There are two separate, but related, issues associated with this section of the proposed regulations.

At the very least, and by far of most importance, is the recommendation that the last sentence of the paragraph be removed entirely. Leaving the sentence in place and unchanged is extremely ambiguous, and is likely to be interpreted that an educational program may be used in lieu of testing a residential backflow assembly that protects a potentially high-hazard situation. The first sentence of the Section focuses on situations where the "... premise plumbing is not complex and where there are no known or suspected high hazards...". The opening phrase of sentence #2 "... for all other residential consumers..." clearly implies the reverse of sentence #1; i.e., instances of complex premise plumbing and/or potential high hazards. Even the most robust educational program can never serve to replace the need for regular testing of a backflow assembly, particularly in a high-hazard situation.

Elimination of the last sentence of this Section will be a significant improvement. However, there is still concern with sentence #1 as a stand-alone sentence. While an educational effort will always be beneficial, if a backflow assembly has been installed, regardless of the level of potential hazard, the assembly needs to be tested on an annual basis. If the assembly is not to be tested, it needs to be removed.