the site selection criteria of
 this section.
   (iii) The sample container was
 damaged in transit.
   (iv) There is substantial reason to
 believe that the sample was subject to
 tampering.
   (2) The system must report the results
 of all samples to the State and all
 supporting documentation for samples
 the system believes should be
 invalidated.
   (3) To invalidate a sample under
 paragraph (f)(l) of this section, the
 decision and the rationale for the
 decision must be documented in
 writing. States may not invalidate  a
 sample solely on the grounds that a
 follow-up sample result is higher or
 lower than that of the original sample.
   (4] The water system must collect
 replacement samples for any samples
 invalidated under this section if, after
 the invalidation of one or more samples,
 the system has too few samples to meet
the minimum requirements of paragraph
 (c) of this section. Any such
replacement samples must be taken as
 soon as possible, but no later than  20
 days after the date the State invalidates
the sample or by the end of the
applicable monitoring period,
whichever occurs later. Replacement
samples taken after the end of the
applicable monitoring period shall not
 also be used to meet the monitoring
 requirements of a subsequent
 monitoring period. The replacement
 samples shall be taken at the same
 locations as the invalidated samples or,
 if that is not possible, at locations other
 than those already used for sampling
 during the monitoring period.
   (g) Monitoring waivers for small
 systems. Any small system that meets
 the criteria of this paragraph may apply
 to the State to reduce the frequency of
 monitoring for lead and copper under
 this section to once every nine years
 (i.e., a "full waiver") if it meets all of the
 materials criteria specified in paragraph
 (g)(l) of this section and all of the
 monitoring criteria specified in
 paragraph (g)(2) of this section. If State
 regulations permit, any small system
 that meets the criteria in paragraphs
 (g)(l) and (2) of this section only for
 lead, or only for copper, may apply to
 the State for a waiver to reduce the
 frequency of tap water monitoring, to
 once every nine years for that
 contaminant ohly (i.e., a "partial
 waiver").
  (1) Materials criteria. The system
 must demonstrate that its distribution
 system and service lines and all
 drinking water supply plumbing,
 including plumbing conveying drinking
 water within all residences and
 buildings connected to the system, are
 free of lead-containing materials and/or
 copper-containing materials, as those
 terms are defined in this paragraph, as
 follows:
  (i) Lead. To qualify for a full waiver,
 or a waiver of the tap water monitoring
 requirements for lead (Le., a "lead
 waiver"), the water system must provide
 certification and supporting
 documentation to the State that the
 system is free of all lead-containing
 materials, as follows:
  (A) It contains no plastic pipes which
 contain lead plasticizers, or plastic
 service lines which contain lead
 plasticizers; and
  (B) It is free of lead service lines, lead
 pipes, lead soldered pipe joints, and
 leaded brass or bronze alloy fittings and
 fixtures, unless such fittings and
 fixtures meet the specifications of any
 standard established pursuant to 42
 U.S.C.  300g-6(e) (SDWA section
 1417(e)).
  (ii) Copper. To qualify for a full
waiver, or a waiver of the tap water
monitoring requirements for copper
 (i.e., a "copper waiver"), the water
 system must provide certification and
 supporting documentation to the State
that the system contains no copper
pipes or copper service lines.
  (2) Monitoring criteria for waiver
issuance. The system must have

-------
2010
Federal Register/Vol.  65,  No. 8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
completed at least one 6-month round of
standard tap water monitoring for lead
and copper at sites approved by the
State and from the number of sites
required by paragraph (c) of this section
and demonstrate that the 90th percentile
levels for any and all rounds of
monitoring conducted since the system
became free of all lead-containing and/
or copper-containing materials, as
appropriate, meet the following criteria.
  0) Lead levels. To qualify for a full
waiver, or a lead waiver, the system
must demonstrate that the 90th
percentile lead level does not exceed
0.005 mg/L.
  (ii) Copper levels. To qualify for a full
waiver, or a copper waiver, the system
must demonstrate that the 90th
percentile copper level does not exceed
0.65 mg/L.
  (3) State approval of waiver
application. The State shall notify the
system of its waiver determination, in
writing, setting forth the basis of its
decision and any condition of the
waiver. As a condition of the waiver, the
State may require the system to perform
specific activities (e.g., limited
monitoring, periodic outreach to
customers to remind them to avoid
installation of materials that might void
the waiver) to avoid the risk of lead or
copper concentration of concern in tap
water. The small system must continue
monitoring for lead and copper at the
tap as required by paragraphs (d)(l)
through (d)(4) of this section, as
appropriate, until it receives written
notification from the State that the
waiver has been approved.
  (4) Monitoring frequency for systems
with waivers, (i) A system with a full
waiver must conduct tap water
monitoring for lead and copper in
accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of
this section at the reduced number of
sampling sites identified in paragraph
(c) of this section at least once every
nine years and provide the materials
certification specified in paragraph
(g)(i) of this section for both lead and
copper to the State along with the
monitoring results.
  (ii) A system with a partial waiver
must conduct tap water monitoring for
the waived contaminant in accordance
with paragraph (d)(4)(iv) of this section
at the reduced number of sampling sites
specified in paragraph (c) of this section
at least once every nine years and
provide the materials certification
specified in paragraph (g)(l) of this
section pertaining to the waived
contaminant along with the monitoring
results. Such a system also must
continue to monitor for the non-waived
contaminant in accordance with
requirements of paragraph (d)(l)
                           through (d)(4) of this section, as
                           appropriate.
                             (iii) If a system with a full or partial
                           waiver adds a new source of water or
                           changes any water treatment, the system
                           must notify the State in writing in
                           accordance with § 141.90(a)(3). The
                           State has the authority to require the
                           system to add or modify waiver
                           conditions (e.g., require recertification
                           that the system is free of lead-containing
                           and/or copper-containing materials,
                           require additional round(s) of
                           monitoring), if it deems such
                           modifications are necessary to address
                           treatment or source water changes at the
                           system.
                            • (iv) If a system with a full or partial
                           waiver becomes aware that it is no
                           longer free of lead-containing or copper-
                           containing materials, as appropriate,
                           (e.g., as a result of new construction or
                           repairs), the system shall notify the
                           State in writing no later than 60 days
                           after becoming aware of such a change.
                             (5) Continued eligibility. If the system
                           continues to satisfy the requirements of
                           paragraph (g)(4) of this section, the
                           waiver will be renewed automatically,
                           unless any of the conditions listed in
                           paragraph (g)(5)(i) through (g)(5)(iii) of
                           this section occurs. A system whose
                           waiver has been revoked may re-apply
                           for a waiver at such time as it again
                           meets the appropriate materials and
                           monitoring criteria of paragraphs (g)(l)
                           and (g)(2) of this section.
                             (i) A system with a full waiver or a
                           lead waiver no longer satisfies the
                           materials criteria of paragraph (g)(l)(i) of
                           this section or has a 90th percentile lead
                           level greater than 0.005 mg/L.
                             (ii) A system with a full waiver or a
                           copper waiver no longer satisfies the
                           materials criteria of paragraph (g)(l)(ii)
                           of this section or has a 90th percentile
                           copper level greater than 0.65 mg/L.
                             (iii) The State notifies the system, in
                           writing, that the waiver has been
                           revoked, setting forth the basis of its
                           decision.
                             (6) Requirements following waiver
                           revocation. A system whose full or
                           partial waiver has been revoked by the
                           State is subject to the corrosion control
                           treatment and lead and copper tap water
                           monitoring requirements, as follows:
                             (i) If the system exceeds the lead and/
                           or copper action level, the system must
                           implement corrosion control treatment
                           iii accordance with the deadlines
                           specified in § 141.81(e), and any other
                           applicable requirements of this subpart.
                             (ii) If the system meets both the lead
                           and the copper action level, the system
                           must monitor for lead and copper at the
                           tap no less frequently than once every
                           three years using the reduced number of
sample sites specified in paragraph (c)
of this section.
  (7) Pre-existing waivers. Small system
waivers approved by the State in writing
prior to April 11, 2000 shall remain in
effect under the following conditions:
  (i) If the system has demonstrated that
it is both free of lead-containing and
copper-containing materials, as required
by paragraph (g)(l) of this section and
that its 90th percentile lead levels and
90th percentile copper levels meet the
criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this
section, the waiver remains in effect so
long as the system continues to meet the
waiver eligibility criteria of paragraph
(g)(5)  of this section. The first round of
tap water monitoring conducted
pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) of this
section shall be completed no later than
nine years after the last time the system
has monitored for lead and copper at the
tap.
  (ii)  If the system has met the materials
criteria of paragraph (g)(l) of this
section but has not met the monitoring
criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this
section, the system shall conduct a
round of monitoring for lead and copper
at the tap demonstrating that it meets
the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this
section no later than September 30,
2000. Thereafter, the waiver  shall
remain in effect as long as the system
meets the continued eligibility criteria
of paragraph (g)(5) of this section. The
first round of tap water monitoring
conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(4)
of this section shall be completed no
later than nine years after the round of
monitoring conducted pursuant to
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
*****
  10.  Section 141.87 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (e)(2) as
(e)(2)(i), by adding paragraphs (c)(3) and
(e)(2)(ii), and by revising the first
sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ii), and by
revising paragraphs (c)(2) introductory
text, (d), (e)(4), and the table at the end
of § 141.87 following paragraph (f), to
read as follows:

§ 141.87  Monitoring requirements for
water  quality parameters.
*****
  (a)* * *
  (2)*  * *
  (ii)  Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(3)  of this section, systems shall
collect two samples for each applicable
water quality parameter at each entry
point to the distribution system during
each monitoring period specified in
paragraph (b) of this section. * * *
*****
  (c) * * *
  (2) Except as provided in paragraph
(c)(3) of this section, at each entry point

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 65,  No. 8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                                 2O11
to the distribution system, at least one
sample no less frequently than every
two weeks (biweekly) for: * *  *
   (3) Any ground water system can limit
entry point sampling described in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section to those
entry points that are representative of
water quality and treatment conditions
throughout the system. If water from
untreated ground water sources mixes
with water from treated ground water
sources, the system must monitor for
water quality parameters both at
representative entry points receiving
treatment and representative entry
points receiving no treatment. Prior to
the start of any monitoring under this
paragraph, the system shall provide to
the State written information identifying
the selected entry points and
documentation, including information
on seasonal variability, sufficient to
demonstrate that the sites are
representative of water quality and
treatment conditions throughout the
system.
  (d) Monitoring after State specifies
water quality parameter values for
optimal corrosion control. After the
State specifies the values for applicable
water quality control parameters
reflecting optimal corrosion control
treatment under § 141.82(f), all large
systems shall measure the applicable
water quality parameters in accordance
       with paragraph [c) of this section and
       determine compliance with the
       requirements of § 141.82(g) every six
       months with tlie first six-month period
       to begin on the date the State specifies
       the optimal values under § 141.82(f).
       Any small or medium-size system shall
       conduct such monitoring during each
       six-month period specified in this
       paragraph in which the system exceeds
       the lead or copper action level. For any
       such small and medium-size system that
       is subject to a reduced monitoring
       frequency pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4) at
       the time of the action level exceedance,
       the end of the applicable six-month
       period under this paragraph shall
       coincide with the end of the applicable
       monitoring period under § 141.86(d)(4).
       Compliance with State-designated
       optimal water quality parameter values
       shall be determined as specified under
       § 141.82(g).
          (e)*  * *
          (2) *  * *
          (ii) A water system may reduce the
       frequency with which it collects tap
       samples for applicable water quality
       parameters specified in paragraph (e)[l)
       of this section to every three years if it
       demonstrates during two consecutive
       monitoring periods that its tap water
       lead level at the 90th percentile is less
       than or equal to the PQL for lead
       specified in § 141.89 (a){l)(ii), that its
       tap water copper level at the 90th
                percentile is less than or equal to 0.65
                mg/L for copper in § 141.80(c)(2), and
                that it also has maintained the range of
                values for the water quality parameters
                reflecting optimal corrosion control
                treatment specified by the State under  "
                §141.82(fJ.
                *****
                  (4) Any water system subject to the
                reduced monitoring frequency that fails
                to operate at or above the minimum
                value or within the range of values for
                the water quality parameters specified
                by the State in § 141.82(f) for more than
                nine days in any six-month period
                specified in § 141.82(g) shall resume
                distribution system tap water sampling
                in accordance with the number and
                frequency requirements in paragraph (d)
                of this section. Such a system may
                resume annual monitoring for water
                quality  parameters at the tap at the
                reduced number of sites specified in
                paragraph (e)(l) of this section after it
                has completed two subsequent
                consecutive six-month rounds of  •
                monitoring that meet the criteria of that
                paragraph and/or may resume triennial
                monitoring for water quality parameters
                at the tap  at the reduced number of sites
                after it demonstrates through
                subsequent rounds of monitoring that it
                meets the criteria of either paragraph
                (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this section.
                    SUMMARY OF MONITORING REQUIREMENTS FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS 1
         Monitoring period
          Parameters2
                                            Location
                                       Frequency
Initial monitoring
After installation of corrosion control
After State specifies parameter values
  for optimal corrosion control.
Reduced monitoring
pH,  alkalinity,  orthophosphate or
  silica3, calcium, conductivity, tem-
  perature.
pH,  alkalinity,  orthophosphate or
  silica3, calcium4.
pH, alkalinity, dosage rate and con-
  centration (if alkalinity adjusted as
  part of corrosion control), inhibitor
  dosage rate and  inhibitor  resid-
  uals.
pH,  alkalinity,  orthophosphate or
  silica3, calcium4.
pH, alkalinity dosage rate and con-
  centration (if alkalinity adjusted as
  part of corrosion control), inhibitor
  dosage rate and  inhibitor  resid-
  ual5.
pH,  alkalinity,  orthophosphate or
  silica3, calcium4.

pH, alkalinity dosage rate and con-
  centration (if alkalinity adjusted as
  part of corrosion control), inhibitor
  dosage rate and  inhibitor  resid-
  ual5.
Taps and  at entry point(s) to dis-
  tribution system.

Taps 	

Entry  point(s) to distribution  sys-
  tem6.
Taps
                                                                 Entry  point(s) to distribution  sys-
                                                                   tem6.
Taps
                                                                 Entry  point(s) to distribution  sys-
                                                                   tem6.
Every 6 months.
                                                                                                 Every 6 months.

                                                                                                 No less frequently than
                                                                                                   every two weeks.
Every 6 months.  •

No less frequently than
  every two weeks.
Every 6 months, annually7
  or every 3 years8; re-
  duced number of sites.
No less frequently than
  every two weeks.
  1 Table is for illustrative purposes; consult the text of this section for precise regulatory requirements.
  2 Small and medium-size systems have to monitor for water quality parameters only during monitoring periods in which the system exceeds the
lead or copper action level.
  3 Orthophosphate must be measured only when an inhibitor containing a phosphate compound is used. Silica must be measured only when an
inhibitor containing silicate compound is used.
  4 Calcium must be measured only when calcium carbonate stabilization is used as part of corrosion control.

-------
 2012
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January  12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
   * Inhibitor dosage rates and inhibitor residual concentrations (orthophosphate or silica) must be measured only when an inhibitor is used.
   •Ground water systems may limit monitoring to representative locations throughout the system.
   7 Water systems may reduce frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from every six months to annually if they have
 maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of monitoring.
   8 Water systems may further reduce the frequency of monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap from annually to once every 3 years if
 they have maintained the range of values for water quality parameters reflecting optimal corrosion control during 3 consecutive years of annual
 monitoring. Water systems may accelerate to triennial monitoring for water quality parameters at the tap if they have maintained 90th percentile
 lead levels less than or equal to 0.005 mg/L, 90th percentile copper levels less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L, and the range of water quality param-
 eter designated by the State under § 141.82(f) as representing optimal corrosion control during two consecutive six-month monitoring periods.
   11. Section 141.88 is amended by
 revising paragraphs (a)(l), (e)(l), and
 (e)(2) to read as follows:

 § 141.88 Monitoring requirements for lead
 and copper in source water.
   (a) *  *  *
   (l) A water system that fails to meet
 the lead or copper action level on the
 basis of tap samples collected in
 accordance with § 141.86 shall collect
 lead and copper source water samples
 in accordance with the following
 requirements regarding sample location,
 number of samples, and collection
 methods:
   (i) Groundwater systems shall take a
 minimum of one sample at every entry
 point to the distribution system which
 is representative of each well after
 treatment (hereafter called a sampling
 point).  The system shall take one
 sample at the same sampling point
 unless conditions make another
 sampling point more representative of
 each source or treatment plant.
   (ii) Surface water systems shall take a
 minimum  of one sample at every entry
 point to the distribution system after
 any application of treatment or in the
 distribution system at a point which is
 representative of each source after
 treatment (hereafter called a sampling
 point). The system shall take each
 sample at the same sampling point
 unless conditions make another
 sampling point more representative of
 each source or treatment plant.
  Note to paragraph (a)(l)(ii): For the
 purposes of this paragraph, surface water
 systems  include systems with a combination
 of surface and ground sources.
  (iii) If a system draws water from
 more than  one source and the sources
 are combined before distribution, the
 system must sample at an entry point to
 the distribution system during periods
 of normal operating conditions (i.e.,
 when water is representative of all
 sources being used).
  (iv) The State may reduce the total
 number of samples which must be
 analyzed by allowing the use of
 compositing. Compositing of samples
 must be done by certified laboratory
 personnel. Composite samples from a
 maximum of five samples are allowed,
provided that if the lead concentration
in the composite sample is greater than
or equal to 0.001 mg/L  or the copper
                           concentration is greater than or equal to
                           0.160 mg/L, then either:
                             (A) A follow-up sample shall be taken
                           and analyzed within 14 days at each
                           sampling point included in the
                           composite; or
                             (B) If duplicates of or sufficient
                           quantities from the original samples
                           from each sampling point used in the
                           composite are available, the system may
                           use these instead of resampling.
                           *****
                             (e) *  * *
                             (1) A water system using only ground
                           water may reduce the monitoring
                           frequency for lead and copper in source
                           water to once during each nine-year
                           compliance cycle (as that term is
                           defined in § 141.2) if the system meets
                           one of the following criteria:
                             (i) The system demonstrates that
                           finished drinking water entering the
                           distribution system has been maintained
                           below the maximum permissible lead
                           and copper concentrations specified by
                           the State in § 141.83 (b) (4) during at least
                           three consecutive compliance periods
                           under paragraph (d)(l) of this section; or
                             (ii) The State has determined that
                           source water treatment is not needed
                           and the system demonstrates that,
                           during at least three consecutive
                           compliance periods in which sampling
                           was conducted under paragraph (d)(l)
                           of this section, the concentration of lead
                           in source water was less than or equal
                           to 0.005 mg/L and the concentration of
                           copper in source water was less than or
                           equal to 0.65 mg/L.
                             (2) A water system using surface
                           water (or a combination of surface water
                           and ground water) may reduce the
                           monitoring frequency in paragraph
                           (d)(l) of this section to once during each
                           nine-year compliance cycle (as that term
                           is defined in § 141.2) if the system meets
                           one of the following criteria:
                             (i) The system demonstrates that
                           finished drinking water entering the
                           distribution system has been maintained
                           below the maximum permissible lead
                           and copper concentrations specified by
                           the State in § 141.83(b)(4) for at least
                           three consecutive years; or
                             (ii) The State has determined that
                           source water treatment is not needed
                           and the  system demonstrates that,
                           during at least three consecutive years,
                           the concentration of lead in source
 water was less than or equal to 0.005
 mg/L and the concentration of copper in
 source water was less than or equal to
 0.65 mg/L.
 *****
   12. Section 141.89 is amended by
 revising paragraph (a)(l)(iii) to read as
 follows:

 § 141.89  Analytical methods.
   (a) *  *  *
   (D*  *  *
   (iii) Achieve the method detection
 limit for lead of 0.001 mg/L according
 to the procedures in appendix B of part
 136 of this title. This need only be
 accomplished if the laboratory will be
 processing source water composite
 samples under § 141.88(a)(l)(iii).
 *****
   13. Section 141.90 is amended by
 removing and reserving paragraph
 (a)(l)(iii), by revising all references to
 "§ 141.84(f)" in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and
 (ii) to read "§ 141.84(e)", by revising
 paragraphs (a)(l) introductory text,
 (a)(l)(ii), (a)(l)(iv), (a)(2) through (a)(5),
 (e)(4) and (f), by removing a period from
 (a)(l)(vii) and adding a semicolon, and
 by adding paragraphs (a)(l)(viii) and (h)
 to read as follows:

 §141.90 Reporting requirements.
 *****
  (a) * *  *
  (1) Except as provided in paragraph
 (a)(l)(viii) of this section, a water system
 shall report the information specified
 below for all tap water samples
 specified in § 141.86 and for all water
 quality parameter samples specified in
 § 141.87 within the first 10 days
 following the end of each applicable
 monitoring period specified in § 141.86
 and § 141.87 (i.e., every six months,
 annually, every 3 years, or every 9
 years):
 *****
  (ii) Documentation for each tap water
 lead or copper sample for which the
 water system requests invalidation
pursuant to § 141.86(f)(2);
  (iii) [Reserved];
  (iv) The 90th percentile lead and
copper concentrations measured from
among all lead and copper tap water
samples collected during each
monitoring period (calculated in
accordance with § 141.80(c)(3)), unless

-------
             Federal Register / Vol. 65, No.  8 / Wednesday, January 12, 2000 / Rules and  Regulations
                                                                       2O13
 the State calculates the system's 90th
 percentile lead and copper levels under
 paragraph (h) of this section;
 *****
   (viii) A water system shall report the
 results of all water quality parameter
 samples collected under § 141.87(c)
 through (f) during each six-month
 monitoring period specified in
 §141.87(d) within the first 10 days
 following the end of the monitoring
 period unless the State has specified a
 more frequent reporting requirement.
 *****
   (2) For a non-transient non-
 community water system, or a
 community water system meeting the
 criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii), that
 does not have enough taps that can
 provide first-draw samples, the system
 must either:
   (i) Provide written documentation to
 the State identifying standing times and
 locations for enough non-first-draw
 samples to make up its sampling pool
 under § 141.86(b)(5) by the start of the
 first applicable monitoring period under
 § 141.86(d) that commences after April
 11, 2000, unless the State has waived
 prior'State approval of non-first-draw
•sample sites selected by the system
 pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5); or
   (ii) If the State has waived prior
 approval of non-first-draw sample sites
 selected by the system, identify, in
 writing, each site that did not meet the
 six-hour minimum standing time and
 the length of standing time for that
 particular substitute sample collected
 pursuant to § 141.86(b)(5) and include
 this information with the lead and
 copper tap sample results required to be
 submitted pursuant to paragraph
 (a)(l)(i) of this section.
   (3) No later than 60 days after the
 addition of a new source or any change
 in water treatment, unless the State
 requires earlier notification, a water
 system deemed to have optimized
 corrosion control under § 141.81(b)(3), a
 water system subject to reduced
 monitoring pursuant to § 141.86(d)(4),
 or a water system subject to a
 monitoring waiver pursuant to
 § 141.86(g), shall send written
 documentation to the State describing
 the change. In those instances where
 prior State approval of the treatment
 change or new source is not required,
 water systems are encouraged to provide
 the notification to the State beforehand
 to minimize the risk the treatment
 change or new source will adversely
 affect optimal corrosion control.
  (4) Any small system applying for a
 monitoring waiver under § 141.86(g), or
 subject to a waiver granted pursuant to
 § 141.86(g)(3), shall provide the
 following information to the State i'n
 writing by the specified deadline:
   (i) By the start of the first applicable
 monitoring period in § 141.86(d), any
 small water system applying for a
 monitoring waiver shall provide the
 documentation required to demonstrate
 that it meets the waiver criteria of
 §§ 141.86(g)(l) and (2).
   (ii) No later than nine years after the
 monitoring previously conducted
 pursuant to § 141.86(g)(2) or
 § 141.86(g)(4)(i), each small system
 desiring to maintain  its monitoring
 waiver shall provide the information
 required by §§ 141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii).
   (iii) No later than 60 days after it
 becomes aware that it is no longer free
 of lead-containing and/or copper-
 containing material, as appropriate,
 each small system with a monitoring
 waiver shall provide written notification
 to the State, setting forth the
 circumstances resulting in the lead-
 containing and/or copper-containing
 materials being introduced into the
 system and what corrective action, if
 any, the system plans to remove these
 materials.
   (iv) By October 10, 2000, any small
 system with a waiver granted prior to
 April 11, 2000 and that has not
 previously met the requirements of
 § 141.86(g)(2) shall provide the
 information required by that paragraph,
   (5) Each ground water system that
 limits water quality parameter
 monitoring to a subset of entry points
 under § 141.87(c)(3) shall provide, by
 the commencement of such monitoring,
 written correspondence to  the State that
 identifies the selected entry points and
 includes information sufficient to
 demonstrate that the  sites are
 representative of water quality and
 treatment conditions throughout the
 system.
 *    *    *    *    *
  (e) * * *
  (4) Any system which collects lead
 service line samples following partial
 lead service line replacement required
by § 141.84 shall report the results to the
 State within the first ten days of the
month following the month in which
the system receives the laboratory
results, or as specified by the State.
 States, at their discretion may eliminate
this requirement to report these
monitoring results. Systems shall also
report any additional information as
specified by the State, and in a time and
manner prescribed by the State, to verify
that all partial lead service line
replacement activities have taken place.
  (f) Public education program
reporting requirements. (1) Any water
system that is subject to the public
 education requirements in § 141.85
 shall, within ten days after the end of
 each period in which the system is
 required to perform public education
 tasks in accordance with § 141.85(c),
 send written documentation to the State
 that contains:
   (i) A demonstration that the system
 has delivered the public education
 materials that meet the content
 requirements in § 141.85(a) and (b) and
 the delivery requirements in § 141.85(c);
 and
   (ii) A list of all the newspapers, radio
 stations, television stations, and
 facilities and organizations to which the
 system delivered public education
 materials during the period in which the
 system was required to perform public
 education tasks.
   (2) Unless required by the State, a
 system that previously has submitted
 the information required by paragraph
 (f)(l)(ii) of this section need not
 resubmit the information required by
 paragraph (f)(l)(ii) of this section, as  '
 long as there have been no changes in  "
 the distribution list and the system
 certifies that the public education
 materials were distributed to the same
 list submitted previously.
 *****
   (h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead
 and copper concentrations where the
 State calculates a system's 90th
 percentile concentrations. A water
 system is not required to report the 90th
 percentile lead and copper
 concentrations measured from among
 all lead and copper tap water samples
 collected  during each monitoring
 period, as required by paragraph
 (a)(l)(iv) of this section if:
   (1) The State has previously notified
 the water system that it will calculate
 the water system's 90th percentile lead
 and copper concentrations, based on the
 lead and copper tap results submitted
 pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this
 section, and has specified  a date before
 the end of the applicable monitoring
 period by which the system must
 provide the results of lead and copper
 tap water samples;
  _(2) The  system has 'provided the
 following information to the State by the
 date specified in paragraph (h)(l) of this
 section:
  (i) The results of all tap samples for
 lead and copper including the location
 of each site and the criteria under
 §141.86(a)(3), (4), (5), (6), and/or (7)
under which the site was selected for
the system's sampling pool, pursuant to
paragraph (a)(l)(i) of this section; and
  (ii) An identification of sampling sites
utilized during the current monitoring
period that were not sampled during

-------
 2014
Federal Register/Vol. 65, No. 8/Wednesday,  January 12,  2000/Rules and Regulations
 previous monitoring periods, and an
 explanation why sampling sites have
 changed; and
   (3) The State has provided the results
 of the 90th percentile lead and copper
 calculations, in writing, to the water
 system before the end of the monitoring
 period.

 PART 142—NATIONAL PRIMARY
 DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
 IMPLEMENTATION

   14. The authority citation for part 142
 continues to read as follows:
  Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-l, 300g-2,
 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300J-4,
 300J-9. and SOOj-ll.
   15. Section 142.14 is amended by
 removing paragraph (d)(8)(vii), by
 redesignating paragraphs (d)(8)(i)
 through  (d)(8)(vi) as (d)(8)(ii) through
 (d)(8)(vii), respectively, by adding new
 paragraphs (d)(8)(i), and (d)(8)(ix)
 through  (d)(8)(xvii), and by revising
 newly designated paragraphs (d)(8)(vi)
 and (d)(8)(vii) and paragraphs
 (d)(8)(vm), (d)(9), Cd)(10), and (d)(ll) to
 read as follows:

 § 142.14  Records kept by States.
 *****
  fd) * * *
  (8) * * *
  (i) Section 141.81(b)—for any water
 system deemed to be optimized under
 § 141.81(b)(l) or (b)(3) of this  chapter,
 any conditions imposed by the State on
 specific water systems to ensure the
 continued operation and maintenance of
 corrosion control treatment in place;
 *****
  (vi) Section 141.83(b)(2)—
 determinations of source water
 treatment;
  (vii) Section 141.83(b)(4)—
 designations of maximum permissible
 concentrations of lead and copper in
 source water;
  (viii) Section 141.84(e)—-
 determinations establishing shorter lead
 service line service line replacement
 schedules under § 141.84;
  (ix) Sections 141.81(b)(3)(iii),
 141.86(d)(4Kvii),  and 141.86(g)(4)(iii)—
 determinations of additional monitoring
 requirements and/or other actions
 required to maintain optimal corrosion
 control by systems monitoring for lead
 and copper at the tap less frequently
 than once every six months that change
 treatment or add a new source of water;
  (x) Section 141.85—system-specific
 decisions regarding the content of
written public education materials and/
 or the distribution of these materials;
  (xi) Section 141.86(b)(5)—system-
specific determinations regarding use of
non-first-draw samples at non-transient
                          non-community water systems, and
                          community water systems meeting the
                          criteria of §§ 141.85(c)(7)(i) and (ii) of
                          this chapter, that operate 24 hours a
                          day;
                            (xii) Section 141.86(c)—system-
                          specific designations of sampling
                          locations for systems subject to reduced
                          monitoring;
                            (xiii) Section 141.86(d)(iv)(A)—
                          system-specific determinations
                          pertaining to alternative sample
                          collection periods for systems subject to
                          reduced monitoring;
                            (xiv) Section 141.86(g)—
                          determinations of small system
                          monitoring waivers, waiver
                          recertifications, and waiver revocations;
                            (xv) Section 141.87(c)(3)—
                          determinations regarding representative
                          entry point locations at ground water
                          systems;
                            (xvi) Section 141.90(e)(4)—system-
                          specific determinations regarding the
                          submission of information to
                          demonstrate compliance with partial
                          lead service line replacement
                          requirements; and
                            (xvii) Section 141.90(f)—system-
                          specific decisions regarding the
                          resubmission of detailed documentation
                          demonstrating completion of public
                          education requirements.
                            (9) Records of reports and any other
                          information submitted by PWSs under
                          § 141.90 of this chapter, including
                          records of any 90th percentile values
                          calculated by the State under
                          §141.90(h) of this chapter.
                            (10) Records of State activities, and
                          the results thereof, to:
                            (i) Verify compliance with State
                          determinations issued under
                          §§141.82(f) of this chapter, 141.82(h) of
                          this chapter, 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter,
                          and 141.83(b)(4) of this chapter;
                            (ii) Verify compliance with the
                          requirements related to partial lead
                          service line replacement under
                          § 141.84(d) of this chapter and
                          compliance with lead service line
                          replacement schedules under
                          § 141.84(e) of this chapter; and
                            (iii) Invalidate tap water lead and
                          copper samples under § 141.86(f) of this
                          chapter.
                            (11) Records of each system's
                          currently applicable or most recently
                          designated monitoring requirements. If,
                          for the records identified in paragraphs
                          (d)(8)(i) through (d)(8)(xvii) of this
                          section, no change is made to State
                          determinations during a 12-year
                          retention period, the State shall retain
                          the record until a new decision,
                          determination, or designation has been
                          issued.
  16. Section 142.15 is amended by
redesignating paragraphs (c)(4)(i)
through (c)(4)(vii) as (c)(4)(i)(A) through
(c)(4)(i)(G) respectively, by adding
paragraphs (c)(4)(i) introductory text,
(c)(4)(ii), and (c)(4)(iii), and by revising
paragraph (c)(4) introductory text to
read as follows:

§ 142.15  Reports by States.
*****
  (c) * *  *
  (4) States shall report quarterly, in a
format and on a schedule prescribed by
the Administrator, the following
information related to each system's
compliance with the treatment
techniques for lead and copper under 40
CFR part 141, subpart I during the
preceding calendar quarter. Specifically,
States shall report as follows:
  (i) For any reports provided prior to
May 15, 2000, States shall report the
name and PWS identification number:
*****
  (ii) For  any reports provided after May
14, 2000 and before January 14, 2002,
States may report in accordance with
either paragraph (c)(4)(i) or (c)(4)(iii) of
this section.
  (iii) For all reports submitted on or
after January 14, 2002, States shall
report the PWS identification number of
each public water system identified in
paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (F) of
this section.
  (A) For  each large and medium-size
public water system, all 90th percentile
lead levels calculated during each
monitoring period specified in § 141.86
of this chapter,  and the first and last day
of the monitoring period for which  the
90th percentile lead level was
calculated;
  (B) For each small public water
system, the 90th percentile lead level
calculated during each monitoring
period in which the system exceeds the
lead action level, and the first and last
day of each monitoring period in which
an exceedance occurred;
  (C) For each public water system
(regardless of size), the 90th percentile
copper level calculated during each
monitoring period in which the system
exceeds the copper action level, and the
first and last day of each monitoring
period in which an exceedance
occurred;
  (D) For each public water system  for
which the State has designated optimal
water quality parameters under
§ 141.82(f) of this chapter, or which the
State has deemed to have optimized
corrosion  control under § 141.81(b)(l) or
(b)(3) of this chapter, the date of the
determination and the paragraph(s)
under which the State made its
determination;

-------
            Federal Register/Vol. 65, No.  8/Wednesday, January 12, 2000/Rules and Regulations
                                                                       2O15
  (E) For each public water system
required to begin replacing lead service
lines as specified in § 141.84 of this
chapter and the date each system must
begin replacement; and
  (F) For each public water system that
has implemented optimal corrosion
control, completed applicable source
water treatment requirements pursuant
to § 141.83 of this chapter and/or
completed lead service line replacement
requirements pursuant to § 141.84 of
this chapter, and the date of the State's
determination that these requirements
have been met. The date reported shall
be the latest of the following events:
  (1} The date the State designates
optimal water quality parameters under
§ 141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the
system to have optimized corrosion
control pursuant to. § 141.81fb)(l) or
(b) (3) of this chapter;
  (2) For systems triggered into source
water treatment, the date the State
 designates maximum permissible source
 water levels under § 141.83(b)(4) of this
 chapter or determines pursuant to
 § 141.83(b)(2) of this chapter that source
 water treatment is not required; or
   (3) For systems triggered into lead
 service line replacement, the date the
• system completes lead service line
 replacement or becomes eligible to cease
 lead service line replacement pursuant
 to §141.84(0 of this chapter.
 *****
   17. Section 142.16 is amended by
 adding a paragraph (d)(4) and by
 revising paragraphs (d)(l) and (d)(3) to
 read as follows:

 § 142.16  Special primacy requirements.
 *****
   (d)*  * *
   (1) Section 141.82—State designation
 of optimal corrosion control.
   (i) Sections 141.82(d), 141.82(f), and
 141.82(h)—Designating optimal
 corrosion control treatment methods,
optimal water quality parameters, and
modifications thereto.
  (ii) Section 141.82(g)—Designating an
alternative approach for aggregating
multiple measurements collected during
the same day for a water quality
parameter at a sampling location, if the
State elects to adopt a formula other
than the one specified in § 141.82(g)(l)
of this chapter.
*    *    *    *    *

  (3) Section 141.90(e)—Verifying
compliance with lead service line
replacement schedules and completion
of all partial lead service line
replacement activities.
  (4) Section 141.86(d)(4)(iv)(A)—
Designating  an alternative period for
sample collection for community water
systems subject to reduced monitoring.
*****
[FRDoc. 00-3 Filed 1-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-5O-P

-------

-------