1
1
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
Of
The
Information
Collection
TITLE:
Information
Collection
Request
for
Proposed
Short
Term
Regulatory
Revisions
and
Clarifications
to
the
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
for
Lead
and
Copper
U.
S.
EPA
ICR
Number:
1896.06
OMB
Control
Number:
2040­
0204
1(
b)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
The
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
NPDWRs)
for
Lead
and
Copper
(
The
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
or
LCR),
promulgated
by
EPA
in
1991,
is
a
regulatory
program
mandated
by
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
(
SDWA).
The
LCR's
goal
is
to
reduce
the
levels
of
lead
and
copper
at
the
tap
as
close
to
the
maximum
contaminant
level
goals
(
MCLG)
of
0
parts
per
billion
(
ppb)
of
lead
and
1.3
ppb
of
copper
as
possible.
To
accomplish
this,
the
LCR
requires
community
and
non­
transient
non­
community
water
systems1
to
optimize
corrosion
control
and,
under
specified
conditions,
install
source
water
treatment,
conduct
public
education,
and/
or
replace
lead
service
lines
in
the
distribution
system.

Water
systems
include
Federal,
State,
Tribal,
and
local
governmental
entities
as
well
as
private
entities.
States
(
and
Tribes)
that
have
been
granted
primary
enforcement
authority
(
i.
e.,
primacy)
for
the
LCR
are
responsible
for
overseeing
rule
implementation
by
systems
within
their
jurisdiction.
In
instances
where
a
State
or
Tribe
does
not
have
primacy,
the
EPA
Region
is
the
Primacy
Agent.
2
Systems
demonstrate
compliance
through
reporting
the
analytical
results
of
collected
samples
and
other
information
to
the
State.
Systems
use
these
data
to
demonstrate
compliance,
assess
treatment
options,
operate
and
maintain
installed
treatment,
and
communicate
water
quality
information
to
consumers
served
by
the
system.
States
utilize
the
data
to
determine
compliance
and
designate
treatment
to
be
installed
and
enforceable
operating
parameters.
States
also
are
required
to
report
a
subset
of
the
data
to
EPA
which
utilizes
this
information
to
protect
public
health
by
ensuring
compliance
with
the
LCR,
measuring
progress
toward
meeting
the
LCR's
goals,
and
evaluating
the
appropriateness
of
State
implementation
activities.
EPA
stores
the
information
reported
by
States
in
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System
(
SDWIS).

System
implementation
of
the
LCR
begins
with
initial
monitoring
for
lead
and
copper
at
the
tap
and,
in
some
cases,
for
water
quality
parameters
(
WQPs)
and/
or
source
water
lead/
copper
concentrations.

1
Community
water
systems
(
CWSs)
are
public
water
systems
(
PWSs)
that
have
at
least
15
service
connections
used
by
year
round
residents
or
regularly
serve
at
least
25
year­
round
residents.
Nontransient
non­
community
water
systems
(
NTNCWSs)
are
PWSs
that
are
not
CWSs
but
regularly
serve
at
least
25
of
the
same
persons
over
six
months
a
year.
Throughout
the
rest
of
this
document,
the
reference
to
water
systems,
systems,
utilities,
and
PWSs
include
only
these
two
types
of
PWS.

2
Throughout
the
rest
of
this
document,
the
term
State/
Primacy
Agency
refers
to
a
State
or
federally­
recognized
Indian
Tribe
that
has
been
granted
primacy
with
respect
to
the
LCR
or
the
appropriate
EPA
Region
(
where
the
State
or
Tribe
does
not
have
primacy).
2
States
deem
some
systems
to
have
optimized
corrosion
control
based
on
the
results
of
this
initial
monitoring.
Deemed
systems
must
continue
to
monitor
periodically
for
lead
and
copper
at
the
tap
and,
in
some
cases
for
lead
and
copper
in
source
water,
but
are
not
required
to
conduct
routine
WQP
monitoring
or
to
implement
the
LCR's
other
treatment
technique
requirements.
All
other
systems
are
required
to
assess
alternative
corrosion
control
technologies,
and
to
make
corrosion
control
treatment
and
source
water
treatment
recommendations
to
the
State
who
then
must
specify
what
treatment
the
system
is
to
install.
Systems
exceeding
the
lead
Action
Level
also
must
conduct
public
education
programs.
3
Following
installation
of
required
treatment,
systems
must
conduct
follow­
up
monitoring,
after
which
the
State
specifies
the
optimal
water
quality
parameter
levels
or
ranges
and,
if
appropriate,
maximum
permissible
source
water
levels,
within
which
the
system
must
then
operate.
Such
systems
must
continue
periodic
lead/
copper
tap
water
monitoring
and,
in
some
cases,
WQP
and
source
water
monitoring.
Systems
with
lead
service
lines
in
the
distribution
system
must
implement
a
lead
service
line
replacement
program
if
they
continue
to
exceed
the
lead
Action
Level
after
the
installation
of
corrosion
control
and/
or
source
water
treatment.

The
Final
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
for
Lead
and
Copper,
April
1991,
supports
the
1991
LCR
rule
and
contains
the
system,
State,
and
Agency
record
keeping
and
reporting
burden
and
costs
for
the
LCR
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
1991
ICR).
The
LCR
burdens
and
costs
were
subsequently
incorporated
into
a
comprehensive
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
for
the
drinking
water
program,
entitled,
the
Collection
Request
for
the
Public
Water
System
Supply
Program,
December
1993,
EPA
tracking
number
0270.39
and
OMB
number
2040­
090.
A
stand­
alone
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
ICR,
entitled,
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
for
Lead
and
Copper,
June
1999,
EPA
tracking
number
1912.01
and
OMB
number
2040­
0210,
addressed
the
impacts
of
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
Minor
Revisions
(
LCRMR)
on
the
LCR
burden
and
costs
for
1999
through
2001(
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
1999
ICR).
OMB
extended
the
expiration
date
of
the
1999
ICR
through
the
end
of
2003.
The
most
recent
ICR
regarding
lead
and
copper,
entitled,
Disinfectants/
Disinfection
Byproducts,
Chemical,
and
Radionuclides
Rules,
September
2004,
EPA
tracking
number
1896.05
and
OMB
number
2040­
0204,
estimates
burden
and
costs
from
of
the
LCR,
as
well
as
other
rules,
from
2005­
2007
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
the
2004
ICR).

The
purpose
of
this
ICR
document
is
to
present
the
impacts
of
the
Short
Term
Regulatory
Revisions
and
Clarifications
to
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
(
hereafter
referred
to
as
LCRSTR)
in
terms
of
the
burden
and
costs
for
2006­
2008.4
The
LCRSTR
is
intended
to
strengthen
the
3
The
LCR
defines
Action
Levels
for
lead
and
copper
in
tap
water
samples.
These
levels
are
set
at
the
90th
percentile
level
and
establish
a
limit,
which
cannot
be
exceeded
by
more
than
ten
percent
of
the
tap
water
samples.
The
lead
Action
Level
is
0.015
mg/
L
and
the
copper
Action
Level
is
1.3
mg/
L.

4
This
ICR
only
estimates
the
burden
and
costs
for
the
implementation
activities
of
the
LCRSTR
and
should
be
considered
a
supplement
to
the
current
2004
ICR.
Concurrent
LCR
activities,
burden,
and
costs
are
described
in
the
2004
ICR.
3
implementation
of
the
LCR
in
the
areas
of
monitoring,
customer
awareness,
and
lead
service
line
replacement
in
the
short­
term.
Some
of
the
changes
clarify
the
intent
of
the
LCR
for
provisions
that
have
generated
questions.
Other
provisions
reconsider
LCR
requirements
in
light
of
recent
experience.
These
changes
are
expected
to
ensure
and
enhance
more
effective
protection
of
public
health
through
the
reduction
in
lead
exposure.
Action
Levels
and
MCLGs
are
not
changed
in
the
LCRSTR.
The
specific
regulatory
changes
that
are
the
subject
of
the
LCRSTR
are
as
follows.

#
Proposed
Revision
Purpose
of
Revision
Monitoring
III.
A
Minimum
number
of
samples
required
To
address
confusion
about
sample
collection
III.
B
Definitions
for
compliance
and
monitoring
periods
To
clarify
when
compliance
and
monitoring
periods
begin
and
end
III.
C
Reduced
monitoring
criteria
To
prohibit
systems
that
exceed
the
lead
Action
Level
from
initiating
or
remaining
on
reduced
monitoring
based
solely
on
results
of
water
quality
parameter
monitoring
Treatment
Processes
III.
D
Advanced
notification
and
approval
requirement
for
water
systems
that
intend
to
make
any
change
in
water
treatment
or
add
a
new
source
of
water
that
could
affect
the
system's
optimal
corrosion
control
To
require
systems
to
obtain
state
approval
to
add
a
new
source
of
water
or
change
a
treatment
process
prior
to
implementation
Customer
Awareness
III.
E
Notification
of
sampling
results
To
require
utilities
to
provide
sampling
results
to
consumers
who
are
occupants
of
homes
or
buildings
that
are
tested
for
lead
and
copper,
as
part
of
the
utility's
monitoring
program
III.
F
Public
Education
Requirements
To
modify
public
education
requirements
by
changing
the
content
of
the
message
to
be
provided
to
consumers,
how
the
materials
are
delivered
to
consumers,
and
the
timeframe
for
delivery
Lead
Service
Line
Replacement
III.
G
Reconsideration
of
lead
service
lines
deemed
replaced
through
testing
To
require
that
systems
reevaluate
lead
service
lines
classified
as
"
replaced"
through
testing
if
the
system
resumes
a
lead
service
line
replacement
program
For
the
three­
year
period
of
2006­
2008,
the
average
annual
burden
associated
with
the
LCRSTR
is
107,924
hours
for
the
72,213
system
respondents
and
5,928
hours
for
the
57
State
and
Primacy
Agency
respondents.
The
average
annual
costs
for
systems
and
States
are
$
2.692
million
per
year
and
$
0.243
million
per
year,
respectively.
The
average
annual
burden
per
system
is
1.5
hours
per
year
and
the
average
annual
costs
per
system
are
$
37
per
year.
The
average
annual
burden
per
State
is
estimated
to
be
104
hours
per
year
and
the
average
annual
costs
per
State
are
estimated
to
be
$
4,000
per
year.

These
burden
and
cost
estimates
represent
those
activities
that
EPA
expects
would
occur
in
the
initial
three­
year
period
of
2006
through
2008
only.
During
this
period,
systems
and
States
would
perform
the
initial,
one­
time
activities
related
to
rule
review
and
primacy
requirements.
4
Systems
and
States
are
not
expected
to
begin
activities
directly
triggered
by
the
seven
targeted
regulatory
changes
within
this
period.
The
costs
and
burden
related
to
those
compliance
activities
will
begin
in
2009
and
will
be
incorporated
into
future
ICRs.
EPA
assumes
that
the
burden
and
costs
associated
with
the
one­
time
LCRSTR
implementation
activities
will
be
spread
evenly
over
the
three­
year
period
from
2006
through
2008.
5
2
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
The
following
sections
describe
the
need
for
this
information
collection,
the
legal
authority
under
which
this
information
can
be
collected,
and
how
collecting
this
information
will
support
drinking
water
program
objectives.

2(
a)
Need/
Authority
For
The
Collection
EPA
requires
current
information
on
lead
and
copper
contamination
to
be
provided
to
consumers
and
states.
Recent
highly
publicized
incidences
of
elevated
drinking
water
lead
levels
prompted
EPA
to
review
and
evaluate
the
implementation
and
effectiveness
of
the
LCR
on
a
national
basis.
As
a
result
of
this
multi­
part
review,
EPA
identified
seven
targeted
rule
changes
that
clarify
the
intent
of
the
LCR
and
enhance
protection
of
public
health
through
additional
information
gathering
and
public
education.
Consumers
and
states
will
use
the
information
collected
as
a
result
of
the
short­
term
revisions
to
the
LCR
to
determine
the
appropriate
action
they
should
undertake.
The
rule
revisions
outlined
in
this
document
are
intended
to
improve
the
implementation
of
the
LCR,
and
do
not
alter
the
original
maximum
contaminant
level
goals
or
the
fundamental
approach
to
controlling
lead
and
copper
in
drinking
water.

Section
1401(
1)(
D)
of
the
SDWA
requires
that
"
there
must
be
criteria
and
procedures
to
assure
a
supply
of
drinking
water
which
dependably
complies
with
such
maximum
contaminant
levels,
including
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
to
insure
compliance
with
such
levels
and
to
insure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
system..."
Furthermore,
Section
1445(
a)(
1)
of
the
SDWA
requires
that
"
every
person
who
is
a
supplier
of
water...
shall
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
make
such
reports,
conduct
such
monitoring,
and
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
by
regulation
to
assist
him
in
establishing
regulations,
in
determining
whether
such
person
has
acted
or
is
in
compliance
with
this
title..."
In
addition,
Section
1413(
a)(
3)
of
the
SDWA
requires
States
to
"
keep
such
records
and
make
such
reports...
as
the
Administrator
may
require
by
regulation."

Section
1412(
b)
of
the
1986
SDWA,
as
amended
in
1996,
requires
the
Agency
to
publish
maximum
contaminant
level
goals
and
promulgate
NPDWRs
for
contaminants
that
may
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
health
of
persons,
are
known
to
or
anticipated
to
occur
in
PWSs,
or,
in
the
opinion
of
the
Administrator,
present
an
opportunity
for
health
risk
reduction.
The
NPDWRs
specify
maximum
contaminant
levels
or
treatment
techniques
for
drinking
water
contaminants
(
42
USC
300g­
1).
Promulgation
of
the
LCR
implements
these
statutory
requirements.

The
sections
from
the
SDWA
1996
Amendments,
discussed
above,
are
included
as
Appendix
A
to
this
document.

2(
b)
Uses/
Users
of
the
Data
2(
b)(
i)
Uses
of
the
Data
Primary
users
of
the
data
collected
under
this
ICR
are
EPA
Headquarters,
PWS
managers,
consumers,
and
primacy
agencies,
which
include
State
regulators,
Indian
Tribes,
and,
6
in
some
instances,
EPA
Regional
Administrators.
This
section
contains
more
information
about
how
the
lead
and
copper
data
generated
by
the
regulatory
changes
will
be
used.

Under
Regulatory
change
III.
C,
systems
that
exceed
the
lead
Action
Level
collect
additional
tap
monitoring
data
when
they
resume
regular
monitoring
after
having
previously
been
on
reduced
monitoring.
Tap
monitoring
data
is
used
for
the
following
purposes.

 
Evaluate
the
quality
of
water
delivered
to
customers;
 
Evaluate
system­
specific
needs,
including
examining
treatment
effectiveness;
 
Assess
compliance
and
to
determine
when
it
is
necessary
to
alert
the
public
of
possible
health
risks
resulting
from
non­
compliance
with
federal
or
State
regulations;
 
Modify
monitoring
frequencies,
schedules,
and
variances
to
address
potential
health
risks;
and,
 
Alert
the
public,
through
notices
in
the
mass
media
or
water
bills,
when
the
system
is
not
in
compliance
with
Federal
and
State
regulations
so
that
they
may
take
actions
to
minimize
exposure
to
potentially
harmful
drinking
water
contaminants.

Regulatory
change
III.
D
provides
States
with
information
on
treatment
changes
or
source
additions
in
a
timely
manner
 
before
the
change
has
been
made
rather
than
after
the
fact.
States
use
this
information
to
assist
systems
in
evaluating
potential
impacts
of
these
modifications
on
corrosion
control
and
identifying
system
needs
and
problem
areas
through
a
review
and
approval
process.

Regulatory
change
III.
E
provides
customers
with
information
on
lead
tap
sampling
results
for
individual
establishments.
Regulatory
change
III.
F
provides
customers
with
information
on
lead
tap
sampling
results
within
the
system.
Consumers
use
this
information
to
evaluate
health
risks
and
take
action
to
minimize
exposure
to
potentially
harmful
levels
of
lead
or
copper.

Regulatory
change
III.
G
provides
systems
with
additional
information
on
the
lead
levels
from
a
subset
of
lead
service
lines
under
current
water
quality
conditions.
Systems
use
this
information
to
evaluate
whether
these
lines
continue
to
contribute
low
lead
levels
or
whether
changed
conditions
have
impacted
corrosivity.

2(
b)(
ii)
Users
of
the
Data
Primary
users
of
the
data
generated
under
the
seven
regulatory
changes
are
systems
and
their
customers,
States
and
primacy
agencies,
and
EPA.
EPA
often
receives
requests
for
PWS
monitoring
data
under
the
Freedom
of
Information
Act
(
FOIA;
40
CFR,
Chapter
1,
Part
2).
Many
FOIA
Act
requests
require
extracting
information
contained
in
the
SDWIS
regarding
the
number
of
PWSs
in
violation
of
drinking
water
standards
in
a
particular
geographic
area
and
those
PWSs
that
have
exceeded
the
lead
or
copper
Action
Level.

Other
agencies
that
may
utilize
the
data
include
the
following.
7
 
News
Organizations
 
Staff
from
other
EPA
programs
(
such
as
Superfund,
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act,
and
the
OECA)
 
The
Federal
Emergency
Management
Administration
 
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
(
CDC)
 
Military
bases
 
Farmers
Home
Administration
 
Department
of
Interior
 
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban
Development
 
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
 
White
House
Task
Forces
 
American
Water
Works
Association
 
Association
of
Metropolitan
Water
Agencies
 
National
Rural
Water
Association
 
National
Association
of
Water
Companies
 
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
 
Natural
Resources
Defense
Council
 
Consumers
Federation
of
America
8
3
NON­
DUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
The
following
sections
verify
and
affirm
that
this
information
collection
satisfies
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget's
(
OMB's)
collection
guidelines,
has
public
support,
and
does
not
duplicate
another
collection.
EPA
has
consulted
with
other
federal
agencies,
State
agencies,
industry
organizations,
water
systems,
and
tribal
organizations
to
ensure
non­
duplication
of
this
information
collection.

3(
a)
Non­
duplication
To
the
best
of
the
Agency's
knowledge,
data
required
by
the
LCRSTR
are
not
available
from
any
other
source.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
to
OMB
To
comply
with
the
1995
Amendments
to
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
a
summary
of
the
ICR
will
be
published
in
the
proposed
rule
notice
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
notice
will
include
a
request
for
comments
on
the
content
and
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
the
regulated
community.
Comments
on
the
proposed
rule
are
used
to
substantiate
or
refute
the
burden
estimates
for
respondents.

3(
c)
Consultations5
As
a
standard
regulatory
development
practice
to
promote
public
involvement,
EPA
formally
solicits
public
comment
on
proposed
drinking
water
rules.
Before
any
rule
is
finalized,
EPA
logs
and
evaluates
all
written
comments
on
proposed
rules.

The
proposed
short
term
changes
to
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
described
in
this
document
were
identified
through
a
comprehensive
national
review
of
compliance
and
implementation
of
the
LCR.
In
conducting
this
review,
EPA
consulted
with
a
wide
range
of
interested
parties.
The
comprehensive
review
consisted
of
several
elements,
including
a
series
of
workshops
designed
to
elicit
issues,
comments,
and
suggestions
from
stakeholders
on
particular
topics,
and
a
review
of
LCR
implementation
by
States
and
utilities.
A
description
of
these
activities
is
discussed
below.

Workshops
One
method
that
EPA
used
to
elicit
comments
and
suggestions
from
stakeholders
was
to
hold
five
workshops
in
2004­
2005
on
various
issues
related
to
lead
in
drinking
water.
Participant
5
Consultations
Prior
to
LCR
1991
and
LCRMR:
Please
refer
to
the
1999
ICR,
entitled,
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
for
Lead
and
Copper,
June
1999,
EPA
tracking
number
1912.01,
for
a
more
detailed
chronology
of
consultations
used
to
solicit
comments
and
suggestions
from
stakeholders
when
creating
the
LCR
1991
and
LCRMR
2000.
9
information
for
each
workshop
is
available
in
the
publicly
available
meeting
summary.
6
These
workshops
include
the
following.

 
Simultaneous
Compliance,
May
2004,
St.
Louis,
MO:
Expert
participants
from
utilities,
academia,
state
governments,
and
other
stakeholder
groups
identified
issues,
proposed
solutions,
and
identified
information
gaps
with
respect
to
simultaneous
compliance
with
the
LCR
and
other
rules
such
as
the
Total
Coliform
Rule,
the
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rules,
and
the
Disinfection
Byproducts
Rules.
Issues
and
suggestions
were
developed
for
four
topic
areas:
coagulation
impacts
on
corrosion
control;
impacts
of
disinfectant
changes
on
corrosion
control;
corrosion
inhibitor;
and
distribution
system
management.
Among
the
issues
identified
by
the
group
were
information
gaps
on
impacts
of
treatment
changes
under
various
water
quality
conditions/
chemistries
and
the
need
for
additional
guidance
on
a
variety
of
topics.

 
Sampling
Protocols,
May
2004,
St.
Louis,
MO:
Expert
participants
from
utilities,
academia,
state
governments,
and
other
stakeholder
groups
identified
issues,
proposed
solutions,
and
identified
information
gaps
with
respect
monitoring
and
sampling
under
the
LCR.
Topic
areas
included
sampling
frequency
and
triggers;
sampling
site
selection/
location;
sampling
protocol;
and
sampling
of
water
quality
parameters.
The
issues
included
sampling
after
treatment
changes
and
Action
Level
exceedances
and
the
re­
examination
of
flushing
instructions.

 
Public
Education,
September
2004,
Philadelphia,
PA:
Expert
participants
from
utilities,
governments,
consumer
and
environmental
groups,
and
other
stakeholder
groups
discussed
the
public
education
requirements
under
the
lead
and
copper
rule,
drinking
water
risk
communication,
and
effective
communication
with
the
public.
Participants
suggested
ways
to
improve
risk
communication
to
the
public
through
establishing
partnerships
with
health
departments
and
other
groups,
refining
the
message
content,
improving
delivery
of
the
message,
and
spending
more
time
planning
and
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
the
risk
communication.

 
Lead
Service
Line
Replacement,
October
2004,
Atlanta,
GA:
Expert
participants
from
utilities,
academia,
state
governments,
and
other
stakeholder
groups
discussed
the
challenges
and
problems
encountered
by
the
participants
in
implementing
lead
service
line
replacement,
as
well
as
strategies
and
solutions
for
overcoming
those
difficulties.
Specific
topic
areas
addressed
included
monitoring,
customer
communications,
replacement
technologies,
and
managing
inventory.
Continued
sampling
after
lead
service
line
replacement
and
the
need
to
notify
customers
of
testing
results
were
mentioned
during
the
discussions.

 
Lead
in
Plumbing,
July
2005,
Washington,
DC:
Expert
participants
from
utilities,
academia,
state
governments,
and
other
stakeholder
groups
discussed
lead
in
plumbing
fittings
and
fixtures.
Topic
areas
included
NSF
standards
and
testing
protocols,
alternative
materials,
national/
state/
local/
industry/
consumer
practices,
and
miscellaneous
issues
6
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
safewater/
lcrmr/
lead_
review.
html
10
Review
of
Implementation
and
Consultation
with
States
In
2004,
EPA
carried
out
a
review
of
the
implementation
of
LCR
requirements
by
States.
EPA
asked
State
programs,
who
have
primary
oversight
responsibility,
a
number
of
questions
about
how
they
implement
different
aspects
of
the
LCR.
The
questions
were
centered
on
the
following
general
categories:
sampling
issues,
calculation
of
the
90th
percentile
value,
treatment
issues,
lead
service
line
replacement,
public
education
and
enforcement.

Generally,
the
State
responses
to
the
survey
indicate
that
the
States
are
following
the
minimum
State
requirements
of
the
LCR.
However,
the
information
provided
to
EPA
indicates
that
many
States
may
not
be
taking
full
advantage
of
the
opportunities
to
oversee
implementation
of
the
rule.
Also,
the
States'
responses
did
highlight
a
few
areas
in
which
there
is
some
confusion
about
the
requirements
of
the
rule
as
well
as
areas
in
which
some
States
are
going
above
and
beyond
the
minimum
obligations.

Future
Consultations
It
should
be
noted
that
EPA
has
also
identified
a
number
of
issues
that
require
longerterm
consideration
that
will
continue
to
be
reviewed
as
part
of
potential,
more
comprehensive
revisions
to
the
rule
or
guidance.
In
many
cases,
these
issues
require
additional
data
collection,
research,
and
analysis
to
fill
critical
data
gaps.
Also,
some
issues
require
full
stakeholder
involvement
to
support
decisions.
Issues
that
are
the
subject
of
longer­
term
consideration
include
the
following:

 
Revision
of
mandatory
public
education
language
to
make
sure
it
is
relevant
and
understandable
 
Requirements
for
consecutive
systems
 
Broader
revisions
to
monitoring
and
lead
service
line
replacement
requirements
 
Revision
to
lead
content
in
plumbing
fittings
and
fixture
requirements
LCRSTR
Workgroup
In
addition,
EPA
also
consulted
with
States
and
EPA
Regional
Offices.
In
May
2005,
EPA
formed
a
work
group
to
consider
issues
related
to
the
proposed
regulatory
changes,
called
the
Short­
term
Regulatory
Revisions
and
Clarifications
to
The
Lead
&
Copper
Rule
Workgroup
(
LCRSTR
Workgroup).
The
LCRSTR
Workgroup
included
EPA
staff
from
a
variety
of
Headquarters
and
Regional
offices,
as
well
as
representatives
from
State
drinking
water
lead
programs.
The
LCRSTR
Workgroup
identified
alternatives,
drafted
regulatory
language,
and
discussed
issues
related
to
the
proposed
changes.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
EPA
has
considered
a
wide
range
of
alternatives
for
frequency
of
data
collection.
EPA
has
chosen
to
require
the
least
frequent
collection
that
remains
consistent
with
the
overall
goal
of
protecting
public
health.
If
data
are
collected
less
frequently,
primacy
agencies
may
not
identify
11
in
a
timely
fashion
significant
contaminant
concentrations
that
might
threaten
the
health
and
safety
of
drinking
water
consumers.
Monitoring
frequencies
have
been
carefully
devised
based
on
the
following
factors 

 
Data
quality
needed
for
a
representative
sample.
 
Precision
and
accuracy
needed
from
the
representative
sample.
 
Number
of
people
served
by
the
system.
 
Source
of
the
supply
(
e.
g.,
surface
water
or
ground
water).
 
Contaminants
likely
to
be
found.
 
Temporal
variability
in
occurrence.

Specific
changes
to
monitoring
frequencies
that
may
result
from
the
LCRSTR
are
discussed
in
the
following
section.

Regulatory
change
III.
A
restates
EPA's
position
on
the
frequency
of
sampling
for
small
systems.
EPA
is
concerned
that
further
reducing
monitoring
requirements
would
fail
to
capture
the
variability
within
systems
or
buildings
and,
consequently,
would
increase
the
possibility
of
not
detecting
the
presence
of
high
lead
or
copper
levels.
This
issue
is
discussed
more
fully
in
the
Federal
Register
Notice
on
the
regulatory
changes.

Regulatory
change
III.
C
increases
the
frequency
of
data
collection
for
systems
that
had
been
on
reduced
monitoring
and
then
exceeded
the
lead
Action
Level.
EPA
believes
that
the
additional
data
is
critical
in
the
timely
evaluation
of
health
risks
and
treatment
effectiveness
for
systems
that
have
lead
levels
over
the
Action
Level.

Regulatory
change
III.
F
increases
how
often
materials
are
delivered
to
customers
and
shortens
the
timeframe
in
which
they
must
be
delivered.
EPA
believes
this
increase
in
frequency
is
necessary
for
consumers,
especially
at­
risk
populations,
to
receive
information
they
need
to
limit
their
exposure
to
lead
in
drinking
water.

Regulatory
change
III.
G
increases
the
frequency
of
data
collection
for
systems
that
initiated
a
required
lead
service
line
replacement
program,
"
tested­
out"
lines
to
meet
replacement
targets,
brought
lead
levels
under
the
Action
Level
and
suspended
lead
service
line
replacement,
and
then
subsequently
re­
exceeded
the
Action
Level.
The
additional
data
is
necessary
to
confirm
that
previously
"
tested­
out"
lines
continue
to
contribute
low
levels
of
lead
under
the
possibly
changed
conditions
after
an
exceedance.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
The
LCRSTR
complies
with
the
guidelines
published
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
and
is
in
accordance
with
the
April
2005
version
of
the
ICR
Handbook
prepared
by
EPA's
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Office
of
Information
Collection,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
with
the
exception
that
records
are
required
to
be
retained
for
a
period
greater
than
three
years.
In
particular,
the
1991
LCR
requires
all
PWSs
to
retain
on
their
premises
original
records
of
all
sampling
data
and
analyses,
reports,
surveys,
letters,
evaluations,
schedules
and
any
other
information
required
by
the
State
for
no
fewer
than
12
years.
States
are
subject
to
the
12
same
record
retention
period,
except
that
States
are
required
to
retain
information
relating
to
the
decisions
in
§
142.14(
d)(
8)
until
a
new
decision,
determination,
or
designation
has
been
issued,
if
no
change
is
made
to
the
State
decision
during
the
12­
year
retention
period.
The
Agency
justified
these
record
retention
periods
and
received
approval
for
them
under
the
original
1991
ICR.
The
LCRSTR
does
not
alter
the
system
or
State
record­
keeping
requirements.

3(
f)
Confidentiality
This
ICR
does
not
raise
confidentiality
issues.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
This
ICR
does
not
ask
sensitive
questions.
13
4
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
The
following
sections
contain
information
on
the
respondents
and
the
information
they
are
requested
to
provide.

4(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
Data
associated
with
this
ICR
are
collected
and
maintained
at
the
PWS,
State,
and
Federal
levels.
Respondents
include 

 
Owners/
operators
of
PWSs,
classified
as
community
water
systems
(
CWSs)
and
nontransient
non­
community
water
systems
(
NTNCWSs)
 
Primacy
agencies
that
must
report
to
EPA
Headquarters.

The
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
code
for
investor­
owned
water
systems
is
4941.
The
SIC
code
for
both
publicly­
owned
water
systems
and
State
agencies
is
9511.
Ancillary
systems
(
a
system
where
providing
water
is
ancillary
to
its
primary
business,
e.
g.,
a
mobile
home
park)
cannot
be
categorized
in
a
single
SIC
coded.
States
are
respondents
when
reporting
compliance
data
to
EPA
and
when
retaining
federally­
required
records.
The
LCRSTR
affect
the
same
respondent
classes
as
the
LCR.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
(
i)
Data
items
No
new
data
items
are
required
during
the
initial
regulatory
review
and
implementation
period
for
the
LCRSTR.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities
Systems
and
State/
Primacy
Agencies
will
conduct
one­
time
activities
associated
with
reviewing
and
implementing
the
overall
LCR
regulatory
changes.

New
Activities
for
Systems
For
systems,
implementation
activities
include
reviewing
the
rule
changes
and
communicating
the
requirements
with
staff.

New
Activities
for
States
For
States/
Primacy
Agencies,
activities
will
include
regulation
adoption,
program
development,
and
miscellaneous
communication
with
systems.
14
5
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED 
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
The
following
sections
describe
the
Agency
activities
related
to
analyzing,
maintaining,
and
distributing
the
information
collected.

5(
a)
Agency
Activities
The
Agency
is
responsible
for
promulgating
and
overseeing
the
implementation
of
the
short
term
revision
to
the
LCR.
The
Agency
is
involved
in
the
following
activities
that
assist
States
in
implementing
the
modifications:

 
Develop
the
short­
term
regulations;
and
 
Respond
to
questions
on
the
short­
term
regulations.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
The
data
generated
as
a
result
of
the
regulatory
changes
will
be
integrated
in
the
existing
quarterly
SDWIS
reporting
process.
The
collection
methodology
and
management
of
SDWIS
is
described
in
the
2004
ICR.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
EPA
has
previously
described
considerations
pertaining
to
small
systems
in
the
1991
ICR,
(
refer
to
pages
14­
18).
In
addition,
EPA
has
made
revisions
to
the
1991
LCR
which
reduce
to
the
extent
practicable
and
appropriate
the
burden
on
PWSs,
especially
smaller
systems.
These
revisions
establish
differing
compliance
or
reporting
requirements
or
schedules
that
take
into
account
the
resources
available
to
smaller
water
systems;
clarify,
consolidate
or
simplify
compliance
and
reporting
requirements;
and
eliminate
unnecessary
or
redundant
requirements.
Such
objectives
are
consistent
with
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
(
RFA)
which
requires
all
executive
agencies
to
consider
small
entities
in
their
regulatory
design
and
implementation
processes.

EPA
considered
the
particular
needs
of
small
business
when
proposing
rule
changes
in
the
LCRSTR.
For
example,
Regulatory
Change
III.
C
requires
systems
that
have
exceeded
the
lead
Action
Level
to
resume
tap
monitoring
for
lead
on
a
regular,
rather
than
reduced,
schedule.
Originally,
EPA
had
considered
extending
this
requirement
to
both
lead
and
copper
monitoring.
Based
on
suggestions
from
the
work
group
to
minimize
impacts
on
small
systems,
EPA
limited
the
requirement
to
only
lead
Action
Level
exceedances.

Regulatory
Change
III.
E
requires
systems
to
provide
lead
monitoring
results
to
consumers.
The
work
group
discussed
including
copper
monitoring
results
in
the
notification,
but
deferred
that
suggestion
for
future
consideration,
thereby
limiting
the
increase
in
burden
for
small
systems.
In
addition,
EPA
continues
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts
15
EPA
has
prepared
a
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
analysis
for
the
short
term
changes,
which
can
be
found
in
the
Economic
Analysis.

EPA
recognizes
that
some
water
systems
are
small
entities;
therefore,
the
LCRSTR
reduces
to
the
extent
practicable
and
appropriate
the
burden
on
PWSs,
especially
smaller
systems,
while
still
meeting
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
regulations
include
the
following
examples
of
reduced
burden
for
small
systems:

 
Different
compliance
or
reporting
requirements
or
schedules
that
take
into
account
the
resources
available
to
smaller
water
systems.
 
Consolidated
or
simplified
compliance
and
reporting
requirements.
 
No
unnecessary
or
redundant
requirements.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
For
both
the
LCR
and
LCRSTR
the
Agency
considered
a
wide
range
of
alternatives
for
frequency
of
data
collection,
and
has
chosen
the
option
that
requires
the
least
frequent
collection
possible
while
still
protecting
public
health.
When
possible,
State
discretion
in
adjusting
these
frequencies
has
been
allowed.
Monitoring
frequencies
for
PWSs
have
been
carefully
devised
based
on
the
following
factors:
system
size,
source
type,
system
construction,
and
contaminant
history.

Some
of
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
associated
with
the
LCRSTR
increase
the
frequency
of
data
collection
and
reporting.
EPA
has
deemed
this
change
necessary
to
continue
to
protect
public
health
and
ensure
the
quality
of
drinking
water.
For
example,
Regulatory
Change
III.
C
prevents
systems
from
switching
to
reduced
monitoring
based
solely
on
results
of
water
quality
parameter
monitoring.

Regulatory
Change
III.
D
clarifies
the
initial
intent
of
the
regulatory
change
proposed
in
the
LCRMR.
This
change
requires
systems
monitoring
annually
or
less
frequently
to
notify
the
State
prior
to
changes
in
the
system's
treatment(
s)
or
an
addition
of
a
new
source
of
water.
This
allows
the
State
to
detect
in
a
timely
fashion
whether
the
corrosivity
of
the
water
will
increase
due
to
these
changes
in
the
system's
treatment.
Otherwise,
a
State
would
be
unaware
of
potential
changes
in
lead
and
copper
levels
until
the
next
monitoring
results
were
submitted,
which
could
be
as
long
as
nine
years.

Regulatory
Change
III.
F
requires
systems
who
detect
lead
greater
than
0.001
mg/
L
in
any
compliance
monitoring
sample
to
provide
information
in
their
annual
CCR
on
lead
in
drinking
water.
Previously,
only
systems
whose
95
percentile
exceeded
the
lead
action
level
were
required
to
report
lead
levels
to
their
CCR.
Regulatory
Change
III.
F
also
requires
systems
that
exceed
the
lead
action
level
to
notify
customers
more
frequently
than
previously
required.
These
efforts
better
ensure
at­
risk
populations
receive
adequate
and
timely
lead
information
and
are
able
to
act
to
reduce
their
lead
exposure.
16
Regulatory
Change
III.
G
requires
systems
to
reevaluate
lead
service
lines
classified
as
"
replaced"
through
testing
if
the
system
resumes
a
lead
service
line
replacement
program.
Reevaluating
"
replaced"
lead
service
lines
ensures
that
all
potential
sources
of
lead
are
examined
in
order
to
increase
public
health
after
lead
exceedences.
17
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
This
section
describes
the
estimates
of
burden
and
direct
costs
to
implement
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
to
utilities
and
States.
7
This
ICR
only
focuses
on
the
incremental
changes
to
burden
and
costs
that
will
result
from
the
short
term
regulatory
changes.
The
burden
and
costs
associated
with
the
other
elements
of
the
Lead
and
Copper
rule
continue
to
be
described
and
accounted
for
in
the
2004
ICR.

The
burden
and
cost
estimates
in
this
ICR
are
based
on
the
calculations
documented
in
the
Economic
Analysis
and
Supporting
Analyses
for
the
Short
Term
Regulatory
Revisions
and
Clarifications
to
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule.
Major
underlying
assumptions
and
data
sources
are
summarized
below
and
detailed
in
the
Economic
Analysis.

Overall
Burden
and
Cost
Methodologies
and
Assumptions
As
part
of
its
comprehensive
review
of
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule,
EPA
collected
and
analyzed
new
data
on
various
aspects
of
LCR
implementation.
When
available,
this
new
information
is
the
first
choice
source
for
use
in
estimating
burden
and
costs.
Sources
of
the
new
information
include
the
following.

 
Medium
and
Large
Public
Water
Systems
Exceeding
the
Lead
Action
Level
Summary
from
SDWIS/
FED
data
as
of
January
27,
2005
provides
up­
to­
date
counts
of
the
number
of
medium
and
large
systems
that
have
exceeded
the
Action
Level
since
2000
and
2003.

 
Summary,
Lead
Action
Level
exceedances
for
public
water
systems
subject
to
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule
(
For
data
through
September
13,
2004)
provides
up­
to­
date
counts
of
the
number
of
small
systems
that
have
exceeded
the
Action
Level
since
2000
and
2003.

 
State
responses
to
EPA's
"
Survey
of
States
Questions
on
State
Implementation
of
the
Lead
and
Copper
Rule"
(
July
2004)
provides
information
on
the
number
of
systems
that
are
conducting
lead
service
line
replacement
under
the
LCR,
the
fraction
of
systems
on
reduced
LCR
monitoring,
and
system
practices
with
regard
to
notification
of
customers
of
sampling
results.

If
new
information
was
not
available
about
a
cost
item
or
assumption,
previous
analyses
of
LCR
requirements
were
reviewed
to
determine
if
a
suitable
estimate
was
available.
The
1991
RIA,
the
1996
RIA
Addendum,
and
the
various
Information
Collection
Requests
were
all
used
as
sources
of
information
and
assumptions.

7
There
are
two
types
of
costs
that
may
result
from
the
LCRSTR
rule
changes
 
direct
and
indirect.
Direct
costs
are
from
those
activities
that
are
specified
by
the
rule
change,
such
as
costs
for
additional
monitoring
or
distribution
of
consumer
notices.
A
second
type
of
cost
may
also
result
when
systems
and
States
use
the
information
generated
by
the
directly
 
related
rule
activities
to
modify
or
enhance
practices
to
reduce
lead
levels.
Section
6
focuses
solely
on
the
estimation
of
direct
costs
for
implementation
activities
18
Inventory
of
Systems
The
primary
inventory
of
systems
that
will
be
subject
to
the
information
collection
activities
was
derived
from
a
pull
of
data
from
the
SDWIS/
FED
system
in
the
4th
quarter
of
2004,
available
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
safewater/
data/
pivottables.
html,
summarized
in
FACTOIDS:
Drinking
Water
and
Ground
Water
Statistics
for
2004,
and
presented
in
Exhibit
1.8
Exhibit
1:
Number
of
Systems
by
Size
Category
and
Type
Subject
to
Information
Collection
Activities
SDWIS/
FED
2004
Data
CWS
NTNCWS
TOTAL
LCR
<=
100
13,766
9,548
23,314
101­
500
16,240
6,997
23,237
501­
1,000
5,914
1,925
7,839
1,001­
3,300
8,298
795
9,093
3,301­
10,000
4,707
96
4,803
10,001­
25,000
2,107
7
2,114
25,001­
50,000
950
6
956
50,001­
75,000
343
1
344
75,001­
100,000
141
0
141
100,001­
500,000
322
0
322
500,001­
1,000,000
32
0
32
>
1,000,000
18
0
18
Grand
Total
52,838
19,375
72,213
Wage
Rates
Wage
rates
for
systems
were
taken
from
the
report
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules
prepared
by
Science
Applications
International
Corporation
(
SAIC)
in
October
2003
for
EPA's
Office
of
Ground
Water
and
Drinking
Water.
Page
37
of
that
report
summarizes
recommended
average
technical
wage
rates
by
system
size
for
EPA
to
use
in
cost
analyses.
These
rates
are
updated
to
2005
levels
using
the
Employment
Cost
Index.
The
updated
wage
rate
ranges
from
$
22.70
per
hour
to
$
33.10
per
hour,
depending
upon
the
system
size,
as
presented
in
Exhibit
2.

8
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
safewater/
data/
pdfs/
data_
factoids_
2004.
pdf
19
Exhibit
2:
Wage
Rates
for
Systems
System
Size
Category
Labor
Rate
($/
hour)

<=
100
$
22.70
101
to
500
$
24.44
501
to
3,300
$
26.19
3,301
to
10,000
$
26.83
10,001
to
50,000
$
27.58
50,001
to
100,000
$
27.58
>
100,0000
$
33.10
Wage
rates
for
States
are
based
on
information
provided
by
the
Association
of
State
Drinking
Water
Administrators
(
ASDWA)
as
presented
in
the
Information
Collection
Request
for
Contaminant
Occurrence
Data
in
Support
of
EPA's
Second
Six
Year
Review
of
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
Draft
June
2005).
Please
refer
to
Appendix
A
in
the
Economic
Analysis
for
further
detail.

6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
Burden
to
Systems
Systems
will
incur
a
one­
time
burden
associated
with
the
upfront
activities
for
the
proposed
regulatory
changes,
such
as
reviewing
the
rule
changes
and
communicating
regulatory
requirements
to
staff
and
management.
These
activities
will
be
undertaken
by
the
72,213
CWSs
and
NTNCWSs
that
must
comply
with
the
LCR.
9
The
burden
per
system
is
estimated
to
range
from
4
to
8
hours,
depending
on
the
size
of
the
system.
The
total
burden,
from
2006­
2008,
for
all
systems
is
estimated
to
be
323,772
hours.
EPA
assumed
that
this
burden
would
be
spread
equally
among
the
three
years,
resulting
in
an
annual
burden
of
107,924
hours/
year,
as
summarized
in
Exhibit
3.
A
more
detailed
explanation
based
on
the
size
and
type
of
each
system
can
be
found
in
Appendix
B,
Exhibit
B­
1.

Burden
to
States
States
will
also
incur
a
one­
time
burden
associated
with
upfront
activities
for
the
proposed
regulatory
changes,
such
as
regulation
adoption,
program
development,
and
miscellaneous
communication.
Fifty­
seven
primacy
agencies
will
review
and
implement
the
proposed
LCRSTR,
which
includes
50
States,
6
territories
and
1
Indian
Tribe.
The
burden
per
State
is
estimated
to
be
312
hours/
State.
Applying
these
assumptions
result
in
a
total
upfront
burden
from
2006­
2008
of
17,784
hours.
EPA
assumed
that
this
burden
would
be
spread
equally
among
the
three
years,
resulting
in
an
annual
burden
of
5,928
hours/
year,
as
summarized
in
Exhibit
3.
A
more
detailed
explanation
of
this
burden
can
be
found
in
Appendix
B,
Exhibit
B­
2.

9
Date
Source:
SDWIS/
FED
database
2004;
See
Exhibit
1
for
details.
20
Exhibit
3:
Summary
of
Burden
Associated
with
Upfront
Activities
for
LCRSTR
Labor
per
System
or
State
(
hours)
Respondent
Burden
(
hours/
year)
Burden
to
Systems
CWSs
4
to
8
81,944
NTNCWSs
4
to
8
25,980
Total
Burden
to
Systems
­­
107,924
Burden
to
State
All
States
312
5,928
6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
Costs
to
Systems
The
annual
labor
costs
for
systems
associated
with
the
upfront
activities
for
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
are
equal
to
the
annual
respondent
burden
multiplied
by
the
appropriate
labor
rate.
The
estimated
labor
rate
ranges
from
$
22.70/
hour
to
$
33.10/
hour,
depending
upon
the
system
size
category,
as
explained
in
Exhibit
2.
10
The
annual
labor
costs
for
all
systems
are
estimated
to
be
$
2.692
million
per
year.
The
annual
labor
costs
per
year
for
each
system
size
category
are
summarized
in
Appendix
B,
Exhibit
B­
3.

EPA
assumes
that
O&
M
(
i.
e.,
materials)
costs
associated
with
upfront
activities
will
be
negligible.

The
total
annual
costs
for
systems
to
conduct
necessary
upfront
activities
for
the
proposed
regulatory
changes,
is
estimated
to
be
$
2.692
million
per
year,
of
which
100
percent
are
labor
costs
and
none
are
O&
M
costs.
EPA
assumes
that
all
upfront
activities
associated
with
the
implementation
of
the
LCRSTR
will
be
conducted
throughout
2006
to
2008,
such
that
an
equal
amount
of
activities
will
be
conducted
each
year.
A
summary
of
these
costs
is
described
in
Exhibit
4,
and
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
how
cost
estimates
were
derived
is
provided
in
Appendix
B,
Exhibit
B­
3.

Costs
to
States
The
annual
labor
costs
for
States
associated
with
the
upfront
activities
for
all
seven
proposed
regulatory
changes
are
equal
to
the
annual
State
burden
multiplied
by
the
labor
rate:

10
Labor
rates
from
SAIC
contract
study,
"
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules"
(
2003)
updated
to
2005
dollars.
21
Annual
Labor
Costs
=
5,928
hours
*
$
41.03/
hour11
=
$
0.243
million
EPA
assumes
that
O&
M
costs
associated
with
upfront
activities
will
be
negligible.

The
total
annual
costs
for
States
to
conduct
necessary
upfront
activities
for
the
proposed
regulatory
changes
is
estimated
to
be
$
0.243
million,
of
which
100
percent
are
labor
costs
and
none
are
O&
M
costs.
EPA
assumes
that
all
upfront
activities
associated
with
the
implementation
of
the
LCRSTR
will
be
performed
throughout
the
three
year
implementation
period,
from
2006­
2008,
such
that
one
third
of
all
implementation
activities
will
be
performed
in
each
year.
A
summary
of
these
costs
is
described
in
Exhibit
4,
and
a
more
detailed
explanation
of
how
cost
estimates
were
derived
is
provided
in
Appendix
B,
Exhibit
B­
4.

Exhibit
4:
Summary
of
Initial
Costs
Associated
with
Upfront
Activities
for
LCRSTR
Annual
Labor
Costs
Annual
O&
M
Costs
Total
Annual
Costs
Costs
to
Systems
CWSs
$
2,072,000
$
0
$
2,072,000
NTNCWSs
$
620,000
$
0
$
620,000
Total
Costs
to
Systems
$
2,692,000
$
0
$
2,692,000
Costs
to
State
All
States
$
243,000
$
0
$
243,000
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Information­
related
activities
that
may
be
undertaken
by
both
EPA
headquarters
and
regional
offices
include
reviewing,
interpreting
and
explaining
the
new
regulations
to
States
that
ask
for
guidance.
For
example,
during
the
implementation
process,
EPA
headquarters
or
regions
might
be
asked
for
explanations
or
interpretations
of
the
intent
of
the
new
regulations.
EPA
believes
that
these
regulatory
changes
are
relatively
straightforward
and
limited
in
scope,
and
expects
that
the
preamble
language
will
generally
be
sufficient
for
the
purpose
of
explaining
EPA's
intent.
Therefore,
the
additional
burden
incurred
by
headquarters
and
regional
offices
is
expected
to
be
minimal.

Further,
the
burden
and
costs
incurred
by
EPA's
drinking
water
program
at
headquarters
and
regional
offices
to
assist
primacy
agencies
in
implementing
drinking
water
regulations
are
already
included
in
existing
ICRs.
EPA
burden
and
costs
for
on­
going
regulatory
development
and
support
activities
for
all
EPA
drinking
water
regulations
are
accounted
for
under
the
PWSS
11
A
labor
rate
of
$
41.03/
hour
was
used
for
States
based
on
the
Information
Collection
Request
for
Contaminant
Occurrence
Data
in
Support
of
EPA's
Second
Six
Year
Review
of
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
Draft
June
2005).
22
Program
ICR.
12
Agency
activities
specifically
related
to
the
LCR
have
also
been
addressed
in
the
2004
ICR.
Thus,
any
minimal
burden
that
may
be
incurred
by
the
Agency
related
to
the
LCRSTR
has
already
been
adequately
captured
under
existing
ICRs.

6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Burden
and
Costs
The
universe
of
respondents
for
this
ICR
is
comprised
of
the
52,838
CWSs
and
19,375
NTNCWSs,
for
a
total
of
72,213
systems,
and
57
State
primacy
agencies.
Exhibit
5
presents
a
summary
of
total
burden
and
cost
for
the
ICR
period
of
2006­
2008.

The
annual
system
burden
is
estimated
to
be
107,924
hours
in
2006,
107,924
hours
in
2007,
and
107,924
hours
in
2008.
The
annual
system
costs
are
projected
to
be
$
2.692
million
in
2006,
$
2.692
million
in
2007,
and
$
2.692
million
in
2008.
For
each
year,
100
percent
of
the
annual
costs
are
from
labor
costs
and
none
are
from
non­
labor
costs.

The
annual
State
burden
is
estimated
to
be
5,928
hours
in
2006,
5,928
hours
in
2007,
and
5,928
hours
in
2008.
The
annual
State
costs
are
projected
to
be
$
0.243
million
in
2006,
$
0.243
million
in
2007,
and
$
0.243
million
in
2008.
For
each
year,
100
percent
of
the
annual
costs
are
from
labor
costs
and
none
are
from
non­
labor
costs.

6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Burden
Hours
and
Cost
Exhibits
(
i)
Respondent
Tally
The
total
number
of
responses,
burden,
and
costs
for
the
three
year
compliance
period
of
2006
to
2008
is
summarized
in
Exhibit
5,
and
explained
in
more
detail
in
Appendix
B,
Exhibits
B­
5
and
B­
6.
The
number
of
responses
for
systems
and
States
from
2006­
2008
is
summarized
in
Appendix
B,
Exhibit
B­
7.

Exhibit
5.
Summary
of
the
Burden
and
Costs
from
2006­
2008
to
Implement
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Respondent
Number
of
Respondents
Number
of
Responses
2006­
2008
Burden
(
hours)
2006­
2008
Burden
Per
Response
(
Hours)
Cost
($
millions)
2006­
2008
Systems
72,213
72,213
323,772
4­
8
$
8.076
States
57
57
17,784
312
$
0.730
Total
72,270
72,270
341,556
N/
A
$
8.806
The
average
annual
burden
and
costs
are
summarized
in
Exhibit
6,
and
explained
in
more
detail
in
Appendix
B,
Exhibits
B­
8
and
B­
9.

12
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Public
Water
System
Supervision
Program,
OMB
control
number
2040­
0090.
23
Exhibit
6.
A
Summary
of
the
Annual
Average
Burden
and
Costs
to
Implement
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Respondent
Annual
Number
of
Respondents
Annual
Number
of
Responses
Annual
Burden
(
hours/
year)
Burden
Per
Response
(
Hours)
Total
Annual
Costs
($
millions)

Systems
24,071
24,071
107,924
4­
8
$
2.692
States
19
19
5,928
312
$
0.243
Total
24,090
24,090
113,852
N/
A
$
2.935
(
ii)
The
Agency
Tally
Any
additional
burden
or
cost
that
EPA
may
incur
as
a
result
of
the
LCRSTR
implementation
activities
is
expected
to
be
minimal
and
is
already
accounted
for
in
existing
ICRs,
as
explained
in
6(
c).

(
iii)
Variations
In
The
Annual
Bottom
Line
The
burden
and
costs
are
the
same
for
each
year
since
EPA
assumes
that
an
equal
level
of
implementation
activities
will
be
performed
in
each
year,
from
2006­
2008.

6(
f)
Reasons
For
Change
in
Burden
The
LCRSTR
is
intended
to
strengthen
the
implementation
of
the
LCR
in
the
areas
of
monitoring,
customer
awareness,
and
lead
service
line
replacement
in
the
short­
term.
Some
of
the
changes
clarify
the
intent
of
the
LCR
for
provisions
that
have
generated
questions.
Other
provisions
reconsider
LCR
requirements
in
light
of
recent
experience.
These
changes
are
expected
to
ensure
and
enhance
more
effective
protection
of
public
health
through
the
reduction
in
lead
exposure.

6(
g)
Burden
Statement
For
the
ICR
period
of
2006
through
2008
associated
with
the
LCRSTR,
the
average
annual
burden
per
system
to
implement
the
requirements
of
the
LCRSTR
is
estimated
to
be
1.5
hours
per
system
per
year.
System
burden
includes
the
time
required
for
implementation
activities,
such
as
reviewing
the
rule
changes
and
communicating
results.
The
average
annual
cost
per
system
is
expected
to
be
$
37
per
system
per
year.
The
average
annual
burden
per
State
is
estimated
to
be
104
hours
per
State
per
year.
This
burden
includes
the
time
required
for
implementation
activities,
such
as
informing
systems
of
the
requirements,
regulation
adoption,
program
development,
and
miscellaneous
communication.
The
estimated
average
annual
cost
per
State
is
estimated
to
be
$
4,000
per
State
per
year.

Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
24
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
HQ­
OW­
2005­
0034,
which
is
available
for
online
viewing
at
www.
regulations.
gov,
or
in
person
viewing
at
the
Water
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Water
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
2426.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
at
www.
regulations.
gov.
This
site
can
be
used
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
When
in
the
system,
select
"
search,"
then
key
in
the
Docket
ID
Number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
Number
EPA­
HQ­
OW­
2005­
0034
and
OMB
control
number
2040­
0204
in
any
correspondence.
25
APPENDICES
Appendix
A:
SDWA
Sections
that
Provide
Authority
for
the
Collection
Appendix
B:
Detailed
Assumptions
and
Tables
Used
to
Estimate
Burdens,
Costs,
and
Number
of
Responses
26
APPENDIX
A
Safe
Drinking
Water
Sections
that
Provide
Authority
for
the
Collection
27
APPENDIX
A
Relevant
Authorities
in
the
SDWA
1996
Amendments
Section
1401.
For
purposes
of
this
title:

(
1)
The
term
"
primary
drinking
water
regulation"
means
a
regulation
which­

(
D)
contains
criteria
and
procedures
to
assure
a
supply
of
drinking
water
which
dependably
complies
with
such
maximum
contaminant
levels;
including
accepted
methods
for
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
to
insure
compliance
with
such
levels
and
to
insure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
system,
and
requirements
as
to
(
i)
the
minimum
quality
of
water
which
may
be
taken
into
the
system
and
(
ii)
siting
for
new
facilities
for
public
water
systems.
At
any
time
after
promulgation
of
a
regulation
referred
to
in
this
paragraph,
the
Administrator
may
add
equally
effective
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
by
guidance
published
in
the
Federal
Register.
Such
procedures
shall
be
treated
as
an
alternative
for
public
water
systems
to
the
quality
control
and
testing
procedures
listed
in
the
regulation.

Section
1412(
b)(
1)
Identification
of
contaminants
for
listing. 

(
A)
General
authority. 
The
Administrator
shall,
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
established
by
this
subsection,
publish
a
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
and
promulgate
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
for
a
contaminant
(
other
than
a
contaminant
referred
to
in
paragraph
(
2)
for
which
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
has
been
promulgated
as
of
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996)
if
the
Administrator
determines
that 

(
i)
the
contaminant
may
have
an
adverse
effect
on
the
health
of
persons;

(
ii)
the
contaminant
is
known
to
occur
or
there
is
a
substantial
likelihood
that
the
contaminant
will
occur
in
public
water
systems
with
a
frequency
and
at
levels
of
public
health
concern;
and
(
iii)
in
the
sole
judgment
of
the
Administrator,
regulation
of
such
contaminant
presents
a
meaningful
opportunity
for
health
risk
reduction
for
persons
served
by
public
water
systems.

(
B)
Regulation
of
unregulated
contaminants. 

(
i)
Listing
of
contaminants
for
consideration. 

(
I)
Not
later
than
18
months
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996
and
every
5
years
thereafter,
the
Administrator,
after
consultation
with
the
scientific
community,
including
the
Science
Advisory
Board,
after
notice
and
opportunity
for
public
comment,
and
after
considering
the
occurrence
data
base
established
under
section
1445(
g),
shall
publish
a
list
of
contaminants
which,
at
the
time
of
publication,
are
not
subject
to
any
proposed
or
promulgated
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation,
which
are
known
or
anticipated
to
occur
in
public
water
systems,
and
which
may
require
regulation
under
this
title.

(
II)
The
unregulated
contaminants
considered
under
subclause
(
I)
shall
include,
but
not
be
limited
to,
substances
referred
to
in
section
101(
14)
of
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation,
and
Liability
Act
of
1980,
and
substances
registered
as
pesticides
under
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act.

(
III)
The
Administrator's
decision
whether
or
not
to
select
an
unregulated
contaminant
for
a
list
under
this
clause
shall
not
be
subject
to
judicial
review.
28
(
ii)
Determination
to
regulate. 

(
I)
Not
later
than
5
years
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Act
Amendments
of
1996,
and
every
5
years
thereafter,
the
Administrator
shall,
after
notice
of
the
preliminary
determination
and
opportunity
for
public
comment,
for
not
fewer
than
5
contaminants
included
on
the
list
published
under
clause
(
i),
make
determinations
of
whether
or
not
to
regulate
such
contaminants.

(
II)
A
determination
to
regulate
a
contaminant
shall
be
based
on
findings
that
the
criteria
of
clauses
(
i),
(
ii),
and
(
iii)
of
subparagraph
(
A)
are
satisfied.
Such
findings
shall
be
based
on
the
best
available
public
health
information,
including
the
occurrence
data
base
established
under
section
1445(
g).

(
III)
The
Administrator
may
make
a
determination
to
regulate
a
contaminant
that
does
not
appear
on
a
list
under
clause
(
i)
if
the
determination
to
regulate
is
made
pursuant
to
subclause
(
II).

(
IV)
A
determination
under
this
clause
not
to
regulate
a
contaminant
shall
be
considered
final
agency
action
and
subject
to
judicial
review.

(
iii)
Review. 
Each
document
setting
forth
the
determination
for
a
contaminant
under
clause
(
ii)
shall
be
available
for
public
comment
at
such
time
as
the
determination
is
published.

(
C)
Priorities. 
In
selecting
unregulated
contaminants
for
consideration
under
subparagraph
(
B),
the
Administrator
shall
select
contaminants
that
present
the
greatest
public
health
concern.
The
Administrator,
in
making
such
selection,
shall
take
into
consideration,
among
other
factors
of
public
health
concern,
the
effect
of
such
contaminants
upon
subgroups
that
comprise
a
meaningful
portion
of
the
general
population
(
such
as
infants,
children,
pregnant
women,
the
elderly,
individuals
with
a
history
of
serious
illness,
or
other
subpopulations)
that
are
identifiable
as
being
at
greater
risk
of
adverse
health
effects
due
to
exposure
to
contaminants
in
drinking
water
than
the
general
population.

(
D)
Urgent
threats
to
public
health. 
The
Administrator
may
promulgate
an
interim
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
for
a
contaminant
without
making
a
determination
for
the
contaminant
under
paragraph
(
4)(
C),
or
completing
the
analysis
under
paragraph
(
3)(
C),
to
address
an
urgent
threat
to
public
health
as
determined
by
the
Administrator
after
consultation
with
and
written
response
to
any
comments
provided
by
the
Secretary
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
acting
through
the
director
of
the
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Prevention
or
the
director
of
the
National
Institutes
of
Health.
A
determination
for
any
contaminant
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
4)(
C)
subject
to
an
interim
regulation
under
this
subparagraph
shall
be
issued,
and
a
completed
analysis
meeting
the
requirements
of
paragraph
(
3)(
C)
shall
be
published,
not
later
than
3
years
after
the
date
on
which
the
regulation
is
promulgated
and
the
regulation
shall
be
repromulgated,
or
revised
if
appropriate,
not
later
than
5
years
after
that
date.

(
E)
Regulation. 
For
each
contaminant
that
the
Administrator
determines
to
regulate
under
subparagraph
(
B),
the
Administrator
shall
publish
maximum
contaminant
level
goals
and
promulgate,
by
rule,
national
primary
drinking
water
regulations
under
this
subsection.
The
Administrator
shall
propose
the
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
and
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
for
a
contaminant
not
later
than
24
months
after
the
determination
to
regulate
under
subparagraph
(
B),
and
may
publish
such
proposed
regulation
concurrent
with
the
determination
to
regulate.
The
Administrator
shall
publish
a
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
and
promulgate
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
within
18
months
after
the
proposal
thereof.
The
Administrator,
by
notice
in
the
Federal
Register,
may
extend
the
deadline
for
such
promulgation
for
up
to
9
months.
29
(
F)
Health
advisories
and
other
actions. 
The
Administrator
may
publish
health
advisories
(
which
are
not
regulations)
or
take
other
appropriate
actions
for
contaminants
not
subject
to
any
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation.

Section
1412(
b)(
4)
Goals
and
standards. 

(
A)
Maximum
contaminant
level
goals. 
Each
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
established
under
this
subsection
shall
be
set
at
the
level
at
which
no
known
or
anticipated
adverse
effects
of
health
of
persons
occur
and
which
allows
an
adequate
margin
of
safety.

(
B)
Maximum
contaminant
levels. 
Except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
5)
and
(
6),
each
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
for
a
contaminant
for
which
a
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
is
established
under
this
subsection
shall
specify
a
maximum
contaminant
level
for
such
a
contaminant
which
is
as
close
to
the
maximum
contaminant
level
goal
as
is
feasible.

(
C)
Determination. 
At
the
time
the
Administrator
proposes
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
under
this
paragraph,
the
Administrator
shall
publish
a
determination
as
to
whether
the
benefits
of
the
maximum
contaminant
level
justify,
or
do
not
justify,
the
costs
based
on
the
analysis
conducted
under
paragraph
(
3)(
C).

(
D)
Definition
of
feasible. 
For
the
purposes
of
this
subsection,
the
term
"
feasible'
means
feasible
with
the
use
of
the
best
technology,
treatment
techniques,
and
other
means
which
the
Administrator
finds,
after
examination
for
efficacy
under
field
conditions
and
not
solely
under
laboratory
conditions,
are
available
(
taking
cost
into
consideration).
For
the
purpose
of
this
paragraph,
granular
activated
carbon
is
feasible
for
the
control
of
synthetic
organic
chemicals,
and
any
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
found
to
be
the
best
available
for
the
control
of
synthetic
organic
chemicals
must
be
at
least
as
effective
in
controlling
synthetic
organic
chemicals
as
granular
activated
carbon.

(
E)
Feasible
technologies. 

(
i)
In
general. 
Each
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
which
establishes
a
maximum
contaminant
level
shall
list
the
technology,
treatment
techniques,
and
other
means
which
the
Administrator
finds
to
be
feasible
for
purposes
of
meeting
such
maximum
contaminant
level,
but
regulation
under
this
subsection
shall
not
require
that
any
specified
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
be
used
for
purposes
of
meeting
such
maximum
contaminant
level.

(
ii)
List
of
technologies
for
small
systems. 
The
Administrator
shall
include
in
the
list
any
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
that
is
affordable,
as
determined
by
the
Administrator
in
consultation
with
the
States,
for
small
public
water
systems
serving 

(
I)
a
population
of
10,000
or
fewer
but
more
than
3,300;

(
II)
a
population
of
3,300
or
fewer
but
more
than
500;
and
(
III)
a
population
of
500
or
fewer
but
more
than
25;

and
that
achieves
compliance
with
the
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique,
including
packaged
or
modular
systems
and
point­
of­
entry
or
point­
of­
use
treatment
units.
Point­
of­
entry
and
point­
of­
use
treatment
units
shall
be
owned,
controlled
and
maintained
by
the
public
water
system
or
by
a
person
under
contract
with
the
public
water
system
to
ensure
proper
operation
and
maintenance
and
compliance
with
the
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique
and
equipped
with
mechanical
30
warnings
to
ensure
that
customers
are
automatically
notified
of
operational
problems.
The
Administrator
shall
not
include
in
the
list
any
point­
of­
use
treatment
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
to
achieve
compliance
with
a
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique
requirement
for
a
microbial
contaminant
(
or
an
indicator
of
a
microbial
contaminant).
If
the
American
National
Standards
Institute
has
issued
product
standards
applicable
to
a
specific
type
of
point­
of­
entry
or
point­
of­
use
treatment
unit,
individual
units
of
that
type
shall
not
be
accepted
for
compliance
with
a
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique
requirement
unless
they
are
independently
certified
in
accordance
with
such
standards.
In
listing
any
technology,
treatment
technique,
or
other
means
pursuant
to
this
clause,
the
Administrator
shall
consider
the
quality
of
the
source
water
to
be
treated.

(
iii)
List
of
technologies
that
achieve
compliance. 
Except
as
provided
in
clause
(
v),
not
later
than
2
years
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
clause
and
after
consultation
with
the
States,
the
Administrator
shall
issue
a
list
of
technologies
that
achieve
compliance
with
the
maximum
contaminant
level
or
treatment
technique
for
each
category
of
public
water
systems
described
in
subclauses
(
I),
(
II),
and
(
III)
of
clause
(
ii)
for
each
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
promulgated
prior
to
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
paragraph.

(
iv)
Additional
technologies. 
The
Administrator
may,
at
any
time
after
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
has
been
promulgated,
supplement
the
list
of
technologies
describing
additional
or
new
or
innovative
treatment
technologies
that
meet
the
requirements
of
this
paragraph
for
categories
of
small
public
water
systems
described
in
subclauses
(
I),
(
II),
and
(
III)
of
clause
(
ii)
that
are
subject
to
the
regulation.

(
v)
Technologies
that
meet
surface
water
treatment
rule. 
Within
one
year
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
clause,
the
Administrator
shall
list
technologies
that
meet
the
Surface
Water
Treatment
Rule
for
each
category
of
public
water
systems
described
in
subclauses
(
I),
(
II),
and
(
III)
of
clause
(
ii).

Section
1413(
a)
For
purposes
of
this
title,
a
State
has
primary
enforcement
responsibility
for
public
water
systems
during
any
period
for
which
the
Administration
determines
(
pursuant
to
regulations
under
subsection
(
b))
that
such
State­

(
1)
has
adopted
drinking
water
regulations
that
are
no
less
stringent
than
the
national
primary
drinking
water
regulations
promulgated
by
the
Administrator
under
subsections
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
section
1412
not
later
than
2
years
after
the
date
on
which
the
regulations
are
promulgated
by
the
Administrator,
except
that
the
Administrator
may
provide
for
an
extension
of
not
more
than
2
years
if,
after
submission
and
review
of
appropriate,
adequate
documentation
from
the
State,
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
extension
is
necessary
and
justified;

(
2)
has
adopted
and
is
implementing
adequate
procedures
for
the
enforcement
of
such
State
regulations,
including
conducting
such
monitoring
and
making
such
inspections
as
the
Administrator
may
require
by
regulation;

(
3)
will
keep
such
records
and
make
such
reports
with
respect
to
its
activities
under
paragraphs
(
1)
and
(
2)
as
the
Administrator
may
require
by
regulation.

Section
1445
(
a)(
1)(
A)
Every
person
who
is
subject
to
any
requirement
of
this
title
or
who
is
a
grantee,
shall
establish
and
maintain
such
records,
make
such
reports,
conduct
such
monitoring,
and
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
by
regulation
to
assist
the
Administrator
in
establishing
regulations
under
this
title,
in
determining
whether
such
person
has
acted
or
is
acting
in
compliance
with
this
title,
in
administering
any
program
of
financial
assistance
under
this
title,
in
evaluating
the
health
risks
of
unregulated
contaminants,
or
in
advising
the
public
of
such
risks.
In
31
requiring
a
public
water
system
to
monitor
under
this
subsection,
the
Administrator
may
take
into
consideration
the
system
size
and
the
contaminants
likely
to
be
found
in
the
system's
drinking
water.

(
B)
Every
person
who
is
subject
to
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
under
section
1412
shall
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require,
after
consultation
with
the
State
in
which
such
person
is
located
if
such
State
has
primary
enforcement
responsibility
for
public
water
systems,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
to
determine
whether
such
person
has
acted
or
is
acting
in
compliance
with
this
title.

(
C)
Every
person
who
is
subject
to
a
national
primary
drinking
water
regulation
under
section
1412
shall
provide
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
reasonably
require
to
assist
the
Administrator
in
establishing
regulations
under
section
1412
of
this
title,
after
consultation
with
States
and
suppliers
of
water.
The
Administrator
may
not
require
under
this
subparagraph
the
installation
of
treatment
equipment
or
process
changes,
the
testing
of
treatment
technology,
or
the
analysis
or
processing
of
monitoring
samples,
except
where
the
Administrator
provides
the
funding
for
such
activities.
Before
exercising
this
authority,
the
Administrator
shall
first
seek
to
obtain
the
information
by
voluntary
submission.

(
D)
The
Administrator
shall
not
later
than
2
years
after
the
date
of
enactment
of
this
subparagraph,
after
consultation
with
public
health
experts,
representatives
of
the
general
public,
and
officials
of
State
and
local
governments,
review
the
monitoring
requirements
for
not
fewer
than
12
contaminants
identified
by
the
Administrator,
and
promulgate
any
necessary
modifications.
32
APPENDIX
B
Detailed
Assumptions
and
Tables
Used
to
Estimate
Burdens,
Costs,
and
Number
of
Responses
33
One
Time
Burden
Associated
with
Upfront
Activities
for
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Exhibit
B­
1.
System
Burden
Associated
with
the
Upfront
Activities
for
Proposed
LCRSTR
System
Classification
Number
of
Systems1
Burden
Per
System
(
hours)
2
Respondent
Burden
in
2006
(
hours/
yr)
3
Respondent
Burden
in
2007
(
hours/
yr)
3
Respondent
Burden
in
2008
(
hours/
yr)
3
Respondent
Burden
2006­
2008
(
hours)
4
CWSs:
<=
100
13,766
4
18,355
18,355
18,355
55,064
101­
500
16,240
4
21,653
21,653
21,653
64,960
501­
3,300
14,212
4
18,949
18,949
18,949
56,848
3,300­
10,000
4,707
8
12,552
12,552
12,552
37,656
10,001­
100,000
3,541
8
9,443
9,443
9,443
28,328
>
100,000
372
8
992
992
992
2,976
Total
CWS
52,838
­­
81,944
81,944
81,944
245,832
NTNCWSs:
<=
100
9,548
4
12,731
12,731
12,731
38,192
101­
500
6,997
4
9,329
9,329
9,329
27,988
501­
3,300
2,720
4
3,627
3,627
3,627
10,880
3,300­
10,000
96
8
256
256
256
768
10,001­
100,000
14
8
37
37
37
112
>
100,000
0
8
0
0
0
0
Total
NTNCWSs
19,375
­­
25,980
25,980
25,980
77,940
Total
(
All
Systems)
72,213
107,924
107,924
107,924
323,772
Notes:

1.
Number
of
systems
per
SDWIS/
FED
Data
2004.
See
Exhibit
1
for
details.

2.
Burden
estimate
based
on
best
professional
judgment.

3.
The
annual
burden
equals
the
number
of
systems
multiplied
by
the
burden
per
system
divided
by
three
years.
EPA
assumes
that
implementation
activities
will
be
performed
throughout
2006
to
2008,
such
that
an
equal
amount
of
activities
will
be
performed
in
each
year.

4.
Respondent
burden
from
2006­
2008
is
equal
to
the
annual
burden
multiplied
by
three
years.
34
Exhibit
B­
2.
State
Burden
Associated
with
the
Upfront
Activities
for
Proposed
LCRSTR
Number
of
States1
Burden
per
State
(
hours)
2
Burden
in
2006
(
hours/
yr)
3
Burden
in
2007
(
hours/
yr)
3
Burden
in
2008
(
hours/
yr)
3
Respondent
Burden
2006­
2008
(
hours)
4
57
312
5,928
5,928
5,928
17,784
Notes
1.
The
proposed
LCR
Regulatory
Changes
apply
to
50
states,
6
territories
and
1
Indian
Tribe,
for
a
total
of
57
entities.

2.
The
burden
for
each
State
includes
regulation
adoption,
program
development
and
miscellaneous
training.

3.
The
annual
burden
equals
the
number
of
States
(
57)
multiplied
by
the
burden
per
State
(
312
hours/
State)
divided
by
three
years.
EPA
assumes
that
implementation
activities
will
be
performed
throughout
2006
to
2008,
such
that
an
equal
amount
of
activities
will
be
performed
in
each
year.

4.
Respondent
burden
from
2006­
2008
is
equal
to
the
annual
burden
multiplied
by
three
years.
35
One
Time
Costs
Associated
with
Upfront
Activities
for
the
Proposed
Regulatory
Changes
Exhibit
B­
3.
System
Costs
Associated
with
the
Upfront
Activities
for
Proposed
LCRSTR
System
Classification
Total
Burden
2006­
2008
(
Hours)
1
Labor
Rate
($/
hour)
2
Annual
Labor
Costs3
Annual
O&
M
Costs4
Total
Annual
Costs5
Total
Costs
2006­
20086
CWSs:
<=
100
55,064
$
22.70
$
416,651
$
0
$
416,651
$
1,249,953
101­
500
64,960
$
24.44
$
529,207
$
0
$
529,207
$
1,587,622
501­
3,300
56,848
$
26.19
$
496,283
$
0
$
496,283
$
1,488,849
3,300­
10,000
37,656
$
26.83
$
336,770
$
0
$
336,770
$
1,010,310
10,001­
100,000
28,328
$
27.58
$
260,429
$
0
$
260,429
$
781,286
>
100,000
2,976
$
33.10
$
32,835
$
0
$
32,835
$
98,506
Total
CWS
245,832
­­
$
2,072,176
$
0
$
2,072,175
$
6,216,527
NTNCWSs:
<=
100
38,192
$
22.70
$
288,986
$
0
$
288,986
$
866,958
101­
500
27,988
$
24.44
$
228,009
$
0
$
228,009
$
684,027
501­
3,300
10,880
$
26.19
$
94,982
$
0
$
94,982
$
284,947
3,300­
10,000
768
$
26.83
$
6,868
$
0
$
6,868
$
20,605
10,001­
100,000
112
$
27.58
$
1,030
$
0
$
1,030
$
3,089
>
100,000
0
$
33.10
$
0
$
0
$
0
$
0
Total
NTNCWSs
77,940
­­
$
619,876
$
0
$
619,875
$
1,859,627
Total
(
All
Systems)
323,772
­­
$
2,692,051
$
0
$
2,692,051
$
8,076,153
Notes:

1.
See
Exhibit
B­
1
for
details.

2.
Labor
rates
from
SAIC
contract
study,
"
Labor
Costs
for
National
Drinking
Water
Rules"
(
2003)
updated
to
2005
dollars.
See
Exhibit
2
for
details.

3.
The
annual
labor
costs
equal
the
burden
from
2006­
2008
multiplied
by
the
labor
rate
divided
by
three
years.
EPA
assumes
that
implementation
activities
will
be
performed
throughout
2006
to
2008,
such
that
an
equal
amount
of
activities
will
be
performed
in
each
year.

4.
EPA
assumes
that
O&
M
costs
will
be
negligible.

5.
Total
annual
costs
equal
the
sum
of
annual
labor
costs
and
annual
O&
M
costs.

6.
Total
costs,
2006­
2008,
equal
the
total
annual
costs
multiplied
by
three
years.
36
Exhibit
B­
4.
State
Costs
Associated
with
the
Upfront
Activities
for
Proposed
LCRSTR
Total
Burden
2006­
2008
(
hours)
1
Annual
Labor
Costs2
Annual
O&
M
Costs3
Total
Annual
Costs4
Total
Costs
2006­
20085
17,784
$
243,226
$
0
$
243,226
$
729,678
Notes:

1.
See
Exhibit
B­
2
for
details.

2.
The
annual
labor
costs
equal
the
burden
from
2006­
2008
multiplied
by
the
labor
rate
divided
by
3
years.
EPA
assumes
that
implementation
activities
will
be
performed
throughout
2006
to
2008,
such
that
an
equal
amount
of
activities
will
be
performed
in
each
year.
Use
State
labor
rate
of
$
41.03/
hour
(
Source:
Information
Collection
Request
for
Contaminant
Occurrence
Data
in
Support
of
EPA's
Second
Six
Year
Review
of
National
Primary
Drinking
Water
Regulations
(
Draft
June
2005)).

3.
EPA
assumes
that
O&
M
costs
will
be
negligible.

4.
Total
annual
costs
equal
the
sum
of
annual
labor
costs
and
annual
O&
M
costs.

5.
Total
costs,
2006­
2008,
equal
the
total
annual
costs
multiplied
by
three
years.
37
Exhibit
B­
5.
Summary
of
the
Total
System
Burden
and
Costs
from
2006­
2008
Burden
(
hours)
2006­
20081
Labor
Costs
2006­
20082
O&
M
Costs
2006­
20083
Total
Costs
2006­
20084
Implementation
Activities
323,772
$
8,076,153
$
0
$
8,076,153
%
of
Total
Cost
­­
100%
0%
100%

Average
Per
System
5
4.5
$
112
0
$
112
Average
Per
Year
107,924
$
2,692,051
0
2,692,051
Average
Per
System
Per
Year
1.5
$
37
0
$
37
Average
Per
Response
6
4.5
$
112
0
$
112
Notes:

1.
See
Exhibit
B­
1
for
details.

2.
See
Exhibit
B­
2
for
details.

3.
See
Exhibit
B­
2
for
details.

4.
See
Exhibit
B­
2
for
details.

5.
See
Exhibit
1
for
number
of
systems.

6.
See
Exhibit
B­
7
for
number
of
responses.
38
Exhibit
B­
6.
Summary
of
the
Total
State
Burden
and
Costs
from
2006­
2008
Burden
(
hours)
2006­
20081
Labor
Costs
2006­
20082
O&
M
Costs
2006­
20083
Total
Costs
2006­
20084
Implementation
Activities
17,784
$
729,678
0
$
729,678
%
of
Total
Cost
100%
0%
100%

Average
Per
State
5
312
$
12,801
$
0
$
12,801
Average
Per
State
Per
Year
104
$
4,267
$
0
$
4,267
Average
Per
Year
5,928
$
243,226
$
0
$
243,226
Average
Per
Response
6
312
$
12,801
$
0
$
12,801
Notes:

1.
See
Exhibit
B­
2
for
details.

2.
See
Exhibit
B­
4
for
details.

3.
See
Exhibit
B­
4
for
details.

4.
See
Exhibit
B­
4
for
details.

5.
See
Exhibit
B­
2
for
number
of
States.

6.
See
Exhibit
B­
7
for
number
of
responses.
39
Exhibit
B­
7.
Number
of
Responses
for
Systems
and
States
for
Implementation
Activities
Respondent
Source
(
Exhibit)
20061
2007
2008
Total
(
2006­
2008)
Annual
Average
Systems
B­
1
24,071
24,071
24,071
72,213
24,071
States
B­
2
19
19
19
57
19
Total
24,090
24,090
24,090
72,270
24,090
Notes:

1.
EPA
assumes
that
implementation
activities
will
result
in
one
response
for
each
affected
system
and
one
response
for
each
affected
State.
Assume
that
implementation
activities
will
be
performed
throughout
2006
to
2008,
such
that
an
equal
amount
of
activities
will
be
performed
in
each
year.
For
example,
in
2006,
EPA
assumes
that
one
third
of
the
72,213
systems,
or
24,071
systems,
will
each
conduct
one
response
while
performing
implementation
activities.
Another
24,071responses
will
be
conducted
in
2007
and
an
additional
24,071
responses
will
be
conducted
in
2008
by
systems.
40
Exhibit
B­
8.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Burden
and
Costs
for
Systems
Annual
Burden
(
hours/
year)
1
Annual
Labor
Costs2
Annual
O&
M
Costs3
Total
Annual
Costs4
One
Time
Activities
107,924
2,692,051
$
0
2,692,051
%
of
Total
Cost
­­
100%
0%
100%

Average
Per
System
5
1.5
$
37
$
0
$
37
Average
Per
Response
6
1.5
$
37
$
0
$
37
Notes:

1.
See
Exhibit
B­
2
for
details.

2.
See
Exhibit
B­
4
for
details.

3.
See
Exhibit
B­
4
for
details.

4.
See
Exhibit
B­
4
for
details
5.
See
Exhibit
1
for
number
of
systems.

6.
See
Exhibit
B­
7
for
number
of
responses.
41
Exhibit
B­
9.
Summary
of
Average
Annual
Burden
and
Costs
for
States
Annual
Burden
(
hours/
year)
1
Annual
Labor
Costs2
Annual
O&
M
Costs3
Total
Annual
Costs4
Implementation
Activities
5,928
$
243,226
$
0
$
243,226
%
of
Total
Cost
100%
0%
100%

Average
Per
System
5
104
$
4,267
$
0
$
4,267
Average
Per
Response
6
104
$
4,267
$
0
$
4,267
Notes:

1.
See
Exhibit
B­
3
for
details.

2.
See
Exhibit
B­
5
for
details.

3.
See
Exhibit
B­
5
for
details.

4.
See
Exhibit
B­
5
for
details.

5.
See
Exhibit
B­
2
for
number
of
States.

6.
See
Exhibit
B­
7
for
number
of
responses.
