```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 210 (Wednesday, October 30, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 86418-86667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-23549]

[[Page 86417]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 210

October 30, 2024

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 
Improvements (LCRI); Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 86418]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801; FRL-5423.2-02-OW]
RIN 2040-AG16

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 
Improvements (LCRI)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In December 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) requested comment on the proposed the Lead and Copper Rule 
Improvements (LCRI), which informed the revisions to the National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for lead and copper. After 
consideration of public comment on the LCRI, and consistent with the 
provisions set forth under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the EPA 
is finalizing revisions to the NPDWR for lead and copper. In this rule, 
the agency is finalizing requirements for drinking water systems to 
replace lead and certain galvanized service lines. The final rule also 
removes the lead trigger level, reduces the lead action level to 0.010 
mg/L, and strengthens tap sampling procedures to improve public health 
protection and simplify implementation relative to the 2021 Lead and 
Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR). Further, this final rule strengthens 
corrosion control treatment, public education and consumer awareness, 
requirements for small systems, and sampling in schools and child care 
facilities. The final rule will significantly reduce the adverse human 
health impacts of exposure to toxic lead in drinking water.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective on December 30, 
2024.
    Judicial review: For judicial review purposes, this final rule is 
promulgated as of October 30, 2024.
    Compliance dates: The compliance date for the revisions to 40 CFR 
part 141, subpart I, is set forth in Sec.  141.80(a). The compliance 
date for the revisions to 40 CFR 141.2 and 141.31 is November 1, 2027. 
The compliance date for the changes made to 40 CFR part 141, subpart O, 
is set forth in Sec.  141.152(a). The compliance date for the changes 
to 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q (Sec.  141.202 and appendices A and B) is 
November 1, 2027.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goldberg, Office of Ground 
Water and Drinking Water, Standards and Risk Management Division (Mail 
Code 4607M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 
NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-1379; email 
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
II. General Information
    A. What does the final LCRI require?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Dates for Compliance
III. Background
    A. Overview of Lead and Lead Exposures Through Drinking Water
    B. Human Health Effects of Lead and Copper
    C. Regulatory History
    D. Statutory Authority
    E. Anti-backsliding Analysis of LCRI Relative to LCR and LCRR
    F. White House Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan and EPA's 
Strategy To Reduce Lead Exposures and Disparities in U.S. 
Communities
    G. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Other Financial Resources
    H. Lead Exposure and Environmental Justice, Equity, and Federal 
Civil Rights
IV. Final Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart I, Control of Lead 
and Copper
    A. Regulatory Approach
    B. Service Line Replacement
    C. Service Line Replacement Plan
    D. Service Line Inventory
    E. Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper
    F. Corrosion Control Treatment
    G. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
    H. Distribution System and Site Assessment
    I. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance 
for Small Community Water Systems and Non-Transient Non-Community 
Water Systems
    J. Public Education
    K. Additional Requirements for Systems With Multiple Lead Action 
Level Exceedances
    L. Lead Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities
    M. Copper
    N. System Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    O. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141
V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement
    A. General
    B. What are the rule compliance dates?
    C. State Primacy and Special Primacy Requirements
    D. State Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
VI. Economic Analysis
    A. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    B. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Develop the 
Baseline
    C. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model
    D. Cost Analysis
    E. Benefits Analysis
    F. Cost-Benefit Comparison
    G. Alternative Regulatory Options Considered
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 
Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review)
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments)
    G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health and Safety Risks)
    H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect 
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations) and Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All)
    K. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the 
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
    L. Consultation With the Department of Health and Human Services 
Under SDWA Section 1412(d)
    M. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
VIII. Severability
IX. References

I. Executive Summary

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mission 
is to protect human health and the environment. The EPA is finalizing 
the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) to significantly reduce 
the risk of exposure to lead through drinking water. There is no known 
safe level of lead in drinking water. Exposure to drinking water 
contaminated with lead can cause serious human health impacts including 
neurodevelopmental problems in children and heart disease in adults. 
Young children and pregnant people are especially susceptible to the

[[Page 86419]]

impacts of lead exposure. Reducing lead in drinking water will reduce 
the risk of negative neurodevelopmental outcomes for children as well 
as reduce a range of health risks to adults. This final rule builds on 
the 2021 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and the pre-2021 Lead 
and Copper Rule (LCR), originally promulgated in 1991.
    The EPA conducted a review of the 2021 LCRR in accordance with 
Executive Order 13990 \1\ and announced its intention to strengthen the 
2021 LCRR with this new rulemaking, the LCRI, to address key issues and 
opportunities identified in the review. This final LCRI addresses the 
priorities the EPA identified in the 2021 LCRR review, including the 
equitable replacement of lead service lines (LSLs) in the nation, 
improving identification of where LSLs are located, and triggering 
action in communities most at risk of lead exposure, and streamlined 
and improved implementation of the rule relative to the 2021 LCRR. This 
final LCRI is the culmination of numerous meaningful consultations with 
stakeholders and the public during the 2021 LCRR review, engagements 
and consultations held to support the development of the LCRI, and 
public comments received on the proposed LCRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring 
Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (86 FR 7037, January 20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LCRI makes important advancements in protecting children and 
adults from the significant and irreversible health effects of exposure 
to lead in drinking water. These advancements are scientifically based 
and incorporate drinking water system best practices. The final rule 
strengthens the lead and copper rule in five focus areas: (1) achieving 
lead pipe replacement within 10 years, (2) locating legacy lead pipes, 
(3) improving tap sampling, (4) lowering the lead action level, and (5) 
strengthening protections to reduce exposure. The final rule also 
includes compliance dates and an updated benefits and costs analysis. 
Each of these topics is summarized below, in sequential order.

Achieving Lead Pipe Replacement Within 10 Years

    This final rule provides a fundamental shift to a more preventive 
approach to lead in drinking water. This is based on the EPA's 
experience in implementing the lead rule for many years. Specifically, 
based on over 30 years of implementing the 1991 LCR, the EPA has 
determined that requiring lead service line replacement (LSLR) based on 
tap sampling and 90th percentile lead levels alone is insufficient to 
protect public health. LSLs are a source of lead exposure in drinking 
water, even when systems are optimized at or below the lead action 
level.
    The science is clear that there is no known safe level of lead in 
drinking water, especially for children. Among other effects, lead 
exposure can cause damage to the brain and kidneys and can interfere 
with the production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts 
of the body. In children, even low levels of lead exposure can cause 
cognitive health effects like lower intelligence quotient (IQ) as well 
as learning and behavioral problems. In adults, health effects include 
elevated risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or nervous 
system problems, and cancer.
    In the LCRI, the EPA is requiring water systems to replace all lead 
and certain galvanized service lines (specifically, galvanized 
requiring replacement (GRR) service lines) under their control no later 
than 10 years after the compliance date. The LCRI provides, in limited 
circumstances, additional time for some systems to complete systemwide 
full service line replacement. Water systems must replace lead and GRR 
service lines under their control regardless of the lead levels 
occurring in tap or other drinking water samples. Replacing lead and 
GRR service lines will significantly reduce lead releases into drinking 
water. In addition, while consistently well-operated and optimized 
corrosion control treatment (CCT) is generally effective at reducing 
lead to low levels, elimination of lead and GRR service lines will 
result in even greater public health protection by eliminating a 
significant lead exposure source and will minimize the impacts of CCT 
implementation errors that have been documented over the years.
    Historically, lead service lines,\2\ as well as lead-bearing 
fixtures and solder, were commonly used in water distribution systems 
as well as in home plumbing. While replacing LSLs does not eliminate 
all lead exposures from tap water because plumbing systems inside homes 
and buildings (i.e., premise plumbing) can also contain lead 
components, replacing LSLs removes a key source of lead in drinking 
water. Where present, LSLs represent the greatest lead exposure source 
through drinking water (Sandvig et al., 2008).\3\ Buildings and homes 
built before 1986 often have LSLs connecting their plumbing system to 
the main water supply line under the street. These LSLs can deteriorate 
or corrode, releasing lead particles into the drinking water (Sandvig 
et al., 2008). Modeling done as part of the LCRI economic analysis 
confirms that LSL presence significantly contributes to drinking water 
lead levels (USEPA, 2024a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA does not believe that there are lead water mains in 
the United States and, if they do occur, it is extremely rare. The 
poor structural integrity of lead pipes that are more than two 
inches in diameter means that lead was primarily used in pipes of 
smaller diameter such as service lines. Conversely, the water mains 
that distribute water throughout a city or town tend to be six 
inches or larger in diameter. The common water main materials 
include ductile iron, PVC, asbestos cement, high-density 
polyethylene (HDPE), and concrete steel. The oldest water mains are 
cast iron and asbestos cement (Folkman, 2018).
    \3\ Sandvig et al. (2008) found that LSLs contributed an average 
of approximately 50 to 75 percent of the total lead mass measured at 
the tap, while premise piping and the faucet contributed 
approximately 20 to 35 percent and 1 to 3 percent, respectively. At 
sites with no LSL, premise piping and the faucet contributed a 
greater percentage of lead mass to the total lead mass measured at 
the tap (approximately 55 percent and 12 percent, respectively), 
while main samples ranged from approximately 3 to 15 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Locating Legacy Lead Pipes

    Knowing where lead pipes are located is critical to replacing them 
efficiently and equitably, as well as for informing consumers (i.e., 
persons served) so they can take actions to reduce their exposure to 
lead. The LCRI builds upon the 2021 LCRR's requirement for water 
systems to create an initial inventory, to regularly update their 
inventory, and to identify the material of all service lines by the 
mandatory service line replacement deadline. Under the final LCRI, all 
water systems are required to make their service line inventories 
publicly available. Water systems must use a validation process to 
ensure the service line inventory is accurate. Water systems are also 
required to track lead connectors in their inventories and replace them 
as they are encountered.

Improving Tap Sampling

    The final LCRI makes key changes to the required protocol for tap 
sampling informed by best practices already being deployed at the local 
and State level. Under the LCRI, water systems are required to collect 
first- and fifth-liter tap samples at sites with LSLs and use the 
higher of the two values when determining compliance. This method will 
better represent water that has been stagnant both within the LSL and 
the premise plumbing. This will help water systems better understand 
the effectiveness of their CCT.

[[Page 86420]]

Lowering the Lead Action Level

    The final LCRI lowers the lead action level from 0.015 mg/L to 
0.010 mg/L. When a water system exceeds the lead action level, it is 
required to inform the public, take actions associated with CCT, and 
employ public education measures to reduce lead exposure. For example, 
a system may be required to install or adjust CCT to reduce lead that 
leaches into drinking water. Actions resulting from a lowered lead 
action level will improve public health benefits because they will 
require systems to take actions to reduce lead exposure sooner. The EPA 
also emphasizes the many final rule requirements that will result in 
additional public health benefits irrespective of systemwide lead 
levels, recognizing there is no safe level of lead in drinking water. 
For example, the final rule requires full service line replacement and 
public education provisions independent of a system's 90th percentile 
lead level.

Strengthening Protections To Reduce Exposure

    The final LCRI requires water systems with continually high lead 
levels to conduct additional outreach to consumers and make filters 
certified to reduce lead in drinking water available to all consumers. 
These additional actions can reduce consumer exposure to higher levels 
of lead in drinking water while the water system works to reduce 
systemwide lead levels (e.g., achieving 100 percent replacement of lead 
and GRR service lines, installing or re-optimizing optimal corrosion 
control treatment (OCCT)), which may take years to fully implement.

Benefits and Costs Analysis

    As part of its Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA), the 
EPA evaluated quantifiable and nonquantifiable health risk reduction 
benefits and costs associated with the final LCRI. At a two percent 
discount rate, the EPA estimates the quantifiable annual benefits of 
the final rule will be $13.49 to $25.14 billion and the quantifiable 
annual costs of the rule will be $1.47 to $1.95 billion in 2022 
dollars. The EPA Administrator confirms the determination made at 
proposal that the quantified and nonquantifiable benefits of the final 
LCRI justify the quantified and nonquantifiable costs.
    To evaluate these benefits and costs, the EPA determined which 
entities would be affected by the LCRI, quantified costs using 
available data, and described nonquantifiable costs. The EPA quantified 
benefits by estimating and monetizing avoided reductions in IQ, cases 
of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, lower 
birth weights in children, and cases of cardiovascular disease 
premature mortality in adults associated with lead and GRR service line 
replacement, CCT installation and re-optimization, the use of point-of-
use devices as a small system compliance option, and the temporary use 
of point-of-use devices and water filters in systems with multiple lead 
action level exceedances. Prior efforts to quantify benefits associated 
with reducing lead in drinking water have focused on neurodevelopmental 
outcomes in children because of the lifelong impact on their ability to 
thrive. The current benefits assessment also incorporates recent 
scientific analyses that allow better quantification of benefits to 
adults associated with reductions in lead exposure.
    There are many additional benefits of the LCRI that the EPA 
assessed qualitatively. For example, the requirements for water systems 
to issue public education (including using languages of the communities 
where systems serve a large proportion of consumers with limited 
English proficiency), to make the inventory of service line and 
connector materials publicly available, and to make the service line 
replacement plan publicly available will promote the public's behaviors 
to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. Health benefits 
qualitatively evaluated include reduced incidence of renal effects, 
reproductive and developmental effects (apart from ADHD), immunological 
effects, neurological effects (apart from children's IQ), and cancer.
    In addition, persons served by systems required to install or re-
optimize OCCT under the final LCRI and living in homes with premise 
plumbing containing lead will receive health benefits from reduced lead 
exposure that were not quantified in the analysis of the final rule. 
Increased use of CCT resulting from the final LCRI's lower lead action 
level and improved tap sampling may have a beneficial secondary effect 
of reducing copper levels and avoiding certain negative health impacts 
of copper, such as acute gastrointestinal conditions and health effects 
associated with Wilson's Disease. Other nonquantifiable co-benefits 
associated with the increased use of corrosion inhibitors resulting 
from the LCRI's lower lead action level and improved tap sampling 
include extending the useful life of plumbing components and appliances 
(e.g., water heaters), reduced plumbing maintenance costs, reduced 
treated water loss from the distribution system due to leaks, and 
reduced potential liability and damages from broken pipes in buildings.
    To support eliminating LSLs, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act (Pub. L. 117-58), also referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law (BIL), included $15 billion specifically appropriated for LSLR 
projects and associated activities directly connected to the 
identification and replacement of LSLs. The BIL also included over 
$11.7 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund General 
Supplemental, which can also be used for lead service line replacement 
as well as other drinking water projects. The agency notes the costs 
cited above do not take into account this available funding source. The 
EPA is also providing significant technical assistance to communities 
through efforts such as the ``Get the Lead Out Initiative'' and ``Lead 
Service Line Replacement Accelerators,'' which assist efforts to 
conduct service line replacement.

Compliance and Public Process

    Water systems must comply with the requirements of the LCRI 
starting three years after promulgation of this final rule. The EPA is 
requiring water systems to comply with select requirements introduced 
in the 2021 LCRR that the agency did not propose to change in the LCRI, 
starting on October 16, 2024. This includes the 2021 LCRR initial LSL 
inventory, notification of service line material, and associated 
reporting requirements. Water systems must also comply with the Tier 1 
public notification (PN) requirement for a lead action level exceedance 
that was introduced under the 2021 LCRR starting October 16, 2024. 
Please see section V.B.3 of this preamble for a full discussion of the 
provisions with a compliance date of October 16, 2024. The final LCRI 
otherwise requires water systems to comply with the pre-2021 LCR (and 
not the 2021 LCRR) between October 16, 2024, and the LCRI compliance 
date so that water systems can directly transition from the regulatory 
scheme of the LCR to the LCRI.

II. General Information

    The final Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) builds upon the 
previous lead and copper rules. The LCRI revises the most recent lead 
and copper rule, the 2021 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), which 
was promulgated on January 15, 2021 (86 FR 4198, USEPA, 2021a). Key 
revisions in the LCRI address the opportunities for

[[Page 86421]]

improvement identified in the ``Review of the National Primary Drinking 
Water Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions'' (or LCRR review) 
including proactively and equitably replacing all lead service lines 
(LSLs), strengthening compliance with tap sampling to better identify 
communities most at risk of elevated lead in drinking water to better 
compel actions to reduce health risks, reducing the complexity of the 
regulation, and ensuring that the rule is more understandable (86 FR 
71574, USEPA, 2021b). The United States Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) developed the LCRI considering the input received in numerous 
meaningful consultations and engagements over several years, including 
during the LCRR review and in stakeholder outreach conducted to inform 
the development of the proposed and final LCRI, along with almost 
200,000 public comments submitted to the docket as well as oral 
comments provided to the EPA during the public hearing held January 16, 
2024, for the proposed LCRI.

A. What does the final LCRI require?

    The LCRI requires full service line replacement of lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement (GRR) service lines under the control 
of the water system, regardless of the system's 90th percentile lead 
level. Water systems are required to complete replacements within 10 
years of the LCRI compliance date. There is a limited exception for 
systems with a high proportion of service lines requiring replacement: 
they are eligible for a deferred deadline if they meet a specified 
threshold and receive State approval. Systems with deferred deadlines 
and States must regularly assess whether they can complete the 
replacement at a faster rate. Water systems must identify all service 
lines of unknown composition (``unknown service lines'') to replace all 
lead and GRR service lines by the replacement deadline. Systems must 
also track lead connectors in their inventories and replace them 
whenever encountered during normal operations. All water systems with 
non-lead service lines in their inventories must validate the methods 
used to categorize those service lines as non-lead with some 
exceptions. All water systems with known or potential lead or GRR 
service lines must prepare and make publicly accessible a service line 
replacement plan which can facilitate the equitable replacement of all 
lead or GRR service lines by the replacement deadline.
    The final LCRI reduces the lead action level from 0.015 mg/L to 
0.010 mg/L, which will result in more water systems installing and re-
optimizing optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) and providing 
public education to reduce drinking water lead exposure. Systems that 
exceed the lead action level three or more times in a five-year period 
must take additional actions to provide public education and make 
filters available.
    The rule updates the tap sampling protocol by requiring systems to 
collect a first-liter sample (in addition to the fifth-liter sample 
required by the 2021 LCRR) at structures with LSLs and then use the 
higher of the first- or fifth-liter sample values at the LSL sites when 
calculating the 90th percentile. The first- and fifth-liter sample 
values represent water that has been stagnant in premise plumbing 
(plumbing within buildings) and within the service line, respectively, 
and therefore, more accurately identify where higher lead levels might 
be present compared to sampling the first liter or the fifth liter 
alone. Systems must prioritize sampling at sites most likely to contain 
lead and use this data to calculate the 90th percentile. The LCRI 
requires most systems with lead and GRR service lines to start (or 
continue) standard monitoring. Additionally, any system with a 90th 
percentile lead level above the LCRI lead action level, based on the 
system's results from the most recent tap monitoring period prior to 
the compliance date, will need to start (or continue) standard 
monitoring. The EPA updated the requirements for systems with 
insufficient Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites to meet their minimum required 
number of samples to use the highest sample results from Tiers 1, 2, 
and the next highest available tiers (equal to the minimum required 
number of samples) to calculate the 90th percentile. Sample site tiers 
are used to prioritize sampling locations and were first introduced in 
the 1991 LCR.
    The LCRI requires States to set optimal water quality parameters 
(OWQPs) for medium systems (serving greater than 10,000 persons and 
fewer than or equal to 50,000 persons) that are required to optimize or 
re-optimize corrosion control treatment (CCT). These systems must meet 
those parameters to demonstrate that OCCT is being maintained. The rule 
allows all systems to defer OCCT or re-optimized OCCT (but maintain any 
existing CCT) if they can replace all lead and GRR service lines at a 
minimum percent annual rate within five years or less. Water systems 
with lead and GRR services lines and OCCT that are meeting their OWQPs 
are not required to re-optimize their OCCT more than once following a 
lead action level exceedance after the compliance date. After systems 
remove all of their lead and GRR service lines, they must re-optimize 
again if they exceed the lead action level. In addition, water systems 
may be required to re-optimize by the State at any time. Systems not 
required to re-optimize under the final rule still have to meet other 
requirements, including for public education if there are multiple 
action level exceedances (see sections IV.J and IV.K of this preamble).
    The LCRI updates public education requirements, instituting changes 
to content and delivery frequency for more proactive messaging about 
lead in drinking water and actions individuals can take to reduce their 
exposure. It includes requirements to make information about lead in 
drinking water more accessible to consumers including individuals with 
limited English proficiency. The LCRI also introduces new public 
education requirements for lead and copper.
    The LCRI revises the small system compliance flexibility provision 
to eliminate LSLR as a compliance option, as all systems must conduct 
mandatory service line replacement regardless of their 90th percentile 
lead level. The eligibility threshold for the flexibility for community 
water systems (CWSs) is lowered to those serving 3,300 or fewer 
persons.
    The LCRI retains the requirements from the 2021 LCRR for CWSs to 
conduct sampling and public education in schools and child care 
facilities but expands the available waivers to include sampling 
efforts conducted prior to the rule compliance date, including sampling 
conducted through the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation 
(WIIN) Act grant program. The LCRI also restructures and clarifies 
areas of the rule that did not change to make the rule more 
implementable.
    Exhibit 1 compares the major differences among the pre-2021 Lead 
and Copper Rule (LCR), 2021 LCRR, and the final LCRI. Asterisks (*) in 
the pre-2021 LCR and 2021 LCRR column denote requirements that are 
retained in the final LCRI, and these requirements are, therefore, not 
repeated in the final LCRI column.

[[Page 86422]]

               Exhibit 1--Comparison of the 2021 LCRR, Proposed LCRI, and Final LCRI Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Pre-2021 LCR                                2021 LCRR                          Final LCRI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Service Line Inventory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Systems were required to           All systems must develop an       All systems must
 complete a materials evaluation by the     initial lead service line (LSL)           review specified
 time of initial sampling.                  inventory by October 16, 2024, that       information that describes
 No requirement to regularly        includes all service lines, regardless    connector materials and
 update materials evaluation.               of ownership, categorized as lead, non-   locations.
                                            lead, galvanized requiring replacement    Systems must
                                            (GRR), and unknown.*                      include each identified
                                            The inventory must be made        connector in their
                                            publicly accessible and available         baseline inventory by the
                                            online for systems serving >50,000        LCRI compliance date.
                                            persons.*                                 Connector material
                                            The publicly available            categories include lead,
                                            inventory must include a locational       non-lead, unknown, and no
                                            identifier for each lead and GRR          connector present.
                                            service line.                             The inventory must
                                            The LSL inventory must be         include a street address
                                            updated based on the system's tap         with each service line and
                                            sampling frequency but no more than       connector, if available.
                                            annually.                                 The inventory must
                                                                                      be updated annually.
                                                                                      Systems must
                                                                                      include in their
                                                                                      inventories the total
                                                                                      number of each type of
                                                                                      service line, the number
                                                                                      of lead and unknown
                                                                                      connectors, the number of
                                                                                      full lead and GRR service
                                                                                      line replacements, and the
                                                                                      number of partial lead and
                                                                                      GRR service line repla
                                                                                      cements.
                                                                                      Systems must
                                                                                      respond to customer
                                                                                      inquiries on incorrect
                                                                                      material categorizations
                                                                                      within 60 days.
                                           ........................................   Systems must
                                                                                      validate the accuracy of
                                                                                      their methods to
                                                                                      categorize non-lead
                                                                                      service lines in their
                                                                                      inventory no later than 7
                                                                                      years after the compliance
                                                                                      date by the end of the
                                                                                      calendar year unless on a
                                                                                      shortened or deferred
                                                                                      deadline.
                                                                                     [cir] The validation pool
                                                                                      includes all non-lead
                                                                                      service lines except for
                                                                                      those installed after the
                                                                                      applicable Federal, State,
                                                                                      or local lead ban;
                                                                                      visually inspected at a
                                                                                      minimum of two points on
                                                                                      the pipe exterior; or
                                                                                      previously replaced.
                                                                                     [cir] Systems may submit
                                                                                      previous validation
                                                                                      efforts in lieu of the
                                                                                      LCRI requirements if they
                                                                                      are at least as stringent
                                                                                      as the requirements, and
                                                                                      States must review and
                                                                                      approve of these previous
                                                                                      efforts.
                                                                                      Systems must
                                                                                      identify all unknown
                                                                                      service lines by their
                                                                                      mandatory service line
                                                                                      replacement deadline.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Service Line Replacement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement Plan                           Replacement Plan                          Replacement Plan
 No requirement.                    All systems with at least one     All systems with
                                            lead, GRR, or unknown service line must   at least one lead, GRR, or
                                            develop an LSLR plan by the compliance    unknown service line must
                                            date.                                     develop the service line
                                            The plan must include a           replacement plan by the
                                            strategy to prioritize service line       compliance date. The plan
                                            replacement.*                             includes the elements from
                                                                                      the LCRR as well as two
                                                                                      new elements: (1) a
                                                                                      strategy to inform
                                                                                      customers and consumers
                                                                                      (persons served) about the
                                                                                      plan and replacement
                                                                                      program and (2) an
                                                                                      identification of any
                                                                                      legal requirements or
                                                                                      water tariff agreement
                                                                                      provisions that affect a
                                                                                      system's ability to gain
                                                                                      access to conduct full
                                                                                      service line replacement.
                                           ........................................   The service line
                                                                                      replacement plan must
                                                                                      include additional plan
                                                                                      elements if the system has
                                                                                      at least one lead-lined
                                                                                      galvanized service line or
                                                                                      if the system is eligible
                                                                                      for a deferred deadline.
                                                                                      Service line
                                                                                      replacement plan must be
                                                                                      publicly accessible; and
                                                                                      available online for
                                                                                      systems serving >50,000
                                                                                      persons.
                                                                                      The plan must be
                                                                                      updated annually to
                                                                                      include any new or updated
                                                                                      information and submitted
                                                                                      to the State on an annual
                                                                                      basis.
                                           ........................................   By the compliance
                                                                                      date, systems eligible for
                                                                                      and planning to use
                                                                                      deferred deadlines must
                                                                                      include in the plan
                                                                                      information on what the
                                                                                      system identifies as the
                                                                                      earliest deadline and
                                                                                      fastest feasible rate to
                                                                                      replace lead and GRR
                                                                                      service lines that is no
                                                                                      slower than 39 annual
                                                                                      replacements per 1,000
                                                                                      service connections.

[[Page 86423]]

 
                                           ........................................   By the end of the
                                                                                      second program year, the
                                                                                      State is required to
                                                                                      determine in writing
                                                                                      whether a system with a
                                                                                      deferred deadline is
                                                                                      replacing lead and GRR
                                                                                      service lines at the
                                                                                      fastest feasible rate,
                                                                                      either by approving the
                                                                                      continued use of that
                                                                                      deferred deadline or by
                                                                                      setting the fastest
                                                                                      feasible rate for the
                                                                                      system. In addition to
                                                                                      annual updates, systems
                                                                                      with deferred deadlines
                                                                                      must submit their plan
                                                                                      every three years with
                                                                                      updated information about
                                                                                      why the replacement rate
                                                                                      is still the fastest
                                                                                      feasible. The State must
                                                                                      review this information
                                                                                      and determine in writing
                                                                                      if the system with a
                                                                                      deferred deadline is still
                                                                                      replacing lead and GRR
                                                                                      service lines at the
                                                                                      fastest feasible rate,
                                                                                      either by approving the
                                                                                      continued use of that
                                                                                      deferred deadline or by
                                                                                      setting the fastest
                                                                                      feasible rate.
LSLR                                       LSLR                                      Service Line Replacement
 Replacement program requirements   Replacement program               Replacement
 are based on the lead 90th percentile      requirements are dependent on P90 lead    program requirements are
 (P90) lead level, CCT installation, and/   level for CWSs serving >10,000 persons:   independent of systems'
 or source water treatment.                [cir] If P90 > 0.015 mg/L: Must fully      P90 lead levels.
 Systems conducting LSLR must       replace 3 percent of lead and GRR         All CWSs and
 annually replace at least 7 percent of     service lines per year based upon a 2-    NTNCWSs with one or more
 LSLs in their distribution system.         year rolling average (mandatory           lead, GRR, or unknown
 Systems must replace the LSL       replacement) for at least 4 consecutive   service line in their
 portion they own and offer to replace      6-month monitoring periods.               inventory must replace
 the private portion. Systems are not      [cir] If P90 > 0.010 mg/L but L: Implement a goal-based LSLR         under their control within
 the private portion.\a\                    program and consult the primacy agency    10 years, unless subject
 Full LSLR, partial LSLR, and       (or State) on replacement goals for 2     to a shortened or deferred
 LSLs with lead sample results L (``test-outs'') count toward the 7    CWSs serving  Systems must
 percent replacement rate.                  and all non-transient, non-community      replace service lines at a
 Systems can discontinue LSLR       water systems (NTNCWSs) that select       cumulative average annual
 after 2 consecutive 6-month monitoring     LSLR as their compliance option must      rate of 10 percent, unless
 periods at or below the lead action        complete LSLR within 15 years if P90 >    subject to a shortened or
 level.                                     0.015 mg/L. See the Small System          deferred deadline.
 Requires replacement of LSLs       Flexibility section of this exhibit.      Cumulative average
 only (i.e., no GRR service lines).         Annual LSLR rate is applied to    replacement rate is
                                            the number of lead and GRR service        applied to the total
                                            lines when the system first exceeds the   number of unknown, lead,
                                            trigger or action level plus the number   and GRR service lines in
                                            of unknown service lines at the           the baseline inventory
                                            beginning of the year.                    minus the number of
                                            Only full LSLR (replacement of    unknown service lines that
                                            the entire length of the service line)    have been determined to be
                                            counts toward mandatory rate* and goal-   non-lead since the
                                            based rate.                               baseline inventory.
                                            All systems must replace their    Systems that would
                                            portion of an LSL if notified by          have to annually replace
                                            consumer of private side replacement      more than 39 service lines
                                            within 45 days of notification of the     per 1,000 service
                                            private replacement. If the system        connections are eligible
                                            cannot replace the system's portion       for deferred deadlines
                                            within 45 days, it must notify the        longer than 10 years.
                                            State and replace the system's portion    States are
                                            within 180 days.*                         required to set a shorter
                                            Following each service line       deadline for a system
                                            replacement, systems must:                where it determines that a
                                           [cir] Provide pitcher filters or point-    shorter deadline is
                                            of-use devices and 6 months of            feasible.
                                            replacement cartridges to each customer   Where property
                                            after replacement.* Provide pitcher       owner consent is required
                                            filters and cartridges before the         for a system to access the
                                            affected portion of the line or the       service line, systems must
                                            fully replaced service line is returned   make a reasonable effort
                                            to service.*                              (at least 4 attempts) to
                                           [cir] Offer to collect a lead tap sample   engage property owners
                                            at locations served by the replaced       about full service line
                                            line within 3 to 6 months after           replacement.
                                            replacement.*                             Systems conducting
                                                                                      partial service line
                                                                                      replacement, if not
                                                                                      prohibited by the rule,
                                                                                      must make a reasonable
                                                                                      effort (at least 4
                                                                                      attempts) to engage
                                                                                      property owners about full
                                                                                      service line replacements
                                                                                      for infrastructure
                                                                                      projects that impact
                                                                                      service lines and offer to
                                                                                      replace the remaining
                                                                                      portion of the service
                                                                                      line not under their
                                                                                      control within 45 days if
                                                                                      replaced in coordination
                                                                                      with an emergency
                                                                                      repair.\a\
                                            Requires replacement of lead
                                            connectors when encountered.*
                                            Systems must make 2 good faith
                                            efforts to engage customers about LSLR.
                                            Systems conducting partial LSLR
                                            must offer to replace the remaining
                                            portion of the service line.
                                            Systems must replace service
                                            lines by a shorter deadline if
                                            determined feasible by the State.*

[[Page 86424]]

 
LSL-Related Outreach                       LSL-Related Outreach                      Service Line-Related
 If a system replaces its portion   Notify consumers annually if      Outreach
 only:                                      they are served by a lead, GRR, or        Provide notice and
[cir] Provide notification to affected      unknown service line.*                    educational materials
 residences within 45 days prior to         Provide notice and educational    during water-related work
 replacement on possible elevated short-    materials to consumers during water-      that could disturb lead,
 term lead levels and measures to           related work that could disturb LSLs.     GRR, or unknown service
 minimize exposure.*                        Provide filters to consumers      lines, including
[cir] Include offer to collect lead tap     for disturbances to a lead, GRR, or       disturbances due to
 sample within 72 hours of replacement.     unknown service line caused by            inventorying efforts, to
[cir] Provide test results within 3         replacement of an inline water meter,     consumers within 24 hours
 business days after receiving results.     water meter setter, or connector.         or before the service line
                                            Systems subject to goal-based     is returned to service,
                                            program must:                             and to customers within 30
                                           [cir] Conduct targeted outreach that       days.
                                            encourages consumers with LSLs to         Provide filters to
                                            participate in the LSLR program.          consumers for disturbances
                                           [cir] Conduct an additional outreach       to a lead, GRR, or unknown
                                            activity if they fail to meet their       service line caused by
                                            goal.                                     replacement of an inline
                                            Systems required to conduct       water meter, water meter
                                            LSLR must include information about the   setter, connector, or
                                            LSLR program in public education (PE)     water main.
                                            materials that are provided in response   If a CWS does not
                                            to P90 > action level.*                   meet the mandatory service
                                                                                      line replacement rate, the
                                                                                      CWS must conduct
                                                                                      additional public outreach
                                                                                      activities to encourage
                                                                                      customers with lead, GRR,
                                                                                      and unknown service lines
                                                                                      to participate in the
                                                                                      service line replacement
                                                                                      program.
                                                                                      Removes goal-based
                                                                                      program outreach
                                                                                      activities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Action Level and Trigger Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 P90 level above lead action        P90 level above lead action       Removes the lead
 level of 0.015 mg/L or copper action       level of 0.015 mg/L or copper action      trigger level.
 level of 1.3 mg/L requires additional      level of 1.3 mg/L requires more actions   P90 level above
 actions.                                   than the previous rule.                   lead action level of 0.010
 Lead action level exceedance       Defines lead trigger level as     mg/L or copper action
 requires 7 percent LSLR (includes          P90 > 0.010 mg/L and triggers             level of 1.3 mg/L requires
 partial replacements), CCT                 additional planning, monitoring, and      actions including
 recommendation and possible study and      treatment requirements.                   installing or re-
 installation, and PE within 60 days        Lead action level exceedance      optimizing CCT, and PE as
 after the end of the monitoring period.    requires 3 percent full LSLR, OCCT        well as Tier 1 PN (for
                                            installation or re-optimization, PE,      lead action level
                                            and public notification (PN) within 24    exceedances).
                                            hours.                                    Mandatory full
                                            Trigger level exceedance          service line replacement
                                            requires goal-based LSLR and steps        of lead and GRR service
                                            taken towards CCT installation or re-     lines is independent of
                                            optimization.                             P90 lead levels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Lead and Copper Tap Sampling
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample Site Selection                      Sample Site Selection                     Sample Site Selection
 Prioritizes collection of          Prioritizes collecting samples    Combines the tap
 samples from sites with sources of lead    from sites served by LSLs. All samples    sample site selection
 in contact with drinking water.            must be collected from sites served by    tiering criteria for CWSs
 Highest priority given to sites    LSLs, if available.*                      and NTNCWSs.
 served by copper pipes with lead solder    Equal priority to copper pipes    Removes galvanized
 installed after 1982 or containing lead    with lead solder, irrespective of         service line or premise
 pipes and sites served by LSLs.            installation date.*                       plumbing formerly
 Systems must collect 50 percent    Adds 2 tiers to prioritize        downstream of a lead
 of samples from LSLs, if available.        sampling at lead and GRR service line     connector from Tier 3
                                            sites above sites with copper with lead   sites.
                                            solder.*                                  Removes
                                                                                      requirement for
                                                                                      replacement sampling sites
                                                                                      to be selected within
                                                                                      reasonable proximity.
                                                                                      Clarifies that
                                                                                      sites are considered no
                                                                                      longer available for
                                                                                      sampling after customer
                                                                                      refusal or non-response
                                                                                      after two outreach
                                                                                      attempts.
Sample Collection and Inclusion in 90th    Sample Collection and Inclusion in 90th   Sample Collection and
 Percentile Calculation                     Percentile Calculation                    Inclusion in 90th
 Requires collection of the first-  Requires collection of the        Percentile Calculation
 liter sample after water has sat           fifth-liter sample in homes with LSLs     Requires
 stagnant for a minimum of 6 hours.         after water has sat stagnant for a        collection of the first-
                                            minimum of 6 hours.                       and fifth-liter samples in
                                            Requires first-liter sample       structures with LSLs after
                                            collection in homes without LSLs.*        water has sat stagnant for
                                            Requires systems with             a minimum of 6 hours.
                                            insufficient Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet   Requires systems
                                            the minimum number of samples required    with insufficient Tier 1
                                            by calculating the P90 from all Tier 1    and 2 sites to meet the
                                            and 2 sites and the highest samples       minimum number of samples
                                            from the next highest tier to equal the   required by calculating
                                            minimum number required.                  the P90 from the highest
                                            Prohibits inclusion of samples    sample values from the
                                            collected under find-and-fix in the P90   highest tiers sampled
                                            calculation.*                             equal to the minimum
                                            Adds requirement that samples     number required.
                                            must be collected in wide-mouth           Requires the
                                            bottles.*                                 higher value of the first-
                                            Prohibits sampling instructions   and fifth-liter lead
                                            that include recommendations for          concentration in
                                            aerator cleaning/removal and pre-         structures with LSLs to be
                                            stagnation flushing prior to sample       used to calculate the P90
                                            collection.*                              value for lead.
                                                                                      Prohibits
                                                                                      inclusion of samples
                                                                                      following service line
                                                                                      replacement in the P90
                                                                                      calculation. Prohibits the
                                                                                      inclusion of more than one
                                                                                      sample per site in each
                                                                                      P90 calculation.
                                                                                      Revises the
                                                                                      definition of a wide-mouth
                                                                                      bottle.

[[Page 86425]]

 
Monitoring Frequency                       Monitoring Frequency                      Monitoring Frequency
 Samples are analyzed for both      Samples are analyzed for lead     Monitoring
 lead and copper.                           and copper, only copper, or only lead.    schedule is based on both
 Systems must collect standard      This occurs when lead monitoring is       the P90 for lead and
 number of samples based on population;     conducted more frequently or at more      copper for all systems.
 semi-annually unless they qualify for      sites than copper, and at LSL sites       Systems may retain or
 reduced monitoring.                        where a fifth-liter sample is only        qualify for reduced
 Systems can qualify for annual     analyzed for lead.*                       monitoring based on the
 or triennial monitoring at reduced         Lead monitoring schedule is       number of consecutive tap
 number of sites. Monitoring schedule       based on the P90 level for all systems    monitoring periods:
 based on the number of consecutive years   as follows:                              [cir] P90  0.015 mg/L: Semi-annually at   for 2 consecutive 6-month
[cir] Serves  0.010 mg/L but     at standard number of
 levels.                                    L: Annually at the standard number of     sites for lead and reduced
[cir] Serves any population size, meets     sites.                                    number of sites for
 State-specified optimal water quality     [cir] P90 L: Annually at the   copper.
 parameters (OWQPs), and P90  Triennial monitoring also          using same criteria as the LCR except     for 2 consecutive periods:
 applies to any system with lead P90 L and copper P90 L     Initial standard monitoring       the reduced number of
 for 2 consecutive 6-month monitoring       required for systems with lead and GRR    sites for both lead and
 periods.                                   service lines, and any system that does   copper.
 Based on rule criteria, systems    not sample under the requirements of      Initial standard
 serving  Systems must conduct standard     required for most systems
                                            monitoring if they exceed the action      with lead and/or GRR
                                            level, have a water quality parameter     service lines in their
                                            (WQP) excursion, and other criteria.      inventory on the
                                                                                      compliance date.
                                                                                      Additional
                                                                                      criterion for when systems
                                                                                      must start standard
                                                                                      monitoring: Systems with
                                                                                      no lead or GRR service
                                                                                      lines in their inventory
                                                                                      on the compliance date
                                                                                      must start standard
                                                                                      monitoring if they
                                                                                      identify a lead or GRR
                                                                                      service line in the
                                                                                      future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Corrosion Control Treatment (CCT) and Water Quality Parameters (WQPs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CCT                                        CCT                                       CCT
 Systems serving > 50,000 persons   Specifies CCT requirements for    Systems with P90
 were required to install treatment by      systems with P90 lead level >0.010 mg/L   lead level >0.010 mg/L:
 January 1, 1997, with limited exception.   but L:                       [cir] No CCT: Must install
 Systems serving or copper action           if required by the State.                 subsequent P90 levels if
 level(s) are subject to CCT requirements  [cir] With CCT: Must follow the steps      they have started to
 (e.g., CCT recommendation, study if        for re-optimizing CCT, as specified in    install CCT.
 required by the State, CCT                 the rule.                                [cir] With CCT: Must re-
 installation). They can discontinue CCT    Systems with P90 lead level       optimize OCCT.
 steps if no longer exceed both action      >0.015 mg/L:                             [cir] Systems with OCCT and
 levels for 2 consecutive 6-month          [cir] No CCT: Must complete CCT            lead and GRR service lines
 monitoring periods.                        installation regardless of subsequent     meeting OWQPs need only re-
 Systems must operate CCT to meet   P90 levels if system has started to       optimize OCCT once after
 any OWQPs designated by the State that     install CCT.                              the compliance date,
 define optimal CCT.                       [cir] With CCT: Must re-optimize CCT.      unless required to do so
 There is no requirement for        CWSs serving  CWSs serving  Deferred OCCT or
                                                                                      re-optimized OCCT for
                                                                                      systems that can complete
                                                                                      removal of 100 percent of
                                                                                      lead and GRR service lines
                                                                                      within 5 years or less of
                                                                                      the date they are
                                                                                      triggered into CCT steps.
                                                                                      Systems with CCT must
                                                                                      maintain CCT during the 5-
                                                                                      year-or-less service line
                                                                                      replacement program.
CCT Options                                CCT Options                               CCT Options
Includes alkalinity and pH adjustment,     Removes calcium hardness as an option     No changes from the LCRR.
 calcium hardness adjustment, and           and specifies any phosphate inhibitor
 phosphate or silicate-based corrosion      must be orthophosphate.*
 inhibitor.
WQPs                                       WQPs                                      WQPs
 No CCT: pH, alkalinity, calcium,   Eliminates WQPs related to       No changes from the LCRR.
 conductivity, temperature,                 calcium hardness (i.e., calcium,
 orthophosphate (if phosphate-based         conductivity, and temperature).*
 inhibitor is used), silica (if silica-     All other parameters are the
 based inhibitor is used).                  same as in the LCR.*
 With CCT: pH, alkalinity, and
 based on type of CCT either
 orthophosphate, silica, or calcium.
WQP Monitoring                             WQP Monitoring                            WQP Monitoring
 Systems serving >50,000 persons    Systems serving >50,000 persons   Systems with CCT
 must conduct regular WQP monitoring at     must conduct regular WQP monitoring at    (unless deemed optimized)
 entry points and within the distribution   entry points and within the               serving >10,000 persons
 system.                                    distribution system.                      must conduct regular WQP
 Systems serving  Systems serving or copper action level(s) for 2       Systems serving
 Contains provisions to sample at   consecutive 6-month monitoring periods.    To qualify for reduced WQP        systems without CCT
 system less frequency for all systems      distribution monitoring, P90 lead level   serving >10,000 persons
 meeting their OWQPs.                       must be L and the system      but or
                                                                                      copper action level(s)
                                                                                      must conduct WQP
                                                                                      monitoring until they no
                                                                                      longer exceed lead and/or
                                                                                      copper action level(s) for
                                                                                      2 consecutive 6-month
                                                                                      monitoring periods.
                                                                                      Systems without
                                                                                      CCT serving >10,000
                                                                                      persons but 0.015 mg/L      Site Assessment (DSSA)
 additional actions if an individual        lead, find-and-fix steps include:         Changes the name
 sample exceeds the lead action level.      Conduct WQP monitoring at or      from ``Find-and-Fix'' to
                                            near the site >0.015 mg/L.                ``Distribution System and
                                            Collect tap sample at the same    Site Assessment'' to
                                            tap sample site within 30 days.*          describe this requirement
                                           [cir] For LSL, collect any liter or        more precisely.
                                            sample volume.*                           Requirements from
                                            Perform needed corrective         the LCRR affect systems
                                            action.*                                  with individual tap
                                            Document customer refusal or      samples >0.010 mg/L lead.
                                            non-response after 2 attempts.*           Clarifies that the
                                            Provide information to local      distribution system sample
                                            and State health officials.*              location must be within a
                                                                                      half mile radius of each
                                                                                      site with a result >0.010
                                                                                      mg/L.
                                                                                      Water systems
                                                                                      without CCT are not
                                                                                      required to collect WQP
                                                                                      samples for the DSSA CCT
                                                                                      assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Small System Flexibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No provisions for systems to elect an      Allows CWSs serving 
                                            State approval:                           lead action level and  Systems with lead P90 > 0.010     copper action level to
                                            mg/L recommend CCT, LSLR, provision and   conduct the following
                                            maintenance of point-of-use (POU)         actions in lieu of CCT
                                            devices, or replacement of all lead-      requirements to address
                                            bearing plumbing materials.               lead with State approval:
                                            If the system's P90 lead level    Choose a
                                            > 0.015 mg/L, the system must implement   compliance option: (1)
                                            the compliance option.                    provision and maintenance
                                                                                      of POU devices or (2)
                                                                                      replacement of all lead-
                                                                                      bearing plumbing
                                                                                      materials.
                                                                                      Removes the
                                                                                      compliance option to
                                                                                      conduct LSLR in 15 years.
                                                                                     Maintains option for
                                                                                      systems following CCT
                                                                                      requirements:
                                                                                      With CCT: Collect
                                                                                      WQPs and evaluate
                                                                                      compliance options and
                                                                                      OCCT.
                                                                                      No CCT: Evaluate
                                                                                      compliance options and
                                                                                      CCT.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Public Education and Outreach
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Systems with P90 > lead action     Water systems must provide        Revises the
 level must provide PE to customers about   updated lead health effects language in   mandatory lead health
 lead sources, health effects, measures     PN and PE materials. CWSs must provide    effects language to
 to reduce lead exposure, and additional    updated health effects language in the    improve completeness and
 information sources.                       Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR).        clarity.
 Systems with P90 > lead action     For water systems serving a       Water systems must
 level must offer lead tap sampling to      large proportion of consumers with        provide the updated health
 customers who request it.                  limited English proficiency, PE           effects language in PN and
 Systems must provide lead          materials must contain information in     all PE materials. CWSs
 consumer notice to individuals served at   the appropriate language(s) regarding     must provide updated
 tested taps within 30 days of learning     the importance of the materials or        health effects language in
 results.                                   information on where consumers can get    the CCR.
 For water systems serving a        a translated copy or assistance in        For water systems
 large proportion of consumers with         other languages.                          serving a large proportion
 limited English proficiency, PE            If P90 > lead action level:       of consumers with limited
 materials must contain information in     [cir] LCRR PN and LCR PE requirements      English proficiency, all
 the appropriate language(s) regarding      apply.                                    PE materials must contain
 the importance of the materials or        [cir] Water systems must offer to sample   information in the
 information on where consumers can get a   the tap for lead for any customer who     appropriate language(s)
 translated copy or assistance in other     requests it.                              regarding the importance
 languages.                                 Water systems must provide the    of the materials and
                                            lead consumer notice to consumers whose   information on where
                                            individual tap sample is >0.015 mg/L      consumers can get a
                                            lead as soon as practicable but no        translated copy or
                                            later than 3 calendar days.               assistance in other
                                            CWSs must provide information     languages.
                                            to local and State health agencies.*      Water systems must
                                           Also see the Public Notification,          deliver consumer notice of
                                            Consumer Confidence Report, and LSL-      lead and copper tap
                                            Related Outreach sections of this         sampling results to
                                            exhibit.                                  consumers whenever their
                                                                                      tap is sampled as soon as
                                                                                      practicable but no later
                                                                                      than 3 business days after
                                                                                      receiving the results,
                                                                                      regardless of the level.
                                                                                      If P90 > lead
                                                                                      action level:
                                                                                     [cir] LCRR PN requirements
                                                                                      apply.
                                                                                     [cir] Water systems must
                                                                                      conduct PE no later than
                                                                                      60 days after the end of
                                                                                      each tap sampling period
                                                                                      until the system no longer
                                                                                      exceeds the action level
                                                                                      unless the State approves
                                                                                      an extension.
                                                                                     [cir] Water systems must
                                                                                      deliver PE materials to
                                                                                      bill paying customers and
                                                                                      every service connection
                                                                                      address served.
                                           ........................................   Water systems with
                                                                                      multiple lead action level
                                                                                      exceedances (at least 3
                                                                                      action level exceedances
                                                                                      in a 5-year period) must
                                                                                      conduct additional public
                                                                                      outreach activities and
                                                                                      make filters available.
                                                                                      Water systems must submit
                                                                                      a filter distribution plan
                                                                                      to the State within 60
                                                                                      days of the second action
                                                                                      level exceedance, and the
                                                                                      State will have 60 days to
                                                                                      review. The State has
                                                                                      discretion to allow the
                                                                                      system to discontinue
                                                                                      outreach activities and
                                                                                      filter provision earlier
                                                                                      if it completes actions to
                                                                                      reduce lead levels.
                                                                                      Water systems must
                                                                                      offer to sample the tap
                                                                                      for lead for any consumer
                                                                                      with a lead, GRR, or
                                                                                      unknown service line who
                                                                                      requests it.
                                                                                     Also see the Public
                                                                                      Notification, Consumer
                                                                                      Confidence Report, and
                                                                                      Service Line Related
                                                                                      Outreach sections of this
                                                                                      exhibit.

[[Page 86427]]

 
                                               Public Notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 If P90 > action level:             If P90 > lead action level:       If P90 > lead
[cir] No PN required for P90 > action      [cir] Systems must notify consumers of     action level of 0.010 mg/
 level.                                     P90 > action level within 24 hours        L:
 Tier 2 PN required for             (Tier 1 PN). Systems must comply by      [cir] LCRR Tier 1 PN
 violations to Sec.  Sec.   141.80          October 16, 2024.                         requirements apply, but
 through 141.85.                            Tier 2 PN required for            for the LCRI action level
 Tier 3 PN required for             violations to Sec.  Sec.   141.80         of 0.010 mg/L.
 violations to Sec.  Sec.   141.86          (except paragraph (c)) through 141.84,    Tier 2 PN required
 through 141.89.                            141.85(a) through (c) and (h), and        for violations to Sec.
Also see the Public Education and           141.93.                                   Sec.   141.80 (except
 Outreach section of this exhibit.          Tier 3 PN required for            paragraph (c)) through
                                            violations to Sec.  Sec.   141.86         141.84, 141.85(a) through
                                            through 141.90.                           (c) (except paragraph
                                           Also see the Public Education and          (c)(3)), (h), and (j), and
                                            Outreach section of this exhibit.         141.93.
                                                                                      Tier 3 PN required
                                                                                      for violations to Sec.
                                                                                      Sec.   141.86 through
                                                                                      141.90 and 141.92.
                                                                                      Water systems must
                                                                                      provide updated lead
                                                                                      health effects language in
                                                                                      PN.
                                                                                     Also see the Public
                                                                                      Education and Outreach
                                                                                      section of this exhibit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Consumer Confidence Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 All CWSs must provide              CWSs must provide updated         Revises the
 educational material in the annual CCR.    health effects language in the CCR.       mandatory lead health
                                            All CWSs are required to          effects language and
                                            include information on how to access      informational statement as
                                            the LSL inventory and how to access the   well as includes
                                            results of all tap sampling in the CCR.   additional information
                                            Revises the mandatory health      about risk of lead
                                            effects language to improve accuracy      exposure in the
                                            and clarity.                              informational statement
                                                                                      about lead in the CCR to
                                                                                      improve completeness and
                                                                                      clarity.
                                                                                      CWSs must provide
                                                                                      updated health effects
                                                                                      language in the CCR.
                                                                                      CWSs must include
                                                                                      a statement in the CCR
                                                                                      about the system sampling
                                                                                      for lead in schools and
                                                                                      child care facilities and
                                                                                      direct the public to
                                                                                      contact their school or
                                                                                      child care facility for
                                                                                      further information.
                                                                                      CWSs with lead,
                                                                                      GRR, or unknown service
                                                                                      lines must include a
                                                                                      statement in the CCR about
                                                                                      how to access the service
                                                                                      line inventory and
                                                                                      replacement plan.
                                                                                     Also see the Public
                                                                                      Education and Outreach
                                                                                      section of this exhibit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Change in Source or Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems on a reduced tap monitoring        Systems on any tap monitoring schedule    No changes from the LCRR.
 schedule must obtain prior State           must obtain prior State approval before
 approval before changing their source or   changing their source or treatment.
 treatment.                                 These systems must also resume a
                                            standard lead and copper tap monitoring
                                            schedule.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Source Water Monitoring and Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Periodic source water monitoring for lead  States can waive continued source water   Updated cross-reference to
 and copper is required for systems with:   monitoring for lead and copper if the:*   requirement for conducting
 Source water treatment; or         System has already conducted      standard monitoring when
 P90 > action level and no source   source water monitoring for a previous    there is a source water
 water treatment.                           P90 > action level;                       addition.
                                            State has determined that
                                            source water treatment is not required;
                                            and
                                            System has not added any new
                                            water sources.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Does not include separate          CWSs must provide annual public  Expands on LCRR
 testing and education program for CWSs     education materials to all schools and    requirements to include:
 at schools and child care facilities.      licensed child care facilities they       Waivers for CWSs
 Schools and child care             serve.                                    to sample in schools and
 facilities that are classified as          CWSs must conduct sampling at     licensed child care
 NTNCWSs must sample for lead and           20 percent of elementary schools and 20   facilities they serve
 copper.*                                   percent of licensed child care            during the first 5-year
                                            facilities they serve per year and        testing cycle if the
                                            conduct sampling at secondary schools     facility has been sampled
                                            on request for first testing cycle (5     between January 1, 2021,
                                            years) and conduct sampling on request    and the LCRI compliance
                                            of all schools and child care             date.
                                            facilities thereafter.                    Requires CWSs to
                                            Sample results must be provided   include a statement about
                                            to each sampled school/child care         the opportunity for
                                            facility, State, and local or State       schools and licensed child
                                            health department.                        care facilities to be
                                            Excludes schools and licensed     sampled in the CCR.
                                            child care facilities constructed on or   Excludes schools
                                            after January 1, 2014.                    and licensed child care
                                            Waives sampling in schools and    facilities constructed or
                                            child care facilities that were sampled   that had full plumbing
                                            under a State or other program after      replacement on or after
                                            October 16, 2024.                         January 1, 2014 and that
                                                                                      are also not served by a
                                                                                      lead, GRR, or unknown
                                                                                      service line.
                                                                                      Includes
                                                                                      clarifications on the
                                                                                      applicability of the
                                                                                      requirements and on the
                                                                                      content of public
                                                                                      education material CWSs
                                                                                      must provide to schools
                                                                                      and licensed child care
                                                                                      facilities.

[[Page 86428]]

 
                                     Primacy Agency (or State) Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must report information to the EPA  States must report information to the     States must report
 that includes, but is not limited to:      EPA that includes, but is not limited     information to the EPA
 All P90 lead levels for systems    to:                                       that includes, but is not
 serving > 3,300 persons, and only levels   All lead and copper P90 levels    limited to:
 > 0.015 mg/L for smaller systems.          for all system sizes.*                    The current
 Only copper P90 levels above the   The number of lead, GRR, and      numbers of lead, GRR,
 copper action level for all systems.       unknown service lines for every water     unknown, and non-lead
 Systems that are required to       system.*                                  service lines, lead
 initiate LSLR and the date replacement     The goal-based or mandatory       connectors, and unknown
 must begin.                                replacement rate and the date each        connectors in each
 Systems for which OCCT has been    system must begin LSLR.                   system's inventory.
 designated.                                OCCT status of all systems        The numbers and
States must keep records on information     including OWQPs specified by the          types of service lines
 that includes, but is not limited to:      State.*                                   replaced and the
 Records of the currently           For systems triggered into        replacement rate for every
 applicable or most recent State            source water treatment, the State-        system conducting
 determinations, including all supporting   designated date or determination for no   mandatory service line
 information and an explanation of the      treatment required.*                      replacement.
 technical basis for each decision.        States must keep records on information    The deadline for
State primacy requirements include, but     that includes, but is not limited to:     the system to complete
 are not limited to:                        LSLR plans.*                      replacement of all lead
 Designating OCCT.                  Compliance sampling pools.*       and GRR service lines.
 Designating source water           Determinations related to         The expected date
 treatment methods.                         source water treatment.*                  of completion of service
 Verifying service line             Determinations related to         line replacement.
 replacement schedules.                     compliance alternatives for small CWSs    The lead P90
                                            and NTNCWSs.*                             levels of systems with an
                                            LSL inventories.*                 action level exceedance
                                           State primacy requirements include, but    within 15 days of the end
                                            are not limited to:                       of the monitoring period
                                            Reviewing service line            or, if earlier, within 24
                                            inventory.*                               hours of receiving the
                                            Approving LSLR goals.             notice from the system.
                                            Determining if a faster LSLR      The result of the
                                            rate is feasible.*                        State's determination as
                                            Defining school and child care    to whether the deferred
                                            program and determining if State or       deadline is the fastest
                                            local testing program is at least as      feasible, the deadline at
                                            stringent as Federal requirements.        the fastest feasible rate,
                                            Verifying compliance with         and the reasons for the
                                            ``Find-and-Fix'' requirements.*           State's decision.
                                            Reviewing any change in source   States must keep records on
                                            water treatment.*                         information that includes,
                                                                                      but is not limited to:
                                                                                      Samples that do
                                                                                      not meet the six-hour
                                                                                      minimum stagnation time.
                                                                                      Determinations
                                                                                      concerning systems
                                                                                      eligible for deferred
                                                                                      deadlines for service line
                                                                                      replacement.
                                                                                     State primacy requirements
                                                                                      include, but are not
                                                                                      limited to:
                                                                                      Identify State
                                                                                      laws that pertain to a
                                                                                      water system's access to
                                                                                      conduct full service line
                                                                                      replacement.
                                                                                      Make
                                                                                      determinations about
                                                                                      systems eligible for
                                                                                      service line replacement
                                                                                      deferred deadlines.
                                                                                      Make
                                                                                      determinations about which
                                                                                      water systems serve a
                                                                                      large proportion of
                                                                                      consumers with limited
                                                                                      English proficiency and
                                                                                      provide technical
                                                                                      assistance to those
                                                                                      systems required to meet
                                                                                      the requirements to
                                                                                      provide translated PE or
                                                                                      translation assistance to
                                                                                      their consumers.
                                                                                      Review and approve
                                                                                      inventory validations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ See section IV.B.4 of this preamble for further information on cost sharing.
Note: P90 means 90th percentile level.

B. Does this action apply to me?

    The entities regulated by this action are CWSs and non-transient 
non-community water systems (NTNCWSs). A CWS, as defined in Sec.  
141.2, is ``a public water system which serves at least fifteen service 
connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 
twenty-five year-round residents.'' The definition in Sec.  141.2 for a 
NTNCWS is ``a public water system that is not a [CWS] and that 
regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per 
year.'' The following table provides examples of the regulated entities 
under this rule:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Examples of potentially affected
             Category                             entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public water systems..............  CWSs; NTNCWSs.
State and Tribal government         Agencies responsible for developing,
 agencies.                           ensuring compliance with, and
                                     enforcing National Primary Drinking
                                     Water Regulations (NPDWRs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities that could be affected by this 
action. This table includes the types of entities that the EPA is now 
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. To determine 
whether your entity is regulated by this action, this final rule should 
be carefully examined.
    As part of this action for the LCRI, ``State'' refers to the agency 
of the State, Tribal, or territorial government that has jurisdiction 
over public water systems consistent with the definition of ``State'' 
in 40 CFR 141.2. During any period when a State or Tribal government 
does not have primary enforcement responsibility pursuant to section 
1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), the term ``State'' means 
the relevant Regional Administrator of the EPA. For questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. Dates for Compliance

    Water systems must begin to comply with the LCRI three years after 
promulgation of this final rule. In accordance with SDWA section 
1412(b)(10), the Administrator, or a State (in the case of an 
individual system), may allow up to two additional years to comply with 
a treatment technique if the Administrator or State (in the case of an 
individual system) determines that additional time is necessary for 
capital improvements. Where a State, or the EPA where it has

[[Page 86429]]

primacy, chooses to provide such an extension, the system would have up 
to five years from the rule's promulgation date to begin compliance 
with the treatment technique. The EPA is not providing a two-year 
extension nationwide because the EPA has not determined that an 
additional two years is necessary for water systems nationwide to 
complete capital improvements to begin compliance with the LCRI. 
Starting on the compliance date, systems must begin mandatory service 
line replacement programs that must be completed within 10 years for 
the vast majority of systems. Systems must also begin conducting the 
improved tap sampling and if their tap sampling results show they 
exceeded the action level, systems may be required to install new or 
re-optimized corrosion control treatment.
    Under SDWA section 1416, States may exempt water systems from any 
treatment technique requirement for no more than three years after the 
otherwise applicable compliance date. For a small system that does not 
serve more than 3,300 persons and which needs financial assistance for 
the necessary improvements, an exemption may be renewed for one or more 
two-year periods, but not to exceed a total of six years. No exemption 
may be granted without a finding that:
     Due to compelling factors (which may include economic 
factors, including qualification of the public water system as a system 
serving a disadvantaged community pursuant to SDWA section 1452(d)),\4\ 
the public water system is unable to comply with such contaminant level 
or treatment technique requirement, or to implement measures to develop 
an alternative source of water supply;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``disadvantaged community'' used in SDWA section 
1416 here refers to the statutory definition of ``disadvantaged 
community'' provided at SDWA section 1452(d)(3): ``[T]he term 
`disadvantaged community' means the service area of a public water 
system that meets affordability criteria established after public 
review and comment by the State in which the public water system is 
located. The Administrator may publish information to assist States 
in establishing affordability criteria.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The public water system was in operation on the effective 
date of such contaminant level or treatment technique requirement, or, 
for a system that was not in operation by that date, only if no 
reasonable alternative source of drinking water is available to such 
new system;
     The granting of the exemption will not result in an 
unreasonable risk to health; and
     Management or restructuring changes (or both) cannot 
reasonably be made that will result in compliance with this title, or 
if compliance cannot be achieved, improve the quality of the drinking 
water.

III. Background

A. Overview of Lead and Lead Exposures Through Drinking Water

    Lead is toxic to humans and animals, causing harmful health 
effects. Lead is a naturally occurring element found in small amounts 
in the Earth's crust. Lead and lead compounds have been used in a wide 
variety of products found in and around homes, including paint, 
ceramics, pipes and plumbing materials, solders, gasoline, batteries, 
ammunition, and cosmetics. Lead can enter drinking water when plumbing 
materials that contain lead corrode, especially where the water is 
highly acidic or has a low mineral content that is more likely to 
corrode pipes and fixtures. The most common sources of lead in drinking 
water are lead pipes, faucets, and fixtures. In homes with lead pipes 
that connect the home to the water main (or other conduit for 
distributing water to individual consumers or groups of consumers), 
also known as lead service lines or LSLs, these pipes are typically the 
most significant source of lead in water (Sandvig et al., 2008). Lead 
pipes are more likely to be found in older cities and homes built 
before 1986 (Laquatra, 2014). Among homes without LSLs, the most common 
source of lead in drinking water is from brass or chrome-plated brass 
faucets and plumbing with lead solder (Laquatra, 2014).
    The LCRI regulates approximately 67,000 community water systems 
(CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) in the 
United States of varying sizes and containing varying numbers of LSLs 
in their service area. A CWS is a public water system that supplies 
water to the same population year-round. A NTNCWS is a public water 
system that regularly supplies water to at least 25 of the same people 
at least six months per year. Some examples are schools, factories, 
office buildings, and hospitals which have their own water systems.

B. Human Health Effects of Lead and Copper

1. Lead
    Exposure to lead can cause harmful health effects for people of all 
ages, especially pregnant people, infants, and young children (Centers 
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2022a; CDC, 2022b; CDC, 
2023). Lead has acute and chronic impacts on the body. Lead exposure 
causes damage to the brain and kidneys and can interfere with the 
production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the 
body (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2020).
    Developing fetuses, infants, and young children are most 
susceptible to the harmful health effects of lead (ATSDR, 2020). 
Exposure to lead is known to present serious health risks to the brain 
and nervous system of children (USEPA, 2013; USEPA, 2024b). Young 
children and infants are particularly vulnerable to the physical, 
cognitive, and behavioral effects of lead due to their sensitive 
developmental stages. There is no known safe level of exposure to lead. 
Scientific studies have demonstrated that there is an increased risk of 
health effects in children even when their blood lead levels are less 
than 3.5 micrograms per deciliter (CDC, 2022c) and in adults even when 
blood lead levels are less than 10 micrograms per deciliter (National 
Toxicology Program (NTP), 2012). Low-level lead exposure is of 
particular concern for children because their growing bodies absorb 
more lead per pound than adults do, and their developing brains and 
nervous systems are more sensitive to the damaging effects of lead 
(ATSDR, 2020).
    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates 
that drinking water can make up at least 20 percent of a person's total 
exposure to lead (56 FR 26548, USEPA, 1991). When a child is not 
routinely exposed to other sources of lead (e.g., dust from legacy lead 
paint or legacy contaminated soils), most of their exposure may come 
from drinking water. Infants who consume mostly formula mixed with tap 
water can, depending on the level of lead in the water and other 
sources of lead in the home, receive 40 to 60 percent of their exposure 
to lead from drinking water used in the formula (53 FR 31516, USEPA, 
1988; Stanek et al., 2020). Scientists have linked lead's effects on 
the brain with lowered intelligence quotient (IQ) and attention 
disorders in children, among other health impacts (USEPA, 2024b; USEPA, 
2013; Lanphear et al., 2019; Ji et al., 2018). In 1991, the EPA 
established a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for lead of zero. 
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires the EPA to set MCLGs at the 
level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of 
persons would occur, allowing for a margin of safety. The EPA 
established the MCLG of zero in part due to lead being a probable 
carcinogen and due to there being no clear threshold below which there 
are no risks of some non-

[[Page 86430]]

carcinogenic health effects (56 FR 26460, USEPA, 1991).
    Blood lead levels are an indication of current exposure. Over time, 
lead can accumulate in the body. Lead is stored in a person's bones, 
binding to calcium, and it can be released later in life. For example, 
when calcium is mobilized in the pregnant person's body during 
pregnancy, lead is released from the pregnant person's bones and can 
pass to the fetus. Lead can also be passed through breastmilk to the 
nursing infant or child. Lead exposure can result in serious health 
effects to the developing fetus and infant. Studies document increased 
risk of miscarriage (Xu et al., 2012; Tolunay et al., 2016), low birth 
weight (Goto et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2021; Rodosthenous et al., 2017; 
Taylor et al., 2015), and preterm birth (USEPA, 2024b; Fisher et al., 
2023). In utero and early childhood exposure to lead is associated with 
increased risk to the baby's brain and/or nervous system, manifesting 
as, for instance, an increased risk of learning or behavioral problems 
in life (USEPA, 2024b; USEPA, 2013).
    As noted above, studies also have documented an association between 
adult blood lead levels and increased risk of cardiovascular disease, 
manifesting as an increase in risk of cardiovascular disease premature 
mortality. Occupational exposure to lead is associated with significant 
health effects in adults as well, particularly renal and 
gastrointestinal. The 2013 and 2024 Integrated Science Assessments for 
Lead (USEPA, 2013; USEPA, 2024b), the U.S. Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP) Monograph on 
Health Effects of Low-Level Lead (NTP, 2012), the Agency for Toxic 
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2020 Toxicological Profile for 
Lead (ATSDR, 2020), and peer-reviewed studies have documented 
associations between lead and cancer (Wei and Zhu, 2020) as well as 
lead and adverse cardiovascular (Park and Han, 2021), renal (Harari et 
al., 2018), reproductive (Shi et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2020), 
immunological (Krueger and Wade, 2016), and neurological effects 
(Andrew et al., 2022). The EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Lead 
(USEPA, 2024b) and Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical 
Assessment Summary (USEPA, 2004a) provide additional health effects 
information on lead. For a more detailed explanation of the health 
effects associated with lead for children and adults, see appendix D of 
the final Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2024a).
2. Copper
    Copper is an essential trace element required for several metabolic 
processes; however, excess copper intake is toxic and linked to various 
adverse health effects. Acute gastrointestinal conditions are the most 
common adverse health effects observed among adults and children. 
Chronic exposure to copper is particularly a concern for people with 
Wilson's disease, an autosomal recessive genetic disorder of copper 
metabolism affecting 1 in 30,000 individuals (Ala et al., 2007). These 
individuals are prone to copper accumulation in body tissue, which can 
lead to liver damage, neurological, and/or psychiatric symptoms (Dorsey 
and Ingerman, 2004). Additional information on the health effects 
associated with copper are available in appendix E of the Final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).

C. Regulatory History

    Exercising its longstanding authority under SDWA, on June 7, 1991, 
the EPA promulgated the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) with the goal of 
improving public health by reducing lead and copper levels at consumer 
taps (56 FR 26460, USEPA, 1991). The LCR established MCLGs of 0 mg/L 
for lead and 1.3 mg/L for copper. In addition, the LCR established a 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) consisting of 
treatment technique requirements that include lead service line 
replacement (LSLR), corrosion control treatment (CCT), source water 
treatment, and public education. The LCR established requirements for 
community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water 
systems (NTNCWSs) to conduct monitoring at consumer taps. The rule 
established action levels of 0.015 mg/L for lead and 1.3 mg/L for 
copper. If more than 10 percent of tap sample results (i.e., the 90th 
percentile value of tap sample concentrations), collected during any 
monitoring period, exceed the action level, water systems must take 
actions including installing and/or optimizing CCT, conducting public 
education, treating source water if it contributes to lead and copper 
levels at the tap, and replacing LSLs if the system continues to exceed 
the action level after completing CCT steps and installing CCT. An 
action level exceedance is not a violation of the rule; however, 
failure to take the subsequent required actions (e.g., LSLR, CCT, 
public education) results in a violation of the treatment technique or 
monitoring and reporting requirements.
    On January 12, 2000, the EPA promulgated minor revisions to the LCR 
(LCRMR) (65 FR 1950, USEPA, 2000a). These minor revisions streamlined 
the LCR, promoted consistent national implementation, and reduced the 
reporting burden on affected entities. The LCRMR did not change the 
MCLGs or action levels for lead and copper nor change the rule's basic 
requirements. One of the provisions of the LCRMR required States to 
report the 90th percentile lead value for all water systems serving 
greater than 3,300 persons. States were required to report the 90th 
percentile lead value for water systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons 
only if the water system exceeds the action level. The new reporting 
requirements became effective in 2002.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In 2004, the EPA published minor corrections to the LCR to 
reinstate text that was inadvertently removed from the rule during 
the previous revision (69 FR 38850, USEPA, 2004b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2000 to 2004, the District of Columbia experienced incidences 
of elevated drinking water lead levels, prompting the EPA to undertake 
a review of the LCR to determine ``whether elevated drinking water lead 
levels were a national problem'' and to identify actions to improve 
rule implementation (72 FR 57784, USEPA, 2007a; USEPA, 2007b; Brown et 
al., 2011). The EPA specifically considered the number of systems that 
failed to meet the lead action level, if a significant percentage of 
the population received water that exceeded the action level, how well 
the LCR worked to reduce drinking water lead levels, and if the rule 
was being effectively implemented, particularly with respect to 
monitoring and public education requirements. As part of the national 
review, the EPA held four expert workshops to discuss elements of the 
LCR, collected and evaluated lead concentration data and other 
information required under the LCR, and evaluated State implementation 
efforts to better understand challenges and needs experienced by States 
and water systems. In March 2005, the EPA released a Drinking Water 
Lead Reduction Plan, outlining a series of short- and long-term goals 
to improve implementation of the LCR, including revisions to the LCR 
(USEPA, 2005). On October 10, 2007, the EPA promulgated a set of short-
term regulatory revisions and clarifications (72 FR 57782, USEPA, 
2007a). The short-term revisions strengthened implementation of the LCR 
in the areas of monitoring, treatment, customer awareness, LSLR, and 
improving compliance with the public education requirements.

[[Page 86431]]

    Long-term issues, requiring additional research and input, were 
identified for a subsequent set of rule revisions. The EPA conducted 
extensive engagement with stakeholders to inform subsequent rule 
development, including a 2011 Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) 
consultation on the science of partial LSLR that found that partial 
LSLR does not reliably reduce drinking water lead levels in the long 
term and may cause short-term elevated drinking water lead levels 
following the replacement (USEPA, 2011a). The EPA specifically sought 
input from small entity stakeholders through the Small Business 
Advocacy Review Panel (SBAR) process under section 609(b) of the RFA, 
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA). The EPA also requested that the National Drinking Water 
Advisory Council (NDWAC) form a Working Group in 2014 to provide advice 
to the NDWAC as it develops recommendations for the revisions to the 
LCR (NDWAC, 2015). In 2016, the EPA released a white paper summarizing 
NDWAC recommendations and identifying key areas for rule development, 
noting that ``lead crises in Washington, DC, and in Flint, Michigan, 
and the subsequent national attention focused on lead in drinking water 
in other communities, have underscored significant challenges in the 
implementation of the current rule, including a rule structure that for 
many systems only compels protective actions after public health 
threats have been identified'' (USEPA, 2016a). Notably, the white paper 
discussed the issue of mandatory, proactive LSLR as an opportunity to 
eliminate a primary source of lead in drinking water rather than only 
replacing LSLs after a lead action level exceedance, and how to address 
lead exposure risks resulting from partial LSLR. The recommendations 
also emphasized the importance of enforceable goals for LSLR, 
recognizing the significant lead exposure risks that can accompany 
partial service line replacements. Other issues identified include the 
need for stronger CCT requirements, including re-evaluation after 
source water or treatment changes, improved tap sampling procedures to 
address concerns about practices used to avoid action level 
exceedances, and increased public transparency such as access to 
information about LSLs and sharing of data.
    The EPA intended to address these long-term issues in the 2021 Lead 
and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), which was promulgated on January 15, 
2021 (86 FR 4198, USEPA, 2021a). The 2021 LCRR focuses on six key areas 
for revision: identifying sites with significant sources of lead in 
drinking water, strengthening CCT requirements, closing loopholes in 
LSLR requirements, increasing sampling reliability, improving risk 
communication, and introducing a new lead sampling requirement at 
schools and child care facilities as part of public education. 
Specifically, the 2021 LCRR includes new requirements for water systems 
to develop, and make publicly accessible, LSL inventories and annually 
notify consumers if they are served by an LSL, GRR service line, or 
service line of unknown material. Additionally, the 2021 LCRR removes 
provisions allowing partial service line replacement or ``test-outs'' 
(i.e., where a service line sample measures below the lead action 
level) to count towards LSLR requirements. The rule also revises 
monitoring requirements to prioritize sampling at sites most likely to 
contain lead sources, require a fifth-liter sample be taken at LSL 
sites, and prohibit the use of language in sampling instructions that 
may result in samples that underestimate lead levels.
    The 2021 LCRR also establishes a lead trigger level at 0.010 mg/L 
to require systems to take actions before an action level exceedance, 
including taking steps to plan for CCT installation, re-optimizing CCT 
if the system already installed CCT, establishing a goal-based LSLR 
program, and increasing monitoring frequency. The 2021 LCRR makes 
several changes to the CCT requirements and establishes a requirement 
for water systems to conduct follow-up actions at sites with individual 
compliance sample concentrations exceeding 0.015 mg/L.
    In the 2021 LCRR, the EPA also revised its Public Notification (PN) 
Rule in 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q, to make changes to the reporting 
requirements for action level exceedances. These changes implemented 
the 2016 amendments to section 1414 of SDWA that required public 
notification within 24 hours if the system exceeds the lead action 
level. In the 2021 LCRR, the EPA also revised the Consumer Confidence 
Report (CCR) Rule in 40 CFR part 141, subpart O, to require the report 
to include the range of lead and copper tap sampling results and 
information on how to access lead tap sampling results and the service 
line inventory. The EPA also revised the mandatory lead health effects 
language and informational statement about lead that must be included 
in the CCR.
    The 2021 LCRR adds new public education requirements, including 
requirements to notify persons served by a known or suspected LSL and 
timely (24 hour) notification of individuals when their lead tap 
sampling results exceed the lead action level of 0.015 mg/L. The 2021 
LCRR also requires systems above the trigger level to conduct goal-
based LSLR and also to conduct additional public outreach activities 
about lead in drinking water and opportunities to replace LSLs if the 
system fails to meet the goal replacement rate established after a 
trigger level exceedance.
    The 2021 LCRR also adds a new small system flexibility provision 
for CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons and all NTNCWSs. Those systems 
that exceeded the trigger level can choose one out of four compliance 
options (i.e., CCT, LSLR, point-of-use devices, replacement of lead-
bearing plumbing) to implement if the system exceeds the lead action 
level.
    On January 20, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden issued Executive 
Order 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring 
Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (86 FR 7037, January 20, 2021). 
Executive Order 13990 required Federal agencies to ``review and . . . 
take action to address the promulgation of Federal regulations and 
other actions during the last 4 years that conflict[ed] with'' the 
``national objectives,'' as provided in the executive order, including 
to ``be guided by the best science and be protected by processes that 
ensure the integrity of Federal decision-making'' to promote and 
protect public health and advance environmental justice, among others. 
The EPA was required to review the LCRR because the EPA promulgated the 
LCRR within the time frame specified by the executive order, and the 
LCRR addresses public health through drinking water.
    Additionally, after promulgation of the LCRR, the EPA heard from 
stakeholders on a range of concerns about the LCRR, including the lack 
of requirements or incentives to replace all LSLs, the inclusion of the 
trigger level that made the rule unnecessarily complicated, and the 
implementation burdens on systems and States.
    To allow the EPA to engage with stakeholders and review the LCRR 
before it took effect, on March 12, 2021, the EPA published the 
``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule 
Revisions; Delay of Effective Date'' (86 FR 14003, USEPA, 2021c), which 
delayed the effective date of the LCRR from March 16, 2021, to June 17, 
2021. On the same day, the EPA published the ``National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and

[[Page 86432]]

Copper Rule Revisions; Delay of Effective and Compliance Dates'' (86 FR 
14063, USEPA, 2021d), which proposed further delaying the effective 
date of LCRR to December 16, 2021, to allow the EPA to ``conduct a 
review of the LCRR and consult with stakeholders, including those who 
have been historically underserved by, or subject to discrimination in, 
Federal policies and programs prior to the LCRR going into effect'' (86 
FR 14063, USEPA, 2021d). On June 16, 2021, the EPA issued a final rule 
delaying the LCRR effective date to December 16, 2021, and the 
compliance date from January 16, 2024, to October 16, 2024, ``to 
maintain the same time period between the effective date and the 
compliance date in the LCRR'' (86 FR 31941, USEPA, 2021e).
    As part of the LCRR review, the EPA held a series of virtual 
engagements from April to August 2021 to obtain public input on the 
LCRR. Consistent with Executive Order 13990, the EPA engaged with 
States, Tribes, water systems, the public, environmental advocates, and 
environmental justice organizations. The EPA also sought input from 
community stakeholders in places that have concerns due to lead in 
drinking water, particularly from individuals and communities that are 
most at-risk of exposure to lead in drinking water.
    During this process, the EPA hosted a series of 10 virtual 
community roundtables with stakeholders in: Pittsburgh, PA; Newark, NJ; 
Malden, MA; Washington, DC; Newburgh, NY; Benton Harbor and Highland 
Park, MI; Flint and Detroit, MI; Memphis, TN; Chicago, IL; and 
Milwaukee, WI. Each roundtable included a range of participants 
representing local governments, community organizations, environmental 
groups, local public water utilities, and public officials. 
Participants shared their experiences with lead in their communities 
and provided the EPA with oral and written comments on the LCRR. The 
EPA also held a roundtable with representatives from Tribes and Tribal 
communities, a national stakeholder association roundtable, a national 
co-regulator meeting, two public listening sessions, and a meeting with 
organizations representing elected officials. Summaries of the meetings 
and written comments from the public can be found in the docket, EPA-
HQ-OW-2021-0255 at https://regulations.gov/.
    On December 17, 2021, the EPA published the results of the LCRR 
review (86 FR 71574, USEPA, 2021b). The EPA described the comments 
received as part of the public engagement efforts conducted as part of 
the LCRR review and determined that there are regulatory and non-
regulatory actions the agency can take to reduce drinking water lead 
exposure. While the EPA found that the LCRR improved public health 
protection relative to the LCR, the agency also concluded that there 
are significant opportunities to further improve the rule to support 
the goal of proactively removing LSLs and protecting public health more 
equitably (86 FR 71574, USEPA, 2021b). The EPA also announced in the 
LCRR review that the effective date of the LCRR published on June 16, 
2021, would continue to be December 16, 2021, to support near-term 
development of actions to reduce lead in drinking water (86 FR 71574, 
USEPA, 2021b). At the same time, the EPA committed to developing a new 
proposed rule, the LCRI, to strengthen key elements of the rule. The 
EPA identified the following policy objectives informed by the LCRR 
review: ``Replacing 100 percent of lead service lines is an urgently 
needed action to protect all Americans from the most significant source 
of lead in drinking water systems; equitably improving public health 
protection for those who cannot afford to replace the customer-owned 
portions of their LSLs; improving the methods to identify and trigger 
action in communities that are most at risk of elevated drinking water 
lead levels; and exploring ways to reduce the complexity of the 
regulations'' (86 FR 71574; USEPA, 2021b). The EPA also stated that it 
did not expect to propose changes to the requirements for information 
to be submitted in the initial LSL inventory or the associated October 
16, 2024, compliance date. The EPA described the importance of 
maintaining this date, stating that ``continued progress to identify 
LSLs is integral to lead reduction efforts regardless of potential 
revisions to the rule. The inventory provides critical information on 
the locations of potentially high drinking water lead exposure within 
and across public water systems, which will allow for quick action to 
reduce exposure'' (86 FR 71579, USEPA, 2021b). Specifically, the EPA 
noted that development of inventories nationwide over the near-term 
would assist water systems, States, Tribes, and the Federal Government 
in determining the prevalence of these lead sources and would, among 
other things, enable water systems to begin planning for LSLR and apply 
for funding.
    On December 6, 2023, the EPA published the proposed LCRI for public 
review and comment (84 FR 84878, USEPA, 2023a). The proposal included 
advancements in protecting people from the health effects from 
exposures to lead in drinking water. These advancements are based on 
the science and existing practices utilized by drinking water systems. 
Key provisions in the proposal include requiring virtually all water 
systems across the country to replace LSLs within 10 years, locating 
legacy lead pipes, improving tap sampling, lowering the lead action 
level, and strengthening protections to reduce exposure. The EPA 
proposed to retain the 2021 LCRR requirements and associated October 
16, 2024, compliance date for the initial service line inventory; 
notifications to consumers served by a lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement (GRR), or lead status unknown service lines; Tier 1 public 
notification of a lead action level exceedance; and associated 
reporting requirements.

D. Statutory Authority

1. Establishment and Review of National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations
    The EPA is publishing revisions to the NPDWR for lead and copper 
under the authority of SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq., including sections 
1412, 1413, 1414, 1417, 1445, and 1450. SDWA is the primary Federal law 
that protects the tap water provided to consumers by water systems 
across the country. Congress passed SDWA in 1974, responding to 
``accumulating evidence that our drinking water contains unsafe levels 
of a large variety of contaminants.'' Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 
578 F.2d 337, 339 (D.C. Cir. 1978). In passing SDWA, Congress intended 
to ensure ``that water supply systems serving the public meet minimum 
national standards for protection of public health.'' H.R. Rep. No. 93-
1185, at 1 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6454. The primary 
regulatory tool for this protection is section 1412 of SDWA under which 
the EPA is authorized to issue standards for drinking water served by 
water systems. These standards--entitled ``National Primary Drinking 
Water Regulations'' (NPDWRs)--are accompanied by ``maximum contaminant 
level goal[s]'' (MCLG), which are set, for each contaminant, at the 
level at which there are no known or anticipated adverse human health 
effects with an adequate margin of safety. 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(a)(3) and 
(b)(4). Lead and copper are subject to existing NPDWRs. Based on the 
health effects described above, in 1991, the EPA established the MCLG 
for lead at 0 mg/L, and the MCLG for copper at 1.3 mg/L.

[[Page 86433]]

    SDWA section 1412(b)(9) states that ``The Administrator shall, not 
less often than every 6 years, review and revise, as appropriate, each 
national primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this 
subchapter. Any revision of a national primary drinking water 
regulation shall be promulgated in accordance with this section, except 
that each revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection 
of the health of persons.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(9). When the EPA 
promulgates a revised NPDWR, the agency follows the applicable 
procedures and requirements in section 1412 of SDWA, including those 
related to: (1) the use of best available, peer-reviewed science and 
supporting studies; (2) presentation of information on public health 
effects that is comprehensive, informative, and understandable; and (3) 
analysis of the health risk reduction benefits and costs. SDWA section 
1412(b)(3)(A)-(C), 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)(A)-(C).
2. Establishment of the Lead and Copper Rule as a Treatment Technique
    Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA authorizes the EPA to ``promulgate a 
national primary drinking water regulation that requires the use of a 
treatment technique in lieu of establishing a maximum contaminant 
level, if the Administrator makes a finding that it is not economically 
or technologically feasible to ascertain the level of the 
contaminant.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(7)(A).
    In accordance with SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A), in 1991, the EPA 
promulgated the LCR, which established a treatment technique in lieu of 
a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for lead and copper (56 FR 26460, 
USEPA, 1991). The EPA's 1991 decision to promulgate a treatment 
technique rule for lead and copper instead of an MCL was upheld by the 
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 
American Water Works Association v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (D.C. 
Cir. 1994). For discussion on the EPA's findings and rationale 
supporting the agency's determination to continue to regulate lead and 
copper using a treatment technique rule, see section IV.A of this 
preamble.
3. Prevention of Adverse Health Effects to the Extent Feasible
    In establishing treatment technique requirements, the Administrator 
is required to identify those treatment techniques ``which, in the 
Administrator's judgment, would prevent known or anticipated adverse 
effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible'' (SDWA section 
1412(b)(7)(A)). ``Feasible'' is defined in section 1412(b)(4)(D) of 
SDWA as ``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).'' Feasibility is based on the best technology, 
treatment techniques, or other means, that have been tested beyond the 
laboratory under full-scale conditions, as opposed to generally 
available technology; the technology need not be in widespread, full-
scale use (SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(D)). Further, in selecting the best 
available technology, treatment techniques, and other means, the EPA 
evaluates the ability of the technology to reduce the level of the 
contaminant, and the technological and economic feasibility of the 
technologies being considered, as required under SDWA section 
1412(b)(4)(D) (56 FR 26482, USEPA, 1991). In short, ``feasible'' in 
this context means technically possible and affordable. See SDWA 
section 1412 (b)(4)(D); City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. 
Cir. 2007) (upholding the EPA's treatment technique rule for 
Cryptosporidium and the agency's interpretation that ``feasible'' means 
technically possible and affordable). Therefore, to meet the statutory 
standard, the EPA must evaluate three primary components for a 
treatment technique: (1) the effectiveness of a technology, treatment 
technique, or other means in reducing exposure to a contaminant to 
protect public health; (2) the affordability of the technology, 
treatment technique, or other means; and (3) whether the technology, 
treatment technique, or other means is technically possible. Each of 
these three components and the ``to the extent feasible'' standard in 
the statute are discussed in sequential order in this section.
    First, SDWA requires the EPA to establish NPDWRs to protect public 
health to reduce exposure to drinking water contaminants. Notably, the 
public health protection goal for NPDWRs under SDWA is the same for a 
MCL and a treatment technique. SDWA requires the EPA set an MCL ``as 
close to the maximum contaminant level goal [MCLG] as is feasible'' 
(SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(B)). Because the MCLG is set at the level at 
which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons 
occur, SDWA's standard for a treatment technique rule--to ``prevent 
known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the 
extent feasible''--is essentially the same as the standard for an MCL 
(SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(A) and section 1412(b)(7)(A)). As Congress 
explained in SDWA legislative history, NPDWRs ``are to be protective of 
public health. While cost and technology are factors to be considered . 
. . the first priority of the Act is to protect human health by 
reducing or preventing human exposure to potentially harmful 
contaminants in drinking water.'' 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1566, 1570, S. REP. 
99-56 (1985). In establishing NPDWRs, where an agency action is based 
on science, SDWA directs the EPA to use the best available peer-
reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with 
sound and objective scientific practices, as well as data collected by 
accepted methods or best available methods (SDWA section 
1412(b)(3)(A)).
    Second, in evaluating feasibility under SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(D) 
and section 1412(b)(7)(A), the EPA also must ``take costs into 
consideration.'' The legislative history of this provision makes it 
clear that this aspect of feasibility is to be evaluated relative to 
``what may reasonably be afforded by large metropolitan or regional 
public water systems'' (H.R. Rep. No. 93-1185 (1974), reprinted in 1974 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 6454, 6471). See also S. Rep. No. 104-169, at 3 (1995) 
(feasibility is based on best available technology affordable to 
``large'' systems).\6\ The statutory framework for establishing an MCL 
or treatment technique rule also supports this approach of considering 
costs in determining the feasibility of an MCL or treatment technique 
rule. If the EPA cannot identify any affordable technologies for a 
particular category of small systems, the statute requires the EPA to 
identify variance technologies that ``achieve the maximum reduction or 
inactivation efficiency that is affordable'' and protective of public 
health (SDWA section 1412(b)(15)(A) and (B)). As a result, the EPA may 
not reject a treatment technique because it is unaffordable to small 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Where the term ``affordable'' appears throughout the 
preamble to describe this aspect of the definition of ``feasible'' 
in SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(D), it refers to ``what may reasonably be 
afforded by large metropolitan or regional public water systems.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, with respect to the technical possibility \7\ component of 
the feasibility standard, for lead and copper drinking

[[Page 86434]]

water rules beginning with LCR, the EPA has consistently considered 
``whether a technology has been shown to be effective'' by water 
systems and ``is compatible with other water treatment processes'' (56 
FR 26482, USEPA 1991). The EPA has evaluated additional factors for 
lead and copper NPDWRs that may affect the ability of water systems to 
administer and implement rules, depending on the unique technologies, 
treatments, and other means available to reduce lead and copper in 
drinking water. Specifically, the EPA has historically considered other 
factors, such as the national availability of necessary capital 
improvement resources and supplies, labor, and specialized expertise, 
as supported by the best available information and the learned 
experiences and expertise from water systems, States, and other 
stakeholders. When promulgating a rule consisting of multiple treatment 
technique requirements, the EPA considers whether each treatment 
technique is feasible and whether implementation of the full suite of 
treatment techniques is feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Note, given that the definition for ``feasible'' at SDWA 
section 1412(b)(4)(D) provides for the use of ``treatment techniques 
and other means'' in addition to ``technology,'' the terms 
``technological'' and ``technical'' are used interchangeably herein 
for purposes of discussing feasibility to be more inclusive of the 
different types of treatment techniques that may be encompassed in a 
NPDWR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the EPA assesses technical possibility, it may consider system 
size. In contrast to affordability, which is evaluated relative to only 
large metropolitan or regional water systems, the EPA evaluates 
technical possibility without that limitation. As previously stated, 
there is legislative history and case law that clearly provides 
Congress intended the statute to be technology-forcing and thus, that 
cost considerations were to be based on what is affordable only for 
large metropolitan or regional water systems. Absent any further 
limitation in SDWA, the best interpretation of the statute is to assess 
what is technically possible for treatment techniques by evaluating 
whether there are relevant, system-size-based considerations.
    SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A) also directs the EPA to evaluate the 
most stringent or health protective level for a treatment technique 
because treatment techniques must ``prevent known or anticipated 
adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible.'' See 
City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (finding that 
SDWA requires the EPA to choose a treatment technique that is the most 
stringent feasible).
    Interpreting the phrase ``prevent . . . to the extent feasible'' in 
this section to require treatment techniques provide the most health 
protection feasible accords with the plain text of SDWA section 
1412(b)(7)(A), as well as SDWA section 1412 as a whole, and the 
associated legislative history. First, in 1974, the statute required 
the EPA to evaluate feasibility based on whether treatment techniques 
are ``generally available'' with cost taken into account based on 
``what may reasonably be afforded by large metropolitan or regional 
public water systems. In 1986, however, ``generally available'' was 
changed to ``best available'' in the definition of feasibility, ``to 
assure that such standards reflect the full extent of current 
technology capability to move toward achievement of the health effects 
goal.'' 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1566, 1570-71, S. REP. 99-56 (1985).
    Second, SDWA specifies that the EPA may promulgate treatment 
techniques that are less stringent or health protective than feasible 
only in two narrow circumstances. The first such circumstance is SDWA 
section 1412(b)(5), under which the EPA may require the use of a 
treatment technique to achieve a contaminant level other than the 
feasible level if attaining the feasible level would result in an 
increase in the health risk posed by drinking water by increasing the 
concentration of other contaminants or by interfering with the efficacy 
of drinking water treatment techniques or processes that are used to 
comply with other NPDWRs. The second circumstance is SDWA section 
1412(b)(6)(A), under which, if the EPA determines that the benefits of 
a treatment technique would not justify the costs of compliance, the 
EPA may promulgate a treatment technique for the contaminant that 
maximizes health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is justified by 
the benefits. As a result, interpreting ``prevent . . . to the extent 
feasible'' at SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A) as anything other than what is 
the most stringent or health protective feasible level for a treatment 
technique would make these two statutory exemptions meaningless and 
unnecessary. See City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706, 712 (D.C. Cir. 
2007) (``But if `feasible' meant that the technique's benefits 
justified its costs, [SDWA] section [1412](b)(6)(A)--which allows EPA 
to use cost-benefit analysis to set less stringent standards than the 
most feasible--would be surplusage.'' (Emphasis added)).
    In summary, the best interpretation of the statutory standard for 
treatment techniques requires consideration of the terms used and 
defined in SDWA section 1412(b)(4) and section 1412(b)(7)(A), as 
described in this part of the preamble. Specifically, under SDWA 
section 1412(b)(7)(A), the EPA must prescribe the best available 
technologies, treatment techniques, or other means that are effective 
at preventing adverse health effects from lead and copper in drinking 
water to the greatest extent that are both affordable for large 
systems, and which are technically possible.
    Beginning with the LCR in 1991, the EPA has consistently evaluated 
feasibility for this treatment technique rule in accordance with SDWA 
section 1412(b)(4) and section 1412(b)(7)(A). As the EPA explained in 
the preamble to the 1991 LCR, ``[t]he goal of this rule is to provide 
maximum human health protection by reducing the lead and copper levels 
at consumers' taps to as close to the MCLG as is feasible'' (56 FR 
26478, USEPA, 1991). Each of the best available technologies, treatment 
techniques, and other means specified in the LCRI--service line 
replacement, CCT, and public education--prevent known or anticipated 
adverse health effects to the extent feasible.
Evaluating Feasibility for Each Treatment Technique
    The LCRI is a treatment technique rule composed of four separate 
``technologies, treatment techniques or other means,'' specifically: 
service line replacement, CCT, public education, and source water 
treatment.\8\ The EPA chose this approach because multiple 
technologies, treatments, and other means are effective at reducing 
public health risks associated with lead and copper contamination in 
drinking water. Since the first proposed NPDWR for lead and copper, the 
LCR, in 1988, the EPA has evaluated a combination of treatment 
techniques to address lead contamination in drinking water, given the 
complexity inherent in lead contamination and the need for a multi-
faceted approach to managing it (53 FR 31537, USEPA 1988; see section 
IV.A of this preamble about the characterization and complex nature of 
lead drinking water contamination). While the requirements for lead and 
copper NPDWRs have changed over time based on the best available 
information and the lived and learned experiences of water systems, 
communities, and States, these NPDWRs have maintained the same four 
treatment techniques for service line replacement, CCT, public 
education, and source water treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Note, the EPA is not including a discussion of feasibility 
for source water treatment, because it is not being amended by this 
final rule. For the EPA's feasibility determination for source water 
treatment, see the final LCR (56 FR 26482, USEPA 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A), the EPA evaluates 
feasibility at the level of a treatment technique, rather than 
evaluating the feasibility of each sub-element of a treatment technique 
(``the Administrator

[[Page 86435]]

shall identify those treatment techniques which, in the Administrator's 
judgment, would prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the 
health of persons to the extent feasible. Such regulations shall 
specify each treatment technique known to the Administrator which meets 
the requirements of this paragraph, but the Administrator may grant a 
variance from any specified treatment technique in accordance with 
section 300g-4(a)(3) of this title.'' (emphasis added)). The EPA 
reasonably followed the statutory standard to evaluate feasibility for 
``each treatment technique . . . which meets the requirements'' at SDWA 
section 1412(b)(7)(A).
4. Notice and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Section 1414(c)(1) of SDWA requires public water systems to provide 
public notice in certain specified situations, such as when the system 
has failed to comply with an applicable treatment technique 
requirement, or if the water system is subject to a variance or 
exemption. SDWA section 1414(c)(2) states that the Administrator 
``shall by regulation . . . prescribe the manner, frequency, form, and 
content for giving notice.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(2). The EPA first 
promulgated the PN Rule in 2000 and subsequently revised it with the 
issuance of new or revised NPDWRs. This final rule includes revisions 
to the PN Rule related to the LCRI.
    Section 1414(c)(1)(D) of SDWA, as amended by the Water 
Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, requires public 
water systems to provide notice to the public if the water system 
exceeds the lead action level. 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(1)(D). Section 
1414(c)(2)(C) of SDWA specifies additional requirements related to the 
public notice if the action level exceedance has the potential to have 
serious adverse effects on human health as a result of a short-term 
exposure, including that the public notice must ``be distributed as 
soon as practicable, but not later than 24 hours'' after the water 
system learns of the action level exceedance, and that the system must 
report the exceedance to both the State and the Administrator within 
that same time period (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(2)(C)(i) and (iii)). If a 
water system or State does not issue the required public notice for an 
exceedance of the lead action level, SDWA section 1414(c)(2)(D) directs 
the EPA to issue the required public notice ``not later than 24 hours 
after the Administrator is notified of the exceedance.''
    In the final rule preamble for the 2021 LCRR, the EPA determined 
that a lead action level exceedance has the potential to have serious 
adverse health effects on humans as a result of short-term exposure (86 
FR 4240, USEPA, 2021a). The EPA also explained that it interprets SDWA 
section 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) to require systems to report only lead 
action level exceedances to the Administrator because the EPA does not 
have any obligation to issue a notice for other violations of drinking 
water standards in States with primacy, and therefore, the EPA does not 
need to be notified of those other situations.
    SDWA section 1414(c)(4) requires the EPA to issue regulations to 
require each CWS to provide a periodic report to each customer of the 
system. The EPA first promulgated CCR regulations in 1998. (40 CFR part 
141, subpart O) On May 24, 2024, the EPA promulgated significant 
revisions to the CCR Rule. (89 FR 45980, USEPA, 2024c) This final rule 
includes further revisions to the CCR Rule related to the LCRI.
    SDWA section 1417(a)(2) provides that public water systems ``shall 
identify and provide notice to persons that may be affected by lead 
contamination of their drinking water'' where the contamination results 
from the lead content of the construction materials of the public water 
distribution system and/or corrosivity of the water supply sufficient 
to cause leaching of lead. Notice must be provided ``notwithstanding 
the absence of a violation of any national drinking water standard.'' 
42 U.S.C. 300g-6(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii). This rule requires water systems 
to identify, notify, and provide public education to persons when they 
are served by construction materials that contain may lead (lead, GRR, 
and unknown service lines) and when the corrosivity of the water supply 
is sufficient to cause leaching of lead.
    SDWA section 1445(a) provides that every person who is subject to a 
requirement under SDWA or who is a grantee shall establish and maintain 
records, make reports, conduct monitoring, and provide information to 
the Administrator as reasonably required by regulation to assist the 
Administrator in establishing regulations under SDWA, in determining 
compliance with SDWA, in administering any financial assistance program 
under SDWA, in evaluating the health risks of unregulated contaminants, 
and in advising the public of such risks. In requiring public water 
systems to monitor under SDWA section 1445(a), the Administrator may 
take into consideration the system size and the contaminants likely to 
be found in the system's drinking water. 42 U.S.C. 300j-4(a).
5. Primacy Enforcement of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
    While the EPA always retains its independent enforcement authority, 
pursuant to SDWA section 1413(a), the agency may authorize States, 
Territories, and Tribes to have primary responsibility for 
administration and enforcement of primary drinking water regulations 
and related requirements applicable to public water systems within 
their jurisdiction (``primacy'').\9\ Where the EPA has not approved 
primacy, the EPA implements the drinking water standards. The EPA may 
grant primacy when the agency determines that the State has adopted 
regulations that are no less stringent than the promulgated NPDWR, 
among other conditions. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(a) and 40 CFR part 142. At 
this time, 49 States and the Navajo Nation have primary enforcement 
responsibility for public water systems in their jurisdictions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For purposes of simplicity in this preamble, the term 
``primacy agencies'' and ``States'' are used interchangeably to 
refer to States, Tribes, and Territories with primacy, and the 
Regional Administrator of EPA, where the EPA is acting as the 
primacy agency. The term ``State'' is defined in 40 CFR 141.2 to 
mean the agency of the State or Tribal government which has 
jurisdiction over public water systems. During any period when a 
State or Tribal government does not have primary enforcement 
responsibility pursuant to section 1413 of SDWA, the term ``State'' 
means the Regional Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. The term ``State'' is defined in 40 CFR 142.2 to include one 
of the States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory 
of the Pacific islands, or an eligible Indian Tribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To retain primary enforcement responsibility for public water 
systems, States must adopt regulations that are no less stringent than 
any new or revised NPDWRs promulgated in 40 CFR part 141 and request 
the EPA to approve a program revision. States must submit complete and 
final applications for approval of a program revision no later than two 
years after promulgation of the new or revised regulation unless the 
EPA grants the State a two-year extension. The EPA must approve or deny 
complete and final State primacy applications within 90 days of 
submission to the EPA. See 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(b)(2) and 40 CFR 142.12(d). 
In some cases, a State that has an approved primacy program for each 
existing NPDWR may qualify for interim primary enforcement authority 
for a new or revised NPDWR while the EPA's decision on the primacy 
application is

[[Page 86436]]

pending. See 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(c) and 40 CFR 142.12(e). SDWA section 
1413(b)(1) requires the EPA to establish regulations governing the 
primacy application and review process ``with such modifications as the 
Administrator deems appropriate.'' In addition to revisions to the 
NPDWR for lead and copper, the CCR Rule, and the PN Rule, this final 
rule includes changes to the primacy requirements related to this rule.
    SDWA section 1450 authorizes the Administrator to prescribe such 
regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the 
Administrators functions under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 300j-9.

E. Anti-Backsliding Analysis of LCRI Relative to LCR and LCRR

    Section 1412(b)(9) of SDWA is known as the ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision. Under this provision, the EPA is required to ensure that 
``each revision'' of a national primary drinking water regulation 
``shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of 
persons.'' The EPA has analyzed this rule against this standard using a 
framework that gives meaning to the text, structure, and purpose of the 
anti-backsliding provision, and is the best reading of the statutory 
provision. The term ``each revision'' is naturally read to refer to a 
revision of a ``national primary drinking water regulation,'' meaning 
that each new rule that revises the older regulation, shall maintain, 
or provide for greater health protection. The plain meaning of 
``revision'' is broad in scope and contemplates that one revision may 
contain multiple parts. The word ``revision'' is defined as ``[t]he 
action or an act of revising something; critical or careful examination 
or perusal of a text, judgment, code, etc., with a view to making 
corrections, amendments, or improvements.'' Revision, definition 2.a. 
(in the context of a legal change), Oxford English Dictionary (3d ed. 
2010). Thus, when analyzing whether ``each revision'' allows for 
backsliding, SDWA section 1412(b)(9)'s plain meaning asks the EPA to 
compare the whole of a new rule (i.e., the ``revision'' at issue) 
against the whole of the prior rule to assess whether the revision 
maintains or improves upon health protections.
    This is particularly true for a treatment technique regulation. A 
treatment technique rule is not centered on a single compliance level, 
but rather on an integrated set of actions designed to reduce the 
overall level of exposure to a contaminant. Therefore, in assessing 
whether a new treatment technique rule maintains or provides for 
greater health protection relative to the existing rule, the EPA 
evaluates the treatment technique rule as a whole, not on a component-
by-component or provision-by-provision basis. As described in the 2021 
LCRR rulemaking, the backsliding analysis for a treatment technique 
rule is ``based on an assessment of public health protection as a 
result of implementation of a rule as a whole, rather than a comparison 
of numerical benchmarks within the treatment technique rule'' (86 FR 
4216, USEPA, 2021a). Therefore, when analyzing the LCRI against the 
anti-backsliding standard, the EPA assessed the level of public health 
protection resulting from implementation of the whole of the final LCRI 
(i.e., the ``revision''). Because water systems are required to comply 
with the LCR until October 16, 2024, when water systems would have been 
required to comply with the 2021 LCRR in the absence of the LCRI, the 
EPA conducted two anti-backsliding analyses to compare the LCRI against 
the whole of the LCR and then separately against the whole of the 2021 
LCRR to assess whether the new rule will maintain or improve public 
health protection relative to both prior baselines.
    The EPA has found the final LCRI will improve public health 
protection over either the LCR or 2021 LCRR in accordance with SDWA 
section 1412(b)(9). Below is a more detailed breakdown of some of the 
most significant components that make the LCRI, as a whole, more 
protective than either the LCR or 2021 LCRR. The central feature of the 
LCRI is the mandatory replacement of lead and GRR service lines 
regardless of a water system's 90th percentile lead level. This is a 
more health protective approach relative to either the LCR or 2021 LCRR 
baseline because removing lead and GRR service lines eliminates a 
significant source of lead from the distribution system. Replacing lead 
and GRR service lines has been shown to significantly reduce lead 
levels in drinking water (Camara et al., 2013; Deshommes et al., 2018; 
Trueman et al., 2016), which improves public health by reducing the 
associated health impacts from lead exposures.
    The LCR only requires water systems to replace LSLs systemwide if a 
system exceeds the lead action level and allows them to stop 
replacements once their 90th percentile lead level is below the lead 
action level. The 2021 LCRR requires systems to replace lead and GRR 
service lines if they exceed the lead action level, and to initiate a 
goal-based replacement program if they exceed the lead trigger level. 
In contrast, the LCRI requires systemwide replacement of lead and GRR 
service lines regardless of 90th percentile lead levels and at a faster 
replacement rate. By eliminating these major lead sources, the LCRI 
will result in significant public health benefits. While the EPA 
projected that a total of 339,000 to 555,000 lead and GRR service lines 
under control of water systems would be replaced under the 2021 LCRR 
over a 35-year period, the LCRI requires replacement of all lead and 
GRR service lines under control of the system (USEPA, 2020a, Exhibit C-
1) within 10 years for most water systems. This is a key element of the 
LCRI and is intended to provide both broader and more certain lead risk 
reduction than any of the prior lead rules. The EPA projects that all 
lead and GRR service lines will be replaced under the LCRI over the 
period covered by the economic analysis. Specifically, the EPA 
estimates that 6.7 million lead and GRR service lines will be replaced 
within the 10-year mandatory replacement window and the remaining 
approximately 200,000 lines will be replaced in the following years for 
systems with deferred replacement deadlines. Thus, the number replaced 
among all systems nationwide is expected to be substantially greater 
than under the 2021 LCRR (USEPA, 2024d). Note that under the LCRI, like 
the 2021 LCRR, there are also about 2 million lead connectors that are 
required to be replaced when they are encountered by the water system 
(i.e., during water main replacement). For additional information on 
the EPA's estimated numbers of lead content service lines see chapter 
3, section 3.4.4, of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
    In addition, the LCRI makes changes to the treatment technique for 
CCT that will maintain or improve public health protection. These 
changes include lowering the lead action level to 0.010 mg/L from 0.015 
mg/L under the LCR and the 2021 LCRR. The LCRI lead action level thus 
requires water systems to take actions (e.g., install or re-optimize 
CCT, conduct public education) both sooner and at lower lead levels 
than under the LCR or the 2021 LCRR. Similarly, the LCRI's requirement 
to use the higher result of the first- and fifth-liter tap samples at 
LSL sites will result in more systems installing or re-optimizing 
optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) one or more times after the 
LCRI compliance date, as well as notifying and educating the public 
about health risks from lead.
    Several other changes to the LCRI warranted specific anti-
backsliding analysis. First, the EPA is revising the OCCT requirements 
to no longer require

[[Page 86437]]

most systems with CCT that exceed the lead action level to re-optimize 
their OCCT multiple times before they complete their service line 
replacement program if they re-optimized once after the compliance date 
for LCRI and are meeting their optimal water quality parameters 
(OWQPs). However, the LCRI maintains or improves public health 
protection for those systems. Public health protection will be 
maintained because systems already conducting OCCT or having re-
optimized OCCT will be required to continue to operate that treatment. 
Public health protections will also be maintained or improved because 
the LCRI requires systems that continue to exceed the lead action level 
to conduct additional public education activities and make filters 
available if they have ``multiple lead action level exceedances'' (see 
section IV.K of this preamble). The EPA anticipates additional health 
benefits from this change to the CCT requirements because systems and 
States can prioritize resources for these types of mitigation 
activities and, most importantly, lead service line replacement. These 
requirements will achieve greater public health benefits overall for 
systems with lead service lines by facilitating the removal of the most 
significant source of lead in drinking water and are more likely to 
lower the level of lead in tap samples compared to repeating OCCT re-
optimization steps that may not achieve further reductions. Also, if 
there have been no significant source water or treatment changes 
(actions which themselves can require a CCT study), a new re-
optimization study is likely to yield the same outcomes as a previous 
study. These systems will have re-optimized once after the compliance 
date for the LCRI and persistently high lead levels can be mitigated by 
targeted public education activities and the availability of filters.
    In addition, the final LCRI requires systems that exceed the lead 
action level after they have replaced all lead and GRR service lines to 
install or re-optimize OCCT to tailor CCT based on the new conditions 
where lead and GRR service lines are no longer the most significant 
sources of lead. This can result in maintaining or improving health 
protection because systems may achieve better performing CCT when the 
study is designed to optimize treatment based on the new system 
characteristics. Further, regardless of whether a system is conducting 
service line replacement, the final LCRI maintains the rule provision 
in Sec.  141.82(h) that allows the State to modify its decision for 
OCCT or re-optimized OCCT on its own initiative or in response to a 
request by a water system or other interested party.
    In addition, the 2021 LCRR allows CWSs serving 10,000 persons or 
fewer and all NTNCWSs which exceed the lead action level to choose 
between four compliance options: replace lead and GRR service lines, 
install and maintain OCCT, conduct full replacement of lead-bearing 
plumbing, or install and maintain point-of-use devices, while systems 
serving greater than 10,000 persons were required to replace lead and 
GRR service lines and install or re-optimize CCT. The LCRI requires all 
water systems with lead or GRR service lines to conduct mandatory 
service line replacement regardless of lead levels. Accordingly, under 
the LCRI, small water systems with lead and/or GRR service lines are 
required to remove these significant sources of lead and may not choose 
between service line replacement and other options to protect against 
lead exposures if they exceed the lead action level. Instead, small 
CWSs serving 3,300 persons or fewer (reduced from 10,000 persons or 
fewer under the 2021 LCRR) and all NTNCWSs can choose among the 
remaining three options if approved by the State. This reduced 
threshold ensures appropriate application of the remaining options. 
Thus, the LCRI provides greater protection of public health than the 
2021 LCRR for small systems with lead or GRR service lines that exceed 
the lead action level. As compared to the pre-2021 LCR, the LCRI 
improves the level of public health protection provided by the rule for 
systems without lead or GRR service lines that serve less than 3,300 
persons that exercise this compliance flexibility; these systems will 
be subject to the lower action level and improved public education, 
including lead sampling at schools and child care facilities. For 
systems with lead or GRR service lines that serve less than 3,300 
persons that exercise this compliance flexibility, the lower action 
level, coupled with a mandatory service line replacement requirement, 
increases the level of health protection at those systems as compared 
to the pre-2021 LCR.
    The EPA is requiring additional improvements across other parts of 
LCRI that will result in some actions taken both at lower lead levels 
and other actions that must be taken regardless of lead levels to 
better protect public health. Exhibit 1 in section II.A of this 
preamble summarizes these changes and illustrates comparisons among the 
pre-2021 LCR, the 2021 LCRR, and the final LCRI requirements.
    As a whole, therefore, the LCRI improves public health protection 
relative to the LCR or the 2021 LCRR. This conclusion is supported by a 
comparison of the monetized health benefits. See chapter 5, section 
5.6.2, and appendix F of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a) for 2021 LCRR to LCRI monetized estimated health benefits 
comparisons and appendix C, of the final LCRI Economic Analysis for 
pre-2021 LCR to LCRI monetized estimated cost and health benefits 
comparisons.
    Through this revision of the NPDWR for lead and copper, the EPA is 
requiring a more stringent and comprehensive set of lead reduction 
requirements compared to the LCR or the 2021 LCRR, including mandatory 
service line replacement; changes to the treatment technique for CCT; 
and more robust and meaningful public education. Therefore, the EPA 
expects the LCRI, as a whole, will improve public health protections 
relative to the LCR and the 2021 LCRR in accordance with SDWA section 
1412(b)(9).
    As part of the anti-backsliding analysis that the LCRI, as a whole, 
would improve public health protection relative to the LCR and the 2021 
LCRR, the EPA also evaluated the impact of requiring water systems to 
comply with the LCR instead of the 2021 LCRR (with some limited 
exceptions) between October 16, 2024, and the compliance date of the 
LCRI. Through the consultations the EPA conducted as part of the 2021 
LCRR review, as well as the engagements and consultations the EPA held 
to support the development of the proposed and final LCRI, including 
public comments received, many stakeholders, including States and water 
systems, provided feedback on the challenge of implementing successive 
changes to the LCR over a short period of time, such as the inefficient 
use of time and resources needed to prepare to implement requirements 
that could be different or no longer apply in the rule's next iteration 
and public confusion about rapidly changing requirements. Because of 
these challenges, as explained further below, the EPA is requiring that 
water systems continue to implement the pre-2021 LCR requirements 
between promulgation of the LCRI and the compliance date of three years 
after promulgation. In addition, the EPA is requiring water systems to 
implement the 2021 LCRR requirements for the initial service line 
inventory, notification to persons served by known or potential LSLs, 
Tier 1 public notification of lead action level exceedances, and 
associated reporting

[[Page 86438]]

requirements (see section V.B of this preamble for further discussion).
    The EPA previously recognized that the LCRR is an improvement in 
public health protection over the LCR, especially in light of the 
inventory requirements of the 2021 LCRR. Notwithstanding the EPA's 
elimination of certain LCRR compliance deadlines in the LCRI, the EPA 
expects greater health benefits from the LCRI. The improvement of 
public health attributable to the 2021 LCRR compared to the LCR is 
based primarily on the changes to the treatment technique requirements 
of LSLR, OCCT, and public education--actions that occur over extended 
periods of time in response to tap sampling results that exceed certain 
thresholds. The EPA does not expect those projected improvements from 
the 2021 LCRR would have been realized between the October 16, 2024, 
compliance date for the 2021 LCRR and the compliance date of the LCRI. 
Moreover, the EPA expects that, if compliance with the entire 2021 LCRR 
were required starting October 16, 2024, it would negatively affect 
water systems' abilities to comply with the LCRI to realize the greater 
health risk reduction benefits of the LCRI.
    Since LCRI compliance is required in the third year of the 2021 
LCRR implementation, systems and States would be simultaneously tasked 
with implementation of two different rules at the same time they are 
engaged in the startup activities for the LCRI. The startup activities 
for water systems include reading and training on the rule to 
understand its new requirements, creating a staffing plan, and securing 
funds for compliance among other requirements such as developing a 
baseline inventory and service line replacement plan. The startup 
activities for a State include adopting State regulations, modifying 
data systems, and conducting internal and external training. If water 
systems are required to simultaneously implement the entire 2021 LCRR 
for the first time and prepare for LCRI compliance, the EPA expects 
that it would be beyond the capacity of water systems, States, and the 
EPA where direct implementation occurs, and therefore, the expected 
benefits of one or both rules would not be realized (see section V.B of 
this preamble for further discussion).
    Allowing water systems to transition from compliance with the LCR 
to compliance with the LCRI, while requiring systems to comply with the 
2021 LCRR's initial inventory requirements in the interim, will result 
in more full service line replacements and, thus, broader and faster 
health risk reduction than if adequate planning for LCRI compliance did 
not take place because of the diversion of scarce system and State 
resources towards short-term implementation of the 2021 LCRR.

F. White House Lead Pipe and Paint Action Plan and the EPA's Strategy 
To Reduce Lead Exposures and Disparities in U.S. Communities

    The development of the LCRI is a key action of the Lead Pipe and 
Paint Action Plan, released by the Biden-Harris Administration in 2021 
(The White House, 2021). The aim of the plan is to mobilize resources 
from across the Federal Government through funding made available from 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also referred to as the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), to reduce lead exposure from pipes 
and paint containing lead. The plan includes a goal of eliminating all 
LSLs and remediating lead paint.
    In October 2022, the EPA published the ``Strategy to Reduce Lead 
Exposures and Disparities in U.S. Communities'' (or ``Lead Strategy'') 
to ``advance EPA's work to protect all people from lead with an 
emphasis on high-risk communities'' (USEPA, 2022a). This agency-wide 
Lead Strategy promotes environmental justice in communities challenged 
with lead exposure and includes four key goals: (1) reduce community 
exposures to lead sources; (2) identify communities with high lead 
exposures and improve their health outcomes; (3) communicate more 
effectively with stakeholders; and (4) support and conduct critical 
research to inform efforts to reduce lead exposures and related health 
risks. The LCRI is a key action within the EPA's Lead Strategy and 
``reflects EPA's commitment to fulfilling the Biden-Harris 
Administration's historic commitment of resources to replace lead pipes 
and support lead paint removal under the Lead Pipe and Paint Action 
Plan'' (USEPA, 2022a).

G. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Other Financial Resources

    There are a number of pathways for systems to receive support for 
LSLR and related activities, including low- to no-cost financing 
through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF); lead 
remediation grants under authorities established by the WIIN Act and 
incorporated into SDWA at sections 1459A, 1459B, and 1464; and low-cost 
financing from the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
(WIFIA) program. The EPA strongly encourages water systems to evaluate 
these available funding opportunities to support LCRI implementation 
and full LSLR. Water systems are encouraged to contact their State's 
DWSRF program to learn about project eligibilities, requirements, and 
how to apply for assistance through the DWSRF.
    The BIL appropriated $30.7 billion in supplemental DWSRF funding 
over a five year period and reemphasized the importance of LSLR under 
the DWSRF program by including $15 billion specifically appropriated 
for ``lead service line replacement projects and associated activities 
directly connected to the identification, planning, design, and 
replacement of lead service lines.'' Full service line replacement is 
an eligible expenditure under the DWSRF regardless of the ownership of 
the property on which the service line is located. The BIL LSLR, BIL 
General Supplemental, and base program appropriations can pay for LSLR 
and related activities.
    The BIL requires that States provide 49 percent of their LSLR and 
General Supplemental capitalization grant amounts as additional 
subsidization in the form of principal forgiveness and/or grants to 
disadvantaged communities, as defined under SDWA section 1452(d)(3). 
Assistance provided as additional subsidization does not need to be 
repaid. If available, additional subsidization can be used to cover the 
cost of customer-side LSLR. State DWSRF programs are strongly 
encouraged to prioritize available additional subsidization for this 
purpose.
    In May 2024, the White House highlighted its efforts to accelerate 
progress towards the elimination of LSLs in the United States (The 
White House, 2024a). The President announced the availability of $3 
billion in funding for LSLR, part of the $15 billion in dedicated BIL 
DWSRF funding for LSLR. For example, as part of this available BIL 
DWSRF funding, the President announced $76 million for LSLR in the 
State of North Carolina, for a total distribution of $250 million in 
BIL DWSRF to communities in North Carolina over the first three years 
of BIL implementation. In addition, the DWSRF program is part of the 
Justice40 Initiative, which has the goal that 40 percent of the overall 
benefits of certain Federal investments flow to disadvantaged 
communities. Additionally, several cities demonstrate the significance 
of BIL funding in assisting communities to equitably replace their LSLs 
as quickly as feasible. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has received over $40 
million in BIL funding and is on track to eliminate LSLs in its city by 
2026. The City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin

[[Page 86439]]

is receiving over $30 million in BIL funding for LSLR through the 
DWSRF, putting the city on track to replace all its LSLs within 10 
years instead of the initially estimated 60 years (The White House, 
2024a; 2024b).
    Corrosion control planning and design, LSL inventories and 
replacement plans, and associated capital infrastructure projects are 
eligible for DWSRF funding under the DWSRF General Supplemental 
appropriation under the BIL as well as the DWSRF annual base 
appropriations. However, CCT is not an eligible activity for DWSRF 
funding from the $15 billion specifically appropriated in BIL for LSLR 
and associated activities. States may use DWSRF set-aside funds to 
assist water systems' development of corrosion control strategies and 
LSL inventories and replacement plans.
    Under the DWSRF, State programs are authorized to reserve a portion 
of their capitalization grants as set-asides that can be spent on non-
infrastructure purposes. Set-asides can fund State programs, technical 
assistance and training for water utilities (such as educational 
opportunities for operators), and other activities that support 
achieving the public health protection objectives of SDWA. Set-asides 
taken from BIL LSLR capitalization grants must be used to either 
administer the capitalization grant or for eligible projects and 
activities that meet the statutory purpose of these LSLR funds. 
Activities must be directly connected to the identification, planning, 
design, and replacement of LSLs. Examples of eligible projects and 
activities from BIL LSLR set-aside funds include, but are not limited 
to, planning and design for LSLR; developing or updating service line 
inventories; providing technical assistance, education, and outreach; 
and non-routine sampling that is not for compliance purposes.
    The WIIN Act established three drinking water grant programs 
incorporated into SDWA that are available to support activities to 
reduce lead exposures in drinking water. The Reducing Lead in Drinking 
Water grant program awards funding for the reduction of lead in 
drinking water in disadvantaged communities, as defined under SDWA 
section 1452(d)(3). This grant program focuses on two priority areas: 
(1) Reduction of lead exposures in the nation's drinking water systems 
through water infrastructure and treatment improvements and (2) 
reduction of children's exposure to lead in drinking water at schools 
and child care facilities (USEPA, 2022b). The Voluntary School and 
Child Care Lead Testing and Reduction grant program awards funding to 
States, Territories, and Tribes to assist local and Tribal educational 
agencies in voluntary testing and remediation for lead contamination in 
drinking water at schools and child care facilities (USEPA and USHHS, 
2023). The Small, Underserved, and Disadvantaged Communities grant 
program awards funding to States, Territories, and Tribes to assist 
public water systems in underserved, small, and disadvantaged 
communities in meeting SDWA requirements, including the lead and copper 
NPDWRs (USEPA, 2021f).
    The EPA also administers the WIFIA program, a Federal credit 
program, to accelerate investment in the nation's water infrastructure 
by providing long-term, low-cost supplemental loans for regionally and 
nationally significant projects, including those eligible for funding 
through DWSRFs (USEPA, 2023b). The WIFIA program can provide financial 
assistance for LSLR projects. The City of Chicago is using its $336 
million WIFIA loan to assist with replacing LSLs serving single family 
homes and small multi-unit buildings citywide whenever there is a leak 
or break on a lead line or when performing water and sewer main 
updates. The City of Philadelphia received a commitment of over $340 
million in WIFIA financial assistance to upgrade its water system, 
including an initial $19.8 million WIFIA loan that will help modernize 
critical infrastructure by replacing approximately 160 LSLs and 13 
miles of water mains.
    The EPA's water technical assistance (WaterTA) supports communities 
to identify water challenges; develop plans; build technical, 
managerial, and financial capacity; and develop application materials 
to access water infrastructure funding that results in more communities 
with applications for Federal funding, quality water infrastructure and 
reliable water services. The EPA collaborates with States, Tribes, 
Territories, communities, and other key stakeholders to implement 
WaterTA efforts. For example, numerous Environmental Finance Centers 
(EFCs) are available to help underserved communities that have 
struggled to access Federal funding, such as DWSRF funding, to receive 
the support they need to access resources for water infrastructure 
improvements, including LSLR. The EFCs each have their own workplans 
and many of them include a focus on small systems. Additionally, the 
Training and Technical Assistance to Improve Water Quality and Enable 
Small PWSs to Provide Safe Drinking Water grant program provides 
training and technical assistance to small systems to achieve and 
maintain compliance with SDWA. The grant program serves two main 
functions for small PWSs--to build their financial and managerial 
capacity to provide safe drinking water over the long term and to 
improve water quality and sustainable operations.
    As part of WaterTA efforts, the EPA utilized BIL funds to establish 
the Lead Service Line Replacement (LSLR) Accelerators initiative and 
the Get the Lead Out (GLO) Initiative. These initiatives further the 
EPA's administration of the BIL DWSRF funding for LSLR by helping 
underserved communities access funds from the BIL to accelerate the 
replacement of LSLs, which pose risks to the health of children and 
families.
    In January 2023, the EPA announced the LSLR Accelerators initiative 
(USEPA, 2023c). This pilot initiative provides targeted technical 
assistance services to four States--Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, and Wisconsin--working with 40 communities across those States 
in 2023 and 2024. The EPA is providing direct technical assistance to 
guide communities through the process of LSLR, including support in 
developing LSLR plans, conducting inventories to identify lead pipes, 
increasing community outreach and education efforts, and supporting 
applications for Federal funding. In addition to providing direct 
technical assistance to communities, the Accelerators initiative is 
supporting these States in strategically deploying funding from the BIL 
for LSLR while developing best practices that can serve as a roadmap 
for other State programs. In light of the ongoing success of the LSLR 
Accelerators pilot, the GLO Initiative launched in November 2023 to 
expand LSLR technical assistance to approximately 200 communities 
across the country. The GLO Initiative will work with water systems to 
develop a roadmap for identification and full replacement of all LSLs, 
including associated activities such as developing a service line 
inventory, community engagement plan, LSL replacement plan, and a DWSRF 
application with active involvement from the community. The EPA will 
use the lessons learned from the GLO Initiative's direct technical 
assistance to develop tools, best practices, and peer exchange and 
learning that help communities nationwide address barriers to lead pipe 
replacement. While the EPA recognizes external funding may not be 
available for all systems, all systems can benefit from these lessons

[[Page 86440]]

learned. For additional information on EPA funding, see https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/funding-lead-service-line-replacement. For additional information on technical assistance, see 
https://www.epa.gov/water-infrastructure/water-technical-assistance-waterta. In addition, for information on available funding and 
technical resources for lead service line replacement in small and 
disadvantaged communities please see https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/ej_lslr_funding_sources-final.pdf.
    In addition to the EPA-administered funding for service line 
replacement and other lead reduction actions, other Federal programs 
outside of the EPA offer significant opportunities to further support 
these actions. Examples include Federal and State funds from the 
American Rescue Plan (ARP), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 
programs through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 
(HUD), Rural Development through the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA), and the Public Works Program through the U.S. Department of 
Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA).
    ARP funds are eligible to fund LSLR as well as replacement of 
internal plumbing and faucets and fixtures in schools and child care 
centers. Recipients of the ARP State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds 
budgeted over $519 million for projects to remediate lead in drinking 
water as of April 2024 (USDT, 2024). For example, Washington, DC, 
budgeted $30 million to increase funding available to assist residents 
in replacing LSLs to their homes. Additionally, Buffalo, New York, will 
use $10 million to expand its existing program to remove LSLs in 1,000 
additional homes (Department of the Treasury, n.d.). Following a lead-
in-water crisis, the City of Benton Harbor, Michigan, replaced all its 
LSLs within two years using ARP funding (The White House, 2024a). The 
City of St. Paul, Minnesota, received $16 million in ARP funds which 
has enabled the city to target replacement of all LSLs by 2032 at no 
cost to residents.
    HUD CDBG programs support community development through activities 
that address needs, such as infrastructure, economic development 
projects, public facilities installation, and community centers (USHUD, 
2020). In 2017, North Providence, Rhode Island, utilized CDBG funding 
from HUD to replace customer-side LSLs (USEPA, 2023d). HUD's Healthy 
Homes Production grant program and Healthy Homes Supplements to HUD's 
Lead Hazard Reduction grant programs are available to address a wide 
range of housing-related hazards including LSLR (USHUD, 2023).
    USDA Rural Development provides a variety of grant and loan 
programs to rural communities, organizations, businesses, and 
individuals to finance infrastructure repair and replacement, including 
LSLR (USEPA, 2020b). The EDA Public Works Program supports physical 
infrastructure improvements in economically distressed communities 
(USEPA, 2020b).
    States are using the available Federal funding sources as well as 
providing their own funding to support LSLR. As of February 2023, 
Illinois EPA has provided almost $89 million for LSLR (IEPA, 2023). 
Illinois EPA's DWSRF is providing funding to numerous systems' LSLR 
projects, including over $4 million in funding for the City of Sycamore 
and $3.9 million for the City of Batavia (IEPA, 2023). Other States are 
also providing funding for LSLR. New York's LSLR Program received $20 
million in State funding in 2017 and an additional $10 million in 2019 
for communities meeting specific eligibility characteristics, including 
income, measured blood lead levels, and age of homes (NYDOH, 2019). The 
State of Minnesota approved $240 million for replacing LSLs, mapping 
and inventory activities, and informing residents about the benefits of 
LSLR. The funding was used to establish an LSLR grant program, where 
the awarded grants must cover 100 percent of the cost of replacing the 
customer's portion of an LSL and prioritize replacing LSLs that are an 
imminent threat to public health and safety, areas with children, 
lower-income residents, and where replacements will provide the most 
efficient use of the grant funding (such as in coordination with main 
replacement) (State of Minnesota, 2023). The funding will be available 
beginning in 2024 until June 30, 2033, which corresponds to the year 
the State has set as their official goal for replacing all LSLs (State 
of Minnesota, 2023). Regional authorities, like the Massachusetts Water 
Resources Authority (MWRA), are also providing funding to support LSLR. 
MWRA provided $100 million in loan funds for LSL investigation and 
replacement projects in their metropolitan Boston communities (MWRA, 
2023).
    The EPA developed ``Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line 
Replacement,'' which is a guidance document that discusses funding 
sources including additional ways systems have financed full LSLR 
(USEPA, 2019a). For example, the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, used 
funding from a stadium tax to fund customer-side LSLR (USEPA, 2019a). 
The EPA also developed ``Funding and Technical Resources for Lead 
Service Line Replacement in Small and Disadvantaged Communities,'' 
which is a guide to help small and disadvantaged communities identify 
potential Federal funding sources and technical assistance for LSLR 
(USEPA, 2020b).

H. Lead Exposure and Environmental Justice, Equity, and Federal Civil 
Rights

1. Environmental Justice
    Stakeholder feedback and the EPA's environmental justice analysis 
informed the agency's understanding of how the LCRI could affect 
communities with environmental justice concerns. As described in 
section IV.C of the LCRI proposal (88 FR 84898, USEPA, 2023a), the EPA 
developed the proposed revisions after engaging with community 
stakeholders in cities with concerns about lead in drinking water 
during the LCRR review and by holding two public listening sessions on 
the topic of environmental justice to support the LCRI rulemaking. The 
EPA also prepared an environmental justice analysis for the proposed 
rule to inform the EPA's understanding of how the proposed LCRI could 
impact communities with environmental justice concerns (USEPA, 2023e).
    The EPA is finalizing requirements that are anticipated to achieve 
more equitable human health protection outcomes, especially in how 
service line replacement programs are planned and implemented. For 
example, the LCRI has a requirement for water systems to make their 
service line replacement plans publicly accessible to inform their 
communities about how they will prioritize service line replacement 
(see section IV.C of this preamble). The rule's requirements will also 
help to ensure that communication about the replacement program and the 
risks of lead in drinking water are more accessible to all consumers 
including individuals with limited English proficiency. See section 
V.B.9 of the proposed LCRI for further discussion (88 FR 84927, USEPA, 
2023a). In addition, as discussed in the previous section, Federal 
funds are available to support equity including BIL funds that require 
that States provide 49 percent of their LSLR and General Supplemental 
capitalization grant amounts as additional subsidization in the form of 
principal forgiveness and/or grants to disadvantaged communities, as 
defined

[[Page 86441]]

under SDWA 1452(d)(3) (see section III.G of this preamble).
2. Applicability of Federal Civil Rights Laws
    The EPA enforces and ensures compliance with Federal civil rights 
laws that together prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, 
national origin (including limited-English proficiency), disability, 
sex and age, respectively title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
(title VI), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 
504), title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (title IX), section 
13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 
(section 13), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. The EPA's 
nondiscrimination regulations at 40 CFR parts 5 and 7 implement these 
Federal civil rights statutes and contain important civil rights 
requirements for applicants and recipients of EPA financial assistance.
    All applicants for and recipients of EPA financial assistance have 
an affirmative obligation to comply with these laws, as do any 
subrecipients of the primary recipient, and any successor, assignee, or 
transferee of a recipient, but excluding the ultimate beneficiary of 
the assistance.
    The Federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination based on 
race, color, national origin (including limited-English proficiency), 
disability, sex, and age in any program or activity of applicants for 
and recipients of EPA financial assistance. Accordingly, water systems 
that apply for or receive EPA financial assistance must take reasonable 
steps to provide meaningful access to their programs and activities to 
individuals with limited-English proficiency. Recipients must provide 
individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in or 
benefit from their programs and activities.
    When developing service line replacement plans, water systems that 
are recipients or subrecipients of EPA financial assistance must ensure 
compliance with Federal civil rights laws and the EPA's 
nondiscrimination regulations. As a best practice, recipients may 
consider including as one component of such a plan an analysis of the 
demographic data that recipients of EPA financial assistance are 
required to collect under 40 CFR 7.85(a). The EPA encourages water 
systems to engage with local community-based organizations and 
community members about the service line replacement process and in the 
development of the service line replacement plan. The EPA also 
encourages States to consider if any State law or regulation may create 
barriers that could lead to challenges for water systems to meet their 
obligations under Federal civil rights laws and the EPA's 
nondiscrimination regulations. To support this effort, the LCRI has a 
special primacy requirement for States to identify any potential 
barriers to full service line replacement, which is discussed further 
in section V.C of this preamble.

IV. Final Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141, Subpart I, Control of Lead and 
Copper

A. Regulatory Approach

    Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA authorizes the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator ``to promulgate a 
national primary drinking water regulation that requires the use of a 
treatment technique in lieu of establishing an MCL, if the 
Administrator makes a finding that it is not economically or 
technologically feasible to ascertain the level of the contaminant'' 
(42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(7)(A)). In the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR), 
the EPA evaluated the best information available at the time consistent 
with the statutory standard and determined that lead and copper met the 
criteria for establishing a treatment technique rule. For the Lead and 
Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), the EPA is again finding, as it has 
consistently done since 1991, that an MCL for lead is not feasible 
because ``it is not feasible to ascertain the level of the 
contaminant'' within the meaning of the Act. While it is economically 
and technologically feasible to detect the presence and/or amount of 
lead in a water sample, it is not feasible to ascertain the level of 
lead such that the EPA can set an MCL within the purpose of the 
statute: i.e., a level of lead applicable to the entire system that 
accurately reflects both consumers' exposure to the contaminant and the 
public water system's contribution to that exposure or ability to 
control it.
    Specifically, as described in more detail below, the EPA considered 
whether the level of lead and copper can be ascertained at the tap, 
whether it was possible to determine single national numerical 
standards for lead and copper at the tap that is reflective of the 
effectiveness of treatment applied by water systems, and the 
feasibility of establishing MCLs for lead and copper when lead and 
copper are present in both water systems' distribution system and 
building premise plumbing. In making this finding, the EPA conducted a 
new analysis of the issue by re-evaluating the information and data and 
analyses underlying the EPA's conclusion in the 1991 LCR and evaluating 
the new information and data available since the 1991 LCR was 
promulgated.
    The primary rationale for promulgating the LCR as a treatment 
technique rule was due to the nature of lead and copper contamination. 
As the EPA described in 1991, and is still accurate today, lead and 
copper do not generally occur in source water, but instead are 
introduced in drinking water by the corrosive action of water in 
contact with plumbing materials containing lead and copper. These 
sources of lead and copper were and continue to be present in both the 
water system's distribution system and in plumbing materials in homes, 
as discussed further below. In 1991, the EPA explained that lead and 
copper levels at the tap can be highly variable ``due to many factors 
including the amount of lead and copper in the resident's plumbing or 
in the PWS's distribution system . . . temperature, age of plumbing 
components, chemical and physical characteristics of distributed water, 
and the length of time water is in contact with those materials'' (56 
FR 26473, USEPA, 1991). The EPA noted that while it is feasible to 
accurately measure the level of lead or copper in an individual sample, 
the inherent variability across sites and systems makes it 
``technologically infeasible to ascertain whether the lead or copper 
level at a tap at a single point in time represents effective 
application of the best available treatment technology'' (53 FR 31527, 
USEPA, 1988). The EPA discussed how if the agency were to select an 
MCL, it must be ``as close as feasible'' to the maximum contaminant 
level goal (MCLG) in accordance with the statutory standard. The EPA 
analyzed lead and copper tap sampling data to determine if there is a 
``precise level [of lead] at the tap'' that could be feasibly met by 
large water systems if they were to apply treatments representing best 
available technology to the water systems themselves (56 FR 26473, 
USEPA, 1991). The EPA found that even when minimizing some of the 
sources of variability (e.g., the time the water is in contact with the 
plumbing materials, age and type of plumbing material), lead and copper 
levels still varied considerably. Lead and copper levels varied at the 
same system both before and after the application of corrosion control 
treatment (CCT), between different systems, and between individual 
homes within the same system (56 FR 26473-26475, USEPA,

[[Page 86442]]

1991). The EPA concluded that because of the sources of variability 
described above, there is no precise level that would be generally 
considered ``feasible'' based upon application of best available 
treatment in all water systems and further found that the level that is 
as close as ``feasible'' to an MCLG would vary in systems throughout 
the country based on the sources of lead and copper, the corrosivity of 
the water, and how the water chemistry responds to CCT (56 FR 26473, 
USEPA, 1991).
    Second, in the development of the 1991 LCR the EPA explained that 
an additional challenge for establishing MCLs for lead and copper was 
that much of the lead and copper sources are privately owned and/or are 
outside of the control of the public water system (PWS), such as 
premise plumbing. During the development of the 1991 LCR, the EPA 
received comments stating that by ``only establish[ing] MCLs for lead 
and copper for the water as it leaves the control of the public water 
system'' (56 FR 26472, USEPA, 1991), and therefore monitoring for 
compliance in the distribution system (e.g., the entry point to the 
distribution system), could the EPA reduce some of the variability 
associated with lead and copper levels and address the problem of water 
system responsibility for conditions outside of their control. However, 
the agency determined that setting an MCL for lead and copper at the 
point the water leaves the control of the PWS would be inconsistent 
with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) definition of an MCL as ``the 
maximum level allowed of a contaminant in water which is delivered to 
any user of a public water system.'' Specifically, the EPA reasoned 
that MCLs for lead and copper would have to be assessed with monitoring 
at customers' taps to accurately represent the level of the 
contaminants in drinking water delivered to the user, noting that, 
``EPA has established monitoring requirements for inorganic and organic 
contaminants that require monitoring in the distribution system because 
this is easier and provides just as accurate an assessment of tap 
levels as tap sampling itself'' (56 FR 26478, USEPA, 1991). In 
contrast, the EPA determined that monitoring for lead and copper in the 
distribution system for compliance with MCLs ``would not adequately 
protect the public from lead and copper introduced by the interaction 
of corrosive water delivered by the PWS with lead and copper-bearing 
materials in the homeowners' plumbing'' (56 FR 26472-26473, USEPA, 
1991). Despite the fact that some lead and copper sources may be 
outside the control of the water system, including premise plumbing 
sources, the EPA determined that ``public water systems can affect, at 
least to some degree, water tap lead and copper levels through 
adjustment of the corrosivity of water delivered by the water system'' 
(56 FR 26473, USEPA, 1991). However, as explained in the 1991 LCR 
rulemaking, due to the factors described above (e.g., variability of 
lead and copper in drinking water, treatment effectiveness, and sources 
of lead and copper), water systems can affect drinking water 
corrosivity, but not in a manner that would make it technically 
feasible to set an MCL applicable to all systems. As explained above, 
the EPA is reaffirming that it is not feasible to ascertain the level 
of lead such that the EPA can set an MCL within the purpose of the 
statute: i.e., a level of lead applicable to the entire system that 
accurately reflects both consumers' exposure to the contaminant and the 
public water system's contribution to that exposure or ability to 
control it.
    Third, the EPA reasoned in the 1991 rulemaking that the definition 
of a PWS under SDWA precludes the agency from promulgating a 
``regulation that holds a [public water system] liable for conditions 
that are beyond its control'' (56 FR 26476, USEPA, 1991). In the 1991 
rulemaking, the EPA posited that an MCL would not be considered 
``feasible'' if a significant number of water systems would be in 
noncompliance due to conditions outside of their control, such as lead 
exposures from customer's premise plumbing within buildings. The EPA 
contemplated an alternative approach of establishing MCLs that would 
meet the statutory standard for an MCL in SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(B) 
and 1412(b)(4)(D)--``as close to the maximum contaminant level goal as 
is feasible''--i.e., ``feasible with the use of the best available 
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.)'' The resulting MCLs would need to be 
high enough to enable most systems to meet them after installing 
treatment (while accounting for the variability of lead and copper 
levels that would persist after treatment installation, given the 
sources of lead and copper). However, the EPA found that such an 
approach would lead ``to unnecessarily high exposures of significant 
segments of the population'' and noted that systems below this higher 
MCL ``would not be required to install any treatment to be in 
compliance'' (56 FR 26477, USEPA, 1991). Therefore, the EPA concluded 
that such an approach would be inconsistent with the objective of the 
statute to prevent ``known or anticipated adverse effects on the health 
of persons to the extent feasible'' (SDWA 1412 (b)(7)(A)). As explained 
above, the EPA is reaffirming that it is not feasible to ascertain the 
level of lead such that the EPA can set an MCL within the purpose of 
the statute.
    Considering the above facts, analyses, and statutory requirements, 
the EPA concluded that it was not feasible to set MCLs for lead and 
copper and promulgated the 1991 LCR that is comprised of four treatment 
techniques: CCT, source water treatment, lead service line replacement 
(LSLR), and public education. As described in section III.C of this 
preamble, the EPA introduced action levels for lead and copper to 
implement the treatment technique requirements in the rule. The action 
levels are not based on a level of exposure but rather are designed to 
determine the systemwide effectiveness of corrosion control and are 
compared to the 90th percentile of lead and copper samples collected 
from consumer taps to determine if the water system must take actions 
under the rule. In 1991, the EPA explained how the action levels are 
not MCLs, and they do not function as MCLs (56 FR 26488, USEPA, 1991). 
For more information about action levels, including the lead action 
level the EPA is finalizing in the LCRI and the EPA's determination 
about why an action level was not an MCL under the LCR and is still not 
an MCL under the final LCRI, see section IV.F.4 of this preamble.
    The EPA's 1991 decision to promulgate a treatment technique rule 
for lead was challenged and upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals 
(American Water Works Association v. EPA (AWWA), 40 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 
(D.C. Cir. 1994)). Because the Court agreed with the EPA's analysis, 
described above, that it is not feasible to ascertain the level of lead 
in drinking water, the Court upheld the EPA's decision not to implement 
an MCL for lead (AWWA, F.3d 1266, 1270-71).
    As described in the proposed LCRI, the EPA re-evaluated whether a 
treatment technique rule in lieu of an MCL is consistent with the 
statute. As part of the agency's analysis, the EPA re-evaluated the 
information considered and conclusions made in promulgating the LCR in 
1991, in addition to the best information and data available in more 
than 30 years since the LCR was promulgated, including from stakeholder 
feedback received during

[[Page 86443]]

the LCRR review. Based on the analysis conducted, the EPA has 
determined that information and factors consistent with SDWA that cause 
lead and copper variation identified in the 1991 LCR and supported in 
the 2021 LCRR continue to apply today. Therefore, the EPA is finding 
that it is not feasible to ascertain the level of the contaminant and 
the EPA thus is not establishing MCLs for lead and copper. The EPA 
received comments stating that the EPA must promulgate an MCL for lead, 
as described below. However, commenters did not raise any new arguments 
that change the agency's analysis and understanding of this issue. For 
the final LCRI, the EPA is reaffirming the findings and rationale 
presented in the proposed LCRI (88 FR 84907-84910, USEPA, 2023a) and as 
discussed below.
    New information available since the 1991 LCR continues to show that 
the variability of lead and copper levels make it infeasible to 
ascertain the level of the contaminant, and any level that could be 
feasibly set would not provide the protection from lead exposure that 
can be provided by the treatment technique. Several reasons contribute 
to the EPA's determination on lead and copper variation supporting the 
use of a treatment technique. First, as noted in the LCR, ``lead 
release can be unpredictable over time and across households, can 
originate from many sources owned by the water system and the customer, 
can vary based on the sample technique used, and can be affected by 
customer water use habits'' (53 FR 31527, USEPA, 1988). Studies 
continue to show that the levels of lead and copper measured at the tap 
after treatment are variable due to several factors including, but not 
limited to, the amount of lead in any individual site's plumbing, the 
age of plumbing components, the physical and chemical characteristics 
of the water, the length of time water is in contact with material, and 
consumer water use patterns (Triantafyllidou et al., 2021). Studies 
show that lead levels can widely vary at a single site depending on the 
sampling protocol (Del Toral et al., 2013; Lytle et al., 2019; Lytle et 
al., 2021; Masters et al., 2021; Triantafyllidou et al., 2015). For 
example, Del Toral et al. (2013) showed that there was significant 
variability in lead concentrations from water samples collected at the 
same site as well as among different lead service line (LSL) sites 
across Chicago, Illinois. The EPA's analysis of 2019 State of Michigan 
Lead Tap Monitoring Data as part of the 2021 LCRR (see docket item no. 
EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-1617) also demonstrated variability among collected 
water samples grouped by combinations of LSL status, CCT status, and 
liter sampled (USEPA, 2020c, Exhibit F-4). Even when using the same 
sampling protocol, variation in lead at a single site can still occur 
due to water use patterns and highly variable release of particulate 
lead (Clark et al., 2014; Masters et al., 2016; Xie and Giammar, 2011).
    As described in the proposed LCRI, the EPA analyzed lead data from 
the dataset collected for the Six-Year Review 4 (2012 to 2019) for 
systems with different characteristics (e.g., CCT and LSL status) to 
further evaluate how lead and copper levels at the tap can vary. The 
EPA used the Federal version of the Safe Drinking Water Information 
System (SDWIS/Fed) (2012 to 2020) data and information on LSL status to 
select a subset of 7,161 systems with identified CCT and LSL status 
(USEPA, 2023a). The EPA conducted a similar analysis to the one used 
for the 1991 LCR, by evaluating the magnitude of difference between two 
points in the distribution (i.e., the ratio of the 90th percentile and 
50th percentile) as a measure of variability (56 FR 26474, USEPA, 
1991). The results of the analysis developed for the LCRI show high 
variability across systems for both lead and copper. Lead and copper 
levels vary both between systems, and at the same system across various 
years, regardless of CCT and LSL status. In some cases, systems had 
some tap samples with high levels of lead and copper and other samples 
where no concentrations were detected. This information confirms that 
lead and copper variability persist at the tap in water systems across 
the nation. See Exhibits 2 and 3 of the LCRI proposal for results and 
additional details (88 FR 84907-84908, USEPA, 2023a). Commenters did 
not dispute that lead and copper levels are variable at the tap.
    Second, the conditions of plumbing materials also continue to vary 
from water system to water system, and from site to site within a water 
system, such that lead in drinking water continues to be subject to 
high levels of variability. Studies have shown that LSLs are the 
predominant contributor of lead in drinking water where they are 
present. A study published by the American Water Works Association 
(AWWA) Research Foundation found that LSLs contribute an estimated 50 
to 70 percent of the mass of lead at the tap for sites served by LSLs 
(Sandvig et al., 2008). Another study found that removal of LSLs 
resulted in an average reduction of lead content at the tap by 86 
percent (Lytle et al., 2019). However, while removal of LSLs is 
critical to reducing lead in drinking water, premise plumbing materials 
also continue to be a source of lead in drinking water (Elfland, 2010; 
Kimbrough, 2007; Rockey et al., 2021). In addition, premise plumbing 
materials can be a source of particulate lead. For example, brass 
particles and lead solder particles were identified as the cause of 
severe tap water contaminations during three field investigations in 
North Carolina and Washington, DC (Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2012). 
This means that even where systems remove all LSLs, CCT must be 
continued because of the lead and copper sources that will remain in 
the premise plumbing of consumers' homes and other buildings (USEPA, 
2020c), and in lead connectors. Systems without LSLs can exceed the 
lead action level, for example, due to the corrosion of premise 
plumbing containing lead. Under the 2021 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions 
(LCRR), the EPA estimated between 2.3 and 4.7 percent of community 
water systems (CWSs) without LSLs will exceed the current lead action 
level of 0.015 mg/L (USEPA, 2020d, chapter 3, Exhibit 3-25). Thus, the 
factors that cause lead and copper variation will continue to exist.
    Third, despite changes to the allowable amount of lead in ``lead 
free'' plumbing, many older buildings can still be a source of lead. 
Some commenters asserted that LSLs have overtaken household plumbing as 
the dominant source of lead contamination due to the revised ``lead 
free'' standard. However, these commenters misconstrue SDWA section 
1417 requirements. SDWA section 1417 prohibits the use of any pipe, any 
pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, solder, or flux in the 
installation or repair of any PWS or in plumbing in a residential or 
nonresidential facility that provides water for human consumption that 
is not ``lead free'' as defined in section 1417(d). The 2011 Reduction 
of Lead in Drinking Water Act revised the definition of ``lead free'' 
in SDWA section 1417(d) from eight percent to a weighted average of 
0.25 percent,\10\ lowering the amount of lead that may be in plumbing 
materials used in repairs or new installations starting in 2014. The 
EPA's Lead Free Rule (85 FR 54236, USEPA, 2020c) requires third-party 
certification for new plumbing products

[[Page 86444]]

as of September 1, 2023. However, SDWA section 1417 does not require 
anyone to replace previously installed plumbing materials that are not 
``lead free'' as currently defined, and many buildings in the U.S. were 
constructed prior to 2014. Accordingly, the revisions to the ``lead 
free'' definition alone do not change the prevalence of legacy lead 
sources. Further, even products that meet the new definition of ``lead 
free'' may contain trace amounts of lead that can leach into drinking 
water (42 U.S.C. 300g-6(d)(1)). Therefore, premise plumbing in these 
buildings will continue to be a source of lead in drinking water. As 
illustrated both in peer-reviewed studies and through reported 
compliance data, lead levels vary at single sites over time, between 
sites within a system, and between systems, both for systems with and 
without LSLs and CCT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``lead free'' provided here is defined under SDWA 
section 1417(d) as follows: ``[T]he term `lead free' means--(A) not 
containing more than 0.2 percent lead when used with respect to 
solder and flux; and (B) not more than a weighted average of 0.25 
percent lead when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes, 
pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters asserted that the agency's reasons for not setting 
an MCL for lead are inconsistent, stating that the EPA's primary 
rationale is based on not holding water systems responsible for sources 
of lead not owned by the water system while including provisions in the 
2021 LCRR and the LCRI for LSLs that apply regardless of water system 
ownership (e.g., service line inventory, service line replacement, and 
tap sampling requirements). This argument misconstrues the 
comprehensive set of reasons for the EPA's decision to not set an MCL 
for lead. In deciding whether to set an MCL for a particular 
contaminant or set a treatment technique rule, the primary focus of the 
statutory analysis is not on who is ``responsible'' for the sources of 
lead in drinking water, but whether it is feasible to ascertain the 
level of lead in drinking water. As described above, the variability of 
lead and copper levels make it ``technologically infeasible to 
ascertain whether the lead or copper level at a tap at a single point 
in time represents effective application of the best available 
treatment technology'' (53 FR 31527, USEPA, 1988). While premise 
plumbing is a contributor to lead and copper at the tap, the EPA found, 
and continues to find, that the quality of water delivered to customers 
can be controlled by systems regardless of whether the system 
physically controls all lead sources and that ``water systems can 
affect, at least to some degree, water tap lead and copper levels 
through adjustment of the corrosivity of water delivered by the 
system'' (56 FR 26473, USEPA, 1991). For example, studies indicate that 
CCT can reduce drinking water lead levels at the tap (Cardew, 2009; 
Hayes et al., 2008; Tully et al., 2019). However, while water systems 
can affect drinking water corrosivity, they cannot do so in a way that 
allows the EPA to set an MCL due to factors such as variability of lead 
and copper in drinking water, treatment effectiveness, and the sources 
of lead and copper as discussed above. Additionally, if the EPA were to 
establish an MCL despite these factors, it would be based on the 
principle that the MCL would set a level that could be met by most 
systems (taking into account variability in tap levels among systems 
after treatment), resulting in a level too high to be health protective 
as water systems below this high level would not be required to take 
any actions. Therefore, a treatment technique rule for lead and copper 
is also more health protective than an MCL would be.
    Some commenters claimed that, because the LCR requires water 
systems to conduct tap sampling and take actions based on action 
levels, the EPA has found it feasible to ascertain lead levels for the 
purposes of a treatment technique, and therefore the EPA must set an 
MCL for lead. The EPA notes that the ability to accurately measure the 
level of a contaminant in a single sample is not equivalent to finding 
that it is ``feasible to ascertain the level of the contaminant'' for 
purposes of establishing a rule that prevents lead exposure consistent 
with SDWA. The measurement of lead or copper in a single sample alone 
does not indicate the extent of corrosion of lead and copper from 
plumbing materials (53 FR 31527, USEPA, 1988). As noted above, the EPA 
found that there is no precise level of lead at the tap that can be 
achieved through application of the best available treatment due to the 
high variability of lead at the tap. The EPA has also demonstrated that 
the key factors that led to the agency establishing a treatment 
technique rule for lead and copper still apply today. Therefore, it is 
not feasible to ascertain the level of lead for the purposes of 
establishing an MCL.
    Additionally, the EPA notes that these commenters misconstrue the 
difference between the action level and an MCL. Due to the factors 
described above, the lead action level is not a precise statistical 
analysis of the effectiveness of treatment, but rather is a general 
screening level developed for use as a tool to simplify and enable 
implementation of the CCT treatment technique (see section IV.F.4 of 
this preamble for discussion of how the action level was developed). 
One key difference between action levels and MCLs is that exceeding an 
action level alone is not a violation of the rule, but rather a system 
is in violation if it fails to take required actions following an 
action level exceedance. While the lead action level is a numerical 
value, it is not equivalent to an MCL either in function or in terms of 
how it is derived (56 FR 26488, USEPA, 1991).
    Some commenters claimed that the EPA has established MCLs for other 
drinking water contaminants, such as disinfection byproducts (71 FR 
388, USEPA, 2006), and that EPA has stated that such contaminants are 
similarly prone to sampling variability. However, the preamble for the 
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule does not suggest 
that disinfection byproduct sampling is subject to the same level of 
sampling variability as lead sampling or that disinfection byproducts 
are so affected by sampling variability that it impacts the ability of 
water systems to accurately ascertain disinfection byproduct 
contamination from water samples (71 FR 388, 394, USEPA, 2006). 
Specifically, there is no discussion of the disinfection byproduct 
levels measured in the distribution systems and used for compliance as 
being unrepresentative of the levels in water delivered to consumers at 
the tap. Disinfection byproduct levels can vary based on factors such 
as residence time in the system, pipe diameter, location where 
disinfectants are added, and water temperature (71 FR 394, USEPA, 
2006). Water systems are required to sample at different sites across 
the distribution system to account for this variability. However, the 
greater variability in lead and copper materials from sampling site to 
sampling site and the lead and copper levels in water at individual 
taps within the system is one difference between the lead and copper 
and the disinfection byproduct rules. While both rules require systems 
to evaluate water quality within the distribution system, due to the 
reasons stated above, the LCR also requires sampling at consumer taps, 
which is inherently variable across sites due to factors including 
differences in premise plumbing within homes. Sampling in the 
distribution system for lead and copper would not be representative of 
the levels of lead and copper at the tap. Put simply, there is no 
indication that the level of purported sampling ``variability'' 
associated with disinfection byproducts can be reasonably compared to 
that of lead contamination in drinking water.
    Another critical distinction between lead and disinfection 
byproducts is that, unlike lead, disinfection byproducts arise from 
water systems disinfecting the water supply. Water systems

[[Page 86445]]

introduce disinfectants, such as chlorine and chloramine, into the 
drinking water supply (71 FR 394, USEPA, 2006). These disinfectants 
interact with organic and inorganic material in source waters to form 
disinfection byproducts. Water systems can control and account for the 
formation of disinfection byproducts, such as through source water 
treatment to reduce precursors (e.g., total organic carbon) that can 
lead to disinfection byproduct formation when these precursors come 
into contact with disinfectants. On the other hand, lead is rarely 
found in source water (86 FR 4231, USEPA, 2021a) and instead enters 
drinking water through corrosion in lead pipes and fixtures, sometimes 
from lead pipes and fixtures outside the direct control of the water 
system. As such, there is no inconsistency between regulating 
disinfection byproducts through an MCL while finding that a treatment 
technique is necessary for lead.
    Considering the above information and analysis, the EPA is 
determining that the same conditions that prompted the agency to 
promulgate a treatment technique rule for lead and copper in 1991 still 
exist today and justify continued use of a treatment technique rule for 
regulating lead and copper. This includes the nature of lead 
contamination, where much of the lead in drinking water continues to 
originate in the distribution system and from sources outside the 
control of water systems (e.g., premise plumbing), the condition and 
composition of water systems' plumbing and distribution system varying 
from system to system, and the variability of lead and copper levels at 
the tap. In addition to finding that it is not feasible to set an MCL 
for lead and copper at the tap, the EPA also notes the benefit of a 
treatment technique. As noted above, the EPA can set requirements that 
compel the system to take various actions to reduce exposure to lead in 
drinking water, while an MCL would not compel action until, and unless, 
the MCL is exceeded (USEPA, 2020b). The EPA is prohibited from 
requiring a specific treatment when promulgating an MCL (see SDWA 
section 1412(b)(4)(E)). For example, the agency would not be authorized 
to require all water systems to conduct mandatory service line 
replacement or some of public education requirements as part of an MCL 
rule.
    The conditions that led the agency to make the findings necessary 
to promulgate a treatment technique rule for lead and copper in 1991 
still apply and are supported by an evaluation of the best information 
and data available since the LCR was promulgated. For these reasons, 
the agency is continuing to regulate lead and copper through four 
treatment techniques: (1) service line replacement, (2) CCT, (3) public 
education, and (4) source water treatment.

B. Service Line Replacement

1. Overview
    There is no safe level of lead in drinking water. More than 30 
years after the EPA promulgated the 1991 LCR, the use of lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement (GRR) service lines to deliver water 
poses a continual threat of significant adverse health effects. Where 
present, LSLs are the most significant source of lead in drinking 
water. Even when water systems with lead and GRR service lines have 
implemented optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT), lead can still 
be released from these service lines. In addition, improper 
implementation of tap sampling and OCCT requirements in the LCR has 
resulted in significant increases in lead levels that are unaddressed 
and cause increased exposure to lead in drinking water for consumers in 
multiple water systems. As a result, this final rule modifies the 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for lead by 
mandating service line replacement of lead and GRR service lines 
regardless of tap sampling results or corrosion control efforts.
    The final LCRI requires mandatory replacement of both lead and GRR 
service lines. Under the 2021 LCRR, galvanized service lines that 
currently are or ever were downstream of lead or unknown service lines 
are considered to be ``galvanized requiring replacement'' service lines 
(Sec.  141.2) because the risk of high lead levels from these service 
lines is comparable to that of LSLs. Where the system is unable to 
demonstrate that a galvanized service line ``never was'' downstream of 
an LSL, it must categorize the service line as GRR. Galvanized service 
lines downstream of a lead connector are not required to be replaced 
because the risk is not as significant.
    The final rule requires replacement of the entire service line, 
such that no portion of a lead or GRR service line remains. Partial 
lead or GRR service line replacements do not prevent known or 
anticipated adverse health effects and may cause adverse health 
effects; however, water systems may, in limited circumstances, need to 
conduct partial service line replacements as part of an emergency 
repair or to facilitate the completion of planned infrastructure work 
(separate from service line replacement activities, such as water main 
replacement) that would disturb the service line. Accordingly, the rule 
(1) prohibits water systems from conducting a partial lead or GRR 
service line replacement, except in the mentioned limited 
circumstances, and (2) requires water systems that conduct partial 
service line replacement to comply with notification requirements and 
other measures to mitigate the potential increased levels of lead as a 
result of the partial replacement (section IV.B.5).
    The EPA is authorized to promulgate NPDWRs for PWSs and not for 
individual property owners. Under SDWA, a PWS is defined to include 
service lines (``distribution facilities'') if they are ``under 
control'' of the operator of the PWS and ``used primarily in connection 
with'' the system (SDWA section 1401(4)(A)). Therefore, the requirement 
in the final LCRI for PWSs to fully replace lead and GRR service lines 
applies only to service lines ``under control'' of the operator of the 
PWS and ``used primarily in connection with'' the system (section 
IV.B.3). Where a water system has access (e.g., legal access, physical 
access) to conduct full service line replacement, the service line is 
under its control, and the water system must replace the service line. 
The LCRI does not delineate or establish the criteria for determining 
whether a system has access to conduct full service line replacement; 
that determination is governed by State or local law or water tariff 
agreements. The LCRI does not presume that customer consent is required 
for a system to gain access to conduct full service line replacement, 
yet the final rule recognizes that customer consent may be a 
prerequisite for access in some States and municipalities because, in 
some cases, service lines may only be under control of the water system 
when the customer provides consent to replace the customer-owned 
portion of the line. For that reason, where property owner consent is 
required under State or local law, the LCRI requires that the water 
system at a minimum make a ``reasonable effort'' (four attempts) to 
obtain property owner consent, and if the customer does not consent to 
the replacement, the system is not required to make further attempts to 
gain access to replace the service line until there is a change in 
property ownership.
    The final LCRI establishes a deadline for water systems to complete 
their service line replacement program within 10 years (section 
IV.B.6), unless the State sets a shorter deadline for the system 
(section IV.B.7) or the system is eligible and plans to use a deferred 
deadline (section IV.B.8). The EPA

[[Page 86446]]

determined that a 10-year replacement deadline is feasible for the vast 
majority of water systems. However, the number and proportion of 
service lines requiring replacement can vary significantly among 
systems, making it difficult to identify a single deadline that 
represents the fastest feasible rate of replacement for all systems 
across the nation. In recognition of the strong possibility that some 
systems may be able to replace all of their lead and GRR service lines 
on a faster schedule, and to ensure that the rule meets the statutory 
standard for a treatment technique rule to ``prevent known or 
anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent 
feasible'' (SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A)), the rule requires the State to 
set a shortened deadline if the State determines an earlier replacement 
deadline is feasible for the system.
    On the other hand, to ensure that the rule's service line 
replacement deadline is not infeasible for a large number of systems, 
the final rule includes a pathway for a water system to defer its 
replacement deadline if the system meets specific threshold criteria 
established in the rule, while also requiring that the State 
periodically evaluate whether the deferred deadline and associated 
replacement rate the system identifies are the fastest feasible. 
Systems on a deferred deadline must regularly provide their State with 
information on the deadline and rate they consider as the fastest 
feasible to support their continued eligibility for a deferred 
deadline, and the State must periodically approve the system's 
continued use of the deferred deadline and associated replacement rate 
or determine a faster replacement rate. The EPA determined that setting 
a deadline of 10 years and incorporating procedures for reducing or 
extending that time frame on a case-by-case basis will ensure that the 
LCRI requires water systems to replace lead and GRR service lines as 
quickly as is feasible.
2. Mandatory Service Line Replacement
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    Lead service line replacement is a highly effective treatment 
technique for reducing lead levels in drinking water. It has been part 
of the EPA's NPDWR for lead since 1991. The LCRI makes a fundamental 
improvement to the LSLR treatment technique in the LCR NPDWR. The 1991 
LCR requires systems that exceed the lead action level of 0.015 mg/L to 
replace LSLs systemwide at a mandatory replacement rate and allows 
these systems to stop replacing LSLs if the system ceases to exceed the 
action level. Under the 1991 LCR, systems could meet the mandatory 
replacement rate by partially replacing the system-owned portion of the 
LSL or through ``test-outs'' of individual service lines. However, 
research conducted after 1991 revealed that LSLR is highly effective at 
reducing lead levels in drinking water only where the entire LSL is 
replaced (Deshommes et al., 2017; Trueman et al., 2016; USEPA, 2011a). 
Thus, the 2021 LCRR maintained the approach of the 1991 LCR to require 
replacement if a system exceeds the action level of 0.015 mg/L, but 
reduced the replacement rate to three percent per year. The 2021 LCRR 
also required systems to replace the entire LSL, prohibited ``test-
outs'', and required systems that exceed the lead trigger level of 
0.010 mg/L to replace lead and GRR service lines at a goal-based 
replacement rate until the system ceases to exceed the lead trigger 
level. The 2021 LCRR also required water systems to provide 
notification and risk mitigation actions, including the provision of 
pitcher filters, when a service line replacement was conducted.
    In the 2021 LCRR review, the EPA noted the ``urgency of fully 
removing all lead service lines'' and acknowledged that under the 2021 
LCRR, millions of LSLs would be left in place, resulting in 
``generations of Americans being at risk of significant lead exposure 
through their drinking water'' (86 FR 71577, USEPA, 2021b). During the 
2021 LCRR review, the EPA listened to the nation's concerns on lead in 
drinking water through two days of public listening sessions, 12 
community and stakeholder roundtables, and two co-regulator and elected 
official meetings. Nearly all commenters expressed support for the goal 
of full replacement of all the nation's LSLs. Commenters frequently 
suggested that the agency mandate replacement of all LSLs over a 
defined time (e.g., 10 to 15 years) regardless of drinking water lead 
levels, ban all or certain partial service line replacements, and 
increase financial support for LSLR from the EPA and other Federal 
agencies (86 FR 71576, USEPA, 2021b). These stakeholder recommendations 
reflect a widespread awareness that LSLs pose a continued threat to 
public health that cannot be quickly and fully remedied through 
installation or re-optimization of CCT.
    Consistent with the statutory direction when promulgating a 
treatment technique rule, the EPA proposed in the LCRI mandatory full 
service line replacement of all lead and GRR service lines, regardless 
of lead levels, because full replacement will prevent to the extent 
feasible the known or anticipated significant adverse threat to public 
health caused by the presence of these service lines. Mandatory full 
service line replacement prevents known adverse health effects because 
it reduces lead levels in drinking water more than other risk 
mitigation actions and treatment, such as OCCT, flushing, and public 
education. Even when a system's 90th percentile lead level is 
relatively low, full service line replacement is the only risk 
mitigation action that permanently removes the lead source and 
associated exposure risk. Although OCCT can be effective at reducing 
lead levels, it requires consistent proper operation, water quality 
parameter monitoring, and tap sampling to ensure it is effective at 
reducing lead levels. The EPA's experience with implementing the LCR 
for over 30 years has shown that improper implementation of tap 
sampling and CCT has resulted in significant increases in lead levels 
that were unaddressed and caused increased exposure to lead in drinking 
water for consumers in multiple water systems (e.g., Edwards and Dudi, 
2004; Lytle et al., 2020; Sarver, 2019; USEPA 2023f). Additionally, in 
recent years, systems ranging from small to large have experienced high 
lead levels despite having installed OCCT and maintained compliance 
with the LCR OCCT requirements (Masters et. al, 2021). In addition, 
when elevated levels of lead are detected, OCCT can take years to study 
and implement, and some systems, based on the water chemistry in their 
source water and distribution systems, may face challenges optimizing 
CCT, leaving their consumers at a higher risk of lead exposure compared 
to other communities. Recognizing that there is no known safe level of 
lead in drinking water, removing the largest sources of lead in 
drinking water (lead and GRR service lines where present) can reduce 
lead levels more than OCCT alone or in combination with public 
education and other risk mitigation activities. Furthermore, lead 
particulates can be released sporadically or as a result of service 
line disturbances even in systems that have well-operated OCCT and have 
measured generally low lead levels (Del Toral et al., 2013; 
Triantafyllidou et al., 2007). Thus, systems with 90th percentile 
levels below the lead action level or even the lead practical 
quantitation limit (PQL) may still have higher lead levels at 
individual sites served by lead and GRR service lines. These higher 
lead levels then result in increased lead exposure to the consumers 
served, but without any

[[Page 86447]]

requirement for systemwide follow-up actions such as CCT, public 
education, or LSLR. Cases of lead poisoning in children have been 
documented and attributed to drinking water in communities whose 
systemwide lead levels remained below the lead action level 
(Triantafyllidou et al., 2007; Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2012).
i. Scope of Mandatory Service Line Replacement
    The pre-2021 LCR did not require galvanized service lines to be 
replaced. A galvanized service line that currently is or previously was 
downstream of an LSL can contribute to lead in drinking water and 
resulting lead exposure to consumers (USEPA, 2020d) and, therefore, is 
considered a ``galvanized requiring replacement'' or GRR service line 
under the 2021 LCRR. Such GRR service lines can adsorb particulate lead 
initially mobilized from the upstream LSL, which can later be released 
back into the drinking water even after removal of the LSL (McFadden et 
al., 2011). The 2021 LCRR's inclusion of GRR service lines in the full 
service line replacement requirements ensures that all galvanized 
service lines currently or previously downstream of an LSL will be 
treated the same as an LSL under the service line replacement 
requirements (USEPA, 2020d). The proposed LCRI maintained the 2021 LCRR 
requirements for water systems to fully replace both lead and GRR 
service lines in their distribution systems.
    The 2021 LCRR did not require replacement of galvanized service 
lines downstream of a lead connector. Galvanized service lines 
downstream of a lead connector may contribute lead into drinking water, 
but for the 2021 LCRR, the EPA did not find it appropriate to 
categorize these service lines as ``galvanized requiring replacement'' 
if these lines were not currently or previously downstream from an LSL 
(USEPA, 2020e). The EPA determined that it was not feasible to include 
a requirement for all systems to inventory lead connectors; therefore, 
they cannot be used to categorize a galvanized line as needing to be 
replaced under the LCRR (USEPA, 2020e). Additionally, the EPA did not 
want LSLR to be slowed by including galvanized service lines downstream 
of a lead connector in the total number of service lines requiring 
replacement. The 2021 LCRR requires lead connectors to be tracked and 
replaced as they are encountered during normal operations. The EPA did 
not propose in the LCRI to expand the definition of a GRR service line 
to include galvanized service lines downstream of a lead connector for 
the same reasons identified in the 2021 LCRR, but the agency did 
request public comment on this topic.
    The EPA maintained the 2021 LCRR requirement to provide 
notification and risk mitigation measures, including pitcher filters, 
where full service line replacements were conducted to account for 
potential temporary increases in lead levels and further prevent the 
potential for known adverse health effects.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Many commenters supported the proposed requirement for water 
systems to replace lead and GRR service lines regardless of 90th 
percentile lead levels, highlighting the benefits of service line 
replacement to eliminate the risk of lead exposure posed by these 
significant lead sources. A few commenters stated that CCT is effective 
at reducing lead in drinking water, and therefore, mandatory service 
line replacement should not be required. After consideration of all the 
comments on this issue, the agency is requiring full replacement of 
lead and GRR service lines in the final rule. Replacement of lead and 
GRR service lines can substantially reduce the risk of lead exposure 
from drinking water because lead and GRR service lines can release lead 
even when systemwide lead levels are low (Triantafyllidou et al., 
2007). Many water systems have proactively and voluntarily replaced 
LSLs (USEPA, 2024d), and the States of Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, 
and Rhode Island have passed State laws and regulations requiring 
mandatory service line replacement independent of their tap monitoring 
results. Proactive and voluntary measures alone, however, cannot 
achieve replacement of 100 percent of lead and GRR service lines as 
quickly as feasible. A national mandate ensures public health 
protection for customers and consumers served by these service lines, 
including populations most sensitive to the effects of and communities 
disproportionately impacted by lead exposure, in States or water 
systems that do not have mandatory or proactive replacement programs.
    One comment claimed that the proposed LCRI implicates the major 
questions doctrine, violates the commerce clause, is ``unworkable, 
underfunded, and unnecessary,'' and is arbitrary and capricious. The 
comment was based on the erroneous assumption that the LCRI regulates 
homeowners. The EPA disagrees with these characterizations of the 
proposed rule. Regarding the major questions doctrine, the comment 
claimed that the proposed LCRI implicates the major questions doctrine 
because of a substantial expansion in scope, stating that the ``greater 
the scope of the proposed action, the clearer that Congressional 
authorization must be'' (State of Kansas and Office of Attorney General 
of Kansas, 2024). Contrary to the comment's assumption, however, the 
EPA has authority under SDWA to regulate PWSs, not homeowners. As a 
result, the LCRI regulates PWSs and their distribution systems; it does 
not regulate indoor plumbing or require homeowners to take any actions. 
Moreover, the LSLR has been a central part of the LCR's treatment 
technique as far back as the original 1991 LCR and continuing through 
the 2021 LCRR. The LCRI's mandatory service line replacement 
requirement differs from the 1991 LCR and 2021 LCRR LSLR requirements 
in two ways, but neither difference represents an expansion of scope, 
so the major questions doctrine is not applicable to the LCRI's service 
line replacement requirements. The first difference is that the LCRI 
requires water systems to conduct a full service line replacement 
program independent of their tap monitoring results. The EPA notes that 
the 2021 LCRR and 1991 LCR both also require systems to conduct 
mandatory LSLR if a system exceeds the lead action level. The EPA does 
not view the LCRI's similar requirement to be an expansion of scope 
simply because the requirement applies independent of tap water 
monitoring results. Rather, imposing that requirement irrespective of 
tap monitoring results follows directly from SDWA's statutory mandate 
in light of current information. SDWA requires the EPA to promulgate 
NPDWRs that ``prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the 
health of persons to the extent feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)). As 
section IV.B.1 of this preamble explains, the EPA's finding that a 
mandatory, systemwide service line replacement program irrespective of 
tap monitoring results is essential to meet this statutory requirement, 
as the requirement is both feasible and prevents known or anticipated 
health effects of lead exposure from drinking water. For more 
information, see section IV.B.1 of this preamble.
    The second difference between the LCRI and the LCR and 2021 LCRR is 
that the LCRI removes statements about service line ownership and 
responsibility to pay for full service line replacement. This change 
does not expand the scope of this rule; in fact, the EPA made the 
change to better align

[[Page 86448]]

the rule with SDWA's definition of a ``public water system'' and to 
clarify that the EPA is not directing through this rule how a water 
system should cover the costs of compliance with a NPDWR. How a system 
chooses to cover the costs or allocate the costs among users are 
matters of State and local law beyond the scope of the EPA's authority 
under section 1412 of SDWA. Because State and local governments 
regulate how water systems charge for services they provide to their 
customers, and the EPA has no explicit statutory authority to regulate 
in an NPDWR how water systems charge for their services, under the 
LCRI, the EPA has removed all statements in the prior rule about 
service line ownership and responsibility to pay.
    The EPA disagrees that the LCRI is ``unworkable, underfunded, and 
unnecessary,'' particularly, the commenter's assertion that almost none 
of the cost of the rule is offset by the Federal Government. On the 
contrary, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) dedicates $15 billion 
in funding for service line inventory and replacement, and other 
Federal funding is also available to support implementation of the LCRI 
(see section III.G of this preamble). The final tranche of this BIL 
DWSRF funding for lead service line inventory and replacement will be 
appropriated in Fiscal Year 2026; however, funds will remain available 
for the EPA to obligate (i.e., award) to States during the fiscal year 
in which they are appropriated and the following fiscal year, 
consistent with SDWA section 1452(a)(1)(C). After the second fiscal 
year of availability, any unobligated funds would be reallotted by the 
EPA to other States, as described in SDWA section 1452(a)(1)(E). The 
EPA notes that its economic analyses for the proposed and final rules 
do not account for external funding, such as from BIL, in the 
calculation of PWS costs and household cost to residents in CWSs. 
Furthermore, the agency also did not rely upon external funding, such 
as from BIL, to support its finding that the proposed and final rules 
are affordable in accordance with SDWA's definition of ``feasible'' in 
section 1412(b)(4)(D) for NPDWRs (``what may reasonably be afforded by 
large metropolitan or regional public water systems.'') The EPA finds 
the LCRI as a whole is affordable. For discussion on the affordability 
of service line replacement, please see section IV.B.6 and IV.B.9 of 
this preamble and the final rule's Technical Support Document (USEPA, 
2024d). For CCT, please see section IV.F.1 of this preamble. For public 
education, please see sections IV.J.1 and IV.K.1 of this preamble. Note 
that the EPA is not including a discussion for source water treatment 
because those requirements are not being amended by this final rule. 
For the EPA's feasibility determination for source water treatment, see 
the final LCR (56 FR 26482, USEPA 1991). In addition, the EPA evaluated 
the cumulative impact of the LCRI requirements as a whole to household 
costs by system size, which are discussed in the EPA's Economic 
Analysis for the final LCRI (USEPA, 2024c) in section 4.3.7.3 and shown 
in Exhibit 7 and Exhibit 8 in section VI.D.2 of this preamble.
    The EPA disagrees that the LCRI is ``arbitrary and capricious.'' 
The comment claimed the rule would cost the States, PWSs, and 
households billions ``without resulting in any measured benefit, and 
the agency lacks clear Congressional authorization to impose these 
burdens, and the proposed rule does not adequately explain why it is 
departing from past practice'' (State of Kansas and Office of Attorney 
General of Kansas, 2024). The claim that the proposed rule had no 
measured benefit is simply untrue. The final rule's economic analysis 
showed that the monetized net annualized incremental benefits range 
from $12.0 billion to $23.2 billion (in 2022 dollars, discounted at two 
percent) as well as many unquantified benefits, and these benefits 
justify the costs (USEPA, 2024a, chapter 6, section 6.3). As described 
above, the EPA has clear authority to promulgate the LCRI under SDWA 
section 1412. The proposed rule also explained at length the factors it 
considered when proposing a mandatory service line replacement 
requirement irrespective of lead levels (USEPA, 2023a).
    Some commenters suggested that water systems' mandatory service 
line replacement programs should extend to replacement of the lead 
connector because they are a source of lead in drinking water. The EPA 
agrees that lead connectors can contribute lead into drinking water and 
encourages their replacement to reduce lead in drinking water. The LCRI 
maintains the 2021 LCRR's requirement that lead connectors must be 
replaced when they are encountered by the water system (e.g., during 
water main replacements). The EPA disagrees, however, that the LCRI 
should require systems to locate and then replace all connectors in the 
system. Lead and GRR service lines, where present, are the most 
significant source of lead in drinking water. Incorporating a 
requirement for replacement of lead connectors into the 10-year service 
line replacement could take significant time and resources away from 
replacing lead and GRR service lines. Systems would be required to 
identify where all lead connectors are and then replace them in 
addition to the lead and GRR service lines. Furthermore, this would not 
be feasible within the 10-year replacement timeframe required for 
replacing lead and GRR service lines, and adding this requirement 
would, therefore, delay replacement of the most significant sources of 
lead exposure in drinking water. The LCRI requires that the system's 
inventory include information about lead connectors based on available 
information, but the rule does not require systems to engage in a 
proactive effort to collect additional information to locate all lead 
connectors that may be in the system. Many water systems do not have 
information on the presence or location of lead connectors in their 
distribution system, but systems conducting a service line inventory 
may find that they have records of connectors, and systems may 
encounter connectors while conducting service line replacements as well 
as conducting repairs and maintenance work. Accordingly, the LCRI 
requires water systems that do have records on the location of lead 
connectors to include them in their inventory and replace connectors 
encountered during service line replacement and other work.
    Some commenters argued that galvanized service lines downstream of 
a lead connector should be classified as requiring replacement (a 
``GRR'') under the system's mandatory service line replacement program, 
while other commenters stated that including such lines in mandatory 
replacement requirements could significantly impact a system's ability 
to complete their service line replacement program within 10 years. The 
EPA disagrees with including galvanized service lines downstream of a 
lead connector in the mandatory replacement program. In order to 
prioritize replacement of the most significant contributors of lead in 
drinking water, the final rule does not define galvanized service lines 
that are or were downstream of a lead connector as GRR service lines, 
and, thus, they are not inventoried or replaced as such (see section 
IV.O.3 of this preamble).
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final LCRI requires water systems to conduct full service line 
replacement of lead and GRR service lines regardless of their 90th 
percentile lead levels. Partial service line replacement and ``test-
outs'' at individual service lines do not count towards mandatory full

[[Page 86449]]

service line replacement. Lead connectors must be replaced where 
encountered during normal system operations and service line 
replacement unless the connector is not under the control of the 
system.
3. Service Lines Under the Control of the System
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    The EPA is authorized by SDWA to regulate PWSs to include any 
``distribution facilities under control of the operator of such system 
and used primarily in connection with such system'' (SDWA section 
1401(4)(A)). In some cases, service line ownership is shared between 
customers and PWSs; in other cases, service lines are owned in their 
entirety either by customers or by PWSs and used by PWSs to distribute 
water. Under the LCR, a water system is required to replace only the 
portion of the service line that is owned by the system and offer to 
replace the portion of the line not owned by the system. As a result, 
for the LCR, ``under control'' of the water system was interpreted as 
ownership of the service line. The LCR does not identify how ownership 
of the service line would be determined. The LCR explicitly states that 
a water system is not required to pay for replacement of the portion of 
the service line that is not owned by the system, or to conduct the 
replacement of the privately-owned portion of the service line where 
the owner chooses not to pay for replacement of the privately-owned 
portion of the line, or where replacing the privately-owned portion of 
the service line is precluded by State, local, or common law.
    Under the 2021 LCRR, water systems are required to conduct full 
LSLR, and only full LSLR counts towards a system's mandatory 
replacement rate. A system remains in compliance if it is unable to 
meet the mandatory replacement rate because a customer refuses to 
participate in the replacement program or does not respond to the 
system after two good faith efforts to reach the customer. Under the 
2021 LCRR, a system must conduct a full service line replacement 
regardless of ownership if the customer consents to the replacement of 
their portion of the line. However, the 2021 LCRR does not require a 
water system to pay for replacement of the portion of the line that is 
``customer-owned'' and not owned by the system. The cumulative effect 
of these provisions is that a water system is required to conduct full 
LSLR where the customer consents to the replacement and agrees to cover 
the cost of the replacement or the water system chooses to cover the 
full cost of the replacement.
    The proposed LCRI builds on 2021 LCRR's requirement to conduct full 
LSLR, but the proposed rule did not make any assumptions about customer 
consent or payment requirements or assume that there are no other 
potential barriers to the system's ability to access the service line 
to conduct a full replacement. Under the proposed LCRI, full 
replacement of all lead and GRR service lines is required wherever a 
system can access the service line in order to conduct a full 
replacement. The EPA does not have the authority under SDWA section 
1412 to specify whether customer consent is required for a water system 
to gain access to a service line, nor does the EPA have the authority 
under SDWA section 1412 to determine that a water system is or is not 
responsible for the cost of the service line, or how those costs should 
be allocated among rate payers, as these are matters determined by 
State or local law. In addition, the EPA recognizes that there may be 
other barriers that prevent a system from gaining access to conduct a 
full service line replacement on a case-by-case basis (e.g., threats to 
the safety of system personnel due to site characteristics). 
Accordingly, in the proposed LCRI, the EPA proposed to treat a service 
line as ``under control'' of the system wherever the system has access 
(e.g., legal access, physical access) to conduct a full service line 
replacement.
    Under the proposed LCRI, a water system's obligation to conduct 
full service line replacement extends to those service lines under 
control of the system, i.e., those service lines that the system can 
access to conduct a full service line replacement. If a system does not 
have access to conduct a full service line replacement, it is not 
required by the rule to replace the lead or GRR service line, but it 
must document the reasons that the water system does not have access 
and include any specific laws, regulations, and/or water tariff 
agreements that affect the system's ability to gain access to conduct 
full service line replacement identified in the service line 
replacement plan. The system must provide this documentation to the 
State.
    The proposal also included requirements for systems to make 
reasonable efforts (four attempts using two different communication 
methods) to obtain property owner consent where a water system has 
legal access to conduct full service line replacement only if the 
property owner consent is obtained, where the number of attempts was 
doubled relative to the 2021 LCRR requirement and the use of multiple 
communication methods was incorporated to better reach property owners 
and increase participation in service line replacement programs (USEPA, 
2021b). If the system is unable to obtain property owner consent after 
four attempts, the system is not required to replace the service line. 
However, the system would need to offer full service line replacement 
within six months of any change in property ownership and make four 
attempts to obtain property owner consent within one year of the change 
in property ownership. The EPA proposed that requirement to continue to 
apply until a water system no longer has lead, GRR, or unknown service 
lines in their inventory. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure 
that water systems give property owners an adequate notice and 
opportunity to provide any necessary consent for service line 
replacement. The EPA also proposed that any water system that was not 
able to obtain property owner consent after making a reasonable effort 
must certify to the State the number of service lines not replaced due 
to property owners not providing consent where consent is required by 
State or local law.
    The EPA did not propose to delineate the prerequisites or elements 
of ``access'' that a system would need to conduct full service line or 
connector replacement because of the wide variation of relevant State 
and local laws and water tariff agreements as well as the potential for 
these to change over time. The proposed LCRI also emphasized the many 
possible approaches water systems could use to overcome access barriers 
to conduct full service line replacement, some of which may be unique 
to the system (88 FR 84925, USEPA, 2023a).
    The proposed LCRI included several rule provisions designed to 
increase transparency and incentivize systems to find ways to overcome 
barriers to a water system's ability to gain access to conduct full 
service line replacement. First, the EPA proposed to require water 
systems to identify legal barriers (e.g., laws, ordinances, and water 
tariff agreements) to gaining access for full service line replacement 
in their service line replacement plans and make the plans publicly 
accessible, which may facilitate action by the community served to 
overcome those barriers (see section IV.C of this preamble for more 
information on the replacement plan). Second, the proposed rule 
provides a pathway for systems to defer optimizing or re-optimizing CCT 
and conducting costly and complex pipe rig/loop

[[Page 86450]]

studies by replacing all lead and GRR service lines in their 
distribution system within five years at a rate of a minimum of 20 
percent of lines per year. To take advantage of this proposed pathway, 
systems must have access to fully replace all lead and GRR service 
lines in their inventories and identify all unknown service lines 
within five years. Third, the EPA expects systems to be motivated to 
find ways to access each lead and GRR service line for replacement 
because removing these significant lead sources can reduce the system's 
90th percentile lead level, which, in turn, would decrease the 
likelihood of a lead action level exceedance and the subsequent need to 
(1) install (and maintain) or re-optimize OCCT (that could involve 
costly CCT studies), (2) replace lead-bearing plumbing or install 
point-of-use filters (for small systems that choose not to install or 
re-optimize CCT), and (3) make filters available along with additional 
public outreach if the system meets the requirements for multiple lead 
action level exceedances. With the most significant lead sources 
replaced, systems would also have a lower likelihood of measuring 
higher lead levels, which are tied to the Tier 1 public notification 
requirements after a lead action level exceedance (also referred to as 
the 24-hour public notification) and Distribution System and Site 
Assessment (DSSA) requirements. Fourth, systems without lead and GRR 
service lines that exceed the action level due to other sources of lead 
(i.e., premise plumbing) would be able to conduct less costly, complex, 
and time-consuming CCT studies, such as metal coupon tests, should they 
be required to initiate OCCT steps. Fifth, the more rigorous sampling 
of the first- and fifth-liter samples at LSL sites could also be 
avoided where systems accessed and replaced all lead and GRR service 
lines. Sixth, systems that have replaced all their lead and GRR service 
lines would have to meet fewer public education requirements. For 
example, systems without lead, GRR, or unknown service lines would not 
have to conduct the proposed notification and risk mitigation 
requirements after a service line disturbance or the annual 
notification of service line material type to consumers served by these 
lines. Seventh, public education requirements in the LCRI are designed 
to inform consumers about the adverse health effects associated with 
lead in drinking water and risk reduction measures, including full 
service line replacement, which may result in more customers providing 
access (where property owner consent is required for legal access).
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    The EPA received many comments on the provision in Sec.  
141.84(d)(2) of the proposed LCRI stating that ``[w]here a water system 
has access (e.g., legal access, physical access) to conduct full 
service line replacement, the service line is under its control, and 
the water system must replace the service line.'' On one end of the 
spectrum, several commenters stated that the EPA's interpretation of 
``control'' as access is beyond the EPA's authority under the SDWA. 
Many of these commenters argued that the EPA should not change its 
prior interpretation of ``control'' as exclusively tied to ownership. 
Some of these commenters argued that service lines, or service lines 
not owned by the system, are not covered by the definition of ``public 
water system'' in section 1401(4) of SDWA at all and are therefore 
beyond the reach of a NPDWR; several others asserted that control 
should be interpreted as ownership and without ownership, or if the 
service line is on private property, then the service line is not under 
control of the system. Several commenters raised practical and policy 
concerns associated with conducting a lead service line replacement on 
private property. On the other end of the spectrum, several commenters 
stated that the EPA's interpretation of ``control'' as access is too 
narrow and will create a loophole allowing systems to avoid conducting 
service line replacement wherever they determine that they lack access. 
These commenters argue that the EPA should structure the rule to either 
deem service lines as under control of the system (or require States to 
do so as a condition of primacy) or create a rebuttable presumption 
that service lines are under control of the system, as promulgated by 
the EPA in the 1991 LCR.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters on both ends of the spectrum. 
Commenters advocating that the EPA interpret ``public water system'' to 
include either no service lines or only service lines ``owned'' by the 
system ignore the statutory definition of ``public water system'' which 
is tied to control, not ownership. Moreover, these comments fail to 
comport with both SDWA's mandate in section 1412(b)(7)(A) for the EPA 
to identify treatment technique requirements that prevent known or 
anticipated adverse effects to the health of persons to the extent 
feasible and SDWA's requirement in section 1412(b)(9) for any revision 
of an existing NPDWR to maintain, or provide for greater protection of 
the health of persons. Full lead service line replacement prevents 
known or anticipated adverse effects to the health of persons and it is 
feasible even where water systems do not own any portion of the service 
line. Partial service line replacement does not prevent known or 
anticipated adverse effects to the health of persons, and may result in 
continued exposure and short-term increased levels of lead in drinking 
water. For those reasons, the EPA promulgated the 2021 LCRR to require 
water systems to conduct full service line replacements even if they do 
not own the service line, as long as the customer provides consent and 
to ensure that partial replacements would not be conducted as a result 
of a NPDWR. The LCRI similarly requires full service line replacement 
even when the system does not own the service line and it does not 
require or allow partial service line replacement to meet the 
replacement requirement of the rule and in doing so, the EPA is 
consistent with the statutory definition of ``public water system'' and 
meets the requirements in section 1412(b)(7)(A) and 1412(b)(9). None of 
the commenters that advocate for the EPA to limit the service line 
replacement requirements to portions of the service line owned by the 
system, or give credit for partial replacements, explain how such a 
rule would be consistent with section 1412(b)(7)(A) and 1412(b)(9).
    The term ``public water system'' is defined in SDWA section 1401(4) 
as ``a system for the provision to the public of water for human 
consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such 
system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at 
least twenty-five individuals. Such term includes (i) any collection, 
treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under control of the 
operator of such system and used primarily in connection with such 
system, and (ii) any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not 
under such control which are used primarily in connection with such 
system.''
    The plain language of the first sentence of this definition 
includes service lines because they are ``pipes'' used for the 
``provision of water to the public'' through ``service connections'' 
that ``serve . . . individuals.'' The second sentence explains further 
that the definition includes ``distribution facilities under control of 
the operator of such system'' (emphasis added). Service lines are used 
to distribute water to consumers and as such, are part of the system's 
``distribution facilities.'' Therefore, the EPA does not agree with 
commenters that state that service lines

[[Page 86451]]

are not part of the definition of ``public water system'' and thus 
outside of EPA jurisdiction because they are not covered by either the 
first or second sentence. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent 
with the statutory text and the EPA's longstanding implementation of 
the statutory definition of ``public water system.'' Service lines are 
pipes through which drinking water flows to the customer as part of 
distribution facilities under control of the operator. Service lines 
are directly connected to the water mains that are directly connected 
to the treatment facility or storage facilities. These are all 
interconnected to convey drinking water to the building for consumption 
and the flow of drinking water through these pipes is controlled by the 
water system.
    Moreover, there is nothing in the definition that suggests the 
distribution facility must be owned by the public water system or any 
basis to read that requirement into the phrase ``under control of the 
operator of such system.'' Public water system operators may not be the 
same entity that ``owns'' the system of pipes, service connections, 
collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facilities. Therefore, 
the question is not whether the public water system ``owns'' the 
service line, but whether it is ``under control of the operator of the 
system.''
    In addition, the interpretation of the ``control'' within the 
definition of ``public water system'' to mean ``access'' is consistent 
with the dictionary definitions of the terms ``control'' and ``under 
control''. As a verb, ``control'' means ``to exercise restraining or 
directing influence over'' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved 
August 27, 2024, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control#dictionary-entry-1). As a noun, ``control'' means ``an act or 
instance of controlling'' and also ``power or authority to guide or 
manage'' (Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved August 27, 2024, from 
(n) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/control). The phrase 
``under control'' is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as 
``subject to a restraining or controlling influence, esp. so as not to 
cause damage or harm; (of a situation) so as to be managed competently 
or dealt with successfully.'' Oxford University Press (2024, March). 
``under control'' in control (n). Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved 
August 27, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/6427628422. The 
interpretation of service lines as ``under control'' of a water system 
whenever the system has ``access (e.g., legal access, physical access) 
to conduct full service line replacement'' is consistent with these 
definitions. If the water system can, as a factual matter, gain access 
over the service line to disconnect it from use and replace it with a 
new line, then the water system is directing influence over the line 
and exercises power or authority to manage it and it is subject to a 
restraining or controlling influence of the system--i.e., ``under 
control'' of the system.
    At the same time, the EPA does not have the authority to assert in 
an NPDWR that a water system has ``control'' of any particular part of 
the system's distribution facilities, such as all service lines. 
Commenters that advocate for a rule that ``deems'' all service lines as 
under control of the system (or requires states to do so as a condition 
of primacy) disregard the limits on the EPA's authority to establish a 
``primary drinking water regulation'' that ``applies to public water 
systems'' (SDWA 1401(1)(A)) and establish requirements under section 
1413 of SDWA for ``primary enforcement responsibility for public water 
systems.'' The EPA cannot ignore the definition of ``public water 
system'' in section 1401(4) of SDWA, which, as explained above, applies 
only to the extent the operator has ``control'' of the system. The EPA 
cannot simply declare--contrary to the record (LSLR Collaborative, 
n.d.b) (see comment IDs EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-0845 and EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801-1328 in the LCRI docket EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801 for example)--that all 
service lines are ``under control'' of a water system for purposes of 
replacement. Instead, whether a service line is under the control of 
the water system will depend on: (1) The relevant laws that authorize 
and/or condition a water system's ability to exert control over the 
line in order to replace it and (2) whether, as a factual matter, a 
water system can gain physical access to the service line in order to 
conduct a full replacement. Accordingly, as noted above, the rule does 
not make any assumptions about customer consent or payment requirements 
or assume that there are no other potential barriers to the system's 
ability to access the service line to conduct a full replacement. 
Instead, under the LCRI, full replacement of all lead and GRR service 
lines is required wherever a system can access the service line in 
order to conduct a full replacement and not where a system does not 
have access to conduct full service line replacement. See Sec.  
141.84(d)(2).
    Accordingly, the EPA rejects the approaches advocated by commenters 
on both ends of the spectrum that would require the EPA to go beyond 
the plain language of the statute to use a narrower or broader 
definition of ``public water system'' to reduce or expand a water 
system's responsibility for replacing lead service lines. In the final 
rule, the EPA is requiring full lead service line only ``[w]here a 
water system has access (e.g., legal access, physical access) to 
conduct full service line replacement'' to meet the mandates of section 
1412(b)(7)(A) and 1412(b)(9) while staying within the bounds of the 
EPA's authority under SDWA to regulate ``public water systems'' as 
defined in section 1401(4).
    Some commenters agreed with the EPA's interpretation of control to 
mean access. Other commenters agreed with the EPA's proposed approach, 
but they described it as vague and subject to different 
interpretations. Commenters recommended that the EPA include specific 
criteria to specify when a water system has access to prevent systems 
from defining access too narrowly in attempts to avoid mandatory 
service line replacement. Another commenter provided an example of 
specific access criteria: (1) whether the system can safely enter the 
property, (2) whether the system can safely conduct the replacement, 
and (3) whether the system has obtained the property owner's consent, 
if consent is required for access. The EPA agrees that these criteria 
are reasonable and appropriate for a system to consider in evaluating 
whether it has the requisite access. In fact, physical access is 
explicitly referenced in the regulatory text: ``Where a water system 
has access (e.g., legal access, physical access) to conduct full 
service line replacement, the service line is under its control.'' 
However, the EPA disagrees that the final rule should include mandated 
criteria applicable to all water systems because a water system's 
ability to obtain access to a service line to conduct a full service 
line replacement is governed by State law, local law, and/or water 
tariff agreements and may include requirements for customer cost 
sharing for to conduct the replacement. Thus, systems should have some 
flexibility to accommodate specific circumstances affecting access that 
this rule may not be able to predict. More prescriptive criteria for 
determining where a service line is under the control of a system than 
``access to conduct full service line replacement'' might be overly 
broad and, therefore, beyond the EPA's authority to regulate, or the 
criteria may be too narrow and, therefore, not adequately protective of 
public health to meet the requirement of SDWA section

[[Page 86452]]

1412(b)(7)(A) to prevent known or anticipated adverse health effects of 
persons to the extent feasible.
    Some commenters were concerned that defining control as where 
systems have access could result in water systems leaving LSLs 
unreplaced by claiming a lack of access to any portions of LSLs, such 
as those on private property. The final rule is structured to mitigate 
this concern. The rule requires replacement of all lead and GRR service 
lines under the control of the water system. Where a water system has 
access to conduct full service line replacement, the service line is 
under its control, even if it is located on private property, and the 
water system must replace the service line. For service lines in which 
the water system does not have access to conduct a replacement, the 
water system must document the reason for lack of access and provide 
this documentation to the State. Submitting documentation to the State 
explaining why the water system does not have access to a service line 
provides the information needed for oversight of this rule requirement 
and allows States to ensure water systems are replacing lines in which 
they have access.
    Where the system has access to conduct full replacement only if 
property owner consent is obtained, the system must make a reasonable 
effort to obtain consent through at least four outreach attempts using 
two different methods of communication. The EPA expects this outreach 
will support communication between property owners and the water system 
to improve access. In addition, the EPA is finalizing requirements in 
the LCRI that provide incentives for systems to overcome barriers to 
access or may increase a water system's ability to gain access to 
conduct full service line replacement, such as deferring an OCCT study 
to replace all lead and GRR service line in the distribution system and 
identifying legal barriers in laws, ordinances, or water tariff 
agreements to service line access in the replacement plan. (See section 
IV.B.3.a of this preamble). The EPA provided several examples in the 
proposal on a range of strategies that systems, municipalities, and 
States have used to overcome both financial and non-financial barriers 
to full service line replacement in the proposed LCRI, even where laws 
require customers to provide consent or payment to replace their 
portion of the service line (88 FR 84926, USEPA 2023a). Example 
strategies are also discussed later in this section. Additionally, 
funding and non-regulatory actions can increase water system access to 
service lines for full replacement (see section III.G of this 
preamble).
    Where water systems are unable to gain access to conduct a full 
service line replacement, water systems are not in violation of the 
treatment technique if they fail to replace these service lines by 
their replacement deadline because they are not under the control of 
the system. Water systems must continue to publish the addresses of 
those service lines in the publicly accessible inventory, deliver 
annual notification of service line material to the consumer, and make 
a reasonable effort to gain access of the service line for full service 
line replacement when the property changes ownership.
    Some commenters recommended that the EPA interpret ``under control 
of'' the water system as including only those service lines that are 
owned by the system, as the EPA did in the 2000 LCR Minor Revisions 
(USEPA, 2000a). The EPA disagrees with these commenters. The EPA 
interprets the phrase ``under control of'' as distinct from 
``ownership'' in SDWA. The term ``control'' is not defined in SDWA, and 
use of the phrase ``under control of'' instead of the more commonly 
used phrase ``owned by'' suggested that Congress had a different 
concept in mind. Moreover, the EPA has never concluded that SDWA 
mandates an interpretation of ``control'' to mean ownership 
exclusively. In the 1996 proposal to revise the 1991 LCR, the EPA 
considered two different interpretations of ``control'', one 
interpretation that would require replacement of the system-owned 
portion of the service line along with an offer to replace the 
customer-owned portion at the customer's expense, and another 
interpretation that would require replacement of the system-owned 
portion of the service line as well as any additional portions the 
system has the authority to replace. In the final LCR published in 
2000, the EPA expressed concern that the broader definition of control 
``could result in unintended delays and other complications'' and, 
therefore, the ``EPA believe[d] it [was] appropriate to equate 
`control' with `ownership' to eliminate potential legal confusion and 
delays in implementing the Rule'' (65 FR 1950, 1962, USEPA, 2000a).
    As discussed in the LCRI proposal, since the 2000 LCR rulemaking, 
there are many examples of water systems that have carried out 
successful service line replacement programs to fully replace LSLs 
regardless of ownership status. There are several documented examples 
of systems that have completed or made substantial progress conducting 
full replacement of service lines not entirely owned by the system, 
including Denver, CO, Flint, MI, Trenton, NJ, York, PA, and projects in 
multiple communities through the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority 
(USEPA, 2024d). Additionally, the proposed LCRI includes several 
examples of communities that changed local ordinances to facilitate 
full replacement in areas where service lines are not entirely owned by 
the system (88 FR 84926, USEPA, 2023a). Additionally, States have 
passed laws to facilitate full service line replacement. For example, 
Pennsylvania passed laws to allow rate funds to be used to replace LSLs 
on private property that did not change ownership of the service line 
or impose any other duties following system funding or replacement of 
the service line, unless determined to be necessary by the system 
(Pennsylvania General Assembly, 2017). The proposed LCRI also describes 
the two laws New Jersey passed to facilitate full service line 
replacement both financially and with respect to private property 
access. The laws grant municipalities the authority to adopt an 
ordinance that allows water systems to enter private property to 
conduct LSLR (Ruiz, 2019) and authorizes them to replace LSLs on 
private property if the work is an environmental infrastructure project 
and funded either by loans from the New Jersey Infrastructure Bank or 
by loans issued through the New Jersey Department of Environmental 
Protection (State of New Jersey, 2020). Since the proposed LCRI was 
published, an Indiana law requires water utilities to work with the 
owners of buildings, structures, or dwellings with LSLs to replace 
their portions of the service line upon request by the water utility 
(Indiana General Assembly, 2024). If the owner refuses or does not 
respond, the utility or the utility's agent may enter the property to 
replace the customer's portion of the LSL without the owner's 
permission or to disconnect water service to the property if prevented 
by the owner. Under the law, the non-owner occupant of a property can 
grant physical access for service line replacement, where the utility 
and occupant are ``held harmless'' by and not liable to the property 
owner with respect to the entry or replacement (Indiana General 
Assembly, 2024). These State laws do not change ownership of the 
service line but show that water systems can obtain access to conduct 
full service line replacement without owning the line.

[[Page 86453]]

    Some commenters recommended that the EPA explicitly state in the 
rule that water systems control all service lines based on an 
assumption that without that assertion, LSLs will remain in use around 
the country. The EPA does not have the authority to assert in an NPDWR 
that a water system has control of any particular part of the system's 
distribution facilities, such as all service lines. The examples 
provided in the previous paragraph from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and 
Indiana highlight ways States and local governments can change laws or 
ordinances to facilitate water system access to conduct full service 
line replacement. In addition, the EPA is finalizing several rule 
requirements and flexibilities that may lead to an increase a water 
system's access to conduct full service line replacement (see section 
IV.B.3.a of this preamble).
    Finally, the significant Federal funding sources, such as the $15 
billion from the BIL, can help increase water system access to conduct 
full service line replacement. For example, property owners may be more 
likely to agree to replace their portion if the cost is subsidized or 
offered at no cost. (See section III.G of this preamble on funding for 
service line replacement.) Additionally, the final rule's public 
education requirements may increase customer access where property 
owner consent is legally required to obtain access to conduct a full 
service line replacement. (See sections IV.B.3.a and IV.J.2.a of this 
preamble and ``Public Education and Engagement'' in the proposed LCRI 
preamble (88 FR 84921, USEPA, 2023a) for more information and examples 
of systems that have increased customer participation in service line 
replacement programs through their public education.)
c. Final Rule Requirements
    In the final rule, where a water system has access (e.g., legal 
access, physical access) to conduct full lead or GRR service line 
replacement, the service line is under its control, and the system must 
replace the service line. Where a water system does not have access to 
conduct full service line replacement, the water system is not required 
by this rule to replace the line, but the water system must document 
the reasons why the water system does not have access. The EPA is not 
including specific provisions to delineate where a system has access to 
conduct a full replacement. Annually, the system must submit to the 
State documentation of the reasons for each line that is not replaced 
due to lack of access. Along with other information listed in Sec.  
141.90(e)(8), the system must annually submit to the State the total 
number of lead and GRR service lines that are not replaced because the 
system does not have access to conduct full replacement. The water 
system must identify any laws, regulations, and/or water tariff 
agreements that affect the water system's ability to gain access to 
conduct full lead and GRR service line replacement, including the 
citation to the specific laws, regulations, or water tariff agreement 
provisions and include them in their service line replacement plan as 
well as the publicly accessible version of the plan.
    The final LCRI requires that where a water system has access to 
conduct a full service line replacement only if property owner consent 
is obtained, the water system must make a ``reasonable effort'' to 
obtain property owner consent. A reasonable effort must include at 
least four attempts to engage the property owner using at least two 
different methods of communication (e.g., in-person conversation, phone 
call, text message, email, written letter, postcard, or information 
left at the door such as a door hanger) before the applicable deadline 
of mandatory service line replacement. The State may require systems to 
conduct additional attempts and may require specific outreach methods 
to be used. Within six months of any change in ownership of the 
property, the water system must offer full service line replacement to 
any new property owner. Within one year of any change in ownership of 
the property, the system must make a ``reasonable effort'' to obtain 
the property owner's consent. The EPA expects that changes in property 
ownership have likely occurred when water service is initiated or 
service is transferred such as when there is a customer name or an 
account change on a water billing account. If the water system is 
unable to obtain consent from the current property owner after making a 
``reasonable effort'' to obtain it, the water system is not required 
under the LCRI to replace the line. This requirement applies to systems 
until all lead and GRR service lines are replaced in the distribution 
system. Annually, the system must submit to the State documentation of 
each reasonable effort conducted where the system was not able to 
obtain property owner consent where consent is required by State or 
local law. The submission for each documented reasonable effort is 
required by the January 30 after the system has completed all four (or 
more, if required) attempts to engage the property owner as described 
in Sec.  141.84(d)(3)(i) and, if applicable, the January 30 after the 
specified timeframe (e.g., within one year of any change in property 
ownership).
4. Payment for Full Service Line Replacement
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    As noted above, the 1991 LCR and 2021 LCRR include statements 
affirming that, while water systems must offer to replace the 
customer's portion of a service line, systems are not required to bear 
the cost of replacement of the portion of the LSL not owned by the 
water system. For the LCRI proposal, the EPA removed these statements 
from the regulation, recognizing that how a water system covers the 
costs of compliance with an NPDWR cannot be Federally mandated by the 
EPA in an NPDWR under SDWA. The EPA does not have statutory authority 
to allocate payment; rather, State and local governments regulate how 
water systems provide and charge for services to their customers. 
Consistent with this approach, the proposed rule did not include a 
prohibition on cost sharing for full service line replacement. While 
the EPA strongly encourages systems to offer full service line 
replacement at no cost to the customer, a prohibition on cost sharing 
in the rule is outside the EPA's authority and would result in a 
lengthy legal challenge creating uncertainty that would delay 
implementation of the rule and further delay service line replacement.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters recommended that the EPA require water systems to 
pay for full service line replacement or to prohibit cost sharing, 
highlighting potential environmental justice concerns for customers who 
are unable to afford to replace their portion of the service line. The 
EPA strongly encourages water systems to offer full service line 
replacement at no cost to the customer; SDWA does not provide authority 
for the agency to direct how a water system covers the costs of 
compliance with an NPDWR and the EPA has not used its section 1412 
authority under SDWA to do so. This is a matter of State and local law, 
as the State and local governments regulate how water systems provide 
and charge for services to their customers. The EPA remains concerned, 
as it did in the proposal, that any attempt to use an NPDWR to assert 
Federal authority over how water systems charge for their services 
would be met with a protracted

[[Page 86454]]

legal challenge that would delay implementation of the rule and further 
delay service line replacement. Thus, the final rule does not prohibit 
cost sharing or mandate how water systems must pay for customer-side 
service line replacements.
    The EPA strongly encourages customer-side service line replacement 
to be offered at no direct cost to the customer wherever possible. 
Subsidizing customer-side service line replacement in whole or in part 
may result in higher overall participation in the replacement program 
and potentially reduce disparities created where service line 
replacement is less accessible to lower-income individuals (Baehler et 
al., 2022; Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), 2020). The EPA highlights 
the significant Federal funding available that can facilitate full 
service line replacement (see section III.G of this preamble).
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule eliminates regulatory text stating that water 
systems are not required to bear the cost of replacement of the portion 
of the service line that they do not own. The EPA strongly encourages 
water system to offer full service line replacement at no direct cost 
to the customer wherever possible, but this is not a requirement of the 
LCRI. The final LCRI remains neutral on how water systems provide and 
charge for services to their customers.
5. Partial Service Line Replacement
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    Research shows that partial service line replacement does not 
reliably reduce lead levels in drinking water and can sometimes 
temporarily increase these levels (Deshommes et al., 2017; USEPA, 
2011a). For the LCRI, the EPA proposed prohibiting partial service line 
replacements unless conducted in coordination with emergency repair or 
planned infrastructure projects that affect the service line. Planned 
infrastructure work could include water infrastructure or capital 
improvement projects that do not solely replace lead and GRR service 
lines as part of a service line replacement program. Examples include, 
but are not limited to, water main replacement, meter replacement, and 
transportation-related construction projects. The proposed prohibition 
was intended to ``ensure that the rule itself does not cause additional 
partial replacements to be conducted solely for the purpose of LSL or 
GRR service line replacement'' (88 FR 84918, USEPA, 2023a), which could 
cause negative public health outcomes. While partial service line 
replacement has the potential to temporarily increase lead levels in 
drinking water, an outright ban on the practice could be infeasible 
(USEPA, 2020e). For example, water systems conducting emergency main 
replacement may require the removal of at least a portion of the LSL 
due to the alignment or spacing requirements to connect the new main 
with existing service lines (USEPA, 2020e; USEPA, 2023i). Additionally, 
in the case of some emergency repairs, a partial replacement may be 
necessary to ensure prompt restoration of water service to the 
consumer. Water service is critical to public health as it provides 
water for drinking, cooking, and sanitation. Water systems that conduct 
full service line replacement in coordination with planned 
infrastructure work may realize public health benefits, efficiencies, 
and cost savings; however, the agency recognizes that there may be 
barriers to a system's access to service lines on private property. In 
the proposed rule, the EPA sought comment on this approach to limiting, 
but not prohibiting all partial service line replacements, and whether 
the exclusion should be limited to only certain types of infrastructure 
work.
    Lead and GRR service lines are likely to undergo significant 
disturbance as a result of planned infrastructure work or emergency 
repairs, thereby increasing the risk from all lead sources that remain 
following the emergency repair or infrastructure work. To address the 
increased risk from this disturbance, the EPA proposed to retain the 
2021 LCRR notification and risk mitigation requirements for partial 
service line replacement, including requirements for the system to 
notify the consumer of the risks of the partial replacement and actions 
they may take to minimize lead exposure, provide a pitcher filter or 
point-of-use device certified to reduce lead in drinking water and six 
months' worth of replacement cartridges, provide flushing instructions, 
and offer to take a tap sample between three and six months following 
the completion of the partial replacement. The LCRI also proposed to 
require water systems conducting a partial replacement to install a 
dielectric coupling separating the remaining portion of the service 
line and the new portion of the service line, unless the new portion is 
made of plastic. A dielectric coupling between the replaced line and 
the partial lead or GRR service line reduces the risks of galvanic 
corrosion between lead and other metallic pipes that causes lead 
release as documented in previous lab-scale studies (DeSantis et al., 
2018; Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2011; Wang et al., 2012). Multiple 
laboratory experiments using harvested pipes showed substantial 
decreases in lead release when the electric connection is broken or 
dielectric couplings are inserted (Clark et al., 2013; St. Clair et 
al., 2016; Wang et al., 2013), demonstrating the value of requiring the 
insertion of such couplings. This is consistent with the EPA's Science 
Advisory Board (SAB) 2011 report that ``[i]nsertion of a lead-free 
dielectric eliminates galvanic corrosion at the new pipe junction by 
breaking the electrical circuit between the new and old pipes,'' 
concluding that ``insertion of a dielectric will likely reduce lead 
levels in tap water''; although, the SAB also noted that ``it cannot 
confidently estimate the magnitude of the reductions because the 
contribution of galvanic corrosion and depositional corrosion to 
drinking water lead levels has not been quantified'' (USEPA, 2011a).
    The EPA proposed in the LCRI to retain the 2021 LCRR requirements 
that apply to a water system when a customer initiates a partial 
replacement of an LSL. If the water system is notified that a customer 
intends to conduct a partial lead or GRR service line replacement, the 
system must replace the remaining portion of the line within 45 days 
(or notify the State within 30 days to complete the replacement no 
later than 180 days) of the date the customer conducted the partial 
replacement and provide notification and risk mitigation measures. The 
EPA also proposed in the LCRI to retain the 2021 LCRR requirement that, 
if the system is notified or otherwise learns of a customer-initiated 
replacement that has occurred within the previous 6 months, the system 
must replace any remaining portion of the affected service line within 
45 days of becoming aware of the replacement and provide notification 
and risk mitigation measures.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters agreed with the proposed approach of banning 
partial service line replacement unless conducted as part of an 
emergency repair or in coordination with planned infrastructure work, 
stating that partial replacement may be necessary in some emergency 
scenarios and in coordination with planned infrastructure work; for 
example, if a disturbance to the service line is unavoidable and the 
water system cannot gain access to conduct a full lead

[[Page 86455]]

service line replacement (e.g., a customer refuses to allow replacement 
of the customer-owned portion of the service line). Other commenters 
thought partial replacements should be banned in all situations, 
including as part of an emergency repair, or that they should be banned 
in all situations except as part of an emergency repair. These 
commenters highlighted the potential for partial replacements to result 
in temporarily elevated lead levels in drinking water and potential 
disproportionate impacts to customers who cannot afford to replace 
their portion of the service line.
    While partial replacements can cause lead levels to temporarily 
increase, the EPA shares commenters' concerns about potentially 
disproportionate impacts to customers who cannot afford to replace 
their portion of the service line where water systems require customer 
cost sharing. The final rule does not prohibit all types of partial 
replacements because the EPA is concerned that an outright ban on 
partial service line replacement is infeasible. For example, water main 
replacement may require the removal of at least a portion of the LSL 
due to the alignment or spacing requirements to connect the new main to 
existing service lines (USEPA, 2020e; USEPA, 2023i), and maintaining 
water service is critical to public health as it provides water for 
drinking, cooking, and sanitation. The EPA recognizes there are 
situations following planned infrastructure work or emergency repair in 
which full service line replacement is not possible, such as when the 
water system is prohibited by law from replacing all or a portion of 
the service line without customer consent and the customer has not 
provided consent. While the final LCRI does not further limit the 
circumstances when partials may occur following emergency repair or 
planned infrastructure work (other than to exclude service line 
replacement projects from planned infrastructure work), the EPA has 
clarified in the final rule where a water system has access to conduct 
full service line replacement, the system must fully replace the 
service line. The EPA has also clarified in the final LCRI for 
protocols for planned partial service line replacement (i.e., planned 
infrastructure work that impacts service lines) that where a system has 
access to conduct full service line replacement only if property owner 
consent is obtained, the water system must make a ``reasonable effort'' 
to obtain property owner consent. The EPA strongly encourages water 
systems to create plans, such as by developing standard operating 
procedures, for planned infrastructure work, emergency repair, and 
planning for contingency costs should lead service lines be discovered.
    Instead of prohibiting the water system from conducting a partial 
replacement in planned infrastructure work or emergency repair, the 
final rule requires the water system to take risk mitigation measures 
to minimize the risk of lead exposure in drinking water to the persons 
served by the affected service line, including providing public 
education, a filter and replacement cartridges certified to reduce lead 
in drinking water, and an offer to take a follow-up tap sample after 
replacement. In addition to these mitigation measures, the final rule 
requirements for the service line inventory, replacement plan, and 
public education as well as the EPA-administered financial assistance 
for full LSLR are aimed at reducing the likelihood that water systems 
will need to conduct partial service line replacements as part of an 
emergency repair or in coordination with planned infrastructure work. A 
discussion of the requirements and support to facilitate systems 
gaining access to conduct full service line replacement is included in 
section IV.B.3 of this preamble.
    The EPA notes that full service line replacement is also a goal of 
the DWSRF. While full LSLR is the desired outcome of all DWSRF 
assistance for LSLR, the logistics involved with coordinating LSLR with 
planned infrastructure projects may dictate that partial replacement of 
a service line is necessary if disturbance to the service line is 
unavoidable and the water system cannot gain access to conduct a full 
lead service line replacement (e.g., a customer refuses to allow 
replacement of the customer-owned portion of the service line). For the 
purposes of oversight and confirming eligibility, State programs must 
require borrowers to document customer refusals, which could consist of 
any of the following: a refusal signed by the customer, documentation 
of a verbal statement refusing replacement, or documentation of no 
response after multiple attempts to reach the customer regarding full 
LSLR. State programs are required to report this information to the EPA 
(USEPA, 2024i).
    A partial LSLR may only be funded by the DWSRF where the water 
system shows all of the following: that the partial LSLR is done in 
conjunction with planned infrastructure work, that disturbance to that 
service line is unavoidable because of the planned infrastructure work, 
and that the water system has documented customer refusal showing it 
cannot gain access to that property to conduct a full LSLR following 
multiple attempts (USEPA, 2024i).
    Some commenters also recommended that the EPA not prohibit partial 
service line replacement under any circumstances and highlighted the 
effectiveness of public education and risk mitigation measures to 
reduce exposure following the elevated lead levels that can result from 
a partial replacement. The EPA does not agree that partial service line 
replacement should be permitted under all circumstances. The 
prohibition in the final rule ensures that water systems do not conduct 
any partial replacements that would occur outside of an emergency 
repair or coordination with planned infrastructure work that impacts 
service lines and that is not solely service line replacement. Partial 
replacement has not been shown to reliably reduce lead levels and is 
known to temporarily increase them. In some cases, increases in lead 
levels could extend over longer timeframes (Dore et. al, 2019). 
Although the final rule requires water systems to provide information 
and filters to consumers to reduce their risk to lead exposure where 
partial replacements are unavoidable, these requirements are short-term 
measures, and the EPA emphasizes the importance of its prohibition of 
partial replacements except in certain circumstances. The EPA considers 
avoiding the short-term increases in lead levels caused by partial 
replacements preferable to conducting risk mitigation measures to 
reduce lead levels after a partial replacement. Lead exposures continue 
to remain when partial replacements occur. In addition, risk mitigation 
measures such as filters or flushing protocols may not always be 
utilized by or correctly implemented by consumers. For example, 
existing flushing procedures that call for 30 minutes of flushing at 
every tap in the home, to be repeated every two weeks, (i.e., AWWA, 
2017) may be challenging to follow, time intensive, and expensive for 
some consumers.
    Some commenters were concerned that the requirement for water 
systems to replace the remaining portion of a service line when a 
customer initiates replacement of their private side service line could 
worsen environmental justice impacts by allowing customers who can pay 
for their replacement to ``jump the line'' as opposed to those who 
cannot afford to conduct their own private-side replacement. While the 
EPA appreciates these environmental justice concerns, the increases in 
lead levels following a customer-initiated partial lead or GRR

[[Page 86456]]

service line replacement could pose an increased risk of adverse health 
effects, and this risk will be highest immediately following the 
replacement. Thus, replacing the system's portion of the affected 
service line and providing notification and risk mitigation measures as 
required is necessary to prevent adverse health effects to the extent 
feasible.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final LCRI defines partial service line replacement as the 
replacement of any portion of a lead or GRR service line that leaves in 
service any length of lead or GRR service line upon completion of the 
work. The final rule prohibits water systems from conducting partial 
service line replacement, except when the replacement is conducted as 
part of an emergency repair or in coordination with planned 
infrastructure work that impacts service lines (excluding planned 
infrastructure work solely for the purposes of lead or GRR service line 
replacement). The final rule clarifies that where a water system has 
access to conduct full service line replacement the water system must 
fully replace the service line. Where a water system conducts a partial 
lead or GRR service line replacement, the system must install a 
dielectric coupling separating the remaining service line and the newly 
installed service line, unless the newly installed service line is made 
of plastic. Where a water system conducts partial service line 
replacement, the final rule requires the system to comply with the 
notification and risk mitigation requirements.
    Where a partial replacement is to be conducted in coordination with 
planned infrastructure work that impacts service lines, the system must 
notify the property owner, or the owner's authorized agent, as well as 
non-owner occupant(s) served by the affected service line at least 45 
days prior to the replacement and offer the opportunity to fully 
replace the service line. Before the affected service line is returned 
to service, the water system must provide the consumer with the 
following: written notification that explains that the consumer may 
experience a temporary increase of lead levels in their drinking water 
due to the replacement; contact information for the water system; 
written information about a procedure for the consumer to flush service 
lines and premise plumbing of particulate lead following the partial 
replacement; and a pitcher filter or point-of-use device that is 
certified by an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited 
certifier to reduce lead along with six months' worth of replacement 
cartridges. The final rule clarifies that where a water system has 
access to conduct full service line replacement only if property owner 
consent is obtained, the water system must make a ``reasonable effort'' 
to obtain property owner consent to replace the remaining portion of 
the service line. The reasonable effort must be completed before the 
partial lead service line replacement.
    Where partial service line replacement is conducted due to an 
emergency repair, systems must provide the same notification and risk 
mitigation measures to consumers as when conducting a planned partial 
replacement before the line is returned to service; however, the system 
must offer to replace the remaining portion of the service line created 
by the emergency repair within 45 days.
    Where the customer intends to replace their portion of a lead or 
GRR service line, the final rule requires that water systems replace 
their remaining portion of the service line at the same time as, or as 
soon as practicable after, but no later than 45 days from the date the 
customer conducted their partial replacement and provide notification 
and risk mitigation measures. The water system must notify the State 
within 30 days to complete the replacement no later than 180 days from 
the date the customer conducted their partial replacement. Where the 
water system is notified or otherwise learns that a customer-initiated 
replacement occurred within the previous six months, the system must 
replace any remaining portion of the service line within 45 days from 
the day of becoming aware of the customer-initiated replacement as well 
as provide notification and risk mitigation measures within 24 hours of 
becoming aware of the customer-initiated replacement. Where the water 
system is notified or otherwise learns of a customer-initiated 
replacement that occurred more than six months in the past, the LCRI 
does not require the system to replace the remaining portion of the 
service line within a certain number of days. Instead, the remaining 
portion of the lead or GRR service line must be identified in the 
system's inventory and replaced as part of mandatory service line 
replacement. For any replacement prompted by a customer-initiated 
replacement, the final rule requires notification and risk mitigation 
measures be provided to the persons served by the affected service 
line.
    In the final LCRI, partial service line replacement does not count 
towards mandatory full service line replacement. On an annual basis, 
water systems must report to the State the number of partial lead and 
GRR service line replacements that have been conducted in the preceding 
program year and the address associated with each partial replacement 
(Sec.  141.90(e)(8)(iii)). Water systems must also annually update that 
number in their inventories. Public education to notify customers of 
their service line material must continue annually until the entire 
lead or GRR service line is replaced. Within six months of any change 
in ownership of the property, the system must first reach out to the 
new owner with an offer to replace the remaining lead or GRR portion of 
the service line. Systems may use new service initiation or service 
transfer to a new customer to identify when there is a change in 
ownership. Within one year of any change in ownership of the property, 
the system must make a reasonable effort to obtain the property owner's 
consent to conduct full service line replacement. If the new property 
owner declines the replacement, the water system must continue to 
provide annual notification of their service line material until the 
entire lead or GRR service line is replaced.
    The final rule requires the provision of filters following partial 
service line replacement to mitigate potential increases in lead 
release to drinking water. These requirements are intended to further 
protect public health in the event of increased lead release following 
a disruption of the scale caused by these events.
6. Time Frame for Full Service Line Replacement
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    Under the LCR, systems must conduct LSLR after the system exceeds 
the lead action level at a rate of seven percent per year, 
corresponding to a 15-year deadline to replace all LSLs. However, the 
rule allowed systems to use partial LSLR and sampling (``test-outs'') 
for individual service lines to count toward the replacement rate. 
Under the 2021 LCRR, systems must replace the entire service line at a 
rate of three percent per year if they exceed the lead action level, 
corresponding to an approximately 33-year deadline to replace all lead 
and GRR service lines. The 2021 LCRR does not allow partial replacement 
and ``test-outs'' to count towards the replacement rate.
    For the proposed LCRI, the EPA proposed a 10-year deadline for 
water systems to replace all lead and GRR service lines under their 
control. In

[[Page 86457]]

recognition of the wide variation among systems with respect to the 
number and proportion of lead and GRR service lines in their 
distribution systems, the proposed LCRI included two provisions to 
adjust the time frame for LSLR. To ensure that the rule meets the 
statutory standard for a treatment technique rule to ``prevent known or 
anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent 
feasible,'' the EPA proposed to retain the requirement that the State 
establish a shortened deadline if the State determines it is feasible 
for a water system (e.g., by considering the number of lead and GRR 
service lines in a system's inventory) (see section IV.B.7 of this 
preamble). To ensure that the rule's service line replacement deadline 
is not infeasible for systems with a large number or proportion of lead 
and GRR service lines, the EPA proposed provisions for systems to apply 
for a deferred deadline (see section IV.B.8 of this preamble).
    For the proposed LCRI, the EPA utilized new evidence available 
after the promulgation of the 2021 LCRR to determine the feasibility of 
conducting full service line replacement by a set deadline. During the 
development of the 2021 LCRR, there was a lack of data regarding the 
number of lead and GRR service lines in systems as well as very few 
broad service line replacement mandates in large geographic regions, or 
State laws requiring such. The EPA was only aware of a limited number 
of systems that had or were proactively conducting service line 
replacement. For the proposed LCRI, however, new and higher quality 
evidence and data were available to more accurately assess the 
feasibility of requiring full service line replacement by a set 
deadline. Many systems have documented the voluntary completion of both 
service line inventories and full service line replacement programs 
(USEPA, 2023a; USEPA, 2023k). In addition, four State (Illinois, 
Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) service line replacement laws 
suggest that States expect broad, mandatory service line replacement by 
a set deadline to be ``technically possible'' given the thousands of 
systems required to conduct service line replacement simultaneously 
within and across these States. Specifically, Michigan requires 
replacement of all lead and galvanized previously downstream of LSLs 
starting in 2021, to be completed by 2041. Illinois requires 
replacement of all LSLs starting in 2027, with the timeline determined 
by the number of lead and galvanized lines (if the galvanized lines are 
downstream of lead). Both New Jersey and Rhode Island require all LSLs 
and galvanized service lines (irrespective of whether there is or was 
an upstream LSL) to be replaced in 10 years unless the system is 
granted an extension by the State (State of New Jersey, 2021a; State of 
Rhode Island, 2023a). Michigan and New Jersey have several years of 
experience implementing their service line replacement laws that were 
promulgated in 2021, demonstrating the feasibility of the States' 
replacement requirements. The EPA notes that these four States have 
approximately one-fifth of the lead content service lines in the 
country (1.9 lead content lines out of 9.0 million estimated lead 
content lines) and have among the most LSLs in the country (USEPA, 
2023l; USEPA, 2024n). Finally, BIL and other funding has become 
available after the 2021 LCRR promulgation to support lead and GRR 
service line replacement projects, which in turn further supports the 
feasibility of setting a 10-year replacement deadline because this 
requirement is a primary driver of the proposed rule costs.
    For the LCRI proposal, the EPA's feasibility analysis used data 
from official sources documenting service line replacement rates that 
had been achieved in systems nationwide. The EPA used data from 30 
systems serving more than 50,000 persons that had maintained proactive 
LSLR programs to ensure the resulting rate reflected the technically 
possible rate of replacement that may reasonably be afforded by a large 
system; in doing so, EPA used the definition of ``large system'' that 
has historically been used in the LCR, such as for CCT requirements. 
The EPA then normalized the systems' replacement rates by the estimated 
number of households served by each water system. The EPA calculated 
the 95th percentile of the annual replacements per households served to 
set as the national threshold reflecting the fastest feasible annual 
replacements per household served that systems could achieve under a 
10-year deadline, which equaled 0.039 annual replacements per household 
served. The EPA used the 95th percentile rather than the maximum rate 
achieved by any one of the 30 systems to avoid setting the per-
household rate based on the rate achieved by an individual system as 
that may not accurately reflect the conditions at a wide variety of 
systems subject to the replacement requirements in the rule. The 
analysis also used the results of the 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure 
Needs Survey and Assessment (referred to as ``Needs Survey''), which 
was conducted in 2021. The data was published and used in the 
feasibility analysis in 2023 (USEPA, 2023l), providing better estimates 
on the number of lead, GRR, and unknown service lines in individual 
systems and nationwide than were available during the development of 
the 2021 LCRR. The EPA used data from the Needs Survey to estimate the 
number of systems that would exceed the 0.039 annual replacements per 
household served threshold and determined that mandatory service line 
replacement in 10 years or less is technically possible and affordable 
for 96 to 99 percent of all systems (USEPA, 2023k).
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Several commenters suggested that the 10-year deadline is not 
practical or feasible. Some comments simply asserted, without 
explanation, that a 10-year deadline was not feasible. Other commenters 
stated that the EPA had not adequately demonstrated feasibility, that 
the 10-year deadline was not feasible without the availability of 
substantial additional funding, and that the systems used in the 
feasibility analysis were not appropriate for determining replacement 
feasibility for typical systems under the LCRI. The EPA disagrees that 
feasibility of a 10-year replacement deadline was not adequately 
demonstrated. In the feasibility analysis for the proposed rule, as in 
the updated analysis for the final rule, the EPA examined annual 
replacement rate data from water systems that are conducting or have 
finished conducting service line replacement. Due to the complexity of 
service line replacement and the numerous variables that affect 
replacement rates, many of which are specific to each water system or 
even each site within a water system, modeling or projecting future 
service line replacement rates is highly uncertain. Thus, basing the 
feasibility analysis on available data from replacement programs that 
have already been conducted by real world systems provides the soundest 
basis for evaluating the technical possibility and affordability of 
mandatory service line replacement requirements and for establishing a 
deadline in a national rule covering a wide variety of systems (also 
see preamble sections IV.B.7 and IV.B.8 for shortened and deferred 
deadlines).
    The EPA considered comments on data for use in the agency's 
analysis, such as whether the EPA should include replacement rate data 
from systems with ``exceptional'' circumstances, systems serving 50,000 
persons or fewer, and

[[Page 86458]]

four water systems that provided data in their public comments. Details 
on each aspect of the feasibility analysis are provided in subsequent 
paragraphs. In summary, the final LCRI's updated feasibility analysis 
excluded replacement rate data from Newark, NJ, and included 
replacement rate data from systems serving populations greater than 
10,000 persons and from three of the four systems that provided 
replacement rate data.\11\ In total, the dataset used for the final 
rule's service line replacement feasibility analysis included 
replacement rates from 44 water systems. The 95th percentile of these 
data is 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service connections (see 
section IV.B.8 of this preamble for an explanation on the use of 
service connections instead of households served). This information 
demonstrates that, based upon the best available service line 
replacement data, it is technically possible and affordable for water 
systems to replace lead and GRR service lines at a rate of 39 annual 
replacements per 1,000 service connections (USEPA, 2024d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Replacement rate data for one system was provided by a 
State, which did not include the name or any identifying information 
for the system. Therefore, the annual replacements per service 
connection or per household served could not be calculated, and data 
from this system was not included in the feasibility analysis 
(USEPA, 2024d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters suggested that the EPA should not use systems with 
``exceptional'' circumstances, such as Flint, MI, and Newark, NJ, in 
its analysis because they claimed that the average system would not be 
able to complete service line replacement as quickly as these systems. 
These commenters asserted that these water systems were exceptional 
because they had significant external financial subsidies, were in the 
midst of much larger lead in drinking water crises, and had taken steps 
to initiate their replacement programs prior to the construction period 
referenced in the EPA's analysis. These commenters also pointed out 
that inclusion of these ``exceptional'' systems in the dataset 
influence the per-household threshold, even when using the 95th 
percentile, and that they should be excluded from the dataset entirely 
to avoid any influence on the per-household rate threshold.
    The EPA acknowledged in its feasibility analysis for the proposed 
LCRI that two systems (Flint, MI, and Newark, NJ) received substantial 
external funding. For the proposed LCRI, the EPA selected the 95th 
percentile of the per-household rate to set the fastest feasible rate 
while avoiding setting the rate at the maximum recorded annual 
replacements per household rate of a single system. For the final LCRI, 
the EPA considered the replacement rate data for both Flint, MI, and 
Newark, NJ, separately as described below.
    With respect to Newark, NJ, the EPA became aware after publication 
of the proposed rule of an ongoing formal investigation by the City of 
Newark and the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) into 
whether a contractor for the Newark LSLR program conducted partial 
service line replacements instead of full replacements in some homes 
(City of Newark, 2024). The formal audit is seeking to determine the 
number of partial replacements that may have taken place (City of 
Newark, 2024). The uncertainties associated with ongoing audit of the 
Newark LSLR data could potentially affect the rate at which full 
service line replacement was conducted because a partial service line 
replacement could be completed more quickly than a full replacement. As 
of August 2024, the results of the audit are not yet available. Because 
of the new uncertainty this investigation raises with respect to the 
Newark data and the importance of moving expeditiously to promulgate 
the final LCRI, the EPA has excluded the replacement rate data from 
Newark, NJ, from the quantitative analysis for determining the 
feasibility threshold rate for service line replacement. Nevertheless, 
Newark's LSLR program provides qualitative evidence in support of 
finding that it is technically possible to conduct a full service line 
replacement program across a large metropolitan or regional PWS in a 
short period of time. For example, Newark employed 20 service line 
replacement crews simultaneously during their program to replace more 
than 20,000 lead and GRR service lines in less than three years (City 
of Newark, 2020).
    With respect to Flint, MI, the EPA disagrees with commenters that 
the City's replacement rate data should be excluded from the dataset 
used to calculate the feasible rate threshold. Flint received financial 
and technical assistance for its replacement program as well as 
substantial press coverage; however, the EPA does not agree that this 
support and media coverage warrant exclusion from the feasibility 
analysis. The replacement rate data in Flint represents the annual 
replacements per 1,000 service connections averaged over the period 
from 2016 to 2022, when the City of Flint reported having replaced 97 
percent of its service lines requiring replacement (City of Flint, 
n.d.). Thus, while nearly 8,000 of the approximately 10,000 
replacements conducted in Flint were completed over a 2-year period 
between March 2016 and April 2018 (City of Flint, 2019), the EPA uses 
an average rate across six years in its feasibility analysis. Thus, the 
EPA's analysis uses an average annual rate that does not rely solely 
upon the initial replacement rates at the height of the lead crisis. In 
addition, while Flint received financial subsidies for service line 
replacement, data from the U.S. Census Bureau shows that Flint had a 
high poverty rate in 2015, measured at 41 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 
2015a). This is significantly higher than the 2015 national average 
poverty rate of 13.5 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015b). Thus, other 
cities will have fewer economic challenges than Flint and may be less 
reliant on external funding to support service line replacement.
    One commenter suggested that the proposed replacement rate and 
timeline are not feasible for large systems, particularly when 
``large'' systems are defined as systems that serve more than 10,000 
persons rather than those that serve more than 50,000 persons. The 
commenter noted that a system size of less than 10,000 persons served 
is used to assess ``small system impacts under SBREFA and is also the 
breakpoint used in SDWA for small systems''. In light of this comment, 
the EPA reconsidered its decision to assess feasibility based only on 
the 30 systems serving more than 50,000 persons in the proposed rule. 
In the final rule, the agency included an additional 12 systems 
(serving between 10,000 and 50,000 persons) in the analysis. Of these 
12 systems, 10 are within metropolitan statistical areas as defined by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for statistical use (OMB, 
2021), supporting that these systems may represent large metropolitan 
or regional PWSs. In addition, including such systems increased the 
sample size of the EPA's dataset, which can improve the assessment of 
feasibility of mandatory full service line replacement for a wider 
variety of systems. The EPA also agrees with the commenters noting that 
a cut off of 10,000 persons served aligns with the SDWA breakpoint for 
small systems and the small system impact analysis under SBREFA.
    The EPA did not include replacement rate data identified from two 
systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer in the feasibility analysis for 
the final rule. In assessing the affordability aspect of feasibility 
for purposes of an NPDWR, the EPA evaluates costs to large

[[Page 86459]]

metropolitan or regional PWSs, not small PWSs. Additionally, both small 
systems had substantially higher annual replacements per 1,000 service 
connections. Small systems having higher replacement rates is not 
unexpected in this scenario due to smaller systems having fewer service 
lines overall and, therefore, fewer lines to replace compared to larger 
systems. Individual service line replacement has generally similar cost 
and time needed regardless of system size. Despite potential resource 
limitations small systems may face, fewer lead and GRR service lines 
require less time and fewer resources, making 100 percent replacement 
relatively easier to complete for small systems than for large systems 
with similar percentages of lead and GRR service lines in their 
inventory. Additionally, service line replacement contrasts to 
centralized treatment operations, where the same treatment unit is 
employed at the treatment plant for different system sizes, and, 
therefore, systems can take advantage of the economy of scale present 
in installing and maintaining these treatments.
    For the final LCRI, the EPA retained from the proposal the use of 
the 95th percentile to set the fastest feasible annual replacements per 
1,000 service connections that water systems nationwide can achieve 
within 10 years. The EPA did not select the maximum number of annual 
replacements per 1,000 connections in the dataset to represent the 
fastest feasible rate because the agency did not intend for any single 
system with potentially unique circumstances to determine the rate for 
a broad range of systems covered by a national rule.
    Commenters suggested that the EPA evaluate the feasibility of 
alternative deadlines to 10 years. Some commenters suggested a shorter 
deadline, such as five years or eight years, to ensure that no system 
that could meet an earlier deadline would fail to do so. Other 
commenters suggested longer deadlines (such as 15 years), suggesting 
that 10 years is not feasible. After consideration of all the comments 
and the available data, the EPA determined that 10 years is at feasible 
deadline for most systems (USEPA, 2024d). Under the statute, the final 
LCRI must meet the standard of preventing lead health effects ``to the 
extent feasible,'' which means that the service line replacement rate 
must be both feasible and the fastest feasible. If a shorter national 
deadline was set, such as five years, this would compromise 
implementation of the rule since a larger number of systems would be 
eligible for a deferred deadline under the final rule criterion or seek 
exemptions or variances. Setting a shorter deadline nationwide in the 
rule could also impact States and some water systems' ability to 
effectively comply with other aspects of the rule to support and manage 
an effective replacement program, including the inventory development 
and validation and maintenance of an updated service line replacement 
plan. In addition, a more compressed schedule for all systems 
nationwide could more significantly impact supply chains for materials 
as well as impact worker availability, which some commenters raised as 
areas of concern. All of these factors indicate that a national 
deadline shorter than 10 years could be infeasible for many water 
systems across the United States. The EPA maintains that for some 
individual water systems, such as those with a small proportion or 
total number of lead and GRR service lines, a rate faster than 10 years 
could still be feasible.
    Furthermore, using the 10-year replacement deadline helps 
streamline the rule and facilitate implementation, a priority 
identified in the 2021 LCRR review. The 10-year deadline represents the 
EPA's best approximation of the fastest feasible service line 
replacement rate for most systems, and therefore, it is the default 
deadline. In recognition of the strong possibility that depending on 
the specific circumstances, which may evolve over time, many systems 
will be able to replace all their lead and GRR service lines even 
faster than their replacement deadline (i.e., 10 years, deferred 
deadline), the LCRI requires States to set shortened deadlines where it 
is feasible. For example, for systems with a small proportion of lead 
and GRR service lines, it may be feasible to complete replacement 
within a much shorter period than 10 years and at a more rapid rate 
than 10 percent of lines per year. In addition, it may be less 
efficient to conduct replacement over a 10-year period than a shorter 
timeline. For example, Central Arkansas Water, which serves 
approximately 205,000 service connections, identified and replaced all 
115 remaining LSLs in 14 months. A 10-year replacement program for this 
system would lead to approximately 12 service line replacements per 
year, which is less efficient and could lead to an increased need of 
resources considering replacement crews would be needed over a much 
longer period of time (Sweeney, 2020; Central Arkansas Water, 2022).
    In addition to failure to meet the ``feasibility'' requirements in 
the statute, a shorter mandatory replacement deadline in the final LCRI 
would likely result in a greater number of water systems seeking 
exemptions from the treatment technique requirements. Systems may seek 
an exemption from the LCRI's treatment technique to obtain additional 
time to complete their service line replacement programs in accordance 
with requirements under Sec. Sec.  142.50 through 142.57. To obtain an 
exemption, systems must expend resources demonstrating eligibility for 
the exemption. States and the EPA would need to expend resources to 
evaluate the exemption request, hold public hearings, and consider the 
public input prior to approving or denying an exemption providing a 
later compliance date. The EPA thinks that system, State, and EPA 
resources are better expended on inventorying and replacing lead and 
GRR service lines than evaluating exemptions. The EPA's decision to 
establish a 10-year replacement deadline with limited criteria for 
extensions will also reduce the resources spent issuing exemptions for 
the requirements.
    Commenters recommended that instead of a national deadline 
established in the LCRI, the replacement rate for each State or system 
be determined at the State or local level on a case-by-case basis, as 
these entities would have a better understanding of system specific 
challenges or advantages that would allow them to determine the fastest 
feasible rate. While no single deadline in a national-level regulation 
can represent the fastest feasible deadline for each of the nearly 
66,000 individual systems nationwide that are required to comply with 
the LCRI, the EPA disagrees that replacement rates should be solely 
determined at the State or local level. States or local levels of 
government determining deadlines would make implementation more 
challenging, place significant burden on States to determine either 
State- or system-specific deadlines, and complicate State oversight 
with a resulting hodge-podge of deadlines. The LCRI's approach of a 10-
year deadline that may be adjusted up or down is essentially a hybrid 
approach of single deadline and a case-by-case determination that best 
meets SDWA standards for a NPDWR, while giving due consideration to the 
variability among systems, and is more streamlined and implementable 
than a case-by-case determination. While States may be in a better 
position to determine an individual system's unique characteristics and 
challenges, it is beyond their resource capacity to make this 
determination on a case-by-case basis for each system and unnecessary

[[Page 86460]]

in light of the EPA's feasibility analysis using actual data.
    Some commenters recommended use of a binning system in the LCRI, 
similar to that employed in the Illinois LSLR requirements (which 
assigns systems to one of six default replacement deadlines based on 
the number of LSLs in a system), rather than a fixed rate and three-
year rolling average. In the 1991 LCR, the EPA acknowledged that ``it 
is difficult to determine a uniform, national replacement schedule 
applicable to all public water systems because the circumstances faced 
by systems can vary substantially, depending upon the number of lead 
lines in a system and system size'' and that large systems with few 
lines could replace lines on the fastest schedule, while systems with 
high percentages of LSLs would take the longest to complete replacement 
(56 FR 26508, USEPA, 1991). For the 1991 LCR, the EPA had considered 
alternate ways to structure the LSLR rate to take into account system 
size and the number of LSLs in the system. The EPA found that such an 
approach, while accounting for various factors affecting feasibility 
for individual systems, can yield ``inappropriate results'' in some 
cases, requiring systems to complete replacement on an ``inordinately 
fast'' schedule that would not be feasible (56 FR 26460, USEPA, 1991). 
The 1991 LCR proposal gives the example where the number of 
replacements required per year corresponds to a fixed percentage (e.g., 
10 percent) of the total number of service lines in the system. Under a 
construct where a system must replace 10 percent of all its service 
lines, a large system with 200,000 non-LSLs and 50,000 LSLs would need 
to replace all their LSLs in just 2.5 years (i.e., replacing 20,000 
LSLs per year at an annual rate of 40 percent) and there are no data to 
support that such a rate is feasible. The EPA also considered using a 
binning approach but determined it could create implementation 
challenges and add complexity to the rule, which runs counter to the 
priority identified in the 2021 LCRR review to simplify the rule. The 
final LCRI provides a single replacement rate but with some flexibility 
to shorten or lengthen schedules in individual cases; this is much 
simpler than a multiple bin scheme. Because a binning approach would 
add significant and unnecessary complexity to the rule and the LCRI 
already provides flexibility to alter the deadline in appropriate 
cases, the EPA has determined that the approach in the final rule, with 
a national 10-year deadline, and deferred deadline criteria for a 
limited number eligible systems, and with the requirement for the State 
to set a faster rate where feasible, is a simpler and more 
implementable approach to assure LSLs are replaced at the fastest 
feasible rate.
i. Additional Discussion of Affordability
    Some commenters stated that, because there exists substantial 
evidence of water systems conducting service line replacement, the 
technology itself is clearly affordable. The EPA agrees with commenters 
that service line replacement is an affordable technology, and the 
technology has been required by the rule since the 1991 LCR, albeit at 
differing scales. As noted previously, service line replacement is 
unlike centralized treatment in that the total cost is dependent upon 
the number of service lines replaced rather than the cost of the 
treatment itself. The cost per customer, if costs of replacement are 
spread to all rate-paying customers, is also dependent on the 
proportion of lead and GRR service lines to total service lines in the 
distribution system. Thus, based on the fastest feasible rate 
established by already completed service line replacements, 10-year 
service line replacement was demonstrated to be technically possible 
and reasonably afforded for approximately 98 percent of systems (see 
section IV.B.8 of this preamble for a discussion on deferred 
deadlines).
    Some commenters suggested that replacement of all LSLs in 10 years 
would not be affordable for water systems because they would have to 
rely on the ability of their local communities to pay for replacements, 
that more State or Federal funding will be needed, or that the EPA had 
not adequately demonstrated affordability in the Economic Analysis of 
the proposed rule. The EPA disagrees that the 10-year deadline is not 
affordable and that the agency has not demonstrated its affordability. 
The final rule feasibility analysis for service line replacement 
examines replacement rates achieved by systems and concludes that the 
rates achieved in this analysis are the highest rates for which 
currently available data can demonstrate to have been reasonably 
afforded water by systems (USEPA, 2024d). As noted above, the analysis 
demonstrates that, based upon the best available service line 
replacement data, it is technically possible and affordable for water 
systems to replace lead and GRR service lines at a rate of 39 annual 
replacements per 1,000 service connections. While some of the 
identified systems received varying amounts of financial assistance to 
support service line replacement, the EPA did not consider the 
availability of external funding in its calculation of household costs 
in the economic analysis. Costs of the service line replacement 
requirement were calculated over the entire 35-year period of analysis 
and per-household costs of implementation of the entire rule (not 
limited to LSLR) were estimated based on system size, water source, and 
ownership (see Exhibit 6 in section VI of this preamble for annualized 
service line replacement cost and Exhibits 7 and 8 for total rule cost 
per household). Implementation costs to systems and States were also 
considered in the affirmation of the cost-benefit determination (see 
Exhibit 10 of this preamble for total annualized rule cost including 
PWS and State implementation and section VI.F.3 of this preamble 
(Reaffirm Cost-Benefit Determination)). The EPA notes that there is 
significant funding available to support service line replacement, and 
the EPA expects that the additional funding from BIL will increase the 
affordability of the achieved replacement rates (see section III.G of 
this preamble for further discussion on funding).
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule establishes a 10-year deadline for water systems to 
replace all lead and GRR service lines under their control. In 
recognition of the wide variation among systems with respect to the 
number and proportion of lead and GRR service lines in their 
distribution systems, the final LCRI also includes provisions for 
systems to apply for a deferred deadline (see section IV.B.8 of this 
preamble) and provisions for States to require systems to replace all 
lead or GRR lines under a shortened deadline (see section IV.B.7 of 
this preamble).
7. Mandatory Service Line Replacement Rate
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    The 1991 LCR requirement to replace (or ``test out'' individual 
service lines) at a rate of seven percent per year is calculated on an 
annual basis (Sec. Sec.  141.84(b)(1) and 141.90(e)(1) through (3)). 
The 2021 LCRR replacement requirements of three percent per year 
following a lead action level exceedance and at a ``goal-based rate'' 
determined by the State following a lead trigger level exceedance must 
be calculated using a two-year rolling average.
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed a minimum average annual replacement 
rate of 10 percent for most systems,

[[Page 86461]]

calculated as a 3-year rolling average. Water systems would be required 
to average the annual percentages of service lines replaced in the 
preceding three years of the replacement program, beginning at the end 
of the third ``program year'' and annually thereafter. The EPA proposed 
for a ``program year'' to be measured from the LCRI compliance date. 
The agency proposed a rolling average across a three-year period to 
account for stakeholder concerns about the potential annual variability 
and temporary disruptions or shortages that impede a system's ability 
to replace service lines, such as supply chain delays, workforce 
limitations, natural disasters or extreme weather, and difficulties 
gaining access for full service line replacement. The EPA anticipated 
that this approach would provide water systems with flexibility during 
the initial years of their replacement programs to create and manage 
their programs, adjust and plan for market corrections in labor and 
supplies, apply for and obtain funding, and obtain advice on applicable 
laws, regulations, or water tariff agreements associated with the 
replacement of lead and GRR service lines. The EPA sought comment on 
how to calculate compliance with a service line replacement deadline 
and the average annual rolling rate construct, including the complexity 
of the construct.
    The EPA proposed in the LCRI to require water systems to calculate 
the percent of service lines replaced for each year using the 
replacement pool and the annual number of service lines replaced. The 
proposed LCRI included requirements for water systems to calculate the 
baseline replacement pool by adding the total number of lead, GRR, and 
unknown service lines in the baseline inventory submitted by the 
compliance date. To calculate the number of lead and GRR service lines 
a system would need to replace in a given program year, the EPA 
proposed to require systems to divide the most up-to-date replacement 
pool by the total number of years allowed to complete mandatory service 
line replacement (e.g., 10 years). At the beginning of each replacement 
program year, water systems must update the replacement pool to account 
for inventory updates and recalculate the annual number of service line 
replacements needed to meet the replacement rate. The EPA proposed to 
require that water systems update their replacement pools by: (1) 
Subtracting unknown service lines that are identified as non-lead from 
the replacement pool and (2) adding any non-lead lines found to be lead 
or GRR service lines. As proposed, unknown service lines identified to 
be lead or GRR service lines are recategorized in the replacement pool, 
but they do not change the number of lines because they have already 
been counted in the number of lines for determining the replacement 
pool.
    The EPA proposed to not limit the replacement rate to service lines 
solely under the control of the system. The proposed rule did not 
permit water systems to subtract lead and GRR service lines that are 
not under the control of the system from the replacement pool nor count 
them towards the annual number of service lines replaced. All water 
systems are subject to mandatory service line replacement and must 
replace all lead and GRR service lines; however, systems are not 
required by this rule to replace lead and GRR service lines that are 
not under the control of the system. As discussed in section IV.B.3 of 
this preamble, control is not static, and service lines can come under 
the control of the system at any time as circumstances change. Counting 
lead and GRR service lines that are not under the control of the system 
as ``replaced'' provides water systems would not be appropriate as they 
could become under the control of the water systems as well as this 
would disincentivize systems from actively seeking opportunities to 
replacing these lines in the future such as outreach with community 
members, which does not protect public health to the extent feasible. 
The replacement pool provides the water system with a full account of 
the historic and current lead and GRR service lines in the system, 
regardless of the system's access or lack thereof at one point in time, 
starting at the LCRI compliance date. Removing these lines from the 
replacement pool does not remove their risk to consumers.
    The proposed LCRI also included requirements on what full lead and 
GRR service line replacements must count towards the number of service 
lines replaced and the average annual replacement rate. Full service 
line replacements would count towards the replacement rate in the 
following instances: (1) where the replacement results in the entire 
service line to be categorized as non-lead in the inventory, (2) where 
a non-lead service lines is installed for use and the lead or GRR 
service line is disconnected from the water main or other service line, 
and (3) where the system physically disconnects a service line that is 
not in use and does not install a new non-lead line because there is no 
service line in use (the system must not reconnect the line to resume 
service). Service line replacements would not count towards the 
replacement rate in the following instances: (1) Where the service line 
is partially replaced, (2) where a lead, GRR, or unknown service line 
is determined to be non-lead, (3) where only a lead connector is 
replaced, and (4) where pipe lining or coating technologies are used 
while the lead or GRR service line remains in use. The EPA proposed for 
unknown service lines identified as non-lead to not count towards the 
number of service lines replaced because such a requirement could 
inadvertently incentivize water systems to delay the identification of 
the material of unknown service lines so water systems could claim 
``replacement'' credit for when lead or GRR service lines have not been 
replaced, thereby delaying the public health benefits of replacement to 
consumers served by a lead or GRR service line.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters stated that the proposed three-year rolling average 
is complex and may be difficult to implement. Other commenters 
supported the proposed approach, with one commenter noting that the 
LCRI is inherently complex, and the EPA struck a reasonable balance. 
Some commenters stated that using a cumulative average approach to 
track compliance with LSLR would provide more flexibility for water 
systems than a three-year rolling average and accounts for the 
potential that replacements become more challenging towards the end of 
program when customers are harder to reach or because the replacements 
are conducted individually as opposed to in coordination with 
infrastructure work where replacement may be more efficient.
    The EPA agrees with commenters that a cumulative average is simpler 
to understand and calculate than a three-year rolling average. 
Simplifying the rule to ease implementation was identified in the 2021 
LCRR review as a priority for the final rule. Rather than calculating 
an average within a rolling three-year window, a water system 
calculates the average rate of replacement from the beginning of the 
program. For example, for a water system with a 10-year mandatory 
replacement deadline, at the end of the fourth program year, the system 
must have replaced at least 40 percent of the lines in the replacement 
pool. With a three-year rolling average, the system averages the 
replacement rate in program years two, three, and four,

[[Page 86462]]

whereas with a cumulative average, all replacements conducted since the 
compliance date are included in the calculation (i.e., average of rates 
summed for years one, two, three, and four). A cumulative average has 
the additional benefit of providing more flexibility for water systems 
that may experience challenges that temporarily disrupt replacement 
progress. For example, for a water system that is on track to complete 
replacement by the program deadline under a rolling three-year average, 
it would be possible to be in violation if they replaced fewer than 10 
percent of the replacement pool over a few consecutive years because 
only three years of the replacement program are considered in the 
calculation. Especially toward the end of the service line replacement 
program, remaining property owners with lead or GRR service lines may 
be harder to reach, and the remaining replacements may need to be 
conducted individually instead of conducted more efficiently in 
coordination with other replacements or infrastructure work. A 
cumulative average will assure that systems that were ahead of their 
replacement schedule initially would not necessarily be in violation if 
their replacement rate slows as a result of these difficulties. The 
final rule includes a requirement for systems to meet a cumulative 
average rather than a three-year rolling average.
    The EPA emphasizes that systems should not slow their replacement 
rate simply because they have ``banked on'' service line replacements 
in earlier years of the program. However, the EPA does not anticipate 
this practice occurring because of the many requirements and incentives 
that the final rule contains to ensure water systems are replacing lead 
and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible. For example, the final 
rule provides a pathway for water systems to defer CCT steps and avoid 
a more burdensome OCCT study if they replace all remaining lead and GRR 
service lines in five years or less (see section IV.F.2.d of this 
preamble). Additionally, replacement of these significant lead sources 
is likely to reduce the systems 90th percentile lead levels, thereby 
reducing the likelihood of a lead action level exceedance and 
associated required actions (e.g., OCCT, systemwide public education, 
Tier 1 PN). States also must set a faster rate where feasible, which 
would also apply if the system intentionally slowed their replacement 
rate. Additionally, the final LCRI retains from proposal the inclusion 
of unknown service lines in the replacement pool, which incentivizes 
more rapid identification of unknown lines.
    The EPA received mixed comments about whether to require water 
systems to meet the minimum service line replacement rate in each of 
the first three program years following the compliance date. Some 
commenters said that waiting until the third program year to assess 
compliance with the replacement rate could allow water systems to more 
effectively scale up their replacement program by engaging in planning 
and bidding on contractors and to identifying unknowns, whereas other 
commenters said that requiring earlier demonstration of compliance 
would allow States to enforce sooner and noted that systems already 
have the three years prior to the compliance date to become prepared 
for the replacement requirement.
    The EPA agrees that requiring calculation and reporting of 
compliance with service line replacement three years after the 
compliance date provides water systems with additional time beyond the 
three-year period between promulgation and the compliance date for the 
rule before assessment with the cumulative average replacement rate is 
measured. While the EPA anticipates that water systems will use the 
three years prior to the compliance date to prepare for mandatory 
replacement, water systems will continue to build capacity for their 
service line replacement programs, identify service line materials, and 
initiate mandatory full service line replacement that is required 
during the first few years of the program starting upon the compliance 
date. By requiring the cumulative average replacement rate to be 
calculated starting at the end of the third program year, water systems 
are provided with additional flexibility to scale up their program and 
provide more time to enact policies to facilitate full service line 
replacement. Under a cumulative rate measured at the end of year three, 
water systems will be required to have replaced an average of 10 
percent of the replacement pool per year, or 30 percent by the end of 
year three. This is the equivalent number of replacements that water 
systems would have been required to complete by the end of year three 
if the rate was measured annually, but this approach provides more 
flexibility for fluctuations in the annual percent replaced, especially 
during the first few years after the compliance date. Additionally, 
this requirement could also facilitate service line replacement 
prioritization as well as facilitate efficiencies in service line 
replacement. Therefore, the EPA is requiring that the cumulative 
average replacement rate be calculated starting at the end of the third 
program year. The EPA adds the text ``water systems must start 
mandatory service line replacement programs no later than the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3)'' to Sec.  
141.84(d)(4)(i) to clarify that water systems must comply with service 
line replacement on the LCRI compliance date and not by three years 
following the LCRI compliance date. Rather, water systems are required 
to meet the cumulative average replacement rate of 10 percent, first 
assessed at the end of three program years following the compliance 
date and annually thereafter.
    Several commenters expressed concerns over the inclusion of unknown 
service lines in the replacement pool. Commenters stated that the 
proposed approach could result in non-compliance where many unknown 
service lines remain that are, in fact, non-lead (e.g., the system runs 
out of known lead or GRR service lines to replace because its inventory 
contains only unknown lines, and, thus, cannot complete the required 
number of replacements). The EPA disagrees with commenters that unknown 
service lines should be excluded from the calculation of the number of 
required annual replacements for multiple reasons. First, the 
identification of unknown service lines in a timely manner is important 
for public health and transparency, and including unknown lines in the 
replacement rate incentivizes their identification as quickly as 
feasible. By identifying unknown lines early in the replacement 
program, systems can avoid the situation where they run out of lead and 
GRR service lines to replace, leading to non-compliance. Second, a 
requirement to exclude unknown service lines from their replacement 
pool could itself lead to a situation where the system is not in 
compliance. For example, if a system determines that many of their 
unknown lines are lead or GRR service lines later in the replacement 
program, those systems could be in jeopardy of non-compliance with 
their service line replacement deadline because they had not set an 
appropriate replacement rate in the initial years of the program and 
may not be able to complete the replacement of the remaining lead and 
GRR service lines by the deadline. Third, systems have had ample notice 
to start identifying the material of unknown service lines. The 2021 
LCRR requires initial inventories to be submitted by October 16, 2024, 
and systems will have

[[Page 86463]]

another three years following promulgation of the LCRI to complete 
their LCRI baseline inventory. Furthermore, existing State regulations 
already require completion of service line inventories (i.e., 
identification of all unknown lines) on shorter timelines. Rhode Island 
finalized an inventory and replacement law in 2023, which requires 
initial inventories in 2024 and a completed inventory in 2026 and 
Illinois signed their law in 2021, which required initial inventories 
in 2022 and final inventories by 2024 (USEPA 2023a, Section D.1; 
Illinois General Assemble, 2021; State of Rhode Island, 2023a). 
Illinois's experience is instructive. Its law prompted most systems to 
complete service line inventory and identify unknown service lines 
prior to the compliance date, and the median system had no unknown 
service lines remaining as of 2022 (USEPA, 2024d). Fourth, the EPA 
provided guidance and support materials for identifying service line 
materials and continues to provide guidance and technical assistance to 
facilitate water system progress in identifying unknown lines. In 2022, 
the agency developed Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a Service 
Line Inventory (USEPA, 2022c), inventory templates (https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/revised-lead-and-copper-rule), and fact sheets (USEPA, 2023o), and in 2023, provided the small 
entity compliance guide for developing service line inventories (USEPA, 
2023n). Additionally, the EPA's Get the Lead Out (GLO) Initiative 
provides technical assistance to communities to accelerate LSLR, 
including inventory development. Finally, funding from BIL and other 
sources is available for systems to identify and replace service lines 
(see section III.G of this preamble). For all these reasons, water 
systems that do not want to include unknown service lines in their 
replacement rate calculation have sufficient opportunity to remedy that 
by identifying unknown service lines prior to the LCRI compliance date 
to avoid non-compliance with service line replacement requirements due 
to high numbers of unknown service lines.
    The EPA received comments about specific situations that commenters 
believed would merit recalculating the replacement rate. For example, 
some commenters suggested that the water system should get credit for a 
service line replacement when a line previously characterized as a lead 
or GRR service line is determined to be non-lead. The EPA disagrees 
that systems should be allowed to count identification of lead and GRR 
service lines as non-lead as a service line replacement. While the EPA 
appreciates the effort required to identify a non-lead line previously 
thought to require replacement, allowing systems to count as a 
replacement the reclassification of a lead or GRR service line to a 
non-lead service line would create a disincentive for systems to 
accurately characterize service lines in the inventory. Sufficient 
checks to prevent this from disincentivizing systems to create accurate 
inventories would greatly complicate the rule. Additionally, the EPA is 
concerned that, if water systems are allowed to count non-lead 
identifications as replacements, water systems could delay replacing 
known lead and GRR service lines by focusing efforts on identifying 
unknown lines that are more likely to be non-lead. Under the final 
rule, systems can subtract any lead, GRR, or unknown service lines 
newly discovered to be non-lead service lines from their replacement 
pool, which can reduce the number of service lines they are required to 
replace in the following program years; however, systems cannot count a 
reclassification as a replacement.
    Some commenters similarly argued that water systems should not be 
penalized when property owners do not cooperate with providing access 
for a full replacement and to allow customer refusals to count as 
replacements. The EPA requires systems to conduct four outreach 
attempts per property owner to gain access and strongly encourages 
water systems take steps to ensure the likelihood of gaining access to 
conduct full service line replacement, such as seeking out alternate 
funding sources and engaging in comprehensive communication with their 
customers. The EPA disagrees with crediting water systems that are 
unable to gain access with a count towards full replacement because it 
could disincentivize efforts to obtain access. Therefore, customer 
refusals do not count as a service line replacement, and water systems 
must retain that service line as part of their replacement pool. The 
EPA also disagrees that water systems will be penalized if a property 
owner does not provide access. Water systems that do not replace all 
their lead or GRR service lines by the deadline because they lack 
access are not in violation of the treatment technique. Additionally, 
the final rule adds text in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(iv)(A) stating that a 
water system is not required to meet the cumulative average replacement 
rate if that system has, after the compliance date, replaced all lead 
and GRR service lines in the replacement pool that are under the 
control of the system, identified all unknown service lines in the 
inventory, and documented and submitted to the State the reasons the 
system does not currently have access to conduct full replacement of 
the remaining lead and GRR service lines in the replacement pool. Those 
systems, however, are required to continue to document the reasons the 
system does not have access, show those unreplaced service lines in the 
publicly available inventory, conduct tap sampling at these sites 
(where the sites are included in the sampling pool and the water system 
has access to sample), and notify consumers annually about their 
service line material, until those service lines are replaced. If 
service lines previously not under the control of the system come under 
the control of the system at any point prior to the removal of all lead 
and GRR service lines, these service lines are required to be replaced 
at the fastest feasible rate as described in Sec.  141.84(d).
    The EPA received comments requesting procedures for the rare 
occurrence of a lead or GRR service line and the need to simplify the 
compliance for systems with no or few lead or GRR service lines. The 
EPA agrees there should be a path for the rare lead or GRR service line 
that may be discovered and has therefore added a provision to the final 
LCRI that should a lead or GRR service line be discovered in a system 
with only non-lead service lines in their inventory, the system must 
replace the affected service line as soon as practicable but no later 
than 180 days after the date the service line is discovered. The agency 
also recognized in some circumstances, such as freezing conditions, it 
may not be practicable to conduct full service line replacement within 
180 days after the date of discovery and therefore the system may 
request State approval for an extension of no later than one year after 
the date the service line was discovered to replace the affected 
service line. The request for an extension must be made no later than 
90 days after the date of discovery of the affected service line. The 
EPA strongly encourages systems to replace lead and GRR services lines 
as fast as feasible. Once systems are comprised of only non-lead 
service lines implementation burden can be reduced as certain 
requirements of the LCRI are no longer applicable such as public 
education of service line material and first- and fifth-liter samples 
at LSL sites. The EPA notes systems that replace all

[[Page 86464]]

the discovered lead or GRR service lines prior to the start of the next 
tap monitoring period would not need to restart standard monitoring as 
described in Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(H).
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final LCRI requires water systems to replace lead and GRR 
service lines at an average annual replacement rate of 10 percent 
calculated across a cumulative period, unless the system is eligible 
for a deferred deadline (see section IV.B.8 of this preamble) or 
required to replace service lines on a shortened deadline. The first 
cumulative average replacement rate must be assessed at the end of the 
third program year and is calculated by dividing the cumulative percent 
of service lines replaced by the number of completed program years 
(three in this case). Annually thereafter, at the end of each program 
year, systems must assess the cumulative average replacement rate by 
dividing the most recent cumulative percent of service lines replaced 
by the number of completed program years. The cumulative average 
replacement rate for systems on a 10-year deadline is 10 percent or 
greater each program year, and all water systems must make up any 
deficient percentages of their replacement rate for any program year by 
the applicable deadline for completing mandatory service line 
replacement.
    The final LCRI adds a definition for ``program year'' in Sec.  
141.84(d)(5)(iii). The first mandatory service line replacement program 
year runs from the compliance date to the end of the next calendar year 
(December 31, 2028), and every program year thereafter is a calendar 
year (January 1 to December 31). A program year is a term used 
throughout the replacement and reporting requirements. The term is used 
to streamline reporting requirements (see section IV.N.1 of this 
preamble for more information) and describe annual activities for 
mandatory service line replacement.
    The final rule also removes the regulatory text related to 
calculating the annual percent of service lines replaced and adds the 
term ``cumulative percent of service lines replaced''. To calculate the 
cumulative percent of service lines replaced, at the end of each 
program year, water systems must divide the total number of lead and 
GRR service lines replaced thus far in the program by the number of 
service lines within the replacement pool. The cumulative average 
replacement rate for systems on a 10-year deadline must be 10 percent 
or greater each program year.
    Where the State determines that a shortened replacement deadline is 
feasible for a water system (e.g., by considering the number of lead 
and GRR service lines in a system's inventory), the system must replace 
service lines by the State-determined deadline and by a faster minimum 
replacement rate. The State must make this determination in writing and 
notify the system of its finding. The State must set a shortened 
deadline at any time throughout a system's replacement program if a 
State determines a shorter deadline is feasible. This requirement also 
applies to systems eligible for a deferred deadline (see section IV.B.8 
of this preamble). If the State determines a shortened deadline is 
feasible, systems must replace lead and GRR service lines at an average 
annual replacement rate calculated by dividing 100 by the number of 
years needed to meet the shortened deadline determined by the State, 
expressed as a percentage. For example, if a State determines a system 
can feasibly complete mandatory service line replacement on a shortened 
deadline no faster than 5 years, the system's average annual 
replacement rate would equal 100/5, or 20 percent. Systems must comply 
with the cumulative average replacement rate, where the first 
cumulative average replacement rate is assessed at the end of the 
program year that is at least one year after the shortened deadline 
determination, as determined by the State. If the system's shortened 
replacement deadline is less than three years, compliance is assessed 
on a schedule determined by the State.
    Under the final LCRI, if a lead or GRR service line is discovered 
when the system's inventory is comprised of only non-lead service 
lines, the system must update their replacement pool with the 
discovered service line. The system must also comply with the 
requirements to conduct a full service line replacement of the affected 
service line as soon as practicable but no later than 180 days after 
the date the service line is discovered. Where a system determines that 
it is not practicable to conduct a full replacement within 180 days 
after the date of discovery, such as due to freezing ground conditions, 
the system may request State approval for an extension of no later than 
one year after date the line was discovered to replace the affected 
line. The request for an extension must be made no later than 90 days 
after the date of the discovery of the affected service line. See 
section IV.D.2 of this preamble for related inventory requirements in 
the proposed and final rules.
8. Deferred Deadlines
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    In the proposed rule, the EPA recognized that the default 10-year 
replacement deadline may be infeasible for some systems due to the 
large number or proportion of lines that would need to be replaced in 
10 years. For these systems, the EPA proposed two ways that a system 
could establish eligibility for a deferred deadline to conduct service 
line replacements. The first eligibility criterion was proposed for 
systems with a high proportion of lead and GRR service lines in their 
distribution system relative to their total number of households 
served. The EPA used the feasibility analysis in the proposed LCRI to 
determine the fastest per-household replacement rate demonstrated to be 
affordable for systems with a high ratio of lead and GRR service lines. 
This feasibility analysis resulted in a value of 0.039 annual 
replacements per household served (39 replacements per 1,000 households 
served) (USEPA, 2023k). Also, see section IV.B.6.a of this preamble. In 
the proposed preamble, the EPA noted that the per-household replacement 
rate identifies an ``affordability threshold''; however, the fact that 
replacements were conducted also demonstrates that replacement at these 
rates is technically possible for these water systems. For more 
information, see the Technical Support Document for the proposed LCRI 
(referred to as ``proposed TSD''; USEPA, 2023k).
    The proposed rule included a second deferred deadline eligibility 
criterion for systems that would be required to replace greater than 
10,000 service lines per year under the proposed 10-year deadline. The 
EPA selected 10,000 as the proposed upper threshold for what is 
technically possible based on the replacement rate achieved in Newark, 
NJ, between January and March 2020 and the projected replacement rate 
that Detroit, MI, announced it would achieve. The EPA projected that 
only three to six systems nationwide would have more than 100,000 lines 
requiring replacement to qualify for a deferred deadline based on this 
criterion.
    In the proposed rule, the EPA also highlighted that the requirement 
for the State to set a faster replacement rate where feasible also 
applies to systems eligible for a deferred deadline. Thus, the deadline 
calculated according to the EPA eligibility criteria would serve as the 
maximum allowable time to complete replacement and the State

[[Page 86465]]

could reduce that time if they determine the system can achieve a 
faster rate.
    The EPA sought comment on the approach and basis of a deferred 
deadline for service line replacement at systems with a high proportion 
of lead and GRR service lines in their distribution system relative to 
the number of households served, the proposed threshold of 0.039 
average annual number of replacements per household served, the 
proposed threshold of 10,000 annual replacements for systems with 
atypically high numbers of lead and GRR service lines, and an alternate 
threshold of 8,000 annual replacements. The EPA also requested any data 
available that would further inform the value for annual replacements 
per household served and the threshold for maximum annual replacement.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters recommended that deferred deadlines be removed from 
the rule because the statute does not require that a treatment 
technique be feasible for every single system in the nation. They 
recommended that, instead of deferred deadlines, water systems apply 
for variances to the 10-year service line replacement deadline or 
negotiate new deadlines through enforcement actions. The commenters 
stated that, because some large, regional water systems have replaced 
all their LSLs in 10 years or less, this service line replacement 
deadline has been demonstrated to be technically possible and 
reasonably afforded by large systems. The EPA agrees that SDWA does not 
require the EPA to demonstrate the feasibility of a NPDWR for every 
single water system, and the EPA acknowledges that SDWA includes 
provisions for variances and exemptions to address the possibility that 
not all water systems will be able to comply with an NPDWR by the 
compliance date. At the same time, the EPA recognizes that 500 to 700 
systems are not likely to be able to replace all lead and GRR lines 
within 10 years (USEPA, 2024d). Furthermore, if 500 to 700 systems 
applied for a variance or exemption, the significant time and resources 
involved in the State's and the EPA's review and approval of these 
requests would significantly hamper implementation and enforcement of 
the service line replacement requirements and other treatment 
techniques in the LCRI, and require significant EPA resources, which 
could strain the EPA's efforts to publish guidance, properly oversee 
enforcement of the rule, and provide technical assistance to systems 
and States. Similarly, it is not realistic to assume that together 
States or the EPA would have adequate resources to devote to between 
500 and 700 enforcement actions at approximately the same time to 
address the systems for whom a 10-year replacement deadline is 
infeasible. Instead, the final rule uses a process for establishing 
deferred deadlines to manage the systems for which a 10-year deadline 
is expected to be infeasible, based on the EPA's current analysis. 
Fewer annual service line replacements allow the system to spread the 
costs and replacement efforts of the replacement program across 
additional years to make the LCRI's replacement provision feasible. The 
final rule's deferred deadline provision also includes additional 
measures to ensure that systems meeting the criteria for a deferred 
deadline are required to replace service lines more quickly if a faster 
rate is feasible for the system (also see section IV.C of this preamble 
for service line replacement plan requirements). The EPA intends to 
create guidance to assist States in determining a system's fastest 
feasible replacement rate.
    Some commenters supported the deferred deadline option for systems 
with a high proportion of lead and GRR service lines using the 0.039 
annual replacements per household threshold. Some commenters 
recommended that the EPA use the number of service connections, rather 
than the number of households, to ease implementation as the number of 
service connections is already reported to the State via the service 
line inventory, whereas the number of households served may not be 
readily available to systems, and ambiguities in what constitutes a 
``household'' could lead to inconsistent application of the LCRI 
nationwide. Additionally, the use of households may be a less 
meaningful measure to assess the scale of service line replacements 
needed; multi-household properties are generally served by a single 
service line. The EPA agrees that the number of connections provides a 
better estimate of the proportion of service lines that require 
replacement. The proportion of service lines requiring replacement, 
rather than the total number of service lines requiring replacement, 
was the basis for normalizing service line replacement rates by system 
size, and, thus, it is important that the method of normalization 
maintains this proportion. The EPA also agrees that revising the 
deferred deadline eligibility criterion to use per connection rather 
than per household simplifies the rule and eases implementation, which 
was identified in the 2021 LCRR review as a priority for the final 
rule. Finally, the use of service connections rather than households 
served does not result in major differences in the total number of 
systems projected to be eligible for a deferred deadline as compared to 
the use of households served (USEPA, 2024d). For these reasons, the 
final rule uses the number of connections to calculate the final rule's 
deferral threshold. The EPA refers to this threshold in the final rule 
as 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service connections rather than 
0.039 annual replacements per service connection because this 
representation of the deferral option is more understandable and can 
ease implementation.
    Some commenters claimed that the 0.039 replacements per household 
deferral rate threshold was too low and too many systems would be 
eligible, while other commenters said that it was too high and should 
be lowered to allow more systems to defer their deadlines. The EPA does 
not agree with arbitrarily lowering or raising the deferral threshold 
and notes that these commenters did not offer an alternate feasibility 
analysis to use instead of the proposed rule's feasibility analysis. 
The EPA derived the threshold for the final rule based on the EPA's 
updated feasibility analysis and the conversion to a per connection 
metric. Thus, the final rule's per-connection threshold is based on the 
best available data from the EPA's analysis of replacement rates 
actually achieved by systems (USEPA, 2024d). Therefore, the identified 
fastest feasible rate represents the fastest demonstrated rate to be 
both technically possible and affordable, using the currently available 
data, and there would be no basis for increasing or decreasing the 
threshold. There are many factors that can influence the technical 
possibility of a service line replacement rate, including seasonal 
weather changes that shorten construction, practical limitations on the 
number of street closures and interfering with other system operations, 
etc. By using replacement rate data from various real-world systems, 
such factors and any other encountered by these systems, are 
incorporated into the analysis of technical feasibility.
    The EPA received comments about the data used to support the 
proposed deferral option for systems that would be required to replace 
more than 10,000 service lines per year to meet the 10-year deadline as 
well as the extended replacement timelines that resulted from it. Some 
commenters suggested that the 10,000 per year threshold is not feasible 
due to constraints such as

[[Page 86466]]

weather conditions, holidays, traffic disruptions, and logistical and 
planning limitations, and that a threshold of 8,000 service lines per 
year is more realistic or achievable. Other commenters suggested, 
without detailed explanations, that 8,000 replacements per year would 
not be a feasible standard. Other commenters suggested the EPA lower 
the threshold to 6,000 or 7,000 replacements per year, based on 
anecdotal experience of replacement rates at water systems. Other 
commenters suggested that Newark data, which was used to support the 
proposed rule's 10,000 threshold, should not be used in this 
determination at all because commenters theorized that much higher 
replacement rates could be achieved by cities that are much larger than 
Newark (commenters specifically mentioned Chicago, IL, and New York, 
NY, as examples), due to their relatively larger population size and 
associated resources. Other commenters argued that the Newark data 
should not be used for opposite reasons, stating that Newark was aided 
by substantial funding, technical assistance, and news coverage of 
service line replacement that helped Newark conduct an accelerated 
service line replacement program that is unlikely to be replicated 
nationwide. Some commenters were also concerned that the deferred 
deadline threshold of 10,000 allows some systems to defer their service 
line replacement deadline by decades, up to 45 years in the case of 
Chicago. These commenters said that given the harms of lead exposure 
from lead and GRR service lines and the urgency of service line 
replacement, these systems should be required to complete service line 
replacement sooner.
    The EPA agrees with commenters recommending removing this deferred 
deadline option. For the final rule, the EPA has eliminated the 
deferral option based on a maximum number of annual replacements. The 
EPA made this change for several reasons. First, two deferral options 
unnecessarily complicate the implementation of the rule, as only three 
systems are estimated to be eligible for this deferral option, and two 
of those systems are estimated to also be eligible for the per-
connection deferral option. Second, the EPA agrees with commenters that 
the underlying data used to determine the replacement maximum might not 
reflect replacement feasibility, given that the three systems estimated 
to be eligible were all larger than the system whose underlying 
replacement data was used to determine the proposed replacement maximum 
(Newark, NJ).
    Additionally, the EPA acknowledges the challenge in establishing a 
single number of replacements per year upper threshold limit, based 
upon replacement data from one system (Newark, NJ) and projected data 
from a second system (Detroit, MI), to apply to all systems nationwide 
and which will continue to apply over the coming years. Therefore, due 
to the lack of replacement rate data on the scale required for systems 
with more than 100,000 service lines requiring replacement, it is not 
possible to determine a maximum number of replacements per year for 
such systems and setting a static national maximum based on two cities 
has limitations in this situation (see section IV.B.6 of this preamble 
on feasibility).
    Some commenters suggested that systems with deferred deadlines 
should be required to conduct additional actions to protect public 
health while their replacement program is ongoing. Other commenters 
opposed such requirements, stating that these systems would have the 
most challenges in conducting service line replacement and that 
additional required actions to protect public health would take away 
resources from the systems' replacement program. The EPA does not agree 
with requiring additional actions to protect public health and agrees 
that additional requirements could draw resources away from service 
line replacement itself and prevent service line replacement from 
occurring at the fastest feasible rate.
    The EPA shares commenter concerns that the maximum replacement 
deferral option could result in some systems having deferred deadlines 
that could go beyond multiple decades, which is inconsistent with the 
urgency of achieving lead and GRR service line replacement as quickly 
as feasible. Some commenters also suggested that the required 
replacement rate should increase over time due to increases in 
expertise, experience, and new technologies, especially after the 10-
year deadline when most other programs have finished replacements and 
there is excess capacity in terms of available equipment and trained 
workforce. The EPA agrees that conditions can change over the course of 
a replacement program, such as the provision of new funding, expanded 
access to service lines (such as passage of a State or local law that 
overcomes barriers to access), or increased contractor availability as 
many systems finish their replacement programs. Additionally, the EPA 
agrees that systems that are eligible for the deferred deadline may be 
able to complete service line replacement earlier than the deferred 
deadline, thus the final rule provides that systems eligible for a 
deferred deadline may be put on a shorter deadline where the State 
determines it is feasible. The final rule builds on this concept by 
allowing a system that is eligible for a deferred deadline to begin its 
service line replacement program using a deferred deadline, and 
associated cumulative average replacement rate, that is no longer than 
needed to conduct at least 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service 
connections per year; the system must identify the deferred deadline 
and associated cumulative average replacement rate that it is using in 
its service line replacement plan along with other information 
supporting the system's determination that a faster rate is not 
feasible (as described in Sec.  141.84(c)(1)(x)). Then, as soon as 
practicable, but no later than the end of the second program year, the 
State must evaluate the system's deferred deadline and associated 
cumulative average replacement rate to determine if it is the fastest 
feasible rate for the system. The State must either approve the 
continued use of this replacement rate, or, if the State determines a 
faster rate of replacement is feasible, the State must set a new 
deferred deadline and replacement rate to ensure that the system is 
conducting service line replacement at the fastest feasible rate. The 
State must review the replacement rate information submitted by the 
system in their service line replacement plan every three years to 
ensure that the deferred deadline and associated replacement rate is 
regularly assessed and updated throughout the replacement program, and 
that systems eligible for deferred deadlines are continuing to replace 
service lines at the fastest feasible rate. These provisions are 
intended to inform the State's determination of whether the replacement 
rate is the fastest feasible. This process will also allow systems and 
States to respond to changing conditions to ensure they are replacing 
service lines as quickly as feasible (see sections IV.B.6 through 8 of 
this preamble).
    Some commenters suggested that replacement timelines be determined 
by a system's 90th percentile lead level or CCT status and that systems 
with lower lead levels should be allowed to start later or given 
additional time to complete their replacement program. The EPA 
disagrees with this recommendation for several reasons. There is no 
safe level of lead in drinking water and the EPA is not aware of data

[[Page 86467]]

showing that accelerated service line replacement is less feasible for 
systems with lower lead levels. As such, the recommendation is 
inconsistent with the SDWA requirement to promulgate NPDWRs that 
``prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons 
to the extent feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)). The need for service 
line replacement at the fastest rate feasible is described further in 
section IV.B.2 of this preamble.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final rule includes a deferred deadline option for systems with 
a high proportion of lead and GRR service lines to total service lines. 
The final rule sets the deferral threshold at 39 annual replacements 
per 1,000 connections based on the updated feasibility analysis (see 
section IV.B.2 of this preamble) and conversion from a per-household 
metric to per-connection. To reduce the complexity of this deferral 
option, the final rule refers to the threshold as 39 annual 
replacements per 1,000 connections instead of 0.039 replacements per 
connection per year. Additionally, the final rule is not including the 
second deferral option for systems required to replace more than 10,000 
service lines per year.
    To ensure that systems continue to replace at the fastest feasible 
rate throughout their replacement program, the final rule requires the 
State to set a faster replacement rate where feasible. The final rule 
also requires States to regularly make determinations in writing that 
the deferred deadline and associated replacement rate is the fastest 
feasible, based on the initial service line replacement plan and 
subsequent updates from the system. More specifically, by the end of 
the second program year, and every three years thereafter, the State 
must evaluate the system's use of the deferred deadline and associated 
replacement rate to determine if it is the fastest feasible rate for 
the system. The State must either approve the continued use of the 
deferred deadline and associated replacement rate, or set a new 
replacement deadline and associated replacement rate so that 
replacements are conducted as fast as is feasible for the system. 
States must report these determinations to the EPA. In their publicly 
accessible replacement plan, systems with deferred deadlines must 
document their deferred deadline and associated replacement rate, which 
must be at least 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service connections 
or faster if feasible, the annual number of replacements required, the 
length of time (in years and months), the date of completion, and other 
information supporting the system's determination that replacing lead 
and GRR service line by an earlier date and faster rate is not 
feasible. These systems must also provide in their plans additional 
information (e.g., the annual number of service lines replaced, the 
total number of known lead and galvanized requiring replacement lines 
remaining, status of identifying unknown service lines, etc.) that 
supports the system's deferred deadline and associated replacement 
rate. The EPA intends to issue guidance to assist States in determining 
the fastest feasible rate for systems.
9. Summary of the Feasibility of Mandatory Service Line Replacement
a. Overview
    In considering the full record for this rulemaking, the EPA 
concluded that the mandatory service line replacement requirement is 
feasible. It applies only to service lines that a system can access in 
order to conduct a full service line replacement. It recognizes that 
State or local laws, or water tariff agreements, as well as a 
customer's consent, may affect a system's ability to access a service 
line to conduct a full replacement. It establishes a 10-year deadline, 
with a pathway for a small percentage of systems to obtain a deferred 
deadline, while requiring States to set a faster rate where feasible. 
This approach ensures that service line replacement requirements do not 
overburden primacy States with case-by-case feasibility determinations, 
requests for variances or exemptions, or enforcement actions. The EPA 
has committed to developing guidance to assist States in evaluating 
relevant data to determine the fastest feasible replacement deadline 
for a system and improve their ability to set faster rates where 
feasible.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters theorized that in the past, systems with 
replacement rates documented by the EPA were able to replace lead and 
GRR service lines more quickly than future systems will be due to the 
lack of ``administrative burden and associated rigidity of the proposed 
LCRI framework'' and that the feasibility analysis for the proposed 
LCRI did not take this into account. The EPA does not agree with these 
comments and highlights that mandatory service line replacement and 
other LCRI provisions will increase the replacement rates relative to 
previous voluntary programs (see section IV.B.6 of this preamble for 
further discussion). Additionally, other rule requirements could 
increase public support and knowledge of service line replacement and 
benefit future service line replacement programs. For example, the 
public education requirements in the rule, such as annual notification 
to consumers that their residence is served by a lead or GRR service 
line and making inventory with addresses and service line replacement 
plan publicly available, will create greater awareness of the remaining 
lead and GRR service lines and result in more property owners 
interested in participating in the LSLR program. Risk reduction 
measures, including for full service line replacement, will aid in 
garnering public support or broader awareness of replacement programs 
(see section IV.J.2.a of this preamble and ``Public Education and 
Engagement'' in the proposed LCRI for examples of public education and 
community engagement supporting service line replacement efforts).
    Furthermore, the EPA has launched several technical assistance 
programs specifically to assist with service line replacement, 
including the Lead Service Line Replacement Accelerators and the GLO 
Initiative. Since January 2023, the EPA partnered with 40 communities 
across four States (Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 
Wisconsin) through the LSLR Accelerators pilot program to address 
existing barriers and accelerate progress towards LSL identification 
and replacement (USEPA, 2023m). The GLO Initiative takes the lessons 
learned and best practices from the LSLR Accelerators program to expand 
LSLR technical assistance to approximately 200 additional underserved 
and disadvantaged communities (USEPA, 2024e). The EPA has also 
published resources for developing and maintaining service line 
inventories (USEPA, 2022c; USEPA, 2023n; USEPA, 2023o) and for planning 
and conducting service line replacement (USEPA, 2023p). In addition to 
the EPA resources, lessons learned, best practices, and other previous 
experience documented and publicly shared by water utilities and 
drinking water organizations will provide further resources for systems 
as they manage mandatory service line replacement programs. The EPA is 
aware of additional systems that have conducted or are beginning to 
conduct their replacement programs (EDF, 2024), which will provide 
further learning opportunities for other systems to develop and 
optimize their service line replacement programs. Documents describing 
lessons learned and advice for future systems, which have previously 
been published (e.g., LSLR

[[Page 86468]]

Collaborative, Denver Water Lessons Learned; see the full list in the 
final TSD (USEPA, 2024d)), are also expected to continue to evolve as 
service line replacement programs continue. As another recently 
announced example, the mayors of the cities of Chicago, IL, Milwaukee, 
WI, and Detroit, MI, pledge through the Great Lakes Lead Partnership to 
facilitate close, purposeful collaboration among mayors and water 
utilities to surmount common challenges, highlight emerging best 
practices, and replicate successes from city to city (City of Detroit, 
2024). Furthermore, unprecedented funding is available from BIL and 
other sources to support service line inventory and replacement efforts 
(see section III.G of this preamble).
i. Additional Discussion of Technical Possibility
    In the proposed LCRI's feasibility analysis, the EPA explicitly 
assumed that the market would correct for any potential shortages in 
labor, filters, or material for service line replacement, especially 
because compliance with the mandatory replacement requirement would not 
begin until three years after the compliance date. The EPA sought 
comment on this assumption and the ability of the market to respond to 
the service line replacement requirements. Some commenters, including 
relevant labor and industry associations, agree that the market can 
meet the demand for the potential shortages, while other commenters 
expressed concern about potential shortages when conducting required 
replacement simultaneously with other systems. While these commenters 
listed anecdotal examples of the amount of time it currently takes to 
receive various materials, these data do not show that a 10-year 
deadline will be infeasible for a large volume of systems, as they are 
reflecting the conditions within a single system at the one point in 
time, rather than the conditions at a national level at the LCRI 
compliance date (i.e., 2027), when mandatory service line replacement 
must begin. Based on the record and comments as summarized below, the 
EPA disagrees that nationwide service line replacement in 10 years 
would be challenged or rendered infeasible by supply chain delays, 
labor shortages, and competition for workers and materials.
    As discussed in the proposed LCRI, simultaneous full service line 
replacement over a large geographic area remains feasible (i.e., no 
market or labor shortages), as demonstrated by the fact that LSLR has 
been simultaneously conducted in several places in recent years (e.g., 
Flint, MI, Newark, NJ, Denver, CO, etc.). Furthermore, four States 
(Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island) require systems to 
conduct mandatory service line replacement are all currently in effect. 
These States also have relatively high lead and GRR service line 
prevalence compared to other States (see section V.B.2 of the proposed 
preamble (88 FR 84912, USEPA, 2023a)), which suggests that these States 
also expect full service line replacement to be successfully 
implemented over a large geographic area simultaneously.
    Additionally, commenters were concerned about the ability of the 
market to meet the demands of full service line replacement, including 
concerns about the availability of filters, contractors and plumbers, 
and replacement materials. Some commenters also raised concerns about 
the potential for increased prices or ``price gouging'' due to higher 
demand and competition. Some commenters requested that the EPA 
undertake a comprehensive assessment of labor and material markets. The 
record continues to support the agency's assumption at proposal that 
the market will correct for any potential shortages in the three years 
before the LCRI compliance date. The EPA obtained confirmatory data 
with respect to the share of the copper and PVC pipe supply as well as 
the share of domestic copper and PVC production needed to achieve full 
replacement to better understand the potential impacts on the 
availability of these materials. Assuming that all water systems 
replace lines with a single material (which represents the upper bound 
because systems may utilize a combination of materials), the EPA 
estimates that full service line replacement will require 35.61 million 
pounds of copper, or 2.06 percent of the average annual share of 
domestic production, and 57.09 million pounds of PVC, or 0.22 percent 
of the average annual share of domestic production (ICF, 2024a). 
Accounting for the proportions of different materials used in service 
line replacement, the EPA estimates that the share of domestic 
production necessary to meet the estimated raw material demands is 0.84 
percent for copper and 0.07 percent for PVC (Lee & Meehan, 2017). Thus, 
the LCRI should not create significant raw material demands, and the 
market should be able to adjust to meet the modest increase in demand 
created by the LCRI. Three companies from the copper industry affirmed 
their readiness to ensure a seamless supply of copper for the increased 
demands from the LCRI and mentioned taking various steps to upgrade 
operations, hiring new personnel, adding shifts to their existing 
infrastructure, and investing in a copper tube mill (Copper Development 
Association Inc. (CDA), 2024a). Additionally, the Copper Development 
Association, the market development, engineering and information 
services arm of the copper industry, stated that there is sufficient 
domestic supply of copper to meet the need for replacing lead pipes 
(CDA, 2024b).
    One commenter from a State with many rural communities expressed 
their concern that the filter market would be dominated by larger 
cities and States, making filters harder for smaller systems to access 
and more expensive. To address these comments, the EPA obtained the 
confirmatory data with respect to filter availability to meet all of 
the filter provisions of the final rule (i.e., multiple lead action 
level exceedances, full or partial service line replacements, certain 
service line disturbances, small system flexibility). The data from 
multiple sources confirm the EPA's assumption that the filter market 
will sufficiently expand to meet these needs over the next 10 years. 
For example, one source estimates the market will reach $120.38 billion 
by 2032 with a compound annual growth rate of 10.79 percent and is 
projected to nearly triple in size in the next decade (Razgaitis, 
2023). The EPA also examined filter usage in Denver Water's Lead 
Reduction Program (LRP) to assess if they encountered filter supply 
issues during LRP implementation. The full program began in 2020 with 
nearly 100,000 households participating and a calculated filter 
adoption rate of 80 percent (Harvard School of Public Health, 2024). 
Surveys from Denver LRP indicate that 93 percent of households filter 
their drinking water using filters from Denver Water with 68 percent 
report using filtered water for cooking (Harvard School of Public 
Health, 2024). Additionally, the EPA found that other States are 
turning to filters to reduce levels of lead in drinking water. For 
example, Michigan's Filter First law requires schools and child centers 
to develop a drinking water management plan, install filters, and test 
filtered water for lead. These State laws assume the market will be 
able to meet the demands of the program. Finally, two commenters, one 
representing a filter manufacturer and the other representing the 
point-of-entry and point-of-use filter manufacturing industry, both 
indicated their expectations that the industry will be able to meet the 
increased filter demand resulting from the LCRI (Docket

[[Page 86469]]

ID EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801, Comment submitted by the Brita brand and The 
Clorox Company, Comment submitted by Water Quality Association (WQA)).
    Some commenters had concerns about the availability of workers to 
conduct service line replacement within 10 years while other commenters 
agreed that the labor market can meet the demand created by the 
mandatory service line replacement provisions. One commenter, 
representing a trade union, highlighted its numerous training programs 
and affirmed its capacity to develop the workforce to complete LSLR 
within the next 10 years (Laborers' International Union of North 
America (LIUNA), 2024). In the proposed LCRI, the EPA had noted its 
assumption that the three years before water systems must begin to 
conduct service line replacement would give the market time to adjust 
and correct for any potential labor shortages. While some commenters 
noted that the construction and infrastructure sectors reported 
backlogs for eight to nine months in 2023, those backlogs are not a 
measure of hardship, as backlogs do not suggest that construction firms 
are behind schedule or having difficulties completing contracted jobs, 
but rather there is consistent work indicating a safer investment for 
building capacity. The greater the duration of the backlog, ``the more 
comfortable contractors can be with their near-term economic 
circumstances'' (Associated Builders and Contractors, 2023). In 
response to comments and to evaluate whether the EPA's assumption 
regarding the market is correct, the EPA reviewed data such as the 
projected job growth in labor markets that are relevant to service line 
replacement to evaluate the demand created by the final rule's service 
line replacement requirements, including plumbers and pipefitters, as 
well as operators of heavy equipment. A study from the United 
Association of Union Plumbers and Pipefitters in partnership with the 
BW Research Partnership for E2 concluded that lead pipe replacement 
programs would create an estimated 26,900 construction jobs per year in 
10 years, plus additional jobs through supply chain effects. More 
specifically, the study estimates that 10 percent of the newly created 
jobs would be in pipefitting occupations and 7.2 percent would be in 
pipelaying/pipefitting occupations (E2, 2021). Those findings exceed 
the EPA estimate using anecdotal evidence that it will take the full-
time equivalent of 17,000 crews to replace 8.8 million lead and GRR 
service lines per year with replacement efforts involving approximately 
3.6 percent of the pipe worker labor force and 3.5 percent of the 
excavator workforce (ICF, 2024b). The studies determining the 
percentage of the workforce necessary to meet the LCRI are reinforced 
by activities around the country. Unions--the Laborers' International 
Union of North America, the United Association of Plumbers and 
Pipefitters, and the International Union of Operating Engineers to name 
three--are already training workers in LSLR and putting them to work 
across the country (The White House, 2024a). Additionally, the White 
House has created nine White House Workforce Hub cities to train and 
connect American workers to jobs created by the BIL funding and other 
Federal investments (The White House, 2024b). The EPA documented in the 
proposed rule two water systems (Detroit, MI, and Newark, NJ) and one 
State (Rhode Island) that have planned or already implemented 
apprenticeship or training programs to increase contractor capacity 
during upcoming LSLR projects (see section V.B.2 of the proposed 
preamble (88 FR 84912, USEPA, 2023a)). These studies and activities 
demonstrate that the skilled workforce is sufficiently robust to meet 
the demands of the final LCRI's service line replacement requirement 
and will be supplemented by additional job training.

C. Service Line Replacement Plan

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    The service line replacement plan is a critical element of the 
LCRI. A well-developed plan can facilitate timely compliance with the 
mandatory service line replacement requirements and, therefore, provide 
greater public health protection and replacement program efficiency. 
Under the 2021 LCRR, the EPA required systems to submit an LSLR plan by 
October 16, 2024, so water systems could (1) quickly commence a 
systemwide replacement program following a lead trigger level or action 
level exceedance and (2) be ready to complete customer-initiated LSLR 
requests regardless of their 90th percentile lead level. The LSLR plan 
requirements promulgated in the 2021 LCRR required all water systems 
with at least one lead, GRR, or unknown service line to create and 
submit to the State a replacement plan containing sufficiently detailed 
information on six elements: a strategy for determining the material of 
unknown service lines, a procedure for conducting LSLR, an approach to 
informing customers before replacement, a flushing procedure for 
customers, a prioritization plan (based on, but not limited to, known 
LSLs and LSLR for communities of concern and populations most sensitive 
to the effects of lead), and a funding strategy. Systems serving more 
than 10,000 persons must also include in the plan a recommended LSLR 
goal-based rate in the event of a lead trigger level exceedance.
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed to expand the 2021 LCRR LSLR plan to 
require two additional elements. For the first new element, systems 
must develop a communication strategy to inform residential and non-
residential customers (property owners) and consumers (e.g., tenants) 
served by the system about the service line replacement plan and 
program. This proposed plan element assures that both the consumers and 
owners of rental properties are aware of the water system's program to 
replace lead and GRR service lines and ensures that both tenants and 
their landlords have information about the program. The second new 
element requires the identification of any laws, regulations, and/or 
water tariff agreements that affect the system's ability to gain access 
to conduct full service line replacements, such as any requirements for 
customer consent or customer cost-sharing. In the proposal, the EPA 
explained that this element would support and encourage water systems 
to comply with the requirement to conduct full service line 
replacement, especially given that the water system's self-identified 
elements of control determine whether the water system must conduct 
replacement. The requirement to make these potential access barriers 
public would also facilitate public engagement on the effect of State 
or local laws or water tariff agreements on a system's access for full 
service line replacement.
    In addition to the new elements, the proposed LCRI modified the 
plan element requiring a funding strategy to specifically require 
systems to describe whether and how the system intends to assist 
customers who are unable to pay for replacement where the water system 
intends to charge customers for the cost of all or any portion of the 
replacement because it is authorized or required to do so under State 
or local law or water tariff agreement. In addition, the EPA proposed 
to require that the plan be made available to the public, and systems 
serving more than 50,000 persons must make the plan publicly available 
online. Finally, the EPA proposed to remove the element for systems 
serving more than 10,000 people to recommend a goal-based replacement 
rate because the agency proposed to eliminate the lead trigger level.

[[Page 86470]]

    The proposed rule did not require water systems to update their 
plan, however the EPA sought comment on a requirement for systems to 
update their service line replacement plans if there are any changes, 
such as changes to laws and policies applicable to full service line 
replacement. The public accessibility requirements, together with the 
plan's additional and revised elements, were proposed to ensure that 
property owners and consumers have information about the water system's 
plans for conducting service line replacements, including any 
requirements for customer consent or cost-sharing.
2. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters suggested the EPA require more specific 
prioritization criteria for service line replacement in the plan. Some 
commenters specifically recommended that water systems be required to 
prioritize replacement in accordance with health and socioeconomic 
indicators, and at hospitals, nursing homes, child care facilities, 
schools, and for disadvantaged consumers. Some commenters also 
suggested that the EPA should provide guidance for developing service 
line replacement plans, including a template, and provide technical 
assistance to help systems design and implement their prioritization 
strategies. The EPA disagrees that the national requirements for the 
replacement plan should be required to include more specific 
prioritization criteria because every community is different, and each 
community is better positioned to identify the best way to prioritize 
service line replacement. For example, one water system may serve a 
community with housing that also contains lead paint, so the water 
system could prioritize replacement in that community to reduce 
disparities in potential lead exposures. The EPA encourages water 
systems to engage with their citizens when devising prioritization 
strategies to better understand their communities' needs. The final 
LCRI aims to advance equitable service line replacement by enhancing 
transparency between the water system and the community on the 
practices adopted and progress made towards replacing all lead and GRR 
service lines under the control of the system, e.g., by requiring the 
service line inventory and plan to be made publicly accessible or 
available and by adding or revising elements in the plan. Making the 
replacement plan available to the public will increase community 
awareness of the prioritization strategy, the laws affecting the 
system's ability to gain access to conduct full service line 
replacement, and the replacement program. Publication of the service 
line inventory will ensure water systems can be held accountable by the 
community for replacing lead and GRR service lines in accordance with 
their plans.
    Some commenters recommended that water systems with lead connectors 
or connectors of unknown material should be required to develop a 
replacement plan (even if the system does not have any lead, GRR, or 
unknown service lines) that includes a strategy to identify and replace 
them. The EPA disagrees with these comments because the plan is 
intended to support the systems' compliance with the requirements to 
replace all lead and GRR service lines, and there is no requirement in 
the LCRI for systems to establish a program to locate and replace lead 
connectors other than those that would be replaced with a lead or GRR 
service line, or connectors that are otherwise encountered by the 
system.
    Other commenters agreed with the EPA's proposed requirement that 
systems identify State and local laws, and water tariff agreements that 
affect a water systems ability to gain access to conduct full service 
line replacement because they may increase transparency around a 
utility's processes and potentially enhancing public discussion around 
changes to align laws and policies to support expanded access and swift 
and equitable service line replacement. Commenters also affirmed the 
EPA's expectation that this requirement could help resolve confusion 
and lack of clarity around what, if any, impact such State and local 
provisions actually have on access and financing issues. The final LCRI 
requires systems to include the citations to the specific laws, 
regulations, or water tariff agreement provisions. In some cases, this 
exercise may help systems realize that they already have access to the 
full service line for replacement. Moreover, making this information 
publicly available may facilitate public engagement on the effect of 
these laws and water tariff agreements on a system's access for full 
service line replacement. The EPA has included examples of systems, 
localities, and States, such as the 2024 act passed by the State of 
Indiana (Indiana General Assembly, 2024), that have successfully 
changed existing laws or agreements to overcome access barriers in 
section IV.B.3 of this preamble.
    The EPA received comments about lead-lined galvanized service 
lines, with some recommending that discovery of one lead-lined 
galvanized service line should prompt the system to assume all 
galvanized service lines are lead-lined. The EPA agrees that lead-lined 
galvanized service lines can contribute significant amounts of lead in 
drinking water, and, as the agency previously stated in the 2021 LCRR 
and proposed LCRI, these service lines are covered by the definition of 
an LSL (USEPA, 2022c; USEPA, 2023a) because a portion of the service 
line is made of lead. The EPA disagrees that discovery of one lead-
lined galvanized line should, as some commenters recommended, require 
the system to categorize all galvanized service lines in the 
distribution system as lead-lined. The EPA found only limited 
information about the prevalence of these service lines nationwide, and 
commenters did not provide data to support the assumption that if one 
lead-lined galvanized service line is discovered, all galvanized 
service lines in the system are lead-lined. To address the possibility 
that systems may have (or find in the future) lead-lined galvanized 
service lines, the EPA is finalizing a new requirement for systems that 
identify any lead-lined galvanized service lines to include in their 
service line replacement plan a strategy to determine the extent of the 
use of lead-lined galvanized service lines in the distribution system 
(see section IV.D.1.b.iv of this preamble). If a water system is aware 
of their presence in the distribution system, this plan requirement can 
help systems understand how widespread their use may be.
    Under the proposed LCRI, the EPA sought comment on whether the 
service line replacement plan should be updated if there are any 
changes, such as changes to laws and policies applicable to full 
service line replacement. Some commenters supported a requirement to 
update the plan, noting that there may be changes that impact full 
service line replacement. One commenter stated that updates to the plan 
should be required no sooner than the next service line inventory 
update or no sooner than 12 months after the previous submission, 
whichever is longer. Other commenters stated that systems should be 
required to update the plan if there are changes to applicable legal or 
contractual provisions or the service line inventory. The EPA agrees 
that water systems should update their plans to accurately reflect the 
current service line replacement plan, including any applicable laws, 
regulations, or water tariff agreements. Maintaining an up-to-date 
service line replacement plan will facilitate customer and consumer

[[Page 86471]]

engagement and cooperation with the system's service line replacement 
program as well as State oversight.
    The EPA is also revising the plan requirements for water systems 
that are eligible for and plan to use a deferred deadline in response 
to comments that that plans may need to be updated for changes in 
circumstances. The system and the State will regularly evaluate the 
system's use of the deferred deadline and associated replacement rate, 
which may change over time as conditions change. These systems must 
document in the plan (1) the basis for the system's eligibility for a 
deferred deadline, showing that 10 percent of the total number know 
lead and GRR service lines in the replacement pool exceeds 39 annual 
replacements per 1,000 service connections and any additional 
supporting information, (2) the fastest feasible replacement rate and 
associated deferred deadline that the system has identified in which it 
can complete its replacement program, which may not to be less than 39 
annual replacements per 1,000 service connections, and (3) information 
supporting the system's determination that an earlier deadline and 
faster rate than 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service connections 
is not feasible. The EPA expects this information may change as systems 
identify unknown service lines and update their replacement pools, 
which may affect the total number of known lead and GRR service lines 
and the annual number of replacements required. These requirements will 
provide the State with information necessary for its determination of 
the system's ability to replace service lines at a faster rate; 
however, the State may also require the system to provide additional 
information for the State to consider in its assessment of the 
continued use of a deferred deadline and the fastest feasible 
replacement rate. Requiring systems to include information about their 
deferred deadlines in the replacement plan along with the system's 
justification as to why it thinks one is necessary also improves 
transparency between the system and the public by explaining the 
reasons why the system may take longer than 10 years to replace all 
lead and GRR service lines.
    Some commenters recommended that the EPA require more systems to 
make their service line replacement plans publicly available online by 
reducing the threshold to systems serving greater than 10,000 persons 
rather than systems serving more than 50,000 persons, as proposed. One 
commenter recommended that there should be no threshold and all systems 
should publish their plans online. The EPA disagrees with this 
suggestion because the EPA is concerned about the feasibility and 
ability of systems serving 50,000 people or fewer to maintain and 
update websites. In addition, the threshold is consistent with the 
recently promulgated requirement for systems serving more than 50,000 
persons to make the Consumer Confidence Report available online (USEPA, 
2024c).
3. Final Rule Requirements
    Under the final rule, all water systems with at least one lead, 
GRR, or unknown service line in their inventory must create a service 
line replacement plan by the LCRI compliance date. It is important that 
systems have developed a comprehensive and detailed plan by the 
compliance date so that systems have planned for important aspects of 
their service line replacement program and can implement their program 
accordingly and begin replacing lead and GRR service lines upon the 
compliance date if not sooner. The EPA is retaining most of the service 
line replacement plan elements that were proposed. This includes the 
requirements for water systems to include in their service line 
replacement plans: (1) A description of a strategy to identify the 
material of all unknown service lines in the inventory; (2) a standard 
operating procedure for conducting full service line replacement (e.g., 
techniques to replace service lines, plans for procurement of 
materials, or plans for utilizing contractors); (3) a communication 
strategy to inform consumers and customers before a full or partial 
lead or GRR service line replacement; (4) a procedure for consumers and 
customers to flush service lines and premise plumbing of particulate 
lead following disturbance of a lead, GRR, or unknown service line 
following full or partial replacement of a lead or GRR service line; 
(5) a funding strategy for conducting service line replacement; (6) a 
communication strategy to inform residential and non-residential 
customers and consumers (e.g., property owners, renters, and tenants) 
served by the water system about the service line replacement plan and 
program; and (7) identification of any laws, regulations, and water 
tariff agreements that affect the water system's ability to gain access 
to conduct full lead and GRR service line replacement, including the 
citation to the specific laws, regulations, or water tariff agreement 
provisions.
    The final LCRI clarified the plan element requiring systems to 
create a prioritization strategy. The final rule clarifies the 
prioritization strategy must be based on factors including but not 
limited to known lead and GRR service lines and community-specific 
factors, such as populations disproportionately impacted by lead and 
populations most sensitive to the effects of lead. This clarification 
does not change the intent of the proposed LCRI requirement, but 
instead clarifies the plan element to include community-specific 
factors. Every community is different, and each community is better 
positioned to identify the best way to prioritize service line 
replacement.
    The final LCRI also includes new plan requirements for any water 
system that identifies any lead-lined galvanized service lines in the 
development of the service line inventory (the baseline inventory or 
any update). One requirement consists of developing a strategy to 
determine the extent of the use of lead-lined galvanized service lines 
in distribution system and categorizing (or recategorize if they were 
categorized as non-lead) the lines as LSLs for mandatory service line 
replacement. Lead-lined galvanized service lines contain a lead inner 
lining and are, therefore, considered LSLs in the final rule. If a 
water system is aware of their presence in the distribution system, it 
is important to understand how widespread their use may be to 
accurately identify all LSLs in the distribution system.
    For a water system that is eligible for and plans to use a deferred 
deadline, the plan must include the following items. First, the system 
must include documentation of the system's eligibility for a deferred 
deadline that shows that 10 percent of the total number of known lead 
and galvanized requiring replacement service lines in the replacement 
pool exceeds 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service connections. 
Second, the system must include documentation detailing mandatory 
service line replacement under a deferred deadline at the fastest rate 
that system identifies as feasible, including the annual number of 
replacements required, the length of time (in years and months), the 
date of completion, and the associated cumulative average replacement 
rate the system considers to be the fastest feasible but no slower than 
the replacement rate corresponding to 39 annual replacements per 1,000 
service connections, as well as the annual number of replacements 
required, the length of time (in years and months), and the date of 
completion for this deadline and replacement rate. Third, the system 
must include information supporting the system's determination that 
replacing lead and GRR service

[[Page 86472]]

lines at a shorter deadline and faster rate than identified in the plan 
is not feasible.
    The final LCRI also requires water systems to annually update the 
service line replacement plan to reflect any new or updated 
information, including any changes that affect the system's ability to 
conduct mandatory full service line replacement (e.g., new State or 
local laws and water tariff agreements, a new strategy for identifying 
the material of unknown service lines based on inventory validation, or 
lessons learned from risk communication efforts in the community), and 
to submit these updates to the State annually. If the plan does not 
need to be updated, the water system may then certify to the State that 
the plan has no updates. Water systems may cease annual certifications 
to the State when there are no lead, GRR, and unknown service lines 
left in the inventory.
    Systems with deferred deadlines, in addition to annual updates, 
must every three years after the initial submission of the plan, update 
their replacement plan with the latest: (1) Documentation of the 
system's eligibility for a deferred deadline; (2) documentation 
detailing the system's identified replacement rate for completing 
mandatory service line replacement under a deferred deadline; and (3) 
information supporting the system's determination that replacing lead 
and GRR service lines at a shorter deadline and faster rate than 
documented in the plan is not feasible (see section IV.B.8 of this 
preamble for more information on deferred deadlines). The State will 
then review these updates and determine by the end of the fifth program 
year, and every three program years thereafter, if a shorter deadline 
and faster rate are feasible. The State must also report to the EPA the 
system's expected completion date and an explanation for why this date 
is the fastest feasible.
    Under the final LCRI, water systems are required to make their plan 
publicly accessible, and systems serving more than 50,000 persons must 
make the plan available online. The publicly accessible plan must also 
reflect any updates no later than the deadline to submit the updated 
plan to the State.

D. Service Line Inventory

1. Baseline Inventory and General Inventory Requirements
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Requirement
    A comprehensive and accurate service line inventory is critical to 
a water system's ability to inform consumers that may be affected by 
lead contamination in their drinking water and to comply with the 
requirements in this rule to identify the material of unknown service 
lines and replace lead and GRR service lines by a specified deadline. 
The service line inventory provides the foundation for a water system 
to address a significant source of lead in drinking water, lead and GRR 
service lines, and strengthen public health protection. Inventories are 
also critical for developing tap sampling plans and conducting targeted 
public education. Inventories can help water systems and consumers 
(persons served at a service connection) determine the source of high 
lead levels in drinking water at a home or building and the possible 
solutions for reducing exposure to lead.
    Inventories are critical to the EPA's administration of targeted 
funding and financial assistance programs, such as the WIIN Act lead 
remediation grants, low- to no-cost financing through the DWSRF, 
including supplemental funding from the BIL, and low-cost financing 
through the WIFIA program (see section III.G of this preamble for more 
information on the BIL and other financial resources). In America's 
Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, Congress recognized the importance of 
increasing the understanding about the extent of LSLs in the nation by 
mandating the EPA to include an assessment of costs to replace LSLs in 
the 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment 
(referred to as the Needs Survey) to inform the distribution of DWSRF 
BIL LSL funding to States.
    The proposed LCRI built upon the LSL inventory requirements in the 
2021 LCRR. Under the 2021 LCRR, all water systems must develop an 
initial inventory of service lines using available records, make it 
publicly accessible or available, and submit it to the State by October 
16, 2024. The EPA did not propose to change the LCRR initial inventory 
compliance date to ensure that systems make continued progress towards 
inventory development. However, the EPA proposed in the LCRI to require 
all water systems to update the LCRR initial inventory with information 
about connector materials and locations along with any new information 
on service lines by the rule compliance date (three years after 
promulgation). The updated initial inventory, referred to as the 
baseline inventory, aims to better position water systems to 
immediately begin mandatory full service line replacement upon the LCRI 
compliance date and to better protect public health by improving 
transparency and consumer awareness of where they are served by service 
lines and connectors that contain lead.
    In the 2021 LCRR, the EPA determined that it is practical and 
feasible for water systems to prepare an initial inventory by October 
16, 2024, and update it because the rule did not impose a deadline on 
water systems to determine the composition of every service line 
categorized as lead status unknown or ``unknown'' (USEPA, 2020e). The 
EPA also considers submission of the baseline inventory by the LCRI 
compliance date to be feasible because: (1) Systems are not required to 
identify all unknown service lines until the mandatory service line 
replacement deadline, (2) systems have had opportunities to gather 
information about their service lines to meet the requirements of the 
1991 LCR, including conducting materials evaluations for tap sampling 
and for systems that exceeded the LCR's lead action level, where 
systems identified the number of LSLs, (3) several States have already 
required water systems to create service line inventories, and (4) 
systems are required to review available records and submit an LCRR 
initial inventory by October 16, 2024.
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed to also require water systems to 
include connector materials in their service line inventories. The EPA 
proposed to require systems to conduct a review of specified sources 
(e.g., construction and plumbing codes, records, and other 
documentation) on connectors, similar to the requirement for systems to 
review these specified sources for service line material information 
under the 2021 LCRR, and to identify and track connector material when 
encountered during normal operations and when lead connectors are 
replaced. The EPA proposed to require the inclusion of lead connectors 
in the inventory because it provides additional information to the 
system and public on potential sources of lead in drinking water, which 
could prompt actions to reduce lead exposure and provide systems with 
information to consider during Distribution System and Site Assessment 
(DSSA). As stated in the ``Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a 
Service Line Inventory'' (or the LCRR Inventory Guidance) document, 
this information would allow systems to track and manage this potential 
source of lead, improve asset management, and increase transparency 
with consumers (USEPA, 2022c). As stated in the proposal, tracking the 
locations of connectors, including replaced lead connectors, can 
provide additional information relevant to assess potential health 
risks, considering lead

[[Page 86473]]

from an upstream source can adsorb onto galvanized pipe over time.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
i. Baseline Inventory
    The EPA received many comments on the inclusion of lead connectors 
in the baseline inventory and review of specified sources for connector 
materials. Some commenters supported the proposed requirement because 
connectors can be a source of lead contamination. One State commenter 
noted that the inclusion of these requirements is consistent with that 
State's regulatory approach regarding connectors and that the deadline 
to submit the LCRI baseline inventory three years after rule 
promulgation is ample time for systems to check their records. Some 
commenters recommended stricter requirements, such as physically 
verifying each connector of unknown material or ``never lead'' 
connector. Other commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement for 
various reasons, including (1) the value is not clear for inventorying 
connectors when the proposed rule already requires water systems to 
remove lead connectors upon encounter, (2) the burden and inefficiency 
to require a review of specified sources for connectors when systems 
have already begun or completed a review for service lines, (3) the 
burden it would impose on States to send out new inventory templates to 
all their systems, (4) the limited public health benefit, and (5) the 
lack of available records for connectors. Many commenters stated that 
they were under the impression that the EPA would not change the 2021 
LCRR inventory requirements in the LCRI. Commenters also requested the 
inclusion of connectors to be optional to align the proposed 
requirements with past inventorying requirements. Some commenters that 
opposed the requirement to conduct a review of specified sources for 
connector materials generally were, however, in support of identifying 
connector materials and locations when encountered during normal 
operations. Lastly, commenters asked the EPA to specify which 
connectors along the service line must be included in the inventory, 
how many connectors needed to be reported along the line, and if 
multiple connectors along the line needed to have unique 
identification.
    The EPA acknowledges the burden associated with including a review 
of specified sources for connector materials and locations in the LCRI 
baseline inventory. The EPA also understands that some systems may lack 
records on connector materials. However, the agency disagrees that it 
is not practical or feasible to conduct a review of specified sources 
and include information on connector materials based on those sources 
in the LCRI baseline inventory. Systems in some States (i.e., Illinois, 
Michigan, and New Jersey) have already begun inventorying lead 
connectors because lead connectors are included in the State 
definitions of an LSL. The sources that systems must review are clearly 
stated in the final rule. Systems also do not need to re-review sources 
of service lines that they have already reviewed if they know that 
connector materials were not denoted in them. The EPA also determined 
that it is practical and feasible for water systems to prepare the 
baseline inventory by the rule compliance date (three years after rule 
promulgation; see section IV.D.1.a of this preamble for more 
information).
    The EPA also disagrees that including connectors in the inventory 
provides limited benefits to public health. Inventoried lead connectors 
can provide additional information to the public on potential sources 
of lead in drinking water, both from the lead connector itself and from 
lead that might have adsorbed onto galvanized service lines or premise 
plumbing that are currently or were previously downstream of the 
connector. Although lead connectors are expected to contribute less to 
lead in drinking water when compared to LSLs because they are shorter 
in length, lead connectors are still a source of lead that may 
contribute to lead in drinking water. Commenters did not provide 
information or data to support concluding that it is not feasible for 
systems to conduct a review of applicable sources for connectors and to 
track connectors during normal operations. Lastly, all connectors 
identified along a service line must be included in the inventory. The 
LCRR Inventory Guidance (USEPA, 2022c) provides recommendations on how 
to uniquely label service lines at the same address, which may be 
applied to a configuration of multiple connectors along the same 
service line and, therefore, the same address.
    The EPA received comments on the proposed categories for connector 
materials in the baseline inventory. Commenters asked for the 
``replaced lead'' category to be made optional due to the increase in 
workload to identify where lead connectors have been replaced in the 
past, to focus time and resources on higher priority inventory and 
replacement activities, the lack of clarity on the intent for including 
the category, and the potential for customer confusion due to the lack 
of clarity on what actions, if any, should be taken based on this 
information. One commenter stated that the category is inconsistent 
with categories for service lines, which do not keep track of where 
LSLs have been replaced. Another commenter stated that, if an entire 
service line has been replaced, there is no reason to ``alarm the 
public'' by noting the connectors that were previously made of lead. 
The same commenter was also confused as to why the categories did not 
mimic the service line categories more (e.g., lead, galvanized, non-
lead, or unknown). Other commenters found the distinction between 
certain categories to be unclear, noting an example of copper service 
lines falling under the ``never lead'' and ``no connector present'' 
categories because they do not have connectors, and asked for 
clarification on locations where there are no records available. One 
commenter stated all connector categorizations were unnecessary, 
whereas another commenter supported the connector categorizations as 
proposed.
    The agency agrees with commenters who raised concerns about 
tracking replaced lead connectors when the entire service line has been 
replaced as well as the concerns about potential for customer confusion 
of the ``replaced lead'' category and what actions consumers should 
take, consistency with the service line material categories, and 
commenters' confusion on inventorying connectors based on the proposed 
rule categorizations. The categories for service lines did not include 
replaced LSLs or replaced GRR service lines, which was inconsistent 
with the categories for connectors that include replaced lead. 
Therefore, the agency is revising the final LCRI to remove the 
``replaced lead'' and ``never lead'' connector material categories and 
add a new ``non-lead'' category. Water systems would categorize 
replaced lead connectors and never lead connectors as ``non-lead,'' and 
they would categorize sites where the lead connector was removed and no 
non-lead connector replaced it as ``no connector present.'' These 
finalized requirements simplify and streamline the proposed 
requirements by removing the separate category for replaced lead. The 
EPA encourages water systems include additional subcategories for non-
lead connectors or sites with no connectors present, such as whether a 
lead connector was replaced at or removed

[[Page 86474]]

from the location. Locations of where lead connectors were previously 
replaced may provide the water system with additional information, 
particularly when investigating the cause of elevated lead under the 
DSSA requirements. This additional information could also be useful to 
consumers, such as if they have a downstream galvanized service line or 
downstream galvanized premise plumbing that might have adsorbed lead 
particulates released from the upstream lead connector. Additionally, 
water systems improving their water infrastructure by fully replacing 
old, galvanized service lines that are downstream of a known lead 
connector or replaced lead connector are eligible for BIL DWSRF LSLR 
capitalization grants to conduct these improvements (USEPA, 2022d). See 
section IV.D.1.c of this preamble for more information on the final 
LCRI requirements for connector material categorization.
ii. Inventory All Service Lines
    Under the final LCRI, as proposed, all CWSs and non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWSs) must update their LCRR initial 
inventories to create a baseline inventory of all service lines in the 
distribution system. No service line is to be excluded, regardless of 
water system size, system characteristics, service line ownership, 
actual or intended use of the service line, historical tap sampling 
results, or service line installation date. The inventory requirements 
include all service lines connected to the distribution system 
including service lines with no known potable applications, such as 
those designated for fire suppression or emergencies, as well as 
service lines connected to vacant or abandoned buildings even if the 
buildings are unoccupied and water service is turned off.
    The EPA received comments stating that the agency should not 
require water systems to inventory service lines with non-potable 
applications (i.e., fire suppression lines), service lines at abandoned 
properties, and service lines installed after lead bans became 
effective, such as Federal, State, or local bans. Commenters stated 
that fire suppression lines are typically larger than lead or GRR 
service lines and are used for non-potable purposes. One commenter 
stated that the limited resources available to water systems would be 
better directed towards activities with greater benefit to public 
health because inventorying fire suppression lines provides limited 
benefit to public health.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters that suggested service lines with 
non-potable applications should be excluded from the inventory 
requirements. A requirement to inventory only those lines that are 
currently being used for potable purposes or may be used for potable 
purposes is administratively unworkable. Moreover, it could expose 
consumers to lead in drinking water from lead or GRR service lines 
because the water system is not aware of all actual uses of the water 
service by consumers, which could include potable uses, e.g., 
industrial workers potentially drinking water at the facility or 
agricultural workers filling up water bottles from a close by tap that 
is primarily used for irrigation. Service lines, as defined by the 
rule, are used for the distribution of potable water; therefore, 
regardless of their current or intended use, they are capable of being 
used for potable purposes. The possibility that the potable water may 
in fact be used exclusively for non-potable applications at some point 
in time does not preclude the possibility that the potable water could 
in fact be used for human consumption or that these service lines could 
be repurposed in the future for potable uses. For example, these 
service lines may be repurposed for potable use during a natural 
disaster or other major emergency or may be repurposed for new 
residential use. Furthermore, the EPA is concerned that any exclusion 
of service lines to LCRI requirements based on anticipated or intended 
use could erroneously exclude some service lines from other LCRI 
requirements (e.g., service line replacement, public education, and tap 
sampling). The final rule similarly does not exclude service lines 
connected to abandoned or vacant properties from the service line 
inventory because of the potential for these sites to be occupied by 
consumers in the future. An NPDWR provision that applies to only where 
the water is actually used for human consumption is administratively 
unworkable, difficult to implement, and would introduce unnecessary 
complexity into the rule, which would run counter to the EPA's 
commitment to simplifying the rule. By including all service lines in 
the inventory, water systems can avoid these potential harms to public 
health.
    The EPA received comments stating that the agency should not 
require water systems to inventory service lines on private property. 
Commenters also asked whether water systems must inventory service 
lines downstream of a master meter (also called, ``mass meter'') or 
other single point of connection. Commenters stated that CWSs should 
not be responsible for inventorying and taking subsequent actions for 
what they characterize as distribution systems that are maintained by 
someone other than the water system and ``only connected to the water 
system by virtue of the sale of water through a mass meter.'' 
Commenters noted that the definition of a service line may create a 
responsibility for buildings on a college campus, manufactured housing 
communities, apartment complexes, etc., where the system does not have 
the authority, control, or responsibility beyond the connection point. 
Commenters suggested that the regulated system should not be burdened 
by these groups of connections beyond a master meter, which they 
implicitly assume are separate and/or unregulated PWSs.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters that service lines on private 
property should not be inventoried. Therefore, the final rule, like the 
2021 LCRR, requires water systems to include in their inventory all 
service lines that are connected to the distribution system, regardless 
of ownership. Because all service lines are connected to the PWS's 
distribution system, they are accessible at that juncture to the PWS in 
order to allow for identification. If the service line is connected to 
the distribution system, then the water system should be aware of its 
composition in order to comply with the requirements in the rule to 
provide public education to persons served by lead and GRR service 
lines and to replace these lines if they are under the control of the 
system. Under the 1991 LCR, systems have been able to identify service 
line materials even where the service lines traverse private property 
to comply with the tap sampling and service line replacement 
requirements, and water systems have been developing an inventory of 
all service lines connected to a distribution system, regardless of 
ownership, to comply with the 2021 LCRR.
    In some situations, an apartment complex, manufactured housing 
community, or other multi-family or multi-unit entity will have a 
master meter at the property line of the community. If these 
communities are considered part of or within a CWS or NTNCWS service 
area, then that water system is required to inventory all service 
lines, even if they are beyond a master meter, just as the system is 
required to inventory service lines between a water main and a single-
family residence regardless of the presence of a meter between the 
water main and the building inlet. As stated above, the inventory must 
include all service lines connected to the public

[[Page 86475]]

water distribution system. If the group of connections beyond a master 
meter meets the definition of a PWS (i.e., serve at least 15 service 
connections or 25 persons for 60 days per year) and receives some or 
all of its finished water from one or more wholesale systems, it would 
meet the EPA's definition of consecutive system (Sec.  141.2, 
definition of ``consecutive system''). Consecutive systems that are 
CWSs or NTNCWSs must complete and submit the LCRR initial inventory to 
their State by October 16, 2024, and follow the requirements of the 
LCRI. Some of these systems may meet the criteria that allows a system 
to not comply with NPDWRs under SDWA section 1411 and Sec.  141.3. The 
EPA encourages systems to contact their State for questions concerning 
the application of these criteria to a specific system.
iii. Methods To Categorize and Identify Service Lines
    The EPA received comments on methods for service line material 
identification. Some commenters stated that water systems should be 
able to use the age of the service line and the effective date of the 
lead ban as well as statistical approaches (like interpolation and 
predictive modelling) to categorize a service line as non-lead. These 
and other commenters also stated that the EPA should prescribe 
acceptable methods for service line identification along the entire 
line and provide guidance on how to determine whether an emerging 
method is acceptable. One commenter stated that every service line 
should not need to be ``manually verified,'' and a different commenter 
stated that, if a utility has identified 10 percent of their service 
lines as non-lead, the rest of the service lines should be assumed to 
be non-lead. Another commenter stated that NTNCWSs should be allowed to 
use sampling as a preliminary assessment to determine the potential 
presence of LSLs before using more invasive investigative methods that 
may disrupt facility operations. Another commenter stated that unknown 
service line identification should be risk-based (e.g., taking into 
account the probability an LSL exists and identifying unknown lines 
based on that probability).
    The EPA disagrees that the agency should prescribe a list of 
acceptable methods for service line identification beyond the list of 
specified sources in the rule, which allows for the use of additional 
sources and new technologies developed in the future to aid in 
determining service line material if approved or required by the State. 
The EPA proposed to require systems to review certain specified sources 
described in Sec.  141.84(b)(2)(i) through (iii). Water systems may use 
the age of the service line and the date of the applicable lead ban to 
categorize service lines because such records fall under the sources of 
information that systems must review as described in Sec.  
141.84(b)(2)(ii). Water systems may use any sources that are or 
previously have been approved or required by their States. While the 
EPA disagrees with commenters that the rule should prescribe a list of 
additional specific acceptable methods for identifying service line 
materials at the national level, the EPA notes that it has published 
the LCRR Inventory Guidance that discusses available methods that water 
systems could use with State approval (USEPA, 2022c). The agency has 
also published other guidance documents on developing and maintaining 
service line inventories including a general fact sheet, inventory 
template, and small entity compliance guidance (USEPA, 2023n; USEPA, 
2023o).
    The EPA disagrees that the inventory should include additional 
``risk-based'' categorizations for unknown service lines (e.g., likely 
lead versus unlikely lead). Water systems may choose to include this 
type of information, and the EPA notes that, in Sec.  141.84(a)(3), the 
definition of a lead status unknown service line indicates that water 
systems can provide additional information regarding their unknown 
service lines as long as the inventory clearly distinguishes unknown 
lines from those where the categorization of the material is based on 
the applicable sources of information specified in Sec.  141.84(b)(2) 
(e.g., records, codes, inspections, and other documentation). There is 
nothing in the rule that would preclude systems from providing 
additional information in the inventory to describe the basis for the 
categorization or the likelihood that the service line is made of lead. 
For example, a system that adds subcategories, such as ``unknown--
likely lead'' and ``unknown--not likely lead,'' may use that 
information to prioritize identifying service lines suspected or likely 
to be lead. The EPA agrees that the LCRI should not preclude the 
inclusion of this type of information, but the agency does not agree 
that all water systems should be required to include this level of 
categorization as it would add burden, make the rule more complex, and 
could take time and resources away from identifying unknown service 
lines.
iv. Lead-Lined Galvanized Service Lines
    The EPA received comments about lead-lined galvanized service lines 
in the proposed rule. Commenters recommended that the EPA require water 
systems that identify lead-lined galvanized service lines in their 
distribution system to categorize all galvanized lines in those systems 
as lead-lined galvanized service lines and replace them. Because these 
pipes can be difficult to detect and verify, these commenters said all 
galvanized lines should be assumed to be lead to protect public health. 
One commenter stated that the EPA should require water systems to check 
for lead lining in galvanized service lines using specific technologies 
and to update the EPA's guidance on service line inventories to 
incorporate lessons learned from systems with lead-lined galvanized 
service lines.
    The EPA agrees that lead-lined galvanized service lines can 
contribute significant amounts of lead in drinking water, and, as the 
agency previously stated in the 2021 LCRR Inventory Guidance and 
proposed LCRI, these service lines are covered by the definition of an 
LSL (USEPA, 2022c; USEPA, 2023a) because a portion of the service line 
is made of lead. Therefore, as clarified in the final LCRI, any lead-
lined pipe is required to be categorized as an LSL in the inventory and 
is treated as an LSL for all other requirements in the rule, such as 
mandatory service line replacement, public education, tap sample 
tiering, and risk mitigation.
    The EPA disagrees with the suggestion that water systems should be 
required to categorize all galvanized service lines in the system as 
LSLs if there is at least one lead-lined galvanized service line in the 
distribution system. During the proposal and development of the final 
rule, the EPA conducted a web search and found limited information 
about the existence or past installation of lead-lined galvanized 
service lines in about 30 communities in varying amounts, where the 
majority of these communities are in the State of Massachusetts (City 
of Rochester, n.d.; Klemick et al., 2024; MWRA, 2023; Sedimentary Ores, 
n.d.). The information collected provided no data about the prevalence 
of lead-lined galvanized service lines nationwide or whether these 
lines, some of which were installed over a century ago, have already 
been replaced. Additionally, commenters did not provide data to support 
the assumption that, if one lead-lined galvanized service line is 
found, then all galvanized lines in the system are lined with lead. 
Because the EPA

[[Page 86476]]

could not find nor was the agency provided with significant data on the 
prevalence of lead-lined galvanized service lines nationwide, the 
agency does not agree with requiring that all galvanized service lines 
be designated as lined with lead based on the presence of one or a 
small number of galvanized lines lined with lead in a system. States or 
localities may use information specific to their region to better 
inform this type of assumption. To address the possibility that systems 
may have (or find in the future) lead-lined galvanized service lines, 
the EPA is finalizing a new requirement for systems that identify any 
lead-lined galvanized service lines to include in their service line 
replacement plan a strategy to determine the extent of the use of lead-
lined galvanized service lines in the distribution system (see section 
IV.C of this preamble). Water systems can check GRR service lines 
currently or previously downstream of LSLs to evaluate whether they are 
lined with lead when they are replaced under the mandatory service line 
replacement program. The average service life of cast iron and ductile 
iron pipe is 40 years (Florida Department of State, 2010), and any 
lead-lined galvanized service lines are expected to be approximately a 
minimum of 40 years old by the LCRI compliance date in late 2027 
because installation of new lead-lined galvanized lines would have been 
prohibited under section 1417 of SDWA, given the Federal lead ban that 
was enacted in June 1986 and enforced through State and local plumbing 
codes no later than June 1988. Additionally, as water systems replace 
old, galvanized service lines (in addition to replacing GRR service 
lines during mandatory replacement) over time and improve their water 
infrastructure to reduce water loss, respond to service line breaks, 
remediate low water pressure to buildings, and increase efficiency 
across the system, they will have opportunities to check whether any 
galvanized service lines are lined with lead and remove them from their 
distribution system.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    For the final LCRI, all water systems are required to develop a 
baseline inventory that includes the material of each service line and 
identified connector that is connected to the public water distribution 
system regardless of ownership status and intended use. Water systems 
must develop the baseline inventory by the LCRI compliance date in 
Sec.  141.80(a) by updating the LCRR initial service line inventory 
with any new information on service line materials from the applicable 
sources described in Sec.  141.84(b)(2) and information on connector 
materials identified through a review of specified sources. Systems are 
required to review specified sources of information, such as 
construction and plumbing codes, permits, and records, that describe 
connector material and locations; and systems may use other sources of 
information not listed if approved or required by the State. The system 
may categorize a service line or connector as non-lead where the 
service line is determined through an evidence-based record, method, or 
technique to not be a lead or GRR service line. The final LCRI includes 
a definition of newly regulated PWSs in Sec.  141.2, where these 
systems are required to develop a baseline inventory on a schedule 
established by the State that does not exceed three years from the date 
the system is subject to NPDWRs (see section IV.O.3 of this preamble).
    For the final LCRI, water systems must conduct a review of 
specified sources on connector materials and include information on 
connector materials in their service line inventories. Water systems 
must identify connector materials as they are encountered during normal 
operations and update the inventory to include the newly encountered 
connector. Connector materials must be categorized in the inventory as 
either lead, non-lead, unknown, or no connector present. The lead 
category is for connectors made of lead. The unknown category is for 
connectors that are identified through an available source, but the 
material of the connector is not known or documented in the source. 
Systems are not required to document connector materials and locations 
where the system's review of specified sources and lack of encounters 
during normal operations have not revealed whether there is or is not a 
known connector at the location. The non-lead category is for 
connectors that are determined through an evidence-based record, 
method, or technique not to be made of lead. Water systems may include 
additional information such as the specific material of a non-lead 
connector (e.g., copper or galvanized) as an alternative to 
categorizing it as ``non-lead.'' Water systems may also provide more 
information regarding their non-lead connectors, such as whether a lead 
connector was replaced at the location. Lastly, the ``no connector 
present'' category is for where there is no connector at the location, 
such as locations where the connector was removed or locations where 
there never was a connector, e.g., in instances where the service line 
directly connects a water main to a building inlet.
2. Inventory Updates and Discrepancies
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Requirements
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed that water systems update the 
inventory annually. Under the 2021 LCRR, systems are required to update 
the inventory and submit it to the State on the same frequency as the 
system's tap sampling and monitoring schedule, but no more frequently 
than annually. Decoupling the inventory update submissions from the tap 
sampling and monitoring schedule was proposed to: (1) Ensure the system 
is providing up-to-date information to consumers on an annual basis and 
(2) enhance compliance with the mandatory service line replacement 
requirements, which are assessed annually, and annual public education 
requirements. Annual inventory updates also increase transparency for 
consumers and States relative to the 2021 LCRR, which allowed inventory 
updates every three years. Consistency between annual updates and other 
LCRI requirements would reduce discrepancies between the information, 
i.e., the service line material in the inventory may not match the 
material provided in the consumer notification if the inventory is not 
updated annually. For example, water systems would need to update their 
inventories over time because service line material categorizations may 
change as service line materials are identified over time through 
normal operations, targeted investigations of unknown service lines, 
and service line replacements.
    For the LCRI, the EPA also proposed that water systems include the 
total number of lead, GRR, and unknown service lines, the number of 
lead connectors in the inventory, and the number of full lead and GRR 
service line replacements completed with each inventory update 
submitted to the State and to make them available in the publicly 
accessible inventories to improve transparency and customer tracking of 
inventory and service line replacement progress. This information is 
also important for compliance and enforcement of the mandatory service 
line replacement requirements and for the EPA's administration of 
financial assistance programs.
    The EPA proposed to expand the 2021 LCRR requirement for a water 
system to update their inventory by the next submission deadline if a 
system, including a system whose inventory previously consisted solely 
of non-lead

[[Page 86477]]

service lines, discovers a lead or GRR service line. The agency 
proposed to require systems to add the discovered lead or GRR service 
line to the replacement pool for the mandatory service line replacement 
program. The agency also proposed to require systems to replace the 
service line within six months of discovery if the system's inventory 
only contained non-lead lines, such as after the system finished 
mandatory service line replacement. Systems must then comply with any 
additional actions required by the State. This requirement ensures that 
systems update the inventory with the newly discovered lead or GRR 
service line and replace the line accordingly.
    Additionally, the EPA proposed to require water systems to respond 
to consumer inquiries of a suspected incorrect categorization of their 
service line material in the inventory with an offer to inspect the 
service line within 60 days of receiving the notification. The EPA 
explained that this would provide another opportunity for the system to 
assess the accuracy of its inventory to inform potential actions to 
remedy discrepancies at the individual site and throughout the 
distribution system more broadly (88 FR 84935, USEPA, 2023a). For 
example, if a consumer previously replaced a service line that is still 
listed as lead or GRR based on a historical record, the system can 
correctly recategorize that service line material.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    The majority of commenters supported the proposed requirement for 
inventories to be updated and submitted to the State annually. Some 
commenters stated that submission of annual updates to the State would 
be too frequent and burdensome, especially for smaller systems with few 
staff. One commenter requested that inventories be updated ``as 
needed'' as replacement programs progress.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters that it is unnecessarily 
burdensome for systems to submit updated inventories to the State on an 
annual basis and make them available to the public no later than the 
deadline for the State submission. Annual inventory updates increase 
transparency for consumers and States and are essential to comply with 
the annual consumer notification and mandatory service line replacement 
requirements. Water systems will need to update their inventories over 
time as service line material categorizations change as a result of 
replacement and validation and as the materials of unknown service 
lines are identified. The EPA expects water systems to update their 
inventories in real time or regularly throughout the year as new data 
becomes available, which will lessen the burden with preparing, 
submitting to the State, and publishing the updated inventory for the 
public. Annual submission to the State of updated inventories will 
allow systems time to compile the updated information while assisting 
States in ensuring compliance with requirements, including public 
education and service line replacement. Water systems are subject to 
several annual reporting requirements in NPDWRs and have demonstrated 
the ability to prepare annual reports.
    The EPA received comments on the content of the inventory updates. 
One commenter stated that, to simplify inventory updates, systems with 
online inventories should only have to notify their States annually 
with summary information of any updates and provide them with 
instructions on how to access the online inventories. The commenter 
noted that it would be unnecessary to annually re-submit an online 
inventory to the State. Another commenter advocated including 
additional information in the summary of information provided with each 
update, such as the number of partial LSLRs conducted. Some commenters 
also stated that the updated inventories should include the number of 
abandoned or disconnected LSLs and lead connectors left in the ground 
because they are concerned abandoned sections of lead pipe in the 
ground may later contribute to soil and ground water contamination.
    The EPA agrees that systems should be able to provide States with 
summary information and instructions on how to access online 
inventories in lieu of submitting the entire inventory because, 
together, the summary information and instructions to the online 
inventory are effectively the same as submitting full documentation for 
the updated inventory as described in Sec.  141.84(b); they fulfill the 
same purpose of ensuring State and public access to the most up-to-date 
inventory information on at least an annual basis. Therefore, the EPA 
is revising the final LCRI to allow water systems that make the 
publicly accessible inventory and its subsequent updates available 
online (e.g., an online map or downloadable file on a website) the 
flexibility to provide instructions on how to access the updated 
inventory information instead of preparing a fixed copy of the entire 
updated inventory (which includes the summary information), submitting 
it to the State, and making it available to the public on an annual 
basis. These systems will only need to provide the summary information 
regarding service line material identification and replacement as 
specified in Sec.  141.84(b)(2)(iv) and instructions on how to access 
the updated inventory to their States. Systems that utilize this 
flexibility must ensure the required summary information is publicly 
available online (e.g., listed on the same web page as the online map) 
to fulfill the inventory updates requirement. A State may also request 
their water systems who take advantage of this option to provide them 
with an indication of where changes have occurred since the previous 
submitted inventory because this would allow States to focus on where 
changes were made.
    The EPA agrees with commenters requesting additional items in the 
list of summary information to be included and submitted with the 
inventory. As a result, the EPA is revising the proposed list of 
information water systems must include with each updated inventory to 
also contain the total number of each of the following: non-lead 
service lines in the inventory, connectors of unknown material in the 
inventory, and the number of partial lead and GRR service line 
replacements that have been conducted in each preceding program year. 
This provides consumers with additional information to understand their 
public water distribution system and the potential risks of lead 
exposure in their drinking water. By including the number of partial 
service line replacements conducted each year, the State and consumers 
can more easily monitor the system's compliance with service line 
replacement requirements. The EPA recommends that systems include the 
number of lead service lines and connectors that remain in the ground 
after ``abandon-in-place'' or ``pipe splitting'' practices are used to 
replace these pipes; however, this information is not required to be 
included in the inventory or service line replacement plan. Tracking 
information on these lead materials would ensure that this locational 
information exists should the system or the public need such 
information in the future. However, once the service line is cut, it is 
not a part of the water service (see code 9.14 in the LCRI Response to 
Comments document for more information, USEPA, 2024k).
    The EPA received comments on the proposed requirement that water 
systems must offer to inspect a service line that a consumer suspects 
is incorrectly categorized. Commenters stated that the EPA should allow 
systems to provide available

[[Page 86478]]

documentation on why a service line is categorized as such and allow 
follow-up actions (e.g., phone calls, emails, and submitted photos) 
with the consumer to determine if visually inspecting the service line 
is necessary. One commenter stated that systems should be allowed a 
longer period to inspect service lines where the material is unknown. 
Another commenter stated that systems should inspect the service line 
within 60 days rather than only offering the inspection within 60 days.
    The EPA agrees that there are several effective ways for a water 
system to respond to a customer request for inspection besides on-site 
visual inspection. The EPA is not specifying the timeframe for which 
water systems would need to conduct the inspection, recognizing (1) the 
actions that are most appropriate can vary across systems (e.g., on-
site visual inspection of the pipe exterior; virtual inspection such as 
a photo or video submission from the consumer or a video call with the 
consumer) and (2) the system-specific conditions, such as freezing 
ground conditions in some climates, can impact when certain types of 
inspections can be conducted. A visual inspection of the pipe conducted 
remotely can be as effective as an on-site inspection and will reduce 
the burden on a system to respond to consumer notifications of 
suspected incorrect categorizations of service line materials. The EPA 
did not propose to require water systems to offer to inspect and follow 
through with the inspection within 60 days and has clarified that rule 
text accordingly. Additionally, the agency is revising the final rule 
to require systems to offer inspection within 30 days of receiving the 
notification from the consumer or the customer (if different from the 
person served at that service connection). The 30-day period to offer 
to inspect is required to ensure timely follow-up with the consumer or 
customer has occurred.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final LCRI retains the proposed requirement for water systems 
to continue to update their service line inventories until their 
inventories contain only non-lead service lines, non-lead connectors, 
or no connectors present. Systems with lead, GRR, or unknown service 
lines, lead connectors, or connectors of unknown material must submit 
the inventory updates to the State annually and make the update 
available to the public no later than the deadline for submitting it to 
the State. Systems must update the inventories based on the sources of 
information specified in the rule, other sources of information 
approved or required by their States, their mandatory service line 
replacement programs, and encounters during normal operations.
    Inventories must be updated with information from any encounters 
with service line or connector materials, service line inspections, and 
replacements that have occurred since the previous update. Systems must 
also report summary information that includes the total number of 
service lines for each service line material category (lead, GRR, 
unknown, and non-lead), the total number of lead connectors, and the 
total number of connectors of unknown material as well as the number of 
full lead and GRR service line replacements and the number of partial 
lead and GRR service line replacements that have been conducted in each 
preceding program year. A water system that makes the publicly 
accessible inventory and its subsequent updates available online (e.g., 
online map or downloadable file on a website) has the option to submit 
to the State the summary information regarding service line material 
identification and replacement as specified in Sec.  141.84(b)(2)(iv) 
and instructions on how to access the updated inventory in lieu of 
providing a fixed copy of the entire updated inventory that includes 
the required summary information. A system that uses this option must 
ensure the summary information is publicly available online.
    All water systems that discover a lead or GRR service line that was 
previously inventoried as non-lead must update their inventories, 
notify the State in accordance with the reporting requirements, and 
comply with any additional actions required by the State to address the 
inventory inaccuracy. The final LCRI requirements to replace the 
discovered lead or GRR service lines have been moved to Sec.  
141.84(d)(4)(ii) and are discussed in section IV.B.7.c of this 
preamble.
    If a consumer or customer (if different from the person served at 
that service connection) notifies the water system of a suspected 
incorrect categorization of their service line material in the 
inventory, the system must respond to the consumer or customer within 
30 days of receiving the notification to make an offer to inspect the 
service line.
3. Public Accessibility of the Inventory and the Inclusion of Addresses 
in the Publicly Accessible Inventory
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Requirements
    Publicly accessible inventories can facilitate community engagement 
and improve transparency. These inventories inform the public of the 
location of possible lead exposures and provide transparency to the 
State and the public of system progress on service line identification 
and replacement. In turn, publicly accessible inventories can help 
protect public health by making this information broadly available. For 
the LCRI, the EPA built upon the 2021 LCRR's publicly accessible 
inventory requirements by proposing that water systems make not only 
service line materials accessible to the public, but also connector 
materials and the street address of each identified service line and 
connector.
    The proposed LCRI retained the 2021 LCRR requirement for systems 
serving greater than 50,000 persons to make the publicly accessible 
inventory available online. This threshold was set in the 2021 LCRR 
because of the potential burden associated with digitizing and hosting 
the inventory online for smaller systems (USEPA, 2020e). It is feasible 
for large systems to host their inventories online (USEPA, 2020e). In 
the proposed LCRI, the EPA sought comment on changing the threshold.
    The 2021 LCRR requires water systems to create and maintain an 
inventory that includes the specific addresses associated with each 
service line connected to the water system, but the 2021 LCRR does not 
require the publicly accessible inventory to include the specific 
addresses of lead or GRR service lines; instead, water systems are 
permitted to use a ``location identifier,'' which could be a street 
address, block, intersection, or landmark. For the LCRI, the EPA 
proposed to require water systems to include a street address 
associated with each service line and connector in the publicly 
accessible inventory; where a street address is not available for an 
individual service line or connector, the EPA proposed that systems use 
a unique locational identifier. The EPA proposed this requirement to 
increase transparency with their consumers about the locations and 
materials of service lines and connectors connected to their residences 
or other buildings they may occupy (e.g., places of employment and 
child care facilities). This ensures that all persons served by a lead, 
GRR, or unknown service line have access to this information, not just 
those

[[Page 86479]]

consumers who received targeted public education from the system. As 
stated in the proposal, including addresses in the publicly accessible 
inventory is critical to make more people aware of their risk to lead 
in drinking water because the requirements for notification may not be 
sufficient to reach all persons at or who use that site (e.g. where the 
persons served are short-term residents in non-owner occupied 
buildings, parents and guardians of children at in-home child care 
facilities, and residents of long-term care facilities). Additionally, 
it is feasible for systems to make publicly accessible the specific 
addresses where connectors and lead, GRR, unknown, and non-lead service 
lines are located, as demonstrated by the fact that several systems are 
already publishing service line inventories containing addresses (88 FR 
84936, USEPA, 2023a).
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    The EPA received comments supporting and opposing the proposed 
requirement to include street addresses in the publicly accessible 
inventory. Some commenters supported the proposed requirement because 
it provides transparency, builds accountability and trust with the 
public, makes people aware of their risk of lead in drinking water, 
and, if searchable by address, can provide information to prospective 
buyers and renters and create an incentive for property owners to 
provide consent for full service line replacement.
    Some commenters opposed the inclusion of specific addresses in the 
publicly accessible inventory for a range of reasons. Some commenters 
noted that sites, such as those in very rural areas, with water service 
may not have street addresses and, instead, water systems typically 
have Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for those properties. 
Some commenters suggested addresses are unnecessary because consumers 
served by lead, GRR, and unknown service lines will receive an annual 
notification of service line material. Some commenters questioned the 
EPA's authority for the requirement and expressed concerns, without 
explanation, about potential liability and complications due to privacy 
laws. Some commenters suggested that the requirement would discourage 
property owners from providing consent to identify service line 
material using field investigation methods like potholing and act as a 
disincentive for water systems serving less than 50,000 persons from 
posting their inventory online.
    The EPA agrees that, in some cases, a site may not have a street 
address. In these cases, the final rule allows water systems to assign 
a non-address locational identifier (e.g., a block, intersection, or 
landmark) to a service line or connector. The final rule adds GPS 
coordinates as a potential example of a non-address locational 
identifier that can be used in circumstances where a street address 
does not exist.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters that the agency has no need or 
clear authority to require addresses be included in the publicly 
accessible inventory. This provision is authorized under SDWA section 
1412(b)(7)(A) because, as explained below, it prevents known or 
anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons. In addition, SDWA 
section 1417(a)(2) requires ``[e]ach owner or operator of a public 
water system'' to ``identify and provide notice to persons that may be 
affected by lead contamination of their drinking water where such 
contamination results from [. . .] the lead content in the construction 
materials of the public water distribution system.'' A publicly 
accessible inventory with street addresses ensures that all persons 
served by a lead, GRR, or unknown line have access to this information, 
not just those consumers who received targeted public education from 
the system. The requirements for notification (such as the requirements 
for annual notification of known or potential lead service line 
material) may not be sufficient to reach all persons at or who consume 
water at that site, such as where the persons served are short-term 
residents and visitors, parents and guardians at child care facilities, 
residents of long-term care facilities, and employees. The inclusion of 
addresses in the publicly accessible inventories also strengthens 
public health protection by incentivizing property owners to identify 
and replace service lines.
    In light of the public health benefit of this requirement, the EPA 
does not agree that the rule should not require the use of street 
addresses in the publicly accessible inventory due to the perceived 
concerns that water systems could face potential liability for the 
public disclosure of this information. No commenters provided any 
detail to explain the basis for their concerns about potential 
liability. Many water systems across the nation have published or made 
publicly available inventories that include street addresses, such as 
the City of Columbus Department of Public Utilities, OH; the City of 
Grand Forks, ND; the City of Lincoln, NE; the City of Somerville, MA; 
the City of Troy Department of Public Utilities, NY; the City of 
Wheaton Water Division, IL; DC Water, DC; Marshfield Utilities, WI; 
Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority, PA; and Saint Paul Regional Water 
Services, MN. All systems in New Jersey are required to include the 
locations of all service lines in their inventories, and systems 
serving 3,300 persons or more are required to host their inventories on 
their websites (State of New Jersey, 2021b). Additionally, the Rhode 
Island State Department of Health plans to publish and maintain an 
online map of the specific location of each service line and identify 
whether it is a lead or unknown service line (State of Rhode Island, 
2023b).
    The EPA received comments on the threshold to make a publicly 
accessible inventory available online. Commenters stated that the EPA 
should maintain the threshold at systems serving more than 50,000 
persons because smaller systems are less likely to have the resources 
to comply with the requirement, implementation of the various NPDWRs 
would be easier and more streamlined if the thresholds for making 
information available online were more aligned across NPDWRs, and the 
uncertainty about whether the requirement would be feasible for medium 
systems. One commenter stated that that the EPA should not revisit the 
threshold but should instead incentivize online posting of the 
inventory by eliminating detailed data submissions to the State for all 
systems that meet the following requirements: post the inventory 
online, update the online inventory with new information as required by 
the rule, and provide the inventory website to the State. Conversely, 
other commenters stated that the threshold should be either lowered to 
include medium systems (systems serving more than 10,000 persons) or 
the threshold should be eliminated, requiring all water systems to make 
the inventory publicly available online. Commenters stated several 
reasons for lowering the threshold, such as: (1) The lack of readily 
accessible information about water systems can be a barrier to 
participation in the replacement program, trust in the system, and 
successful prevention of the risk of lead exposure from drinking water 
for homeowners and tenants; (2) more water systems are capable of 
posting their inventories online; and (3) sharing critical information 
appropriately is one of the most important and least expensive tools 
for public health protection, public transparency, and public 
education. One commenter representing a State noted that a

[[Page 86480]]

threshold of 10,000 persons could be feasible if inventories can be 
made available online via an online file sharing services instead of a 
website. Another commenter representing a State noted that their 
experience shows that systems serving more than 10,000 persons have the 
resources and capacity to make their inventories available on the 
municipal or water system website. One commenter stated that States 
should be authorized to post the inventories on their own website for 
individual water systems and serve as a central database, where systems 
would only have to post an external link to the State's website on 
their websites for consumers to easily access.
    The EPA agrees that publicly accessible information about 
inventories is important to all consumers as provided by the LCRI 
public education requirements. However, as discussed below, the EPA 
disagrees that the threshold for requiring the inventory be available 
online should be lowered from 50,000 persons served and, therefore, the 
EPA is retaining the threshold of systems serving more than 50,000 
persons in the final LCRI. When developing the final LCRR, the EPA 
determined that this threshold is feasible for larger systems as 
mentioned in section IV.D.3.a of this preamble. This threshold also is 
consistent with other requirements, including the CCR requirements. The 
EPA selected this threshold because it is feasible for systems serving 
over 50,000 persons to publish the inventory online (USEPA, 2020e). For 
systems serving 50,000 persons or fewer, however, the potential burden 
associated with digitizing and hosting the inventory online is greater 
and would likely take resources away from developing the inventory, 
identifying unknown service lines, and conducting lead and GRR service 
line replacement. As stated above, systems serving 50,000 persons or 
fewer are given the flexibility to choose how they make their 
inventories accessible to the public. The EPA anticipates that systems 
serving 50,000 persons or fewer that have the ability may choose to 
host their inventories online as this would ease their inventory 
submission burden to the State as well as provide a convenient way for 
their customers and consumers to access the inventory. Additionally, 
States may set a lower threshold if they choose.
    However, the EPA agrees with the suggested incentive for systems 
that post their inventories online, and, as discussed in section IV.D.2 
of this preamble, the final LCRI provides water systems that make their 
inventory and its subsequent updates available online (e.g., an online 
map or downloadable file on a website) along with the summary 
information regarding service line material identification and 
replacement as specified in Sec.  141.84(b)(2)(iv) the option to 
provide instructions to access to the online inventory and the summary 
information to the State in lieu of providing a fixed copy of the 
entire inventory as described in Sec.  141.84(b). Additionally, the EPA 
notes that inventories can be made available online via online file 
sharing services. The LCRR Inventory Guidance states that, for systems 
that may not have the capacity for online GIS mapping applications, 
there are other online data sharing methods that better fit the needs 
of these systems and their consumers, such as through an online cloud-
based data sharing, online spreadsheet, file transfer protocol (FTP) 
server, or a downloadable format linked to text or an image on the 
system's website (USEPA, 2022c). Furthermore, the EPA agrees that 
States and their systems may take this approach to publishing the 
baseline inventories and subsequent updates to the inventory online and 
satisfy this part of the requirements; however, systems will still need 
to annually report the information regarding service line material 
inspections and replacements to their States.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final LCRI requires water systems to make their service line 
inventories publicly accessible. The publicly accessible inventory must 
include the material and street address of each service line and 
identified connector in the service line inventory. Where a street 
address is not available for an individual service line or connector, a 
unique locational identifier (e.g., block, GPS coordinates, 
intersection, or landmark) may be used instead. The publicly accessible 
inventory must reflect any updates to the inventory no later than the 
deadline to submit the updated inventory to the State, including the 
listed information regarding service line material identification and 
replacement that has occurred since the previous update. Water systems 
serving greater than 50,000 persons must make the publicly accessible 
inventory available online.
    When a water system has no lead, GRR, or unknown service lines and 
no known lead connectors or connectors of unknown material in their 
distribution system, the system may use a written statement in lieu of 
a publicly accessible inventory. The written statement must include a 
general description of all applicable sources used in the inventory to 
determine that the distribution system does not have any lead, GRR, or 
unknown service lines, known lead connectors, and connectors of unknown 
material. Water systems, including those with publicly accessible 
inventories consisting only of a written statement, must include 
instructions to access the publicly accessible inventory in their CCRs.
4. Inventory Validation
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Requirements
    Accurate service line inventories are essential to ensure 
replacement of all lead and GRR service lines. The EPA heard, through 
stakeholder engagement, concern for accuracy in inventories. To 
increase the accuracy of service line inventories, the EPA proposed 
that water systems must validate a subset of the non-lead service lines 
in their inventory. The proposed validation requirement would test the 
reliability of certain methods, techniques, and alternative sources of 
information used to identify service lines as non-lead and facilitate 
action to remedy any discrepancies that may be discovered as a result 
of the validation as well as provide systems, States, and consumers 
with additional confidence in the accuracy of the inventory. The EPA 
proposed to require the inclusion of all non-lead service lines in the 
validation pool unless the service lines were identified through the 
specified sources listed in Sec.  141.84(b)(2)(i) through (iii) such as 
construction and plumbing codes and water system records, visual 
inspection of the pipe exterior at a minimum of two points, or 
previously replaced lead or GRR service lines. The EPA proposed to 
require water systems to confirm the service line material of a random 
sample of non-lead service lines from the validation pool using a 
visual inspection of pipe exterior at a minimum of two points and 
provide the validation results to the State. Under the proposal, 
systems would be required to validate the number of service lines 
necessary to achieve a 95 percent confidence level. For more 
information on the methodology used to determine the minimum number of 
validations required based on a system's validation pool, see the 
``Technical Support Document for the Proposed LCRI'' (USEPA, 2023k). 
The EPA proposed to require systems to complete the validation by year 
7 of a 10-year replacement program to allow time for the system to 
address potential issues identified in the validation process and 
complete replacement by the deadline. For systems subject to a deferred

[[Page 86481]]

deadline for service line replacement, the State would be required to 
set a deadline no later than three years prior to the deadline for 
replacement.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters support including a validation requirement in the 
LCRI to ensure inventory accuracy, enhance the effectiveness of the 
service line replacement plans (e.g., inform the methods used to 
identify service lines of unknown or unconfirmed material), build 
trust, and help ease concern over using State-approved methods like 
predictive modelling and emerging identification technologies. 
Conversely, other commenters oppose a validation requirement because it 
diverts time and resources from service line replacement and is 
unnecessary because they assert that systems using predictive modelling 
(if approved by the State) already complete some form of validation 
process for their models. One commenter suggested that the rule require 
water systems to validate their inventories only after any inaccuracies 
are found, and another commenter suggested the rule allow systems to 
either visually verify the material of all service lines in 10 years or 
complete the proposed validation requirement by the 7-year deadline. 
Some commenters suggested that the rule waive, or allow a State to 
waive, the validation requirements if the water system completed an 
inventory validation prior to the promulgation of the LCRI.
    The EPA agrees with the commenters that support the inventory 
validation requirements for the reasons mentioned: ensuring inventory 
accuracy, enhancing the effectiveness of the service line replacement 
plans (e.g., inform the methods used to identify service lines of 
unknown or unconfirmed material), building trust with the public, and 
increasing confidence in the reliability of State-approved methods like 
predictive modelling and emerging identification technologies. The 
validation process does not divert time and resources from the service 
line replacement requirements but rather supports the effective 
implementation of the service line replacement requirements. Inventory 
validation increases the confidence of consumers, systems, States, and 
the EPA that the methods used to categorize non-lead service lines in 
the inventory are accurate and that systems are truly replacing all 
lead and GRR service lines in their distribution system. In addition, 
the deadline for validation provides systems with ample time to 
complete the validation process and will allow systems to combine 
validation efforts with normal operations and service line replacement 
activities to increase efficiency of validation.
    The agency also acknowledges the concern for water systems that 
have already completed inventory validations, including systems that 
conducted previous validation efforts to develop and train predictive 
models. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing a flexibility for systems to 
be able to make a written request to the State to approve a waiver of 
the inventory validation requirements if the system completed 
validation efforts prior to the compliance date that are at least as 
stringent as the LCRI requirements.
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested comment on its proposed 
methodology to calculate the minimum number of validations systems 
would be required to perform. The EPA's proposed methodology set the 
size of the validation pool to achieve a 95 percent confidence level 
or, for systems with relatively few of these service lines, to validate 
20 percent of the non-lead service lines in their validation pools. 
Some commenters supported the methodology and stated that the approach 
is reasonable. One commenter recommended that the EPA increase the 
number of validations required for larger systems. On the other hand, 
some commenters questioned why the EPA maintained an expected sample 
proportion of 0.5 even though it provides the most conservative number 
of validations required and why the agency does not allow each water 
system's ``consultant'' to develop a testing program that achieves a 95 
percent confidence level at a sample proportion catered to each system. 
The same commenters stated that the EPA should clarify the validation 
calculations, e.g., the data used to determine the expected sample 
proportion, the relevant comparison between the number of validations 
required and the validation pool, and where the EPA derived its 
formulas for determining the number of validations required.
    The EPA used a conservative sample proportion of 0.5 because the 
agency does not have sufficient data to estimate a sample proportion 
specific to discovering a non-lead service line as a lead or GRR 
service line and, therefore, used 0.5 to ensure the minimum number of 
validations required is statistically significant in all systems 
nationwide regardless of the possibility for a more precise sample 
proportion at an individual system's level. A sample proportion of 0.5 
is used when a better estimate is unavailable (Daniel and Cross, 2013). 
The EPA disagrees that water systems or their designated consultants 
should be required to conduct a testing program or pilot study to 
estimate the sample proportion prior to conducting inventory validation 
because conducting a testing program or pilot study would be resource 
intensive and add burden to systems. The validation requirements ensure 
systems do not need to do that by setting a procedure at the national 
level.
    The EPA derived the equations to calculate the minimum number of 
validations required from the formulas used to assess the distribution 
of the sample mean when sampling without replacement by using the 
finite population correction factor (Daniel and Cross, 2013). The 
minimum number of validations required is the sample size of a finite 
population when sampling without replacement, and the validation pool 
is the assumed finite population size. See the ``Technical Support 
Document for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Improvements'' (final TSD) 
for an expanded derivation of the minimum number of validations 
required for a system's validation pool of non-lead service lines 
(USEPA, 2024d).
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested public comment on whether 
non-lead service lines that were categorized based on records should be 
subject to the validation requirements. Some commenters encouraged the 
EPA to include non-lead service lines categorized based on historical 
records in the validation pool. For example, one commenter recommended 
that the agency require service lines categorized based on records 
unless the records show the lines were installed, inspected, or 
replaced after the effective date of a local lead ban. Another 
commenter suggested requiring a random sampling of historical records 
because the initial inventory requirements in the 2021 LCRR did not 
require systems to identify the specific source used to categorize 
service lines. Other commenters were concerned that the reliability of 
historical records may vary across systems and provided examples of 
systems having inaccurate records. For example, one commenter mentioned 
that, in Flint, Michigan, inspections during a service line replacement 
project revealed that 24 percent of the service lines identified as 
copper based on historical records were actually made of lead (372 out 
of 1,489 service lines; BlueConduit, 2020). Commenters provided the 
example of the Lead Free DC task force, where the task force found that 
20 percent of service lines identified as copper

[[Page 86482]]

through historical records were actually made of lead (Betanzo and 
Attal, 2022). A commenter representing a State also noted that some 
systems within their jurisdiction have found that historical records 
have been inaccurate.
    In addition to these examples of inaccurate historical records 
raised by commenters, the EPA is aware of other data showing that 
historical records can be unreliable sources of information for service 
line material categorization. As the EPA noted in the LCRR Inventory 
Guidance, only 63 percent of the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority's 
historical records were accurate because of the service line repair and 
maintenance activities that have taken place since the records were 
created (USEPA, 2022c). In addition, a 2023 study on the accuracy of 
service line identification methods found that, of the 159 control 
homes, records for 90 percent of the 99 known LSL sites were accurate, 
whereas records for 3 percent of the 60 non-lead service line sites 
accurately identified the service line material (Smart et al., 2023). 
Therefore, the EPA is revising the final LCRI to require the validation 
pool to include records of non-lead service lines. The EPA agrees, 
however, that records showing that the service line was installed after 
the effective date that the Federal, State, or local lead ban in the 
validation pool would have been enforced (June 19, 1988, if there was 
no enforcement of a State or local lead ban prior to that date) would 
be more reliable because these regulatory changes marked a change in 
system and plumbing practices nationally, where previous studies show 
instances of inaccurate records prior to these regulatory dates.
    The EPA received comments on the proposed 7-year deadline for water 
systems to complete inventory validation when the system is subjected 
to a 10-year mandatory service line replacement deadline or only has 
non-lead service lines in their inventory. Some commenters supported 
the proposed deadline because it would allow systems three years before 
the deadline for service line replacement to implement changes if 
inaccuracies are found. Conversely, other commenters questioned whether 
requiring inventory validation efforts to be conducted within the first 
seven years is the best use of water system resources, instead 
recommending that validation be completed after (1) all unknown service 
lines have been identified to be representative of all non-lead service 
lines that could be included in the validation pool or (2) all known 
lead and GRR service lines are removed, so water systems can focus on 
lead and GRR service line replacement. Another commenter stated that 
the EPA should require inventory validation to be completed within the 
first three years of rule promulgation, or no later than halfway 
through the mandatory service line replacement timeline if extra time 
has been granted, because the proposed deadline is ``far too late.''
    The EPA agrees with the commenters that supported the seven-year 
deadline because the deadline allows systems three years to address 
potential discrepancies found by the validation. The agency proposed a 
seven-year deadline to allow water systems to focus on identifying 
unknown service lines as well as validate service lines identified 
during the replacement program using field investigation techniques and 
alternative sources of information approved by the State. The EPA 
disagrees with the commenters that questioned whether the inventory 
validation requirement would be representative of all potential non-
lead service lines to be added to the validation pool if validation is 
completed before water systems identify all unknown service lines. If a 
system complies with the inventory validation process sometime before 
seven years into the replacement program, it is expected to be reliable 
because the sources of information the system would be using are 
expected to be the same in the beginning years of inventory development 
to the end, especially if the validation results provide further 
confidence in the use of those sources, unless the system is approved 
or required by the State to use another source or method of 
identification. In that instance, if a system discovers a lead or GRR 
service line where a non-lead line was inventoried, the system is 
required to notify the State with the methods used to categorize the 
service line material and comply with any additional actions required 
by the State to address the inventory inaccuracy. Conducting inventory 
validation before the deadline for mandatory service line replacement 
allows the system time to investigate certain methods used to 
categorize non-lead service lines if discrepancies are found during the 
validation process before they complete replacement.
    The EPA received comments on the proposed rule's requirements to 
address discrepancies found during the validation process. Some 
commenters advocated for requirements for water systems to take actions 
to increase the accuracy of their inventories if they identify 
discrepancies during the validation process because failure to include 
concrete steps to improve inventories could undermine the trust and 
reliability of the document that is the ``backbone'' of LCRI compliance 
(BlueConduit, 2024; Office of the People's Counsel for the District of 
Columbia (OPC-DC), 2024). One commenter recommended that water systems 
that inaccurately identify lead or GRR service lines as non-lead should 
be required to submit a plan to their States about how they will 
increase the accuracy of their inventories.
    The EPA agrees that, when inventory discrepancies are identified 
during the validation process, remedial actions can improve the 
inventory's accuracy. The final LCRI requires water systems to submit 
to the State a list of the locations of any non-lead service lines 
identified to be a lead or GRR service line through the validation 
along with the methods used to categorize those service lines. The 
final LCRI also requires systems to comply with any additional actions 
required by the State to address the inventory inaccuracies found 
during the validation process. Given the range of possible reasons for 
inventory inaccuracies, the EPA expects States to be better suited to 
identify the appropriate actions systems must take to improve the 
accuracy of their inventories. A single, prescribed approach in a 
national rule could be overly broad and unnecessary if, for example, 
there is only one misidentified line, or inadequate to remedy the 
problem if the validation shows widespread inaccuracies of 
categorizations. Moreover, it would not adequately capture the broad 
range of potential responses that could improve inventory accuracy. 
Instead, the appropriate remedy is best identified on a system-
specified basis tailored to the system's specific inventory 
inaccuracies and potential systemwide issues discovered during 
inventory validation.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    In the final LCRI, the EPA made clarifying revisions to ensure the 
requirements are clear based on comments received. Under Sec.  
141.84(b)(5) of the final rule, water systems must validate the 
accuracy of the methods used to categorize service lines as non-lead. 
First, water systems must identify a ``validation pool'' of service 
lines that were determined to be non-lead through specific sources and 
exclude service lines determined to be non-lead through: (1) Records 
showing the service line was installed after the effective date of the 
Federal lead ban (June 19, 1988), or after the compliance date of a 
State or local law prohibiting the use of service lines that do not 
meet

[[Page 86483]]

the 1986 definition of lead free in accordance with SDWA section 1417, 
whichever is earlier, (2) visual inspection of the pipe exterior at a 
minimum of two points, or (3) previously replaced lead or GRR service 
lines. Previous visual inspections of the pipe exterior must consist of 
an inspection of at least two points. Previous lead or GRR service line 
replacements may also be excluded when identified during their review 
of specified sources. The EPA compiled a list of the lead ban 
provisions by State in appendix D of the LCRR Inventory Guidance 
(USEPA, 2022c); however, water systems should verify the compliance 
date for any local or State lead ban before using a date earlier than 
June 19, 1988.
    Under the LCRI, water systems must confirm the service line 
material of a random sample of non-lead service lines from the 
validation pool by visual inspection of the pipe exterior at a minimum 
of two points. Visual inspection of the pipe exterior could be 
conducted by, but not limited to, potholing, viewing the service line 
material in the meter pit or stop box, or viewing the service line 
entering the building. Where ownership is shared, the water system must 
conduct at least one visual inspection on each portion of the service 
line (i.e., one inspection on the system-owned portion and one 
inspection on the customer-owned portion of the service line). Where 
ownership is shared and only one portion of the service line is 
included in the validation pool, systems must conduct at least one 
point of visual inspection on the unconfirmed portion of the service 
line. For example, a non-lead service line is included in the 
validation pool because the system-owned portion of the line is made of 
copper due to a previous partial LSLR and the customer-owned portion of 
the line is estimated to be non-lead based on the materials observed in 
other homes built around the same time in the same neighborhood. The 
system will need to confirm that the customer-owned portion of the 
service line is non-lead through at least one point of visual 
inspection of the pipe exterior.
    The size of the random sample of non-lead service lines from the 
validation pool is based on the number of service lines a water system 
needs to validate, at a minimum, to achieve a 95 percent confidence 
level (USEPA, 2023k; USEPA, 2024d). To achieve the 95 percent 
confidence level, the EPA requires water systems with more than 1,500 
non-lead service lines in their validation pool to confirm the material 
at between 322 and 384 sites, as specified in the rule, depending on 
the specific size of the validation pool. Systems with 1,500 or fewer 
non-lead service lines in their validation pools must validate at least 
20 percent of the total number of non-lead lines in the pool. If 
physical access to private property is necessary to complete the 
validation and the water system is unable to gain access, the system is 
not required to validate the service line material at that site. 
Instead, the system must randomly select a new service line from their 
validation pool to conduct the validation.
    Once water systems have completed their inventory validation, they 
must submit to the State the results of the validation by the 
applicable deadline based on the system's mandatory service line 
replacement program. Systems required to replace lead and GRR service 
lines in 10 years or less must complete their inventory validations no 
later than December 31 following seven years after the LCRI compliance 
date. Systems who have reported only non-lead service lines are also 
subject to the validation requirement and must complete inventory 
validation no later than December 31 following seven years after the 
LCRI compliance date. Where States have required systems to replace 
service lines on a shortened deadline, the State is required to set a 
deadline for the validation. Systems that are eligible for and plan to 
use deferred deadlines must complete inventory validation by a deadline 
established by the State to be no later than three years prior to the 
deferred deadline. Systems must submit the results of the inventory 
validation. The final rule clarifies that the results of the inventory 
validation must also include the submission of the specific version 
(including the date) of the inventory that was used to determine the 
number of non-lead lines included in the validation pool in order to 
provide the State with the information needed to assess the inventory 
validation. The system must comply with any additional actions required 
by the State to address inaccuracies in the inventory.
    The final LCRI was updated to also include a flexibility for water 
systems that have previously conducted inventory validation efforts 
that, at a minimum, are as stringent as the LCRI inventory validation 
requirements. Water systems may make a written request to the State to 
approve a waiver of the inventory validation requirements. To obtain a 
waiver, the system must submit documentation to the State by the LCRI 
compliance date to demonstrate that they conducted an inventory 
validation effort that is at least as stringent as the validation 
requirements specified in the rule and obtain written approval of the 
waiver from the State.
5. Deadline To Identify All Unknown Service Lines
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Requirements
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed to require water systems to identify 
the material of all service lines categorized as unknown in the 
inventory by the system's deadline to complete mandatory full service 
line replacement for several reasons. Using the same deadline for these 
two requirements eliminates the need for a separate set of requirements 
for this purpose, such as a minimum rate for identifying unknown 
service lines. In the LCRI proposal, the EPA also explained that this 
approach prevents additional rule complexity as well as reporting and 
tracking burden, a priority identified in the EPA's 2021 LCRR review 
notice to assure that States and water systems can effectively 
implement the LCRI. It also provides systems with flexibility to plan a 
full service line replacement program that meets local needs. Without a 
separate and earlier deadline to identify unknown service lines, 
systems can plan to identify service line materials in tandem with 
other infrastructure work, such as water main or meter replacement, as 
they are planned to occur in the proceeding years up until the deadline 
for service line replacement. This could allow water systems to 
identify service line materials more efficiently as they will already 
be onsite and, in some cases, may encounter the service line material 
directly as they perform other planned work. This efficiency could 
reduce the overall costs and time to identify service line materials. 
Aligning the service line replacement and inventory completion deadline 
could improve inventory information quality because systems could take 
additional time to develop an inventory with an emphasis on accuracy by 
choosing, for example, a more time-consuming technique that is also 
more reliable. Finally, in the proposed LCRI, the EPA noted that new 
technologies for identifying service line materials may be developed in 
coming years and existing technologies may be refined; therefore, 
aligning the deadline for service line replacement and inventory 
completion will allow systems to use these new or refined technologies 
on a greater proportion of their unknown lines.
    For the proposed LCRI, the EPA determined that it is feasible 
(i.e., technically possible and reasonably

[[Page 86484]]

affordable relative to a large system) for water systems to create a 
complete and accurate inventory of service line materials by the 
proposed service line replacement deadline to support the treatment 
technique for mandatory service line replacement. For the 1991 LCR, the 
EPA anticipated that systems that were triggered into an LSLR program 
should be able to locate their LSLs and provide this information in 8 
to 10 years even with poor records of service line materials (56 FR 
26507, USEPA, 1991). The EPA also evaluated more recent efforts by 
systems to replace all their LSLs and complete their inventories in 10 
years or less. Seven States have inventory laws (i.e., California, 
Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin), 
which together comprise nearly a third of the Nation's estimated lead 
content service lines (32 percent; 3.2 million lead content lines out 
of an estimated 9.0 million lead content lines) (USEPA, 2023l), meaning 
that these systems will have made progress on their inventories beyond 
the 2021 LCRR requirements. These State laws indicate that an inventory 
requirement is feasible, and inventory data show relatively low 
incidence of unknown service lines in some States as well as rapid 
progress towards identification of their unknown service line materials 
(USEPA, 2023k). The One-Time Update to the Needs Survey indicates that 
many participating systems have made substantial progress on 
identifying unknown service lines (median percentage of unknown lines 
per system is 6.5 percent); however, other participating systems have 
made much less progress or have not yet reported service line statuses 
(USEPA, 2023l; USEPA, 2024d). Furthermore, four States (Illinois, 
Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) passed State laws that require 
LSLR by a specified deadline. For these systems, inventory completion 
is required to comply with the mandatory LSLR requirements. For 
example, Michigan law requires their applicable water systems to submit 
a preliminary materials inventory by January 2020 and a complete 
materials inventory, including verification methodology and results, by 
January 2025, which is a five-year deadline to identify all unknown 
service lines (Michigan Administrative Rules, 2023). The Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) first required their CWSs to 
submit an inventory by April 2018 in the repealed Public Act 099-0922 
along with annual updates. Under the 2022 Lead Service Line Replacement 
and Notification Act, IEPA required systems to submit a complete 
material inventory by April 2024 (Illinois General Assembly, 2021), 
which gave their systems six years to identify all unknown service 
lines. Finally, the EPA is aware of several water systems who have 
fully eliminated LSLs from their distribution system at a rapid pace, 
which would not be possible if unknown service lines remained in the 
system's inventory (USEPA, 2023k).
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    Many commenters supported keeping the deadline to identify unknown 
service lines and the deadline to complete mandatory service line 
replacement consolidated because it streamlines administrative 
processes, allows systems to focus more time and resources on replacing 
lead and GRR service lines and identifying unknown service lines, and 
provides the type of flexibility to allow for inventory efforts to be 
tailored to individual system needs and replacement programs. 
Conversely, other commenters supported an earlier deadline to identify 
unknown service lines before the replacement deadline, ranging from 
three years after promulgation of the LCRI to three years before the 
10-year replacement deadline to reduce the possibility of noncompliance 
with the service line replacement deadline. Some commenters also 
suggested the final rule should include a requirement for systems to 
meet interim deadlines to identify unknown service lines and remove 
unknown lines from the replacement pool.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters requesting an earlier deadline 
for identifying all unknown service lines, noting that a single 
deadline streamlines administrative processes, allows time and 
resources to focus on both replacing lead and GRR service lines and 
identifying unknown service lines, and provides flexibility for water 
systems. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing the requirement for systems 
to identify all unknown service lines by the applicable mandatory 
service line replacement deadline, as proposed. In doing so, the EPA 
will prevent complicating the rule.
    The 2021 LCRR requires water systems to review available sources 
and submit an initial inventory by October 16, 2024, and the EPA has 
been recommending through its LCRR Inventory Guidance that systems 
should identify unknown service lines (USEPA, 2022c). Therefore, the 
EPA expects water systems will be prepared to make necessary progress 
to identify unknown service lines without setting an earlier deadline 
for inventory completion.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    In the final LCRI, water systems are required to categorize the 
material of all unknown service lines in the inventory by the system's 
deadline to complete mandatory full service line replacement.

E. Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    Tap sampling for lead and copper is required to evaluate CCT 
performance using the action level and serves ``to identify the need 
for additional treatment and to ensure that adequate treatment is 
installed'' (56 FR 26514, USEPA, 1991). Specifically, the purpose of 
tap sampling is to identify situations where the water is too 
corrosive, and therefore, can trigger additional actions that water 
systems are required to take to reduce lead and copper exposure, 
including by reducing the corrosivity of water in a system by 
installing or re-optimizing OCCT, or through public education. 
Conversely, tap sampling itself is not intended to assess exposure to 
lead and copper from drinking water because the sampling protocol is 
designed to assess CCT by targeting the highest levels of lead and 
copper typically present at the tap, representing the high end of 
actual human exposures (USEPA, 1988), rather than designed to capture 
typical exposure to consumers. In turn, a system's compliance with the 
treatment technique rule is not based on tap sampling results alone, 
but rather on compliance with actions triggered by those results.
    The EPA designed tap sampling requirements in the LCR primarily to 
evaluate the corrosion of lead and copper sources present in the 
distribution system. Water systems are required to sample at sites with 
a higher potential to contribute lead and copper using a sampling 
protocol to ``assess the degree to which a system has minimized 
corrosivity for lead and copper'' (56 FR 26520, USEPA, 1991). Tap 
sampling under the rule is not intended to represent typical drinking 
water consumption or exposure; rather, again, it is intended to 
determine the effectiveness of OCCT and whether corresponding actions 
are needed to reduce lead levels (USEPA, 2020e).
a. First- and Fifth-Liter Sampling
    In the LCRI, the EPA proposed that systems must take first-and-
fifth-liter-paired samples for lead at LSL sites and use the higher of 
the two values to calculate the 90th percentile lead level. This 
requirement would improve identification of sites with higher levels of 
lead at the tap and better determine

[[Page 86485]]

when OCCT or re-optimized OCCT in the system is necessary. The 
requirement to take a fifth-liter sample was first promulgated under 
the 2021 LCRR, while the requirement to take a first-liter sample is 
from the 1991 LCR. Based on evidence from Del Toral et al., 2013, 
Deshommes et al., 2016, Masters et al., 2021, and Betanzo et al., 2021 
that lead released from LSLs is not reliably captured in just the 
first- or fifth-liter sample alone, as discussed in the preamble to the 
proposed LCRI, the EPA proposed that systems must collect both liters 
during the same sampling event when sampling at sites with LSLs (88 FR 
84930, USEPA, 2023a).
    Both first- and fifth-liter samples have been determined to provide 
information relevant to assess CCT. At the time of the 2021 LCRR, the 
EPA determined that fifth-liter samples increase the likelihood that 
samples capture water that has been sitting in contact with LSLs. The 
EPA recognized that the variability of plumbing configurations does not 
allow for a single prescribed sample volume to capture the highest lead 
level at every site; however, the EPA reviewed data from Sandvig et al. 
(2008), Del Toral et al. (2013), and Lytle et al. (2019) in support of 
selecting the fifth-liter sample in the final 2021 LCRR as a screen 
that is likely to detect higher lead levels than first-liter samples 
alone (86 FR 4226, USEPA, 2021a). In the proposed LCRI, the EPA also 
cited Masters et al. (2021) and Deshommes et al. (2016) in support of 
maintaining the requirement to collect a fifth-liter sample from the 
2021 LCRR (88 FR 84929, USEPA, 2023a).
    First-liter samples, which have been implemented as the compliance 
sampling protocol since the 1991 LCR, are useful for capturing water 
that has been sitting in contact with premise plumbing. For LCRI, the 
EPA reviewed implementation data from Michigan's revised LCR that shows 
that some samples collected at LSL sites measure higher lead levels in 
the first liter than the fifth. Michigan's requirement under State law 
to use the higher lead level of the two samples to calculate the 90th 
percentile lead level has resulted in more systems exceeding the lead 
action level of 0.015 mg/L than only collecting either the first- or 
fifth-liter sample (Betanzo at al., 2021). In addition to data from 
Michigan, the EPA is aware of studies that have evaluated lead sampling 
data collected from multiple liters at the same site in cities 
including Washington, DC, Flint, Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois. The 
data compiled in these studies similarly show variability in which 
liter contains the highest lead level. These data also suggest that 
collecting two samples and using the higher of the first- and fifth-
liter lead values at LSL sites captures lead presence more effectively 
than collecting only one sample (Masters et al., 2021; Mishrra et al., 
2021).
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed to continue collecting only first-
liter samples at Tier 3 sites comprised of sites with lead connectors 
and sites with galvanized service lines and/or galvanized premise 
plumbing that were ever downstream of an LSL or connector. The EPA 
proposed that the first liter is more appropriate for galvanized 
service lines because they contribute lead primarily through the 
release of lead particulate. Because the mobilization of particulate 
lead can be highly variable, depending upon changes in pressure and 
flow volume, velocity, and/or direction (Schock, 1990), particulate 
release is not captured consistently in any individual sample. The EPA 
proposed that the first liter is also more appropriate for lead 
connectors because detectable contributions of lead from lead 
connectors are most likely to occur as a result of particulate lead 
that has dislodged from the pipe and is caught in premise plumbing, 
such as faucet aerators (Deshommes et al., 2016; Lytle et al., 2019). 
It is also difficult to identify a single designated service line 
sample volume that would capture water that has stagnated in a lead 
connector, which are short in length and typically installed closer to 
the water main. Additionally, water traveling from the lead connector 
to the faucet will undergo dispersion, resulting in lower 
concentrations of lead at the tap. At the time of proposal, the EPA 
acknowledged that particulate lead is challenging to predict and could 
occur in any sample volume. However, the first liter has been 
documented to capture the highest fraction of particulate lead 
(Deshommes et al., 2010). Therefore, to capture particulate lead 
release from lead connectors and from galvanized service lines and/or 
galvanized premise plumbing that were ever downstream of an LSL or 
connector, the first liter presents the highest likelihood of a single 
sample capturing particulate lead.
b. Tiering of Sampling Sites
    The EPA proposed three revisions to the tiering criteria as 
promulgated under the 2021 LCRR. The EPA proposed to update the 
definition for Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites to include sites with premise 
plumbing made of lead due to the high potential of lead contributions 
associated with premise plumbing made of lead. By ``premise plumbing 
made of lead'', the proposal refers to premise plumbing that consists 
of pure lead pipes, rather than pipes made from metal alloys that may 
contain lead content. When sampled, systems would follow the first-
liter sampling protocol at sites with lead premise plumbing, unless the 
site is also served by an LSL, which would require first- and fifth-
liter sampling. The EPA also proposed to correct the Tier 3 description 
from the 2021 LCRR that inadvertently described a galvanized site 
currently downstream of an LSL as Tier 3 when it is a site served by an 
LSL and would meet the criteria of a Tier 1 or 2 site. The proposal 
removes the term ``currently'' from the Tier 3 provision to implement 
this correction. While the EPA described in the final 2021 LCRR 
preamble the agency's intention for galvanized service lines to be 
included in Tier 3, the 2021 LCRR Tier 3 provision includes only sites 
which ``contain galvanized lines,'' which refers to premise plumbing 
material and not service lines. As such, the EPA also proposed to 
clarify that sites served by galvanized service lines or containing 
galvanized premise plumbing that are identified as ever being 
downstream of an LSL or a lead connector in the past are included in 
Tier 3.
    The EPA also proposed several revisions and additions for sites 
included in Tier 3. In addition to maintaining sites with galvanized 
premise plumbing that are downstream from a lead connector in Tier 3, 
the EPA proposed to expand the sites included in Tier 3 to also include 
any sites with galvanized premise plumbing or served by galvanized 
service lines that were ever served by a lead connector in the past. 
While the EPA was not aware of information at the time of the proposed 
LCRI regarding the national extent of homes containing galvanized 
premise plumbing that are downstream of a lead source, the addition of 
galvanized premise plumbing is consistent with the inclusion of 
galvanized service lines that were ever downstream of an LSL as sites 
with a higher potential to contribute lead to drinking water than sites 
in Tiers 4 and 5. Like galvanized service lines downstream of an LSL 
discussed in section IV.E.1.a of this preamble, galvanized premise 
plumbing that is downstream of a lead source can also adsorb and 
release lead primarily through particulate release.
    The EPA also proposed to include in Tier 3 sites with any non-lead 
service line material or non-lead premise plumbing that are currently 
served by a lead connector. With the proposed revisions to inventory 
requirements to include information on lead connectors, some systems 
will have improved

[[Page 86486]]

knowledge of sites with lead connectors. The EPA proposed that sites 
with lead connectors are not Tier 1 or 2, but Tier 3, based on the 
EPA's priorities for the proposed LCRI to identify sites through 
sampling with the highest lead levels and the difficulty in detecting 
lead contributions for lead connectors, which is similar to galvanized 
service lines discussed in section IV.E.1.a of this preamble. At the 
time of proposal, the EPA cited Deshommes et al. (2016) and Lytle et 
al. (2019) that show detectable contributions of lead from lead 
connectors are most likely to occur as a result of particulate lead 
that has dislodged from the pipe and is caught in premise plumbing, 
such as faucet aerators. The EPA recognized that, due to the limited 
length of lead connectors, the amount of lead contributed from them is 
expected to be less than from LSLs, which are typically much longer in 
length, where all other aspects of the pipes are equal. Under the 
proposal, Tier 3 would include: (1) Sites served by galvanized service 
lines that ever were downstream of an LSL or lead connector; (2) sites 
with galvanized premise plumbing that ever were downstream of an LSL or 
lead connector; and (3) other sites currently served by a lead 
connector (e.g., a site served by a copper service line downstream of 
lead connector.) The EPA proposed to maintain the criteria for Tier 4 
and Tier 5.
c. Sample Site Selection
    For LCRI, the EPA did not propose any changes to the requirement 
for systems to select replacement sampling sites within a reasonable 
proximity. In the proposed LCRI, as maintained from the 2021 LCRR, 
systems must sample from the same sites in consecutive tap monitoring 
periods and, when unable to do so, must select a replacement site that 
meets the same tiering criteria and is within reasonable proximity of 
the original site.
    The EPA also did not propose any changes to the requirement for 
systems to sample sites from the highest tier available (Tier 1 is the 
highest and Tier 5 is the lowest), as well as the requirement for 
systems to collect 100 percent of samples from available LSL sites. The 
proposed LCRI specifies that systems may choose alternate sampling 
sites when they are not able to gain access to a site.
d. Frequency and Quantity of Sampling
    In LCRI, the EPA proposed revisions to tap sampling frequency 
requirements to conform with the proposed elimination of the trigger 
level. The EPA proposed to maintain six-month monitoring as the 
standard monitoring frequency, as well as the pathway to triennial 
monitoring for any system that does not exceed the PQL for two 
consecutive monitoring periods. With the proposed elimination of the 
trigger level, the EPA proposed that small and medium systems 
monitoring annually would qualify for triennial monitoring if they do 
not exceed the lead and copper action levels for three consecutive 
years. The EPA also proposed to maintain the pathway to annual 
monitoring for any system that does not exceed the action level for two 
consecutive six-month tap monitoring periods, at the lower proposed 
action level of 0.010 mg/L. Also, the EPA proposed to maintain the 
nine-year reduced monitoring waiver.
    The EPA did not propose any changes to the minimum number of 
samples required to be collected by systems. The proposed rule 
maintained the requirement for systems on annual reduced monitoring to 
collect and analyze the standard number of samples for lead and a 
reduced number of samples for copper.
e. Standard Monitoring
    In LCRI, the EPA proposed that systems with unknown sites in their 
inventory at the compliance date would be required to conduct standard 
six-month monitoring in the first six-month tap sampling period 
following the compliance date. These systems would be in addition to 
the 2021 LCRR requirement, which was maintained in the proposed LCRI, 
that any systems with lead and/or GRR service lines in their inventory 
at the compliance date conduct standard monitoring beginning with the 
first full six-month monitoring period after the compliance date. The 
proposed requirement to begin standard monitoring following the 
compliance date was accompanied by the proposed requirement for systems 
to submit an updated site sample plan to the State prior to the first 
tap monitoring period, as described in section IV.N of this preamble. 
The EPA proposed that systems with lead, GRR, and unknown service lines 
sample under the standard monitoring schedule to ensure that systems 
with the highest potential for lead, and which are most impacted by the 
changes to sampling protocol, could determine whether they are 
exceeding the new action level as soon as practicable to determine next 
steps such as remediation activities through CCT or public education to 
protect public health. Systems required to conduct standard monitoring 
in accordance with this requirement would need to complete two 
consecutive, six-month tap monitoring periods before they could qualify 
for a reduced monitoring schedule.
f. 90th Percentile Value Calculation and Inclusion of Additional 
Samples
    The EPA proposed to maintain the LCRR approach for calculating the 
90th percentile level when a system with LSLs does not have enough 
sites in Tiers 1 and 2 to meet the minimum number of samples required. 
Specifically, a system must use all samples collected at Tier 1 and 2 
sites and only the highest results from samples collected at Tier 3, 4, 
and 5 sites (in that order) to meet the minimum number of samples. For 
example, if a system is required to collect 100 samples and the system 
collects 80 samples at Tier 1 and 2 sites, and 30 at Tier 3 sites, the 
system would have to use the 80 samples from Tier 1 and 2 sites and 
only the 20 samples with the highest lead concentration from the Tier 3 
sites. While the EPA was not aware of situations where higher 
concentrations in lower tiers are expected, as discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed LCRI (88 FR 84932, USEPA, 2023a), the purpose 
of this proposed requirement was to prevent systems from collecting 
additional samples from sites less likely to contain lead (i.e., Tiers 
3, 4, and 5) to reduce their 90th percentile lead value.
    The EPA proposed to clarify that water systems seeking to reduce 
monitoring frequency or cease specific actions under the rule, 
including CCT and public education-related requirements, cannot do so 
with fewer than the required minimum number of samples. For example, a 
small or medium system without CCT would be allowed to propose stopping 
the CCT steps using data showing the system is at or below the lead 
action level for two consecutive tap monitoring periods. As described 
in the preamble to the proposed LCRI, systems have been advised in past 
EPA guidance to calculate 90th percentile lead and/or copper levels 
even when there are insufficient samples (88 FR 84932, USEPA 2004c, 
USEPA 2023a). Under the proposed rule, the data showing the system has 
a 90th percentile lead level at or below the lead action level must be 
calculated from a compliance data set of at least the minimum number of 
samples required. In other words, a system with an insufficient number 
of samples cannot use the results to reduce treatment technique 
actions. The EPA proposed this clarification to improve implementation. 
In addition, the agency is concerned that water systems may 
purposefully fail to comply with the minimum monitoring requirements in

[[Page 86487]]

an attempt to reduce required compliance actions through provisions 
intended for systems with demonstrated lower lead or copper levels.
    The EPA proposed to exclude additional samples collected as part of 
required monitoring following full or partial service line replacement 
from the 90th percentile calculation. The 2021 LCRR requires water 
systems to use results of any additional monitoring (e.g., consumer-
requested samples) in the 90th percentile calculation if the samples 
meet the tiering and sample protocol requirements. At the time of the 
LCRI proposal, the EPA was concerned that water systems may include 
samples from follow-up monitoring following full or partial replacement 
that may not be known to meet the correct sampling tier and may not be 
reflective of corrosion control performance.
    The EPA proposed to maintain flexibility for systems sampling at 
sites in response to customer requests to use alternative sample 
volumes and stagnation times. The EPA proposed a revision to require 
these samples to include sample volumes representative of both premise 
plumbing and the service line when the customer is served by a lead, 
GRR, or unknown service line (see section IV.J of this preamble for 
details on consumer-requested sampling). The EPA also proposed to 
maintain the requirement for these additional samples to be included in 
the 90th percentile calculation only if the sample meets the compliance 
site tiering and sampling protocol, including stagnation time, sample 
volume, and whether the sample is collected within the tap sampling 
period.
g. Wide-Mouth Bottles
    The EPA proposed a revised definition of wide-mouth bottles for tap 
sampling to address uncertainty around which diameter should be 
measured. In the proposed LCRI, the EPA clarified the definition for 
wide-mouth bottles to specify it means bottles that are one liter in 
volume with a mouth, the outer diameter of which measures at least 55 
mm wide (see section IV.O.3 of this preamble).
h. Sample Invalidation
    The EPA proposed that States have the authority to invalidate 
samples not collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86(b)(1), including 
requirements for minimum stagnation period, sample volume, sample 
bottle characteristics, sample collection location, and rules regarding 
sampling instructions. The EPA proposed that this authority is in 
addition to the existing authority under the 2000 LCR for States to 
invalidate samples not collected in accordance with the tiering 
criteria in Sec.  141.86(a)(4). The proposed revision would allow 
States to invalidate samples based on information regarding sample 
collection. For example, the rule specifies collection of samples at a 
kitchen or bathroom sink cold-water tap. If a sample was taken at a 
hose bib, States could invalidate that sample because it would not meet 
the sample collection criteria.
i. Practical Quantitation Limit
    The PQL is defined at 40 CFR 141.2 as the minimum concentration of 
an analyte (substance) that can be measured with a high degree of 
confidence that the analyte is present at or above that concentration. 
PQL is the level established in a regulation to identify the lowest 
reliable concentration of an analyte laboratories are able to measure.
    For the proposed LCRI, the EPA reconsidered the practical 
quantitation limit used in the LCR to see if there was evidence to 
support lowering it. The lead practical quantitation limit is currently 
set at 0.005 mg/L and is incorporated into the National Environmental 
Laboratory Accreditation Conference (NELAC) Institute (The NELAC 
Institute, 2021) accreditation process. NELAC was established by the 
EPA in 1995 to develop consensus national standards for environmental 
laboratory accreditation. These established standards work to ensure 
the quality of environmental data from lab to lab. The EPA also 
received data, during the development of the proposed LCRI, from a 
company that conducts proficiency testing and at that time, the agency 
was not aware of data to support proposing to lower the PQL (``Lead 
Drinking Water Proficiency Testing Data (2016-2022)'' available in the 
LCRI docket EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801). The EPA also noted that while the 
method detection limit (MDL) of lead can be as low as 0.0006 mg/L under 
certain EPA approved methods (Diebler, 2013), the PQL is set higher 
than the method detection limit to account for analytical variability, 
along with the EPA's standard practice of adding an uncertainty factor 
of 5-10 (53 FR 31550, USEPA, 1988). Thus, the EPA proposed that the 
current practical quantification limit of 0.005 mg/L is consistent with 
published detection limits. Further, the EPA was not aware of national-
scale data evaluating lead detection limits, or on the number or 
percentage of labs nationwide measuring lower levels. The EPA was not 
aware of any additional evidence to support lowering the current lead 
PQL below 0.005 mg/L in the proposed LCRI.
2. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
a. First- and Fifth-Liter Sampling
    The EPA received many comments supporting the proposed sampling 
protocol, including the use of the higher of the first- and fifth-liter 
sample in the 90th percentile calculation. These commenters stated that 
the first- and fifth-liter protocol better assesses situations with a 
higher potential of lead faced by consumers. Some commenters expressed 
concern that the fifth-liter sample does not adequately represent CCT 
performance. Other commenters asserted that the fifth-liter sample 
should not be used for multi-family sites because it is not possible to 
meet the intent of sampling, including both capturing water in contact 
with the service line and meeting the six-hour minimum stagnation time. 
Some that supported the proposed protocol requested that it be applied 
in additional situations, such as at Tier 3 sites and at sites 
following service line removal.
    The EPA agrees with comments in support of requiring systems to 
collect the first- and fifth-liter samples at sites served by LSLs. As 
discussed in the proposed LCRI under section V.C.1, the EPA evaluated 
implementation data from Michigan's revised LCR that shows some first-
liter samples collected at LSL sites measure higher lead levels than 
fifth-liter samples collected at the same sites (Betanzo at al., 2021). 
The EPA cited Masters et al. (2021) and Mishrra et al. (2021) which 
also show results where the first and fifth liters are more effective 
than either sample alone at indicating the presence of lead in drinking 
water.
    The EPA disagrees that the fifth-liter sample should not be used 
for compliance sampling. The EPA acknowledged in the final LCRR 
preamble that the fifth-liter sample may not correspond to the sample 
volume with the highest lead levels in all cases, but selected it as a 
sample ``more representative of lead concentrations in service lines 
than the first-liter sample'' and ``most likely to contain the water 
that remained stagnant within a customer-owned portion LSL'' (86 FR 
4226, USEPA, 2021a). This remains true for multi-family residences 
where the LSL may reside at a location farther than that captured by 
the fifth liter, but the fifth liter, as compared to the first liter, 
will capture water that has undergone less dispersion since the LSL. 
For this reason, the EPA does not agree that the

[[Page 86488]]

fifth liter should not be used at multi-family residences. The EPA also 
disagrees that the fifth liter cannot be used to assess CCT 
performance. Both first- and fifth-liter samples seek to identify 
situations with high lead levels, specifically by selecting the water 
volumes most likely to contain elevated lead levels, that can be 
remedied by adjustments to CCT and public education outreach.
    The EPA does not agree the first- and fifth-liter sampling protocol 
should be applied to Tier 3 sites. As previously discussed in IV.E.1.a 
of this preamble, the fifth liter does not help to assess CCT 
performance in situations such as galvanized service lines where 
particulate lead is the most likely contributor to lead in drinking 
water and lead connectors where lead components are situated far from 
the tap and undergo dispersion prior to reaching the tap. Specifically, 
in these situations, a first-liter sample is more appropriate to 
evaluate CCT as it will capture water in contact with particulate lead 
trapped in premise plumbing.
    The EPA also requested comment on ``the applicability of alternate 
sampling protocols to assess CCT performance, increase customer 
participation, and other relevant factors.'' Commenters requested that 
only the fifth liter be used to calculate the 90th percentile since 
systems are not required to remove premise plumbing features containing 
lead. Similarly, commenters cited concerns over the requirement to 
leave aerators in place during sampling because systems do not have to 
clean aerators with trapped particulate. Other commenters expressed 
support for only using the first liter in 90th percentile calculations, 
since the lead and copper NPDWRs implemented to date have only required 
systems to take first-liter samples and thus, fifth-liter samples would 
be a departure from tap sampling used in the past to evaluate CCT 
performance. The EPA interprets this comment to indicate that the 
commenter feels a long record of sampling under a single protocol 
offers valuable information when applying the data to decisions 
regarding CCT. One commenter requested the EPA further study the 
potential of random daytime sampling as a method that better represents 
lead and copper exposure and is easier to implement, since the method 
does not require a set stagnation period. Lastly, the EPA also received 
a request to allow the use of updated lead-sensing technology, such as 
a rapid biosensor test that can evaluate the presence of lead above 
0.010 mg/L in water, as part of a CCT evaluation protocol.
    The EPA disagrees with only requiring systems to consider the 
fifth-liter sample in calculating the 90th percentile and also 
disagrees that systems are not responsible for controlling for lead in 
premise plumbing through CCT, including lead trapped in faucet 
aerators. While systems are not required to remove lead premise 
plumbing materials, the EPA determined in the LCR that water systems 
can affect lead levels at the tap by adjusting the corrosivity of the 
water delivered to consumer so it will not leach lead from multiple 
sources of lead in the distribution system, including premise plumbing 
(see section IV.A of this preamble for further discussion on the EPA's 
regulatory approach). Additionally, as described in the proposed LCRI 
in section V.C.1 (88 FR 84929, USEPA, 2023a), the first-liter sample 
can capture higher levels of lead from LSLs than the fifth-liter sample 
in some conditions. Specifically, when water chemistry results in the 
formation of relatively fragile scales, maximum lead values have been 
documented in the first liter of sampling at some homes in Flint, 
Michigan (Lytle et al., 2019), Washington, DC (Clark et al., 2014), 
Providence, Rhode Island (Clark et al., 2014), and Chicago, Illinois 
(Masters et al., 2021). The lead release captured in the first liter is 
attributed primarily to lead particles that can become detached, such 
as from the LSL or from galvanized pipes that are or were downstream of 
lead pipes, and have accumulated in the premise plumbing. Therefore, 
the EPA finds that systems should continue to sample the first liter, 
as required under the 1991 LCR, in addition to the fifth liter, as 
incorporated from the 2021 LCRR, to best identify situations where CCT 
is operating insufficiently to prevent lead in drinking water.
    The EPA disagrees that past use of first-liter sampling prevents 
the agency from adopting a new protocol based on new and updated 
information because prior requirements, including tap sampling 
protocols, do not limit the agency's ability to update lead and copper 
NPDWRs based on the best-available scientific and technical information 
and the learned experiences of States and systems. The first- and 
fifth-liter sampling protocol has been implemented for several years at 
the State-level in Michigan and is accompanied by evidence 
demonstrating that the protocol proposed by the EPA is better able to 
identify lead presence than the first- or fifth-liter sample alone 
(Betanzo et al., 2021). The EPA disagrees that the first- and fifth-
liter sampling protocol is less effective for evaluating CCT than the 
first-liter sampling protocol. The first- and fifth-liter sampling 
protocol is suitable for compliance testing because it uses the same 
basis for evaluation of CCT performance as was used for the first-liter 
sampling protocol--that is, whether lead is released as either 
dissolved or particulate lead. The EPA agrees that systems' history of 
first-liter sampling since the 1991 LCR will offer systems valuable 
information about their CCT performance and adds that the fifth-liter 
samples will improve the information available to make decisions 
regarding CCT. Additionally, as previously discussed in IV.E.1.a of 
this section, the EPA finds that the fifth liter can capture water in 
contact with the service line in many, though not all, sites. Further, 
the EPA disagrees that the change is too difficult for systems and 
States to implement. Without revisions in the LCRI, a fifth-liter-only 
protocol is in effect under the 2021 LCRR. The EPA is adding the fifth-
liter sample, which many systems are currently preparing to implement, 
to the existing first-liter sample to improve the monitoring technique 
for detection of lead at drinking water taps when service line sources 
of lead are known.
    The EPA acknowledges that a protocol with reduced stagnation time 
can ease consumer sampling burdens. However, no commenters submitted, 
and the EPA does not find that there is, sufficient information to 
select random daytime sampling and other alternative sampling 
technologies in lieu of the current sampling protocol for the 
assessment of CCT, especially for sampling water in contact with the 
service line. The first-liter and the first- and fifth-liter sampling 
protocols in the LCRI are required in combination with tiering criteria 
that prioritize sites with the highest potential exposure to lead and 
copper to conduct targeted assessments of systemwide CCT performance. 
The agency does not agree that these alternative sampling methodologies 
have been shown to provide equal or improved public health protection 
as a compliance strategy without further study.
    Regarding comments requesting that the EPA consider the use of 
rapid at home testing for lead in drinking water for regulatory 
compliance, the EPA does not agree that there currently is a role for 
rapid at-home lead-sensing technology for assessment of the 
effectiveness of CCT. Generally, at-home lead-sensing technologies can 
be characterized as qualitative because they do not assess the 
contribution of particulate lead. Qualitative, at-home

[[Page 86489]]

tests are useful for assessing the potential presence of lead in 
drinking water but not for making quantitative assessments; nor do they 
account for the variability of lead levels as discussed in section IV.A 
of this preamble.
b. Tiering of Sampling Sites
    For the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested comment on the sites 
included in Tier 3 and whether all of the proposed sites should be 
included in Tier 3, if additional sites should be included, or if some 
should be included in a different, lower priority tier, such as Tier 4. 
Specifically, comment on whether sites served by galvanized service 
lines or containing galvanized premise plumbing that are identified as 
ever being downstream of an LSL or lead connector should be included in 
the same tier as other sites with a current lead connector (e.g., 
copper service line downstream of a lead connector). The EPA received 
comments on the sites proposed to be prioritized in Tier 3, including 
requests to move sites with galvanized service lines downstream of a 
previously removed lead connector and sites with lead connectors to a 
lower tier than sites with lead solder, which were proposed to be 
included in Tier 4. In support of this recommended revision, commenters 
described data showing that lead levels at sites served by galvanized 
service lines downstream of previously removed lead connectors were 
consistently lower than lead levels at sites with lead solder. However, 
these commenters did not provide the data described to the EPA. The EPA 
also received comments both in support of, and stating concerns with, 
including sites characterized by premise plumbing in the tiering 
criteria. The latter commenters articulated concerns over whether 
systems would be required to inspect plumbing within structures to 
determine whether they contain material that would place the structure 
in a sampling tier, such as Tier 1 or 2 for sites with lead premise 
plumbing and Tier 3 for sites with galvanized premise plumbing. Some 
commenters provided support for including lead connectors in Tier 3 and 
agreed connectors should be in lower tiers than sites served by LSLs. 
Lastly, the EPA received requests to simplify the tiering structure, 
including suggestions to remove premise plumbing characteristics and a 
suggestion to remove multi-family versus single-family structure 
characteristics. Commenters asserted that complicated tiering is 
difficult to implement when homeowners are the ones conducting 
sampling.
    The EPA agrees that galvanized service lines downstream of a 
previously removed lead connector are likely to present a lower 
likelihood of contributing to lead in drinking water than sites with 
galvanized service lines downstream of a previously removed LSL (Tier 
3) as well as sites with lead solder (Tier 4). Lead connectors are 
shorter in length than LSLs and the length of LSL has been correlated 
with the amount of lead released (Deshommes 2016). Thus, a relatively 
shorter upstream lead connector may lead to less buildup of lead-
containing scale on downstream galvanized pipe scale than an upstream 
LSL. For the final LCRI, Tier 5 includes sites that are representative 
of sites throughout the distribution system. Where galvanized service 
lines downstream of a previously removed connector are representative 
of sites throughout the distribution system, they would be sampled in 
Tier 5.
    As proposed, the EPA placed sites with lead connectors in Tier 3. 
The EPA agrees with commenters that sites with lead connectors should 
be tiered below sites with LSLs in Tiers 1 and 2. The EPA also 
emphasizes that sites with minor variations in the likelihood of lead 
contributions do not need to be prioritized into separate tiers since 
further divisions within tiers would result in smaller pools of sites 
that are likely to be insufficient to equal or exceed the minimum 
required number of samples. All samples included in the 90th percentile 
calculation are given equal weight in the 90th percentile calculation, 
including samples from different tiers and samples with different 
probability of lead contribution within the same tier. The equal weight 
given in the 90th percentile calculation means that even if sites are 
prioritized differently for sample collection, once they are sampled 
and if used in the calculation of the 90th percentile, each site 
contributes equally in the calculation. Sites such as those grouped 
under Tier 3, each of which may have slightly higher or lower 
likelihood of contributing lead to drinking water, will all be included 
in the 90th percentile calculation. Therefore, while the types of sites 
included in Tier 3 may have slight differences in the likelihood of 
contributing lead, in many cases, systems will likely need to sample at 
multiple types of Tier 3 sites to meet their minimum required number of 
sites and consider those samples equally for compliance purposes.
    As previously stated, the EPA disagrees that systems should not be 
required to sample for lead in drinking water when the lead sources are 
in premise plumbing. Premise plumbing, like service lines, is impacted 
by the corrosivity of the tap water. Thus, preventing the leaching of 
lead and copper from premise plumbing as a result of water corrosivity 
is under the control of water systems. The purpose of sampling at sites 
with premise plumbing known to contain lead is to alert the system to 
potential corrosion control issues leading to elevated lead in such 
sites. Commenters opposed to including premise plumbing in site tiering 
may be incorrectly characterizing the requirement to identify premise 
plumbing materials in their service line inventory. The LCRI does not 
require water systems to conduct material inventories for premise 
plumbing as required for service lines (Sec.  141.84(a)); however, the 
LCRI does require that sites with lead premise plumbing and galvanized 
premise plumbing material ever having been downstream of a LSL be 
included as part of site sample collection if known to the water 
system. Systems should include sites with lead premise plumbing as Tier 
1 or 2 and galvanized premise plumbing ever having been downstream of a 
LSL as Tier 3 when they are aware of the material composition; however, 
again, the LCRI does not require systems to proactively identify or 
inventory where lead premise plumbing exists for purposes of meeting 
the tiering requirements. Systems may encounter premise plumbing in the 
course of normal operations including through service line 
identification and replacement that would provide information to inform 
tier site selection.
    The EPA disagrees with commenter suggestions to remove premise 
plumbing from sample tiering, for reasons described above, and with 
suggestions to combine single-family and multi-family structures. The 
2021 LCRR maintained the tiering structure established in the LCR for 
prioritized, targeted monitoring of sites with a higher potential for 
lead contribution to drinking water, with the highest priority tiers 
(Tiers 1 and 2) comprised of sites with LSLs representing the sites 
with the highest potential to contribute lead. Tier 1 sites include 
single-family structures served by LSLs and Tier 2 sites include multi-
family residences served by LSLs. The Tier 2 sites serve to distinguish 
multi-family structures with lead as sites with a higher potential to 
contribute lead to drinking water than Tier 3 sites, which are sites 
that are served by a lead connector or sites served by a galvanized 
service line or containing galvanized premise plumbing that are 
identified as ever

[[Page 86490]]

having been downstream of a lead service line. In addition, the EPA did 
not include multi-family structures in Tier 1 because they have more 
complex plumbing layouts compared to single-family structures in Tier 
1. While the fifth-liter sample increases the chance of detecting water 
that has been sitting in contact with an LSL, generally, it is more 
difficult to detect corrosion control issues in multi-family structures 
as compared to single-family structures.
c. Sample Site Selection
    The EPA received comments regarding the selection of replacement 
sites from the sampling pool when previously sampled sites are no 
longer accessible, and the timing under which systems can sample at 
replacement sites, including sites that are in a lower tier. 
Specifically, as mandatory service line replacement is underway, 
commenters expressed concern over identifying replacement sites as the 
number of sites in Tiers 1 and 2 diminish. Commenters expressed concern 
that the requirement for systems to sample at 100 percent of LSL sites 
under Sec.  141.86(a)(3) could make them repeatedly return to homes 
with LSLs that have refused or declined to respond to requests for 
sampling. Commenters requested the EPA better describe how and when 
sites can be considered unavailable. Another comment suggested that 
systems should be required to maintain records on customer refusals for 
tap sampling for customers with Tier 1 sites. Commenters noted this 
recordkeeping would help States ensure that no Tier 1 sites are missed 
by systems. Commenters also expressed concern over the requirement for 
systems to replace unavailable sampling sites with locations in a 
reasonable proximity. These commenters stated it could be difficult for 
systems to interpret the meaning of ``reasonable proximity.''
    The EPA agrees that systems should be able to consider sites 
unavailable when customers refuse to participate in tap sampling, 
recognizing the tap sampling sites are within structures such as homes, 
and that this would constitute a lack of access by the system to 
conduct tap sampling at that site (see section IV.A of this preamble 
for details on control). As such, the EPA added a provision to the 
final LCRI at Sec.  141.86(a)(4) to allow systems to consider sites 
unavailable for tap sampling after a customer refuses to participate or 
a customer does not respond after two outreach attempts.
    In addition, the EPA agrees in part with requests to add system 
reporting requirements to help States review when customer refusals 
lead to a lack of access for tap sampling and systems sample at 
replacement sites. To assist State tracking of system activities 
related to selection of replacement sites, the EPA added a requirement 
to the final LCRI at Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(viii) for systems to report the 
number of customer refusals to participate in tap sampling during each 
tap sampling period. This requirement is in addition to existing 
reporting requirements under Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(v) for systems to 
provide an explanation for any site sampled for compliance monitoring 
that was not sampled in the previous tap monitoring period.
    The EPA also agrees that the 2021 LCRR requirement to identify 
replacement sites within a reasonable proximity as this could be 
challenging to interpret and is no longer needed with the LCRI 
requirement of mandatory service line replacement. Therefore, the EPA 
removed this requirement in the final LCRI.
    The EPA requested comment on ``whether State authority to specify 
sampling locations when a system is conducting reduced monitoring 
should apply regardless of the number of taps meeting sample site 
criteria.'' Commenters expressed that States may not have the 
appropriate information to specify locations, or if they have that 
knowledge, they may not have the resources or capacity to do so. Others 
expressed that States will likely not exercise their authority to 
specify locations, but the authority may come in use from time to time.
    The EPA disagrees that States do not have the information necessary 
to specify accurately tiered locations since systems are required to 
report their inventory of service line material to the State under 
Sec.  141.90(e). States have access to information provided by systems, 
submitted via both site sample plans and service line material 
inventories, and are able to review them, as needed, to determine if 
the selected sampling pool should be modified to prioritize sampling at 
sites with a higher potential for lead contribution. State review of 
sampling locations can be helpful to assess system-specific situations 
where the selection of sites, even when the selection meets rule 
requirements, underestimates the potential for lead in the systems 
drinking water (Stratton, et al., 2023). The final LCRI maintains the 
authority for States to require modifications to site sample plans, but 
does not require that States review and approve them. The option to 
review site sample plans enables States to prioritize resources for the 
systems most in need of oversight. The EPA encourages States to review 
site sample plans to provide feedback to systems to ensure that their 
sampling approach meets the requirements under the LCRI, instead of 
waiting until sample results are submitted to the State to alert 
systems to issues in the sampling approach that could result in the 
need to resample, such as due to incorrect tiering.
    The EPA also received a comment requesting clarification on whether 
sites with installed point-of-use treatment can be sampled for lead and 
copper when the point-of-use device is bypassed. Installed point-of-use 
devices are those attached to premise plumbing and deliver treated 
water through a tap. While point-of-use devices can be bypassed, such 
that samples can be collected through premise plumbing without passing 
through the point-of-use device, doing so requires a more complex 
sampling protocol. The EPA disagrees with increasing the complexity of 
tap sampling in this way and did not make changes to the final LCRI to 
allow for sampling at bypassed sites. Therefore, the final LCRI does 
not allow sites with installed point-of-use or point-of-entry devices 
to be selected for compliance tap sampling, except in water systems 
using these devices at all service connections for primary drinking 
water taps to meet other primary and secondary drinking water standards 
as under Sec.  141.93(c)(1).
d. Frequency and Quantity of Sampling
    The EPA received comments regarding the number of sites sampled and 
the frequency of sampling.
i. Minimum Number of Sites
    Some commenters were concerned that the reduced minimum number of 
sites required for systems on reduced monitoring is insufficient and 
recommended that systems always collect at the standard minimum number 
of sites regardless of their monitoring schedule. Other commenters 
supported the use of a reduced number of monitoring sites but suggested 
the EPA simplify and reduce burden on systems by requiring those on 
annual reduced monitoring to sample at a reduced number of sites for 
both lead and copper instead of the current requirement to sample at 
the standard number of sites for lead and the reduced number of sites 
for copper.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters stating the number of sampling 
sites required for reduced monitoring is too low or that all systems 
should sample at the same number of sites. Reduced sampling 
requirements effectively prioritize sampling resources, including

[[Page 86491]]

State time and effort, to systems with the highest potential for lead 
and copper in drinking water. Additionally, the lower lead action level 
means that systems must meet a stricter threshold to qualify for 
reduced monitoring. The EPA is maintaining the requirements for reduced 
monitoring in the final LCRI; systems can only qualify for a reduced 
minimum number of monitoring sites after they have demonstrated low 
levels of lead in at least two consecutive tap monitoring periods. At 
their discretion, systems remain able to collect samples above the 
minimum number required, including samples taken by customer request 
under Sec.  141.85(c) that meet the requirements for compliance lead 
and copper samples.
    The EPA does not agree that requiring different minimum numbers of 
sites for annual monitoring of lead and of copper is too burdensome or 
confusing for systems because the same sample can be used for both lead 
and copper analysis. The tiering criteria for site selection is not 
dependent on whether the sample is collected for both lead and copper 
analysis or only lead analysis. Systems only need to collect one first-
liter or first-and-fifth-liter-paired sample from sites equal to the 
standard minimum number of sites to meet the requirements of annual 
reduced monitoring according to Sec.  141.86(d)(2)(i). All samples 
collected from the standard minimum number of sites are analyzed for 
lead. Then, systems are only required to analyze a portion of those 
samples equal to the reduced minimum required number of copper 
monitoring sites, thus reducing the costs of sample analysis.
    The EPA maintains that a standard number of monitoring sites for 
lead for systems on an annual reduced monitoring schedule is reasonable 
and disagrees with comments that systems on annual reduced monitoring 
should sample at a reduced number of sites for both lead and copper. 
The purpose of reduced monitoring is to alleviate sampling burdens on 
systems with a lower potential of lead and copper occurrence in 
drinking water, while maintaining a minimum level of monitoring 
commensurate to the likelihood of deviations in CCT performance. 
Systems on annual reduced monitoring already have a reduced burden by 
sampling once instead of twice per year, thereby representing a burden 
reduction even when sampling at the standard number of sites for lead. 
Furthermore, triennial reduced monitoring, where systems sample every 
three years at a reduced number of sites for both lead and copper, is 
allowed only after systems have met more rigorous requirements of three 
years at or below the action level or one year at or below the PQL and 
systems with CCT must also maintain their OWQPs. Reduced monitoring on 
a triennial schedule is reserved for the systems with the lowest 
potential of lead and copper in drinking water, as evidenced by 
consistently low levels of lead. The final LCRI maintains the standard 
number of sites for lead on an annual monitoring schedule due to the 
critical role of sampling in assessing issues in CCT performance and 
the goal of preventing adverse health effects from lead to the extent 
feasible. See section IV.M of this preamble for details on the LCRI 
approach to copper.
ii. Nine-Year Waiver
    Some commenters recommended the EPA eliminate the nine-year waiver 
to limit the amount of time between sampling. The EPA disagrees that 
the nine-year waivers, which includes the copper waiver and lead 
waiver, should be eliminated. The nine-year waivers, which have been a 
part of the lead and copper NPDWRs since the 2000 LCR, offer 
flexibility to the smallest systems, and requires that those systems 
meet strict criteria to receive a waiver. Specifically, water systems 
must meet both a materials criteria (Sec.  141.86(g)(1)) and a 
monitoring criteria (Sec.  141.86(g)(2)). Water systems may qualify for 
a lead and/or copper waiver to monitor at a nine-year frequency only if 
they certify to the State that the system has no lead and/or copper-
containing plumbing materials in their system, including premise 
plumbing, and have sampling results that do not exceed the lead and/or 
copper PQLs, respectively. The nine-year waivers provide very small 
systems with the lowest potential for lead and/or copper a potential 
pathway to allocate limited resources for other purposes. The nine-year 
waivers are not available to larger systems since it is not feasible 
for larger systems to determine a complete absence of plumbing 
materials containing lead and/or copper in their distribution system 
and premise plumbing.
iii. Sampling During Mandatory Service Line Replacement
    The EPA also received feedback that sampling during mandatory 
service line replacement would place too much burden on systems. In 
response, some commenters requested the EPA waive sampling requirements 
until service line replacement is completed to help systems meet 
service line replacement deadlines. The EPA does not agree that systems 
should be allowed to waive or otherwise suspend sampling during service 
line replacement because it is important and feasible for systems to 
maintain the treatment technique for CCT and public education during 
service line replacement, which includes maintaining OCCT and taking 
public education actions following an action level exceedance. Tap 
sampling is a critical component for both assessing CCT performance and 
requiring certain public education activities. Further, systems have 
been conducting sampling under the LCR for many years and already have 
processes and experience in place to continue conducting monitoring.
e. Standard Monitoring
    The EPA requested comment on whether a phased or alternative 
approach should be considered for systems required to begin standard 
monitoring and required to submit site sample plans to the State by the 
start of the first full tap sampling period following the compliance 
date. Commenters expressed concerns over the ability of States to 
review new site sample plans in a short timeframe, lab capacity and 
supply chain issues, and the ability of systems to simultaneously 
implement additional monitoring requirements while conducting mandatory 
service line replacement. Commenters offered several suggestions for 
phased and alternate approaches. Commenters suggested that systems be 
phased into standard monitoring based on system size, such as an 
approach similar to one employed under another EPA rule, the Stage 2 
Disinfection By-products Rule. Commenters recommended large systems 
should comply with standard monitoring first. These commenters argued 
this option would offer the most public health protection since large 
systems combined serve the greatest total number of people, while 
allowing smaller systems, which serve fewer people and typically have 
more limited resources, more time before beginning standard monitoring. 
Other commenters suggested that small systems should comply soonest 
followed by medium systems and then large systems, as small systems 
have the least complex site sample plans and require the least review. 
These commenters indicated that site sample plans from larger systems, 
which sample at the greatest number of sites, will require more time 
for States to review them. Other commenters suggested that systems be 
staggered according to the value of their 90th percentile lead level, 
where systems with the highest lead levels would be required to begin 
standard monitoring

[[Page 86492]]

before systems with lower lead levels. This approach would prioritize 
State and system resources to review and implement sampling at the 
greatest number of sites and with the highest frequency for systems 
with the highest potential for lead and copper in drinking water. 
Additionally, the EPA received comment that all systems should be 
required to conduct two rounds of standard monitoring as a result of 
promulgating the LCRI, with varied suggestions ranging from one year 
after promulgation to dates staggered for the first few years after the 
compliance date. Lastly, the EPA received suggestions for exemptions 
conducting standard monitoring at the compliance date, including 
systems with State-approved supplemental monitoring programs and 
systems already implementing first- and fifth-liter monitoring at LSL 
sites.
    The EPA agrees that the rule should both limit the burden on 
systems and States and prioritize actions that are most protective of 
public health to the extent feasible. To facilitate these goals, the 
EPA is finalizing requirements at Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(i) for only those 
systems with any lead and/or GRR service lines in their inventory at 
the compliance date and at Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(ii) for any system at the 
compliance date whose most recent 90th percentile lead and/or copper 
levels exceed the action levels under the LCRI to conduct standard 
monitoring starting with the first full tap monitoring period after the 
compliance date. The EPA does not agree that systems with known lead-
contributing service lines should delay monitoring, since it is 
important to assess CCT with the updated tap sampling protocol for 
systems with known sources of lead. Systems without known lead and GRR 
service lines in their inventory at the compliance date will only be 
required to conduct standard monitoring if they do not qualify for 
reduced monitoring, including meeting the lead and copper action levels 
under the LCRI. This incentivizes systems to identify and replace all 
lead and GRR service lines in their distribution system before the 
compliance date, resulting in the public health benefits of service 
line replacement to be realized more quickly. Additionally, systems 
with lead and GRR service lines that adopt the sampling protocol under 
the LCRI prior to the compliance date and measure 90th percentile 
levels at or below the LCRI action levels are not required to conduct 
standard monitoring at the compliance date. More specifically, for 
systems with lead and GRR service lines to stay on reduced monitoring, 
the complete sampling protocol must include the first- and fifth-liter 
sampling protocol at sites served by LSLs as described in Sec.  
141.86(b)(1)(ii), all sample collection requirements in Sec.  
141.86(b)(1) and (3) (such as stagnation times and sample volume), and 
priority tiering requirements to sample at sites served by lead and GRR 
service lines as described in Sec.  141.86(a).
    The EPA is not finalizing the proposed requirement to require 
systems with unknown sites but no lead and/or GRR service line sites in 
their inventory at the compliance date to start standard six-month 
monitoring in the first six-month tap sampling period following the 
LCRI compliance date. The EPA has determined that systems with known 
lead and GRR service lines have the greatest potential to have lead 
that can be better identified with the revised tap sampling protocols. 
By requiring these systems to implement the revised tiering and tap 
sampling protocols as soon as possible, the final rule facilitates 
expedited identification of systems that need to take additional 
actions based on their tap sampling results to reduce drinking water 
lead exposure and protect public health. Systems with unknown service 
lines but without at least one known lead and/or GRR service line on 
the LCRI compliance date will not have to meet the standard monitoring 
requirements under the LCRI unless they identify a known lead or GRR 
service line among their unknown lines or are required by another 
provision in the LCRI, such as exceeding the action level or conducting 
source water/treatment changes. The EPA estimates that many of the 
systems with either all unknown service lines or a combination of 
unknown and non-lead service lines are small water systems. This 
conclusion is based on an evaluation of the 7th Drinking Water 
Information Needs Survey and Assessment, which indicated that an 
estimated 44 percent of small systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer, 
approximately 20,000 systems, have either all service lines of unknown 
material or some service lines of unknown materials and non-lead 
service lines (USEPA, 2024a, chapter 3). The EPA believes these systems 
will better be able to focus time and resources on the service line 
materials inventory requirement to determine the material of all 
unknown service lines which can lead to improved public health 
protection such as the replacement of an LSL. The EPA notes that these 
systems would be required to start standard monitoring on the 
compliance date if their most recent 90th percentile level exceeds 
0.010 mg/L (Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(ii)).
    Allowing systems with unknowns to focus on developing their 
inventory can result in greater public health benefits by prioritizing 
the investigation of unknowns, which could lead to the identification 
of lead and/or GRR service lines. Additionally, the final LCRI, under 
Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(H), requires that if a system identifies a lead 
or GRR service line at any time, it is required to conduct standard 
monitoring in the next six-month tap sampling period. Therefore, 
systems cannot avoid standard monitoring by postponing development of 
their service line materials inventory. If a system identifies a lead 
and/or GRR service line in its inventory, it must sample at the highest 
tiered sites according to the final LCRI's revised tiering and tap 
sampling protocols until all lead and GRR service lines are replaced. 
Water systems without lead or GRR service lines in their inventory must 
start standard monitoring if they subsequently discover a lead or GRR 
service line in the distribution system, unless the system replaces all 
the identified service lines prior to the start of the next tap 
monitoring period. If a system can replace those service lines prior to 
the next tap monitoring period, it would be a system with no lead and/
or GRR service lines and therefore, would not need to start standard 
monitoring. The EPA does not anticipate that this requirement will 
disincentivize water systems from developing their inventory in order 
to avoid standard monitoring. Because the service line replacement pool 
includes unknowns, water systems are strongly incentivized to 
investigate the material of unknowns to reduce the annual number of 
replacements they must conduct (i.e., where unknowns are determined to 
be non-lead). Additionally, the identification of unknowns as non-lead 
service lines can reduce system burden in other rule areas, such as 
providing annual public education to persons served by unknown service 
lines and risk mitigation measures following service line disturbance.
    Systems on reduced monitoring that are not required to start 
standard monitoring at the first six-month tap sampling period 
following the LCRI compliance date will continue reduced monitoring in 
accordance with the requirements of the LCRI. Systems that do not meet 
the reduced monitoring criteria, including measuring 90th percentile 
lead and copper levels at or below the action levels of 0.010 mg/L and 
1.3 mg/L, respectively, in the tap sampling period prior to the 
compliance

[[Page 86493]]

date, must begin standard monitoring at the first six-month monitoring 
period following the LCRI compliance date. Nearly all systems, except 
some systems on a nine-year waiver, will conduct their first tap 
monitoring period under the rule within three years of the compliance 
date. In contrast, systems not in compliance with the requirements of 
Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(i), or in exceedance of the action levels under the 
LCRI at the compliance date, will begin their first tap monitoring 
period in January or July following the compliance date, whichever is 
sooner. The EPA encourages States to adopt LCRI sampling requirements 
prior to the compliance date to assist systems with implementing the 
new requirements and reducing the number of systems required to start 
or continue standard monitoring at the same time.
    The EPA does not agree that all systems need to begin conducting 
standard monitoring following promulgation of the LCRI, whether soon 
after promulgation or phased in over a few years. The purpose of the 
requirement for some systems to begin conducting standard monitoring as 
soon as possible after the compliance date is so that systems with the 
highest risk of lead in drinking water can determine, under updated 
sampling and tiering requirements, whether they have exceeded the 
action level under the LCRI and must conduct additional actions to 
prevent lead exposure and protect public health. Systems without lead 
and/or GRR service lines in their inventory at the compliance date 
represent systems with a lower risk and therefore, are not required to 
change their monitoring frequency at the compliance date unless they do 
not qualify for reduced monitoring. Systems may still be required to 
begin conducting standard monitoring following the compliance date if 
they meet any of the criteria in Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii) or if they 
exceed the lead or copper action level under the LCRI in the tap 
monitoring period immediately preceding or on the compliance date 
according to Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(ii). The EPA added the requirement at 
Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(ii), and maintained the provision at Sec.  
141.86(c)(2)(iii)(A) to require systems exceeding the lead or copper 
action level to begin standard monitoring. The EPA considers 90th 
percentile levels as current until the next 90th percentile is 
calculated following a subsequent tap sampling period. Thus, under the 
LCRI, systems with their most recent 90th percentile lead values that 
exceed 0.010 mg/L will be required to begin standard monitoring upon 
the compliance date. The addition at Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(ii) clarifies 
that this requirement applies to all systems using their most recent 
90th percentile lead levels.
    The EPA disagrees with suggestions made by commenters to stagger or 
postpone the requirement for some systems, as summarized above, to 
conduct standard monitoring following the compliance date because the 
suggestions offered would either require additional State burden to 
track changing monitoring frequencies for several years following 
compliance or would not prioritize systems with the highest risk of 
lead in drinking water. The EPA considered suggestions to stagger 
requirements to begin standard monitoring following the compliance date 
by system size or by 90th percentile lead level and the agency does not 
anticipate that the solutions offered would substantially reduce 
administrative burden or enhance public protection for systems as part 
of the CCT or public education. Further, the EPA determined that 
staggering by 90th percentile lead level is not dissimilar from 
sampling requirements triggered by the lead action level where systems 
with high 90th percentile lead levels would already be required to 
conduct standard monitoring. Therefore, staggering by 90th percentile 
lead level captures systems that are already likely to sample at a 
higher frequency due to their 90th percentile levels. Instead, the EPA 
selected a solution for requiring systems to return to standard 
monitoring that would also capture systems that measure low levels of 
lead under the LCR but have known sources of lead in the form of lead 
and/or GRR service lines. Thus, the EPA is finalizing the approach to 
require systems with lead and galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines in their inventory at the LCRI compliance date to conduct 
standard monitoring, and for other systems to otherwise monitor in 
accordance with the requirements of the LCRI.
    Some commenters expressed concern that it is infeasible to require 
systems to begin standard monitoring at the same time because States 
will have to review too many site sample plans at the same time. The 
EPA disagrees with the commenters' interpretation of the proposed and 
now final requirement for States to review site sample plans. In the 
preamble to the 2021 LCRR, the EPA indicated that States could review 
and approve site sample plans that include locations and tiering 
criteria of sites identified for sampling (USEPA, 2021a). While systems 
must submit site sample plans to the State (Sec.  141.90(a)(1)(i)) 
under the final LCRI, States do not have to review and approve them. 
For the final LCRI, the EPA is clarifying that States nonetheless may 
review and approve site plans; however, they do not have to do so prior 
to a system's first tap sampling period after the compliance date. 
Though States are not required to review site sample plans, States are 
required to review similar information on sample locations and tiering 
criteria after systems have completed sampling. At the end of each tap 
sampling period, systems must submit the results of sampling along with 
documentation of the location of each site and information to support 
the site selection according to tiering criteria (Sec.  
141.90(a)(2)(i)). This is the same information as required in the site 
sample plan under Sec.  141.90(a)(1)(i). States may, at their 
discretion and at a time of their choosing, review site selection 
criteria in the site sample plans to assist system compliance with tap 
sampling requirements. The EPA encourages States to prioritize review 
of these plans to ensure and support compliance with the tap sampling 
requirements. The LCRI incorporates requirements from the 2021 LCRR for 
States to require changes to the site sample plan, including the 
authority to specify sites for compliance tap sampling (Sec.  
141.86(a)(1)).
f. 90th Percentile Value Calculation and Inclusion of Additional 
Samples
    The EPA requested comment on the potential inclusion of samples 
from lower-priority tiers (i.e., Tiers 3 through 5) that have a higher 
lead or copper concentration than samples from Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites 
for calculating the 90th percentile value for systems that do not have 
a sufficient number of samples from Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet the 
minimum number of samples required. The EPA received a range of 
comments. Some supported the proposed approach to include the highest 
samples from lower tiers and others suggested the samples with the 
highest lead and copper concentrations be included regardless of tier.
    Additionally, the EPA requested comment and any relevant data on 
the number and tiering of samples used to calculate the 90th percentile 
lead and/or copper levels for systems with LSLs for purposes of 
assessing the effectiveness of CCT. Specifically, whether samples from 
non-lead service line sites that have higher lead concentrations than 
samples from LSL sites should be included and whether these higher 
values should replace lower values from LSL sites in the 90th 
percentile calculation, including at systems that are collecting 
compliance

[[Page 86494]]

samples from all Tier 1 and 2 sites. The EPA received a range of 
comments, with some requesting that the highest samples be included 
regardless of tier, and other comments asking for Tiers 1 and 2 to be 
prioritized. Some commenters specified that the compliance samples with 
the highest lead and copper concentrations should be considered, while 
others did not specify the specific type of samples (e.g., compliance, 
consumer-requested) that should be included as part of the 90th 
percentile calculation. The EPA received a suggestion to consider all 
samples collected regardless of tier, including consumer-requested 
samples, and for systems to calculate the 90th percentile based on the 
highest samples equal in number to the minimum number required in all 
cases. The commenters noted such an approach would take the strictest 
stance on preventing the 90th percentile from being diluted due to 
samples with lower lead concentrations.
    The EPA also received recommendations that additional samples 
should have limited inclusion in the 90th percentile calculation, 
including recommending that additional samples only be included when 
they are consumer-requested samples that meet the same tiering and 
protocol requirements as compliance samples. Some commenters were 
concerned about the potential for these additional samples to alter the 
system's compliance dataset because they would not necessarily be 
included in the sites identified in the site sample plan. Some 
commenters stated that including additional samples that were not 
collected for compliance in the 90th percentile calculation would 
assess the highest levels of lead regardless of cause, and may not 
represent CCT performance, especially if samples would be included 
without consideration of tiering priorities.
    Additional concerns raised by commenters included the potential to 
include duplicate samples from sites sampled multiple times in a 
sampling period, and the potential for additional samples to be 
geographically clustered. Some commenters had concerns that systems 
would reduce voluntary supplemental monitoring programs if the sample 
results would potentially be included in their 90th percentile 
calculation, with a suggestion that systems only include additional 
samples up to the minimum number of required samples. Other commenters 
stated concerns over the applicability of samples to assess CCT if they 
are collected within other sampling programs, including voluntary 
programs conducted by systems, and particularly if those programs are 
not designed to take compliance samples and may not have information on 
site tiering. Lastly, the EPA received comments that the proposed rule 
was unclear about which additional samples can and cannot be included 
in the 90th percentile calculation.
    The EPA agrees that Tiers 1 and 2 represent the highest risk of 
lead in drinking water. The EPA uses tiering to prioritize sites 
selected for tap sampling according to the likelihood of having 
elevated lead levels based on the presence of service lines and 
plumbing materials most likely to contribute lead to drinking water. 
Therefore, tiering supports public health protection under SDWA by 
capturing the highest levels of lead typically at the tap, which in 
turn indicate the need to assess the effectiveness of CCT in order to 
maximize reducing exposure of lead in drinking water and inform next 
steps to control lead releases. The EPA agrees that water systems 
should not be allowed to ``dilute'' the 90th percentile with compliance 
samples from lower-priority tiers when a system does not have enough 
Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet the minimum number of required samples. The 
EPA also did not receive any data during public comment to support the 
inclusion of all samples from lower tiers that, though unlikely, have 
higher lead levels than higher tier sites for the purposes of assessing 
CCT. The final LCRI, the EPA is maintaining the proposed approach to 
require water systems to use samples from Tiers 1, 2, and from the next 
higher available tier (i.e., Tier 3, 4, or 5) only up to the minimum 
number of required samples. The EPA agrees that a high lead value 
indicates a public health risk regardless of tier and individual sites 
with a lead result above 0.010 mg/L require the system to investigate 
the site as part of Distribution System and Site Assessment (see 
section IV.H of this preamble).
    The EPA notes CCT is also assessed at each individual site with a 
lead result above 0.010 mg/L, including at lower or unknown tiers, 
under the rule's Distribution System and Site Assessment requirements 
See section IV.H of this preamble for more details. All sampling 
results must be submitted to the State, regardless of whether the 
sample is used in the 90th percentile value calculation. The State has 
the authority to take action, including re-evaluation of approved OCCT, 
as a result of high lead values resulting from consumer-requested 
sampling.
    The EPA also agrees that the proposed 90th percentile calculation 
is complex because water systems, or the State, will be required to 
separate out the Tier 1 and 2 samples and identify only the samples 
with the highest lead and copper concentrations from the next highest 
tier (i.e., Tier 3, 4, and 5) in order to meet the minimum required 
number of samples. The EPA has simplified the 90th percentile value 
calculation procedure for systems with insufficient Tier 1 and 2 sites 
to meet the minimum number required. For the final LCRI, systems must 
include samples from each tier at which the system conducted compliance 
sampling. Then, systems must use the highest samples from among those 
samples equal to the minimum number of samples required to calculate 
the 90th percentile. While the EPA anticipates in many cases that this 
approach will not yield different results than what the EPA proposed 
because of the higher likelihood of lead in samples collected at Tier 1 
and 2 sites, the EPA is making this change in the final LCRI to 
simplify the calculation and streamline the rule in response to 
comments. For the final LCRI, the EPA also clarified how systems that 
sample at a mix of Tiers 1 and 2 and lower tiered sites (i.e., Tiers 3, 
4, and 5) but do not sample at enough sites to meet the minimum number 
required can still calculate 90th percentile values. While systems that 
do not sample at the minimum number of sites required are in violation 
of the rule, systems must calculate 90th percentile values from the 
samples collected in order to prevent systems from avoiding an action 
level exceedance by undersampling. Systems with less than the minimum 
number of samples must calculate their 90th percentile values based on 
the total number of samples, rather than the minimum number of samples 
required (Sec.  141.80(c)(3)(iii)(G)). This calculation is the same as 
one that is used for systems sampling only at Tiers 3 through 5 sites.
    The EPA disagrees with restricting the number of samples that can 
be used to calculate the 90th percentile in situations where systems 
have sufficient Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet the minimum number of 
samples and are collecting compliance samples at those sites. The EPA 
also disagrees with requiring water systems to use the highest tap 
samples regardless of tier to calculate the 90th percentile for systems 
in those situations. The EPA introduced the tiering criteria to 
prioritize sampling at sites most likely to contain lead and does not 
anticipate that there will be many instances where systems have samples 
from lower priority tiered sites

[[Page 86495]]

with higher lead results than those at Tier 1 and 2 sites. In the 2021 
LCRR, the EPA expanded tiering from three tiers to five tiers in order 
to make lead service lines the highest priority and to help prioritize 
sampling at the highest risk lead sources when systems do not have lead 
service lines (86 FR 4225, USEPA, 2021a). Tiers 1 and 2 represent sites 
with lead sources that, when present, have the greatest contribution to 
lead in drinking water. See section IV.E.2.b of this preamble for 
additional discussion on the prioritization of sites within each tier. 
The EPA acknowledges concerns that water systems may collect additional 
samples in efforts to dilute the 90th percentile level but disagrees 
with prohibiting systems from using more than the minimum number of 
required samples when a system is sampling at sites within the same 
tier. Additional samples collected within the same priority tier do not 
represent dilution because they share the same likelihood of lead 
contributions. Rather, additional data that meets the tiering and 
sampling protocol requirements can provide better systems-wide 
assessment of CCT performance at those sites. The EPA notes that water 
systems are not permitted to collect compliance samples from a lower 
tier if the system has sufficient number of sites at a higher tier 
under Sec.  141.86(a). For example, a system with enough Tier 1 and 2 
sites to meet the minimum number of samples required may not collect 
samples from lower-priority tiered sites for inclusion in the 90th 
percentile calculation. This is to ensure that water systems prioritize 
sampling from higher tier sites while sites remain available and 
prevents diluting the 90th percentile by including samples from lower 
tiers that are likely to have lower lead concentrations. The EPA is 
only limiting the number of samples used for the 90th percentile 
calculation in the situation where a system does not have enough Tier 1 
and 2 sites to meet the required minimum number of samples to limit the 
dilution of the 90th percentile calculation when a system has a mix of 
samples from lead service line sites and lower tiered sites. The EPA is 
also not limiting the number of samples used for the 90th percentile 
calculation in the situation where a system is collecting all 
compliance samples at sites in Tiers 3 through 5 but the agency notes 
as described in the regulatory text under Sec.  141.86(a) water systems 
must prioritize compliance sampling at the highest tier available. For 
example, for a water system to use Tier 4 sites it must have an 
insufficient number of Tier 1 through 3 sites. A CWS with insufficient 
Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 sampling sites shall complete its sampling 
pool with ``Tier 4 sampling sites''.
    As noted above, some commenters were unclear whether the rule 
requires systems to include consumer-requested samples as part of the 
90th percentile calculation, particularly if the samples do not match 
the tier of compliance samples. The EPA agrees with commenters that 
consumer-requested sampling is conducted for public education purposes 
and are not required to use the same protocol as required for 
compliance sampling nor collected according to the site sample plan. 
Water systems develop site sampling plans to ensure compliance sample 
sites meet the tiering criteria and to maintain consistency in sample 
site locations that meet the required tiers between sampling periods. 
The EPA is concerned that requiring water systems to include consumer-
requested samples regardless of tier will make it more difficult for 
water systems and States to verify that sampling tiering and protocol 
were accurately followed, and that lack of consistency in sample sites 
used for the 90th percentile calculations may make it more difficult 
for water systems to identify potential issues with CCT. Therefore, the 
EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for consumer-requested 
samples to be included in the 90th percentile calculation only if the 
sampling meets the compliance sampling tiering and protocol.
    In the final LCRI, systems are required to offer sampling to any 
site with a lead or GRR service line (Sec.  141.85(c)(2)), and to offer 
lead sampling to any site, regardless of service line material type, 
following a lead action level exceedance (ALE) (Sec.  141.85(c)(1)). 
These sample results may produce additional valuable information 
regarding CCT performance as well as provide consumers with information 
about lead in drinking water. The EPA agrees that any samples that do 
not meet the same criteria as compliance samples collected in 
accordance with Sec.  141.86(a) and (b) should not be included in the 
90th percentile calculation as it may dilute the 90th percentile level, 
but disagrees that all consumer-requested samples should be excluded. 
Samples that meet the same tier and protocol as the required compliance 
samples offer additional information to water systems to evaluate CCT 
performance at those sites and must be included in the 90th percentile 
calculation (Sec.  141.86(e)). The EPA also disagrees that these 
requirements will disincentivize voluntary programs. The EPA is aware 
that systems may offer sampling under different protocols (e.g., 
sequential sampling) to provide consumers with information about lead 
in their drinking water. The EPA clarified in the final LCRI at Sec.  
141.86(b)(1)(iv) that systems have flexibility to use alternate 
sampling protocols for consumer-requested samples. Consumer-requested 
sampling in accordance with Sec.  141.85(c) maintains flexibility but 
specifies that water systems sampling at lead service line sites must 
offer samples that capture water in contact with both the lead service 
line and the premise plumbing. Systems may choose to use the standard 
compliance sampling protocol for consumer-requested samples for ease of 
implementation (e.g., one set of sampling instructions) and to address 
challenges with identifying enough participation in compliance sampling 
to obtain the minimum number of required samples. Alternatively, water 
systems may choose to devise alternate protocols to assess site-
specific water quality issues. However, samples collected in accordance 
with Sec.  141.85(c) that do not meet the appropriate tier and protocol 
requirements of Sec.  141.86(a) and (b) may not be included in the 90th 
percentile calculation in accordance with Sec.  141.86(e). See section 
IV.J of this preamble for more information on requirements for 
consumer-requested samples. When multiple samples that meet the 
standard compliance tap sampling requirements are collected from the 
same site during a tap sampling period, the EPA agrees including each 
of these in the 90th percentile calculation can result in an inaccurate 
reflection of CCT performance. In the final rule, only the highest 
sample reading from that site can be included in the 90th percentile 
calculation (Sec.  141.86(e)).
g. Wide-Mouth Bottles
    The EPA requested comment on the proposed updated definition of 
wide-mouth bottles, that is ``bottles that are one liter in volume with 
a mouth, whose outer diameter measures at least 55 millimeter wide,'' 
and specifically on the availability of qualifying bottles. The EPA 
received comments noting concern that the definition of wide-mouth 
bottles with a minimum of 55 millimeter outer diameter is too 
restrictive based on the sizes of one-liter bottles available 
commercially. Commenters suggested that a 40 millimeter inner diameter 
is more representative of commercially available bottles, given that 
suppliers typically categorize products by the inner diameter of the 
opening, and is still sufficient to maintain the benefits of

[[Page 86496]]

collecting samples in a wide-mouth bottle. The EPA agrees that the 
definition of a wide-mouth bottle should describe items that are 
readily and commercially available to systems and revised the 
definition of wide-mouth bottles for the final LCRI to include an inner 
diameter that measures at least 40 millimeter diameter. The EPA also 
anticipates that this change to accommodate commercial availability of 
wide mouth bottles, per commenters' concerns, will not impact the 
functionality of wide-mouth bottles to allow for sample collection with 
the tap fully open. The EPA also heard concern that restricting other 
characteristics of the sample bottle, such as size, shape, color, and 
material, reduces options for systems to creatively develop customer 
sampling solutions around the more complex first- and-fifth-liter 
paired sample protocol. The EPA confirms that there is no restriction 
on bottle size, shape, color, or material aside from being one liter in 
volume with a mouth measuring a minimum of 40 millimeter inner 
diameter.
h. Sample Invalidation
    The EPA received comments supporting revisions that allow the State 
to invalidate samples not collected in accordance with requirements. 
Commenters asked that the invalidation authority be expanded, such as 
to include samples incorrectly collected from sites with point-of-use 
or point-of-entry devices. The EPA agrees that sites with point-of-use 
or point-of-entry devices are not suitable for compliance tap sampling 
and has revised the final rule to allow States to invalidate based on 
any site selection criteria in Sec.  141.86(a). When information on 
site characteristics includes information that a point-of-use or point-
of-entry device is installed, States may use that information to 
determine whether the sample is invalid. A site with a point-of-use or 
point-of-entry device may be eligible for sampling under Tier 5, such 
as when the site is representative of other sites in the system and the 
system has no sites in Tiers 1-4. The final rule gives States the 
authority to invalidate samples based on any site selection criteria 
under Sec.  141.86(a), and finalizes proposed language to give States 
additional authority for invalidation based on sample collection 
criteria under Sec.  141.86(b)(1), including minimum stagnation time 
and sample volume.
    Additionally, the EPA requested comment and data, including 
modeling and sampling data, on potential maximum stagnation times, and 
specifically how stagnation times inform corrosion rates. Many 
commenters suggested setting a maximum time for stagnation under sample 
collection criteria, beyond which samples could be invalidated. 
Commenters did not offer data to support a scientific reason for any 
suggested maximum stagnation times provided in their comment. One 
commenter advocated against setting a maximum time for stagnation since 
stagnant water may still be used for human consumption and thus 
represents water delivered under the control of systems. The EPA 
clarifies that systems have the authority to review sample collection 
criteria as reported by consumers, and to request replacement samples 
if the system believes that the sample is not representative of water 
in the distribution system. However, systems may not challenge samples 
after they have been sent for analysis. This provision prevents systems 
from targeting samples with high lead and copper readings to submit for 
invalidation.
    The EPA received comments requesting the EPA extend the time 
allowed for acidification of samples following sample collection. 
Commenters expressed that there is no scientific difference with 
respect to sample analysis between acidification after two weeks and 
acidification after four weeks and noted extending the acidification 
window would allow systems to batch more samples and process them more 
efficiently. The EPA did not receive data in support of these comments 
to consider an extended acidification window and is not aware of data 
that would support such a change. Therefore, the EPA is unable to 
assess the validity of these comments and is not amending the proposed 
LCRI requirements for the time for sample acidification.
i. Practical Quantitation Limit
    The EPA received comments on the lead PQL suggesting that the EPA 
should consider lowering the lead PQL from 0.005 mg/L. Many of these 
commenters suggested lowering the lead PQL to 0.001 mg/L, the current 
lead MDL in the LCRI. These commenters presented studies of individual 
labs demonstrating the use of an EPA method able to achieve MDLs below 
the 0.005 mg/L lead PQL.
    The EPA disagrees with lowering the lead PQL below the level of 
0.005 mg/L. As discussed in the proposed LCRI, due to the lack of 
national-scale data demonstrating lead MDLs at levels significantly 
lower than the current MDL of 0.001 mg/l, there is not enough 
scientific evidence to lower the PQL. Compared to the PQL, the MDL is 
the minimum measured concentration of a substance that can be reported 
with 99 percent confidence that the measured concentration is 
distinguishable from method blank results (Sec.  136.2(f)). The current 
lead PQL is based on the approved MDLs of the analytical methods for 
lead detection in Sec.  141.23(k)(1). Based on these methods, the EPA 
established the MDL for lead as 0.001 mg/L in Sec.  141.89(a)(1)(iii), 
and the PQL is established with a margin of error around demonstrated 
MDLs. The EPA is not aware of sufficient evidence to show the 
widespread analytical capability of laboratories for lower MDLs. 
Additionally, the commenters arguing for a lower PQL did not provide 
the EPA with national scale date that demonstrates widespread 
analytical capability for lower MDLs, so the EPA is retaining the 
requirement for the lead PQL at 0.005 mg/L.
3. Final Rule Requirements
a. First- and Fifth-Liter Sampling
    The final LCRI requires water systems to take first- and fifth-
liter paired samples for lead at LSL sites (Sec.  141.86(b)) and use 
the higher of the two values to calculate the 90th percentile lead 
level (Sec.  141.80(c)(ii)(A) and Sec.  141.80(c)(iii)(A)). For sites 
that are Tier 1 or Tier 2 because they have lead premise plumbing only 
and no LSLs, only the first liter must be sampled. The final rule 
maintains that systems continue to collect first-liter samples at Tiers 
3, 4, and 5 sites.
b. Tiering of Sampling Sites
    For LCRI, the EPA is finalizing the tiers for sampling sites as 
proposed with minor modifications (Sec.  141.86(a)(4)). Tier 1 sampling 
sites are single-family structures with either premise plumbing made of 
lead and/or are served by an LSL. Tier 2 sampling sites are buildings, 
including multiple-family residences, with premise plumbing made of 
lead and/or served by an LSL. The rule promulgates corrections to Tiers 
1 and 2 that were inadvertently dropped from the 2021 LCRR, such that 
lead premise plumbing is included in Tiers 1 and 2. Tier 3 sampling 
sites are sites that are served by a lead connector. Tier 3 sites are 
also sites served by a galvanized service line or containing galvanized 
premise plumbing that are identified as ever having been downstream of 
an LSL. Tier 3 for community water systems only includes single-family 
structures.
    Tier 4 sampling sites are sites that contain copper premise 
plumbing with lead solder installed before the effective

[[Page 86497]]

date of the State's applicable lead ban. Tier 4 for community water 
systems only includes single-family structures. Tier 5 sampling sites 
are sites that are representative of sites throughout the distribution 
system. For purpose of Sec.  141.86(a), 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.
c. Sample Site Selection
    Under the final LCRI, each water system must identify potential tap 
sampling sites and submit a site sample plan to the State by the start 
of the system's first lead and copper tap monitoring period (Sec.  
141.90(a)(1)(i)). States have the authority to require systems to 
modify site sample plans or use specific sampling sites (see section 
IV.N of this preamble on reporting for additional details). The EPA 
encourages States to evaluate site sample plans prior to the start of a 
systems' tap sampling period to ensure site locations meet the 
requirements of the LCRI.
    Water systems must select sampling sites from the highest tier 
available as described above in accordance with Sec.  141.86(a). The 
final rule continues to require systems to sample at the same sites 
between tap monitoring periods. The final rule removes the requirement 
to select replacement sample sites within reasonable proximity when 
systems are unable to access previously sampled sites to provide more 
flexibility for systems and in recognition of the difficulty in 
selecting similar sites while service line replacement is underway.
    In the final rule, the EPA is also clarifying that sample sites are 
no longer available for sampling following either a customer refusal 
for participation or customer non-response after a system conducts two 
outreach attempts. The number of customer refusals for compliance 
sampling must be submitted to the State. These requirements will enable 
systems, particularly those required to conduct 100 percent of samples 
at sites served by LSL or with lead premise plumbing under Sec.  
141.86(a)(3), to move on to subsequent tiers once all potential sites 
in a higher tier are unavailable. Systems that expect to be short of 
sites in a particular tier may commence sampling at lower tiers to meet 
the minimum number of required samples by the reporting deadline. 
Systems must document reasons for site unavailability when they are not 
included in the compliance dataset and they were not previously 
documented as unavailable, such as for LSL sites that must be sampled 
under Sec.  141.86(a)(3).
d. Frequency and Quantity of Sampling
    With the elimination of the trigger level in the final rule, the 
EPA is finalizing the revised tap sampling frequency requirements as 
proposed (Sec.  141.86(c) and (d)). Any system that is at or below the 
lead action level of 0.010 mg/L and copper action level of 1.3 mg/L for 
two consecutive six-month tap monitoring periods qualifies for annual 
reduced monitoring. Any system that meets the lead PQL of 0.005 mg/L 
and copper PQL of 0.65 mg/L for two consecutive tap monitoring periods 
qualifies for triennial reduced monitoring. Small and medium systems 
that meet the action level for three consecutive years (which may 
include a combination of standard and annual reduced monitoring) 
qualify for triennial reduced monitoring. The LCRI does not include any 
changes to the nine-year reduced monitoring waiver, nor any changes to 
the minimum number of sample sites required under standard and reduced 
monitoring.
e. Standard Monitoring
    In the final rule, systems with lead or GRR service lines in their 
inventory on the LCRI compliance date must begin standard monitoring in 
the first six-month tap monitoring period after the compliance date, 
unless they adopt tap sampling protocols according to the final LCRI 
prior to the compliance date. Specifically, systems with lead and GRR 
service lines do not need to begin standard monitoring if they conduct 
sampling meeting the tap sampling protocol including the first- and 
fifth-liter sampling protocol at sites served by LSLs as described in 
Sec.  141.86(b)(1)(ii), all sample collection requirements in Sec.  
141.86(b)(1) and (3) (such as stagnation times and sample volume), and 
priority tiering requirements to sample at sites served by lead and GRR 
service lines as described in Sec.  141.86(a). Since there are no 
substantive changes to the sampling protocol and tiering criteria for 
systems with service lines of unknown material and/or non-lead service 
lines, these systems are not required to begin standard monitoring in 
the first full tap monitoring period after the compliance date, unless 
required to begin standard monitoring under other rule provisions such 
as exceeding the action level or changing source water or treatment. If 
later, these systems discover lead and/or GRR service lines in their 
distribution system (unless the system replaces all the discovered 
service lines prior to the start of the next tap monitoring period), or 
otherwise meet any of the criteria in Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(H), they 
must begin standard monitoring.
    The final rule's requirement to begin standard monitoring is 
similar to the requirement under the 2021 LCRR that all systems with 
lead or GRR service lines must begin standard monitoring immediately 
following the compliance date. The LCRI clarifies that if systems with 
known lead and/or GRR service lines conduct monitoring meeting the new 
tap sampling protocol requirements (first- and fifth-liter sampling, 
all sample collection requirements in Sec.  141.86(b)(1) and (3), and 
priority tiering requirements of the LCRI) prior to the compliance 
date, they do not need to begin standard monitoring, unless their most 
recent 90th percentile lead and/or copper results exceed the action 
level. The EPA is aware of some systems, such as in Michigan, that may 
meet these requirements prior to the compliance date. The agency 
encourages all systems and States to consider early adoption of these 
requirements to help systems determine their 90th percentile levels 
under the LCRI requirements as soon as possible and to reduce the 
number of systems beginning standard monitoring upon the compliance 
date. These requirements are critical to ensuring that systems with 
known sources of lead in drinking water can determine as soon as 
practicable following the compliance date whether additional actions 
are needed to address situations with a higher potential of lead 
exposures faced by consumers.
    To continue on reduced monitoring, systems must meet the criteria 
in Sec.  141.86(d) based on 90th percentile lead and copper levels at 
or below the lead and copper action levels and/or the lead and copper 
PQLs. As the final LCRI lowers the lead action level to 0.010 mg/L, 
systems with 90th percentile lead levels above 0.010 mg/L during the 
tap sampling period prior to the compliance date will not be able to 
continue on reduced monitoring and must conduct standard monitoring in 
the first full tap monitoring period following the compliance date. 
This requirement is also clarified under Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(ii) which 
requires all systems with a most recent 90th percentile lead level 
above 0.010 mg/L or a most recent 90th percentile copper level above 
1.3 mg/L to begin standard monitoring at the compliance date.
    The final LCRI also requires an update to the cross-reference under 
Sec.  141.83(a)(4) regarding the requirement for systems to conduct 
standard monitoring following installation of source water treatment 
under Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(F), due to the

[[Page 86498]]

revisions to this section, specifically the order of the requirements.
f. 90th Percentile Value Calculation and Inclusion of Additional 
Samples
    For systems with a sufficient number of Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet 
the minimum number required, systems must only use samples collected at 
Tier 1 and 2 sites to calculate the 90th percentile (Sec.  
141.80(c)(3)(ii)). These systems may not include samples from Tier 3, 
4, or 5. For systems sampling at Tier 1 and 2 sites that do not have 
sufficient Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet the minimum required number of 
samples, systems must calculate the 90th percentile concentration using 
the highest samples from the highest tiers with available sampling 
sites equal to the minimum number of samples required (Sec.  
141.80(c)(3)(iii)). For systems only sampling at Tier 3 through 5 
sites, they must calculate the 90th percentile value using samples 
collected at the highest tiers with available sampling sites from Tiers 
3 through 5 (Sec.  141.80(c)(3)(i)).
    The EPA is clarifying in the final LCRI that additional samples 
collected according to the requirements for compliance samples 
described in Sec.  141.86(a) and (b), must be considered for 
determinations, such as calculating the 90th percentile. The final LCRI 
requires systems (or States) to use consumer-requested samples (Sec.  
141.85(c)) that meet the requirements of Sec.  141.86(a) and (b) to 
calculate the system's 90th percentile level. Systems may collect 
consumer-requested samples according to different protocols than what 
is required for lead and copper compliance samples in Sec.  141.86(b). 
However, only consumer-requested samples collected in accordance with 
the requirements of Sec.  141.86(a) and (b) may be used in the 90th 
percentile calculation. Systems may not include samples collected as 
part of DSSA (see section IV.H of this preamble) or follow-up samples 
collected as a result of monitoring after service line replacement (see 
section IV.B of this preamble) in the 90th percentile calculation.
    The EPA recognizes that requirements for systems to offer consumer-
requested sampling may result in sampling at sites more than once 
during a tap sampling period. The final rule adds a requirement that 
systems are required to include only the highest sample from among all 
those collected at a site during the same tap sampling period that also 
meets the requirements for a compliance sample (Sec.  141.86(e)).
g. Wide-Mouth Bottles
    In response to comments provided during the public comment period, 
for the final LCRI, the EPA is revising the definition of wide-mouth 
bottle to reduce the minimum ``inner diameter'' from 55 to 40 
millimeters. See section IV.O.3 of this preamble for further discussion 
on definitions.
h. Sample Invalidation
    The final LCRI includes specific language providing States 
opportunities to invalidate samples which were collected in a manner 
that did not meet the sample collection criteria under Sec.  
141.86(b)(1). The final LCRI also includes revised language to allow 
States to invalidate samples based on any incorrect site selection 
criteria under Sec.  141.86(a), including samples collected incorrectly 
at sites with installed point-of-use and/or point-of-entry devices. In 
addition, systems may make determinations for resampling on a site-by-
site basis, prior to submitting samples for analysis, for when samples 
are not representative of regular water usage.
i. Practical Quantitation Limit
    The final LCRI retains the lead PQL of 0.005 mg/L.

F. Corrosion Control Treatment

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
a. Feasibility of the CCT Treatment Technique
    CCT refers to methods (e.g., alkalinity/pH adjustment, addition of 
corrosion inhibitors) that water systems can take to reduce the 
leaching of lead and copper into drinking water from drinking water 
infrastructure, such as service lines and premise plumbing. CCT is one 
of the four treatment techniques the EPA promulgated in the LCR. At 
Sec.  141.2, OCCT is defined as the ``corrosion control treatment that 
minimizes the lead and copper concentrations at users' taps while 
ensuring that the treatment does not cause the water system to violate 
any national primary drinking water regulations.'' In the LCR, the EPA 
stated that CCT was an ``important element of the final treatment 
technique [rule]'' because ``most of the lead and copper found in 
drinking water is caused by corrosion of materials containing lead and 
copper in the distribution system and in the plumbing systems of 
privately owned buildings'' (56 FR 26479, USEPA, 1991). After examining 
the data available at the time on the effectiveness of corrosion 
control treatment on reducing lead in tap water, the use of corrosion 
control treatment in full-scale systems, and the cost of these 
technologies to large water systems, the EPA concluded in the LCR that 
this treatment technology is feasible within the meaning of section 
1412(b)(5) of SDWA (56 FR 26486, USEPA, 1991). For the LCRI, the EPA 
evaluated the feasibility of the CCT treatment technique in accordance 
with SDWA sections 1412(b)(4)(D) and 1412(b)(7) and as described in 
section III.D.3 of this preamble and finds CCT to be effective, 
affordable for large systems, technically feasible, and prevents known 
or anticipated health effects to the extent feasible.
    First, the EPA found that CCT is effective and available for use. 
The EPA determined in the 1991 LCR that available data demonstrated the 
effectiveness of CCT for reducing lead and copper at the tap. The EPA 
also acknowledged the challenge of quantifying the effectiveness of CCT 
in terms of developing a single numeric value or specific level of 
treatment that is feasible for all water systems (see section IV.A of 
this preamble). This is in part due to water system-specific 
characteristics including the physical and chemical properties of the 
source water, the material composition of the distribution system, lead 
and copper content of premise plumbing, consumer water use habits, and 
other factors. In addition, the EPA determined that CCT had been used 
in water distribution systems for many years demonstrating its efficacy 
under field conditions (56 FR 26485-26486, USEPA, 1991). CCT also 
continues to be a ``best technology, treatment technique[s] or other 
means'' for use by water systems in accordance with the definition for 
feasibility at SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(D). As noted in the LCRI 
proposal, based on many years of implementation of the LCR with 
thousands of PWSs utilizing corrosion control strategies, the EPA 
determined that these treatments are still effective at reducing lead 
and copper levels at the tap (88 FR 84937, USEPA, 2023a). Additionally, 
the EPA identified research which continues to show that CCT 
effectively reduces lead and copper from leaching into drinking water 
(Hayes and Hydes, 2012; Roy and Edwards, 2020; Tam and Elefsiniotis, 
2009; Vijayashanthar et al., 2023). For example, an estimated 99 
percent of water systems serving more than 50,000 persons currently use 
CCT (chapter 3, Exhibits 3-6 and 3-7, USEPA, 2024a). Therefore, CCT is 
an effective treatment technique in accordance with SDWA section 
1412(b)(4)(D).
    Second, the EPA determined in 1991 that CCT was affordable because 
the

[[Page 86499]]

costs of alkalinity adjustment, pH adjustment, and the addition of 
corrosion inhibitors were reasonable for large water systems (56 FR 
26485-26486, USEPA, 1991). Although not required for determining what 
may reasonably be afforded by large water systems to meet the 
feasibility standard for CCT as a treatment technique at SDWA section 
1412(b)(7)(A) (see section III.D.3 of this preamble), the EPA later 
evaluated the affordability of compliance technologies for small 
systems in accordance with the 1996 amendments to SDWA and determined 
that CCT is affordable for all system sizes (63 FR 42039, USEPA, 1998a; 
USEPA, 1998b). For the LCRI, the EPA continues to find CCT affordable. 
In addition, the EPA evaluated the cumulative impact of the LCRI 
requirements as a whole to household costs by system size, which are 
discussed in the EPA's ``Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and 
Copper Rule Improvements'' (USEPA, 2024a) in section 4.3.7.3 of this 
preamble.
    Third, the EPA has determined CCT is technically feasible. There 
are several factors the agency considered to assess technical 
feasibility for systems to implement CCT in accordance with SDWA. This 
includes considering the capacity of systems to evaluate and implement 
CCT. As discussed above, CCT has been shown to be a best available 
treatment technique, effective at reducing lead and copper in drinking 
water. The EPA notes that water systems of all sizes have implemented 
CCT under the 1991 LCR (USEPA, 2024a, chapter 3, section 3.3.3). 
However, there are technical challenges for water systems with regard 
to CCT that the agency considered when developing CCT requirements for 
the 1991 LCR and in the final LCRI that affect technical feasibility. 
As described in the proposal, CCT expertise is highly technical because 
corrosion chemistry is complex and theoretical predictions are rarely 
sufficient to fully understand treatment performance in a system (Tully 
et al., 2019; 88 FR 84942, USEPA, 2023a). This is because unlike 
technologies used to treat source water contaminants, the use of 
corrosion control technologies does not remove the contaminants, such 
as lead and copper, from drinking water directly; instead, these 
treatment technologies prevent these contaminants from being introduced 
into drinking water by corrosion of plumbing materials. As discussed in 
section IV.A of this preamble, factors such as the amount of lead or 
copper in the distribution system and premise plumbing, water 
chemistry, stagnation time, and water use patterns result in 
variability of lead and copper levels at the tap. While the EPA 
determined that water systems can address water corrosivity by using 
corrosion control treatment, it is ``technologically infeasible to 
ascertain whether the lead and copper level at the tap at a single 
point in time represents effective application of the best available 
treatment technology'' (53 FR 31527, USEPA, 1988). In other words, 
corrosion control is system specific and there is no single numerical 
standard capable of adequately reflecting the application of the best 
available treatment in all systems. Lead and copper levels vary 
considerably both before and after the application of corrosion control 
treatment, between different systems, and between individual buildings 
within the same system (56 FR 26473-26475, USEPA, 1991). See section 
IV.A of this preamble for the EPA's analysis supporting setting a 
treatment technique for lead in lieu of an MCL. Because corrosion 
control treatment is system-specific, the unique factors of a system 
may pose particular challenges that require technical expertise 
including designing and conducting corrosion control studies and 
providing recommendations for treatment. Furthermore, as noted in the 
1991 LCR, there are additional technical challenges of mitigating 
potential secondary effects of corrosion control treatment, including 
potential increased levels of disinfection byproducts and precipitation 
of other metals such as iron and manganese which may lead to a decrease 
in health protection (56 FR 26487, USEPA, 1991). Literature shows that 
these types of challenges continue to be a factor in applying CCT 
(e.g., Schock et al., 2008).
    In addition, the EPA is aware that some water systems may lack the 
expertise to design and implement CCT without assistance from outside 
technical experts and the State, particularly smaller water systems. 
These systems typically require the most extensive level of interaction 
with States with regards to evaluating, selecting, implementing, and 
overseeing OCCT. The burden on large systems is typically lower as they 
tend to be more sophisticated and generally require less technical 
support (56 FR 26492, USEPA, 1991). While larger systems serve the 
majority of the U.S. population, small systems comprise the vast 
majority of PWSs. Out of 66,947 CWSs and NTNCWSs subject to the 
requirements of the LCR, 62,518 (93 percent) serve 10,000 persons or 
fewer and 57,330 (86 percent) serve 3,300 persons or fewer (USEPA, 
2024a, chapter 3, section 3.3.1). Therefore, because many smaller water 
systems often require additional technical assistance and oversight 
from the State to implement CCT, the capacity of States to provide such 
assistance affects the technical feasibility for systems. Additionally, 
as described in the LCRI proposal, the EPA is concerned about the lack 
of technical experts available nationally to assist water systems in 
planning for and implementing OCCT on an ongoing basis, which may 
otherwise alleviate some of the burden on water systems and States (88 
FR 84942, USEPA, 2023a). Based on years of LCR implementation, the EPA 
is aware that water systems, particularly small systems, face these 
technical challenges.
    Fourth, as discussed in section III.D.3 of this preamble, the EPA 
considered how the technical factors regarding technical feasibility 
above (i.e., variability of lead in drinking water, system-specific 
nature of CCT, technical expertise, and capacity for States to provide 
assistance to smaller systems) affect the EPA's ability to establish 
requirements for the CCT treatment technique to ``prevent known or 
anticipated health effects to the extent feasible'' in accordance with 
SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A). In the LCR, for the purposes of meeting the 
statutory feasibility standard for a treatment technique, the EPA 
considered the balance of these technical factors with ensuring the CCT 
treatment technique was the most health protective. The EPA also 
clarified in the proposed LCRI how the agency considered the technical 
factors, including administrative burden, in developing the CCT 
requirements.
    In the LCR, and retained in the LCRI, as described below, the EPA 
developed action level and tap sampling requirements, among others, to 
make CCT feasible for water systems, consistent with SDWA section 
1412(b)(7)(A). The action levels in particular address the technical 
feasibility challenges detailed above. In the LCR, the EPA introduced 
action levels for lead and copper to simplify implementation of the 
rule. Specifically, these action levels were introduced ``as a method 
to limit the number of PWSs that would need to complete a detailed 
demonstration that they have installed corrosion control treatment to 
minimize lead and/or copper levels at taps'' (56 FR 26488, USEPA, 
1991). The EPA discussed in the proposed LCRI (88 FR 84906-84910, 
USEPA, 2023a) and reaffirms in section IV.A of this preamble, that the 
agency established a treatment technique rule for lead and

[[Page 86500]]

copper because it is not ``technologically feasible to ascertain the 
level of the contaminant'' (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(7)(A)) at the tap. As 
noted above, it is not technically feasible or possible to determine a 
precise level of lead and copper at the tap that represents the 
application of best available treatment across systems, in part due to 
the specific characteristics of each system (e.g., composition of the 
distribution system, presence of lead and copper in premise plumbing, 
physical and chemical water characteristics, consumer water use 
habits). Because the resulting lead and copper levels from application 
of the best available treatment is system specific, selection of the 
lead and copper action levels is not based on a precise statistical 
evaluation of treatment data for all systems. Instead, the action 
levels were selected based on the lead and copper levels in water 
systems with OCCT for the purpose of making the CCT treatment technique 
technically feasible (see section IV.F.4 of this preamble).
    In the LCR, the EPA set the action levels for lead and copper at 
0.015 mg/L and 1.3 mg/L, respectively. Because of the limitations of 
predicting CCT efficacy, tap sampling is necessary both before and 
after implementation of treatment to assess its performance (56 FR 
26486, USEPA, 1991). Under the LCR, small and medium systems 
demonstrated they were optimized by measuring 90th percentile lead 
levels at or below the action level. The EPA used 90th percentile lead 
data from systems with OCCT to select the action level as a level the 
EPA determined was generally representative of what systems with OCCT 
were meeting. The EPA required large systems to conduct a detailed 
demonstration of OCCT regardless of 90th percentile levels because 
large systems served the greatest number of people and had ``the 
greatest technological capabilities and access to technical support and 
other resources that would enable them to perform the sophisticated 
treatment manipulations that might further reduce lead levels'' (56 FR 
26492, USEPA, 1991). However, the EPA also acknowledged that some 
systems already at or below the action level (which was determined to 
be generally representative of OCCT) may not be able to reduce their 
lead levels further (56 FR 26492, USEPA, 1991) because of the system-
specific nature of OCCT. Likewise, some systems may not be able to meet 
the action level even after installing OCCT, because of factors that 
lead to high lead variability at the tap (e.g., water chemistry, 
composition and condition of the distribution system, lead content in 
plumbing materials). The action level is not a health-based number in 
that it is not established based on human health risks to lead, but 
rather is a tool to make the treatment technique feasible for systems. 
As a level that is generally representative of OCCT, the action level 
prompts a detailed OCCT demonstration for water systems (e.g., 
conducting a study, treatment recommendation). However, whenever a 
system is required to conduct a detailed OCCT demonstration and 
installation, the system must identify and apply the best technology in 
their system in accordance with Sec.  141.2, and not simply apply the 
treatment sufficient to meet a specified level. The action level 
supports the public health benefits that can be realized through CCT 
while addressing some of the technical feasibility challenges described 
above, by limiting the need for detailed optimization demonstrations 
for small and medium systems at or below the action level. This made 
``implementation of the rule administratively workable'' (56 FR 26492, 
USEPA, 1991) and thus, CCT technologically possible compared to 
requiring small and medium systems to conduct detailed OCCT 
demonstrations regardless of their tap sampling results. Tap sampling 
is therefore used in conjunction with the action level to address this 
technical challenge.
    The EPA is clarifying its statement in the LCRI proposal that the 
action level is used to ``ensure the rule is implementable for small 
and medium systems'' (88 FR 84940, USEPA, 2023a) as the action level 
also triggers actions for large systems. The EPA notes that while large 
systems were required to conduct a detailed demonstration of 
optimization since LCR, systems of any size with CCT, including large 
systems, use the action level to prompt installation or re-optimization 
of OCCT (Sec.  141.81(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(3)(i) in the 2021 
LCRR). Accordingly, the action level serves a function for all system 
sizes in the CCT treatment technique. Some large systems never had to 
conduct a detailed demonstration because their lead levels were at or 
below the PQL of 0.005 mg/L, and therefore, they were deemed optimized. 
If those large systems exceed the PQL, they must conduct a detailed 
OCCT demonstration. Future re-optimization of these systems is prompted 
by an action level exceedance. Large systems with CCT installed that 
have lead levels at or below the PQL but later exceed the PQL may also 
be required by the State to re-optimize even if at or below the action 
level.
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to several elements of the CCT 
treatment technique, including the lead action level, that support the 
feasibility of the CCT treatment technique as a whole, consistent with 
SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A). For the LCRI, the EPA is maintaining the 
approach of using the action level, in addition to finalizing other 
revisions, in furtherance of the feasibility of the CCT treatment 
technique. This includes tap sampling requirements that are designed to 
better capture the lead levels of water in contact with sources of 
lead, including changes to the sampling protocol and site tiering (see 
section IV.E of this preamble). The EPA estimates that this change will 
result in more systems' exceeding the action level and evaluating CCT 
compared to the LCR (88 FR 84940, USEPA, 2023a; USEPA, 2024a, chapter 
3, section 3.3.5). The EPA is also requiring most systems with lead and 
GRR service lines to conduct standard monitoring at the compliance date 
(see section IV.E.3.e of this preamble). This would require systems 
that are most likely to have higher levels of lead in drinking water, 
to monitor with the updated tap sampling protocol and assess 90th 
percentile lead levels against the action level after the first full 
six-month tap monitoring period after the LCRI compliance date, to 
ensure timely action is taken in response to elevated lead levels, if 
necessary. However, the EPA is maintaining the use of tap sampling in 
combination with the action level to determine when systems must 
install and re-optimize OCCT. The agency accounted for these revised 
tap sampling requirements in selecting the final action level (see 
section IV.F.4 of this preamble). In the final LCRI, the EPA has 
reduced the lead action level to 0.010 mg/L. Specifically, the EPA 
identified 0.010 mg/L as being generally representative of OCCT based 
on updated data and over 30 years of LCR implementation experience (see 
section IV.F.4 of this preamble for a discussion on the action level 
analysis). In selecting this action level, the EPA considered what is 
technically possible for small and medium systems in light of the 
identified challenges that still exist, including their fewer resources 
and more limited technical capacity compared to large systems and a 
limited number of CCT experts available nationally. Therefore, the EPA 
has determined that an action level of 0.010 mg/L would support the 
treatment technique for CCT overall, in addition to

[[Page 86501]]

other elements of this treatment technique, and is the most health 
protective level technically possible; it thus meets the feasibility 
standard at SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A).
    In addition to reducing the action level to 0.010 mg/L, the EPA 
established other requirements and flexibilities that would help 
address some of the technical challenges with CCT to ensure the 
treatment technique overall is feasible, some of which are discussed in 
this section. For example, the LCRI includes an option for water 
systems that are able to complete service line replacement at a 
mandatory minimum annual rate within five years or less to defer OCCT 
evaluation, which for large and medium systems with LSLs, involves 
conducting pipe rig/loop studies (Sec.  141.81(d)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(i)). 
The EPA anticipates that this option will address some of the technical 
concerns for systems that are able to remove a significant source of 
lead in their system within the five-year time period and which would 
otherwise be required to study and implement OCCT. For those systems, 
OCCT evaluation may no longer be necessary after service line 
replacement due to the removal of the most significant contributor of 
lead, or the CCT evaluation would be much less complex (e.g., coupon or 
desktop study). During the five-year period after the compliance date 
for the LCRI, this provision will lead to less competition for outside 
corrosion control experts or system-State consultations on the 
appropriate corrosion control treatment as these systems complete their 
LSLR programs, which can ease implementation burden for systems 
otherwise required under the LCRI to optimize or re-optimize OCCT 
during this period after an action level or PQL exceedance. This is 
especially compelling for smaller systems that may be capable of 
completing service line replacement in less time, but doing so while 
simultaneously conducting OCCT evaluation and installation would 
exacerbate the existing technical challenges detailed above. Therefore, 
this new provision helps to ensure the technical feasibility of the CCT 
treatment technique, in addition to supporting the feasibility of other 
rule revisions, including mandatory service line replacement, and to 
maximize the public health protection of the LCRI as an NPDWR overall.
    Additionally, the EPA is finalizing the proposed provision in Sec.  
141.81(a) that water systems that have re-optimized once after a lead 
action level exceedance and continually met all WQPs while they are 
completing their service line replacement program, are not required to 
re-optimize again in response to subsequent lead action level 
exceedances unless or until all lead and GRR service lines have been 
removed or required by the State (Sec.  141.81(a)(1) through (3)). As 
noted above, the EPA is aware that there are systems with OCCT that are 
not capable of reducing lead levels below the action level. The EPA 
anticipates that this will continue to be the case for some systems 
under the LCRI with updated tap sampling requirements and a lower 
action level. Also, water distribution systems will be undergoing 
changes in the form of mandatory service line replacement. The re-
optimization requirements in the final LCRI are intended to prevent 
water systems from continually conducting re-optimization studies while 
simultaneously implementing their service line replacement program when 
further reduction in lead levels is unlikely due to various water 
system-specific factors (e.g., water chemistry, composition of 
distribution system, lead in premise plumbing). This will also reduce 
burdens associated with the system-State interactions on re-optimized 
OCCT, and like the flexibility described in the paragraph above, is 
intended to address the technical challenges that impact the 
feasibility of the CCT treatment technique. Furthermore, as noted 
above, there may be challenges mitigating the secondary effects of CCT 
on drinking water quality (e.g., increased risk of other contaminants) 
that may limit the effectiveness of OCCT for the purposes of reducing 
lead and copper levels. While the EPA is not requiring water systems to 
re-optimize more than once while they are conducting service line 
replacement as described above, the agency has added the requirement 
for systems that have removed all lead and GRR service lines that 
subsequently exceed the lead action level to re-optimize. The EPA 
expects that with the largest source of lead in drinking water removed, 
the optimal corrosion control may differ and systems can more 
appropriately address corrosion in the changed distribution system and 
better address health risks from lead remaining in premise plumbing. 
Additionally, water systems could potentially reduce CCT costs by 
changing their treatment, as appropriate, due to the removal of a 
significant lead source. Therefore, this requirement combined with the 
State discretion to require water systems to re-optimize will help to 
ensure the CCT treatment technique is both technically feasible and 
protects public health to the extent feasible. The EPA is retaining the 
definition of OCCT that requires water systems to minimize lead and 
copper concentrations at user's tap while ensuring that the treatment 
does not cause the water system to violate any NPDWRs (Sec.  141.2). 
The EPA also introduced in the 2021 LCRR flexibilities for small water 
systems to implement an alternative option to CCT if approved by the 
State (see section IV.I of this preamble).
    Given the analysis above and in accordance with the statutory 
standard, the EPA finds that the CCT treatment technique for LCRI meets 
the feasibility standard in accordance with SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A). 
CCT continues to be a best available technology effective at preventing 
adverse health effects from lead and copper in drinking water to the 
greatest extent that is both affordable and technically possible given 
the final requirements in LCRI.
    In addition to finding the CCT treatment technique for LCRI is 
feasible, the EPA also evaluated the water system burden of CCT in the 
context of other important actions water systems will be taking to 
reduce lead levels in drinking water. Notably, all water systems are 
required to conduct LSLR regardless of lead levels (see section IV.B of 
this preamble), which the EPA estimates will increase both water system 
and State burden. Therefore, the EPA finds that the CCT requirements 
also help to support the feasibility of the separate but complementary 
treatment technique for mandatory service line replacement to address 
the multiple and unique sources of lead contamination as part of this 
NPDWR.
b. 2021 LCRR CCT Requirements
    This section includes a brief summary of CCT requirements in the 
2021 LCRR that are important context for the EPA's proposed and final 
changes in LCRI and the EPA's responses to comments, addressed in 
section IV.F.2 of this preamble.
    Under the 2021 LCRR, medium and large systems are required to 
install or re-optimize OCCT in response to a lead or copper action 
level exceedance. Medium and large system with LSLs that exceed the 
lead action level are required to harvest lead pipes from the 
distribution system and conduct flow-through pipe rigs to evaluate 
options for OCCT or re-optimized OCCT. Large systems with CCT that 
exceed the lead PQL of 0.005 mg/L may be required to re-optimize their 
OCCT. Large systems without CCT that exceed the lead PQL are required 
to complete steps to install CCT.
    Under the 2021 LCRR, in the case of a trigger level exceedance for 
systems

[[Page 86502]]

without CCT, small and medium systems must recommend their approach to 
CCT to their primacy agency (except for small systems that select other 
compliance alternatives). Unless there is a subsequent action level 
exceedance, small and medium water systems without CCT are not required 
to conduct a subsequent corrosion control study. In the 2021 LCRR, the 
EPA also clarified that the continued operation and maintenance of OCCT 
and re-optimized OCCT requirements apply to consecutive systems in 
Sec.  141.82(g), including those distributing water that has been 
treated for corrosion control by another system. For context, a 
consecutive system is defined at Sec.  141.2 as ``a public water system 
that receives some or all of its finished water from one or more 
wholesale systems. Delivery may be through a direct connection or 
through the distribution system of one or more consecutive systems.''
c. LCRI Proposed CCT Revisions
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed several changes for CCT including 
removing the trigger level, lowering the lead action level, adopting 
regulatory flexibilities for some systems simultaneously complying with 
mandatory service line replacement requirements, and changing the water 
quality parameter monitoring requirements for medium systems. The EPA 
also proposed new or revised regulatory text to streamline 
implementation of the rule. This section includes a brief summary of 
these proposed changes and the agency's primary rationale for each one. 
System sizes discussed below in CCT requirements include, as defined in 
Sec.  141.2, small systems (serves 10,000 persons or fewer); medium 
systems (serves greater than 10,000 persons and less than or equal to 
50,000 persons); and large systems (serves more than 50,000 persons).
    Under the LCRI, the EPA proposed to eliminate the lead trigger 
level and to require systems to install or re-optimize OCCT after an 
exceedance of the proposed lead action level of 0.010 mg/L. As stated 
at proposal, streamlining the rule to only use an action level reduces 
the complexity of the rule. As a result of eliminating the trigger 
level, reducing the lead action level, and including a more rigorous 
tap sampling protocol, the EPA anticipates more systems could exceed 
the lead action level even when re-optimized than under the LCRR, 
especially in the first few years after the compliance date for LCRI 
where systems would also implementing the mandatory service line 
replacement requirements under the proposed LCRI. Thus, the EPA 
proposed in Sec.  141.81(a) that systems that have re-optimized once 
after the LCRI compliance date and continuously meet optimal water 
quality parameters (OWQPs) would not be required to re-optimize again 
if there are subsequent action level exceedances, unless required by 
the State. While the lead action level is intended to be generally 
representative of effective OCCT, the EPA recognizes that there may be 
some instances where systems would be unable to meet the proposed 
lowered lead action level of 0.010 mg/L because tap water lead levels 
can be influenced by other factors. As discussed in the proposed LCRI, 
lead level variability at a single site can occur due to water use 
patterns and physical disturbances of pipes causing particulate release 
(see sections V.A and V.E.1 of proposed LCRI preamble (88 FR 84878, 
USEPA, 2023a)). Elevated lead levels due to these factors would not be 
reflective of the performance of the corrosion control treatment. For 
systems that have already evaluated the CCT options under the re-
optimization process, resources would be better devoted to other lead 
mitigation activities, such as replacing lead and galvanized service 
lines, rather than repeating the same steps. However, States may 
require such systems to conduct a corrosion control study. In addition, 
the EPA is retaining the 2021 LCRR requirements that States may require 
a system to conduct a corrosion control study to re-evaluate corrosion 
control treatment for purposes such as to obtain State approval for a 
long-term treatment change or addition of a new source in the LCRI. The 
proposed LCRI had duplicate language for the notification requirement 
in Sec. Sec.  141.81(h) and 141.90(a)(4). The final LCRI consolidates 
most of the requirements in Sec.  141.81(h) with a cross-reference in 
Sec.  141.90(a)(4). The EPA also revised the second sentence in Sec.  
141.81(h) to clarify language regarding the State's discretion to 
require actions to ensure that the system will operate and maintain 
OCCT.
    As proposed, States would retain the discretion to modify previous 
designations of OCCT and re-optimized OCCT based on their own 
determination or in response to a request by a water system if the 
State concludes that a change is necessary to ensure the system 
continues to optimize corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(h)). 
The EPA also proposed that States can require the system to conduct 
additional CCT studies. The EPA anticipates that removing sources of 
lead in drinking water, such as through mandatory LSLR, would reduce 
the number of systems that exceed the lead action level over time. In 
the meantime, water systems would be required to continue to operate 
and maintain their re-optimized OCCT as demonstrated through monitoring 
for OWQPs, and comply with other proposed mitigation measures (e.g., 
conduct public outreach and make filters available for systems with 
multiple lead action level exceedances) to reduce exposure to lead in 
drinking water.
    At Sec.  141.81(f), the EPA also proposed to allow a system with a 
lead action level exceedance to defer installing or re-optimizing OCCT 
if the system can replace 100 percent of its LSLs and GRR service lines 
within five years of the date the system first exceeds the lead action 
level. The purpose of this proposed requirement would be to allow 
systems to avoid the costly and time-consuming process of conducting a 
harvested LSL pipe rig/loop CCT study and installing the corresponding 
OCCT when the identified treatment would not be tailored for the 
system's long-term distribution system conditions without LSLs. As the 
EPA estimated at proposal, it generally takes approximately five years 
to complete the CCT evaluation and installation process: 30 months to 
construct a pipe rig/loop and conduct a treatment study followed by 30 
months to install the State-approved OCCT and an additional one year to 
conduct follow-up monitoring (see section V.E.1 in the proposed LCRI 
(88 FR 84937, USEPA, 2023a)). If a system is on track to replace all 
its lead and GRR service lines within five years, the optimal treatment 
identified by a costly and time-consuming pipe rig/loop study may no 
longer be the optimal treatment after all LSLs and GRR service lines 
are replaced. This is because the pipe rig/loop studies are based on 
lead pipes in the water system and if all of those are replaced, the 
results of the pipe rig/loop study would likely be no longer relevant. 
Following 100 percent lead and GRR service line replacement, a 
different and less resource-intensive study, such as a coupon or desk 
study, evaluating OCCT on current conditions in the system would be 
more appropriate.
    Under this proposed option, eligible systems would only be allowed 
to defer optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT if water systems meet both of 
the following two requirements: (1) Annually replace at least 20 
percent of their remaining service lines that require replacement (in 
accordance with the proposed Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(v)); and (2) have no 
lead, GRR, or unknown service

[[Page 86503]]

lines remaining at the end of the five-year period. Systems would need 
to ensure they have access to replace all lead and GRR service lines in 
their inventories and have identified all unknown service lines in 
their inventory. During this five-year period, eligible systems would 
still be required to meet all other rule requirements including public 
notification, public education, and if applicable, public education 
following multiple action level exceedances, including making filters 
available. Systems with CCT that elect this option would be required to 
continue operating their existing CCT throughout those five years.
    The EPA anticipates that greater overall public health benefits 
could result from replacing all lead and GRR service lines within five 
years compared to implementing the requirement to install or re-
optimize OCCT with a lower action level because the most significant 
sources of lead in drinking water, when present, would be removed from 
the system (Sandvig et al., 2008). Additionally, this proposed 
requirement would allow water systems to dedicate more staffing and 
financial resources to solely replacing lead and GRR service lines 
within five years rather than being required to divide these resources 
between completing mandatory service line replacement and conducting a 
pipe loop study with results that may no longer be applicable following 
100 percent replacement of lead and GRR service lines.
    As further provided in the proposed requirements, large and medium 
systems unable to replace a minimum of 20 percent of the lead or GRR 
service lines in a system's distribution system annually or unable to 
replace 100 percent of their lead and GRR service lines within five 
years must proceed with the harvested pipe rig/loop study and install 
or re-optimize OCCT. The pipe loop requirements would apply to any 
small system required by the State to conduct a pipe rig/loop study.
    Small systems unable to replace a minimum of 20 percent of the lead 
or GRR service lines in a system's distribution system annually or 
replace 100 percent of the lead and GRR service lines in a system's 
distribution system within five years would be required to recommend 
OCCT or re-optimized OCCT; and all NTNCWSs and the subset of CWSs 
serving 3,300 persons or fewer would be required to propose a small 
system compliance option and implement the State-approved approach (see 
section IV.I of this preamble for further discussion on compliance 
alternatives for CWSs serving 3,300 persons or fewer and NTNCWSs). 
Water systems that replace 100 percent of the lead and GRR service 
lines in this five-year period but subsequently exceed the action level 
(or the PQL for large systems without CCT) after the compliance date 
for the LCRI would be required to proceed with meeting the proposed CCT 
requirements for systems with only non-lead service lines.
    In addition, the EPA proposed changes to expedite when States can 
approve CCT re-optimization treatment changes for systems. Under the 
2021 LCRR, States can approve existing CCT re-optimization 
modifications without requiring a new CCT study for systems that have 
90th percentile lead levels between the trigger level of 0.010 mg/L and 
the lead action level of 0.015 mg/L. For the LCRI, the EPA proposed to 
eliminate the trigger level and to lower the lead action level to 0.010 
mg/L. Concurrently, the EPA also proposed that States may approve, 
without a new CCT study, a CCT re-optimization treatment change for a 
system that exceeds the proposed action level for lead, but which 
previously conducted a CCT study. In developing the CCT change, the 
State would be required to evaluate a water system's past CCT study 
results. The EPA proposed this update because it would expedite 
treatment changes, allowing the benefits of treatment modifications to 
be realized sooner and avoiding a redundant CCT study that may not 
produce different results from previous studies. The treatment 
recommendation and CCT study process can take multiple years to 
complete. The CCT study and State designation of re-optimized OCCT 
based on the results of that study under Sec.  141.81(d)(3) and (4), 
respectively takes two additional years. For water systems with 
existing CCT, the water system may be able to alter the existing 
treatment (e.g., increase pH and/or orthophosphate dose) without a new 
CCT study on a much faster timeframe rather than waiting for study 
results that may indicate that same change.
    The EPA proposed modifications to the CCT studies that may be 
required in the event of a lead action level exceedance for small 
systems with LSLs. Under the 2021 LCRR, small systems that chose CCT 
and exceed the action level are required to propose a treatment option 
to the State. The State may require small systems to conduct corrosion 
studies using a pipe rig/loop (Sec.  141.82(c)(3)). For the 2021 LCRR, 
the EPA also recommended that small systems serving 10,000 persons or 
fewer with LSLs that exceed the lead action level choose the LSLR small 
system flexibility option rather than CCT because the cost of the pipe 
rig/loop studies would be approximately equal to the cost of replacing 
55 LSLs (USEPA, 2020e). However, as discussed in section V.G of the 
proposed LCRI (88 FR 84944, USEPA, 2023a), the EPA proposed to remove 
the LSLR option from the small system flexibility options because LSLR 
would be mandatory under the proposed LCRI. Therefore, the EPA proposed 
under the LCRI to exclude small systems with LSLs serving 10,000 
persons or fewer from having to conduct a pipe rig/loop study because 
these systems often lack the technical expertise required to design and 
construct and operate the pipe rig/loop. Instead, these small systems 
could better focus limited resources on replacing lead and GRR service 
lines, that would otherwise be dedicated to a pipe rig/loop if they 
exceed the lead action level and are required to identify OCCT or a 
small system compliance flexibility option. Under the proposed LCRI, 
the State may require a pipe rig/loop study for a small system if the 
State determines that the small system has the technical capabilities 
to conduct such a study (see Sec.  141.82(c)(3) for large and medium 
systems with LSLs and other systems as required by the State to conduct 
pipe rig/loop studies).
    In addition, the EPA proposed to require that States designate 
OWQPs for medium systems that must install or re-optimize OCCT after 
exceeding the lead action level (Sec.  141.81(a)(2)(i)). The EPA also 
proposed that States designate OWQPs for medium systems with CCT that 
have not exceeded the action level (Sec.  141.81(a)(ii)). While the 
State could require medium systems with OCCT to meet OWQPs in the 2021 
LCRR, the EPA proposed in the LCRI that States must establish OWQPs for 
medium systems with CCT and that these systems must meet their OWQPs. 
This proposed requirement would allow States to better assess whether 
these types of medium systems are maintaining their OCCT or re-
optimized OCCT, as well as provide better day-to-day process control 
since source water quality can vary both daily and seasonally.
    The EPA proposed to streamline some requirements in Sec.  141.80, 
which resulted in the EPA proposing to move a 2021 LCRR provision from 
Sec.  141.80(d)(4) to Sec.  141.81(h). This requirement is for systems 
to notify the State before a long-term treatment change or the addition 
of a new source, and that States must review and approve the change or 
addition before it can be implemented by the system. This allows the 
State to require the water system to take additional actions to control 
corrosion. However, the EPA

[[Page 86504]]

notes the provision remains unchanged in substance from the 2021 LCRR.
2. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
a. Consecutive Systems
    The EPA received comments about consecutive systems and the 
responsibilities for wholesale versus distribution systems related to 
CCT and DSSA requirements. Commenters asked the EPA to clarify which 
systems were supposed to monitor WQPs in the distribution system and 
which system is responsible if parameters are outside the designated 
range. Commenters also requested the EPA clarify which system would be 
required under the LCRI to conduct CCT studies and which system would 
be required to install it.
    To respond to these comments, it is important to first provide 
additional context for consecutive systems requirements and the EPA 
guidance beginning with the 1991 LCR that goes beyond the specific rule 
areas and changes proposed for LCRI. In the preamble of the 1991 final 
LCR rule, the EPA strongly discouraged States and systems from using 
Sec.  141.29 to modify monitoring requirements, noting that Sec.  
141.29 allows a State to modify the monitoring requirements imposed by 
specific regulations when a public water system supplies water to one 
or more other public water systems if the interconnection of the 
systems justifies treating them as a single system for monitoring 
purposes. EPA did not believe that modification by States of the 
monitoring requirements of the rule, as provided in Sec.  141.29, would 
be appropriate because the primary source of high lead or copper levels 
at the tap is materials within the distribution system itself. Treating 
multiple water suppliers as one system would not distinguish between 
the different systems that may have different amounts of lead or copper 
materials in the distribution system and thus require different 
treatment strategies to reduce these levels. This contrasts with other 
contaminants where the contaminant level is uniform throughout the 
distribution system. EPA did not envision situations where multiple 
water systems should be considered as one system for purposes of Sec.  
141.29 and, therefore, strongly discourages States from allowing the 
modification to the monitoring requirements. (56 FR 26513, USEPA, 1991)
    After the 1991 LCR was published, the EPA received proposals from 
several States and water systems to consolidate tap water and water 
quality parameter monitoring in consecutive water systems under Sec.  
141.29. In response to the proposals, the EPA issued a water supply 
guidance on January 10, 1992, entitled ``Consecutive Systems Regulated 
under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Lead and 
Copper'' (USEPA, 1992). This guidance discusses the elements the EPA 
recommends should be included in the consecutive system agreements for 
the lead and copper rule, including those related to CCT. This guidance 
indicates that State proposals should identify the systems that would 
be responsible for completing the CCT requirements. In the guidance, 
the EPA states the agency expects that the wholesale or ``parent'' 
supply would be responsible for corrosion control throughout the entire 
service area. However, the EPA also notes that depending upon 
contractual agreements, the size and configuration of the satellite 
system(s), and the distance from the parent treatment facility, 
individual CCT may need to be installed at a point or points other than 
the parent plant.
    While the EPA recognizes the implementation confusion raised by 
commenters with regard to CCT requirements for wholesale versus 
consecutive systems, as defined at Sec.  141.2, the EPA disagrees with 
the commenters' requests to make changes to the LCRI to address these 
concerns. These questions are better addressed at the State level for 
the following reasons.
    In the more than 30 years since the guidance was published, the EPA 
has promulgated or revised a number of regulations that can impact CCT. 
In particular, disinfection, disinfection by-products, and filtration 
treatment strategies can impact CCT. Given this additional complexity 
and the previously stated configuration factors in the guidance, the 
roles and responsibilities of the wholesale and consecutive systems 
regarding CCT should be worked out, on a system specific level, with 
the State. The EPA recommends any updates to a consecutive system 
agreement should discuss updated roles and responsibilities and also 
include how they relate to the DSSA under Sec.  141.82(j), including 
water quality parameter monitoring in the distribution system, follow-
up tap sampling at sites that exceed 0.010 mg/L, the treatment 
recommendation required under Sec.  141.82(j)(3), and any distribution 
system actions or modifications of corrosion control treatment that 
result from the DSSA process. The EPA plans to update guidance on these 
topics after the LCRI is finalized.
b. Pipe Rig/Loop Studies
    The EPA received comments related to pipe rig/loop studies. Some 
commenters claimed the EPA was being overly prescriptive by mandating 
when pipe rig/loop studies must occur noting they did not think 
harvested pipe rigs were necessary to assess OCCT. Other commenters 
suggested that pipe rig/loop studies should be optional or at a State's 
discretion or requested that the use of pipe rigs/loops be scaled back 
in the final rule because of the cost and complexity of pipe rig/loop 
studies (both in conducting the study and reviewing results from the 
study). Several commenters stated the mandatory pipe rig/loop 
requirements in the proposed LCRI should not apply to small systems 
because they believed pipe rig/loop studies are too costly and complex 
for small systems. Some commenters objected to the use of coupon 
studies because they asserted coupon studies do not evaluate the impact 
of corrosion control alternatives on the existing pipe scale in the 
distribution systems, which is evaluated in a harvested lead pipe rig/
loop study.
    Under the 2021 LCRR, small systems can choose a small system 
flexibility option, including LSLR and OCCT, but due to mandatory LSLR 
for all systems, the flexibility to choose LSLR was not included in the 
proposed LCRI. Therefore, the EPA proposed under the LCRI to exclude 
small systems with LSLs serving 10,000 persons or fewer from having to 
conduct a pipe rig/loop study because these systems often lack the 
technical expertise required to design and construct and operate the 
pipe rig/loop and they could better focus limited resources that would 
be dedicated to a pipe rig/loop on replacing their LSLs. However, the 
EPA stated in the proposed LCRI preamble that States could require 
small systems to conduct a pipe rig/loop study if the State determines 
that the small system has the technical capabilities to conduct such a 
study.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters that suggested pipe rig/loop 
studies for all systems should be optional or at a State's discretion. 
The EPA is retaining the mandatory pipe rig/loop study requirements as 
proposed in the LCRI under Sec.  141.81(d)(1) and (e)(1) for the subset 
of medium and large systems that will need to install or re-optimize 
OCCT (except those that meet the requirements under Sec.  141.81(f) to 
replace all lead and GRR service lines in five years or less, or Sec.  
141.81(d)(1)(iv) for systems waived by the State that meet specific 
requirements). Systems, such as those with source water or treatment 
changes,

[[Page 86505]]

need to understand how changes in their corrosion control affect the 
existing pipe scale of LSLs. A pipe rig/loop study using harvested lead 
pipe from the distribution systems effectively demonstrates how that 
scale will interact with the CCT options and will provide vital 
information to determine the OCCT option. The EPA agrees with 
commenters that stated that coupon studies should have a limited role 
when evaluating impacts of corrosion control alternatives on existing 
pipe scales. The EPA proposed that coupon studies can be used to reduce 
the number of options that are evaluated in the harvested pipe rig/loop 
study, but cannot be used instead of the pipe rig/loop study because 
they do not evaluate the impact of the CCT options on the existing 
scale (Sec.  141.82(c)(3)).
    In response to the commenter raising concerns about small systems' 
conducting mandatory pipe rig/loop studies, this was not a proposed 
requirement. The EPA excluded small systems from the proposed LCRI 
requirements for systems that must conduct a mandatory pipe rig/loop 
study because they often lack the technical knowledge and expertise to 
design and construct and operate the pipe rig. However, the EPA 
maintains that States could require small systems to conduct a pipe 
rig/loop study if the State determines that the small system has the 
technical capabilities to conduct such a study under 40 CFR 
141.82(c)(3).
c. Re-Optimization for Systems Meeting Optimal Water Quality Parameters
    Many commenters supported the proposed revisions from the 2021 LCRR 
in Sec.  141.81(a)(1) through (3) to no longer require systems, unless 
required by the State, to re-optimize OCCT if they have already 
conducted CCT studies to re-optimize once following the compliance date 
for LCRI, continue to meet OWQPs designated by the State, and continue 
to operate and maintain their existing OCCT. The reasons cited by these 
commenters include that re-optimization takes extensive study and 
review and systems need to focus on other aspects of the rule and that 
it could become a paperwork exercise as systems are only able to 
control things at the entry point to the distribution system. Some 
commenters asked the EPA to provide States discretion to require 
systems to re-optimize OCCT even if they meet the criteria in Sec.  
141.81(a)(1)(i), (a)(2)(i), and (a)(3)(i) because the system might not 
be truly optimized or the treatment might not be effective at 
addressing lead or copper issues at that particular system. Some 
commenters did not support this change in the proposed LCRI and wanted 
the EPA to continue to require systems to re-optimize after action 
level exceedances, unless the State has determined after a full and 
carefully documented consideration that re-optimization is not needed. 
The reasons cited by the commenters include that EPA's rationale 
assumes that the water system and the State properly identified the 
single optimal CCT for the system in the one re-optimization process. 
The commenters also noted that the EPA's rationale describing that 
repeated action level exceedances may result from factors other than 
the performance of CCT is at odds with the EPA's rationale for setting 
the action level at 0.010 mg/L, which is supported by data as being 
generally representative of OCCT.
    The EPA agrees in part with commenters who supported removing the 
requirement to re-optimize OCCT in certain instances. The EPA also 
agrees with commenters who support providing States with discretion to 
require systems to re-optimize even if they meet the criteria in Sec.  
141.81(a)(1) through (3). The EPA finalized the requirements in Sec.  
141.81(a)(1) through (3) and added language to each section clarifying 
that the State may require a system to re-optimize under Sec.  
141.82(h). The EPA agrees that under some circumstances, treatment 
could be re-evaluated and adjusted, and States are in the best position 
to determine whether a system must re-optimize. As discussed in the 
preamble to the proposed LCRI, States have the ability in LCRR to 
require re-optimization under Sec.  141.82(h), which allows for the 
State to modify treatment decisions for OCCT and re-optimized OCCT. The 
EPA has added clarifying language in Sec.  141.81(a)(1) through (3) 
that the State can require a system to re-optimize under the existing 
provision in Sec.  141.82(h). The State can modify its decision for 
either OCCT or the OWQPs for OCCT. Under Sec.  141.82(h), States can 
require a system to conduct a CCT study to support modification of the 
existing treatment. Water systems or other interested parties can also 
request a modification of the determination of OCCT with supporting 
documentation under this section of the rule. For the final LCRI, the 
EPA made edits to Sec.  141.81(a)(1) through (3) to clarify that States 
have the discretion to require systems to re-optimize under Sec.  
141.82(h).
    The EPA added a re-optimization requirement in the final LCRI for 
systems that exceed the lead action level after completing the removal 
of all lead and GRR service lines and have no lead status unknown 
service lines remaining in their inventory (Sec.  141.81(a)(1)(iii), 
(a)(2)(iii), and (a)(3)(iii)). The EPA added the requirement for 
systems that have removed all lead and GRRs service lines that 
subsequently exceed the lead action level to re-optimize because the 
EPA expects that after removing the most significant source of lead in 
drinking water, optimal corrosion control may change and systems may 
need to adjust their CCT once the most significant source of lead has 
been removed following study of corrosion control. While this long-term 
treatment change would also be covered by the requirements in Sec.  
141.81(h), there could be situations where the scaled-back CCT leads to 
an action level exceedance and the need for that OCCT to be re-
optimized. Therefore, the EPA made this change for the final LCRI in 
partial response to commenters by trying to balance the need for the 
realities of re-optimizing CCT and the need for re-optimization during 
and after service line replacement given competing system requirements 
and the changes in the distribution system. This is similar to the 
requirement in Sec.  141.81(f) for systems deferring OCCT while 
completing a LSLR program within five or less years.
    The EPA disagrees in part with commenters who want the EPA to 
continue to require systems to re-optimize unless the State has 
determined after a full and carefully documented consideration that re-
optimization is not needed. Under this provision, eligible systems will 
have already performed two optimizations, their initial optimization 
and the re-optimization under LCRI, which includes specific benchmarks 
that must be evaluated. The EPA anticipates repeating the same steps 
using the same tools more than once after the LCRI compliance date in 
systems with LSLs is unlikely to produce different results. Water 
systems with LSLs completing their replacement program may only qualify 
for this provision if they have already re-optimized once after the 
compliance date for LCRI, continue meeting their OWQPs designated by 
the State, and continue to operate and maintain their OCCT. Systems 
that experience a long-term change in treatment or source water must 
notify the State, and the State may require additional monitoring or 
take other actions, such as treatment studies, to ensure water systems 
maintain minimal levels of corrosion control in the distribution 
system. In addition, as discussed above, the EPA also included a 
requirement in the final LCRI for systems that have replaced all lead 
and

[[Page 86506]]

GRR service lines to re-optimize again if they exceed the lead action 
level, in addition to the ability for States to require systems re-
optimize under Sec.  141.81(h).
    As noted in the proposed LCRI, the EPA recognizes that there may be 
some instances where systems may be unable to meet the proposed lowered 
lead action level of 0.010 mg/L because tap water lead levels can be 
influenced by other factors. As discussed in the proposed LCRI, lead 
level variability at individual sites can occur due to water use 
patterns and physical disturbances of pipes causing particulate 
release. Elevated lead levels due to these factors may not reflect the 
performance of CCT. The resources of systems that have already 
evaluated the CCT options under the re-optimization process would be 
better devoted to other mitigation activities (e.g., conduct public 
outreach and make filters available for systems with multiple lead 
action level exceedances) rather than repeating the same steps.
d. Deferred OCCT
    Many commenters supported the proposed OCCT deferral option if a 
system removed 100 percent of service lines within five years, but 
others expressed concern that the option required systems to replace 
portions of lead or GRRs service lines that are beyond their control, 
which would conflict with the requirements under SDWA.
    To address the confusion about replacing lines beyond the control 
of the water system the agency is clarifying the final rule language at 
Sec.  141.81(f) to confirm that systems must conduct full replacement 
of all lead and GRR service lines to be eligible and that no lead, GRR, 
or unknown service lines remain in the system's service line inventory 
at the end of the five-year-or-less period (Sec.  141.81(f)(1)(iii)). 
The OCCT deferral option is a compliance alternative for systems that 
have or can obtain access to all lead, GRR, and unknown lines; nothing 
in the rule requires systems to exercise this option.
    Instead, the EPA strongly encourages systems that would like to 
exercise this deferral option to work to obtain control to replace each 
lead and GRR service line in order to take advantage of this provision. 
The EPA recommends systems identify ways to address some of the 
potential challenges typically associated with service line 
replacement, including obtaining access to a customer's property where 
consent is required and overcoming potential funding and financing 
barriers to complete customer-side replacements. Potential strategies 
could include community outreach to promote the service line 
replacement program to increase participation. While neither SDWA 
section 1412 nor the LCRI require water systems to pay for customer-
side replacements (see section IV.B.4 of this preamble), the EPA also 
encourages systems to pursue financing to remove 100 percent of service 
lines within five years or less. For example, some systems utilizing 
this OCCT deferral option will no longer need to conduct the mandatory 
pipe rig/loop study, which the EPA estimates to cost between $308,000 
and $377,000 depending upon the complexity of the study, if they 
complete 100 percent service line replacement within the five-year-or-
less period (USEPA, 2024a, chapter 4, section 4.3.3). Those systems may 
be able to allocate the funds that would have been used for pipe rig/
loop studies to replace customers' portions of lines instead, similar 
to what the City of Madison, Wisconsin did regarding potential avoided 
sewage costs for phosphorus removal if orthophosphate had to be added 
for corrosion control (Sandvig et al., 2008).
    The EPA also received comments questioning whether the proposed 
regulatory language ``within five years'' only applied to systems 
completing their programs in five years or would also apply to systems 
completing those programs in less than five years. Other commenters 
expressed concerns about a system's ability to replace lines on a 
schedule less than five years. The EPA also received comments that were 
concerned whether a water system could use the full five-year period to 
avoid optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT during that period when it is 
feasible for them to complete 100 percent service line replacement in 
less than five years.
    The EPA agrees with commenters that ``within five years'' is 
somewhat ambiguous and could create implementation confusion or be 
unnecessarily limiting to only apply to systems completing their 
programs in five years. For the final LCRI, the EPA is clarifying that 
the requirement encompasses systems completing 100 percent service line 
replacement in five years or less by modifying the regulatory text at 
Sec.  141.81(f)(1)(i)(A) and (B) to read ``in five years or less'' 
instead of ``within five years.'' This approach is consistent with the 
EPA's rationale at proposal. Specifically, the five-year timeframe is 
based on the time it would take for a system to construct and conduct a 
pipe rig/loop study, make a treatment recommendation based on that 
study, and install and operate the State-approved OCCT (88 FR 84937, 
USEPA, 2023a). The results of a pipe loop study may no longer be 
applicable following 100 percent replacement of lead and GRR service 
lines. The EPA anticipates that there will be greater health benefits 
from replacing all lead and GRR services line in five years or less 
compared to if the system were required to complete the CCT steps and 
take longer than five years to complete LSLR, because a significant 
source of lead will be removed from the system (see section IV.F.1.a of 
this preamble). Like systems completing their LSLR program in five 
years, systems completing their programs in less than five years would 
be less far along in the optimization/re-optimization process. The 
costs to conduct a pipe rig/loop study would be best used to accelerate 
the LSLR program.
    With respect to the concern that water systems may use the full 
five years even if it is feasible for the system to complete 100 
percent service line replacement in less than five years, the State 
must set a faster replacement rate if feasible (Sec.  142.16(d)(6)) and 
the agency does not intend for the deferral option in Sec.  141.81(f) 
to supersede a determination that it is feasible for a system to 
complete replacement in less than five years. Accordingly, the EPA 
revised the regulatory language for the final LCRI to specify how 
systems with a replacement timeframe of less than five years will be 
required to proceed under this option and how to calculate their annual 
replacement rate to ensure the systems meet their shorter replacement 
deadline. Systems must replace their lead or GRR service lines in less 
than five years if the State determines that a replacement deadline of 
less than five years is the fastest rate feasible or if they have less 
than five years left to complete their replacement program, based on 
their applicable mandatory replacement deadline.
    This clarification necessitated additional changes to the 
regulatory text at Sec.  141.81(f) to ensure this provision, as whole, 
was consistent throughout the rule and consistent with a parallel 
requirement for shortened service line replacement program deadlines, 
at Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(v). In addition, these changes make the OCCT 
deferral option more workable for systems and States. For systems that 
can replace lead or GRR service lines in less than five years, the 
mandatory minimum annual replacement rate percentage to achieve 100 
percent replacement at the end of their five-year-or-less period would 
not be 20 percent. Therefore, the EPA changed the 20 percent mandatory 
minimum annual replacement rate to an annual replacement rate in

[[Page 86507]]

Sec.  141.81(f)(1)(ii) based on the total number of years for 
replacement in Sec.  141.81(f)(1)(i). This corresponds with and gives 
meaning to the modification clarifying that systems completing 100 
percent service line replacement in less than five years will need a 
different minimum annual rate to add up to 100 percent. This will make 
it easier for systems to adopt a mandatory minimum annual replacement 
rate depending on their replacement program and LSL inventories. For 
example, systems removing 100 percent of their service lines in four 
years must do so at an annual minimum rate of 25 percent of those 
service lines each year, compared to a system completing service line 
replacement in three years at a minimum annual rate of 33 percent of 
service lines each year, barring the need to replace lines faster, as 
provided in the requirements at Sec.  141.81 and discussed below.
    As discussed in section IV.B.6 of this preamble, the EPA recognizes 
that some water systems will be able to replace service lines faster 
than the 10-year replacement deadline, such as systems that have few 
lead and GRR service lines. The EPA identified multiple water systems 
that have completed or are expected to completely replace all lead or 
GRR service lines within five years (USEPA, 2024d), which corresponds 
to a 20 percent or greater annual replacement rate. The EPA expects 
that these types of systems may elect to use this OCCT deferral option. 
The EPA also anticipates this option being used by systems that are 
replacing their lines at an annual rate less than 20 percent, but could 
exceed the lead action level later in their service line replacement 
program. Therefore, these systems may be able to feasibly replace at 
least 20 percent of their remaining lead and GRR service lines 
annually.
    Further, to make this deferral option more consistent with the 
service line replacement provisions at Sec.  141.81(f)(4) and provide 
States with the ability to monitor and ensure system compliance, the 
EPA revised the provision to require that systems provide written 
documentation to the State about the number of lead and GRR service 
lines replaced. In addition, to ensure that systems' service line 
replacement programs maximize public health protection and avoid the 
need for a system to allocate limited resources to conduct a pipe rig/
loop study to install or re-optimize OCCT when a system's service line 
composition is changing, the final rule clarifies that systems must 
complete their service line replacement program as fast as is feasible 
at Sec.  141.81(f)(1)(i). This text also helps to clarify that the 
requirement for systems on a shortened service line replacement 
deadline at Sec.  141.81(f)(1)(i)(C) applies for systems availing 
themselves of this deferral option, but in a way that is consistent 
with the requirements of Sec.  141.81(f)(1). Since the maximum length 
of the replacement program under Sec.  141.81(f) is five years and all 
lead and GRRs service lines must be replaced, different annual 
replacement rates must be applied to these systems than those under 
Sec.  141.84(d)(5). The EPA also added dates and reference points 
mirroring other parts of the proposed and final LCRI service line 
replacement and inventory requirements to make this provision clearer 
and more implementable.
e. Long-Term Source or Treatment Change
    The EPA also received comments stating the language in Sec.  
141.81(h) on notification requirements for upcoming long-term change in 
treatment or source is confusing. In the proposed LCRI, language from 
Sec.  141.90(a)(3) under the 2021 LCRR was moved to Sec.  141.81(h) as 
it relates to the notification and approval requirements before a long-
term treatment change or addition of a new source. The proposed LCRI 
changed some of the 2021 LCRR language and made an inadvertent error 
stating that actions could be required to ensure that the system 
maintains minimal levels of corrosion control rather than to ensure the 
system will operate and maintain optimal corrosion control treatment. 
To reduce confusion, in the final LCRI, the EPA has reverted back to 
the 2021 LCRR language related to OCCT in Sec.  141.81(h) and has 
included the examples of long-term treatment changes in Sec. Sec.  
141.90(a)(4) and 141.81(h) to ensure these examples are considered 
long-term treatment changes.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The EPA is finalizing most CCT requirements as proposed, except for 
clarifying some regulatory text in light of public comments received. 
In addition, the EPA is making some changes to the OCCT deferral option 
for systems that can complete 100 percent replacement of full lead and 
GRR service lines in five years or less at a minimum annual rate in 
response to comments raising questions about eligibility requirements 
and how this option would be implemented by systems and States, among 
others. The EPA is also including a requirement for systems without 
lead and GRR service lines to re-optimize again if they exceed the lead 
action level after completing their service line replacement program.
    The final LCRI requires water systems that exceed the action level 
to optimize or re-optimize their OCCT. Consistent with the proposal for 
LCRI, the EPA is eliminating the 2021 LCRR trigger level and finalizing 
revisions to expedite when States can approve an existing CCT 
modification for re-optimization under Sec.  141.81(d)(1)(iv). Systems, 
depending on their size, must either conduct treatment studies or 
consult with the State to determine the most appropriate treatment 
steps. The EPA is maintaining the 2021 LCRR requirement in Sec.  
141.82(g) for continued operation and maintenance for OCCT and re-
optimized OCCT for all systems, including consecutive systems.
    The EPA is also finalizing the requirement that large and medium 
systems with LSLs that must optimize or re-optimize OCCT, and cannot 
meet the existing treatment modification or the five-year or less 
replacement of all lead and GRR service lines requirements in Sec.  
141.81(d)(1)(iv) or (f), will need to conduct a mandatory harvested 
pipe rig/loop study (Sec.  141.81(d)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(i)). Under the 
final LCRI Sec.  141.82(c)(3), small systems would not be required to 
conduct a harvested pipe rig/loop study, unless required to do so by 
the State.
    In addition, the EPA is finalizing the requirements at Sec.  
141.81(a)(1)(i)(A), (a)(2)(i)(A), and (a)(3)(i)(A) that systems with 
lead and GRR service lines must only re-optimize once after the 
compliance date of the rule if they meet the following criteria listed 
in of Sec.  141.81(a)(1)(i) and (ii), (a)(2)(i) and (ii), and (a)(3)(i) 
and (ii) of the rule: the system has already once re-optimized OCCT, 
currently meets OWQPs designated by the State, continues to operate 
OCCT, and the State is not requiring re-optimization under Sec.  
141.82(h). The EPA also included a requirement under Sec.  141.81(a)(1) 
through (3) for systems that have completed their service line 
replacement program and have no lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 
or lead status unknown service lines remaining in their inventory to 
re-optimize again if they exceed the lead action level. In addition, 
the EPA also added Sec.  141.81(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), and (a)(3)(ii) 
to ensure it is clear that States have the discretion to require 
systems to re-optimize based on Sec.  141.82(h).
    The EPA is finalizing the OCCT deferral option for systems that can 
remove all lead and GRR service lines in five years or less at Sec.  
141.81(f). For the final LCRI, the EPA is clarifying some regulatory 
text from the proposal, and adding some associated requirements for the 
OCCT deferral

[[Page 86508]]

option for systems that can complete lead and GRR service line 
replacement in five years or less. These changes address concerns 
raised by commenters that systems could use the full five years to 
avoid optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT when it is feasible for them to 
complete 100 percent service line replacement in fewer than five years 
(see Sec.  141.81(f)(1)). For a more in-depth discussion of the final 
LCRI requirements for the OCCT deferral option, please see section 
IV.F.2.d of this preamble.
    The EPA is finalizing the revisions to the existing treatment 
modification that States can allow without an additional CCT study 
under Sec.  141.81(d)(1)(iv) for re-optimization for some systems. The 
EPA is finalizing the revisions under Sec.  141.81(a)(2) that medium 
systems with CCT (except those that meet Sec.  141.81(b)(3)) need to 
demonstrate OCCT by meeting OWQPs (as discussed in section IV.G of this 
preamble). The EPA is also finalizing other non-substantive textual and 
structural changes, as proposed, that streamline and clarify the rule 
language in order to improve implementation of the requirements. For 
example, the EPA has reverted back to the 2021 LCRR language related to 
OCCT in Sec.  141.81(h) and has included the examples of long-term 
treatment changes in Sec. Sec.  141.90(a)(4) and 141.81(h) to ensure 
these examples are considered long-term treatment changes.
4. Lead Action Level and Trigger Level
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    In the 1991 LCR, the EPA set the action levels for lead and copper 
at 0.015 mg/L and 1.3 mg/L, respectively. As discussed in section 
IV.F.1 of this preamble, the EPA introduced lead and copper action 
levels in the LCR as a tool to limit the number of PWSs that would need 
to complete a detailed CCT demonstration and/or install OCCT. The EPA 
stated that its selection of values for the action levels ``reflects 
EPA's assessment of a level that is generally representative of 
effective corrosion control treatment and [it] is therefore, useful as 
a tool for simplifying the implementation of the treatment technique'' 
(56 FR 26490, USEPA, 1991). In 1991, the EPA evaluated treatment data 
from 39 medium size systems without LSLs and 11 with LSLs and selected 
a 90th percentile lead level of 0.015 mg/L that was ``generally 
representative'' of OCCT, while acknowledging that some systems may not 
be able to achieve that level. Not only is there no precise level of 
lead and copper at the tap that reflects application of effective CCT 
in water systems nationally, but the EPA further noted that CCT 
demonstration studies ``cannot be expected to predict the precise lead 
and copper levels at the tap'' and that ``relying solely on laboratory 
studies to predict the effectiveness of corrosion control treatment 
would not indicate the levels of lead or copper at taps'' (56 FR 26486, 
USEPA, 1991). Accordingly, the EPA relied on tap sampling data to 
characterize CCT performance for reducing lead and copper levels at the 
tap.
    Under the LCR, systems serving 50,000 persons or fewer systems 
demonstrated they were optimized by meeting the action level of 0.015 
mg/L as the level generally representative of effective corrosion 
control treatment. Systems serving over 50,000 persons were required to 
conduct a detailed demonstration of OCCT regardless of 90th percentile 
levels unless they measured 90th percentile lead levels below the PQL 
of 0.005 mg/L and were deemed optimized. As noted in section III.C of 
this preamble, the EPA introduced the lead trigger level of 0.010 mg/L 
in the 2021 LCRR to prompt water systems to take proactive actions 
prior to an action level exceedance, including studying and/or re-
optimizing OCCT. Additionally, systems of any size with CCT are 
required under the 2021 LCRR to re-optimize if they exceed the action 
level.
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed to eliminate the lead trigger level 
and lower the lead action level to 0.010 mg/L. These changes were 
proposed to address priorities identified in the LCRR review, including 
reducing the complexity of the rule and re-evaluating options to 
consolidate the action level and trigger level, as well as feedback the 
EPA heard during the development of the proposed LCRI (86 FR 71578-
71579, USEPA, 2021b). As described in the proposed LCRI preamble, the 
EPA evaluated the trigger level with respect to complexity, 
implementation, and the public communication challenge associated with 
two lead levels. Additionally, the EPA considered lowering the lead 
action levels in the context of other proposed changes in the LCRI, 
including service line replacement irrespective of lead levels and a 
revised tap sampling protocol designed to better characterize lead 
levels in drinking water (88 FR 84939, USEPA, 2023a).
    In the proposed LCRI preamble, the EPA evaluated potential lead 
action levels of 0.015 mg/L, 0.010 mg/L, and 0.005 mg/L (88 FR 84939-
84942, USEPA, 2023a). The EPA considered several factors when selecting 
the proposed lead action level of 0.010 mg/L. Specifically, the EPA 
selected an action level of 0.010 mg/L as the preferred alternative at 
proposal because it is supported by past CCT performance data as being 
generally representative of OCCT when adjusted for the LCRI tap 
sampling protocol. The EPA found that the ability of systems to limit 
the corrosivity of water in the distribution system has greatly 
improved over the past 30 years of LCR implementation and that more 
recent data supports a lower level as being a more appropriate screen 
for determining which small systems and medium systems without CCT are 
required to conduct a detailed OCCT demonstration, and for which all 
systems with CCT, including large systems, are required to re-optimize. 
The EPA also considered factors affecting technical feasibility that 
the action level concept is intended to address for the purposes of 
making the CCT treatment technique feasible (see section IV.F.1 of this 
preamble). These factors include the administrative burden on water 
systems required to install or re-optimize OCCT after a lead action 
level exceedance, the availability of technical experts to support CCT 
implementation, and the technological limitations of reliably measuring 
lead levels (i.e., the PQL) (88 FR 84941-84942, USEPA, 2023a). These 
technical feasibility considerations are in addition to the agency's 
evaluating requirements for the CCT treatment technique in the context 
of other actions that would be required by systems in the LCRI, 
including service line replacement.
b. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
i. Lead Action Level
    The EPA received a range of comments on the value for the lead 
action level. Many commenters supported reducing the lead action level 
to 0.010 mg/L stating that it is a reasonable level for evaluating CCT 
and would prompt more water systems to take actions to reduce lead 
levels. Other commenters disagreed and stated that the EPA should 
maintain the current lead action level at 0.015 mg/L. Some of these 
commenters indicated that the EPA did not demonstrate in the proposal 
that water systems can reliably achieve 0.010 mg/L and that the 
requirements are not feasible, specifically when combined with the 
proposed changes to the tap sampling protocol, sample site tiering, and 
90th percentile calculation instructions. Other commenters supported a

[[Page 86509]]

reduction in the lead action level but stated that the EPA must reduce 
the level to 0.005 mg/L or lower, citing public health benefits that 
would result from actions taken at lower levels and stating that there 
is no safe level of lead in drinking water. The EPA also received 
comments that disagreed with the agency's analyses used to support 
proposing a lower action level of 0.010 mg/L and not 0.005 mg/L, 
including that the EPA used past CCT performance data that does not 
reflect how effective CCT can be, stating that systems have not been 
trying to reduce lead and copper levels in drinking water to ``as low 
as possible'' under the LCR, and that the CCT requirements in the LCR 
do not reflect advances in corrosion control science. Additionally, a 
few commenters stated that the EPA must use a different percentile 
other than the 90th percentile to compare against the action level. 
Specifically, some stated that the EPA must use a higher percentile 
(e.g., 95th, 98th, 99th) or a maximum level because doing so would 
result in more systems having action level exceedances and therefore be 
required to take actions. They added that the 90th percentile allows 
lead levels to be higher than the action level at more individual sites 
than a higher percentile would and noted that the water system is not 
required to take action at those sites. Another commenter stated that 
the EPA should use a measure of central tendency (e.g., median) because 
the 90th percentile is too conservative in the context of other risk 
reduction measures in the LCRI including public education and LSLR.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters who stated that the EPA must set 
the lead action level at a level that is ``reliably achievable'' by 
water systems. These commenters misconstrue the function and purpose of 
the lead action level. The action level is used to evaluate CCT, and it 
is set at a level that the EPA determined is generally representative 
of optimized CCT such that the overall treatment technique for CCT is 
feasible in accordance with SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A). The action 
level is not independently evaluated for feasibility. The action level 
is one element of the treatment technique. The EPA evaluates the 
entirety of the treatment technique (i.e., CCT) for feasibility. Based 
on the plain reading of the statutory requirements for determining the 
feasibility of a treatment technique, the action level supports the 
agency's feasibility determination for CCT (see section IV.F.1 of this 
preamble) but it is not required to meet the feasibility standard at 
SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A) on its own. For further discussion see the 
regulatory history section on feasibility in section III.D.3 of this 
preamble.
    Additionally, water systems are not required to achieve the action 
level under the LCRI; the action level is not an MCL and serves a 
different purpose than an MCL. Notably, the action level is not a 
health-based level and it does not determine the compliance status of a 
system like an MCL does. If a system fails to meet the action level 
either initially or after the installation of treatment, the system is 
not in violation of the rule providing the water system complies with 
the CCT requirements (e.g., CCT has been optimized or re-optimized). It 
is for the same reason that the EPA disagrees with commenters who 
stated that the EPA must set the action level to a level as close to 
the MCLG of 0 mg/L as feasible. As discussed in detail in section IV.A 
of this preamble, the EPA established a treatment technique rule for 
lead and copper because it is not ``economically or technologically 
feasible to ascertain the level of the contaminant'' (42 U.S.C. 300g-
1(b)(7)(A)). The action level is not an MCL and is not required to 
adhere to the statutory standard applied to MCLs.
    The EPA notes that there were comments both for and against the 
EPA's proposed action level of 0.010 mg/L. For the final LCRI, the EPA 
is setting the lead action level at 0.010 mg/L. The EPA considered 
several factors when selecting its proposed lower lead action level of 
0.010 mg/L. The EPA's primary consideration was the finding that an 
action level of 0.010 mg/L is supported by past CCT performance data as 
being generally representative of OCCT. More recent and higher quality 
lead data are available from over 30 years of implementing LCR, which 
allowed the EPA to reassess which level is generally representative of 
OCCT using data from systems with CCT. The EPA disagrees with 
commenters who argued that past CCT performance data do not reflect 
effective CCT in part because systems were not required under the LCR 
to reduce lead levels to ``as low as possible.'' The EPA reasoned that 
90th percentile lead levels from systems with CCT, collected through 
LCR reporting, is the best available data for determining a revised 
action level. As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this preamble, while 
CCT is effective at reducing lead and copper levels in drinking water, 
there are other secondary effects of treatment which may prevent a 
water system from reducing lead levels to ``as low as possible'' with 
CCT, including that the treatment could lead to increased levels of 
other compounds which are also public health risks. The EPA defines 
OCCT as the ``best'' treatment technique for the purposes of this rule 
(see SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(D)) as ``corrosion control treatment that 
minimizes the lead and copper concentrations at users' taps while 
ensuring that the treatment does not cause the water system to violate 
any National Primary Drinking Water Regulations'' (Sec.  141.2). When 
the State evaluates the CCT studies and sets OWQPs, they are required 
to do so in a manner to reduce lead and copper concentrations as low as 
technically possible while ensuring compliance with other NPDWRs. 
Historical data from systems with CCT collected through LCR reporting 
reflect real world conditions that account for protecting public health 
from other contaminants in addition to lead and copper. Specifically, 
systems that have installed OCCT under the LCR are controlling 
corrosion to reduce lead and copper concentrations accounting for the 
unique characteristics of their water system, such as water chemistries 
and other potential contaminants.
    Furthermore, these commenters did not offer alternative data for 
the EPA to consider, nor detail how the EPA should account for how lead 
and copper concentrations at the tap would differ based on if the LCR 
had included a different set of requirements (e.g., a different 
definition of OCCT in Sec.  141.2). Additionally, it is not possible 
for the agency to predict how lead and copper levels would be different 
based on theoretical studies. As noted in the 1991 LCR, ``relying 
solely on laboratory studies to predict the effectiveness of corrosion 
control treatment would not indicate the level of lead or copper at 
taps'' (56 FR 26486, USEPA 1991). More recent literature shows that 
theoretical predictions may not align with real-word conditions. For 
example, Tully et al. (2019) evaluated model predictions of LSL systems 
and found that 13 out of 22 systems evaluated did not follow model 
predictions of scale formation and lead release, demonstrating the 
importance of pilot studies to evaluate and optimize CCT and 
corresponding tap sampling for demonstrating performance. Therefore, 
the EPA used 90th percentile lead levels from systems with CCT, 
collected through LCR reporting, for determining a revised action level 
and to inform a determination of OCCT feasibility because it is the 
best available data.
    To inform the selection of the lead action level, the EPA 
identified a 90th percentile lead level that is generally 
representative of OCCT. As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this preamble 
the

[[Page 86510]]

action level is not based on a precise statistical evaluation of 
treatment at all systems. Rather, the EPA considered 90th percentile 
lead levels reported to the EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information 
System (SDWIS) over the years 2012-2020 for community water systems (of 
all sizes) with known LSL and CCT status (i.e., information on whether 
a system has LSL sites and whether the system has installed CCT). For 
the final LCRI, the EPA updated the number of evaluated systems from 
6,529 in the proposal to 6,551 systems (see USEPA, 2024a, chapter 3, 
sections 3.3.3-3.3.5 for how the agency determined LSL and CCT status 
and lead 90th percentile values for these systems). While the agency 
considered data from all systems with known CCT and LSL status, the 
data from systems with CCT installed is particularly relevant in 
identifying a level generally representative of OCCT. The available 
lead 90th percentile data were collected using the tap sampling 
protocol and tiering criteria in the LCR. Contrary to the suggestion of 
some commenters, in selecting a lower action level, the EPA took into 
account that changes to the tap sampling protocol and site selection 
criteria in the LCRI will likely affect some water systems' 90th 
percentile lead levels. To account for the differences in the tap 
sampling requirements under the LCR and the LCRI, the EPA developed 
adjustment ratios. The EPA developed an adjustment ratio using first- 
and fifth-liter tap sample data from the State of Michigan to account 
for the LCRI requirement for LSL systems to collect both first- and 
fifth-liter samples and use the higher value to calculate the 90th 
percentile. An analysis of LCR compliance data in Slabaugh et al. 
(2015) that compared lead 90th percentile values from samples collected 
from all LSL sites to lead 90th percentiles from samples collected from 
both lead and non-LSL sites was used to develop an adjustment ratio to 
account for the requirement introduced in the 2021 LCRR and retained in 
the final LCRI that LSL systems collect all samples from LSL sites 
where possible. The reported 90th percentile values were multiplied 
with the adjustment ratios to estimate what the values would be if they 
were collected in accordance with the LCRI. This adjustment accounts 
for changes in the sampling protocol and tiering and this methodology 
has the benefit of being applicable to a large set of data to evaluate 
a level of generally representative OCCT. The action level analysis 
conducted in the LCRI is more robust than what was available to the 
agency when it first selected a lead action level of 0.015 mg/L (56 FR 
26484, USEPA, 1991). See the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a, chapter 3, section 3.3.5) for additional details about the 
multiplier approach and the associated uncertainties.
    The EPA categorized the 6,551 systems based on combinations of LSL 
and CCT status using their highest 90th percentile lead level (as 
adjusted for the LCRI sampling protocol) reported over the 2012 to 2020 
analysis period to estimate the percentage of systems at or below the 
potential lower action levels (``Analysis of reported 90th percentile 
values from 2012-2020 for final LCRI.xlsx'' in the LCRI docket). The 
EPA specifically evaluated 0.015 mg/L, 0.010 mg/L, and 0.005 mg/L 
because they correspond to the LCR lead action level, the 2021 LCRR 
lead trigger level, and the lead PQL, respectively. Their estimates are 
presented in Exhibit 2 by LSL and CCT status.

  Exhibit 2--Percent of Systems by LSL and CCT Status With Lead Levels at or Below Potential Lead Action Levels
                                  Adjusted for the Final LCRI Sampling Protocol
                                                   [2012-2020]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    P90 \2\ L (%)  0.010 mg/L (%)  0.005 mg/L (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No LSLs/CCT (2,062).............................................              95              92              82
LSLs/CCT (1,277)................................................              73              60              38
No LSLs/No CCT (2,731)..........................................              95              91              78
LSLs/No CCT (481)...............................................              80              64              37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Data from 6,551 community water systems with known CCT and LSL status. See ``Analysis of reported 90th
  percentile values from 2012-2020 for final LCRI.xlsx'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801.
\2\ Systems categorized based on their highest lead 90th percentile (P90) value reported (SDWIS 2012-2020).

    When accounting for the final LCRI sampling requirements, the EPA 
estimates between 60 and 92 percent of the 6,551 systems evaluated are 
at or below the revised action level of 0.010 mg/L (Exhibit 2). The EPA 
notes that while up to 82 percent of non-LSL systems with CCT are 
estimated to be at or below 0.005 mg/L, only 38 percent of the 
evaluated systems with LSLs are expected to be at or below that level. 
This is far below half of the 1,227 LSL systems with CCT that the EPA 
evaluated. Therefore, 0.005 mg/L is not generally representative of 
OCCT, particularly for LSL systems. The EPA also discussed in the LCRI 
proposal how the action level cannot be set below the lead PQL of 0.005 
mg/L, which represents the limitations of reliably measuring lead 
levels (88 FR 84942, USEPA, 2023a). The EPA received comments which 
agreed that the action level should not be set lower than the lead PQL. 
The EPA also received comments requesting the agency re-evaluate if 
0.005 mg/L should remain the PQL for lead. See section IV.E.2.i of this 
preamble for further discussion of the PQL and the public comments 
received.
    The EPA acknowledges that a higher percentage of systems are 
estimated to meet the previous action level of 0.015 mg/L (i.e., 73 to 
95 percent); however, a large and generally representative number of 
systems can also meet 0.010 mg/L and therefore, it is also technically 
possible for systems to meet an action level of 0.010 mg/L as part of 
the treatment technique for CCT. Additionally, while the action level 
is not an MCL, an action level of 0.010 mg/L would trigger more systems 
into detailed optimization demonstrations or re-optimization than an 
action level of 0.015 mg/L and will likely contribute to a greater 
reduction in lead levels at those systems, thereby supporting more 
public health benefits that can be realized through CCT. Because the 
EPA finds that both 0.010 mg/L and 0.015 mg/L are technically possible 
for systems based on the data, the EPA cannot maintain an action level 
of 0.015 mg/L. Given the best available and most recent information, 
0.015 mg/L would

[[Page 86511]]

not support the greatest level of health protection to the extent 
feasible for the CCT treatment technique compared to 0.010 mg/L. 
Additionally, because the EPA is removing the lead trigger level in the 
LCRI, a lead action level higher than 0.010 mg/L would result in CCT 
requirements applying for systems at higher lead levels relative to the 
2021 LCRR (see section III.E of this preamble for the agency's anti-
backsliding analysis).
    Furthermore, a lead action level of 0.010 mg/L is supported by the 
available data. As noted in the proposal, the EPA acknowledges that 
when the agency selected 0.015 mg/L as the action level in the 1991 
LCR, a small percentage of LSL systems with CCT in the dataset were 
able to meet this level. However, at that time, the EPA acknowledged 
the limitations of the available data including the small sample size 
(e.g., 39 systems without LSLs and 11 systems with LSLs), and 
challenges of ``extrapolating generalized estimates of treatment 
performance . . . which are collected from relatively few, like-sized 
systems operated under relatively favorable natural water quality 
conditions'' (56 FR 26491, USEPA, 1991). Also, the EPA noted that the 
systems evaluated for the LCR were not yet attempting to minimize lead 
levels per the definition of OCCT in Sec.  141.2. For the LCRI, the 
dataset to evaluate the action level is a much larger dataset compared 
to the 1991 LCR dataset, comprised of 90th percentile values collected 
under the requirements of the LCR, from systems of various sizes and 
OCCT and LSL status and is informed by analysis of lead samples that 
are all collected at LSL sites and a dataset from the State of Michigan 
that includes a similar sampling protocol as the LCRI. Therefore, this 
recent larger dataset is of higher quality than the 1991 LCR dataset 
for selection of the action level in LCRI, and the EPA finds that 0.010 
mg/L is reasonably representative of lead levels that can be achieved 
in systems after they install OCCT.
    The EPA also disagrees with commenters indicating that the EPA must 
use a different statistic to compare against the action level. In 1991, 
the EPA chose a 90th percentile statistic to simplify the LCR's 
requirements. Specifically, the EPA had considered using a 95th 
percentile but chose a 90th percentile value so that systems would not 
be required to perform a more complex calculation based on the results 
of the monitoring. For example, the 95th percentile of 30 samples is 
the 28.5th highest sample result whereas the 90th percentile is the 
27th highest result. Additionally, water systems have decades of 
experience using and calculating 90th percentile values and submitting 
that information to States.
    For these same reasons, the EPA does not agree that a measure of 
central tendency should be used in the rule. While the commenter claims 
that CCT efficacy can be evaluated through a central tendency 
statistic, changing the metric for evaluating CCT efficacy after over 
30 years for implementation would likely cause confusion and 
compatibility issues with past datasets. Retaining a 90th percentile 
statistic maintains consistency, which enhances implementability. 
Furthermore, as discussed in section IV.F.1 of this preamble and in 
this section, an action level of 0.010 mg/L based on a 90th percentile 
supports the technical feasibility of the CCT treatment technique.
    The EPA also disagrees with using a maximum lead value (i.e., the 
highest collected sample) for comparison with the lead action level. 
Using a maximum value against the action level would mean that a single 
sample would prompt an action level exceedance. As discussed in section 
IV.A of this preamble, lead and copper levels at the tap are highly 
variable due to a variety of factors and a single tap sample at a 
single site is not necessarily representative of conditions in the 
system. As described in section IV.F.1 of this preamble, the purpose of 
the action level is to evaluate the CCT of the system. Therefore, using 
a single sample to prompt systemwide actions would not be appropriate.
    The EPA notes that commenters suggesting a higher percentile state 
that doing so would result in more action level exceedances. In the 
LCRI, the EPA is finalizing requirements that will result in more 
action level exceedances relative to the LCR, including reducing the 
lead action level to 0.010 mg/L and new tap sampling protocol and 
tiering requirements. The EPA has considered the feasibility of the CCT 
treatment technique as a whole in the context of these changes (see 
section IV.F.1 of this preamble). Additionally, the agency disagrees 
with commenters who assert that water systems are not required to take 
actions when a percentage of collected samples are higher than the 
level used for the action level (i.e., up to 10 percent of samples in a 
90th percentile). The LCRI includes requirements at both individual 
sites and systemwide that are not dependent on the 90th percentile 
level. For example, water systems are required to conduct Distribution 
System and Site Assessment at sites exceeding 0.010 mg/L including when 
the system's 90th percentile is at or below the lead action level (see 
section IV.H of this preamble). Additionally, water systems are 
required to conduct public education independent of the water system's 
90th percentile lead levels, such as providing information to consumers 
at all sites that are sampled regardless of the individual lead result 
(see section IV.J.4.b of this preamble) and including information about 
lead in the CCR (see section IV.O.1.c of this preamble). And 
importantly, under the LCRI, water systems must now also conduct lead 
and GRR service line replacement regardless of tap sample results (see 
section IV.B of this preamble).
ii. Additional Factors Supporting Selection of the Lead Action Level
    The EPA also received comments on the anticipated benefits and 
tradeoffs of a lower action level, including for public health and 
administrative burden on systems and States. Some commenters supported 
an action level of 0.010 mg/L but noted that the lower action level 
will increase the number of systems required to conduct CCT actions, 
thereby increasing the burden on States and water systems. Some of 
these commenters expressed concern with reducing the action level below 
0.010 m/L, citing technical challenges including the administrative 
burden on systems and States and the need to consider resources to 
implement other aspects of the rule including service line replacement. 
The commenters believed these issues would be exacerbated if the EPA 
selected an action level of 0.005 mg/L. Some noted factors such as the 
lack of national CCT expertise. Several States provided information 
about burden estimates for their States and impact to their operating 
budget for CCT requirements if the EPA were to decrease the action 
level to 0.005 mg/L. Some commenters disagreed, stating that because 
there is no safe level of lead, the public health benefits should be 
considered over any administrative burden or lack of expertise. A few 
commenters indicated that the EPA must base its determination of an 
action level based on what is both affordable for large metropolitan 
systems and technically possible to achieve and base a determination on 
every single water system, and that the EPA may not consider 
administrative burden or availability of technical experts as factors 
under the statute for selecting an action level. The commenters noted 
that even if there are concerns about the capacity of smaller water 
systems to study and install CCT, small systems are permitted to select 
an alternative compliance option besides CCT.

[[Page 86512]]

    The EPA disagrees with commenters that the agency cannot consider 
factors such as administrative burden, availability of technical 
experts, and other technical factors in selecting the action level. In 
section IV.F.1 of this preamble, the EPA discussed the factors that 
impact technical feasibility, and how the agency introduced the concept 
of the action level, among other requirements, such that the CCT 
treatment technique is feasible in accordance with SDWA section 1412. 
The EPA is not evaluating the feasibility of the action level as an 
independent component, but rather in the context of the treatment 
technique as a whole (see section III.D.3 of this preamble). For the 
LCRI, the EPA considered technical challenges including administrative 
burden, availability of national experts, and the technological 
limitations of reliably measuring lead levels when selecting an action 
level that supports the overall feasibility of the CCT treatment 
technique. The final LCRI clarifies how the agency evaluated these 
factors consistent with the statutory feasibility standard (see section 
IV.F.1 of this preamble). The EPA disagrees that only large systems, 
compared to other size systems, must be considered for the purposes of 
determining what is feasible. While SDWA legislative history and case 
law specifies that a NPDWR must be affordable ``relative to a large 
regional or metropolitan water system,'' there is no such limitation 
for determining what is technically possible; and therefore, the best 
interpretation of the statute is the EPA should evaluate what is 
``technically possible'' relative to all size systems. See section 
III.C of this preamble for the background on statutory authority and 
discussion of feasibility.
    For the LCRI, the EPA considered the administrative burden on 
systems and States with respect to a lower action level, specifically 
for smaller systems that lack the technical resources of large systems 
and require additional State input and technical assistance. As 
discussed in section IV.F.1 of this preamble, the EPA found that 
requiring all water systems to study and install OCCT without 
considering their tap levels would ``impose an unworkable 
administrative burden on States'' (56 FR 26492, USEPA, 1991). This was 
particularly compelling for small and medium systems because of the 
technical challenges many of those systems may face meaning they 
``generally will require the most extensive input from States in 
evaluating, selecting, and overseeing implementation of optimal 
corrosion control treatment'' (56 FR 26492, USEPA, 1991). Therefore, 
State capacity to provide this input and support to water systems 
affects the feasibility of the CCT treatment technique for water 
systems.
    For the LCRI, the EPA used data from the 6,551 water systems of all 
sizes with known CCT and LSL status and reported 90th percentile values 
in SDWIS from 2012-2020 (see Exhibit 2) to select 0.010 mg/L as a level 
that is generally representative of OCCT as the lead action level. To 
further inform whether the selected level of 0.010 mg/L supports the 
action level's purpose of addressing the technical feasibility of the 
CCT treatment technique, the EPA used the same data to estimate how 
many CWSs are likely to exceed various potential action levels 
nationally to demonstrate the estimated burden on systems and States 
(see Exhibits 4.1 and 4.2, USEPA, 2024d).
    CCT requirements may take systems several years to complete and 
include multiple interactions with the State. The administrative burden 
for the State includes activities, such as reviewing CCT study results, 
setting OWQPs, and reviewing OWQP data (USEPA, 2024a, chapter 4, 
section 4.4.3). Particularly for LSL systems, CCT studies can require 
additional time and technical expertise (e.g., conducting pipe rig/loop 
studies), which in turn will likely require additional State oversight. 
The EPA estimated that a higher percentage of systems are estimated to 
exceed 0.010 mg/L than 0.015 mg/L nationally, but it is not a 
significant increase (see Exhibit 4.2, USEPA, 2024d). While this will 
increase burden on systems and States relative to retaining an action 
level of 0.015 mg/L, more benefits can be realized through more systems 
evaluating and installing CCT. Conversely, the number of systems 
expected to exceed 0.005 mg/L is almost double that of 0.010 mg/L and 
triple that of 0.015 mg/L. Systems are expected to exceed in each 
system size category, and the EPA expects the number of systems to 
exceed 0.005 mg/L would exacerbate existing technical challenges for 
both systems and States. Thus, lowering the action level beyond 0.010 
mg/L could affect the State's ability to provide meaningful input to 
individual systems and adequately oversee OCCT implementation statewide 
and consequently impact the technical feasibility for water systems. 
Based on updated data and over 30 years of LCR implementation 
experience, the EPA finds that while a lead action level of 0.010 mg/L 
will increase the burden on water systems relative to 0.015 mg/L, that 
burden is technically possible to the extent feasible to support the 
EPA's determination that the CCT treatment technique is feasible in 
accordance with SDWA (see section IV.F.1 of this preamble).
    As discussed in the LCRI proposal, the EPA also considered that the 
significant State resources required to oversee OCCT studies and 
implementation could affect the State's ability to oversee other 
proposed requirements in the LCRI (88 FR 84942, USEPA, 2023a). 
Specifically, the EPA is concerned that if the agency sets the action 
level at a level that may not be generally representative of OCCT 
(e.g., 0.005 mg/L), that too many water systems would be required to 
conduct a detailed demonstration to determine OCCT, which would impact 
their ability to reduce lead levels through service line replacement 
and other actions under the rule due to competing resources, and that 
this could result in less public health protection overall. For 
example, if a significant number of small water systems were 
simultaneously required by the State to conduct CCT studies and take 
other actions associated with an action level exceedance, it could 
strain State resources to simultaneously oversee requirements for full 
lead and galvanized service line replacements, which are the most 
significant source of lead in drinking water, where present. The EPA 
estimates that a higher percentage of systems with LSLs (both with and 
without CCT) nationally, will exceed each of the action levels 
evaluated as compared to those without LSLs, and may require additional 
technical assistance (Exhibit 4.1., USEPA, 2024d). This is especially 
compelling at 0.005 mg/L because the EPA has estimated that 0.005 mg/L 
is not generally representative of OCCT, particularly for systems with 
LSLs (see Exhibit 2). Therefore, water system resources would be better 
directed towards reducing lead levels through service line replacement, 
and therefore, achieving greater health protection, rather than 
attempting to optimize or re-optimize OCCT when above 0.005 mg/L 
because it may not lead to a reduction in lead levels for system who 
are optimized above 0.005 mg/L. Conversely, almost twice the percentage 
of the systems with LSLs and CCT in Exhibit 2 meet 0.010 mg/L compared 
to 0.005 mg/L, so there is a higher potential for lead reduction in 
systems optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT when above 0.010 mg/L. The EPA 
notes that regardless of the value of the lead action level, States 
will also have an increased level of administrative burden in the

[[Page 86513]]

final LCRI relative to the current rule due to requirements for water 
systems to conduct service line replacement along with other additional 
public education requirements (USEPA, 2024a, chapter 4, sections 4.4.4 
and 4.4.6). Additionally, while large systems are typically more 
technologically sophisticated and have access to more resources than 
small and medium systems, there will be large systems with LSLs that 
will need to conduct pipe rig/loop studies as a result of the rule. 
Commenters representing States and water systems have noted that few 
States and systems have experience with these types of complex studies, 
which likely will also require additional oversight (see section IV.F.1 
of this preamble for discussion of CCT study requirements).
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA discussed the national availability 
of technical experts as an additional factor to consider in setting the 
action level in terms of how the action level prompts systems to 
conduct detailed demonstrations of OCCT (88 FR 84942, USEPA, 2023a). 
The EPA is concerned that constraints on the availability of expertise 
would pose significant challenges if the action level were reduced to 
0.005 mg/L. The EPA notes that some States and water systems indicated 
that lack of technical expertise was one reason why the agency should 
not lower the action level to 0.005 mg/L. As discussed in section 
IV.F.1 of this preamble, small systems are unlikely to have in-house 
experts to design corrosion control optimization and may lack staff 
with relevant experience in installing and operating OCCT. The ability 
to hire outside experts is limited by national availability. The EPA 
received comments offering suggestions for actions the EPA can take to 
incentivize additional training of CCT experts. However, the commenters 
did not explain how this gap could be addressed by the LCRI rule 
compliance date. The EPA notes that knowledge of relevant chemistry 
alone is usually not sufficient to perform comprehensive CCT studies 
and operation. Experts typically rely on knowledge gained through 
practical on-the-job experience that cannot otherwise be replicated. 
The EPA anticipates that systems and States would encounter challenges 
acquiring this technical expertise, if too many systems are 
simultaneously conducting CCT evaluations, such as with an action level 
of 0.005 mg/L.
    The EPA notes that some States provided their own estimates of 
administrative burden based on action level exceedances in public 
comments in support of these considerations. One State noted that there 
are 640 water systems in their State subject to lead and copper 
sampling. They noted that there have been 117 action level exceedances 
since 2013 (18.3 percent of systems), but that if the action level were 
0.005 mg/L, almost half of their water systems would have been required 
to study and install CCT. They also noted that CCT requires higher 
certification levels for operators and additional on-going training. 
Another State indicated that a lower action level would require more 
systems to conduct detailed OCCT demonstrations and thereby increase 
the need for State interaction by two to five times depending on the 
final action level, thus requiring additional staff and increases to 
State operating budget for CCT requirements alone. Specifically, they 
stated that a decrease in the action level to 0.005 mg/L would lead to 
a six percent increase in their personnel and indirect cost budget that 
would require additional funding. As discussed in section IV.F.1 of 
this preamble, the action level construct is intended to address the 
technical challenges associated with CCT. The EPA has determined that 
an action level of 0.010 mg/L would support the treatment technique for 
CCT, in addition to other elements of this treatment technique, in 
meeting the feasibility standard at SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A). For the 
reasons discussed above, the EPA has determined that if the agency set 
the action level at 0.005 mg/L, the action level would not function as 
intended to address the described technical challenges in a way that 
makes the CCT treatment technique feasible. The EPA has considered 
these additional factors relating to technical feasibility and for the 
reasons described above is revising the action level to 0.010 mg/L and 
not 0.005 mg/L, and is not retaining the LCR action level of 0.015 mg/
L.
Removal of Lead Trigger Level
    The EPA received comments indicating almost universal support for 
removing the lead trigger level. Commenters generally agreed that the 
trigger level increased the rule complexity and some noted the 
confusion of explaining two separate lead levels to the public.
    For the final LCRI, the EPA is removing the lead trigger level. The 
EPA introduced the lead trigger level in the 2021 LCRR to take certain 
actions including optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT, replacing LSLs, and 
educating or notifying the public. The purpose of the trigger level was 
to prompt proactive actions including conducting CCT studies, re-
optimizing OCCT, and conducting goal-based LSLR to prepare for a more 
rapid response should they later exceed the lead action level (88 FR 
84939, USEPA, 2023a). The EPA agrees with commenters that the trigger 
level increased the complexity of the rule and that explaining the 
purpose and function of trigger level would likely be challenging for 
water systems and confusing to the public. The EPA also notes the 
redundancy of several of the actions in LCRI, including the new 
requirement for water systems to conduct mandatory lead and galvanized 
service line replacement regardless of lead levels, with actions that 
would have resulted if the agency kept the trigger level from the 2021 
LCRR.
Separate Action Level for Public Education
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested comment on whether the 
agency should use a different action level to trigger public education 
activities compared to CCT. Many commenters disagreed with the concept 
of establishing a separate action level for public education, with some 
noting that it would increase complexity of the rule. However, many 
commenters also emphasized that the action level is not a health-based 
level and that the MCLG is set at 0 mg/L, while citing the health 
benefits of public education at lower levels. One commenter supported 
the selection of 0.010 mg/L as an appropriate level to prompt CCT 
evaluation but supported selection of a lower level for water systems 
to be required to conduct public education activities for that reason.
    The EPA agrees that establishing a separate action level for public 
education would increase the complexity of the rule. In the final LCRI, 
the EPA is finalizing a single lead action level at 0.010 mg/L. The EPA 
agrees with commenters that the action level is not a health-based 
level but rather is set at a level that is generally representative of 
OCCT. The EPA noted in the LCR that while water system actions 
including CCT are expected to reduce lead drinking water levels, 
``there are situations where elevated lead levels will persist at 
consumers' taps during or even after these efforts'' (56 FR 26500, 
USEPA, 1991). For the LCRI, the EPA requires the use of the action 
level for some systemwide public education activities but has added new 
requirements that are intended to strengthen the public education 
requirements. These include clear statements that there is ``no safe 
level of lead'' in public education materials, and additional public 
education requirements that are not associated with the action level 
that are intended

[[Page 86514]]

to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water. Public education 
requirements that are not triggered by a lead action level exceedance 
include information about lead in the CCR, notification of lead, GRR, 
and unknown service lines, and notification of tap sample results. 
These communications include information on the health effects of lead 
and steps consumers can take to reduce exposure. See section IV.J.1 of 
this preamble for a discussion of the feasibility of the public 
education treatment technique and sections IV.J.4 and IV.O.1 of this 
preamble for a discussion of the final LCRI public education and CCR 
requirements, respectively.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    For the LCRI, the EPA is finalizing the lead action level of 0.010 
mg/L. The EPA is also finalizing the revision to remove the lead 
trigger level of 0.010 mg/L that was previously introduced in the 2021 
LCRR, such that there is a single level used to prompt water system 
actions in the final rule for LCRI. For discussion about the specific 
CCT, public education, and tap sampling requirements that water systems 
will be required to follow based on lead action levels, see sections 
IV.F.2, IV.F.3, IV.J, and IV.E of this preamble, respectively.

G. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    Water quality parameters (WQPs) are an important component of the 
treatment technique for CCT because they are monitored to gauge CCT 
implementation to ensure its continued effectiveness. WQPs can include 
pH, alkalinity, orthophosphate, and silicate. OWQPs are the values of 
the WQPs that are associated with optimized or re-optimized OCCT. 
Systems must monitor WQPs at taps and at entry points to the 
distribution system for pH and, when applicable, alkalinity, 
orthophosphate, silica, and any additional parameter set by the State.
    Under Sec.  141.87, the proposed LCRI would require all systems 
with OCCT serving 10,001 to 50,000 persons to monitor for WQPs 
regardless of the lead and copper levels, except those systems whose 
90th percentile lead level is at or below the PQL of 0.005 mg/L, in 
accordance with Sec.  141.81(b)(3). This proposed change would increase 
the number of water systems conducting WQP monitoring. Systems serving 
greater than 50,000 persons are already required to monitor for WQPs 
regardless of lead and copper levels, unless deemed optimized under 
Sec.  141.81(b)(3). By extending this requirement to all water systems 
with OCCT serving greater than 10,000 persons, any changes in WQPs 
could be evaluated more quickly to determine if re-optimizing OCCT is 
warranted; this could reduce the time needed for water systems serving 
between 10,001 and 50,000 persons to evaluate and optimize OCCT under 
the LCRI. The EPA proposed to maintain the authority for States to 
require any system, including a system serving 10,000 persons or fewer, 
to monitor WQPs more frequently and/or with more parameters beyond the 
minimum requirements of the rule.
    Also, the proposed LCRI clarified that States can designate 
additional WQPs to determine the effectiveness of CCT (i.e., in 
addition to pH or an orthophosphate residual). While this requirement 
was included in the LCR (and maintained in the LCRR) under Sec.  
141.82, the proposed LCRI revisions were intended to clarify the 
implementation of this already available option by including the 
designation of State-specified parameters in the list of required 
parameters under Sec.  141.87.
    The proposed LCRI did not change the 2021 LCRR requirement to add 
WQP monitoring sites to the sites that must be sampled by a system in 
each WQP monitoring period when those sites are sampled as a result of 
activities under DSSA in Sec.  141.82(j). The purpose of keeping these 
new sites in the monitoring pool, until the pool is at least twice the 
number of minimum monitoring sites required under Sec.  
141.87(b)(1)(i), is to ensure that sites with previous high lead levels 
are fully benefitting from installed CCT.
2. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
    The EPA received comments recommending the EPA require WQP 
monitoring for more systems, such as requiring all systems, regardless 
of CCT status, to conduct WQP monitoring. The EPA disagrees with 
requiring systems without OCCT installed to monitor for WQPs because 
the purpose of monitoring for WQPs is to ensure optimal operating 
parameters for CCT. Monitoring for WQPs in systems without OCCT would 
have little benefit since there would be no State-approved parameters 
that would represent the optimal range for CCT performance as developed 
through a prerequisite CCT study; therefore, there would be no baseline 
parameters for comparison. Another commenter requested that small 
systems be required to continue WQP monitoring once they have started, 
such as following a lead action level exceedance. The EPA recognizes 
that continuous WQP monitoring can be beneficial for some small systems 
with OCCT by offering more frequent feedback regarding their CCT 
implementation. Therefore, in the LCRI, the EPA has maintained the 
authority for States to require small systems with or without 
designated OWQPs to start or continue WQP monitoring beyond the minimum 
requirements of the rule (Sec.  141.87(b)(4)(iv) and (b)(3)(iii), 
respectively). However, the EPA disagrees with requiring small systems 
to continue to conduct WQP monitoring regardless of lead levels due to 
the limited resources of small systems. WQP monitoring and compliance 
lead and copper tap sampling are two methods for monitoring OCCT. To 
balance the trade-off between monitoring and burden, all small systems 
are required under the LCRI to continually monitor lead and copper 
through tap sampling (see section IV.E of this preamble). In 
comparison, only those small systems with CCT with the most concerns of 
high lead or copper levels, by exceeding a lead or copper action level, 
are required to monitor WQPs under LCRI (Sec.  141.87(b)(4)(ii)). 
Additionally, any system with individual sites exceeding the action 
level must add those sites to the ongoing list of locations monitored 
for WQP parameters (Sec.  141.87(b)(1)(i)). Under LCRI, small systems 
that are allowed to stop WQP monitoring and subsequently restart must 
sample at the list of locations that includes added sites, thus 
offering added public health protection to ensure that installed CCT is 
reaching all sites within the distribution system. Lastly, since not 
all small systems will need to install CCT following an ALE, such as 
those opting for small system flexibility, continued WQP monitoring 
would cause undue burden on those systems which, due to a lack of WQP 
baseline based on designated CCT, receive no benefit from WQP 
monitoring. The WQP monitoring requirements for small systems in the 
final LCRI allow small systems to prioritize limited resources for 
determining whether WQPs are within designated OWQP ranges in a way 
that is technically possible for these size systems in contrast to 
larger systems and ensure protection of public health by prioritizing 
small systems with the highest lead and copper concerns.
    The EPA received comments stating that calcium, conductivity, and 
temperature should be re-added to the list of required parameters for 
WQP monitoring for the reason that these parameters have the potential 
to affect lead release. The 2021 LCRR removed

[[Page 86515]]

calcium carbonate stabilization as an option for CCT and therefore, the 
requirement to monitor associated WQPs related to calcium hardness 
(i.e., calcium, conductivity, and temperature) were also eliminated. In 
the 2021 LCRR, the EPA agreed with commenters that said calcium 
carbonate stabilization has not been shown to be an effective corrosion 
control treatment strategy (USEPA, 2020e). The EPA continues to agree 
there is a lack of support in the available literature for the use of 
calcium carbonate stabilization in reducing tap lead levels. For LCRI, 
the EPA is incorporating the 2021 LCRR determination to remove calcium 
carbonate stabilization as an option for CCT and excluding calcium, 
conductivity, and temperature from WQP monitoring. As described in the 
preamble to the 2021 LCRR, systems that have State-designated OCCT 
based on calcium carbonate stabilization can continue to rely on the 
designated treatment, including monitoring of any State-designated 
parameters in addition to the minimum rule requirements (86 FR 4230, 
USEPA 2021a). However, as calcium carbonate stabilization is no longer 
an option for OCCT as finalized in the 2021 LCRR, systems that exceed 
the action level may not re-optimize using calcium carbonate 
stabilization. With the removal of the treatment option, calcium, 
conductivity, and temperature are not relevant for most systems and 
requiring monitoring of these parameters is unnecessary. The EPA also 
received comments to streamline and simplify the list of required 
parameters, further supporting the EPA's decision to not add previously 
removed parameters.
    The EPA received comments on the requirement at Sec.  
141.87(b)(1)(i) for systems to add WQP monitoring sites to the standard 
minimum number of sites required to be sampled during each WQP 
monitoring period when those sites were sampled for WQP parameters 
under the DSSA. These commenters cited concerns that this requirement 
could result in a continuously changing minimum sampling pool and 
increase overall rule complexity for systems. The EPA disagrees with 
removing this requirement because the relatively few number of sites 
that could be added as a result of monitoring under DSSA is technically 
possible for systems and a reasonably ensures that the public health 
protection associated with ensuring OCCT is fully implemented 
throughout the distribution system. The standard number of monitoring 
sites for WQPs ranges from one site for systems serving 500 or fewer 
persons to 25 sites for systems serving greater than 100,000 persons. 
The maximum possible number of required monitoring sites is 50, which 
the EPA finds to be technically possible for the largest systems. The 
additional number of added sites is capped at not more than twice the 
minimum number of sites per system size. Therefore, the EPA is 
retaining the 2021 LCRR requirement to require systems to conduct 
ongoing sampling at added sites to monitor OCCT implementation at sites 
in the distribution system with past elevated lead levels. The EPA 
disagrees that the minimum sites would be continuously changing or 
overly complex for systems since sites are only added as a result of 
DSSA, and changes to the monitoring pool require a State determination 
to switch out sites for newer ones that can better assess effectiveness 
and/or remove sites during sanitary survey evaluation of OCCT Sec.  
141.82(j)(1)(ii)(B).
    The EPA also received comments requesting that WQP monitoring 
generally play a larger role in the rule, such as being used to assess 
CCT in place of lead and copper tap sampling. The EPA disagrees that 
WQP monitoring should be used in lieu of lead and copper tap sampling 
because the agency continues to find that both lead and copper tap 
sampling and WQP monitoring must be used to evaluate CCT performance in 
accordance with the LCRI requirements for systems. Tap sampling and WQP 
monitoring provide systems and States with different data points that 
are critical to inform different aspects of CCT. WQP monitoring 
provides data to evaluate if OCCT is implemented with sufficient levels 
of corrosion control throughout the distribution system. Lead and 
copper tap sampling offers direct data about OCCT effectiveness; 
namely, the levels of the contaminants for which corrosion is being 
controlled. Thus, the EPA maintains that WQPs alone are not sufficient 
for evaluating OCCT performance for any system, and that lead and 
copper tap sampling continues to be a necessary component of the LCRI 
and NPDWRs for lead and copper to evaluate CCT.
    The EPA also received comment requesting systems be required to 
make WQP monitoring results publicly available to increase system 
transparency and public accountability. The EPA disagrees that making 
WQP monitoring results publicly available would result in meaningful 
benefits for public awareness and education because interpreting WQP 
results requires technical and system-specific knowledge of the CCT as 
designed. Communicating to the public-at-large how to interpret WQP 
monitoring data would require additional information and potential 
technical support. More relevant to consumers is information about 
whether the system has met their designated OWQP range; systems with 
more than nine OWQP excursions, that is, WQP readings outside the 
designated range, in a monitoring period must issue a Tier 2 public 
notification in accordance with Sec.  141.203 and must report the 
violation in their CCR. Thus, the EPA finds that the burden on systems 
to make WQP results publicly available in a meaningful way along with 
the necessary context for interpretation of the results would outweigh 
the potential benefits.
    Commenters requested that systems be required to collect additional 
information under WQP monitoring to better inform them about their CCT, 
including by monitoring for WQP parameters at taps more frequently, 
such as monitoring for WQPs during each tap sampling period or 
increasing WQP monitoring at taps to quarterly. Commenters also 
recommended additional monitoring requirements for WQP parameters in 
untreated source water (i.e., at the point of water intake). The EPA 
does not agree to changes to WQP monitoring at taps because the LCRI 
requires systems to sample at a regular frequency throughout the 
monitoring period for consistent and continuous monitoring of WQPs and 
to reflect seasonal variability of source water quality (Sec.  
141.87(a) through (c)). While CCT is designed to account for seasonal 
variability, sampling for WQPs at one point in time does not offer 
information about CCT implementation at another point in time. 
Unanticipated interactions between seasonal factors, source water 
quality, and CCT implementation can result in WQP excursions even when 
previous samples fall within OWQP ranges. The LCRI also continues to 
require the addition of monitoring sites when systems sample sites 
under Distribution System and Site Assessment, with a maximum number of 
sites twice the standard minimum required (Sec.  141.87(b)(1)(i)). 
These requirements ensure that system monitoring is prioritized by 
establishing sampling sites and a sampling frequency that targets 
information collection most beneficial to monitoring OCCT 
implementation. The EPA has also previously heard in public comments 
for the LCRR review that conducting distribution system sampling of 
WQPs within homes is difficult, particularly because certified samplers 
are required. The EPA does not agree that benefits from further 
increasing the WQP tap

[[Page 86516]]

sampling requirements will outweigh the additional burden of in-home 
sampling. Lastly, the EPA does not agree that mandatory monitoring for 
WQP parameters at the water intake is necessary to ensure proper 
implementation of OCCT because OCCT is designed to alter the 
composition of treated water. WQPs in untreated water are neither an 
indication of corrosivity in the finished water, nor an indicator of 
the effectiveness of OCCT implementation. Independently, system 
operators may choose to monitor water at the point of intake to assist 
implementation of OCCT, but the EPA does not agree that such monitoring 
should be required of all systems with OCCT. The EPA agrees that 
switching source water can raise issues with OCCT; therefore, the LCRI 
requires systems with an upcoming addition of new source water or long-
term change in treatment to notify States and to resume standard 
monitoring for lead and copper (Sec. Sec.  141.90(a)(4) and 
141.86(c)(2)(iii)(G), respectively). This allows States to modify 
designated CCT, as necessary.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The final LCRI requires all medium systems with OCCT to continually 
monitor WQPs, with an exception for medium systems whose 90th 
percentile lead level is at or below the PQL of 0.005 mg/L, in 
accordance with Sec.  141.81(b)(3). In the final rule, large and medium 
systems (systems serving greater than 10,000 persons) with OCCT are 
required to conduct WQP monitoring, and small systems serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons with OCCT must conduct WQP monitoring after exceeding the 
action level. The final rule maintains the 2021 LCRR provision that 
provides State authority to set additional WQPs beyond those specified 
in the rule, and to require any system with OCCT to conduct WQP 
monitoring more frequently and/or for more parameters than those 
required by the rule.
    The final rule also incorporates the 2021 LCRR requirements for 
systems with OCCT conducting WQP monitoring for DSSA under Sec.  
141.82(j) (formerly known as ``find-and-fix'') to add those sites to 
the WQP monitoring sampling pool. Systems are not required to add DSSA 
sites if the number of sites in the sampling pool is at least twice the 
standard minimum number of samples. See section IV.H of this preamble 
for further discussion on DSSA requirements.

H. Distribution System and Site Assessment

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    In the 2021 LCRR, the EPA introduced the ``find-and-fix'' provision 
for the first time in a lead and copper NPDWR to potentially identify 
the cause of and actions to address localized elevated lead levels in 
drinking water. More specifically, this provision requires water 
systems to collect follow-up tap samples at sites where lead levels 
exceed 0.015 mg/L under the LCRR tap sampling. The 2021 LCRR requires 
water systems to collect follow-up lead tap samples no more than 30 
days after they receive the results of the sample that exceeds 0.015 
mg/L. The water system must also sample at a new WQP site that is on 
the same size water main in the same pressure zone and located within a 
half mile of the location with the action level exceedance within five 
days of receiving the sample results. Small water systems without CCT 
have up to 14 days to collect the samples. Water systems must also 
attempt to determine the cause of the exceedance and propose an action 
or a ``fix'' to address the cause of the exceedance. Further, States 
have six months to approve any action recommended by a system or 
require the system take an alternative action.
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed to maintain the requirement for 
systems to collect follow-up tap samples at sites that exceed the lead 
action level, specified as 0.010 mg/L. The EPA heard concerns in the 
LCRR review and stakeholder engagements held to inform the agency's 
development of the proposed LCRI that the term ``find-and-fix'' is an 
inaccurate title for this section and should be changed because it 
implies the water system will or be able to implement the ``fix'' in 
all cases (USEPA, 2023i). For example, one stakeholder commented on how 
the cause of the lead level could be a premise plumbing issue that the 
water system may not be authorized to ``fix.'' Recognizing that the 
``fix'' to address the exceedance may be outside of the control of the 
water system, among other potential implementation challenges, the EPA 
proposed to rename this section, ``Distribution System and Site 
Assessment'', to more accurately reflect these requirements. Consistent 
with the EPA's proposed change to the lead action level for the LCRI, 
systems would be required to conduct the DSSA requirements for any 
sampling site that exceeds 0.010 mg/L.
    In addition, the EPA proposed to clarify the requirements under the 
2021 LCRR for assessing CCT under Step 1 at Sec.  141.82(j)(1). 
Specifically, the EPA proposed that systems would be required to 
identify a DSSA WQP sample location within a half-mile ``radius'' of 
each site with a test result above 0.010 mg/L. The 2021 LCRR required 
sample locations be within a half-mile of the location with an action 
level exceedance of 0.015 mg/L. The proposal added ``radius'' and 
clarified the lead action level of 0.010 mg/L.
    The proposed LCRI also maintained the requirement from the 2021 
LCRR that systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer without CCT can have 
up to 14 days from the date they receive sample results above the 
action level to take WQP samples in the distribution system as opposed 
to the other systems serving more than 10,000 persons that only have 5 
days (Sec.  141.82(j)(1)).
2. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
    The EPA received comments noting concern for the number of systems, 
especially small systems, that would be triggered into this requirement 
from individual tap samples exceeding 0.010 mg/L. Commenters requested 
that States be provided discretion to forego this requirement for small 
systems if the underlying cause of the action level is clear by 
evaluating monthly reporting. Other commenters noted the DSSA 
requirement should be triggered by a lower level of lead, such as the 
PQL. The EPA disagrees that States should be provided discretion to 
forego the DSSA requirements. Identifying sources of lead in drinking 
water is a critical component to mitigating lead and improving public 
health protection. Also, a system may not exceed the lead action level, 
but can still have 10 percent of tap samples above 0.010 mg/L and it is 
important to understand whether it is a localized problem or is due to 
water quality issues in the distribution system. To reduce the burden 
of the DSSA requirements the EPA is maintaining the 2021 LCRR provision 
that caps the number of distribution system WQP sites in response to 
DSSA requirements that must be added to twice the minimum number of 
required WQP sites. The final LCRI also removes requirements for WQP 
monitoring for systems without CCT. In addition, the EPA is maintaining 
the provision that systems in the process of optimizing or re-
optimizing do not need to submit treatment recommendations to the State 
as they are already undergoing treatment processes to reduce lead 
exposures in drinking water.

[[Page 86517]]

    The EPA received comments requesting that the DSSA WQP monitoring 
be scaled back from the requirements proposed in LCRI. Some commenters 
suggested States should be given discretion to require when systems 
take DSSA actions. The EPA disagrees with scaling back DSSA WQP 
monitoring actions beyond the proposed requirements or leaving the 
decision to the State because the EPA finds that all of the current 
requirements are necessary to evaluate elevated levels of lead. As 
described in the 2021 LCRR, the intent of the required WQP sample for 
water systems with CCT is to help determine if CCT is optimized, if 
additional WQP sites are needed, and/or if WQPs set by the State are 
being met (86 FR 4235; USEPA 2021a). However, the EPA notes the DSSA 
requirement includes provisions that address some concerns raised by 
commenters. The minimum number of required sites ranges from 1 to 25 
sites, therefore doubling leads to a range of 2 to 50 sites as the 
maximum. This is less than the required number of monitoring sites for 
total coliform in the distribution system; therefore, this requirement 
is not requiring water systems to sample at a number of sites that they 
have not already shown to be capable of handling. The proposed and 
final rule language provides States with discretion to determine 
whether these additional newer sites can better assess the 
effectiveness of CCT once the system has reached the cap (Sec.  
141.82(j)(1)(ii)(B)).
    Other commenters requested that the rule clarify whether only 
systems required to meet OWQPs to demonstrate OCCT would need to 
potentially add new sites under DSSA requirements in Sec.  
141.82(j)(1)(ii)(B). The addition of WQP sites under Sec.  
141.82(j)(1)(ii)(B) only applies to systems required to meet OWQPs to 
demonstrate OCCT. Therefore, the EPA revised the final DSSA rule 
requirements to include a statement that systems without CCT do not 
have to collect WQP data. These systems would not typically have OCCT 
or any pH, alkalinity adjustment, or inhibitor addition processes. 
Since they would not be adjusting these parameters in response to a 
sample over 0.010 mg/L, the EPA expects WQP monitoring would be 
unlikely to catch any short-term variations of these parameters in the 
natural water quality, especially up to 14 days after the system 
receives the tap sampling results. In addition, these systems would not 
have any State-designated optimized WQPs to compare against new WQP 
sampling results.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The EPA is finalizing the revision to rename this section, 
``Distribution System and Site Assessment'' to more accurately reflect 
these requirements. The EPA is finalizing the clarification under Step 
1 for assessing CCT that requires water systems to take a DSSA WQP 
sample at a location within a half-mile ``radius'' of each site with a 
lead result above 0.010 mg/L. In addition, the EPA revised the final 
LCRI to exclude small systems without CCT from conducting the WQP 
monitoring under Step 1 of the DSSA process. These systems are still 
required to conduct the other steps of the DSSA process.

I. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance for Small 
Community Water Systems and Non-Transient Non-Community Water Systems

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Requirements
    In the 2021 LCRR, the EPA included alternative compliance options 
for systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons and all non-transient non-
community water systems (NTNCWS) where a State or Tribe that has 
primacy elects to adopt the alternative compliance provision. Systems 
that exceed the lead trigger level must choose among four compliance 
options: replace all lead service lines within 15 years, install and 
maintain optimal CCT, install and maintain point-of-use treatment 
devices at each household or building, or replace all lead-bearing 
plumbing materials on a schedule specified by the State but not to 
exceed one year. States seeking primacy are not required to adopt the 
compliance alternative provision in which case systems must comply with 
the requirements for OCCT and LSLR in the 2021 LCRR. While the EPA 
previously determined that OCCT is an affordable technology for water 
systems of all sizes (see section IV.F.1.a of this preamble) (USEPA, 
1998b), small systems may still have technical difficulties 
implementing this technology. The agency recognizes that it is often 
difficult for smaller systems to find operators that have the advanced 
skills to implement and maintain OCCT. Additionally, smaller systems 
may face challenges retaining those operators once they have acquired 
advanced skills. Because maintaining OCCT is an ongoing process and 
finding and retaining skilled operators can be especially challenging 
for very small systems (systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons), point-
of-use filtration and plumbing replacement options may be better 
options for some systems. Operator turnover or poor oversight of OCCT 
can reduce the effectiveness of the system's ability to prevent lead 
corrosion, even resulting in increases of lead in drinking water 
(USEPA, 2016b). Because of the challenges that small systems face in 
implementing OCCT, point-of-use devices and plumbing replacements can 
be effective alternative compliance technologies for small systems, and 
therefore, the rule allows systems the option to seek State approval to 
use one of them as an alternative to OCCT.
    The EPA proposed in the LCRI to maintain a compliance flexibility 
provision in Sec.  141.93 with some modifications. The EPA proposed to 
lower the eligibility threshold for CWSs from those serving 10,000 or 
fewer persons to 3,300 or fewer persons. Due to the proposed LCRI 
requirement to replace all LSLs irrespective of lead levels, the EPA 
also proposed to remove LSLR as an option for small system compliance 
flexibility. The proposed LCRI compliance alternatives to OCCT include 
installing and maintaining point-of-use devices or replacement of all 
lead-bearing plumbing. If a system chooses, and a State approves the 
point-of-use device compliance option, the system would be required to 
provide, install, and maintain the device(s) in each household and each 
building served by the water system, including monitoring one third of 
the point-of-use devices each year, with all devices being monitored 
within a three-year cycle. In addition, the system must provide public 
education regarding how to use the device. If the system has control 
over all plumbing in its buildings, and is not served by lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or unknown service lines it may seek 
State approval to implement the replacement of lead-bearing plumbing 
compliance option. In that case, the water system would be required to 
replace all plumbing that does not meet the definition as ``lead free'' 
on a schedule established by the State not to exceed one year.
    In the LCRI, the EPA proposed to make these alternatives available 
to CWSs serving 3,300 persons or fewer persons and all NTNCWSs that 
have had an action level exceedance. This is because the EPA has 
determined that the point-of-use device and replacement of lead-bearing 
plumbing options are impractical for systems serving 3,301 to 10,000 
consumers (88 FR 84878). If systems that request the use of an 
alternative have OCCT, they would still be required to operate and 
maintain it until the State determines, in writing, that it is no 
longer necessary.

[[Page 86518]]

    The EPA also proposed to consolidate the small system flexibility 
provisions in Sec.  141.93 and remove cross-references to Sec.  141.93 
in other rule sections (except for those in Sec.  141.90). This 
approach comports with the EPA's goal in the 2021 LCRR review notice of 
simplifying the rule and streamlining rule requirements. It also 
recognizes that States seeking primacy for the LCRI are not required to 
adopt the small system compliance flexibility provision. It will be 
helpful for the small system flexibility provision in the Federal rule 
to be separate and therefore severable from the remainder of the LCRI 
because it would allow those States to incorporate the LCRI by 
reference without the need for extensive revisions to the remainder of 
the LCRI.
2. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters agreed with maintaining small system flexibility 
because of the financial, administrative, and economic challenges small 
systems may face and how the LCRI addresses this by giving small 
systems the option to choose either point-of-use device installation or 
replacement of lead-bearing plumbing instead of re-optimizing OCCT. One 
comment expressed concern that small system flexibility provisions 
would be more burdensome as small systems would need more expertise to 
implement the alternative compliance options. Another comment stated 
that alternative compliance options are less stringent and that small 
systems should still implement CCT and LSLR.
    The EPA agrees with commenters supporting the inclusion of a small 
system flexibility and disagrees that it would be a burden for small 
systems to implement. Small CWSs and NTNCWSs tend to have more limited 
technical capacity to implement complex treatment technique rules such 
as the LCR (USEPA, 2011b). For instance, great expertise is needed for 
systems to identify the OCCT and WQP monitoring to assure that lead and 
copper levels are reduced to the extent feasible. The determination of 
the OCCT is specific to each water system because it is based on the 
specific chemistry of the system's source water and must be designed 
and implemented to take into account treatments used to comply with 
other applicable drinking water standards (56 FR 26487, USEPA, 1991). 
System operators that do not already have it may be required to obtain 
advanced certification to properly operate and maintain OCCT.
    Many small CWSs face challenges in reliably providing safe drinking 
water to their customers and consistently meeting the requirements of 
SDWA and NPDWRs (USEPA, 2011b). Long-term compliance challenges affect 
public health protection. Therefore, small system flexibility provides 
small systems alternatives to CCT that may be more easily implementable 
while still being effective in minimizing lead in water.
    The EPA disagrees that the alternative compliance options would not 
be as protective as OCCT. While the EPA has determined that CCT is a 
feasible treatment technique for all system sizes, for systems serving 
3,300 or fewer persons, the EPA determined point-of-use filtration and 
replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing can be as effective as CCT in 
minimizing exposure to lead in water for small systems (88 FR 84945, 
USEPA 2023a; SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A)).
    Commenters provided feedback on the EPA's proposed eligibility 
threshold for the small system flexibility alternatives. Some 
commenters were in favor of the proposed threshold of 3,300. Other 
commenters noted 3,300 was too high of a threshold for systems to 
effectively implement the compliance alternatives. Some of these 
commenters recommended a threshold closer to 500 persons. Other 
commenters prefer a threshold of 10,000 as in the 2021 LCRR. One stated 
justification for raising the threshold to 10,000 was that it 
maintained the flexibility for systems that could implement the 
alternatives and that systems would not implement the alternatives if 
not feasible for them. Commenters also stated the EPA should not set a 
threshold for CWSs as the agency did not set a size threshold for 
NTNCWSs.
    The EPA agrees with commenters that support a small system 
threshold of 3,300 and agrees with commenters stating it is not likely 
practical or effective for systems serving more than 3,300 persons to 
implement the compliance options remaining after the removal of LSLR. 
In addition, the point-of-use provision and the replacement of all 
lead-bearing plumbing compliance alternatives are not easily 
implementable by water systems serving over 3,300 persons. In the LCRI 
proposal, the EPA described an example scenario in which a system that 
serves 3,301 consumers would have to provide and maintain approximately 
1,000 point-of-use devices (88 FR 84878, USEPA, 2023a). Every year, at 
least 300 point-of-use devices would have to be monitored by the water 
system, which would require a significant coordination effort and over 
300 household visits by the water system. The burden required to 
undertake this compliance alternative and implement it correctly would 
be difficult for a water system serving more than 3,300 persons to 
carry out given financial, administrative, and technical limitations. 
To implement the replacement of lead-bearing plumbing, the system would 
have to own or have access to replace all premise plumbing in the 
residences and buildings they serve, which the EPA expects would be 
highly unlikely for water systems serving over 3,300 persons. The final 
small system compliance options are impractical for systems serving 
more than 3,300 persons and will not likely be effectively implemented 
as an alternative to OCCT as system size increases.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters advocating for a lower 
eligibility threshold in the LCRI, however, nothing in the LCRI 
precludes States from using a lower eligibility threshold. The EPA 
determined the small system alternatives could be effectively 
implemented by systems serving up to (and including) 3,300 consumers. 
Nevertheless, this may not be the case for some small systems, which is 
also why the State must approve any small system alternative. For 
instance, point-of-use devices have been recognized by the EPA as 
effective and affordable variance technologies for water systems 
serving up to 3,300 consumers (USEPA, 1998b). These treatment 
techniques are as effective at lead risk reduction for this category of 
systems as OCCT. For replacement of lead-bearing plumbing, for many 
small systems serving 3,300 persons or under, it is more likely they 
may control or have access to all the water infrastructure to make any 
necessary replacements compared to systems serving more than 3,300 
persons. In contrast, systems serving more than 3,300 persons are less 
likely to face the same challenges with maintaining CCT than smaller 
systems, but they would face more challenges in implementing a system-
wide point-of-use or plumbing replacement option than systems serving 
3,300 or fewer persons that meets the requirements associated with 
those options. Given those implementation challenges, for systems 
serving more than 3,300 persons, unlike smaller-sized systems, these 
options are unlikely to be as effective as OCCT. The EPA also disagrees 
that CWSs should not have a threshold since NTNCWSs do not have a 
threshold. NTNCWSs are much more likely to control their entire system 
and the buildings they serve; therefore it is more likely that they can 
effectively implement the small system flexibilities

[[Page 86519]]

when serving populations greater than 3,300 persons.
    Some commenters expressed concern about the possibility of point-
of-use filters underperforming, potentially due to the unique water 
chemistry of each drinking water system. Other comments expressed 
skepticism that a filter program could be an adequate alternative to 
OCCT. The EPA disagrees with commenters expressing concern that the 
installation of point-of-use devices is not an effective alternative to 
OCCT at systems serving 3,300 persons or less. As explained above, 
because of the challenges that small systems face in implementing OCCT, 
point-of-use devices can be an effective alternative compliance 
technology for small systems. While the EPA recognizes that drinking 
water chemistry does vary by system, the final LCRI has device 
installation and maintenance requirements that water systems must 
follow to ensure that point-of-use devices are consistently working 
properly. For instance, the final LCRI requires that filters be 
independently certified by a third party to meet the ANSI standard 
applicable to the specific type of point-of-use unit to reduce lead in 
drinking water. This is to ensure that filters are of an adequate 
quality prior to installation. The LCRI also requires that the devices 
must be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's 
recommendations to ensure the filter continues to be effective. This 
can include ensuring filter cartridges are changed as appropriate and 
resolving any operational issues. The devices must also include 
mechanical warnings to inform the user if the device is having 
operational problems. The final rule also includes regular testing 
requirements to ensure the filters' continued efficacy. Specifically, 
water systems must monitor one-third of all point-of-use devices every 
year, such that every three years all installed devices will have 
undergone monitoring (Sec.  141.93(c)(1)(iv)). The samples must be 
taken after water passes through the POU device to assess the device's 
performance. If any sample does exceed 0.010 mg/L, the water system 
must notify the persons served by the POU device and/or building 
management no later than one business day of receiving the tap sample 
results. The system must then document and complete corrective action 
within 30 days after the detected exceedance to ensure that filters are 
back to adequately performing. In addition, the LCRI requires systems 
that implement the point-of-use device option to provide instructions 
upon delivery of the device to help ensure consumers use the devices 
properly.
    Commenters noted the challenge of notifying persons served by the 
POU device and/or building management no later than 24 hours after the 
results are received by the water system if the samples exceed the lead 
action level, as proposed in the LCRI for systems utilizing the point-
of-use compliance option in Sec.  141.93(c)(1)(iv). The EPA agrees that 
there are situations when the point-of-use monitoring results may be 
challenging to provide within 24 hours, such as if results are received 
over a weekend. Therefore, the EPA is revising the final LCRI to 
require water systems conducting point-of-use monitoring under Sec.  
141.93(c)(1)(iv) to provide notification to consumers within one 
business day of receiving a sample that exceeds 0.010 mg/L instead of 
24 hours as proposed. The EPA also notes the point-of-use devices are 
required to include mechanical warnings to ensure consumers are 
notified of operational problems under Sec.  141.93(c)(1)(iii). 
Therefore, consumers would know if their point-of-use device is not 
performing properly immediately, not just based on a sample result, and 
can contact the water system and take other appropriate steps to 
prevent exposure while the issue is addressed.
    Commenters highlighted that some NTNCWS serve industrial facilities 
that may use potable water for non-consumptive uses (i.e., cooling 
water). In these cases, commenters suggested that premise plumbing 
replacement that transports water not consumed by humans be exempt from 
replacement because the water would not be consumed by humans and 
therefore, allegedly, no humans would be exposed to lead from drinking 
water. The EPA recognizes that there may be a diverse range of water 
uses across NTNCWS, including for non-potable uses. The EPA provides 
two alternative compliance options: point-of-use filters or the 
replacement of lead-bearing plumbing. In this case, the NTNCWS could 
choose the option to install point-of-use filters at every tap that is 
used for cooking and/or drinking in non-residential buildings. A 
commenter suggested that NTNCWS should be exempt from LSLR if it 
installs point-of-use devices. The EPA disagrees with exempting NTNCWSs 
from LSLR. As noted in the LSLR section (section IV.B), LSLs, when 
present, are the most significant source of lead in drinking water, and 
it is essential that they be replaced as quickly as feasible. LSLR 
removes the source of lead exposure whereas point-of-use devices reduce 
exposures to lead.
    The EPA also received comments supporting strengthened public 
education requirements to ensure people use point-of-use devices 
appropriately. The EPA agrees with commenters that support requiring 
public education to ensure proper use of point-of-use devices. In 
addition to requiring public education along with point-of-use devices 
that informs users how to properly use a point-of-use device, the EPA 
is adding a new requirement in Sec.  141.93(c)(1)(v)(A) for the final 
LCRI that public education materials must also meet requirements of 
Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) that includes information on health 
effects of lead, sources of lead, and steps the consumer can take to 
reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The EPA is finalizing revisions in the LCRI to lower the 
eligibility threshold to CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer persons and all 
NTNCWSs, and removing LSLR as a compliance option. The EPA is adding a 
revision to Sec.  141.93(c)(1)(iv) in the final LCRI for the water 
system to notify consumers, customers, and/or building management when 
a point-of-use sample exceeds 0.010 mg/L within one business day 
(rather than 24 hours). The final rule also finalizes the consolidation 
of the small system flexibility provisions in Sec.  141.93 and removes 
cross-references to Sec.  141.93 in other rule sections. In addition to 
requiring public education along with point-of-use devices that informs 
users how to properly use a point-of-use device, the EPA is adding a 
new requirement in Sec.  141.93(c)(1)(v) for the final LCRI that public 
education materials must also meet requirements of Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv).

J. Public Education

1. Rationale and Feasibility of Public Education
    Public education is one of the four components of the treatment 
technique rule the EPA promulgated in 1991, in addition to LSLR, CCT, 
and source water treatment (56 FR 26500, USEPA, 1991). As described in 
section III.D of this preamble, in establishing treatment technique 
requirements, the Administrator is required to identify those treatment 
techniques ``which, in the Administrator's judgment, would prevent 
known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the 
extent feasible.'' 42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(7)(A). ``Feasible'' is defined 
in section 1412(b)(4)(D) of SDWA as ``feasible with the use of the best 
technology, treatment techniques and

[[Page 86520]]

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).'' See 
section III.D.3 of this preamble for discussion of how the EPA 
considers feasibility.
    Public education is effective for reducing lead exposure in 
drinking water. In the 1991 LCR, the agency explained that while 
actions such as CCT and LSLR will address a ``large portion of the lead 
problem in drinking water,'' there are ``situations where elevated lead 
levels will persist at consumers' taps during or even after these 
efforts. In these cases, it will be important for consumers to take 
actions in their homes (such as flushing tap water or replacing 
fixtures) to reduce their exposures to lead'' (56 FR 26500, USEPA, 
1991). Public education was not intended to substitute for the other 
treatment techniques of the LCR, but rather to supplement and support 
them. Public education, particularly when combined with other actions 
and policies to reduce public health hazards, is an effective way to 
improve public health by influencing people's knowledge, beliefs, and 
behaviors. It may also promote service line replacement by encouraging 
property owners, including landlords of multi-family residences, to 
allow access for replacements. In developing the 1991 LCR, the EPA 
conducted pilot studies to evaluate the effectiveness of public 
education in reducing consumer exposure to lead in drinking water (56 
FR 26500, USEPA, 1991). The agency found that ``well-designed and 
effectively implemented programs can change the knowledge and/or 
behavior of audiences and thereby reduce individual exposures'' (56 FR 
26501, USEPA, 1991). The EPA concluded that public education is an 
``effective method for reducing exposure to lead in drinking water by 
raising consumers' awareness of the problem and, consequently, 
modifying behavior that reduces their exposure'' (56 FR 26501, USEPA, 
1991). By reducing exposure, public education thereby reduces the risk 
of experiencing adverse health effects. The literature continues to 
support the effectiveness of public education programs for risk 
reduction for a variety of contaminants (Harding and Anadu, 2000; 
Jordan et al., 2003; Greene et al., 2015; Brown et al., 2017; Lilje and 
Mosler, 2018; Neri et al., 2018).
    It is feasible for PWSs to conduct public education. Since 1991, 
water systems have demonstrated that it is technically possible to 
conduct various lead public education activities, including both 
systemwide activities following an ALE (public education, consumer-
requested sampling programs) and focused outreach to particular groups 
(e.g., individual customers at sites sampled for lead, organizations 
that serve pregnant people, infants, and young children) as required by 
the original rule and subsequent revisions. The final LCRI requirements 
both rely on and build upon similar types of actions in the LCR, 
including notifying and conducting consumer-requested sampling to 
subsets of consumers (e.g., people served by known or potential LSLs). 
Therefore, the EPA does not anticipate water systems will experience 
new technical challenges in conducting the LCRI public education 
requirements. Additionally, the EPA found in the 1991 LCR that public 
education is affordable for large systems (56 FR 26501, USEPA, 1991). 
The total national annualized costs for the LCRI public education 
requirements are estimated to range from $234.3 to $244.5 million in 
2022 dollars, discounted at two percent (see the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), chapter 4, section 4.3.6).
    Public education, whether conducted after a lead action level 
exceedance or independent of a water system's lead levels, also 
prevents known or anticipated adverse health effects. The 1991 LCR 
required water systems to conduct public education after an ALE as ``a 
supplemental program either while the PWS is working to reduce lead 
levels through corrosion control, source water treatment, or LSLR, or 
after such actions fail to meet the lead action level'' (56 FR 26500, 
USEPA, 1991). In the LCRI, the EPA is retaining public education 
requirements following a lead action level exceedance. As discussed in 
the LCRI proposal, a systemwide lead action level exceedance triggers 
water systems to take action to reduce lead levels, such as installing 
or re-optimizing OCCT. While the tap sampling protocol was designed to 
assess CCT efficacy and not typical exposure (see section IV.E of this 
preamble), lead levels in individual tap samples could potentially 
represent water being consumed by individuals, given the potential for 
consumption of water that has been stagnant and in contact with leaded 
materials, especially in the mornings and upon returning home from work 
or school when the water has not been used for some time. Although the 
action level is not health-based (there is no safe level of lead; see 
section IV.F of this preamble) and the 90th percentile is not a good 
metric for determining individual health risks associated with lead 
exposure, an ALE indicates higher lead levels systemwide and potential 
corrosion issues, and therefore, public education can help consumers 
take steps to reduce their exposure to potentially higher lead levels 
at their tap. In addition, because actions such as OCCT and LSLR may 
take years to implement and systems may repeatedly exceed the lead 
action level during that time, the EPA is introducing additional 
requirements for water systems with recurring lead action level 
exceedances to further enhance public education on how consumers can 
reduce their exposure (see section IV.K of this preamble for 
discussion).
    The EPA is also strengthening public education requirements 
unassociated with specific lead levels in the LCRI. On the one hand, 
the EPA understands that requiring additional systemwide public 
education in response to a level lower than the action level may reduce 
its efficacy. For example, in the 2000 Public Notification (PN) Rule, 
the EPA discussed limiting the number of instances of violations or 
situations that require Tier 1 PN to increase the effectiveness of 
those notices thereby leading to greater health protection (65 FR 
25995, USEPA, 2000b). Similarly, the EPA noted that the use of urgent 
language in lower tiered notices could hinder the effectiveness of the 
more immediate notices (65 FR 25995, 26001, USEPA, 2000b). As 
introduced under the 2021 LCRR, a lead action level exceedance also 
requires Tier 1 public notification within 24 hours. The requirements 
in the LCRI are intended to ensure the effectiveness and impact of the 
public education requirements without overwhelming consumers with 
information.
    On the other hand, the EPA recognizes that public education 
irrespective of the lead action level prevents known or anticipated 
adverse health effects. Drinking water can contain lead, sometimes at 
very high levels, and may cause adverse health effects whether or not 
there is a systemwide action level exceedance. Exposure to lead in 
drinking water can vary between individual homes, and sampling 
conducted to evaluate CCT performance may not reflect risks at every 
site. Therefore, public education only associated with action level 
exceedances is not sufficient. Consumers can take actions to reduce 
their individual exposure to lead in drinking water, especially at 
sites with significant sources of lead (e.g., LSLs). Furthermore, 
public education directed at consumers with known or potential

[[Page 86521]]

LSLs supports the LSLR requirements by increasing consumer awareness 
and engagement. The EPA requires water systems to conduct public 
education independent of lead levels in a variety of contexts (e.g., 
individual notices of tap sample results, notifications to people 
served by known or potential LSLs, lead information in the CCR, and 
public education and sampling in schools and child care facilities) 
because public education not associated with the action level can 
produce benefits by prompting consumers to take actions that reduce 
their exposure.
    Therefore, the EPA is retaining systemwide public education 
requirements based on the lead action level and strengthening public 
education requirements unassociated with specific lead levels in the 
LCRI. These public education requirements are feasible and prevent 
known or anticipated adverse health effects to the extent feasible.
2. Proposed LCRI Revisions
    The EPA proposed in the LCRI to retain the overall framework of the 
public education provisions in the 2021 LCRR with some revisions. The 
public education requirements under the 2021 LCRR include providing 
public education with consumers' individual lead tap sampling results; 
notification and public education for consumers served by a lead, GRR, 
or lead status unknown service line; public education to persons 
affected by a disturbance to a lead, GRR, or lead status unknown 
service line; and public education about the system's goal-based LSLR 
program when a system exceeds the lead trigger level. The 2021 LCRR 
also requires water systems to conduct public outreach activities if 
they exceed the trigger level and fail to meet their LSLR goal rate. 
Systems must also conduct several public education actions if they 
exceed the lead action level, including delivering public education 
materials to customers, public health agencies, and organizations that 
serve pregnant people and children, as well as other public education 
activities. In addition, all CWSs must conduct annual outreach to local 
and State health agencies about ``find-and-fix'' (renamed as 
Distribution System and Site Assessment in the LCRI). Small CWSs and 
NTNCWSs that select point-of-use devices as their compliance option in 
response to a lead action level exceedance must provide public 
education materials to inform users how to properly use point-of-use 
devices to maximize the units' effectiveness in reducing lead levels in 
drinking water. These public education provisions are required under 
Sec.  141.85 of the 2021 LCRR. There are also public education related 
requirements in other parts of the 2021 LCRR, which are described 
further in other sections of this preamble. For example, Sec.  141.92 
requires lead sampling and public education in schools and child care 
facilities (see section IV.L of this preamble). In addition, Sec.  
141.84(d) and (e) of the 2021 LCRR include requirements for water 
systems to provide public education to consumers during partial and 
full LSLR. There are also requirements for a CCR, which must include 
information about lead and copper in drinking water under the CCR Rule 
(see section IV.O.1 of this preamble), and public notification for lead 
action level exceedances and violations to the LCR under the PN Rule 
(see section IV.O.2 of this preamble).
    For the LCRI, the EPA proposed to retain the overall framework of 
the public education provisions in the 2021 LCRR with revisions to (1) 
increase the likelihood that the public education activities are 
effective in preventing adverse effects of lead on the health of 
persons to the extent feasible, and (2) conform to proposed changes to 
other aspects of the rule such as the removal of the lead trigger 
level. The EPA also proposed new public education requirements for 
copper. These proposed changes are described below.
a. Service Line Related Outreach
i. Required Public Education To Encourage Participation in Full Service 
Line Replacement
    Because there is no trigger level in the LCRI, the EPA proposed to 
remove the 2021 LCRR's public education requirements related to service 
lines that apply as a result of a trigger level exceedance (Sec.  
141.85(g) and (h) of the 2021 LCRR).
    The EPA proposed in the LCRI to require outreach activities to 
encourage customer participation in LSLR for water systems that fail to 
meet the proposed LCRI's mandatory replacement rate (Sec.  141.85(h)). 
These water systems would be required to conduct outreach at least once 
in the year following the failure to meet the mandatory service line 
replacement rate and annually thereafter until the water system meets 
the replacement rate or until there are no lead, GRR, or unknown 
service lines remaining in the inventory, whichever occurs first. (See 
section V.H.2 of the proposed LCRI preamble (88 FR 84947, USEPA, 2023a) 
for a description of the proposed activities.)
    Under the proposed LCRI, water systems with lead, GRR, or unknown 
service lines would also be required to provide information about the 
service line replacement program to consumers through other public 
education including materials provided after a lead action level 
exceedance and the notification of service line material; CWSs would 
also provide this information in the CCR (see section IV.O.1 of this 
preamble for information about CCR requirements).
    Findings from a study on voluntary LSLR grant programs in Trenton, 
NJ suggest that programs are more effective at increasing customer 
participation in LSLR when they use extensive public outreach and 
education (e.g., community meetings, door-to-door visits, mailings, and 
social media) (Klemick et al., 2024). As described in the proposed LCRI 
preamble, Chelsea, MA and Detroit, MI provide additional examples 
demonstrating how effective public education and community engagement 
can be to support service line replacement efforts (LSLR Collaborative, 
n.d.d; City of Detroit, 2023). The EPA's proposed requirement for 
additional outreach for systems that fail to meet the mandatory service 
line replacement rate similarly seeks to help water systems to engage 
their communities and raise awareness about risk from lead and GRR 
service lines and their replacement program to encourage greater 
participation in the service line replacement program. As described in 
the proposed LCRI preamble, many of the activities the EPA proposed in 
the LCRI are consistent with recommendations from AWWA and the LSLR 
Collaborative for outreach to encourage customer participation in LSLR 
(AWWA, 2022; LSLR Collaborative, n.d.e). Some of these activities are 
also responsive to feedback heard during the National Drinking Water 
Advisory Council (NDWAC) consultation for the proposed LCRI, in which 
NDWAC members described the importance of engaging with community 
members and community groups to provide public education (NDWAC, 2022, 
see section on ``Consultation on Proposed National Primary Drinking 
Water Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule Improvements'').
ii. Notification of Service Line Material
    Under the LCRI, the EPA proposed revisions to the requirements for 
notification of a lead, GRR, or unknown service line (Sec.  141.85(e)). 
Specifically, the EPA proposed requiring the same notification content 
requirements for LSLs and GRR service lines since both increase the 
risk of exposure to lead. In the 2021 LCRR, only notices to households 
with LSLs are required to

[[Page 86522]]

include information about programs that provide financing solutions to 
assist property owners with replacement of their portion of the service 
line, and a statement that the water system is required to replace its 
portion of the service line when the property owner notifies the system 
that they are replacing their portion of it. The EPA proposed in the 
LCRI to require water systems to include this information in notices 
for households with either lead or GRR service lines. In addition, the 
EPA proposed to require water systems to include information in all 
notices (households with lead, GRR, and unknown service lines) on how 
to obtain a copy of the service line replacement plan, or view the plan 
on the internet if the system is required to make the plan available 
online, neither of which are required under the 2021 LCRR. The EPA 
proposed to require all notices to include steps consumers can take to 
reduce exposure to lead in drinking water that meet the requirements of 
Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(iv), which contains proposed content updates, 
including information about using a filter certified to reduce lead. 
The EPA also proposed that the notices for persons served by a lead or 
GRR service line include instructions for consumers to notify the water 
system if they think the material categorization is incorrect (e.g., if 
the service line is categorized as lead in the inventory but is 
actually non-lead). The EPA proposed that water systems follow up with 
consumers who notify the water system that they think the material is 
incorrect, verify the correct service line material, and update the 
inventory (see section IV.D of this preamble). In addition, to help 
ensure that consumers are aware of the EPA's proposed requirement in 
Sec.  141.85(c) that water systems must offer to sample the tap of any 
consumer served by a lead, GRR, or unknown service lines who requests 
it (see section IV.J.2.c.i of this preamble), the EPA proposed that the 
notice of service line material include a statement about this 
requirement.
iii. Notification of a Service Line Disturbance
    The EPA proposed revising the requirement for notification of a 
disturbance to a lead, GRR, or unknown service line (Sec.  141.85(g) of 
the proposed LCRI) to also include disturbances from actions such as 
physical actions or vibrations that could result in pipe scale 
dislodging and associated release of particulate lead. This is 
consistent with the type of disturbances that could be caused due to 
inventorying efforts, such as potholing, and conforms with the 
recommendations in the LCRR inventory guidance (USEPA, 2022c). The EPA 
also proposed revisions to clarify that reconnecting a service line to 
the water main is an example of an action that could cause a 
disturbance requiring notification and requested comment on whether to 
require distribution of filters for this type of disturbance. The EPA 
also proposed requiring the notification of a disturbance to be 
provided to both the customer and the persons at the service 
connection.
b. Individual Notification of Tap Sampling Results
i. Lead
    The EPA proposed requiring consumer notification of an individual's 
lead tap sampling results within three calendar days of the water 
system receiving the results, regardless of whether the results exceed 
the lead action level (Sec.  141.85(d)). In contrast, the 2021 LCRR 
requires notification within three calendar days only for results that 
exceed 0.015 mg/L (the 2021 LCRR lead action level), while water 
systems have 30 days to notify consumers of results at or below 0.015 
mg/L. The EPA proposed this change in response to stakeholder concerns 
about the lead action level being incorrectly interpreted as a health-
based level. Because there is no safe level of lead in drinking water, 
setting delivery time frames based on how an individual sample compares 
to the lead action level is likely to contribute to this 
misinterpretation. The EPA's proposed delivery within three calendar 
days would allow all consumers whose taps were sampled for lead to be 
quickly notified of their results and informed of steps they can take 
to reduce exposure. Water systems would be required to deliver the 
notice either electronically (e.g., email or text message), by phone, 
hand delivery, by mail (postmarked within three days of the system 
learning of the results), or by another method approved by the State. 
Water systems that choose to deliver the notice by phone would be 
required to follow up with a written notice hand delivered or 
postmarked within 30 days of the water system learning of the results; 
the EPA notes that while the proposed LCRI preamble correctly described 
the EPA's intent, the regulatory text of the proposed rule incorrectly 
referred to written follow-up being required after either phone or 
electronic delivery and incorrectly referred to the time frame for 
written follow-up as three days. As noted in the proposed LCRI 
preamble, written follow-up would allow greater information 
accessibility and would allow consumers to keep a copy of their results 
to use as a reference in the future, including the steps they can take 
to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, and the other information 
provided in the notice. This written follow-up would also enable States 
to verify the content of the notice, which would be difficult to do if 
the notice were only delivered by phone.
ii. Copper
    Under the LCRI, the EPA proposed to require water systems to 
provide consumer notice of an individual's copper tap sampling results 
(Sec.  141.85(d)). The proposed content requirements for this notice 
are described in section V.H.3 of the proposed LCRI (88 FR 84949, 
USEPA, 2023a), along with the EPA's rationale for introducing this new 
copper public education requirement. The EPA proposed the same three-
calendar-day time frame and delivery methods for notification of copper 
tap sampling results as for lead. This allows for simplicity and 
administrative ease. In cases where copper samples are collected at the 
same time as lead, the EPA proposed to allow systems to combine the 
lead and copper results and required information into a single notice. 
This further simplifies implementation and reduces administrative 
burden.
c. Other Public Education Materials
i. Supplemental Monitoring and Notification
    The EPA proposed to require systems to offer to sample the tap 
water for lead for any consumer served by a lead, GRR, or unknown 
service line that requests it (Sec.  141.85(c)). Since LSLs and GRR 
service lines increase the risk of exposure to lead in drinking water, 
the EPA believes this proposed requirement would encourage more people 
who are at greater risk of lead exposure to have their tap sampled to 
find out if there is lead in their drinking water and what actions they 
can take to reduce their risk of exposure. The EPA also proposed to 
require the system to notify consumers of the results of supplemental 
tap sampling so they are informed and can decide to take any needed 
steps to reduce their exposure to lead in their drinking water. Systems 
would be required to provide consumers with these results in the same 
three-day time frame required for results of compliance tap sampling in 
accordance with Sec.  141.85(d).

[[Page 86523]]

ii. Public Education After a Lead Action Level Exceedance
    Under the LCRI, the EPA proposed that water systems must conduct 
the public education activities under Sec.  141.85(b)(2) for CWSs and 
Sec.  141.85(b)(4) for NTNCWSs within 60 days of the end of the tap 
sampling period in which a lead action level exceedance occurred, even 
if an exceedance also occurred in the previous tap sampling period 
(i.e., ``a consecutive action level exceedance''). This would ensure 
that consumers receive information following every lead action level 
exceedance, instead of waiting 12 months where two lead action level 
exceedances were consecutive.
    The EPA also proposed to clarify that water systems must repeat the 
public education activities until the system is at or below the lead 
action level, and that the calculated 90th percentile level at or below 
the lead action level must be based on at least the minimum number of 
required samples under Sec.  141.86 in order for the system to be able 
to discontinue public education.
    The EPA proposed to allow a State that grants an extension for a 
water system to conduct the public education activities, to make the 
deadline no more than 180 days after the end of the tap sampling period 
in which the lead action level exceedance occurred. The EPA also 
proposed to restrict the extension such that it would only apply to the 
public education activities in Sec.  141.85(b)(2)(ii) through (vi) 
(i.e., delivery of public education materials to public health agencies 
and other organizations; submitting a press release; implementing 
additional activities like public meetings) and would not apply to 
delivery of public education materials to consumers under Sec.  
141.85(b)(2)(i).
    Under the LCRI, the EPA proposed to require the public education 
materials be delivered to every service connection address served, in 
addition to the bill paying customer. The EPA proposed this change to 
better ensure that renters receive this important information so that 
they can decide to take any needed steps to reduce their exposure to 
lead in drinking water.
    The EPA also proposed revisions to clarify that CWSs must deliver 
``written'' public education materials to customers and service 
connections, rather than limiting the delivery to only printed 
materials. Similarly, the EPA proposed revisions to clarify that the 
required content of public education materials would not only apply to 
printed materials, but written materials more broadly. Written 
materials can include printed as well as digital materials delivered 
via email. The EPA proposed this update given the increasing use of 
electronic methods for accessing information and so that water systems 
can choose the most appropriate format for providing public education 
to the persons they serve.
    The EPA proposed that States would only be allowed to approve 
changes to the content requirements of the public education materials 
if the State determines the changes are more protective of human 
health. The EPA proposed this revision to ensure that information 
provided in public education materials is most protective of human 
health and in recognition that some water systems may need to provide 
more tailored information to their community in order to provide 
greater public health protection (e.g., systems with many lead, GRR, or 
lead status unknown service lines).
    The EPA proposed to require the public education materials to 
include information about lead, GRR, and unknown service lines for 
systems that have lead, GRR, or unknown service lines. In addition to 
the required LSL information, the EPA proposed that systems must 
include information about replacing GRR service lines, identifying the 
material of unknown service lines, and accessing the service line 
replacement plan. Systems with known lead connectors or connectors of 
unknown material in their inventory would be required to include 
information in the public education materials about how consumers can 
access the inventory. The EPA also proposed to require that the public 
education materials include instructions for consumers to notify the 
water system if they think the service line material classification is 
incorrect. The EPA proposed to require all water systems, including 
NTNCWSs, to include information in the public education materials about 
lead in plumbing components and about how consumers can get their water 
tested, including information about the proposed provision of 
supplemental monitoring and notification in Sec.  141.85(c).
    The EPA also proposed requiring public education materials to 
include additional steps that consumers can take to reduce their 
exposure to lead in drinking water, including explaining that using a 
filter certified by an ANSI accredited certifier to reduce lead is 
effective in reducing lead levels in drinking water. (See section V.H.4 
of the proposed LCRI (88 FR 84950, USEPA, 2023a) for additional 
revisions the EPA proposed to the public education content 
requirements.) The EPA's proposed revisions to the mandatory lead 
health effects language are described in section IV.J.2.d.i of this 
preamble.
iii. Public Education for Small System Compliance Flexibility Point-of-
Use Devices
    The EPA proposed moving the public education requirements for small 
water system compliance flexibility point-of-use devices from Sec.  
141.85 to Sec.  141.93, so that the small system compliance flexibility 
provisions are all in the same rule section (see section IV.I of this 
preamble).
d. Requirements for Language Updates and Accessibility
i. Lead Health Effects Language
    The EPA proposed to require the lead health effects language in 
public education materials to begin with a statement that there is no 
safe level of lead in drinking water. This was proposed to address 
concerns about water systems with detectable lead levels below the lead 
action level making statements that downplay or detract from the health 
effects language. The EPA reiterates that the lead action level is not 
a health-based level and there is no safe level of lead in drinking 
water. The agency previously established an MCLG for lead of zero.
    The EPA also proposed revisions to the language to clarify that it 
identifies some and not all the health effects of lead, and to 
encourage consumers to consult their health care provider for more 
information about their risks. Health care providers are an important, 
trusted source of information about lead for consumers and are 
influential in encouraging consumers to take actions, particularly for 
those at highest risk from lead in drinking water (Jennings and Duncan, 
2017; Griffin and Dunwoody, 2000). In addition to noting the risk to 
all age groups, the EPA proposed adding language to highlight the risks 
to pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and breastfed), and young 
children. The EPA also proposed revisions to simplify the language so 
that it is easier for consumers to understand. The EPA proposed the 
following revised mandatory lead health effects language in the 
proposed LCRI:

    There is no safe level of lead in drinking water. Exposure to 
lead in drinking water can cause serious health effects in all age 
groups, especially pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and 
breastfed), and young children. Some of the health effects to 
infants and children include decreases in IQ and attention span. 
Lead exposure can also result in new or worsened learning and 
behavior

[[Page 86524]]

problems. The children of persons who are exposed to lead before or 
during pregnancy may be at increased risk of these harmful health 
effects. Adults have increased risks of heart disease, high blood 
pressure, kidney or nervous system problems. Contact your health 
care provider for more information about your risks.

    The same wording would be required for use in the health effects 
description in the public notifications for a lead action level 
exceedance and treatment technique violations as well as in the CCR.
ii. Translation Requirements
    To ensure greater protection of consumers with limited English 
proficiency, the EPA proposed to require all the public education 
materials under 40 CFR 141.85 to include: (1) Information in the 
appropriate language(s) for the community the water system serves 
regarding the importance of the materials, and (2) contact information 
for persons served by the water system to obtain a translated copy of 
the materials or assistance in the appropriate language, or the 
materials must be translated into the appropriate language. This would 
be required for systems that serve a large proportion of consumers with 
limited English proficiency, as determined by the State.
3. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
a. Feasibility of Public Education Requirements
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested comment on the proposed 
determination that the public education treatment technique is feasible 
and prevents known or anticipated adverse health effects to the extent 
feasible. While some commenters agreed, others thought the proposed 
public education requirements did not go far enough to protect public 
health while still others thought they may overwhelm consumers and that 
the proposed time frames of some of the public education requirements 
(e.g., consumer notices of tap sampling results) were not feasible for 
many water systems. In light of these comments, the final LCRI includes 
revisions that make public education more health protective without 
reducing its efficacy, for example, by clarifying the required text 
about the risks of lead in drinking water and requiring more frequent 
public messaging about those risks and steps consumers can take to 
protect their health (see section IV.J.3.f of this preamble). The 
agency is also adjusting the time frame for consumer notices of tap 
sampling results to three business days (instead of the proposed three 
calendar days) to be feasible for water systems, given the significant 
increase in notices required, while still ensuring that consumers 
receive information as quickly as feasible (see section IV.J.3.d of 
this preamble).
b. Streamlining Public Education Requirements
    The EPA requested comment on additional ways to streamline public 
education and associated certification requirements. Commenters 
expressed concerns about the complexity of the public education and 
associated reporting requirements and the burden on water systems to 
conduct them. Some commenters suggested ways to simplify or streamline 
the public education and associated certification requirements by 
reducing the number of public education requirements or aligning due 
dates for public education reporting requirements. The EPA disagrees 
with reducing the number of public education requirements because they 
are necessary to inform consumers and prevent adverse health effects 
and the agency determined they are feasible (see section IV.J.1 of this 
preamble). However, the EPA agrees that streamlining public education 
reporting requirements would ease administrative burdens for both water 
systems and States. Thus, the EPA is combining deadlines for when water 
systems must report information about public education to the State 
(see section IV.N.1 of this preamble for the reporting requirements).
    Some commenters suggested the EPA provide communication templates 
for water systems to assist them with conducting the public education 
requirements. The EPA agrees with this recommendation and intends to 
provide public education resources and templates to assist water 
systems and States.
    Some commenters recommended requiring water systems to develop and 
submit a public education plan or communication strategy to the State 
to streamline regulatory reporting and State review and approval. Some 
commenters stated this would also help systems to have public education 
materials prepared ahead of time. While the EPA agrees that a public 
education plan could be helpful to water systems and encourages water 
systems to do so where appropriate, the agency is not introducing such 
a requirement at this time due to the additional administrative burden 
for water systems and States. In addition, the timing and need for 
certain public education can vary such as public education following a 
lead action level exceedance or multiple lead action level exceedances, 
and it may not make sense for systems and States to spend limited 
resources on public education plans that will not be implemented.
c. Service Line Related Outreach
i. Required Public Education To Encourage Participation in Full Service 
Line Replacement
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested comment on whether the 
types and timing of outreach activities proposed for systems failing to 
meet the mandatory service line replacement rate are appropriate and 
whether other activities should be considered. Some commenters 
supported the proposed activities; some recommended requiring systems 
to do more of these activities than proposed and to require that at 
least one activity involve face-to-face contact. Some commenters 
requested more information on the required outreach activities, such as 
the options of conducting a social media campaign and visiting targeted 
customers. Some commenters cautioned against the EPA being overly 
prescriptive on the types of required activities, recommending that 
systems have flexibility to tailor outreach and community partnerships 
to their community, similar to some comments received regarding the 
additional proposed activities for systems with multiple lead action 
level exceedances (see section IV.K.2 of this preamble).
    The EPA encourages water systems to conduct additional public 
outreach; however, the agency disagrees with requiring systems to 
conduct a greater number of activities than proposed because requiring 
water systems to conduct at least one additional activity if they do 
not meet the LSLR rate is sufficient to encourage customer 
participation in the service line replacement program without 
detracting from water systems' efforts to meet the other public 
education requirements and requirements of the LCRI more broadly. The 
proposed LCRI includes several other public education requirements that 
provide consumers with information about lead, GRR, and unknown service 
lines described in section IV.J.2.a of this preamble. Therefore, the 
EPA is finalizing the number and types of activities as proposed.
    The EPA agrees with commenters about the effectiveness of direct 
customer and consumer contact in community outreach. AWWA's 2022 Lead 
Communications Guide and Toolkit and the LSLR Collaborative describe 
direct customer and/or

[[Page 86525]]

consumer contact as particularly effective methods of communicating 
about LSLR (AWWA, 2022; LSLR Collaborative, n.d.e). That is why the 
LCRI includes several options for face-to-face activities, including 
conducting a public meeting, participating in a community event, and 
visiting targeted customers. However, the EPA also agrees with 
commenters that the requirements should not be overly prescriptive and 
that water systems should have flexibility to develop an activity that 
works best for their community. During the Small Business Advocacy 
Review for the proposed LCRI, the EPA also received feedback that face-
to-face contact is particularly effective for engaging smaller 
communities, especially those with a higher percentage of older adults 
(USEPA, 2023j). However, this might not be the most appropriate option 
for a larger system, which might determine that a social media campaign 
and visiting targeted customers is more appropriate. Therefore, the 
LCRI offers a variety of activities for systems to choose from so that 
they can tailor the outreach to the community they serve.
    While some commenters requested more information about what kind of 
social media campaign would meet the outreach requirement (e.g., the 
number or frequency of social media posts, the types of social media 
networks), the EPA decided not to prescribe this level of detail as it 
will depend on the water system and community as well as the social 
media platform chosen to distribute information. A water system may 
consider collaborating with community partners and/or conducting a 
focus group with community members to determine what kind of social 
media campaign would be most effective for the community it serves.
    Some commenters recommended removing the options to visit targeted 
customers or to send certified mail to all customers and consumers 
served by LSLs and GRR service lines, noting that these would be time 
intensive and expensive for water systems. Some commenters also noted 
that customers ignore certified mail rendering it ineffective. Given 
the benefits of face-to-face contact, the EPA disagrees with commenters 
who recommended removing visiting targeted customers as an option. 
Water systems for which this option is not feasible have many other 
options to choose from in the rule. The EPA also disagrees with 
recommendations to remove certified mail as an option; the purpose of 
certified mail as an option is to offer another opportunity for mailed 
public education about the replacement program and to ensure that the 
consumer receives it. Systems that find certified mail not to be an 
effective method of outreach in their communities can choose another 
option. The EPA is retaining these options because they are necessary 
to provide flexibility for system outreach that best meets the needs of 
their community.
    Some commenters said the number of outreach activities required 
should depend on system size. The EPA proposed and maintained in the 
final LCRI requirements based on system size including that systems 
serving 3,300 or fewer persons must conduct at least one of any of the 
activities listed in Sec.  141.85(h) while systems serving more than 
3,300 persons must conduct at least one of the activities from Sec.  
141.85(h)(2)(i) through (iv) or at least two of the activities from 
Sec.  141.85(h)(2)(v) through (viii).
    Some commenters requested clarification on when systems can 
discontinue the outreach activities. The EPA notes that a water system 
can discontinue the activities once the system meets the required 
replacement rate or after there are no lead, GRR, or unknown service 
lines remaining in the inventory, whichever occurs first. For example, 
a water system that has only replaced 35 percent by Year 4 of the LSLR 
program would not meet the required rate and therefore would have to 
start conducting the additional outreach activities. The water system 
would have to be back on track with at least 50 percent replaced by the 
end of Year 5 to discontinue the activities.
    Some commenters expressed concerns with the proposed requirement 
for additional outreach being imposed as a penalty for systems that 
fail to meet the replacement rate. The EPA clarifies that the purpose 
of the additional outreach is to help water systems achieve greater 
customer participation in their LSLR programs so that they can get back 
on track towards replacing all LSLs in 10 years. LSLR programs that 
incorporate extensive community outreach have demonstrated how 
effective public education can be in increasing LSLR participation 
(Klemick et al., 2024; City of Detroit, 2023; LSLR Collaborative, 
n.d.d). To clarify this intention in the final rule, the EPA is calling 
this requirement ``Outreach activities to encourage participation in 
full service line replacement'' rather than the proposed ``Outreach 
activities for failure to meet the lead service line replacement 
rate.''
ii. Notification of Service Line Material
    The EPA requested comment on whether to require additional public 
education requirements to encourage service line replacement faster 
than the 10-year replacement deadline. Some commenters recommended 
maintaining the notification of a lead, GRR, or unknown service line 
requirement as annual, while some commenters recommended increasing the 
frequency to every six months. In contrast, some commenters questioned 
whether increased frequency of this notification would have an impact 
on public health. In the final rule, the EPA is maintaining the 
notification as annual. Between this annual notification and other 
requirements for water systems to provide information about the 
publicly available service line inventory and service line replacement 
plan (e.g., CCR, public education after a lead action level exceedance) 
and the requirement for systems to offer to sample the tap for lead for 
any consumer served by a lead, GRR, or unknown service line who 
requests it, the EPA believes these public education requirements will 
encourage swift service line replacement without overburdening water 
systems and detracting from their efforts to identify and replace LSLs.
    The EPA also requested comment on whether the agency should require 
systems to annually notify consumers if they are served by a lead 
connector, similar to the required notifications for sites with lead, 
GRR, or lead status unknown service lines. Some commenters recommended 
requiring notification of a lead connector. Some commenters said if 
lead connectors are required in the service line inventory, notifying 
the consumer should also be required. However, some commenters said if 
lead connectors are not actively required to be replaced, then systems 
should not be required to notify consumers of their presence. In the 
final rule, the EPA is not requiring annual notification of lead 
connectors to individuals served by lead connectors. For the final 
LCRI, the EPA is requiring water systems to include identified 
connectors in their service line inventory (see section IV.D.1 of this 
preamble). Consumers have access to the publicly available service line 
inventories to determine if they are served by a lead connector. 
Information about how to access the service line inventory is required 
in notifications of a service line that is known to or may potentially 
contain lead, public education materials provided after a lead ALE (see 
section IV.J.4.c of this preamble), and the widely distributed CCR (see 
section IV.O.1 of this preamble). The EPA is also maintaining the 
requirement for water systems to

[[Page 86526]]

replace lead connectors as encountered (see section IV.B of this 
preamble). Given the differences in how service lines and connectors 
are required to be identified and replaced and their associated risks 
of lead exposure, the EPA determined that it is sufficient to require 
water systems to provide consumers with information on how they can 
access the inventory to find out if they are served by a lead connector 
rather than requiring an annual notification of connector material. The 
EPA is requiring notifications for persons served by a lead, GRR, or 
lead status unknown service line to raise awareness to consumers that 
they are consuming drinking water served by a service line that may 
contribute lead to drinking water, educate them about identification 
and replacement (therefore likely increasing replacement 
participation), and steps they can take to reduce exposure to lead in 
drinking water. The EPA is not requiring water systems to identify all 
lead connectors in their distribution system, unless they can be 
identified through available information, and is requiring water 
systems to replace lead connectors when encountered. This is because 
lead connectors are expected to contribute less to exposures from lead 
in drinking water when compared to LSLs because they are shorter in 
length and to enable water systems to prioritize funding and staffing 
resources towards replacement of lead and GRR service lines and 
identifying unknown service lines. Providing direct notification to 
consumers with lead connector materials would provide limited 
information in terms of location (for those with unknown connectors) 
and replacement opportunities.
iii. Notification of a Service Line Disturbance
    The EPA received comments on the requirement for notification of a 
disturbance to a lead, GRR, or unknown service line. The EPA proposed 
in the LCRI to require notification, including providing public 
education materials and flushing instructions, to customers and persons 
served by the water system that are served by a lead, GRR, or unknown 
service line following actions taken by a water system that cause a 
disturbance to the service line. The EPA proposed that this includes 
actions that result in a shut off or bypass of water to an individual 
or group of service lines such as operating a valve on a service line 
or meter setter, or reconnecting a service line to the main. The EPA 
proposed that water systems must provide filters when the disturbance 
results from the replacement of an inline water meter, water meter 
setter, or connector, and requested comment on whether to require 
provision of filters for disturbances resulting from replacement of a 
water main, in addition to the proposed requirement for public 
education materials and flushing instructions. Some commenters 
expressed support for providing filters for disturbances caused by 
water main replacement, noting that lead releases from these 
disturbances are unpredictable and flushing would not suffice. Other 
commenters were opposed to any notification requirement for 
disturbances caused by water main replacement, expressing concerns that 
water systems would have to provide notification on multiple occasions 
since water main replacement can be a multi-day process.
    The EPA is requiring that when the water main replacement results 
in a service line being physically cut, water systems must provide 
persons served at that service connection with a pitcher filter or 
point-of-use device certified by an ANSI accredited certifier to reduce 
lead, instructions to use the filter, and six months of filter 
replacement cartridges, in addition to the proposed public education 
materials and flushing instructions. Water systems would provide the 
filters to consumers at the same time as the public education materials 
and flushing instructions so such a requirement would not require any 
additional outreach effort. In the final rule, the EPA is requiring 
provision of filters for disturbances to a lead, GRR, or unknown 
service line caused by replacement of an inline water meter, water 
meter setter, connector, or water main to increase public health 
protection since all these replacements involve cutting pipe, which can 
cause lead releases in the water when LSLs or GRR service lines are 
present (Lewis et al., 2017; Camara et al., 2013; Del Toral et al., 
2013).
    Some commenters supported the proposed revision to add significant 
disturbances caused by inventorying efforts to the types of 
disturbances that would require notification. However, other commenters 
perceived this designation as being too open-ended, stating that 
compliance would be infeasible and that there is not a technical basis 
for this proposed requirement. For these reasons, they recommended 
removing the proposed regulatory text ``or other actions that cause a 
disturbance to a service line or group of service lines, such as 
undergoing physical action or vibration that could result in pipe scale 
dislodging and associated release of particulate lead.'' The EPA is 
maintaining the proposed requirement in the final rule. First, the EPA 
disagrees with the claim that there is no technical basis for this 
requirement. Field methods used for inventory efforts can disturb a 
service line or group of service lines such that lead is released and 
puts consumers at risk of exposure to lead in drinking water (Hensley 
et al., 2021). The regulatory text specifies actions that result in 
``pipe scale dislodging and associated release of particulate lead'' 
that would put consumers at increased risk of lead exposure and 
therefore necessitate notifying consumers so they can decide to take 
precautions to prevent adverse health effects. It is for these same 
technical reasons that the EPA included recommendations in the agency's 
LCRR inventory guidance to notify consumers about the potential for 
temporarily elevated lead levels and provide them with information 
about reducing lead levels following an LSL or GRR disturbance during 
excavation (USEPA, 2022c). Second, the EPA believes it is feasible for 
water systems to notify consumers when there is a disturbance to a 
service line or group of service lines that could result in pipe scale 
dislodging and associated release of particulate lead and disagrees 
that this type of disturbance is too broad for water systems to comply 
with the requirement. However, the EPA is making the following small 
correction to the punctuation in the final regulatory text ``or other 
actions that cause a disturbance to a service line or group of service 
lines, such as undergoing physical action or vibration, that could 
result in pipe scale dislodging and associated release of particulate 
lead'' to clarify that the agency is specifically referring to 
disturbances resulting in pipe scale dislodging and associated release 
of particulate lead whereas the proposed regulatory text could have 
been interpreted as any disturbances to a service line or group of 
service lines.
    Some commenters expressed concerns about the feasibility of 
notifying a customer before returning the line to service or within 24 
hours if the customer does not reside at the service connection (e.g., 
a customer who is a property owner and renting their property). The EPA 
agrees with these concerns, and in the final rule, the agency is 
allowing water systems up to 30 days after the disturbance to notify 
customers who are not at the service connection (i.e., non-resident 
property owner) since they would not likely be consuming the water and 
therefore would not likely be exposed to the potentially elevated lead 
levels caused

[[Page 86527]]

by the disturbance. Although a non-resident customer may not be at risk 
of exposure (such as a rental property owner), it is appropriate to 
notify the customer if infrastructure work is conducted on their 
property. In addition, there may be situations where the non-resident 
customer could consume drinking water at their property. Water systems 
must still notify persons at the service connection of the disturbance 
before the service line is returned to service or within 24 hours of 
the disturbance if service was not shut off or bypassed.
d. Individual Notification of Tap Sampling Results
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested data, analyses, and 
comments on the proposed determination that water systems are capable 
of providing consumer notices of individual tap sampling results within 
three calendar days of learning of those results, regardless of whether 
the results exceed the lead or copper action level, or if a longer time 
frame is needed (e.g., three business days, seven calendar days, 14 
calendar days). Many commenters expressed concerns with the feasibility 
of the proposed three calendar-day time frame, particularly if a system 
receives results before a weekend or holiday, and recommended the EPA 
extend the deadline for systems to deliver consumer notice of lead and 
copper tap sampling results, including on-request. Suggested time 
frames included three business days, five business days (or seven 
calendar days), 10 days, 14 days, or 30 days for all results. Some 
commenters recommended allowing more time for results that do not 
exceed the action level or the practical quantitation limit. On the 
other hand, some commenters recommended maintaining the proposed three 
calendar days for notification of all results or shortening the time 
frame to 24 hours.
    The EPA disagrees with including different timeframes based on lead 
levels found as there is no safe level in drinking water and consumers 
should be made aware of any lead in their individual tap sample results 
as soon as possible. There is no safe level of lead in drinking water 
and while the tap sampling protocol is designed to inform assessment of 
CCT, as discussed above an individual tap could potentially represent 
water being consumed by individuals and therefore individual results 
are useful to provide to the consumer. Recognizing implementation 
concerns, the EPA determined having a single time frame for delivery of 
notifications simplifies implementation and reporting. In addition, 
providing all tap sample results in the same, timely manner is 
important to build trust with consumers who often must be willing to 
participate in the sampling. After considering public comments and the 
increased number of consumer notifications of tap sampling results 
required under the LCRI, the EPA has determined that it may not be 
feasible for water systems to provide consumer notification within 
three calendar days. Therefore, the final rule requires water systems 
to provide consumer notice of lead or copper tap sampling results as 
soon as practicable but no later than three business days of the system 
learning of the results. Three business days rather than three calendar 
days alleviates concerns raised about notification requirements on 
weekends and holidays, recognizing water systems may not have staff 
available to conduct notification. This is the same time frame 
regardless of lead or copper levels and includes both tap sampling 
results from lead and copper tap water monitoring carried out under the 
requirements of Sec.  141.86 as well as consumer-requested tap sampling 
results from supplemental tap water monitoring carried out under the 
requirements of Sec.  141.85(c). The EPA notes that there are many 
approved delivery methods for this notification, including electronic 
delivery (e.g., email, text message, notification in water system 
portal) so that water systems can choose the most suitable option for 
the persons they serve and so that they are able to meet the three 
business day time frame.
    Some commenters noted a discrepancy between the preamble and 
regulatory text with regards to the proposed written follow-up that 
would be required for systems that deliver the notice orally by phone. 
The preamble to the proposed rule correctly stated that written follow-
up would be required for notices delivered by phone within 30 days of 
the system learning of the results. The regulatory text incorrectly 
referred to this written follow-up as being required for notices 
delivered by phone or electronically, and also incorrectly stated that 
it would be required within three days of the system learning of the 
results. The EPA corrected this in the final rule which requires 
written follow-up only for notices delivered by phone call or voice 
message since this would be an oral communication and consumers need 
access to a written copy of the results and other information such as 
steps to reduce their risk of exposure to lead in drinking water. The 
purpose of allowing water systems to deliver the notification by a 
voice phone call is to make it easier for systems to notify consumers 
of their tap sampling results as quickly as possible within three 
business days, since some systems may not be able to deliver the notice 
using other methods such as mail within this time frame or other 
methods such as electronic delivery may not be appropriate for their 
community. The final rule requires this written follow-up within 30 
days, and not three days, as the latter would defeat the purpose of the 
phone delivery option and would be redundant with a system simply 
delivering the written notice within three business days, which is 
already an option.
    Some commenters requested clarification on when the delivery time 
frame begins, and specifically when a water system is considered to 
have ``learned of'' the results. This can vary for water systems 
depending on how the water system learns of the results. Some systems 
have their own labs where they know the results as soon as their labs 
analyze the samples. Other systems send their results to private labs, 
and the systems would learn of the results potentially by mail, fax, 
email, or other means. The EPA is not prescribing how systems must 
learn of the results. In any case, once the system learns of the 
results, it then has up to three business days to deliver the consumer 
notice. Some commenters requested clarification on the time frame for 
copper tap sampling results and on-request sampling results. The EPA 
notes that the same notification time frame applies to all lead and 
copper sampling results. In cases where copper samples are collected at 
the same time as lead, systems can combine the lead and copper results 
and required information into a single notice. The EPA expects that 
this would simplify implementation by allowing systems to deliver both 
the lead and copper results and associated required information at the 
same time.
    Some commenters appeared to conflate the notice of individual tap 
sampling results with the Tier 1 public notification that is required 
within 24 hours of a systemwide lead action level exceedance (based on 
the 90th percentile calculation). The EPA notes that this requirement 
concerns tap sampling results from an individual site and is different 
from the 90th percentile calculation of a system's lead levels, which 
requires 24-hour public notification (see section IV.O.2 of this 
preamble), and public education within 60 days when there is a 
systemwide lead action level exceedance (see section IV.J.4.c.ii of 
this preamble).

[[Page 86528]]

e. Supplemental Monitoring and Notification
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested comment on whether the 
proposed requirement for water systems to offer lead sampling to 
consumers with lead, GRR, or unknown service lines in the notice of 
service line material is effective at reducing adverse health effects. 
The EPA also requested comment on the proposed requirement for water 
systems to deliver consumer-initiated test results within three 
calendar days of obtaining those results. Some commenters agreed that 
offering lead sampling is effective at reducing adverse health effects. 
However, some commenters expressed concerns with the burden on water 
systems relative to the level of risk reduction the proposed 
requirement could achieve. Some noted that it would be difficult for 
water systems to budget for an uncertain amount of sampling and 
recommended a cap on the number of samples that the water system would 
have to pay for or a cap on water system spending on consumer-requested 
sampling. Some commenters recommended only offering sampling to persons 
served by LSLs and GRR service lines, but not unknowns. Some commenters 
requested clarification on what exactly it means for a water system to 
``offer'' sampling and whether the water system would be required to 
pay for analyzing the sample. Some commenters stated that the rule 
should specify that this sampling be done at no charge to the 
individual consumer. The EPA also requested comment on the proposed 
requirement for water systems to deliver consumer-initiated test 
results within three calendar days of obtaining those results. Some 
commenters supported the three-day time frame proposed for delivery of 
consumer-requested sampling results, while others expressed concerns 
noting that it would disincentivize systems from offering free lead 
testing to consumers.
    The EPA agrees with commenters that offering lead tap sampling to 
consumers with lead, GRR, or unknown service lines is effective at 
reducing adverse health effects and disagrees with commenters that it 
has limited risk reduction relative to the burden on water systems. As 
stated in the proposal, lead and GRR service lines can increase the 
risk of exposure to lead in drinking water (88 FR 84878, 84950, USEPA, 
2023a). This requirement will encourage more people who are at greater 
risk of lead exposure to have their tap sampled to find out if there is 
lead in their drinking water and what actions they can take to reduce 
their risk of exposure, thereby reducing adverse health effects. The 
EPA disagrees with withholding the offer for lead sampling from 
consumers served by unknown service lines as they may also potentially 
contain lead which increases the risk of exposure for these consumers. 
The EPA does not agree that this requirement has limited risk reduction 
relative to the burden on water systems. This requirement could be 
implemented similarly to other lead tap sampling regularly conducted by 
the water system such as providing consumers with sampling materials 
and instructions, collecting tap samples, analyzing samples in-house or 
commercially, and informing consumers of the results. The rule also 
provides that consumer-requested sampling does not have to conform to 
compliance sampling requirements to provide flexibility and meet the 
needs of consumer requests; however, at sites served by a lead, GRR, or 
lead status unknown service line the samples must capture both water in 
contact with premise plumbing and water in contact with the service 
line. With regards to who bears the cost of consumer-requested 
sampling, as described in the LCRI proposal, the requirement to offer 
sampling does not address how a water system would cover the cost of 
the sampling. The EPA does not direct how a water system covers the 
costs of compliance with a NPDWR as this is, at its core, a matter of 
State and local law. State and local governments regulate how water 
systems allocate costs for services provided to their customers. 
Therefore, the final rule does not include any specifications as to the 
entity responsible for the cost of consumer-requested sampling. (See 
section IV.J.4.b of this preamble about the time frame for delivery of 
lead tap sampling results).
f. Public Education After a Lead Action Level Exceedance
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested comment and supporting data 
on the capacity of water systems to conduct some or all of the required 
public education activities in 30 days, or another period of time that 
is less than 60 days, after the end of the tap sampling period in which 
a systemwide lead ALE occurs. Most commenters recommended maintaining 
the time frame as 60 days after the end of the tap sampling period in 
which the lead ALE occurred, stating that a shorter time frame of 30 
days would be difficult or would not be feasible for many systems. 
However, some commenters stated it would be feasible to conduct the 
public education requirements within 30 days. Some commenters 
recommended that the EPA consider increasing the time frame to 90 days. 
Some commenters recommended requiring different time frames based on 
the size of the system and also different time frames for the different 
public education activities required after a lead ALE (e.g., different 
time frames for delivery of public education materials to consumers and 
organizations, submitting a press release, etc.).
    The EPA is maintaining the 60-day time frame for conducting public 
education after a lead ALE. The EPA believes that systems need the 60 
days after the end of the tap sampling period to develop and/or update 
public education materials, consult with the State, identify the 
organizations that they need to share these materials with, plan 
activities (e.g., public meetings, public service announcements) in 
consultation with the State, and submit a press release, among other 
public education tasks required under Sec.  141.85(b)(2) for CWSs and 
Sec.  141.85(b)(4) for NTNCWSs. Given the increase in lead ALEs that 
may occur as a result of the reduced lead action level and revised tap 
sampling protocol, water systems will likely have more ALEs leading to 
the need to conduct more public education, in addition to the 24-hour 
Tier 1 public notification of a lead ALE. For this reason, the EPA 
disagrees with shortening the deadline for conducting public education. 
In addition, since the PN Rule requires all water systems to conduct 
public notification within 24 hours of the system learning of a lead 
ALE, consumers will have already received information about the 
situation, potential adverse health effects, and actions they should 
take. The EPA disagrees with increasing the time frame to 90 days as 
water systems have demonstrated for decades their ability to conduct 
the public education requirements within 60 days, and the rule already 
allows water systems to apply to States for an extension if they are 
unable to meet this time frame. The extension would only apply to the 
activities in Sec.  141.85(b)(2)(ii) through (vi) for CWSs (or Sec.  
141.85(b)(4)(i) and (ii) for NTNCWSs) and would not apply to delivery 
of public education materials directly to consumers under Sec.  
141.85(b)(2)(i) because, as demonstrated by the many years this 
requirement has been in place, it is feasible for systems to distribute 
public education materials to consumers within 60 days. The EPA 
disagrees with requiring different time frames for conducting the 
public education

[[Page 86529]]

requirements based on system size as the rule already includes fewer 
public education requirements for systems exceeding the lead action 
level that serve 3,300 or fewer persons (see Sec.  141.85(b)(9) of the 
LCRI).
    The EPA received many comments on the content of public education 
materials, including both public education materials after a lead ALE 
as well as other public education materials that require some of the 
same content. Some commenters expressed concerns about water systems 
including incorrect or misleading information in public education 
materials about the safety of their drinking water. The EPA notes that 
the rule specifies that if water systems include additional information 
in public education materials beyond what the EPA has required, this 
additional information must be consistent with the required 
information. Any changes made to required information must be approved 
by the State as more protective of human health. In addition, water 
systems are required, and have been required since 2007, to provide 
States with a copy of all public education materials required under 
Sec.  141.85 prior to delivery, in accordance with Sec.  141.85(a)(1). 
This means that States should be aware of any incorrect or misleading 
statements that systems include in public education materials and have 
a chance to intervene to ensure the information is corrected prior to 
delivery to consumers. Additionally, the State may require the system 
to submit for review and approval the content of the materials prior to 
delivery. This is specified under Sec.  141.85(a)(1) of the rule; 
however, there is not a corresponding reporting requirement in Sec.  
141.90(f), which may lead systems and States to overlook this 
requirement. To ensure systems and States are aware of this existing 
requirement and thereby encourage stronger rule implementation, in the 
final LCRI the EPA has added a reporting requirement to Sec.  141.90(f) 
that reiterates this same requirement for systems to submit copies of 
public education materials to the State prior to delivery. This State 
oversight should be adequate to help ensure that public education 
materials do not include inaccurate information about lead in drinking 
water and thereby provide for greater public health protection. The EPA 
also believes that the proposed revisions made to the lead health 
effects language that the EPA is finalizing, including requiring an 
explicit statement that there is no safe level of lead in drinking 
water, will help ensure that consumers have a more accurate 
understanding of the risks of lead in their drinking water.
    Some commenters recommended adding language to public education 
materials about the risk of lead exposure even when tap results at a 
given point in time do not detect lead. The EPA also heard these 
concerns from some NDWAC members in the NDWAC Public Meeting on the 
final LCRI (NDWAC, 2024). In response to commenters' concerns, the EPA 
has updated the content requirements for public education materials in 
Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(iii)(B) to require water systems to explain that 
lead levels may vary and therefore lead exposure is possible even when 
tap sampling results do not detect lead at one point in time, in 
addition to the requirements to provide information on the sources of 
lead in drinking water. This information would apply to any public 
education materials that are required to meet the content requirements 
of Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(iii)(B), which include the consumer notice of 
lead tap sampling results, public education distributed after a 
systemwide lead action level exceedance, and public education 
distributed by systems that do not meet the mandatory LSLR rate. The 
EPA is also requiring the CCR to include similar information in its 
informational statement about lead. The EPA believes that this added 
information will also help to ensure that consumers have a more 
accurate understanding of the risks of lead in their drinking water so 
they can decide whether to take additional protective measures and 
which ones are appropriate for their situation (e.g., remove lead 
plumbing, remove LSL, use a filter certified to reduce lead).
    The proposed LCRI would have required CWSs to deliver public 
education and DSSA information to local and State health agencies by 
mail or another method approved by the State, similar to the 2021 LCRR 
(see Sec.  141.85(i)). Some commenters recommended that water systems 
be allowed to deliver these materials by email, noting that email would 
make it easier to reach the appropriate person and attach data. The EPA 
agrees with commenters that email delivery of this information would 
facilitate data sharing and therefore the agency has added email as an 
allowed delivery method in the final rule.
g. Translation of Public Education Materials
    The EPA proposed to require all public education materials under 
Sec.  141.85 to include (1) information in the appropriate language(s) 
regarding the importance of the materials, and (2) contact information 
for persons served by the water system to obtain a translated copy of 
the materials, request assistance in the appropriate language, or the 
materials must be translated into the appropriate language.
    Many commenters supported the proposed translation requirements to 
help overcome language barriers and make public education materials 
about lead in drinking water more accessible and understandable to a 
wider community, noting that they would support greater environmental 
justice. Some commenters requested clarification on the meaning of a 
``large proportion'' of consumers with limited English proficiency. The 
rule specifies that this proportion is determined by the State; 
moreover, this phrase has been a part of the LCR since 2007 (72 FR 
57782, USEPA, 2007a) and the same phrase has been used in the CCR Rule 
(Sec.  141.153(h)) and PN Rule (Sec.  141.205(c)(2)) translation 
requirements after which this provision was originally modeled. Some 
commenters requested clarification on what constitutes ``limited 
English proficiency.'' As stated in the proposed LCRI preamble, 
individuals with limited English proficiency include those who do not 
speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability 
to read, write, speak, or understand English.
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA requested information and data on 
when a system provides translated materials to consumers with limited 
English proficiency, what resources are used to translate materials 
(e.g., State resources, community organizations), and what barriers 
water systems may face in providing accurate translated materials. The 
EPA also requested comment on whether the agency should require States, 
as a condition of primacy, to provide translation support to water 
systems that are unable to do so for public education materials to 
consumers with limited English proficiency.
    Some commenters supported requiring States to provide translation 
assistance to systems, while others were opposed and expressed concerns 
about cost and expertise for many States. Some commenters noted States 
have had difficulty with acquiring translation services for public 
notices and also expressed concern with the accuracy of translation 
services that water systems obtain on their own. Some commenters said 
it would be infeasible for States to provide translated public 
education materials to consumers without additional EPA assistance. The 
EPA received many comments requesting

[[Page 86530]]

that the agency provide translation resources and translated templates 
to assist water systems and States. The EPA intends to provide 
templates of public education materials that provide greater 
accessibility to consumers, including in multiple languages to assist 
water systems. In response to commenters' concerns about States' 
capacity to provide translation support, the EPA is requiring that 
States provide technical assistance to systems in communities with a 
large proportion of consumers with limited English proficiency, as a 
condition of primacy for the LCRI. This is consistent with the EPA's 
Final CCR Rule Revisions, which include a similar requirement (89 FR 
45980, USEPA, 2024c). The EPA believes that it should be feasible for 
States to provide technical assistance to water systems. Depending on 
the State's capacity, this could be as simple as providing resources 
for water systems to translate their public education materials, 
including EPA-provided translations of required content for public 
education materials (e.g., health effects language, definitions) and 
translated templates of public education materials through a website. 
This can also include providing water systems with information on how 
consumers can contact the State for translation assistance upon 
request.
4. Final Rule Requirements
a. Service Line Related Outreach
i. Required Public Education To Encourage Participation in Full Service 
Line Replacement
    In the final LCRI, the EPA is requiring, as proposed with minor 
revisions, outreach activities to encourage customer participation in 
full service line replacement for CWSs that do not meet the mandatory 
service line replacement rate calculated across a cumulative period as 
required under Sec.  141.84(d)(5). For the final LCRI, the EPA is 
revising the proposed requirement to account for the change from a 
rolling three year period to a cumulative period (see section IV.B of 
this preamble). These water systems must conduct the outreach at least 
once in the year following the calendar year for which the system does 
not meet their cumulative average replacement rate and annually 
thereafter until the water system meets the replacement rate or until 
there are no lead, GRR, or unknown service lines remaining in the 
inventory, whichever occurs first. The EPA is also revising the 
proposed requirement to specify that it only applies to CWSs, whereas 
the proposed requirement would have applied to all water systems that 
do not meet the service line replacement rate. In the final rule, CWSs 
serving more than 3,300 persons must conduct at least one of the 
following activities to discuss their service line replacement program 
and opportunities for replacement and to distribute public education 
materials:
     Conduct a public meeting;
     Participate in a community event to provide information 
about its service line replacement program;
     Contact customers by phone call or voice message, text 
message, email, or door hanger; or
     Use another method approved by the State to discuss the 
service line replacement program and opportunities for replacement.
    Alternatively, CWSs serving more than 3,300 persons must conduct at 
least two of the following activities:
     Send certified mail to customers and persons served by 
LSLs or GRR service lines to inform them about the water system's 
service line replacement program and opportunities for replacement;
     Conduct a social media campaign;
     Conduct outreach via the media including newspaper, 
television, or radio; or
     Visit targeted customers (e.g., customers in areas with 
lower service line replacement participation rates) to discuss the 
service line replacement program and opportunities for replacement.
    CWSs serving 3,300 persons or fewer must conduct at least one 
activity from either set of options. The final rule excludes NTNCWSs 
from this requirement as a NTNCWS would likely own its entire system 
and therefore would not likely have consumers to engage with. In the 
proposed rule, one of the activities included conducting a townhall 
meeting; the final rule revised this to be a public meeting more 
generally since a townhall meeting may imply government involvement. 
The option to send certified mail to customers and persons served by 
lead or GRR service lines to inform them about the water system's 
service line replacement program and opportunities for replacement is 
separate from, and cannot be substituted by, the notification of 
service line material required under Sec.  141.85(e).
ii. Notification of Service Line Material
    In the LCRI, the EPA is finalizing the clarifications to the 
requirement for water systems with lead, GRR, or unknown service lines 
in their inventory to notify customers and consumers if they are served 
by one of these service lines, as proposed. The EPA is requiring the 
same notification content requirements for lead and GRR service lines 
since both increase the risk of exposure to lead. In addition, all 
notices (lead, GRR, and unknown service lines) are required to include 
information about accessing the service line replacement plan and steps 
consumers can take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water. These 
notices must meet the requirements of Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(iv) which 
contains finalized revisions to update content requirements, including 
information about using a filter certified to reduce lead. The public 
education materials for lead and GRR service lines must include 
instructions for consumers to notify the water system if they think the 
material categorization is incorrect (e.g., if the service line is 
categorized as lead in the inventory but is actually non-lead). Water 
systems must follow up with consumers that notify the water system that 
they think the material is incorrect, verify the correct service line 
material, and update the inventory as appropriate (see section IV.D of 
this preamble). In addition, the notice must include a statement that 
water systems must offer to sample the tap water of any consumer served 
by a lead, GRR, or unknown service line who requests it in accordance 
with Sec.  141.85(c).
iii. Notification of a Service Line Disturbance
    Notification of service line disturbance is required following 
actions taken by a water system that cause a disturbance (Sec.  
141.85(g) of the proposed LCRI but updated to Sec.  141.85(f) in the 
final LCRI). This includes actions that result in a shut off or bypass 
of water to an individual service line or a group of service lines 
(e.g., operating a valve on a service line or meter setter, or 
reconnecting a service line to the main). This can also include other 
actions that cause a disturbance to a service line or group of service 
lines, such as undergoing physical action or vibration, that could 
result in pipe scale dislodging and associated release of particulate 
lead (e.g., disturbances following inventorying efforts). For these 
disturbances, water systems are required to provide persons at the 
service connection with public education materials and instructions for 
a flushing procedure to remove particulate lead.
    For some disturbances, water systems are required to provide 
persons at the service connection with public education materials and 
pitcher filters or point-of-use devices certified by an ANSI accredited 
certifier to reduce lead, along with filter instructions and filter

[[Page 86531]]

replacement cartridges. This is the case when the disturbance results 
from the replacement of an inline water meter, water meter setter, or 
connector. Under the final rule, the EPA has added a requirement that 
water systems must also provide filters when the disturbance results 
from the replacement of a water main whereby the service line pipe is 
physically cut (Sec.  141.85(f)(2)). The EPA is requiring distribution 
of filters in these situations because disturbances that involve 
physically cutting a service line that is known to or may potentially 
contain lead are particularly at risk of causing elevated lead levels 
in the drinking water (Lewis et al., 2017; Camara et al., 2013; Del 
Toral et al., 2013). In the final rule, the EPA is also requiring that 
water systems provide instructions for a flushing procedure to remove 
particulate lead for these disturbances so that persons at the service 
connection are provided this additional information for reducing lead 
in drinking water.
    In the final rule, the public education materials provided after a 
disturbance must meet the content requirements in Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv), which describe health effects of lead 
and steps consumers can take to reduce their exposure, as proposed. The 
EPA is also requiring the public education materials to include the 
information on lead, GRR, and unknown service lines specified in Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(vi) so that customers and persons at the service 
connection receive information about opportunities for replacing lead 
and GRR service lines and identifying the material of unknown service 
lines.
    Water systems that cause a disturbance to a lead, GRR, or unknown 
service line are required to notify persons both at the service 
connection and customers. Water systems must notify persons at the 
service connection of the disturbance before the service line is 
returned to service or within 24 hours of the disturbance if service 
was not shut off or bypassed. In the final rule, the EPA is providing 
water systems up to 30 days after the disturbance to notify customers 
who do not reside at the service connection (e.g., a customer who is a 
property owner and renting their property) since they would not be 
consuming the water and therefore would not be exposed to the 
potentially elevated lead levels caused by the disturbance but should 
still be notified since the disturbance affects their property.
b. Individual Notification of Tap Sampling Results
i. Lead
    The EPA is finalizing the requirement for water systems to provide 
notification to consumers of their individual lead tap sampling results 
within three business days of learning of the results. The EPA revised 
the proposed requirement from three calendar days to three business 
days for the final rule. This includes notification of results from 
compliance tap sampling as well as consumer-requested sampling in 
accordance with Sec.  141.85(d) and (c), respectively. The same time 
frame applies to all lead levels, regardless of whether an individual 
sample's lead levels exceed 0.010 mg/L (the lead action level). Water 
systems can deliver the notice either electronically (e.g., email or 
text message), by phone call or voice message, hand delivery, by mail 
(postmarked within three business days of the system learning of the 
results), or by another method approved by the State. Water systems 
that choose to deliver the notice orally by phone would be required to 
follow up with a written notice hand delivered or postmarked within 30 
days of the water system learning of the results. In addition to 
including the proposed content requirements, the final rule also 
requires the notice of lead tap sampling results to include information 
about possible sources of lead in drinking water that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(iii)(B), which includes explaining 
that lead exposure from drinking water is still possible even if tap 
sampling results do not detect lead at one point in time. This is in 
addition to the other information that the EPA is requiring in the 
final LCRI, including the mandatory lead health effects language 
provided in Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(ii) and steps consumers can take to 
reduce their risk of exposure provided in Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(iv), among 
other information.
ii. Copper
    Water systems must also provide notification to consumers of their 
individual copper tap sampling results within three business days of 
learning of the results. The EPA is requiring the same delivery methods 
for notification of copper tap sampling results as for lead. In cases 
where copper samples are collected at the same time as lead, systems 
can combine the lead and copper results and required information into a 
single notice. Similar to the notice of lead tap sampling results, the 
notice of copper tap sampling results must include the results of 
copper tap water monitoring for the tap that was tested, an explanation 
of the health effects of copper as provided in appendix B to subpart Q 
of part 141 (Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification), 
a list of steps consumers can take to reduce exposure to copper in 
drinking water, and contact information for the water system. The 
notice must also provide the MCLG and the action level for copper, both 
of which are 1.3 mg/L, and the definitions for these two terms from 
Sec.  141.153(c).
c. Other Public Education Materials
i. Supplemental Monitoring and Notification
    The EPA is finalizing the requirements, as proposed, for water 
systems to offer to sample the tap for lead for any consumer served by 
a lead, GRR, or unknown service line that requests it. Systems must 
deliver results of this on-request sampling in the same time frame of 
three business days required for results of compliance tap sampling. 
The EPA revised the proposed requirement from three calendar days to 
three business days. The EPA is finalizing flexibility for water 
systems to determine the sampling protocol for this supplemental 
monitoring, as proposed in the LCRI. For sites with a lead, GRR, or 
unknown service line, the sampling must capture the water stagnant in 
the service line as well as any premise plumbing (e.g., first- and 
fifth-liter samples, sequential sampling, flush samples); however, the 
water system can determine the particular sampling protocol to capture 
water in the service line and premise plumbing.
    The EPA is also clarifying in the final rule that when there is a 
systemwide lead action level exceedance, water systems must offer to 
sample the tap for lead for any consumer that requests it, and not just 
customers. As noted above, results of this on-request sampling must be 
delivered within three business days.
ii. Public Education After a Lead Action Level Exceedance
    Under the final LCRI, CWSs that exceed the lead action level must 
deliver public education materials to bill paying customers and every 
service connection address served, as proposed. The public education 
materials must be written, meaning they can be printed (i.e., delivered 
by mail or hand) or electronic (i.e., delivered by email) materials. 
However, the public education cannot be oral (i.e., delivered by phone 
call or voice message), unless this is done in addition to one of the 
other allowed delivery formats. The

[[Page 86532]]

EPA is requiring CWSs to conduct the public education activities under 
Sec.  141.85(b)(2) and NTNCWSs to conduct the public education 
activities under Sec.  141.85(b)(4) within 60 days of the end of the 
tap sampling period in which the exceedance occurred (i.e., June 30 or 
December 31 for standard monitoring, or September 30 or the last day of 
an alternative four-month tap sampling period approved by the State for 
annual and reduced monitoring). The public education activities must 
always be conducted within this 60-day time frame, instead of allowing 
systems to wait 12 months to conduct public education when there are 
consecutive action level exceedances as previously required. If a State 
grants an extension for a water system to conduct the public education 
activities, the deadline must not extend beyond six months after the 
end of the tap sampling period in which the lead action level 
exceedance occurred. Extensions can only be granted for the activities 
in Sec.  141.85(b)(2)(ii) through (vi) for CWSs and the activities in 
Sec.  141.85(b)(4)(i) and (ii) for NTNCWSs. The proposed rule 
inadvertently left out this extension provision for NTNCWSs; therefore, 
the final rule includes a technical correction to reinstate the 
extension provision for NTNCWSs. These requirements in the final LCRI 
are the same as proposed, with the technical correction.
    In the final LCRI, the EPA also revised the regulatory language in 
Sec.  141.85(b)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) to clarify that the purpose of the 
requirements for community water systems to deliver public education 
materials to local public health agencies and other organizations after 
a lead action level exceedance is to reach ``consumers'' (i.e., people 
who drink the water) who are most at risk rather than ``customers'' of 
the water system who may be paying the bill but not drinking the water 
(i.e., a customer who is a property owner and renting their property). 
This is a clarifying edit which does not impact the activities that 
community water systems must conduct.
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed content requirements with some 
additional required content in response to comments received on the 
proposed LCRI. Public education materials must include information 
about lead, GRR, and unknown service lines not only if the system has 
LSLs, but also GRR and unknown service lines. In addition to required 
LSL information, systems must include information about replacing GRR 
service lines and identifying the material of unknowns as well as 
information on how to access the system's service line replacement 
plan. Where the water system intends for customer payment for a portion 
of the replacement where it is required or authorized by State or local 
law or a water tariff agreement, the notice must also include 
information about financing solutions to assist property owners with 
replacement of their portion of a lead or GRR service line. Systems 
with known or unknown lead connectors in their inventory must also 
include information in the public education materials about accessing 
the inventory. The public education materials must include instructions 
for consumers to notify the water system if they think the material 
classification is incorrect.
    All water systems, including NTNCWSs, must include information in 
the public education materials about lead in plumbing components and 
about how consumers can get their water tested, including information 
about the provision of supplemental monitoring and notification in 
Sec.  141.85(c). In response to comments received on the proposed LCRI, 
the EPA is requiring the public education materials to explain that 
lead levels may vary and therefore lead exposure is possible even when 
tap sampling results do not detect lead at one point in time (Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(iii)(B)).
    The EPA is requiring public education materials to include 
additional steps that consumers can take to reduce their exposure to 
lead in drinking water, including explaining that using a filter 
certified to reduce lead by an ANSI accredited certifier is effective 
in reducing lead levels in drinking water. Water systems must emphasize 
additional measures to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water for 
pregnant people, infants, and young children since they are at higher 
risk of adverse health effects from lead exposure. Water systems must 
also provide additional information about flushing the pipes, including 
noting that consumers served by LSLs and GRR service lines may need to 
flush for longer periods. In addition, water systems must include 
contact information for the State and/or local health department so 
that consumers can contact them for more information about lead. States 
may only approve changes to the content requirements of the public 
education materials if the State determines the changes are more 
protective of human health. This information is required not only in 
public education after a lead action level exceedance but any of the 
public education requirements that cite the steps for reducing exposure 
to lead in drinking water in Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(iv), such as the 
consumer notice of lead tap sampling results and the notification of 
service line material.
iii. Public Education to Local and State Health Agencies
    For the final LCRI, the EPA is allowing CWSs to provide local and 
State health agencies with public education and DSSA information via 
mail, email, or another method approved by the State (see Sec.  
141.85(i)).
d. Requirements for Language Updates and Accessibility
i. Lead Health Effects Language
    For the final LCRI, the EPA is requiring the revised lead health 
effects language in public education materials, as proposed and 
previously described in section IV.J.2.d.i of this preamble.
ii. Translation Requirements
    The EPA is requiring in the final rule all public education 
materials under Sec.  141.85 to include (1) information in the 
appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of the materials, and 
(2) information where persons served by the water system may obtain a 
translated copy of the materials, or request assistance in the 
appropriate language(s), or the materials must be translated into the 
appropriate language(s). For the final rule, the EPA is also adding a 
requirement that States, as a condition of primacy for the LCRI, 
provide technical assistance to systems in meeting the requirement to 
provide translation assistance in communities with a large proportion 
of consumers with limited English proficiency. This can include 
providing water systems with contact information for inclusion in the 
system's public education materials where consumers can contact the 
State for translation assistance upon request. Other examples of 
technical assistance include providing resources for water systems to 
translate their public education materials, including EPA-provided 
translations of required content for public education materials (e.g., 
health effects language, definitions) and translated templates through 
a website.

K. Additional Requirements for Systems With Multiple Lead Action Level 
Exceedances

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    While water systems must take actions to reduce lead levels in 
response to a systemwide lead ALE, such as installing or re-optimizing 
OCCT, these actions can take several years to be fully implemented. 
Consequently, the LCRI proposed requiring water systems to

[[Page 86533]]

conduct public education activities and make filters that are certified 
to reduce lead available to consumers in the event of multiple lead 
action level exceedances. These actions are intended to provide greater 
public health protection to drinking water consumers by educating 
consumers about filters and increasing the likelihood of their use. The 
EPA proposed requiring water systems to take additional actions in 
response to three lead ALEs within a rolling five-year period. Multiple 
ALEs are indicative of recurring high lead levels that warrant 
additional measures while OCCT and mandatory service line replacement 
are being implemented, or that longer-term measures are not effective 
at reducing lead levels below the action level (e.g., a system that has 
re-optimized once and is meeting optimal water quality parameters). The 
EPA proposed the five-year period because it generally takes systems 
that long to conduct an OCCT study and to install treatment.
    Three lead ALEs (in five years) is also used to identify water 
systems with a pattern of higher lead levels over time. Many water 
systems have one or two ALEs and do not have another, so three action 
level exceedances are a better indicator of longer-term problems. See 
the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) chapter 3, section 
3.3.5, Exhibit 3-31 for additional information on the percent of 
systems with two ALEs that go on to experience three ALEs. In addition, 
having three or more lead ALEs within five years is a sign that 
consumers are being continually exposed to elevated lead levels.
    To prevent known or anticipated adverse health effects to the 
extent feasible, the EPA believes that while these water systems are 
taking actions to reduce lead in drinking water and continue to 
experience higher lead levels, they must provide additional public 
education on lead in drinking water and steps consumers can take to 
reduce their exposure, including how to properly use a filter, and make 
filters available to their consumers. Public education is effective for 
reducing lead exposures in drinking water, by influencing individuals' 
knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors, for example by making them aware of 
lead in their drinking water and actions they can take to reduce their 
exposure (see section IV.J.1 of this preamble). In addition, recent 
filter effectiveness studies conducted by the EPA have shown that 
properly installed and operated filters certified by an ANSI accredited 
certifier to reduce lead are effective at reducing lead in drinking 
water (Bosscher et al., 2019; Tang et al., 2023; Tully et al., 2023). 
Access is one factor that influences uptake of public health 
interventions. When filters or point-of-use devices and instructions on 
their proper use are made more accessible, consumers are more likely to 
use them (Reese et al., 2023; Mulhern et al., 2022). The EPA is 
requiring the public education materials to discuss the use of filters 
certified to reduce lead as one of the steps people can take to reduce 
their exposure to lead. Making filters available to consumers when a 
water system has multiple action level exceedances enhances existing 
public education messaging and reduces lead exposure if the filters are 
used properly. The EPA also finds that it is affordable and technically 
possible for water systems to make filters available for their 
consumers, as demonstrated by numerous systems that have provided 
filters to some or all consumers or as part of service line replacement 
programs, many of these at no direct cost to the consumer. Examples of 
communities that have implemented filter programs include Newark, New 
Jersey (City of Newark, n.d.); Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (City of 
Pittsburgh, n.d.); Kalamazoo, Michigan (City of Kalamazoo, 2023); 
Benton Harbor, Michigan (Berrien County Health Department, 2023); 
Elgin, Illinois (City of Elgin, 2023); and Denver, Colorado (City of 
Denver, 2023). Furthermore, the EPA has made adjustments in the final 
LCRI to require water systems to start developing a plan for making 
filters available earlier so that the provision of filters to consumers 
is not unnecessarily delayed (see section IV.K of this preamble).
    Under the proposed LCRI, if during a rolling five-year period there 
are three systemwide lead action level exceedances, a water system 
would be required to make available to all consumers pitcher filters or 
point-of-use devices that are certified by an ANSI accredited certifier 
to reduce lead, six months of replacement cartridges, and instructions 
for use within 60 days after the end of the tap sampling period in 
which it met the criteria for multiple lead action level exceedances. 
Replacement cartridges would be made available until there are no 
longer three action level exceedances in a rolling five-year period. No 
later than 30 days after the system has third ALE during a rolling 
five-year period, the water system would be required to provide a 
filter distribution plan to the State, and the State would be required 
to review and approve the plan within 15 days. If there is a subsequent 
ALE, the system would not be required to submit another filter plan 
unless the State requires it or if there are any changes to the filter 
plan. The filter plan would include a description of which methods the 
system will use to make filters and cartridges available and a 
description of how the system will address any barriers to consumers 
obtaining filters. In addition, the water system would be required to 
carry out at least one community outreach activity. This activity must 
discuss the multiple lead ALEs, the steps the system is taking to 
reduce lead in drinking water, and measures consumers can take to 
reduce their exposure to lead. The EPA proposed the following community 
outreach activities for systems with multiple ALEs: (1) conducting a 
townhall meeting; (2) participating in a community event where the 
system can make information about ongoing lead exceedances available to 
the public; (3) contacting customers by phone call or voice message, 
text message, email, or door hanger; (4) conducting a social media 
campaign; and/or (5) using another method approved by the State. The 
water system would be required to conduct at least one of the 
aforementioned activities once every six months. The EPA included these 
outreach requirements to increase transparency and protect public 
health by providing consumers information on how to minimize their risk 
of lead exposure. Water systems would be able to discontinue these 
measures when they no longer have met the criteria of three ALEs within 
a rolling five-year period.
2. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
    The EPA received comments both in support and opposed to the 
proposed requirement for water systems to conduct additional measures 
(i.e., outreach activities and making filters available) in response to 
multiple ALEs. Some thought the proposed requirement should provide 
greater public health protection by requiring delivery of filters to 
all consumers, including at no charge. Others recommended that the EPA 
require water systems to make water filters available to only those 
customers served by lead, GRR, and unknown service lines, due to the 
cost of the filters as well as logistical challenges associated with 
making filters available to all consumers, especially for large water 
systems.
    The EPA disagrees with the recommendation to limit the requirement 
to make point-of-use devices and pitcher filters only available to 
households or consumers that are currently being served by a lead, GRR,

[[Page 86534]]

or unknown service line. The EPA recognizes that LSLs are a significant 
source of lead in drinking water; however, lead can also enter drinking 
water from other sources, such as premise plumbing, affecting persons 
with or without LSLs. Therefore, availability of point-of-use devices 
and pitcher filters to all consumers ensures greater protection of the 
public from lead exposure in communities with recurring high lead 
levels.
    The EPA recognizes the possible economic and logistical challenges 
that some systems may face in making available point-of-use devices or 
pitcher filters to all consumers. The EPA disagrees with comments that 
assumed or recommended water systems provide filters directly to all 
consumers. The proposed LCRI regulatory text at Sec.  141.85(j) 
regarding the requirement for systems to make available to all 
consumers pitcher filters or point-of-use devices does not mean that 
systems are required to deliver filters, although that would be one 
option for a system to meet the requirement to make filters available. 
The rule allows systems (with the approval of the State) to determine 
the most appropriate way to meet the requirements, without prescribing 
specifically how systems must meet that requirement. For example, a 
system may decide to use more than one way to make filters available, 
such as operating a distribution center combined with providing at-home 
delivery on request, to accommodate consumers with different 
accessibility needs based on transportation and other considerations.
    The EPA requested comment on using the proposed criteria of three 
ALEs in a rolling five-year period to identify systems with ``multiple 
ALEs.'' Some commenters raised issues with setting the criteria for 
``multiple ALEs'' at three ALEs in five years and suggested alternative 
criteria. For example, a commenter suggested that the number of 
exceedances in the ``multiple ALEs'' criteria should be based on the 
number of customers. Another commenter stated that the three ALEs in 
five years metric would be ``at odds'' with these same systems' ability 
to remove LSLs over the same five-year period because systems would 
have to allocate limited resources to simultaneously implement both 
requirements. On the other hand, some commenters stated that three ALEs 
is ``too lenient'' or that the filter provision should be required 
after a single lead ALE, rather than three.
    After consideration of these comments, the EPA is finalizing the 
criteria for multiple lead ALEs consistent with the proposal; 
specifically, a system with at least three lead ALEs in a rolling five-
year period must meet the public education treatment technique 
requirements at Sec.  141.85(j). The five-year timeframe was selected 
because it typically takes five years to study, select, install, and 
operate OCCT. The EPA disagrees with requiring filters be made 
available after one ALE as the system will be undertaking multiple 
activities following a single ALE including public education described 
in section IV.J.4.c of this preamble that will advise consumers to take 
actions to reduce their exposure, among other ongoing public education 
activities (see section IV.J.4 of this preamble). Following the ALE the 
system will be involved in activities to install or re-optimize OCCT, 
as appropriate (see section IV.F.3 of this preamble). Three ALEs is a 
more accurate indicator of sustained high lead levels that would not be 
timely reduced by new or re-optimized CCT and which therefore merits 
the rule requirement to make filters available to reduce these 
exposures over a sustained period.
    Some commenters recommended requiring water systems to submit the 
filter plan after the second ALE rather than the third ALE. Similarly, 
another commenter recommended requiring water systems to start working 
on filter plans earlier than the proposed 30 days after the third ALE 
to have more time to provide filters. The EPA agrees with comments that 
recommend requiring submission of a filter plan after the second ALE 
instead of the third ALE. This provides water systems more time to 
prepare to make filters available by requiring water systems to submit 
the filter distribution plan to the State within 60 days after the 
second ALE in five years rather than within 30 days of the third ALE. 
The State will also have 60 days to review and approve the plan, rather 
than the proposed 15 days. This provides States with time to engage 
with the systems on their filter plans, as appropriate, and coordinate 
to address challenges with making filters available to consumers. By 
requiring systems to submit the filter plan after the second ALE, 
systems will be more likely to successfully implement the plan should 
the water system have a third ALE.
    Following approval of the filter plan, the water system will have 
time to resolve any potential logistical and financial challenges in 
advance of when they may need to implement the filter plan should the 
water system exceed the lead action level for a third time in a five-
year period. The EPA encourages systems to plan for making filters and 
cartridges available at no direct cost to low-income consumers, at a 
minimum. In addition, the water system has 60 days from the end of the 
tap sampling period when the third ALE occurs to implement the plan and 
make filters available to all consumers.
    Some commenters raised concerns about the proposed 60-day timeframe 
for water systems to make filters available after multiple ALEs. 
Specifically, some commenters questioned whether it would be feasible 
for water systems to make filters available to all consumers within 60 
days. In particular, some commenters mentioned that pitcher filters 
would be hard to obtain and provide to consumers within that timeframe. 
Another commenter requested that water systems be allowed to request a 
time extension to make filters available. In contrast, the EPA also 
received comments requesting a shorter timeframe for making filters 
available as proposed. A commenter suggested that water systems should 
be able to deliver filters in 30 days.
    The EPA disagrees that 60 days may not be enough time for water 
systems to obtain and make filters available to consumers. The final 
LCRI requires filters be made available 60 days after the end of the 
tap sampling period when the third ALE occurs (Sec.  141.85(j)(2)). 
Since systems will have already prepared the filter plan following the 
second ALE, with the 60-day time limit in mind, they will be prepared 
to implement it, such as procuring the initial allocation of filters 
and handling the logistics of making them available to their consumers 
quickly. As a result, 60 days is a feasible amount of time needed to 
make filters available to consumers. Also, the EPA disagrees with 
shortening the time to make filters available to 30 days because that 
may not provide water systems sufficient time to implement their plan.
    The EPA requested comment on the market's ability to correct for 
potential material shortages and provide enough filters to comply with 
the proposed LCRI. For the proposed LCRI, the EPA assumed that the 
market would correct for any potential shortages, including for 
filters, in the three years before the LCRI compliance date. The EPA 
received comments from a filter manufacturer and a filter certification 
association supporting the EPA's assumption that the market would 
correct for potential shortages, noting that water systems would be 
able to purchase many types of filters in large quantities. The EPA 
also found additional data on the growing water filtration market that 
confirms the EPA's assumption in the proposed rule that the market 
would correct on its own to meet the demands expected as a result of 
the LCRI requirements (ICF, 2024c).

[[Page 86535]]

Some commenters raised concerns about the supply of filters if many 
water systems have to implement these measures at the same time, but 
did not provide any information to support the concern. Therefore, for 
the final LCRI, the EPA affirms its assumption at proposal that the 
market has the ability to correct for potential material shortages and 
provide enough filters for systems to with multiple ALEs meet the 
requirement to make filters available to all consumers.
    Some commenters provided input on the proposed public education 
activities for systems with multiple lead ALEs. A commenter suggested 
increasing the use of public awareness campaigns. Another commenter 
suggested requiring water systems with multiple ALEs to conduct at 
least two public education activities rather than only one additional 
activity as proposed to be able to reach more people. Another commenter 
suggested that the required outreach activity in the rule should be 
based on system size; larger water systems should be required to 
conduct more frequent and more extensive outreach than small systems 
(e.g., media campaigns) since they serve a larger population.
    The EPA recognizes the importance of public education, which is why 
the LCRI requires systems with multiple ALEs to conduct a community 
outreach activity in Sec.  141.85(j)(4)(i) through (v) in addition to 
the public education activities that are required in the event of each 
single lead ALE in Sec.  141.85(b). The EPA expects this additional 
community outreach activity will better protect public health than the 
public education required by a single ALE alone by prompting consumers 
to take voluntary actions to reduce their exposure to lead during 
periods of recurrent action level exceedances by providing information 
to consumers about the multiple ALEs, steps the water system is taking 
to reduce lead, how consumers can minimize their lead risks, and how to 
obtain a filter certified to reduce lead. As provided in the final LCRI 
at Sec.  141.85(j)(4), the community outreach activity must: (1) 
discuss the multiple ALEs that have occurred; (2) lay out the steps the 
water system is taking to reduce lead in drinking water; (3) inform 
consumers of measures they can take to reduce their risk; and (4) 
provide information on how to obtain a filter. The EPA disagrees with 
requiring two additional outreach activities, instead of one additional 
activity every six months, for water systems with multiple ALEs because 
these water systems are already required to conduct three other 
outreach activities and other public education tasks following every 
lead ALE in accordance with Sec.  141.85(b)(2). The EPA believes the 
requirement for at least one additional outreach activity every six 
months and making filters available in accordance with Sec.  141.85(j), 
along with the other public education requirements under Sec.  
141.85(b)(2), will ensure consumers have access to information and 
resources to reduce their risk of lead exposure while water systems are 
working to address the underlying problem through longer-term efforts 
like OCCT and LSLR. However, the EPA notes that these requirements do 
not prohibit water systems from implementing additional and other types 
of outreach activities from the list in Sec.  141.85(j)(4). Systems may 
do more outreach than required to best meet the needs of their 
community. In addition, the EPA disagrees with specifying the type and 
frequency of the outreach activity based on system size because the 
agency does not want to limit water system's ability to choose the most 
effective activity, as the water system is in the best position to 
determine how to reach all their consumers, based on the community they 
serve. Therefore, the final LCRI provides water systems the flexibility 
to consider community-specific information, such as water system size, 
to inform which one of the five outreach options for outreach 
activities offered in the LCRI the water system chooses to conduct. As 
noted above, the agency believes requiring at least one outreach 
activity every six months is sufficient and the water system may 
conduct additional activities as needed.
    The EPA requested comment on whether to allow systems with multiple 
lead action level exceedances to consult with the State on alternative 
requirements and for States to determine the appropriate action. Most 
commentors supported authorizing the State to determine appropriate 
actions as alternatives to the LCRI requirements. The main 
justification provided by commenter is that States have a better 
understanding of the unique situations of water systems and determine 
more appropriate actions tailored to the water system.
    The EPA does not agree with these comments. The EPA determined that 
when any systems has multiple ALEs, additional public education is 
needed and making filters available to consumers will prevent adverse 
public health impacts as a result of the sustained ALEs. Systems are 
free to implement additional measures appropriate for their community. 
As there is no safe level of lead exposure from drinking water, a 
sustained ALES is indicative of the need for these specific additional 
actions to help expeditiously reduce exposure to lead in drinking water 
while the system works to comply with the OCCT requirements triggered 
by the ALE, or if longer-term measures to control corrosion and remove 
service lines are not effective at reducing systemwide lead levels to 
below the action level. Nevertheless, the EPA agrees that some level of 
State involvement is important to help ensure the water system has an 
appropriate plan in place and therefore, is requiring the State to 
approve the system's filter plan. In the final rule, the requirement of 
state approval of the filter plan will give the State an opportunity to 
work with the water system to develop a plan to make filters available 
for all consumers.
    The EPA requested comment on whether to include a provision where 
the State has discretion to allow systems to discontinue actions to 
address a sustained ALE sooner than otherwise required if the system 
has taken tangible actions to reduce lead levels in response to 
multiple ALEs. In the proposed LCRI preamble, the EPA gave the example 
of a system that has taken actions ``e.g., installs OCCT or re-
optimized CCT, completed mandatory service line replacement and is at 
or below the lead action level for two consecutive monitoring 
periods.'' Commenters generally supported the approach to provide the 
State with that discretion; one commenter disagreed with it. Another 
commenter recommended changing the LCRI to allow water systems to 
discontinue the actions.
    The EPA agrees with commenters that States should be able to allow 
water systems with multiple ALEs to discontinue the required actions if 
the water system is at or below the lead action level for two 
consecutive tap monitoring periods and if the water system has taken 
actions to reduce lead levels. The EPA is including this discretionary 
authority in the final LCRI because the additional actions taken to 
reduce lead levels, such as re-optimized OCCT or completed LSLR 
program, and lack of ALEs are indications that lead corrosion is being 
controlled. Therefore, the final rule adds a provision to give States 
the discretion to allow a water system to discontinue the required 
actions under Sec.  141.85(j) taken after multiple ALEs earlier if: (1) 
the system has taken actions to reduce lead levels, such as re-
optimized OCCT or completed LSLR; and (2) the system is at or below the 
lead action level for two consecutive tap monitoring periods.

[[Page 86536]]

3. Final Rule Requirements
    For the LCRI, the EPA is finalizing requirements for water systems 
related to multiple lead action level exceedances at Sec.  141.85(j). 
Water systems are required to take additional actions if the system 
exceeds the lead action level three times during a rolling five-year 
period. The first rolling five-year period ends five years after the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) followed by assessments 
every six months thereafter. No later than 60 days after the tap 
sampling period in which a water system meets the criteria described 
above, a water system must make available to all consumers pitcher 
filters or point-of-use devices certified by an ANSI accredited 
certifier to reduce lead, six months of replacement cartridges, and 
instructions for use. A water system must continue to make replacement 
cartridges available until the system meets the requirements to 
discontinue actions as described below.
    To provide additional time for systems to prepare for filter 
availability, the final LCRI requires water systems to submit a filter 
plan to the State no later than 60 days after the system exceeds the 
lead action level for the second time in a rolling five-year period 
(Sec.  141.85(j)(3)). This plan would include: (1) a description of the 
methods that would be used to make filters and filter cartridges 
available to consumers and (2) a description of how the system will 
address any barriers in making these filters available. The State must 
review and approve the system's filter plan within 60 days. This 
provides time for the State to engage with the water system on the 
filter plan, as needed, and time for the system to make any necessary 
updates before the need to implement the plan.
    In addition to providing filters, following the third action level 
exceedance in a five-year rolling period, the final LCRI requires water 
system to conduct at least one community outreach activity in addition 
to the required outreach specified in the public education section (see 
Sec.  141.85(b)(2)) for systems that exceed the lead action level. The 
EPA is clarifying for the final LCRI that water systems must conduct at 
least one of the activities within six months of the start of the tap 
monitoring period after the most recent lead ALE. In the proposed rule, 
one of the activities included conducting a townhall meeting; the final 
rule revised this to be a public meeting more generally since a 
townhall meeting may imply government involvement.
    Under the final LCRI, water systems may discontinue making filters 
or point-of-use devices available and conducting community outreach 
activities when there are no longer three ALEs in a five-year period 
(Sec.  141.85(j)(6)). The final LCRI provides States discretion to 
allow a water system to discontinue these additional requirements 
earlier if the system is at or below the action level for two 
consecutive tap monitoring periods and the water system has taken 
actions to reduce lead levels (e.g., re-optimized OCCT, completed LSLR) 
(Sec.  141.85(j)(6)).

L. Lead Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    For LCRI, the EPA proposed to retain many of the 2021 LCRR 
requirements in Sec.  141.92 for CWSs to conduct public education and 
sample for lead in the schools and licensed child care facilities they 
serve. Children are especially vulnerable to lead exposure and spend a 
significant amount of time in these facilities. While the EPA is aware 
that some States have requirements for lead sampling in schools and 
child care facilities, including several States that have passed new 
laws since the LCRR was promulgated, the EPA is also aware that some 
schools or child care facilities have not been or are not being tested 
under existing State or local requirements or through other voluntary 
programs (USGAO, 2018; USEPA, 2023a, chapter 3, section 3.3.10). 
Accordingly, many schools or child care facilities may not have 
experience with lead in drinking water testing. The EPA promulgated 
these requirements in the 2021 LCRR as part of the public education 
treatment technique in order to educate schools and licensed child care 
facilities about the risk from lead in premise plumbing and the 
importance of sampling for lead in drinking water, to provide these 
entities with some experience testing for lead in drinking water, and 
to help inform their decisions to mitigate lead risks, including by 
establishing their own sampling programs (86 FR 4232, USEPA, 2021a; 
USEPA, 2020e). This includes providing schools and child care 
facilities with the EPA's ``3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in 
Schools and Child Care Facilities--A Training, Testing and Taking 
Action Approach (3Ts),'' which was developed to assist schools, child 
care facilities, and States with addressing lead exposure (USEPA, 
2018).
    While larger buildings such as schools are not likely to be served 
by LSLs, premise plumbing may contain lead. Additionally, large 
buildings, such as schools, can have a higher potential for elevated 
lead levels. This is because, even when large buildings are served by a 
water system with well-operated OCCT, they may have lead in drinking 
water due to lead in premise plumbing, larger and more complex plumbing 
configurations, and inconsistent water use patterns (e.g., summer, 
holiday, or other breaks) that can result in longer stagnation times 
(88 FR 84956, USEPA, 2023a; Barn et al., 2014; Deshommes et al., 2016; 
Proctor et al., 2020). As described in the proposed LCRI preamble, due 
to these factors, a water system's 90th percentile lead level is not 
necessarily reflective of lead levels in schools, and water system 
adjustments to OCCT will likely not address elevated lead levels in 
schools. Therefore, setting additional treatment technique requirements 
for corrosion control would not be effective (88 FR 84957, USEPA, 
2023a). Therefore, the EPA has determined that public education and 
sampling at schools and child care facilities is an element of the 
treatment technique rule for public education and not CCT. Accordingly, 
the EPA determined the public education treatment technique is feasible 
for the reasons cited in section IV.J.1 of this preamble, including for 
CWSs to conduct public education and sampling at these facilities to 
contribute to increased awareness of lead in drinking water in these 
facilities (88 FR 84957, USEPA, 2023a). Also see section IV.L.2 of this 
preamble for a discussion of the EPA's authority to require CWSs to 
conduct these activities.
    For LCRI, the EPA proposed to retain the requirements from the 2021 
LCRR for CWSs to conduct public education and sampling in the schools 
and licensed child care facilities that they serve. The EPA proposed 
minor changes to clarify the intent of the provisions and proposed two 
new waiver provisions in Sec.  141.92(h) to increase the flexibility of 
States to waive sampling requirements for CWSs where they would be 
duplicative of alternative sampling programs that would meet the 
requirements. The EPA also proposed to reduce the time frame from 
annually to 30 days for when CWSs must submit sampling results to the 
State and State and local health agencies.
    In developing public education and sampling requirements for 
schools and child care facilities under the 2021 LCRR and LCRI, the EPA 
is authorized under SDWA to establish NPDWRs that are legally 
enforceable standards for PWSs as defined in SDWA section 1401(4) and 
Sec.  141.2. The EPA does not have the authority under SDWA section

[[Page 86537]]

1412 to require schools and child care facilities that are not 
regulated as PWSs to act under an NPDWR. The EPA did not propose public 
education and sampling requirements for schools and child care 
facilities that are regulated as PWSs because these facilities must 
comply with NPDWRs, including the LCRI, unlike schools and child care 
facilities that are not PWSs. This includes requirements to monitor for 
lead and copper in drinking water (Sec.  141.86), conduct public 
education (Sec.  141.85), conduct mandatory LSLR (Sec.  141.84), 
optimize or re-optimize OCCT (Sec. Sec.  141.81 and 141.82) or 
implement a small system flexibility as applicable (Sec.  141.93). 
Requiring schools and child care facilities that are regulated PWSs to 
comply with the requirements of Sec.  141.92 would be duplicative. The 
EPA intended for these requirements to only apply to CWSs as part of 
the public education treatment technique to educate the schools and 
licensed child care facilities they serve on the risks of lead in their 
buildings so that schools and child care facilities can take voluntary 
actions.
2. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
a. General Requirements
    The EPA received comments stating that the school and child care 
sampling requirements should be removed from the final rule because the 
EPA does not have the authority under SDWA to require PWSs to sample at 
these locations. Conversely, the EPA received comments requesting that 
the EPA require water systems to take additional actions in schools and 
child care facilities, including installing filters certified to reduce 
lead in drinking water and more frequent and comprehensive tap 
sampling. These commenters indicated that the proposed requirements are 
not effective as a component of the public education treatment 
technique because they will not protect children's health. They stated 
that the sampling would be only voluntary and limited, and would not 
require water systems to take remediation actions or publicly post 
results. In turn, they provided corresponding suggestions for new or 
more stringent requirements for addressing lead in schools and child 
care facilities.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters who stated that the EPA does not 
have the authority to include requirements for school and child care 
lead sampling under SDWA. The EPA notes that it is not accurate for 
commenters to frame the EPA's school and child care sampling 
requirements under LCRI as regulating those facilities in lieu of water 
systems. As stated above, the EPA is authorized under SDWA section 1412 
to establish NPDWRs that are legally enforceable standards for PWSs as 
defined in SDWA section 1401(4) and Sec.  141.2. Therefore, the EPA has 
the authority under SDWA section 1412 to require CWSs, which are a 
subset of PWSs, to comply with lead tap water requirements, which 
include conducting public education and sampling for lead in schools 
and child care facilities as part of the treatment technique for public 
education. Further, the EPA's authority to promulgate the requirement 
for CWSs to conduct public education and sampling at these facilities 
is under the EPA's authority to promulgate a treatment technique rule 
to ``prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of 
persons to the extent feasible'' (SDWA section 1412(b)(7)(A)). As noted 
above, children are especially vulnerable to lead exposure and spend a 
large portion of their day in schools and child care facilities. As 
part of the feasibility demonstration for public education (see section 
IV.J.1 of this preamble) and in accordance with SDWA section 
1412(b)(7)(A), the EPA determined it is feasible for CWSs to conduct 
public education and sampling at these facilities to contribute to 
their increased awareness of lead in drinking water and thus facilitate 
actions that the schools and child care facilities, or the families of 
children who attend, can take to reduce lead exposures. Therefore, the 
EPA is authorized to and made the requisite determination under SDWA 
section 1412(b)(7)(A) to promulgate a treatment technique for public 
education and to include water system sampling requirements at schools 
and child care facilities that are feasible and can reduce lead 
exposures. In addition, consistent with every lead and copper NPDWR, 
CWSs already routinely conduct public education activities to customers 
within their service area and have experience with conducting consumer-
requested sampling (see Sec.  141.85(c), 56 FR 26500-26503, USEPA, 
1991). As described in section IV.L.1 of this preamble, the sampling 
requirements are part of public education to educate schools and child 
care facilities and their users about the risks from lead in premise 
plumbing and the importance of sampling for lead in drinking water, to 
provide them with some experience testing for lead in drinking water, 
and help inform their decisions to mitigate lead risks, as appropriate, 
including potentially establishing their own testing program for which 
Federal funding is available (see section III.G of this preamble).
    The EPA also disagrees with commenters who stated that the EPA 
should require water systems to install filters in all schools and 
child care facilities either in lieu of or in addition to sampling. As 
discussed in section IV.L.1 of this preamble, elevated lead levels in 
larger buildings such as schools are generally due to conditions 
outside of the water system's control (e.g., complex premise plumbing 
arrangements, inconsistent water use patterns), and persist even in 
systems with well-operated OCCT. While it is within the control of 
water systems to conduct public education activities and sampling, 
water systems are typically not in control of premise plumbing in 
schools and child care facilities. While water systems could have 
access to drinking water outlets in schools and child care facilities 
to install and maintain filters (e.g., if a school or child care 
facility gives a PWS permission to access the property for this 
purpose), the EPA notes that premise plumbing is typically not part of 
the PWS distribution system and CWSs typically are therefore not 
responsible for taking such actions. Notably, the ``filter-first'' 
legislation cited by commenters impose requirements on schools and 
child care facilities, not on PWSs, to install filters, conduct 
sampling, and ensure maintenance (e.g., City of Philadelphia, 2022; 
State of Michigan, 2023).
    Additionally, requiring water systems to install and maintain 
filters in all the schools and child care facilities they serve would 
impose a significant financial and technical burden on water systems. 
While commenters argue that installing and maintaining filters is more 
cost effective than a sampling program, the agency notes that the 
commenters assumed a sampling program that included sampling of all 
outlets used for human consumption twice a year and replacement of 40 
percent of the faucets sampled with lead-free components in the first 
year. This assumption is significantly more expansive than the 
requirements for CWSs under Sec.  141.92. See section IV.L.2.d of this 
preamble for a discussion on the scope and frequency of sampling. 
Furthermore, as stated in section IV.L.1 of this preamble, the purpose 
of these requirements is to provide public education to schools and 
child care facilities in the form of information about the risks of 
lead in their facilities, experience with how to sample for lead, and 
the 3Ts guidance to inform potential actions (e.g., additional 
sampling, remediation,

[[Page 86538]]

installation of filters). Installation and maintenance of filters in 
all schools and child care facilities served by a water system is 
outside of the intended scope of the requirements and is not necessary 
to fulfill the stated purpose of the requirements as a public education 
program under the public education treatment technique. Therefore, 
schools and child care facilities and not water systems are generally 
responsible for addressing premise plumbing and remediation actions 
within their buildings, including installing filters and/or bottle 
filling stations. For further discussion and additional reasons 
supporting the EPA's decision not to require water systems install and 
maintain filters in addition to sampling requirements as part of public 
education, see discussion of remediation in section e. below.
    The EPA also disagrees that the requirements will not be effective 
for the purposes of providing public education to schools and child 
care facilities because the LCRI does not include a specific frequency 
or number of samples (e.g., semi-annually or annually, all taps used 
for cooking and drinking), or requires remediation activities, or 
specific reporting requirements, as suggested by the commenters. In 
promulgating these requirements as part of LCRI, the EPA does not 
intend for them to be a replacement for more comprehensive testing in 
schools and child care facilities. The EPA anticipates they will be 
effective to achieve their intended purposes of providing schools and 
child care facilities information about lead risks in their buildings 
and experience with testing for lead to help inform decisions for 
addressing lead, as stated above. As noted in section V.L.1 of this 
preamble, the EPA is aware that many schools and child care facilities 
are not knowledgeable about drinking water lead risks and currently do 
not receive direct information from an entity such as the water system 
or the State about lead in drinking water and approaches to reduce risk 
(USGAO, 2018; final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), section 
3.10.10). Furthermore, as noted above, many schools and child care 
facilities do not have direct experience with sampling. The EPA 
previously developed guidance for schools and child care facilities 
(i.e., the 3Ts) to assist in addressing lead in drinking water. There 
have been significant Federal resources provided to States to support 
voluntary programs (88 FR 84957, USEPA, 2023a). The EPA anticipates 
that the requirements in Sec.  141.92 will build upon these non-
regulatory efforts and increase school and child care facility 
awareness of lead in drinking water in their buildings and provide them 
with tools to take additional actions. For a discussion on the 
limitations of requiring schools and child care facilities to 
participate in sampling, see the below section c on public education 
and outreach.
b. Applicability
    The EPA received public comments about which schools and child care 
facilities are covered by the requirements for school and child care 
sampling in Sec.  141.92(a). The EPA received comments supporting the 
proposed revision for water systems to submit an initial list of the 
schools and child care facilities that they serve to the State by the 
LCRI compliance date. However, some commenters indicated that States 
should not be required to review the list for accuracy, stating that 
State drinking water programs do not have enough information or 
resources to assess the validity of the list. The EPA also received 
public comments requesting clarification as to whether schools and 
child care facilities not covered under the requirements in Sec.  
141.92(a) must be included on the list. The EPA also received comments 
that the EPA should not exclude schools and child care facilities that 
were constructed or had full plumbing replacement after January 1, 2014 
or the date a State adopted standards that meet the definition of lead 
free in accordance with section 1417 of SDWA; these comments noted that 
lead-free plumbing materials could still contain lead. The EPA received 
comment that schools and child care facilities that are served by a 
lead, GRR, or unknown service line should not be excluded. The EPA also 
received comments stating the agency should require schools and child 
care facilities that are regulated as NTNCWSs to take additional 
actions, such as installing filters on all outlets used for cooking and 
drinking.
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for water systems to 
submit the initial list of schools and child care facilities to the 
State by the LCRI compliance date in Sec.  141.92(b)(1). The EPA 
proposed this requirement because while the 2021 LCRR required CWSs to 
develop a list of schools and child care facilities that they serve by 
the rule compliance date and to send an updated list to the State or 
certify that the list has not changed at least once every five years, 
there was no initial requirement to submit the list to the State by the 
compliance date. The submission of the initial list at the time systems 
must begin to comply with the requirements of Sec.  141.92 rather than 
five years later is a necessary prerequisite for State oversight and to 
ensure compliance with regulatory provisions that support health 
protection and public education in schools and child care facilities 
(88 FR 84956, USEPA, 2023a). The EPA disagrees with commenters who 
indicated that the State should not review the list for accuracy. While 
States may not be able to confirm every individual entry on the list, 
States must ensure that systems have appropriately applied the 
definitions of schools and child care facilities in Sec.  141.2 to 
identify the schools and child care facilities they serve. 
Additionally, the EPA anticipates that State drinking water programs 
may be able to access information about schools and licensed child care 
facilities from other State or local agencies to assist CWSs in 
developing the lists. The EPA anticipates States may be in a good 
position to help systems, hence, this requirement facilitates that 
support. The expectation for State review is described in Sec.  
142.16(d)(12). See section V.C of this preamble for more discussion 
about the special primacy requirements associated with Sec.  141.92.
    While Sec.  141.92(a) exempts CWSs from conducting public education 
and sampling in schools and child care facilities based on the date of 
adoption of the revised ``lead-free'' definition in accordance with 
section 1417 of SDWA, the EPA agrees that it is ambiguous whether these 
excluded facilities must be included on the list of schools and child 
care facilities served by the CWS in Sec.  141.92(b). The provision in 
Sec.  141.92(a)(1) requires CWSs to conduct public education and lead 
monitoring at the schools and licensed child care facilities they serve 
with the stated exceptions. The list is intended to assist CWSs in 
fulfilling the public education and sampling requirements of Sec.  
141.92 and for State oversight. The EPA did not intend for CWSs to 
include schools and licensed child care facilities on the list that are 
excluded under Sec.  141.92(a). The agency notes the requirements for 
conducting public education in schools and child care facilities in 
Sec.  141.92(c) and sampling in Sec.  141.92(d) and (e) all reference 
the schools and licensed child care facilities identified in the list 
in Sec.  141.92(b). To be responsive to these commenters and provide 
clarity, the EPA added the phrase ``that meet the criteria of paragraph 
(a)'' in Sec.  141.92(b)(1) in the final LCRI.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters who said that water systems 
should conduct public education and school sampling in facilities 
regardless of construction date. The EPA excluded facilities based on 
the date of adoption

[[Page 86539]]

of the revised ``lead-free'' definition in accordance with section 1417 
of SDWA because these facilities are not likely to contain significant 
lead sources (USEPA, 2020c). As noted in section IV.A of this preamble, 
plumbing certified as ``lead free'' may still have an allowable level 
of lead; however, contribution of lead to drinking water from these 
sources is low. Additionally, plumbing replacement with new plumbing 
materials is frequently conducted as a remediation approach to address 
sources of lead. Water system resources are best used for public 
education and sampling in schools and child care facilities with more 
significant sources of lead rather than at sites with lead-free 
plumbing. If schools or child care facilities that are newly 
constructed or have conducted plumbing replacements to remove sources 
of lead have potential concerns about lead in drinking water, those 
facilities can choose to conduct their own sampling. However, the EPA 
is not requiring CWSs to conduct public education and lead sampling at 
these schools and child care facilities in the final LCRI.
    The EPA agrees that any school or child care facility that has 
undergone full plumbing replacement or were constructed after the date 
of the ``lead free'' definition was adopted should not be excluded if 
they are served by LSLs. LSLs were generally not constructed with an 
interior diameter greater than two inches, therefore they are typically 
connected to single family homes or buildings with limited number of 
units (USEPA, 2022c). While larger schools and child care facilities 
are therefore unlikely to be served by an LSL, it would be inconsistent 
to exclude schools and child care facilities on the basis of meeting 
the ``lead free'' definition unless the service line is also non-lead. 
The EPA notes that this is consistent with the criteria for full 
plumbing replacement for small systems under Sec.  141.93(c)(2). The 
EPA is revising Sec.  141.92(a)(1) in the final LCRI to add a clause 
Sec.  141.92(a)(1)(ii), which specifies that the schools and child care 
facilities that were constructed or had full plumbing replacement after 
the ``lead free'' date are not served by a lead, GRR, or unknown 
service line.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters who suggest the EPA set different 
requirements for schools and child care facilities that are regulated 
as NTNCWSs. The EPA notes these commenters did not provide sufficient 
information supporting their recommendations about specific 
requirements for the agency to be able to evaluate how or why these 
water systems should be regulated differently. In the 2021 LCRR and in 
the LCRI proposal, the EPA did not propose requiring NTNCWSs that are 
also schools and child care facilities to meet the requirements of this 
section. The purpose of the requirements in Sec.  141.92 is to further 
public education for schools and child care facilities that are served 
by CWSs. Schools and child care facilities that are regulated as PWSs 
already have knowledge about lead sources in their buildings and 
experience with actions like sampling and remediation. The agency notes 
that these NTNCWSs are required to take other actions under the LCRI as 
applicable that would address lead in these facilities including public 
education, service line replacement, and potential installation of 
treatment or implementation of a small system flexibility. Therefore, 
the requirements of Sec.  141.92 would be duplicative and would not 
provide the public education benefits as intended for schools and child 
care facilities that are not PWSs. Based on the EPA's intent to 
regulate all NTNCWSs the same across the LCRI and the lack of 
information submitted, the final rule does not include different 
requirements for schools that are NTNCWSs.
c. Outreach to Schools and Licensed Child Care Facilities
    Some commenters disagreed with the agency's different proposed 
approaches for outreach to elementary schools and child care facilities 
versus secondary schools for the first five years after the compliance 
date. Some commenters stated that all schools and child care facilities 
should be treated the same, with the more direct outreach that is 
required for elementary schools and child care facilities to be 
extended to secondary schools. Others suggested only requiring CWSs to 
offer sampling on request and not require systems to attempt to 
schedule sampling for the elementary schools and child care facilities 
during the first five years following the LCRI compliance date, stating 
that it would simplify the rule. These commenters indicated that all 
sampling is ``voluntary'' because elementary schools and child care 
facilities can decline sampling or not respond to outreach when 
contacted by the water system during the first five years. Some 
commenters stated that the EPA should make the sampling mandatory such 
that all schools and child care facilities are sampled, stating that a 
voluntary program will lead to schools and child care facilities not 
being sampled for lead. The EPA also received comments suggesting that 
the EPA allow CWSs to only conduct outreach to a school district or 
central office that manages child care facilities instead of each 
individual site, stating that individual outreach would circumvent 
official lines of communication. Still others requested that the agency 
specify that CWSs are not required to provide information related to a 
lead action level exceedance under the requirement in Sec.  141.92(c) 
for CWSs to provide information to schools and licensed child care 
facilities consistent with Sec.  141.85(a)(1), stating such information 
would not be relevant.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters who stated that all schools and 
child care facilities should be treated the same under Sec.  141.92. 
The EPA notes that the primary difference between the CWS requirements 
for elementary schools and child care facilities and secondary schools 
is the type of outreach that the system must conduct. The EPA is 
maintaining different requirements for CWS outreach to elementary 
schools and child care facilities compared to secondary schools during 
the first five years following the LCRI compliance date because 
children under the age of six are at the greatest risk of adverse 
health effects due to lead exposure (CDC, 2022a). Requiring CWSs to 
conduct more intensive outreach to elementary schools and child care 
facilities relative to secondary schools during the first five years 
after the LCRI compliance date prioritizes sampling in the facilities 
serving children with the greatest risks associated with lead exposure 
and provides this group of schools and child care facilities with the 
opportunity to have more direct information. Specifically, the final 
LCRI requires water systems to provide more direct outreach to these 
schools and child care facilities in the first five years by mandating 
the water system make at least two separate outreach attempts to 
schedule sampling. Conversely, CWSs are required to provide an annual 
notice to secondary schools who must request sampling. This approach 
will reduce the overall burden on CWSs to conduct outreach and enable 
them to focus on facilities with the subpopulation most susceptible to 
experiencing health risks from lead while still maintaining an 
opportunity for secondary schools to be sampled if they request it. It 
is for these same reasons that the EPA disagrees with commenters who 
say that CWSs should only offer sampling on request to the elementary 
schools and licensed child care facilities as required for the 
secondary schools. While the EPA agrees with commenters who said that 
the sampling requirements are voluntary

[[Page 86540]]

on the part of the school or child care facility, the EPA estimated in 
the 2021 LCRR that the more extensive outreach for elementary schools 
and child care facilities was likely to result in a higher level of 
participation relative to sending out letters offering sampling to 
schools and child care facilities (86 FR 4232, USEPA, 2021a). 
Regardless of the outreach required, all schools and licensed child 
care facilities served by the systems have the same opportunity to be 
sampled and at the same frequency.
    The EPA acknowledges that some schools and child care facilities 
will decline or not respond to CWS outreach. However, the EPA disagrees 
with commenters that the agency can require that all schools and child 
care facilities be sampled. The EPA is authorized under SDWA to 
establish NPDWRs that are legally enforceable standards that apply to 
PWSs as defined in SDWA section 1401(4) and Sec.  141.2. The EPA does 
not have the authority under SDWA section 1412 to require schools and 
child care facilities that are not regulated as PWSs to act under an 
NPDWR to either allow CWSs to sample within the schools and child care 
facilities or to require the facilities themselves to conduct sampling 
or undertake other actions. Therefore, the EPA does not have the 
authority to require a school or child care facility to allow a CWS to 
conduct sampling. Schools and child care facilities may not consent to 
tap sampling in their buildings and CWSs do not have control over these 
facilities. Additionally, a CWS cannot be in violation of the LCRI 
where a school or child care facility declined to participate in lead 
sampling because CWSs do not generally have control over these 
facilities.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters who stated that CWSs should only 
be required to conduct outreach to administrative entities, such as 
school districts or central offices, instead of individual schools and 
child care facilities. As described in section IV.L.1 of this preamble, 
these requirements are part of the public education treatment 
technique. As such, it is important that each school and licensed child 
care facility receive the required information about lead in drinking 
water directly from the CWS. While CWSs may wish to and can choose to 
involve an administrative entity as part of school and child care 
facility outreach, such as copying these entities on the outreach 
materials or working with them in some way, the EPA does not agree that 
offering this information to individual facilities would overstep the 
administrative chain of command. For example, individual schools 
typically have their own school-specific administration and facilities 
management in addition to school district-wide administration. Schools 
and child care facilities can determine for themselves if they must 
consult with a central office or other administrative entity before 
proceeding with lead sampling. Additionally, neither the EPA nor the 
CWS can require an entity such as a school district or central office 
to disseminate information to individual schools and child care 
facilities. The requirements are intended to provide each school and 
child care facility with information about the health risks of lead, 
the 3Ts, and information about sampling. The agency notes that there 
may be instances where collaborating with school districts or other 
entities may help encourage participation and build connections between 
schools and child care facilities and water systems. However, the 
agency also anticipates that information may not be disseminated to the 
individual schools and child care facilities and that coordinating 
sampling and answering questions through an intermediary may be 
inefficient. While a CWS may choose to include outreach to an 
administrative entity (e.g., a school district), the agency is not 
allowing CWSs to conduct outreach to these entities in place of 
outreach to the schools or child care facilities they serve. The EPA is 
concerned that the suggested revision would reduce the effectiveness of 
the requirements by reducing the likelihood that individual schools and 
child care facilities would receive the information.
    The EPA agrees with the comment that the information about health 
risks that CWSs are required to be provided schools and child care 
facilities under Sec.  141.92(c)(1) should not include information that 
refers to a lead action level exceedance, because it is not relevant 
for the purposes of Sec.  141.92. Therefore, the EPA is revising Sec.  
141.92(c)(1) in the final LCRI to specify CWSs must provide information 
about health risks from lead in drinking water consistent with Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) and (vi). This omits only the content in 
Sec.  141.85(a)(1) that is directly related to a lead action level 
exceedance. The agency notes that a school or child care facility would 
receive public education that includes all of the information in Sec.  
141.85(a)(1) if the system has an action level exceedance in accordance 
with Sec.  141.85(b).
d. Sampling
    The EPA requested comments about whether the agency should require 
CWSs to collect more samples and/or more frequently in schools and 
child care facilities. The EPA received many comments stating that the 
EPA should require more frequent sampling at more taps. Suggestions 
included requiring water systems to sample at all taps used for human 
consumption, and increasing the frequency to three years, annually, or 
every six months. Some of these commenters stated that limited sampling 
is not useful as a public education tool because the samples are not 
representative of the entire building and could lead to a false sense 
of security if lead is not detected. Conversely, many commenters also 
stated that the EPA should not increase the required minimum number of 
samples of five samples per school and two per child care facility, or 
the sampling frequency, for reasons including that the proposed 
provisions are sufficient for public education purposes and increased 
burden on water systems may distract from other actions under the LCRI. 
Some commenters supported the proposed requirements stating that the 
purpose of the requirements is public education. Some commenters also 
indicated that schools and child care facilities can conduct additional 
sampling, if desired. The EPA also received comments stating that 
sampling is not necessarily effective as a public education tool due to 
variability in lead levels over time and suggested different 
requirements for the EPA to require CWSs to install filters certified 
to reduce lead in schools and child care facilities with periodic 
sampling to ensure efficacy.
    In the final LCRI, the EPA is maintaining the requirements for CWSs 
to collect at least five samples per school and two per child care 
facility when sampling for lead. The EPA agrees with commenters that 
samples at one tap are not representative of all taps within a building 
but disagrees that the sampling will lead to a false sense of security. 
The purpose of the requirements in Sec.  141.92 are for public 
education. Tap sampling is one but not the only way to provide 
information to schools and child care facilities about lead in their 
buildings. The sampling in Sec.  141.92 serves as an initial sample set 
for lead risks within schools and child care facilities and coupled 
with the public education materials (e.g., the EPA's 3Ts guidance), are 
intended to encourage schools and child care facilities to take 
additional actions, including additional comprehensive sampling. As 
noted in section V.L.1 of this preamble, the EPA is aware that many 
schools or child care facilities

[[Page 86541]]

lack knowledge and experience regarding lead sampling in schools and 
child care facilities. CWSs are required to provide schools and child 
care facilities with a copy of the EPA's 3Ts guidance prior to 
sampling. The EPA's 3Ts guidance clearly encourages schools and child 
care facilities to conduct comprehensive sampling as part of routine 
building maintenance and provides tools to assist them in these 
efforts. Additionally, the EPA is concerned that increasing the number 
of required samples and frequency of sampling will place an increased 
burden on water systems and divert time and resources from other 
requirements under the LCRI, such as LSLR. The EPA received comments 
from water systems noting the large number of schools and child care 
facilities they serve. For example, one system stated that they serve 
approximately 2,000 elementary schools and child care facilities and 
would be required to collect up to 1,000 samples per year under Sec.  
141.92 if the schools and child care facilities agree to be sampled. 
They noted that this sampling effort is a significant increase over 
what is required for compliance (e.g., 400 samples per year under 
standard monitoring if collecting first- and fifth-liter samples at 
each site). The EPA notes that increasing sampling to all taps used for 
human consumption and/or increasing the frequency would significantly 
increase burden and likely make this provision unworkable. Rather, the 
initial sampling offered by the water system coupled with the 
information in the 3Ts is sufficient to educate schools and child care 
facilities on the steps they can take to reduce lead risks in their 
facilities, including steps such as routine sampling and installation 
of filters. The EPA does not agree that additional samples are needed 
to fulfill the intent of the requirements and therefore is not 
increasing the number of samples or sampling frequency in the final 
LCRI.
e. Remediation
    Some commenters stated that the EPA should set a school-specific 
action level that would require either schools and child care 
facilities or CWSs to take actions based on the sampling results, 
asserting that otherwise, the requirements would not protect children 
from lead exposure. Some of these commenters highlighted existing State 
requirements that include action levels for schools and require 
remediation, citing these as support for the EPA to consider requiring 
similar actions. Some commenters stated that the EPA should require 
CWSs to install filters certified to reduce lead, such as bottle 
filling stations, in all schools and child care facilities, citing 
``filter-first'' legislation adopted in States, such as Michigan. These 
commenters indicated that lead may be present in drinking water 
regardless of tap sample results due to variability, and that filters 
are necessary to protect public health. Other commenters agreed with 
the EPA's proposed approach for CWSs to provide schools and child care 
facilities with the results and remediation recommendations consistent 
with the EPA's 3Ts.
    The EPA does not agree that Sec.  141.92 should include an action 
level for use at schools and child care facilities whereby systems are 
required to take remediation actions if the level is exceeded. 
Commenters included a range of suggestions for how such a level would 
function, including various suggestions for levels (e.g., 0.010 mg/L, 
0.005 mg/L, 0.001 mg/L), who would be responsible for the remediation 
action (e.g., the school or child care facility, the water systems), 
and how it would be applied (e.g., to individual taps, not specified). 
See the discussion on the public education purpose of Sec.  141.92 in 
section IV.L.2.a of this preamble for why water systems are not 
required to conduct remediation activities as part of these 
requirements. The examples of State-level requirements that include 
``action levels'' to require remediation or filter-first legislation 
offered by commenters do not impose requirements on PWSs. These laws 
require schools and child care facilities to conduct sampling and/or 
take specific actions, such as installing and maintaining filters 
certified to reduce lead. These examples of State requirements are 
fundamentally different than the proposed requirements for the LCRI 
because PWSs are generally not the entities required to carry out these 
actions. Further, since the EPA can only regulate PWSs in NPDWRs under 
SDWA section 1412, the examples are not consistent with the EPA's 
authority. Even if the EPA did set an action level for use by schools 
or child care facilities in the LCRI, the EPA would not have the 
authority under SDWA section 1412 to require schools and child care 
facilities that are not regulated as PWSs to take specific actions at 
that level. Therefore, it would be unenforceable and likely cause 
confusion. Instead, the EPA is requiring CWSs to provide schools and 
child care facilities with the 3Ts, which includes resources to help 
schools and child care facilities identify potential lead sources and 
reduce their lead levels. The 3Ts recommends that schools and child 
care facilities reduce their lead levels to the lowest levels possible, 
recognizing there is no safe level of lead in drinking water. While not 
required under Sec.  141.92, the EPA encourages schools and child care 
facilities to prioritize any remediation efforts based on the highest 
results or areas of concern (e.g., older fixtures, classrooms serving 
younger children). However, the EPA recognizes the authority of States 
to impose requirements on schools and child care facilities and 
included a waiver provision in Sec.  141.92(h) for States to waive 
requirements for CWSs when schools and/or child care facilities are 
otherwise sampled, including through State laws and regulations on 
schools and child care facilities. See the section g on waivers below 
for discussion on State ability to offer waivers for alternative 
requirements.
f. Providing Results
    The EPA requested comment on if CWSs should be required to make the 
school sampling results publicly available. Some commenters stated that 
the EPA should not require CWSs to make results public stating that 
schools and child care facilities are responsible for communicating 
results. A few commenters indicated that if the public learns the 
sampling results from the water system rather than from the school or 
child care facility, that it would establish an adversarial 
relationship between the water system and the school or child care 
facility. Other commenters disagreed and stated that schools and child 
care facilities may not share results with staff and users of the 
building and their families and that CWSs should be required to 
disseminate results to the public. Some commenters agreed with the 
EPA's proposed approach for CWSs to include a statement in the CCR 
informing the public that sampling is available to schools and child 
care facilities and direct them to contact their school or child care 
facility for more information, while others disagreed (see section 
IV.O.1 of this preamble for more information on this proposed 
requirement).
    The EPA acknowledges the concerns from commenters about whether 
sampled schools and child care facilities will share results and other 
information with occupants of the buildings and the public. The EPA did 
not propose for CWSs to make results public due to the additional time 
and resources such a requirement would impose (88 FR 84959, USEPA, 
2023a). Additionally, CWSs would not likely be in the best position to 
answer questions from the

[[Page 86542]]

public, including about why a school or child care facility declined or 
did not opt to participate in sampling or what the school or child care 
facility is doing to address any lead issues in their buildings. The 
EPA has heard from some commenters that schools and child care 
facilities should communicate with the users of their buildings. While 
the EPA does not have the authority under SDWA section 1412 to require 
schools and child care facilities that are not PWSs to take this 
action, the EPA strongly encourages them to share results and other 
relevant information as outlined in the 3Ts guidance. The EPA expects 
that many schools and child care facilities have experience with 
sharing such information (88 FR 84959, USEPA, 2023a). However, to 
increase public transparency, the EPA proposed and is finalizing a 
requirement for CWSs to include a statement in the CCR about school and 
child care facility lead sampling and direct members of the public to 
their local school or child care facility for information. The EPA 
received many comments supporting the proposed provision. The EPA 
intends for this requirement to help raise awareness among the general 
public and to incentivize schools and child care facilities to be 
proactive about sharing information. See section IV.O.1 of this 
preamble for further discussion of the final CCR requirement.
    The EPA is also requiring in the final rule for CWSs to submit any 
sampling results to the State and to State and local health agencies 
within 30 days, but as soon as practicable, after CWSs receive the 
results. The EPA reduced the time from annually under the 2021 LCRR to 
within 30 days in the final LCRI such that the State, and State and 
local health agencies would know about sampling results in a timely 
manner, especially if the school or child care facility does not share 
the results. These State and local agencies can use this information to 
determine if they should take additional steps such as working with 
schools and child care facilities to address lead in their buildings or 
establishing requirements such as those as discussed below. The EPA 
notes that States may voluntarily choose to disseminate sampling 
results to the public (e.g., posting on a website).
g. Waivers
    The EPA received many comments detailing existing State 
requirements for school and/or child care facility sampling and 
requested that the EPA allow States to waive the sampling requirements 
for water systems. Many commenters stated that the EPA should provide 
flexibility for States to issue waivers for recent or ongoing 
alternative programs. Some commenters also requested clarification on 
conditions for waivers and when they can be obtained. The EPA requested 
comment on two new waiver provisions in the proposed LCRI. The EPA 
received comments on whether the EPA should allow States to waive the 
sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92 in schools and child care 
facilities that had been sampled between January 1, 2021 and the LCRI 
compliance date for the first five-year sampling cycle after the 
compliance date. Many commenters supported this provision but stated 
that the EPA should extend this date to as early as January 1, 2014, 
citing the new lead-free standards and stating that sampling conducted 
over this time period should ``count'' towards compliance with the 
LCRI.
    The EPA also requested comment on the agency's proposal to allow 
States to waive the sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92 in schools 
and child care facilities that install and maintain filters on all 
outlets used for cooking and drinking. Additionally, the EPA requested 
comment on whether this should only be allowed if the schools and child 
care facilities are required by State or local law to install and 
maintain them. Some commenters did not support limiting the waivers 
based on State or local law stating that the provision should be 
flexible to maximize the number of eligible CWSs. Other commenters did 
not support the requirement as proposed, with some noting that it would 
be difficult for a water system to know which schools and child care 
facilities maintain filters. Some States indicated they would not offer 
waivers for schools and child care facilities that use filters without 
an existing requirement, stating sampling or other maintenance 
requirements are necessary to determine efficacy.
    The EPA is aware that some States have requirements for lead 
sampling in schools and child care facilities (see the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a, chapter 3, section 3.3.10.2.1)). Many 
of these regulations require recurring sampling of all outlets used for 
cooking and drinking and may require remediation actions (e.g., 
Minnesota Statutes 2023, section 121A.335; New Jersey Administrative 
Code [N.J.A.C.], section 6A:26-12.4; 10 New York Codes, Rules and 
Regulations [NYCRR] Subpart 67-4; State of Vermont, 2019). The majority 
of these existing laws impose requirements directly on schools and 
child care facilities, and do not involve PWSs. The EPA included waiver 
provisions in the LCRR recognizing that it would be duplicative to 
require CWSs to conduct public education and sampling in schools and 
child care facilities that are already being sampled under an 
alternative program. The EPA also included provisions for waivers to 
cover schools and child care facilities sampled under voluntary 
programs, including those funded under SDWA section 1464(d). The EPA 
also emphasizes that the alternative voluntary programs are not 
required to involve the water system or be administered by the State 
drinking water program for the State to issue a waiver. For example, in 
some States, the Department of Education may administer voluntary 
sampling efforts using a grant awarded under SDWA section 1464(d).
    The EPA notes several commenters cited various State requirements 
and asked the agency if they would qualify for a waiver. Other 
commenters requested flexibility to offer waivers even if the sampling 
was not conducted in alignment with the requirements of Sec.  141.92. 
The EPA has included criteria in Sec.  141.92(h) for States to 
determine if the alternative program is at least as stringent as the 
sampling requirements in Sec.  141.92. Although commenters' requests 
that the agency evaluate whether any programs would qualify for a 
waiver under the final LCRI, the final rule leaves this to the State 
and includes flexibilities in sample frequency, number, and protocol 
provided the overall program is at least as stringent as the 
requirements in LCRI. For example, a State requirement for all schools 
to be sampled once every six years but all outlets used for cooking and 
drinking are sampled and some remediation is required could be eligible 
for a waiver. Similarly, a program using a different sampling protocol 
may qualify for a waiver if outlets are sampled and remediation is 
required. The EPA also clarified that waivers can apply to groups of 
schools and licensed child care facilities (e.g., all public elementary 
schools), may not exceed the time period covered by the sampling 
conducted under an alternative program, and automatically expire at the 
end of any 12-month period during which sampling is not conducted. Once 
a school or child care facility is no longer covered under a waiver, 
the CWS must fulfill the sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92 at that 
site. Additionally, States can issue waivers at any time given that 
laws or programs may be established after the LCRI compliance date.
    As described above, many commenters requested that the EPA require 
actions such as requiring all

[[Page 86543]]

schools and child care facilities to participate in sampling (i.e., 
mandatory sampling), require remediation actions, and filter 
installation. As discussed in section V.L.1 of this preamble, the EPA 
does not have the authority under SDWA to require schools and child 
care facilities that are not regulated as PWSs to take these actions. 
However, there are many examples of States under State law that have 
successfully adopted such requirements (see the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a, chapter 3, section 3.3.10.2). Other Federal 
agencies may also issue requirements under their statutory authorities. 
In 2019, 14 Federal and non-Federal partners signed a Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU) on Reducing Lead Levels in Schools and Child Care 
Facilities to voluntarily support and encourage schools and child care 
facilities to conduct sampling, remediation, and communication 
activities to reduce lead risks in their facilities (USEPA, 2019b). The 
signatories to the MOU agreed to encourage schools and child care 
facilities to take actions to address lead in their facilities, which 
could include regulations promulgated under their respective legal 
authorities or other non-regulatory initiatives like public education 
and outreach and technical assistance. Notably, on August 21, 2024, the 
Administration for Children and Families within the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule ``Supporting the 
Head Start Workforce and Consistent Quality Programming,'' which 
requires Head Start programs in facilities where lead may exist to 
develop a plan to prevent children from being exposed to lead in water, 
including sampling and inspection at least every two years, and 
remediation as needed (89 FR 67720, USHHS, 2024). Additionally, on 
March 24, 2023, the EPA and the HHS issued a joint letter to governors, 
encouraging State and local governments to use Federal funding to 
address lead in schools and child care facilities. Specifically, the 
letter encourages governments to ``establish or strengthen child care 
licensing and monitoring requirements to test for and address lead in 
early childhood settings along with funding to support the associated 
costs'' and promote the use of the EPA's 3Ts guidance (USEPA and USHHS, 
2023). The EPA strongly encourages States to adopt lead testing 
requirements for schools and child care facilities, using a variety of 
means, including incorporating requirements in State and local 
licensing of schools and child care facilities. States are likely 
better positioned than the EPA to administer lead testing and 
remediation programs because States can establish regulations for 
schools and child care facilities that would provide for greater 
consistency of education, testing, remediation activities, and public 
communication across all schools and child care facilities throughout a 
State. Additionally, States can directly apply for and have access to 
funding to support schools and child care facilities that may not be 
available to CWSs. If a State chooses to adopt requirements for schools 
and child care facilities, the State may waive the sampling 
requirements of Sec.  141.92 for CWSs in the schools and licensed child 
care facilities covered by the alternative requirements. In the final 
rule, the EPA has provided a range of criteria for waivers such that 
States have the flexibility to establish alternative programs (Sec.  
141.92(h)).
    The EPA proposed allowing States to waive water systems from the 
sampling requirements in Sec.  141.92 for the first five years after 
the LCRI compliance date in schools and child care facilities that had 
been sampled between January 1, 2021 and the LCRI compliance date. As 
proposed in LCRI, CWSs would be required to sample at the request of 
any school or child care facility they serve after the first five-year 
cycle (i.e., starting five years after the rule compliance date) unless 
the State grants a waiver for an ongoing alternative program. The EPA 
notes general support for this concept and is finalizing the 
requirement. The EPA disagrees with extending the cut-off date to as 
early as January 1, 2014. The EPA proposed to limit the cut-off date to 
January 1, 2021. While the EPA recognizes that some schools and child 
care facilities may have been sampled under a one-time requirement or 
voluntary program as early as 2014, extending the cut-off date would 
result in an extended time period in which a school or child care 
facility would not be eligible for sampling under the LCRI. For 
example, if a school that had been last sampled in 2014 was covered by 
a waiver for the first five-year sampling period, the school would not 
receive an offer for sampling from the CWS until six years after the 
LCRI compliance date, or almost 15 years from when they were last 
sampled. In contrast, schools and licensed child care facilities have 
the opportunity to be sampled at least once every five years by their 
CWS under the LCRI. Additionally, the EPA proposed a cutoff date prior 
to the LCRI compliance date in response to concerns that many schools 
and child care facilities are currently being tested for lead under 
existing State or local requirements and through WIIN grant funded 
efforts and should be allowed to ``count.'' Specifically, such a 
provision is intended to ensure that the final LCRI will not 
incentivize the delay of any voluntary school or child care facility 
lead sampling efforts in order to align with the LCRI compliance dates. 
The EPA encourages States to use available Federal funding, including 
WIIN grants, to conduct sampling in school and child care facilities as 
soon as practicable. Federally funded efforts could reduce the burden 
on CWSs, particularly during the first five-year cycle after the LCRI 
compliance date. Additionally, many schools and child care facilities 
were closed in 2020 due to the COVID-19-related shutdowns. The agency 
estimates that any data collected during 2020 COVID-19-related closures 
would be unrepresentative due to low water usage and longer than normal 
stagnation times. Based on the reasons described above, the EPA is not 
extending the January 1, 2021, cut-off date in the final rule. The EPA 
notes that CWSs are not required to sample if a school or child care 
facility declines or does not respond to the offer to sample. Schools 
or child care facilities that have previously been sampled and may have 
taken steps to address lead in their buildings may likely not respond 
to the offer for sampling.
    The EPA is finalizing the provision allowing States to waive the 
sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92 for CWSs in schools and child 
care facilities that install or maintain filters certified to reduce 
lead on all outlets used for cooking and drinking as proposed. The EPA 
proposed this requirement to account for regulatory and voluntary 
efforts to install filters certified to reduce lead in schools and 
child care facilities. The EPA is aware that some States have specific 
requirements including requirements to periodically sample or maintain 
filters, or for schools to only install filters if results are above a 
certain threshold (e.g., 0.005 mg/L). The EPA requested comment on 
whether waivers should only be issued if there is a State or local 
requirement for installation and maintenance but decided to finalize 
the provision as proposed to maximize flexibility. The EPA acknowledges 
the implementation concerns raised by commenters, including that States 
or water systems may not be aware of which schools or child care 
facilities may be utilizing filters. However, the waiver will apply 
where the water system is aware of such school and child care 
facilities and will

[[Page 86544]]

encourage voluntary and proactive actions to reduce lead in drinking 
water. The EPA expects that water systems will work with their States 
if they are aware of schools and child care facilities that have taken 
actions to install and maintain these devices. States may also choose 
to issue waivers if the State has enacted ``filter-first'' legislation, 
which require filters to be installed and maintained.
3. Final Rule Requirements
a. Applicability
    For the final LCRI, the EPA is requiring all CWSs to conduct public 
education and lead sampling in all schools and licensed child care 
facilities they serve (Sec.  141.92). The EPA is finalizing the 
proposed revisions clarifying the exclusion for schools and licensed 
child care facilities that were constructed or had full plumbing 
replacement after January 1, 2014 or the date the State adopted 
standards that meet the definition of lead free in accordance with 
section 1417 of SDWA, whichever is earlier and is renumbering this 
provision from Sec.  141.92(a)(1) to Sec.  141.92(a)(1)(i). The EPA is 
adding a revision in the final LCRI to specify that the excluded 
schools and licensed child care facilities must not be served by a 
lead, GRR, or unknown service line as a new clause in Sec.  
141.92(a)(1)(ii). The EPA is finalizing the revisions specifying that 
these requirements do not apply to NTNCWSs, including schools and child 
care facilities that are regulated as PWSs (Sec.  141.92(a)(2)). The 
EPA is also finalizing the proposed reorganization of Sec.  141.92 that 
clarifies the requirements of this section compared to the 2021 LCRR 
and more clearly states the requirements in plain language.
    All CWSs are required to develop a list of all elementary and 
secondary schools and licensed child care facilities they serve. The 
EPA is adding a revision in the final LCRI to clarify in Sec.  
141.92(b)(1) that schools and licensed child care facilities that are 
excluded under Sec.  141.92(a) are not required to be included on the 
list. The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirement for CWSs to submit 
the initial list to the State by the LCRI compliance date in accordance 
with Sec.  141.92(b). CWSs are not required to include schools and 
child care facilities on the list that do not meet the applicability 
requirements in Sec.  141.92(a), such as a school constructed after 
January 1, 2014. CWSs must update the list at least once every five 
years following the LCRI compliance date and submit it to the State or 
certify that no changes have been made to the list in accordance with 
Sec.  141.92(b)(2).
b. Outreach to Schools and Licensed Child Care Facilities
    All CWSs must conduct public education about the health risks of 
lead in drinking water to all elementary schools, secondary schools, 
and child care facilities on their list in accordance with Sec.  
141.92(c) at least annually. The EPA is adding a revision in the final 
LCRI to clarify that the information on the health risks in drinking 
water must be consistent with the content requirements of Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) and (vi). Within the first five years 
following the LCRI compliance date, CWSs must notify the elementary 
schools and licensed child care facilities they serve that they are 
eligible for lead sampling (Sec.  141.92(c)(2)(i)). The notice must 
include a proposed schedule for the water system to conduct the 
sampling and a copy of the EPA's 3Ts guidance. CWSs must provide this 
notice to at least 20 percent of the elementary schools and child care 
facilities they serve per year such that each elementary school and 
child care facility on the list receives the outreach during the first 
five-year sampling cycle after the rule compliance date (Sec.  
141.92(d)(1)). Additionally, CWSs must notify all secondary schools 
annually that they may request lead sampling from the water system 
(Sec.  141.92(c)(2)(ii)). Starting in the sixth year following the rule 
compliance date, all CWSs must annually notify all the elementary 
schools, secondary schools, and licensed child care facilities they 
serve that the water system will sample at the request of the school or 
child care facility (Sec.  141.92(c)(3)).
c. Sampling Frequency
    The EPA is retaining requirements from proposal for water systems 
to conduct sampling in 20 percent of the elementary schools and 20 
percent of the licensed child care facilities they serve per year for 
the first five years after the rule compliance date until all 
facilities are sampled or are considered non-responsive (Sec.  
141.92(d)(1)). If an elementary school or licensed child care facility 
either declines the offer for sampling or is non-responsive after at 
least two outreach attempts, the CWS may count the facility under the 
20 percent for that year (Sec.  141.92(d)(1)(i)). However, the CWS must 
include information about the schools and child care facilities that 
either did not respond or declined sampling in a report submitted to 
the State as described in Sec.  141.90(i)(3) (see section IV.N of this 
preamble). Starting in the sixth year following the compliance date, 
CWSs must sample any elementary school or licensed child care facility 
that requests sampling. Starting with the rule compliance date, CWSs 
must sample any secondary school if requested (Sec.  141.92(e)). When 
conducting sampling on request, CWSs are not required to sample more 
than 20 percent of the schools or licensed child care facilities they 
serve per year and may defer requests above 20 percent to the next year 
(Sec.  141.92(d)(2)(i) and (e)(2)). A CWS is not required to sample an 
eligible school or child care facility more than once in a five-year 
period. If a school or child care facility is added to the list in 
Sec.  141.92(b), the CWS must conduct the outreach in Sec.  
141.92(c)(1) such that all elementary schools and child care facilities 
receive one round of proactive outreach from the water system prior to 
only being offered sampling on request (Sec.  141.92(d)(3)).
d. Sampling
    The EPA is retaining the proposed sampling protocol requirements in 
the final LCRI in Sec.  141.92(f). When conducting sampling, CWSs must 
collect at least five samples per school and two samples per child care 
facility in accordance with Sec.  141.92(f)(1). If there are not enough 
taps available to meet the required minimum number of samples, CWSs 
must collect a sample from all the taps used to provide water for human 
consumption. Samples may be collected from outlets with point-of-use 
devices only if there are point-of-use devices on all outlets typically 
used to provide water for human consumption. Samples must be collected 
according to the protocol in Sec.  141.92(f)(2). Samples may be 
collected by the CWS, the school or child care facility staff, or 
another appropriately trained individual (Sec.  141.92(f)(3)).
e. Providing Sample Results
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed requirements in Sec.  
141.92(g)(1) for water systems to provide results to the sampled school 
or child care facility, the State and local health agencies and the 
State as soon as practicable but within 30 days of receiving the 
results. See section IV.N of this preamble for school and child care 
facility reporting and section IV.O.1 for requirements for CWSs to 
include information about school and child care facility sampling 
opportunities in the Consumer Confidence Report. The EPA is retaining 
the requirements for water systems to provide information about 
remediation (e.g., the EPA's 3Ts or other related materials) to the 
sampled schools and

[[Page 86545]]

child care facilities along with sample results in Sec.  
141.92(g)(1)(i)).
f. Waivers
    The EPA is finalizing the proposed provision in Sec.  141.92(h)(5) 
allowing States to waive the sampling requirements for water systems in 
Sec.  141.92 for the first five years following the final LCRI 
compliance date for any schools or child care facilities that were 
sampled between January 1, 2021 and the LCRI compliance date that meet 
the requirements of this section. CWSs must conduct the sampling 
requirements of Sec.  141.92 for all other eligible schools and 
licensed child care facilities. Additionally, CWSs must conduct the 
sampling requirements in all the schools and licensed child care 
facilities on the list in Sec.  141.92(b) starting in the sixth year 
after the LCRI compliance date, unless those facilities are covered by 
a different waiver under Sec.  141.92(h).
    The EPA is also finalizing the proposed provision allowing States 
to waive the sampling requirements for water systems in Sec.  141.92 
for any schools or licensed child care facilities that install and 
maintain filters certified to reduce lead (Sec.  141.92(h)(1)(iv)). The 
EPA is retaining the other waiver provisions introduced in the 2021 
LCRR and proposed for LCRI including allowing States to waive sampling 
requirements for water systems to sample in schools and child care 
facilities that are covered by alternative testing programs that are at 
least as stringent as the sampling requirements in Sec.  141.92 as 
provided in Sec.  141.92(h). CWSs are required to fulfill all the 
requirements of Sec.  141.92 in the subset of schools and licensed 
child care facilities they serve that are not covered by a waiver or 
once a waiver no longer applies (Sec.  141.92(h)(2) and (3)).

M. Copper

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Requirements
    Copper is an essential trace element required for several metabolic 
processes; however, excess copper intake is toxic and linked to various 
adverse health effects. Acute gastrointestinal conditions are the most 
common adverse health effects observed among adults and children. 
Chronic exposure to copper is particularly a concern for people with 
Wilson's disease, an autosomal recessive genetic disorder of copper 
metabolism affecting 1 in 30,000 individuals (Ala et al., 2007). These 
individuals are prone to copper accumulation in body tissue, which can 
lead to liver damage, neurological, and psychiatric symptoms (Dorsey 
and Ingerman, 2004). Additional information on the health effects 
associated with copper are available in appendix E of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
    Under the LCRI, the EPA proposed to require water systems to 
provide customer notice of an individual's copper tap sampling results. 
Similar to the notice for lead tap sampling results, the notice for 
copper tap sampling results must include the results of copper tap 
water monitoring for the tap that was tested, an explanations of the 
health effects of copper as provided in appendix B to subpart Q of part 
141 (Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification), a list 
of steps consumers can take to reduce exposure to copper in drinking 
water, and contact information for the water system. The EPA proposed 
that systems must provide all consumer notices of individual copper tap 
sampling results as soon as practicable but no later than three 
calendar days after the water system learns of the tap monitoring 
result and any notifications conducted by mail must be postmarked 
within three days. The EPA proposed the notice must also provide the 
MCLG and action level for copper, both of which are 1.3 mg/L and the 
definitions for these two terms from Sec.  141.153(c). The EPA proposed 
to allow systems to combine the lead and copper results and required 
information into a single notice in cases where copper and lead samples 
are collected at the same time. This would also include notification of 
results from on-request tap sampling required under Sec.  141.85(c).
2. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
    The EPA received several comments on the proposed LCRI about the 
regulation of copper. The EPA received comments focused on creating 
separate sampling requirements for lead and copper. Commenters 
requested that water systems collect copper and lead samples from 
different locations, with copper samples focusing on locations with 
expected high concentrations of copper (i.e., sites with newly 
installed copper service lines). Commenters noted the proposed LCRI 
targets sites most likely to have elevated lead levels and not 
necessarily sites that may have elevated copper levels.
    The EPA disagrees with creating separate sampling pools for lead 
and copper. The sample site selection criteria at Sec.  141.86(a)(4) 
require sampling from sites with the highest risk (lead) followed by 
sites that have copper pipes (Tier 4 sites). Tier 5 includes sites that 
are representative of sites throughout the distribution system that can 
include sites served by copper pipes. Commenters also noted the 
challenges with recruiting volunteers to collect tap samples, which 
would further be exacerbated by requiring additional separate sites for 
copper. In addition, maintaining two sample pools, one for lead and one 
for copper, would further complicate the rule. Recognizing the inherent 
complexity of the tap sampling requirements for the LCR, the agency did 
not develop a separate tiering structure for copper sites to ease 
implementation.
    Moreover, because the sources of lead and copper in drinking water 
are generally the same (i.e., corrosion from fixtures of pipes 
containing the metal), and because the treatment technology for 
elevated copper levels is also the primary treatment for lead (i.e., 
reducing corrosion in the distribution system), it is rational to group 
these two contaminants into a single rule (56 FR 26490, USEPA 1991). 
Additionally, both lead and copper require sampling at taps, rather 
than at the entry point of the distribution. While the EPA did not 
propose many revisions to address copper, the rule revisions will also 
reduce copper levels. Treatments to control for lead are also effective 
at controlling for copper, such as pH and alkalinity adjustment and 
orthophosphate inhibitors. For example, installing and re-optimizing 
OCCT for systems above the lead action level will likely reduce copper 
levels. Although the tiering structure for the final LCRI has not 
changed with regard to copper, Tier 4 includes sites with copper lines; 
thus sampling will occur at higher-risk copper sites when the higher 
risk lead sites are no longer available.
    Additional comments on copper included encouraging the EPA to 
reassess public education requirements for copper. These comments 
requested the EPA require water systems to inform their users when a 
system exceeds the copper action level, in a manner similar to how 
water systems are required to inform their users when a system exceeds 
the lead action level. The EPA disagrees with requiring water systems 
to inform their users of a copper ALE. The LCRI requires water systems 
to issue Tier 2 Public Notification if the system has a treatment 
technique violation in response to a copper ALE. In addition, a water 
system must report copper tap sampling compliance information in its 
CCR under Sec.  141.153(d), along with the new requirement for water 
systems to provide notification to consumers of their individual copper 
tap sampling results under Sec.  141.85(d). The EPA

[[Page 86546]]

expects that elevated copper levels may be addressed by CCT, in 
addition to systems' providing the appropriate health effects language 
to consumers through public notification or the CCR, thus protecting 
individuals at most risk of adverse health effects due to copper 
exposure (i.e., those with Wilson's Disease). Additionally, the health 
impacts of acute copper exposure versus acute lead exposure are vastly 
different. Exposure to lead poses serious health risks to the brain and 
nervous system of children, while copper exposure causes 
gastrointestinal distress for a majority of the population, except for 
those with Wilson's Disease who should be aware of all potential 
exposure sources of copper. Therefore, the EPA finds it is reasonable 
to rely on these requirements for public health protection from copper 
for purposes of the treatment technique for public education in lieu of 
adding others, as requested by commenters.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The final LCRI retains the proposed changes to copper including the 
timing of the notification for an individual's copper tap sampling 
result. Water systems must provide notification of the tap sampling 
result as soon as practicable but no later than three business days and 
any notifications by mail must be postmarked within three business days 
of the system's learning of the tap sampling results as stated in Sec.  
141.85(d)(2). In cases where copper samples are collected at the same 
time as lead, systems are permitted to combine lead and copper results 
and required information into a single notice. The EPA expects that 
this will simplify the implementation of the rule by allowing systems 
to deliver both the lead and copper results and associated required 
information at the same time.

N. System Reporting and Recordkeeping

1. System Reporting Requirements
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    The EPA proposed in the LCRI to revise water system reporting 
requirements in accordance with other proposed changes to the LCRI 
(Sec.  141.90). The proposed revisions to these sections were primarily 
driven by the changes and additions to the corresponding requirements 
in other sections of the proposed LCRI to ensure consistency and 
completeness of reporting requirements. Revisions proposed in other 
parts of the rule affect reporting of tap sampling results for LSL 
sites, documentation requirements for customer refusals, reporting 
requirements for systems with multiple lead action level exceedances, 
compliance with the service line inventory and replacement 
requirements, and reporting requirements for systems with schools and 
child care facilities. System reporting requirements should match the 
LCRI requirements to inform State decision-making and improve 
implementation and oversight.
    The EPA proposed modifying the tap sampling reporting requirements 
for systems sampling at LSL sites to report both first- and fifth-liter 
sample results in accordance with the updated tap sampling protocol.
    In the 2021 LCRR, systems are required to report summary numbers of 
lead, GRR, and unknown service lines when they submit their service 
line material inventory. The LCRI proposal expanded the inventory 
reporting requirements to include lead connectors and non-lead service 
lines, beginning with the baseline inventory due by the LCRI compliance 
date.
    Under the 2021 LCRR, systems with LSLs are required to begin 
conducting standard tap monitoring within one year of the rule 
compliance date, and submit a site sample plan to the State for review 
prior to the start of the first tap monitoring period. In LCRI, the EPA 
proposed to expand this requirement to start standard monitoring to all 
systems with lead, GRR, and/or unknown service lines.
    The EPA proposed to require that all systems conducting service 
line replacement report their compliance with the service line 
inventory and replacement requirements to the State. Each year, systems 
would be required to submit inventory summary information, including 
the current number of LSLs, GRR service lines, unknown service lines, 
non-lead service lines, and lead connectors. They would also be 
required to report information on their replacement program, including 
the total number and street addresses of locations where full, partial, 
and GRR service lines and lead connectors were replaced. The EPA also 
proposed that systems report the total number of unknown service lines 
determined to be non-lead and the street address of any service line 
inventoried as non-lead that is later discovered to be a lead or GRR 
service line. Under the LCRI proposal, systems would be required to 
certify to the State the number of service lines not replaced due to 
property owners not providing consent to conduct service line 
replacement.
    As part of the reporting requirements, systems must certify that 
various requirements have been completed. The EPA proposed two required 
certifications for systems conducting public education and making 
filters available following multiple lead action level exceedances. 
First, they must certify to the State that they conducted at least one 
required outreach activity in the previous year. Second, they must 
certify that they complied with filter availability requirements in the 
previous year by providing a copy of the filter distribution plan and 
the number of filters provided each tap sampling period.
    The EPA proposed improvements to the reporting requirements for 
water systems with schools or child care facilities. The EPA proposed 
to require systems to submit the initial list of schools and child care 
facilities they serve by the rule compliance date. The EPA also 
proposed to require systems provide the results of school and child 
care sampling to the State within 30 days of receiving them (see 
section IV.L of this preamble). The 2021 LCRR requires water systems to 
submit a summary report to the State containing information about 
school and child care sampling during the prior calendar year, 
including the number of schools and child care facilities sampled and 
the number of elementary schools and child care facilities that 
declined or did not respond to attempts for sampling. The EPA proposed 
in the LCRI that the report must also include the names of the schools 
and child care facilities. The EPA anticipated that this would help 
States identify which schools and child care facilities have not been 
sampled and why.
b. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
    The EPA received comments stating there were too many system 
reporting requirements and recommended the EPA remove requirements or 
decrease the number of requirements. These commenters stated that 
multiple and different types of reporting requirements are too 
burdensome both on the systems that must complete the reporting 
requirements and on the States that must review them.
    In response to these comments, the EPA reviewed all system 
reporting requirements for the LCRI. The EPA disagrees with these 
commenters because the agency determined that each of the reporting 
requirements in the proposal provide information that is essential to 
public health protection or the implementation of the rule. The EPA 
acknowledges that there are several reporting requirements associated 
with this rule. However, the LCRI is a complex rule with multiple 
components that requires adequate system reporting

[[Page 86547]]

to provide the necessary data for public health protection and 
effective oversight and enforcement.
    The EPA received comments stating that there were too many dates 
throughout the year when systems would be required to report 
information to the State. Reporting requirements in the proposed LCRI 
included reporting sampling results, service line inventory information 
and certifications that required actions had been taken by systems. To 
reduce complexity and administrative burden, some of these commenters 
suggested the final rule should align the frequency of some of the 
certifications to streamline the reporting requirements. The EPA agrees 
with these commenters that a more streamlined set of reporting dates 
would help ease confusion and reduce burden for systems and States. For 
the final LCRI the EPA has limited the total number of dates throughout 
the year when reporting will be required by aligning the reporting 
schedules to the greatest extent possible. Specifically, the EPA 
adjusted the reporting deadlines in Sec.  141.90(a)(1)(ii), (a)(3)(i), 
(e)(3) through (10) and (13), and (f)(3), (6) through (8), and (10). 
The majority of the reporting elements are now required on either the 
date three years after the compliance date, 10 days after the tap 
sampling period, or annually by January 30. Other reporting elements 
retain different reporting dates due to the specific nature of those 
reporting requirements.
    The items that must be reported on the date three years after the 
compliance date are generally items that are associated with the 
service line inventory. Examples of this are the initial inventory and 
documentation of previous inventory validation efforts that have been 
completed by the system prior to the LCRI. These items are necessary at 
the compliance date because they provide information that systems will 
need to comply with the LCRI.
    The items that must be reported 10 days after the tap sampling 
period are generally associated with tap sample results from that tap 
sampling period. These results provide information vital to 
understanding public health risk, such as concentrations of lead and 
copper in drinking water at consumers' taps. The reporting results can 
also lead to system requirements for taking action to protect public 
health triggered by the 90th percentile lead and copper values, such as 
follow up sampling and public education. Since this information may 
lead to actions by systems or individuals to protect public health, 
these items must be reported relatively quickly.
    The items that must be reported annually by January 30 are 
generally related to the LSL replacement program, the service line 
inventory, public education summaries, or other certifications provided 
by systems that they are meeting the various requirements of the LCRI. 
These items are less time sensitive and therefore can be reported on an 
annual basis. The date of January 30 was selected because many 
reporting items in the proposal and the 2021 LCRR would already occur 
on this date. The emphasis of January 30 meant that for the final LCRI, 
the EPA changed some reporting items, mostly certifications associated 
with public education and outreach, from a July 1 date to January 30. 
The EPA maintained the annual frequency for these items because the EPA 
did not receive comments stating that the frequency was inappropriate. 
However, the EPA aligned the reporting dates to respond to comments 
that suggested that a more streamlined approach would reduce confusion 
and burden for systems and States.
    In addition, the EPA modified the regulatory language describing 
the January 30 date in some instances for clarity and consistency, 
without changing the reporting date. For example, the proposal used 
terms such as ``30 days after the end of the calendar year'' or ``30 
days after the end of the program year'' to describe January 30. This 
could result in confusion about the actual reporting deadline, when the 
EPA intends for all applicable reporting requirements to be met 
annually by January 30. Hence, for the final LCRI, the EPA amended 
language in Sec.  141.90 of the rule to consistently say ``annually by 
January 30.''
    The EPA also adjusted reporting requirements to match the change 
from proposal in the designation of the program year. The agency made 
this change to reduce implementation burden. For the final LCRI, the 
EPA added the definition for program year to Sec. Sec.  141.90(e) and 
141.84(d)(5)(iii) to clarify that the first mandatory service line 
replacement ``program year'' is from the compliance date specified in 
Sec.  141.80(a)(3) to the end of the next calendar year and that every 
subsequent program year is aligned with the calendar year. This means 
that the first program year will be slightly longer than one calendar 
year and subsequent program years will be one calendar year long. All 
program years, including the first program year, will end on December 
31. The reporting deadlines for many items in the proposal were dates 
stated in relation to the program year (e.g., ``no later than 30 days 
after the end of each program year''). The EPA changed many of these 
deadlines to cite specific days throughout the year (e.g., ``annually 
by January 30'') for clarity. While the language describing the date 
has changed, these systems still have the same amount of time for 
reporting since they are still 30 days after the program year. The 
revised language and the alignment of program year to calendar year 
responds to comments that a more streamlined approach will reduce 
confusion and burden.
    Finally, there are some reporting requirements that have different 
reporting dates. These types of requirements generally fall into two 
categories. This first category is items that require fast action, 
often sooner than 10 days, due to an interest in public health 
protection, such as certification that public education materials were 
delivered appropriately after a lead action level exceedance. Public 
health is protected by quick reporting because the reporting can result 
in action taken by the system or the public to protect from the risk of 
lead or copper contamination in their drinking water. The second 
category is an item that is relatively uncommon but will lead to a 
major change in the system's requirements under the rule, such as the 
discovery of an LSL in a system that was previously thought to be free 
of LSLs. In these cases, the system will often need to take action to 
modify their operations and it would not be appropriate to wait for up 
to a year to begin. These specific circumstances are not appropriate 
for the agency to make changes in the final LCRI to align these 
requirements with the other more common ones previously discussed.
    The EPA received comments concerning the requirement to report tap 
sampling results within 10 days of the end of the tap sampling period, 
which is the period when systems must collect samples within the tap 
monitoring period. Some commenters felt that it would not be possible 
to meet this deadline, and instead this reporting should be tied to the 
tap monitoring period. These commenters reasoned that for samples taken 
near the end of the tap sampling period, there is not sufficient time 
for systems to send them to a laboratory, receive the results, perform 
the 90th percentile calculations, and report to the State all within 
ten days. The EPA disagrees with these commenters because there is a 
high public health value of having systems report results to States 
within 10 days of the tap sampling period. This is because high levels 
of lead or copper, as

[[Page 86548]]

indicated by tap sample results, require quick action by water systems 
to protect public health. These actions include conducting public 
education so consumers can take informed actions to protect their 
health and reducing exposure to these contaminants through CCT. In 
addition, ensuring the State receives the 90th percentile data within 
10 days will allow the State to provide oversight should actions need 
to be taken to protect public health. The EPA also notes water systems 
have flexibility as to when tap sampling occurs within the tap sampling 
period. Systems do not need to wait to the last day of the tap sampling 
period if the system is concerned about receiving laboratory results in 
time to calculate the 90th percentile and provide results to the State 
within 10 days. Therefore, the EPA determined 10 days is an appropriate 
timeframe.
    The EPA received several suggestions for minor technical changes to 
the reporting requirements in the areas of system reporting, mainly for 
consistency with other sections of the rule, clarity, and 
understandability of the regulatory text. The EPA agrees that 
consistency, clarity and understandability are important goals for the 
LCRI. Therefore, the EPA agrees with advancing these goals and adjusted 
the LCRI accordingly. In general, these changes did not substantially 
impact the requirements of the rule.
    For example, the EPA received comments noting that in many 
locations in Sec.  141.90, some language was used inconsistently. In 
the proposal, words like ``certify,'' ``document,'' and ``demonstrate'' 
were used interchangeably. The EPA agrees that terminology should be 
used consistently to ease implementation of the LCRI. Therefore, for 
the final LCRI, the EPA revised Sec.  141.90 to consistently use 
``certify'' to document whether a system has completed a rule 
requirement when data or other details are not required. This revision 
occurs at Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(iii) and (f)(4) and (7). Conversely, in 
Sec.  141.90(e)(10), the EPA changed the language from ``certify'' to 
``submit'' to reflect that the reporting requirement is the number of 
service lines, not simply to notify the State that the requirement has 
been met.
    In the proposal language in Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(iii), commenters 
noted that the requirement for systems to document that the results of 
monitoring will be made publicly available was presented in a way that 
could be perceived to require documentation of an action that would 
happen in the future and that this would be difficult to document and 
enforce. The EPA agrees with these comments that the way this 
requirement was worded would be challenging for systems to implement. 
Therefore, the EPA has revised the final requirement to be a 
certification of an action that has occurred in the previous tap 
monitoring period.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The final LCRI contains minor textual revisions to enhance the 
clarity of Sec.  141.90 and to ensure that all the reporting 
requirements are consistent with other provisions of the rule. The EPA 
also streamlined many of the reporting requirements of the rule.
    For the final LCRI, the EPA revised the reporting requirements for 
tap monitoring for lead and copper and for distribution system and 
entry point monitoring for water quality parameters to provide 
clarifications and update references. The EPA also made changes to 
clarify that the tap sampling protocol must meet the requirements of 
Sec.  141.86(b) and to clarify that if a system modifies its protocol, 
it must be submitted to the State prior to the next tap sampling period 
(Sec.  141.90(a)(1)(ii)).
    The EPA revised Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(iii) to require the system to 
certify that they made the results from the preceding tap monitoring 
period publicly available. The proposed LCRI required the system to 
certify they would make the results public in the future, which would 
have been difficult to enforce. The EPA also revised this section to be 
consistent with the rest of the LCRI by replacing the word 
``documentation'' with ``certification.''
    For the final LCRI, the EPA added a provision (Sec.  
141.90(a)(2)(viii)) to require systems to report the number of sites 
with non-responsive customers or customer refusals during the tap 
sampling. The agency is adding this clarification to be consistent with 
requirements in Sec.  141.86(a)(4).
    The final LCRI added a requirement for systems qualifying under 
Sec.  141.86(b)(3) to submit updated documentation when there are 
changes to standing times and/or locations for substitute compliance 
tap samples (Sec.  141.90(a)(3)(i)). The agency is adding this 
clarification to be consistent with other requirements in Sec.  
141.86(b)(3).
    In the proposal, Sec.  141.90(a)(4) contained language that 
described system and State requirements when implementing a new source 
or a long-term treatment change. The EPA determined this language is 
substantive language about system and State requirements beyond 
reporting. Therefore, the EPA added this language to Sec.  141.81(h), 
because Sec.  141.81 contains requirements concerning corrosion control 
treatment requirements, which are most closely related to requirements 
concerning implementing a new source or a long-term treatment change. 
The EPA has also retained identical language in Sec.  141.90(a)(4) to 
reflect the importance of the requirement and to emphasize both the 
substantive and reporting aspects of the requirement.
    The EPA added language to Sec.  141.90(c)(5), which applies to 
systems that choose to defer OCCT because they can complete service 
line replacement in five years or less at a minimum annual rate, as 
described in Sec.  141.81(f). The language in the proposal stated that 
these systems must certify that they have completed their mandatory 
service line replacement program. The EPA added language to clarify 
that the system may also certify that they have met the minimum annual 
replacement rate calculated under Sec.  141.81(f)(1)(ii). The agency 
added this text for clarity and it does not change the requirements of 
this section from the proposal.
    For the final LCRI, the EPA added a description of ``program year'' 
to the service line inventory and replacement reporting requirements 
(Sec.  141.90(e)) to provide clarity and ease implementation. This 
description is also provided under the service line replacement 
requirements (Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(iii)). The EPA is adding this 
description for clarity and ease of implementation.
    The final LCRI requires systems to submit a baseline inventory that 
includes a summary of the total numbers of each of the following (Sec.  
141.90(e)(2)): lead, GRR, unknown, and non-lead service lines, lead 
connectors, and connectors of unknown material. The EPA is adding this 
clarification to be consistent with other requirements in Sec.  
141.84(a)(2) through (4).
    For the final LCRI, the EPA added a requirement (Sec.  
141.90(e)(3)(ii)) for systems to certify annually that there have been 
no changes to their service line replacement program, or if there have 
been changes, they must submit a revised service line replacement plan. 
This requirement is necessary to give States appropriate awareness and 
oversight on any potential changes to the plan. This reporting 
requirement is consistent with the new requirement in the LCRI for 
systems to annually update their replacement plan (Sec.  141.84(c)). 
For more information on this requirement, see section IV.C of this 
preamble.
    For the final LCRI, the EPA added a provision (Sec.  
141.90(e)(3)(iii)) that requires systems eligible for the deferred 
deadline provisions for LSLR to report

[[Page 86549]]

updated service line replacement plan information to the State at 
intervals described in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi) (see section IV.C of this 
preamble). The EPA added this language to be consistent with the 
requirements in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi).
    The LCRI proposal required systems to submit the updated LSL 
inventory to the State. The EPA added clarifying language to Sec.  
141.90(e)(4) stating that a water system may provide instructions to 
the State on how to access the updated LSL inventory online instead of 
submitting the entire inventory to the State. The EPA expects this will 
help reduce the administrative burden associated with this requirement 
on systems and States.
    The EPA included a new requirement at Sec.  141.90(e)(8)(i) for 
systems to report the number of connectors of unknown material as part 
of their inventory. The EPA added this language to be consistent with 
requirements in Sec. Sec.  141.84(b)(2)(iv) and 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(D). 
For more information about the documenting connectors of unknown 
material in the inventory, please see section IV.D.1 of this preamble.
    The EPA included a requirement in the final LCRI in Sec.  
141.90(e)(9) for systems to submit to the State the specific version 
(including the date) of the service line inventory used to determine 
the number of non-lead service lines used when the number of non-lead 
service lines in the validation pool was determined. The EPA included 
this requirement to be consistent with requirements found in Sec.  
141.84(b)(5)(v). For more information on requirements for inventory 
validation, please see section IV.D.4 of this preamble.
    The EPA modified Sec.  141.90(e)(10) to enhance the clarity of the 
language. Specifically, the text now makes it clear that the system 
must provide documentation of service lines not replaced for systems 
that lack access, as described in Sec.  141.84(d)(2). In addition, the 
language clearly states that for systems that lack access because of 
lack of owner consent where consent is required by State or local law, 
the system must provide documentation of each reasonable effort 
conducted by the system as described in Sec.  141.84(d)(3). The EPA 
also moved the requirement to report the total number of lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines not replaced because the 
system does not have access to conduct full service line replacement 
from Sec.  141.90(e)(10) to Sec.  141.90(e)(8)(ix) because it is 
summary information that is similar to the other items in the latter 
section. The EPA moved this provision for clarity and the move does not 
substantively impact the requirement.
    For the final LCRI, the EPA added clarifying language to the public 
education reporting requirements (Sec.  141.90(f)(1)) for systems to 
submit a copy of all written materials to the State prior to delivery. 
The EPA also added a provision to provide the State discretion to 
require approval of the written materials prior to their delivery. This 
language is consistent with the language in Sec.  141.85(a)(1) of the 
LCRI. In addition, the EPA clarified that systems that have previously 
submitted to the State a list of newspapers, radio stations, television 
stations, and facilities and organizations to which the system 
delivered public education materials, do not need to resubmit this 
list, unless required to do so by the State (Sec.  141.90(f)(2)).
    The EPA added clarifications to Sec.  141.90(f)(3) on the reporting 
requirement to send an example copy of the consumer notification of tap 
sampling results to the State along with a certification that the 
notification has been distributed in a manner consistent with the 
requirements of Sec.  141.85(d). This requirement applies to all tap 
sampling results, including those used to calculate the 90th percentile 
value as described in Sec.  141.86 and consumer-requested samples 
outside the tap sampling period for systems on reduced monitoring. The 
new text clarifies that some items must be reported 30 days following 
the end of the tap sampling period and that some items must be reported 
annually by January 30. The different schedules are necessary because 
certain types of tap sampling, such as consumer-requested samples, may 
occur outside the tap sampling period. The EPA made this change for 
clarity and to allow for deadlines that made sense for samples that may 
be taken outside the tap sampling period.
    For the final LCRI, the EPA reordered the school and child care 
facility sampling at Sec.  141.90(i) to clarify that if systems report 
they do not serve schools or child care facilities, they must continue 
to certify that they do not serve schools or child care facilities. If 
they do begin to serve one or more schools or child care facilities, 
they must meet the requirements of the rest of the section. The EPA 
made this change because language in the proposal could be read to 
provide that the systems would not be required to monitor for new 
schools or child care facilities after initially reporting none served. 
The EPA finds it critical that all new or newly identified schools and 
child care facilities are subject to the remaining reporting 
requirements of this section. In addition, the EPA reorganized sections 
Sec.  141.90(i)(3)(iii) through (vi) to make the sections more readable 
and understandable. However, the EPA did not make substantive changes 
to these sections for the final rule.

O. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141

1. Consumer Confidence Report Rule (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O)
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    All CWSs are required by SDWA to provide their customers at least 
once a year with a CCR, a drinking water quality report that summarizes 
the state of their drinking water supply. The CCR must include 
information about the water system, sources of water, detected 
contaminants including lead, compliance with drinking water rules 
including the lead and copper rules, as well as other information. CCR 
requirements are described in the CCR Rule (40 CFR part 141, subpart 
O), which is part of the 1996 Right to Know provisions of SDWA. On May 
24, 2024, the EPA published a final rule to strengthen the CCR Rule (89 
FR 45980, USEPA, 2024c). The EPA revised the CCR Rule in accordance 
with America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 and to improve 
the readability, clarity, and understandability of CCRs as well as the 
accuracy of the information presented, improve risk communication in 
CCRs, incorporate electronic delivery options, provide supplemental 
information regarding lead levels and control efforts, and require 
systems who serve 10,000 or more persons to provide CCRs to customers 
biannually (twice per year). Under the LCRI, the EPA proposed to revise 
the lead and copper related requirements of the CCR to further enhance 
risk communication and provide additional information about sampling in 
schools and child care facilities and the service line replacement 
plan. These proposed revisions are described below.
i. Lead Information Statement
    All CWSs are required to include an informational statement about 
lead in drinking water in their CCRs. The lead information statement is 
intended to help ensure vulnerable populations or their caregivers 
receive information at least once a year on how to reduce their risk of 
exposure to lead in drinking water. In the LCRI, the EPA proposed to 
revise the lead information statement. The proposed revisions included 
providing information about the risks of lead to all age groups, 
additional measures consumers can take to reduce

[[Page 86550]]

exposure to lead in drinking water, new language recommending flushing 
for water used in cooking and formula feeding, and using filters 
properly. Revisions to the lead information statement were in response 
to various stakeholder comments, including feedback received as part of 
the LCRR review engagements, public meetings on environmental justice 
considerations and other stakeholder meetings held to support the 
development of the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023g; USEPA, 2023h), written 
public comments submitted to the LCRI docket following the 
environmental justice meetings (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801), and 
written comments submitted on the proposed CCR Rule Revisions (Docket 
ID EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260). The proposed revised information statement 
about lead was as follows and as described in the proposed LCRI:

    Lead can cause serious health effects in people of all ages, 
especially pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and 
breastfed), and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily 
from materials and parts used in service lines and home plumbing. 
[INSERT NAME OF UTILITY] is responsible for providing high quality 
drinking water and removing lead pipes, but cannot control the 
variety of materials used in the plumbing in your home. You can help 
protect yourself and your family by identifying and removing lead 
materials within your home plumbing and taking steps to reduce your 
family's risk. Using a filter, certified by an American National 
Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead, is 
effective in reducing lead exposures. Follow the instructions 
provided with the filter to ensure the filter is used properly. Use 
only cold water for drinking, cooking, and making baby formula. 
Boiling water does not remove lead from water. Before using tap 
water for drinking, cooking, or making baby formula, flush your 
pipes for several minutes. You can do this by running your tap, 
taking a shower, doing laundry or a load of dishes. If you have a 
lead service line or galvanized requirement replacement service line 
you may need to flush your pipes for a longer period. If you are 
concerned about lead in your water and wish to have your water 
tested, contact [INSERT NAME OF UTILITY and CONTACT INFORMATION]. 
Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps 
you can take to minimize exposure is available at https://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
ii. Mandatory Lead Health Effects Language
    Under the CCR Rule Revisions, CWSs are required to include in the 
report the mandatory lead or copper health effects language listed in 
appendix A to subpart O of part 141 when they fail to take one or more 
actions prescribed by Sec.  141.80(d), Sec.  141.81, Sec.  141.82, 
Sec.  141.83, Sec.  141.84, or Sec.  141.93. With the LCRI, the EPA 
proposed to require CWSs to include the mandatory lead or copper health 
effects language when they fail to take one or more actions prescribed 
by Sec. Sec.  141.80 through 141.93. This would expand the requirement 
to apply to more situations, such as failing to meet the public 
education requirements in Sec.  141.85 or requirements for sampling in 
schools and child care facilities under Sec.  141.92, so that consumers 
are more informed of the health effects of lead and copper. 
Additionally, the proposed LCRI revised the mandatory lead health 
effects language as described in the LCRI proposal and provided in 
section J.2.d of this preamble to clarify health effects in all age 
groups and include information about contacting your health care 
provider for more information. The EPA proposed the same health effects 
language in public education and public notification about lead in the 
proposed LCRI.
iii. Other Requirements
    The EPA proposed, under Sec.  141.153, to require that water 
systems include in the CCR a statement that the water system is 
required to sample for lead in schools and licensed child care 
facilities as requested by the facility, in accordance with Sec.  
141.92 of the proposed LCRI, to direct relevant members of the public 
to contact their school or child care facility for further information 
about potential sampling results.
    In the LCRI, the EPA proposed to require water systems to make 
their service line replacement plan publicly available. Accordingly, 
the EPA also proposed to require CWSs with lead, GRR, or unknown 
service lines in their inventory to include in the CCR information on 
how to obtain a copy of the service line replacement plan or for 
systems serving more than 50,000 persons, how to view the plan on the 
internet. Including information about how to access the plan in the CCR 
would further increase transparency about the service line replacement 
process, accessibility of the plan, and consumer awareness about 
service line replacement in their community.
    The EPA proposed in the LCRI to expand the 2021 LCRR requirement to 
include a statement on the service line inventories to also include 
information on known lead connectors or unknown connectors.
b. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
i. Comments on Language About the Safety of Water in the CCR
    The EPA received comments concerning systems using misleading 
language in the CCR about the safety of the water in relation to lead 
and copper. Commenters were concerned that water systems have used 
language in the CCR suggesting a community's water was safe with 
respect to lead because it met the lead action level or was in 
compliance with the rule. Commenters argued this suggestion 
contradicted the EPA's messaging that there is no level of lead without 
health risks. Some commenters also expressed concerns with the language 
about consumers having their water tested if they are concerned about 
lead, noting that a one-time test could be misleading. In response to 
commenters' concerns about statements indicating the water is safe if 
the system's sampling results are below the lead action level and in 
regulatory compliance, the EPA has updated the lead information 
statement (Sec.  141.154(d)(1)) required in the CCR to note that there 
is still a risk of lead exposure even when tap results at a given point 
do not detect lead. The EPA also notes that the existing CCR Rule in 
Sec.  141.153(h)(5) states that systems may include such additional 
information as they deem necessary for public education consistent 
with, and not detracting from, the purposes of the report. As noted in 
the Final CCR Rule Revisions, ``the EPA interprets these provisions as 
precluding misleading statements by water systems because such 
statements would detract from the purpose of the report by downplaying 
the situational information and potential risks to consumers served by 
the system'' (89 FR 45980, USEPA, 2024c). In addition, as noted in the 
Final CCR Rule Revisions, the EPA intends to work with stakeholders on 
developing CCR communication tools and guidance to continue to support 
CCRs that are accurate, clear, understandable, and readable with 
regards to lead as well as other contaminants (89 FR 45980, USEPA, 
2024c).
    Some commenters wrote that the CCR should include information about 
how common lead is not only in service lines but in premise plumbing 
and that the CCR should discuss all sources of lead in drinking water. 
The EPA notes that the lead information statement has included, since 
the 2007 LCR revisions and maintained in the LCRI, language that 
service lines and home plumbing are the primary sources of lead in

[[Page 86551]]

drinking water. The EPA requires the statement to include information 
on sources of lead exposure recognizing there could be sources beyond 
the control of the water system, such as premise plumbing, to help 
inform the consumer of all potential lead drinking water risks so they 
can take proactive steps to protect their health. The lead information 
statement recommends that consumers identify and remove any lead 
plumbing parts from their home and includes additional steps to help 
reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water such as using a filter 
certified to reduce lead.
    Some commenters asked the EPA to adopt language in the CCR lead 
informational statement that recommends all consumers at all times use 
a filter certified to remove lead. The EPA disagrees with these 
commenters because not all consumers have lead plumbing or are served 
by service lines that are known to or potentially contain lead. 
However, the EPA notes that the lead information statement includes 
filters as an effective option for reducing lead exposure and 
emphasizes their proper use (Sec.  141.154(d)(1)).
    Some commenters expressed concerns with the CCR's proposed lead 
information statement being too long, particularly the added steps for 
consumers to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. Some 
commenters recommended including this information in guidance instead 
so that water systems have more flexibility in how they present the 
information. The EPA disagrees with removing this mandatory language 
from the CCR as it is necessary to inform consumers of actions they can 
take to reduce their risk of exposure to lead in drinking water and 
thereby prevent known or anticipated adverse health effects to the 
extent feasible. In addition, the rule has allowed, since the 2007 LCR 
revisions, water systems to write their own informational statement in 
consultation with the State in accordance with Sec.  141.154(d)(2). 
Under the scope of the revised CCR Rule, the EPA revised Sec.  
141.154(d)(2) to require approval of an alternative educational 
statement from the CWS's primacy agency to use in the CCR. Therefore, 
water systems may make adjustments to the way they present the 
information with approval of the State.
ii. Comments on Inclusion of Replacement Plan Information in the CCR
    The EPA proposed in the LCRI to require CWSs with lead, GRR, or 
lead status unknown service lines to include in the CCR information 
about the service line replacement plan and how to obtain a copy of the 
replacement plan. The EPA received comments supporting the inclusion of 
this information in the CCR and is retaining these requirements in the 
final LCRI. The final rule states that for systems with lead, GRR, or 
lead status unknown service lines in the systems inventory pursuant to 
Sec.  141.84(a) and (b), the CCR must include information on how to 
obtain a copy of the service line replacement plan or view the plan on 
the internet if the system is required to make the service line 
replacement plan available online (Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(iii)).
iii. Comments on Including Statement About School Sampling in the CCR
    The EPA requested comment in the proposed LCRI on the proposed 
requirement for systems to provide an informational statement in the 
CCR about school and child care sampling requirements and that 
consumers can contact the school or child care facility about any 
potential sampling results. The EPA received mostly supportive comments 
for this provision to be included in the final LCRI. The EPA also 
received comments noting the inclusion of this information in the CCR 
could potentially make the CCR more confusing due to the report already 
being complicated. While the EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns 
about the amount of information in the CCR, the agency is maintaining 
this requirement in the final rule given the public health benefit this 
information provides. Since the EPA does not have the authority under 
SDWA to require schools and child care facilities to share their 
sampling results, the agency is requiring this CCR provision to help 
ensure that consumers are aware of the school and child care sampling 
requirements and that they can reach out to the school or child care 
facility about any potential sampling results. Directing consumers to 
contact the school or child care facility connects the consumer with 
the entity who can better respond to any follow-up questions as well 
such as questions regarding next steps including any remediation 
actions.
    The final rule retains the proposed requirement to include an 
informational statement in the CCR about school and child care sampling 
requirements with a slight modification to be clearer that the system 
should direct consumers to contact the school or child care facility 
for further information about potential sampling results as stated in 
Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(v).
c. Final Rule Requirements
i. Lead Information Statement
    In the final LCRI, the EPA is revising the lead information 
statement with minor modifications in response to comments that 
recommended adding language to the CCR about the risk of lead exposure 
even when tap results at a given point in time do not detect lead. The 
EPA is finalizing the below lead information statement that includes 
changes made in the proposed LCRI as well as additional changes made in 
response to comments received on the proposed LCRI:

    Lead can cause serious health effects in people of all ages, 
especially pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and 
breastfed), and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily 
from materials and parts used in service lines and in home plumbing. 
[INSERT NAME OF SYSTEM] is responsible for providing high quality 
drinking water and removing lead pipes but cannot control the 
variety of materials used in the plumbing in your home. Because lead 
levels may vary over time, lead exposure is possible even when your 
tap sampling results do not detect lead at one point in time. You 
can help protect yourself and your family by identifying and 
removing lead materials within your home plumbing and taking steps 
to reduce your family's risk. Using a filter, certified by an 
American National Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce 
lead, is effective in reducing lead exposures. Follow the 
instructions provided with the filter to ensure the filter is used 
properly. Use only cold water for drinking, cooking, and making baby 
formula. Boiling water does not remove lead from water. Before using 
tap water for drinking, cooking, or making baby formula, flush your 
pipes for several minutes. You can do this by running your tap, 
taking a shower, doing laundry or a load of dishes. If you have a 
lead service line or galvanized requiring replacement service line, 
you may need to flush your pipes for a longer period. If you are 
concerned about lead in your water and wish to have your water 
tested, contact [INSERT NAME OF SYSTEM and CONTACT INFORMATION]. 
Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps 
you can take to minimize exposure is available at https://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
ii. Mandatory Lead Health Effects Language
    In the final rule, the EPA is finalizing the mandatory health 
effects language, as proposed, listed in appendix A to subpart O of 
part 141 to be included in the CCR when a CWS fails to take one or more 
actions prescribed by Sec. Sec.  141.80 through 141.93. Additionally, 
the rule finalizes the lead health effects language, as proposed and 
provided in section IV.J.2.d of this preamble.

[[Page 86552]]

iii. Other Requirements
    The final LCRI requires water systems to include in the CCR a 
general statement that the CWS is required to sample for lead in 
schools and licensed child care facilities in accordance with Sec.  
141.92 (see Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(v)). This provision will help ensure 
that consumers are aware of the school and child care sampling 
requirements and that they can reach out to schools or child care 
facilities about any potential sampling results. Due to comments 
received on the proposed LCRI, this language has been modified for the 
final LCRI to be clearer that the system should direct consumers to 
contact the school or child care facility for further information about 
potential sampling results in accordance with Sec.  141.92. The school 
and child care facility can provide additional information to the 
sampling results including next steps such as any remediation actions.
    The final rule requires that the CCR expand the service line 
inventory statement to include information on known and unknown lead 
connectors such that the statement describes that a service line 
inventory (including inventories with no lead, GRR, lead status 
unknown, known lead connectors or unknown connectors) has been prepared 
and the statement must include instructions on how to access the 
inventory (Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(ii)).
    The final LCRI requires water systems to make the service line 
replacement plan publicly available (see section IV.C of this preamble 
for more information about the replacement plan). Additionally, CWSs 
with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown 
service lines in their inventory are required to include in the CCR 
information on how to obtain a copy of the service line replacement 
plan or for systems serving more than 50,000 persons, how to view the 
plan on the internet (Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(iii)).
    The CCR Rule Revisions (89 FR 45980, USEPA, 2024c) moved the CCR 
requirement for a service line inventory statement from Sec.  
141.153(d)(4)(xi) to Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(ii) and the requirement for 
information about accessing complete lead tap sampling data from Sec.  
141.153(d)(4)(xii) to Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(i) of the CFR. Therefore, the 
final LCRI is also moving other requirements that were proposed in 
Sec.  141.153(d)(4) to Sec.  141.153(h)(8); these include the statement 
about the service line replacement plan and school sampling. In 
addition, the CCR Rule Revisions added a requirement for information 
about corrosion control efforts in Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(iii) which the 
final LCRI moved to Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(iv) in order to keep the 
requirements related to information on the service line inventory and 
replacement plan together.
2. Public Notification Rule (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q)
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    The EPA promulgated a Public Notification (PN) Rule in 40 CFR part 
141, subpart Q, in 2000 (65 FR 26035, USEPA, 2000b). This PN Rule 
implements section 1414(c)(1) and (2) of SDWA. The PN Rule requires 
water systems to provide public notification of any failure of the 
water system to comply with a maximum contaminant level, a prescribed 
treatment technique, or failure to perform required water quality 
monitoring, or testing procedures; any variance or exemption the system 
has been granted, or failure to comply with the requirements of any 
schedule set under a variance or exemption; or reporting and 
recordkeeping violations under subpart Y; and certain specified 
situations such as the occurrence of a waterborne disease outbreak or 
emergency and the availability of unregulated contaminant monitoring 
data (see Sec.  141.201, table 1).
    In 2016, Congress amended sections 1414(c)(1) and (2) of SDWA, in 
the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act, to 
require the EPA's implementing regulations to ``specify notification 
procedures for'' public notice no later than 24 hours after the water 
system learns of each exceedance of the action level for lead 
prescribed under Sec.  141.80(c) of 40 CFR part 141, ``or a prescribed 
level of lead that the Administrator establishes for public education 
or notification in a successor regulation promulgated pursuant to 
section 1412'' if the exceedance ``has the potential to have serious 
adverse effects on human health as a result of short term exposure'' 
(42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)(1)(D) and (c)(2)(C)). In the 2021 LCRR rulemaking, 
the EPA determined that ``such exceedances [of the lead action level] 
have the potential to have serious adverse health effects on human 
health as a result of short-term exposure'' and therefore warranted the 
same treatment as other situations currently categorized as Tier 1 
violations subject to the 24-hour notification requirements (86 FR 
4239-4240, USEPA, 2021a). Under the revisions to subpart Q introduced 
in the 2021 LCRR, CWSs and NTNCWSs with a lead action level exceedance 
must provide public notice to persons served by the system within 24 
hours of learning of the action level exceedance; that is, within 24 
hours of the system receiving and calculating the 90th percentile 
value, or after the data is submitted to the State and the State 
calculates the 90th percentile. The notice must be in a form and manner 
reasonably calculated to reach all persons served, as described in the 
PN Rule (Sec.  141.202(c)). A copy of the notice must also be sent to 
both the State and the EPA Administrator in accordance with the public 
notification reporting requirements of Sec.  141.31(d), which was also 
amended in the 2021 LCRR. This notice to the Administrator for a lead 
action level exceedance is needed because section 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) of 
SDWA was amended by the WIIN Act to require that such notifications be 
provided to the Administrator in addition to the State to allow the EPA 
to identify whether the agency must provide notice where required in 
section 1414(c)(2)(D). It provides that if a State with primacy 
enforcement responsibility or the water system has not issued a notice 
for a lead action level exceedance that has the potential to have 
serious adverse effects as a result of short-term exposure, the 
Administrator is required to issue the notice. Because the EPA does not 
have any obligation to issue a Tier 1 public notice for violations of 
other drinking water standards in States with primacy, there is no need 
for the EPA to be notified in those other Tier 1 situations.
    In addition to lead action level exceedances, there are violations 
that also require public notification for both lead and copper (see 
appendix A to subpart Q of part 141). Tier 2 public notification is 
required for a treatment technique violation for both lead and copper 
no later than 30 days after the system learns of the violation. Under 
the revisions to subpart Q introduced in the 2021 LCRR, this includes 
violations to Sec. Sec.  141.80 through 141.84, which describe 
compliance dates of the rule, the action level, CCT, source water 
treatment, and service line inventory and replacement requirements; 
however, Sec.  141.80(c), which describes exceedances of the lead 
action level, is excluded from the Tier 2 public notification 
requirements since lead action level exceedances require Tier 1 public 
notification. Tier 2 public notification is also required for 
violations to Sec.  141.85(a) through (c) and (h), which concern the 
content of public education materials and inclusion of information for 
consumers with limited English proficiency, delivery of public 
education after a lead action level

[[Page 86553]]

exceedance, supplemental monitoring for lead when there is a systemwide 
lead action level exceedance, and outreach activities for community 
water systems that fail to meet the LSLR goal under the 2021 LCRR. In 
addition, Tier 2 public notification is required for violations to 
Sec.  141.93, which describes flexibilities for small water systems to 
comply with the rule.
    As described in section IV.J.2.c of this preamble, the EPA proposed 
in the LCRI to require consumer notification of supplemental monitoring 
results for lead under Sec.  141.85(c)(3); the EPA proposed to exclude 
this from the Tier 2 public notification requirements in subpart Q as 
this pertains to notification of supplemental sampling conducted at 
individual tap sampling sites, rather than systemwide. In addition, as 
discussed in section IV.J.2.a of this preamble, the EPA proposed in the 
LCRI to revise Sec.  141.85(h) to require outreach activities for 
systems that fail to meet the average annual replacement rate, instead 
of the goal LSLR rate as required under the 2021 LCRR. Violations to 
this proposed requirement would require Tier 2 public notification 
under the proposed LCRI. The EPA also proposed to revise subpart Q to 
require Tier 2 public notification for violations to the proposed 
additional public education and filter requirements for water systems 
with multiple lead action level exceedances under Sec.  141.85(j). See 
section IV.J of this preamble for more information about the proposed 
public education requirements. Tier 3 public notification is required 
for monitoring and testing procedure violations for both lead and 
copper no later than one year after the system learns of the violation 
or begins operating under a variance or exemption. These include 
violations to Sec. Sec.  141.86 through 141.90 of the 2021 LCRR and 
proposed LCRI. The EPA also proposed to require Tier 3 public 
notification for violations to Sec.  141.92; as with violations to 
other monitoring and testing requirements, the EPA believes that the 
public should be notified when water systems fail to conduct required 
sampling in schools and child care facilities.
    The EPA also proposed to make conforming changes to the PN Rule as 
a result of changes the agency proposed to make in the proposed LCRI 
and the CCR related to the standard health effects language for lead in 
appendix B to subpart Q of part 141, to be consistent with the proposed 
revised lead health effects language required in public education and 
the CCR. See section IV.J.2.d of this preamble for more information 
about the proposed revised mandatory lead health effects language.
b. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
    Some commenters opposed the Tier 1 24-hour public notification 
requirement for a lead action level exceedance. Some commenters 
recommended only requiring Tier 1 public notification for a lead action 
level exceedance to customers served by a lead, GRR, or lead status 
unknown service line. The EPA notes that the PN Rule requires water 
systems to provide public notices to ``persons served by the water 
system.'' The EPA also believes it is important for all persons served 
by a water system to be notified of a systemwide lead action level 
exceedance in the same time frame. While people served by a lead, GRR, 
or unknown service line are at higher risk of exposure to lead in 
drinking water than those who are not, other people may also be exposed 
through lead-containing plumbing, particularly if there is a systemwide 
issue such as increased corrosivity of the water. Therefore, it is 
important for all persons served by the system to be notified so they 
can decide whether to take protective actions to reduce their potential 
exposure to lead in drinking water.
    Some commenters disagreed with the Tier 1 designation for a lead 
action level exceedance, arguing that lead does not pose ``acute'' 
public health risks like other Tier 1 situations and expressed concerns 
with lead ALEs being determined based on the 90th percentile. The EPA 
has determined that exceedances of the lead action level have the 
potential to have serious adverse health effects on human health as a 
result of short-term exposure and therefore warrant the same treatment 
as other situations currently categorized as Tier 1 violations subject 
to the 24-hour notification requirements. While the lead action level 
is not a health-based level, there is no safe level of lead in drinking 
water and the MCLG for lead is zero. In addition, there are life stages 
(e.g., early childhood) where any lead exposure is especially 
problematic (USEPA, 2013; American Academy of Pediatrics, 2024).
    Some commenters requested that systems start the process to 
distribute the public notice of a lead action level exceedance within 
24 hours, but not have to complete delivery within 24 hours. The EPA 
notes that the PN Rule requires systems to deliver all Tier 1 public 
notices within 24 hours; this requirement is not limited to lead action 
level exceedances as other situations also can require a Tier 1 public 
notice (see Sec.  141.202). Moreover, the EPA has determined that it is 
feasible for water systems to provide Tier 1 public notice of a lead 
action level exceedance within 24 hours of the system learning of the 
exceedance. The EPA notes that the PN Rule provides water systems with 
several delivery options to ensure the Tier 1 public notice reaches all 
persons served within 24 hours, including use of broadcast media, 
posting the notice in conspicuous locations throughout the service 
area, hand delivery of the notice, or using another method approved by 
the primacy agency (Sec.  141.202(c)). Systems can prepare to provide 
the notice by creating a notification template in advance and may 
choose from several options for distribution of a public notification 
that make it feasible to provide the notice to all persons served by 
the system within 24 hours of learning of the exceedance.
    Some commenters requested that to ensure consistent messaging in 
public notifications, the EPA standardize the language or provide 
resources and materials. They stated that this would also reduce the 
burden on systems to develop the notices and on States to ensure their 
quality and accuracy. The PN Rule includes minimum requirements for 
what kind of information must be included in public notices (see Sec.  
141.205(a) and (b)) for many drinking water contaminants, including 
standardized health effects language for lead and copper as well as 
other standardized language that applies to any drinking water 
contaminants. States have the authority to implement their own 
requirements for additional standardized language (see Sec.  
142.16(a)(1)). In addition, the EPA has already provided public 
notification resources and templates to assist water systems and States 
with the revisions to subpart Q introduced in the 2021 LCRR. These 
templates provide consistent language that also enables water systems 
to provide system-specific information about the sources of lead in 
their community and the actions the water system is taking to reduce 
lead levels. See https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule-implementation-tools#TIER_1. The EPA also intends to provide updated 
resources, templates, and example public notification materials to 
assist water systems and States with the revisions to subpart Q 
introduced in the LCRI.
    Some commenters requested that the materials should use plain 
language and be translated to different languages. The PN Rule requires 
that the public notices do not include overly technical language (Sec.  
141.205(c)(1)). The PN Rule also includes multilingual requirements for 
public notices (Sec.  141.205(c)(2)). The PN Rule requires water 
systems serving

[[Page 86554]]

a large proportion of non-English speaking consumers, as determined by 
the primacy agency, to contain information in the appropriate 
language(s) regarding the importance of the notice or contain a 
telephone number or address where persons served may contact the water 
system to obtain a translated copy of the notice or to request 
assistance in the appropriate language.
    Some commenters stated that failure to sample for lead in schools 
and child care facilities, in accordance with Sec.  141.92, should not 
be a Tier 3 violation. The EPA disagrees and notes that monitoring and 
testing procedure violations constitute Tier 3 violations, therefore it 
is appropriate for this to include violations to monitoring 
requirements for lead in schools and child care facilities. As noted 
earlier, the EPA believes that the public should be notified when water 
systems fail to conduct required sampling in schools and child care 
facilities. Tier 3 violations require public notification no later than 
one year after the system learns of the violation. The EPA notes that 
if the State has issued a waiver under Sec.  141.92(h), the water 
system would not be in violation for not sampling in the schools and 
child care facilities covered by the waiver (see section IV.L.2 of this 
preamble for a discussion on waivers for school and child care facility 
sampling).
c. Final Rule Requirements
    Under the LCRI, a lead action level exceedance will continue to 
trigger the requirement for Tier 1 public notification as required in 
section 1414(c)(2)(C) of SDWA. The EPA has concluded that lead action 
level exceedances have the potential to have serious adverse effects on 
human health as a result of short-term exposure. SDWA mandates that 
notice in such a situation be distributed ``as soon as practicable, but 
not later than 24 hours after the PWS learns of the violation or 
exceedance.'' While the feasibility analysis the EPA conducts in 
establishing a NPDWR is not a prerequisite to implementation of this 
statutory mandate, water systems have been complying with the Tier 1 
24-hour notice requirement for other situations besides a lead action 
level exceedance since the May 6, 2002, compliance date of the PN Rule, 
and therefore should also be able to do so for lead action level 
exceedances.
    Because the EPA is not prescribing a level of lead for public 
notification in the LCRI that is different from the lead action level 
in Sec.  141.80(c), the EPA is updating appendix A to subpart Q of part 
141 to reflect the agency's revised lead action level of 0.010 mg/L in 
the contaminant description in the left column (see section IV.F.4 of 
this preamble for more information about the action level). As noted in 
the proposed LCRI (88 FR 84968, USEPA, 2023a), water systems must 
comply with this provision starting October 16, 2024. Beginning on that 
date, systems must comply with the Tier 1 PN requirement for a lead 
action level of 0.015 mg/L, and beginning on the final LCRI compliance 
date, systems must comply with the revised lead action level of 0.010 
mg/L (see section IV.F.4 of this preamble).
    Water systems required to conduct Tier 1 public notification for a 
lead action level exceedance must send a copy of the notice to the 
Administrator and head of the primacy agency within 24 hours of 
learning of the exceedance in accordance with Sec.  141.31(d)(2). 
Within 10 days of completing the public notification requirements, the 
water system must also send certification of compliance along with a 
copy of the distributed notice to the primacy agency (Sec.  
141.31(d)(1)); this reporting requirement also applies to all other 
public notices required under the PN Rule (40 CFR part 141, subpart Q).
    When the EPA amended Sec.  141.31(d) in the 2021 LCRR to add the 
requirement for providing a copy of the Tier 1 public notice of a lead 
action level exceedance to the Administrator and head of the primacy 
agency within 24 hours of learning of the exceedance (Sec.  
141.31(d)(2)), the agency inadvertently removed the pre-existing 
requirement in Sec.  141.31(d)(1) to provide copies of Tier 1 public 
notices for violations and situations involving drinking water 
contaminants other than lead (e.g., violations of the MCL for E. coli, 
waterborne disease outbreaks, etc.) to the primacy agency. The 2021 
LCRR amendment also inadvertently left out a requirement for water 
systems to provide a copy of the distributed Tier 1 public notice for a 
lead action level exceedance when certifying compliance to the primacy 
agency. In the LCR, prior to the revisions introduced by the 2021 LCRR, 
a copy of all distributed public notices was required to be provided 
with certification to the primacy agency within 10 days of completing 
the public notification requirements. For the final LCRI, the EPA is 
making technical corrections to the requirements by restoring the text 
that was deleted in the 2021 LCRR version of Sec. ; 141.31(d)(1) to 
prevent these errors introduced in the 2021 LCRR from being 
implemented. This technical correction will ensure that representative 
copies of all distributed public notices must be provided to the 
primacy agency with certification within 10 days of completing the 
public notification requirements, in addition to requiring a copy of 
Tier 1 public notices of lead action level exceedances to the 
Administrator and head of the primacy agency within 24 hours. The EPA 
is requiring water systems to continue to comply with Sec.  
141.31(d)(1) as codified on July 1, 2020, between October 16, 2024, and 
the LCRI compliance date to avoid any lapse in requirements (see 
section V.B of this preamble for discussion of compliance dates).
    The EPA is finalizing revisions to the lead and copper violations 
that require Tier 2 and Tier 3 public notification in appendix A to 
subpart Q of part 141. Water systems must conduct Tier 2 public 
notification for treatment technique violations to Sec. Sec.  141.80 
(except paragraph (c)) through 141.84 and 141.85(a) through (c) (except 
paragraph (c)(3)), which describe compliance dates of the rule, CCT, 
source water treatment, service line inventory and replacement 
requirements, the content of public education materials and inclusion 
of information for consumers with limited English proficiency, delivery 
of public education after a lead action level exceedance, and 
supplemental monitoring for lead. As noted earlier, Sec.  141.80(c) 
which describes exceedances of the lead action level is excluded from 
the Tier 2 public notification requirements since lead action level 
exceedances require Tier 1 public notification. The EPA is also 
excluding from the Tier 2 public notification requirements violations 
to Sec.  141.85(c)(3), which requires a water system to notify a 
consumer of their supplemental lead sampling results under the LCRI. In 
addition, Tier 2 public notification is required for violations to 
Sec.  141.93, which describes flexibilities for small water systems to 
comply with the rule. The EPA is finalizing requirements for water 
systems to conduct Tier 2 public notification for violations to Sec.  
141.85(h), which requires outreach activities for systems that do not 
meet the mandatory service line replacement rate, and Sec.  141.85(j), 
which requires additional public education and filter requirements for 
water systems with multiple lead action level exceedances under the 
LCRI. Tier 3 public notification will be required for lead and copper 
monitoring and testing procedure violations to Sec. Sec.  141.86 
through 141.90 and 141.92, which concern tap water monitoring, water 
quality parameter monitoring,

[[Page 86555]]

source water monitoring, analytical methods, reporting requirements, 
and sampling for lead in schools and child care facilities.
    The EPA is finalizing conforming changes to the PN Rule as a result 
of changes the agency is making in the LCRI and the CCR related to the 
standard health effects language for lead in appendix B to subpart Q of 
part 141, to be consistent with the revised lead health effects 
language required in public education and the CCR. See section IV.J.2.d 
of this preamble for more information about the revised mandatory lead 
health effects language.
3. Definitions
a. Rationale and Proposed Requirements
    In accordance with the EPA's goal to simplify the LCRI, the EPA 
proposed new and revised definitions for inclusion in Sec.  141.2 
(USEPA, 2023a). The EPA proposed new definitions to conform to new 
regulatory requirements and updated existing definitions to conform to 
changes made to existing requirements. For the LCRI, the EPA proposed 
new and updated definitions for ``action level,'' ``child care 
facility,'' ``connector,'' ``Distribution System and Site Assessment,'' 
``find-and-fix,'' ``galvanized requiring replacement,'' ``lead service 
line,'' ``lead status unknown service line,'' ``newly regulated public 
water system,'' ``partial service line replacement,'' ``service line,'' 
``small water system,'' ``tap monitoring period,'' ``tap sampling 
period,'' and ``wide-mouth bottle.'' The EPA proposed to remove the 
definition of ``full service line replacement,'' ``gooseneck, pigtail, 
or connector,'' ``partial lead service line replacement,'' ``trigger 
level,'' and ``tap sample monitoring period.'' The EPA also proposed 
minor revisions to select definitions for ``elementary school,'' 
``galvanized service line,'' ``pitcher filter,'' ``secondary school,'' 
``medium-size water system'' (renamed and updated as ``medium water 
system''), ``optimal corrosion control treatment,'' ``tap sampling 
protocol,'' and ``system without corrosion control treatment.'' The 
LCRI proposal contains how the EPA proposed to add, revise, or remove 
the definitions listed above.
b. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
    Commenters suggested various revisions to the proposed definition 
of ``service line,'' which was defined as ``a portion of pipe which 
connects the water main to the building inlet. Where a building is not 
present, the service line connects the water main to the outlet.'' 
Commenters noted that there may be some situations where a water main 
does not exist in the system (e.g., a single building with a service 
line connecting the wellhouse to the building), and, therefore, the 
definition should be revised accordingly to accommodate for other 
distribution system configurations. The EPA acknowledges that water 
mains may not be present in all cases where there are service lines, as 
described in the EPA's ``Developing and Maintaining a Service Line 
Inventory: Small Entity Compliance Guide'' (or LCRR Small Systems 
Guidance) guidance document, which includes examples of service lines 
that are not connected to a water main (e.g., connected to a pressure 
tank or if they draw water directly from a well) (USEPA, 2023n). Thus, 
the EPA is defining service line in the final rule to reflect that 
service lines may be connected to a ``water main'' or ``other conduit 
for distributing water to individual consumers or groups of 
consumers.'' The reference to ``water main'' in the proposed definition 
was for descriptive purposes, and commenters did not identify a 
technical, policy, or legal reason to exclude service lines in the 
absence of a water main. This addition to the definition clarifies that 
the descriptive term ``water main'' was not intended to reduce the 
scope of the service line inventory or replacement requirements that 
apply to all services lines (i.e., the lines that distribute water from 
the PWS's conduit for moving water from its source to its customers and 
consumers).
    Commenters recommended that the EPA exclude pipes not anticipated 
for potable use from the service line definition because they would not 
result in human lead exposure. The EPA disagrees with this 
recommendation. The service lines covered by the rule may be used for 
the distribution of potable water regardless of whether that is their 
intended use. Water lines used exclusively for non-potable applications 
does not preclude the possibility that the water lines could in fact be 
used for human consumption as well. An NPDWR provision that applies 
only to where the water is actually used for human consumption is 
administratively unworkable and difficult to implement. See section 
IV.D.1 of this preamble for information related to inventorying all 
service lines in a water system's service area regardless of intended 
potable or non-potable applications.
    Commenters suggested that the EPA clarify whether water lines in a 
community downstream from a master meter or other single point of 
connection meet the proposed definition of ``service line.'' In some 
situations, an apartment complex, manufactured housing community, or 
other multi-family entity will have a master meter at the property line 
of the community. If these communities are considered part of or within 
a CWS or NTNCWS service area, then that water system is required to 
inventory all service lines, even if they are beyond a master meter, 
just as the system is required to inventory service lines between a 
water main and a single-family residence regardless of the presence of 
a meter between the water main and the building inlet. See section 
IV.D.1 of this preamble for information related to master meters and 
inventorying all service lines in a water system's service area.
    Some commenters disagreed with the EPA's proposed deletion of 
references to ownership in the service line definition. Commenters were 
concerned that without mention of ownership, water systems could define 
a service line in multiple parts, such as the portion that is system 
owned. The EPA disagrees with these comments because the ownership is 
not relevant to the system's ability to inventory or replace service 
lines; instead, it is based on control, which the final rule equates to 
access. Additionally, statements about access or control are related to 
regulatory requirements, are included in Sec.  141.84, and are less 
suited for inclusion in the service line definition. See section IV.B 
of this preamble for further discussion on access and control. The EPA 
also notes that the final definition includes the entire service line, 
stating that the service line connects to the building inlet (or the 
outlet where a building is not present).
    Commenters recommended that the EPA clarify or define the term 
``building inlet'' within its service line definition. Because there 
are a multitude of plumbing configurations that can exist, it can be 
challenging to encapsulate all potential configurations in a single, 
national-level definition. However, the term ``building inlet'' best 
encapsulates these configurations. Commenters expressed concerns with 
use of the term ``building inlet'' because systems may interpret the 
definition in a way that results in short service line segments 
remaining in place past the building inlet after full service line 
replacement. The final LCRI mandates full LSLR, which requires the 
removal of all lead material along the service line and associated lead 
connector.
    While some commenters agreed with the proposed connector length of 
two feet in their comments on the proposed rule, others stated that 
their water

[[Page 86556]]

system uses connectors greater than two feet (e.g., three, four, and 
five feet) and recommended the EPA update the connector definition to 
account for these longer connectors. While no commenter provided 
additional data beyond anecdotes from their system and State, the EPA 
evaluated data on connector length from current manufacturers websites 
and historical sources while considering the lengths recommended by 
commenters (The Cadmus Group, 2024a; 2024b). Many recent sources define 
lead connectors at two feet; however, it is unclear if these sources 
cite this length because it was included in the EPA's LCRR Inventory 
Guidance (USEPA, 2022c). The EPA did not find connectors currently sold 
by manufacturers, instead finding information suggesting connectors are 
not currently used in drinking water infrastructure because modern 
flexible alternatives for piping eliminate the need for them. While the 
EPA found generally limited data, one historical plumbing and heating 
materials catalogue showed lead connectors sold and widely distributed 
at lengths ranging from 18 to 36 inches (USEPA, 2022c). Thirty-six 
inches (three feet) was one of the pipe lengths recommended by 
commenters. Accordingly, the EPA chose to update the connector 
definition to encompass lead pipes up to three feet in length. While 
individual water systems indicated in their comments use of connectors 
in greater length, one of the primary goals of the LCRI is to replace 
lead and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible. Lead pipes are 
anticipated to contribute more lead into drinking water with increasing 
length (Deshommes et al., 2016; Sandvig et al., 2008), so defining 
these longer lead pipes as connectors instead of LSLs would exclude 
them from the system's service line replacement program, resulting in 
potentially delayed replacement from these significant lead sources.
    Commenters also stated that the connector definition should exclude 
reference to a specific length, as water systems may not know the 
length of connectors in their distribution system. The EPA acknowledges 
that some systems may lack records which indicate connector length; 
however, other commenters supported the clarity that a defined length 
provides for water systems and States to distinguish whether a lead 
pipe is subject to requirements for lead connectors or LSLs (i.e., 
inventorying, replacement, tap sampling, and public education). 
Additionally, the EPA is concerned that lack of a clear definition 
could create a loophole by which systems avoid replacing LSLs as part 
of their service line replacement program by classifying them as 
connectors. Thus, the final LCRI defines connector as piping limited to 
three feet that can be bent and is used for connections between service 
piping, typically connecting the service line to the main.
    The EPA received comments suggesting that the EPA should remove the 
clause that galvanized service lines that ``ever were'' downstream of 
an LSL be considered GRR, or the GRR definition should not include 
galvanized service lines where systems are unable to show no upstream 
LSL has ever been in place. Such commenters argued that the lead 
exposure risks to public health decrease over time and that systems 
should be permitted to conduct studies and adapt their replacement 
strategy based on observed GRR service line lead levels and site-
specific conditions in their water system. One commenter provided 
sampling data from GRR service lines in its system showing lead levels 
similar to non-lead lines in that system to demonstrate the lower risk 
of lead release of GRR service lines. The EPA disagrees that galvanized 
service lines that were ever downstream of an LSL stop being a risk of 
lead exposure after any period of time. In the proposed LCRI, the EPA 
referenced a study showing that galvanized service lines downstream of 
LSLs could trigger lead releases over the remaining pipe lifetime 
depending on the depth of the lead scales in the pipes (McFadden et 
al., 2011). Thus, even low lead levels measured during a GRR service 
line's lifetime may not indicate the end of a public health risk, and 
future water quality changes or disturbances could still cause release 
of lead. These lead particulate releases may not be captured by tap 
sampling referenced by the commenter. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing 
the requirements for this definition to include galvanized service 
lines that were ever downstream of an LSL, regardless of how long ago 
the LSL may have been replaced.
    The EPA recognizes that some systems may lack records demonstrating 
there never was an upstream LSL. The final LCRI includes these 
galvanized service lines in the definition of an GRR service line due 
to the importance of ensuring all GRR service lines are replaced. While 
this may result in the replacement of some galvanized service lines 
that were never downstream of an LSL, this broad approach ensures that 
all GRR service lines, which can contribute significant lead into 
drinking water, are replaced as quickly as feasible. In this scenario, 
the final LCRI's definition of GRR service lines include these service 
lines as GRR to ensure these potentially significant lead sources are 
not left out of the system's service line replacement program. The EPA 
expects that as water systems' inventories improve, they may gain 
additional information that can help identify which GRR service lines 
were never downstream of an LSL, avoiding the costs to replace 
galvanized service lines that were never downstream of an LSL. The LCRR 
Inventory Guidance recommends that water systems treat the inventory as 
a ``living dataset that is continuously improved over time as the 
inventory is updated'' (USEPA, 2022c). As water systems gain experience 
with their inventory and utilize additional methods to categorize 
service line materials, such as predictive modeling, water systems may 
be able to better distinguish between galvanized service lines that are 
GRR service lines and those which are non-lead.
    The EPA disagrees that galvanized service lines with upstream lead 
connectors should be classified as GRR service lines. While any source 
of lead, including lead connectors, can potentially contribute lead 
which can adsorb onto downstream galvanized service lines, the final 
rule's service line replacement requirements are designed to prioritize 
replacement of the most significant contributors of lead into drinking 
water (i.e., LSLs and GRR service lines) as quickly as feasible. 
Galvanized service lines downstream of an LSL, which may be tens of 
feet long, are likely to contribute more lead into drinking water than 
a galvanized line downstream of a lead connector, which the final rule 
defines as no greater than three feet in length. Additionally, the 
proposed rule notes that the poor condition of galvanized lines may 
result in these pipes breaking or bursting during construction 
following re-pressurization after main replacement or replacement of a 
service line or connector, necessitating replacement of the entire 
service line. Replacing galvanized service lines downstream of a lead 
connector (including replacing the lead connector as encountered) in 
conjunction with other infrastructure work, as opposed to replacing 
them as part of the system's mandatory service line replacement program 
in the LCRI, would not only allow systems to prioritize removing the 
most significant lead sources (i.e., LSLs and GRR service lines) as 
quickly as feasible, it would also facilitate a more cost-efficient 
approach to update drinking water

[[Page 86557]]

infrastructure that would allow more resources to be devoted to 
replacement of lead and GRR service lines.
    The EPA is revising the proposed definition of ``wide-mouth 
bottles.'' While the proposed definition used outer diameter to specify 
the minimum mouth width, commenters noted that inner diameter is the 
more typical specification. Commenters also raised concerns about the 
supply and commercial availability of bottles using the proposed 55-
millimeter outer diameter threshold and colored or tinted bottles, the 
latter which some water systems use to better distinguish between the 
first- and fifth-liter samples from the second, third, and fourth 
liters for sampling at LSL sites. The EPA agrees with multiple 
commenters' recommendations for the EPA to use the inner-diameter and 
to reduce the size to 40 millimeters. The final rule's definition 
includes a reduced inner-diameter mouth width of 40 millimeters. This 
revision addresses commenters' concerns about using more common 
diameter specifications as well as concerns about adequate bottle 
availability while maintaining sufficient width for sample collection 
at full flow when lead is most likely to be detected.
    One commenter also noted that the proposed rule retained the 2021 
LCRR definition for ``first draw sample;'' however, under the proposed 
LCRI, the phrase ``first draw'' is found in just one portion of the 
regulatory language, under Sec.  141.92(f)(2)(i), and that in all other 
locations where ``first draw'' is used in the 2021 LCRR, the term 
``first draw'' is replaced with ``first-liter.'' The commenter 
recommended that the EPA delete the definition for ``first draw 
sample'' and provide a definition for ``first-liter sample'' instead. 
The EPA agrees with the commenter and, therefore, made this change for 
the final LCRI, adding that it would improve rule implementation and be 
consistent with having a definition which specifies ``fifth-liter 
sample.''
c. Final Rule Requirements
    For the final rule, the EPA is making several revisions to the 
proposed definitions proposed for Sec.  141.2. The EPA is revising the 
proposed definition of ``service line'' to include pipes which are not 
connected to water mains, as service lines may be connected to other 
conduits for distributing water to individual consumers or groups of 
consumers (e.g., a direct connection from a well to a single building). 
The EPA is increasing the proposed defined connector length from two to 
three feet. The EPA is also revising the proposed definition of ``wide-
mouth bottle'' to reduce the diameter from 55 millimeters to 40 
millimeters, and to specify that the diameter refers to the inner 
diameter.
    The EPA is maintaining the following new or updated definitions 
from the proposed LCRI: ``action level,'' ``child care facility,'' 
``Distribution System and Site Assessment,'' ``galvanized requiring 
replacement service line,'' ``lead service line,'' ``lead status 
unknown service line,'' ``newly regulated public water system,'' 
``partial service line replacement,'' ``small water system,'' ``tap 
monitoring period,'' and ``tap sampling period.''
    The EPA is also maintaining proposed minor revisions to the 
following definitions: ``elementary school,'' ``galvanized service 
line,'' ``pitcher filter,'' ``secondary school,'' ``medium-size water 
system'' (revised as ``medium water system''), ``optimal corrosion 
control treatment,'' ``tap sampling protocol,'' and ``system without 
corrosion control treatment.'' The final rule eliminates the following 
definitions: ``find-and-fix,'' ``full service line replacement,'' 
``gooseneck, pigtail, or connector,'' ``partial lead service line 
replacement,'' ``lead trigger level,'' and ``tap sample monitoring 
period.''
    In the final LCRI, the EPA is adding a new definition for ``first-
liter sample'' and eliminating the definition for ``first draw 
sample.'' The definitions are worded slightly differently but similarly 
reference the first one-liter sample of tap water collected in 
accordance with the rule's required tap sampling protocol.

V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement

A. General

1. Rationale and Proposed Requirements
    The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed 
requirements to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) 
for lead and copper to improve its oversight and enforcement. For 
example, the EPA proposed to eliminate the trigger level, (see section 
IV.F.4 of this preamble), simplify the small system flexibility 
provision (see section IV.I.1 of this preamble), streamline public 
education following elevated lead measurements (see section IV.J.2 of 
this preamble), increase reporting by both States (see section V.D of 
this preamble) and systems (see section IV.N of this preamble), and 
require enhanced sampling for detecting corrosion control issues in 
lead service line (LSL) systems (see section IV.L.1 of this preamble). 
The EPA intends to develop guidance and support materials to support 
implementation and enforcement of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements 
(LCRI). The agency has already developed materials and technical 
assistance to support service line inventory and lead service line 
replacement (LSLR) including guidance on service line inventories. 
Additionally, the EPA has launched several technical assistance 
programs specifically to assist with LSLR, including the Lead Service 
Line Replacement (LSLR) Accelerators and the Get the Lead Out (GLO) 
Initiative.
2. Summary of Comments and the EPA's Response
    Commenters expressed general concern that the proposed rule placed 
additional workload burden on States and that more resources in the 
form of funding, staffing, and time would be needed to effectively 
implement the rule. The EPA has estimated the additional costs for 
States to implement and enforce the rule in the proposed and final 
rules. See the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) chapter 4, 
section 4.4 for more information about State costs and chapter 6 of the 
final LCRI Economic Analysis for the overall costs and benefits of the 
final rule. The EPA worked to streamline State requirements for the 
final LCRI wherever possible (see section V.D of this preamble for a 
discussion on reporting and recordkeeping). While States will have 
additional responsibilities under the final LCRI compared to previous 
versions of the rule, the rule will also provide greater health risk 
reduction benefits and thus justifies the associated costs (see chapter 
3, section 6.3 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis). See section III.G 
of this preamble for information on available funding sources to 
support implementation of the LCRI requirements.
    Commenters also expressed concerns that the additional burdens on 
States would be compounded by additional burdens associated with the 
EPA's final NPDWR for six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance (PFAS), 
which had yet to be finalized at the time the comment period was open 
for the LCRI. The EPA notes that Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) section 
1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(III) requires that the agency consider the costs and 
benefits that will result solely a result of compliance with the 
proposed rule and not resulting from other proposed or final 
regulations. Therefore, the EPA did not include costs and benefits 
associated with the PFAS rule in the final LCRI Economic Analysis. 
However, the agency did consider the costs to States and regulated 
water systems of implementing the new PFAS rule in the

[[Page 86558]]

Economic Analysis for the PFAS NPDWR (USEPA, 2024f, Section 5).
    Commenters noted that the complexity of the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements on both States and systems in the LCRI 
require an appropriate data system to manage the data requirements of 
the LCRI. Some commenters also specifically mentioned the need for 
updates to the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) to match 
the reporting requirements of the LCRI. Commenters also expressed a 
concern that these updates would not be possible in time for LCRI 
implementation. The EPA remains committed to providing high quality 
tools to assist States with their implementation of the LCRI. The EPA 
intends to support states' data management needs through both SDWIS/
State and the development of Drinking Water State Federal Tribal 
Information Exchange System (DW SFTIES). The EPA intends to have SDWIS 
State available for State use by the compliance date of the LCRI. The 
EPA is currently developing the DW SFTIES, which is an updated system 
that will replace SDWIS. The EPA will also work closely with State 
program and information technology staff on LCRI needs for DW SFTIES 
development. The EPA intends to provide LCRI Data Entry Instructions, 
which will provide detailed guidance to States regarding the LCRI 
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
    Commenters recommended that the EPA strengthen reporting 
requirements to increase enforcement of the LCRI provisions. Some 
commenters noted the LCRI must have timely and transparent reporting 
requirements to ensure compliance. For the final rule, the EPA 
carefully considered all reporting requirements to ensure that the 
required reporting elements provide value to the State and/or the EPA 
for oversight or enforcement, and do not create unnecessary burdens. 
(See section IV.N of this preamble for discussion on reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of the final LCRI.) Commenters suggested 
that the LCRI should require direct electronic reporting of sample 
results from labs and/or systems to a database shared by the EPA and 
the States. The EPA requires reporting by the States to submit 
quarterly and annual reports in a format prescribed by the agency in 
Sec.  142.15(a). At this time, States use SDWIS/Fed to meet these 
reporting requirements. While the EPA does not require direct 
electronic reporting of sample results from systems, the EPA recently 
promulgated the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) Rule Revisions to 
require States to submit compliance monitoring data to the EPA (89 FR 
45980, USEPA 2024c).
3. Implementation and Enforcement of the Final Rule
    The final rule will provide for improved oversight and enforcement 
of the NPDWR for lead and copper relative to the Lead and Copper Rule 
(LCR) and 2021 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR). The EPA intends 
to develop and provide guidance and tools to support rule 
implementation. The EPA provides water technical assistance (WaterTA) 
which supports communities to build technical, financial, and 
managerial capacity that results in more communities with applications 
for Federal funding, quality water infrastructure, and reliable water 
services. The EPA has also launched the GLO Initiative in light of the 
ongoing success of the LSLR Accelerator pilot to expand LSLR technical 
assistance to communities across the country. The EPA additionally 
outlines funding that can be used for LCRI implementation such as 
through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), Reducing Lead 
in Drinking Water grants, the Water Infrastructure Finance and 
Innovation Act (WIFIA) program, and other Federal and State funding 
opportunities (see section III.G of this preamble).

B. What are the rule compliance dates?

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    In the LCRR review notification published on December 17, 2021, the 
agency stated its intention to propose revisions to the 2021 LCRR 
compliance deadlines ``only for components of the rule that the Agency 
will propose to significantly revise'' (86 FR 71580, USEPA, 2021b) in 
the LCRI. In the proposed LCRI, the EPA proposed to replace most of the 
2021 LCRR with the LCRI and proposed to require certain 2021 LCRR 
requirements to apply between the 2021 LCRR's October 16, 2024, 
compliance date and the final LCRI compliance date.
    The EPA proposed a compliance date of three years after the 
promulgation of the final LCRI and proposed for water systems to 
continue to comply with the LCR (Sec. Sec.  141.80 through 141.91) 
until that date, except for the 2021 LCRR's initial LSL inventory, 
notification of service line material, and the associated reporting 
requirements. The EPA also stated that the agency was not changing the 
compliance date for the Tier 1 public notification (PN) requirement for 
a lead action level exceedance under subpart Q that was introduced 
under the 2021 LCRR, and that systems must comply with that provision 
starting October 16, 2024. The EPA did not propose to change the 
compliance date of the revisions to 40 CFR part 141, subpart O, that 
were included under the 2021 LCRR. With these noted exceptions, the EPA 
proposed a direct transition from the LCR to the LCRI for all rule 
provisions so that States and water systems could focus their resources 
on preparing and updating service line inventories and conducting Tier 
1 PNs following lead action level exceedances, in addition to preparing 
for LCRI requirements, such as preparing their service line replacement 
plan (88 FR 84967, USEPA, 2023a).
    The EPA requested comment on these proposed compliance dates and 
also whether it is practicable for water systems to implement any of 
the proposed LCRI requirements sooner than three years from the date 
the LCRI is finalized. Specifically, the EPA requested comment on 
whether water systems should be required to conduct the risk mitigation 
measures after full and partial service line replacement and service 
line disturbances and related reporting requirements (Sec. Sec.  
141.84(h), 141.85(g), and 141.90(e)(6) and (f)(6) of the proposed 
LCRI). The EPA received a range of comments on these issues including 
requests for both earlier and later LCRI compliance dates.
2. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
a. Requirements for Water Systems Between October 16, 2024, and the 
LCRI Compliance Date
    The EPA received comments supporting the EPA's proposal to have 
water systems continue to comply with the requirements of the LCR, 
except for the few requirements introduced in the 2021 LCRR that the 
EPA proposed to maintain, until the LCRI compliance date. According to 
commenters, complying with requirements introduced in the 2021 LCRR 
that the EPA proposed to replace in the LCRI would not be an 
appropriate use of resources and could distract water systems from 
preparing to comply with the LCRI. Commenters stated that the EPA 
should delay the compliance date for submitting the initial inventory 
to provide water systems more time to accurately identify service line 
material according to the EPA guidance. Several commenters also 
requested that EPA clarify the compliance dates for the LSLR and tap 
sampling plans and the

[[Page 86559]]

compliance tap sampling requirements introduced in the 2021 LCRR.
    The EPA also received comments from water systems and utility 
organizations asking the agency to delay the provisions that water 
systems will not be required to comply with starting on October 16, 
2024, by at least one year, prior to finalizing the LCRI. The 
commenters stated that until the final LCRI is promulgated, water 
systems will assume they are required to comply with all the 
requirements of the 2021 LCRR starting October 16, 2024, and may invest 
time and resources on requirements that may be revised in the final 
LCRI.
    The EPA notes the broad commenter support for requiring water 
systems to transition directly from the LCR to the LCRI. Commenters 
cited wasted time and resources complying with parts of the LCRR that 
will be replaced with the LCRI instead of preparing for implementation 
of the LCRI. The EPA agrees that water systems should continue to 
comply with the pre-2021 LCR until the LCRI compliance date, with the 
exceptions identified in Sec.  141.80(a) (i.e., the initial LSL 
inventory, notification of service line material, and the associated 
reporting requirements, and Tier 1 PN following a lead action level 
exceedance). The EPA is finalizing significant changes relative to the 
2021 LCRR meaning that many requirements in the 2021 LCRR will be 
rendered obsolete upon the LCRI compliance date. For example, in the 
final LCRI, the EPA is removing the lead trigger level and many of the 
associated actions that are required after a trigger level exceedance, 
including reporting to States, which could demand significant 
resources. Additionally, as discussed in the proposed rule, many of the 
2021 LCRR requirements are interrelated, so changes to one rule area 
impact other areas (see 88 FR 84967-84968, USEPA, 2023a). Accordingly, 
the EPA is not requiring water systems to comply with requirements 
under the 2021 LCRR that will be replaced under the final LCRI prior to 
the LCRI compliance date, because of the significant level of effort 
required of water systems to plan for compliance with the LCRI, as well 
as the complexity of the 2021 LCRR. Because of the limited time and 
resources available to water systems and States, their time and 
resources are better spent complying with the specifically identified 
2021 LCRR requirements with a compliance date of October 16, 2024 (as 
noted above), preparing to implement the final LCRI, and voluntarily 
replacing LSLs ahead of the LCRI compliance date using resources that 
are currently available, such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law 
(BIL) funding. Requiring water systems and States to implement the 2021 
LCRR in its entirety between October 16, 2024, and the compliance date 
of the LCRI would waste these limited resources and compromise the 
ability of systems and States to effectively implement the LCRI, and 
thereby delay the greater public health benefits associated with 
implementation of the LCRI. For example, by focusing States' and 
systems' efforts on establishing service line replacement programs 
rather than implementing 2021 LCRR provisions that have been changed or 
eliminated, the LCRI will result in systems removing more lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement (GRR) service lines, which, where LSLs 
are present, they are the most significant source of drinking water 
lead exposure.
    The EPA is maintaining the October 16, 2024, compliance date for 
selected requirements first promulgated in the 2021 LCRR rulemaking 
that the agency is not significantly revising in the final LCRI. Some 
minor changes were made to ensure consistency across requirements. In 
the final rule, the EPA is correcting the citations in Sec.  
141.80(a)(4)(i) for the reporting requirements associated with 
notifications of a known or potential LSL as codified on July 1, 2023 
(Sec.  141.90(e)(13) and (f)(4)). Additionally, for the final LCRI, the 
EPA is not requiring water systems to comply with Sec.  141.84(a)(6) as 
codified on July 1, 2023. This requirement references submitting an 
updated inventory to the State in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e)(3) 
and requires water systems to update the publicly available inventory 
no less frequently than the required updates to the State. The 
requirement in Sec.  141.90(e)(3) as promulgated in the 2021 LCRR ties 
the timing of submission of the inventory to the State to the 
applicable tap monitoring frequency. Under the LCRI, systems are 
required to prepare and submit the baseline inventory by the compliance 
date of the LCRI, and all systems will be required to update that 
inventory on an annual basis (Sec. Sec.  141.84(b)(1) and 
141.90(e)(4)). Implementation of a requirement to update the LCRR 
inventory based on monitoring schedules for only the three years before 
the LCRI compliance date would be challenging for States and systems to 
manage while also preparing the updated initial inventory to comply 
with the LCRI. Many systems are on reduced monitoring and therefore, 
many systems would only submit an update once, if at all during those 
three years. For example, water systems that do not monitor between 
submitting an initial inventory and the LCRI compliance date would not 
be required to submit an updated inventory, or water systems who are on 
triennial monitoring would only be required to submit an update once. 
Additionally, water systems will be preparing to submit the LCRI 
baseline inventory by the LCRI compliance date, and submission of 
updates to the 2021 LCRR initial inventory would likely distract from 
that effort. State resources are best directed towards the LCRI 
baseline inventory and service line replacement. Additionally, not 
requiring an annual update of the 2021 LCRR inventory until the LCRI 
compliance date would not decrease public health protection in the 
short-term. The EPA notes that between October 16, 2024, and the LCRI 
compliance date, water systems are required to identify and track 
service line materials in the inventory on an ongoing basis (Sec.  
141.84(a)(5) as codified on July 1, 2023) and comply with the public 
education requirement to notify persons served by a lead, GRR, or 
unknown service line. Because these requirements will remain applicable 
prior to the LCRI compliance date, public health protection will not be 
diminished by the EPA not requiring water systems to submit an updated 
version of the 2021 LCRR initial service line inventory to the State 
prior to the LCRI compliance date. The EPA encourages water systems to 
continue to identify unknown service lines and conduct replacements 
prior to the LCRI compliance date while developing the LCRI baseline 
inventory. Water systems that update their initial LCRR inventory 
during this interim period to identify the material of any unknown 
service lines will reduce their burden if any of the lines are non-lead 
because they would no longer be required to provide annual notification 
of service line material to persons served by that service line.
    The EPA is not changing the October 16, 2024, compliance date for 
Tier 1 PN following a lead action level exceedance for the reasons 
provided in the LCRI proposal (88 FR 84968, USEPA, 2023a). Between 
October 16, 2024, and the LCRI compliance date, water systems are 
required to conduct Tier 1 PN following an exceedance of the lead pre-
LCRI action level of 0.015 mg/L. The EPA notes that the compliance date 
for the new lead action level of 0.010 mg/L is three years from the 
date the final LCRI is published. In the final LCRI, the EPA is 
retaining the October 16, 2024, date for additional associated 
provisions, such as the use of the mandatory health

[[Page 86560]]

effects language in Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(ii) as introduced in the 2021 
LCRR starting October 16, 2024. This change will ensure consistency in 
messaging between the Tier 1 PN notices after a lead action level 
exceedance and any public education materials that are distributed 
prior to the LCRI compliance date. The EPA also notes that systems must 
comply with the reporting requirements in Sec.  141.31(d)(2) as 
codified on July 1, 2023, which requires the water system to provide a 
copy of the Tier 1 notice for a lead action level exceedance to the 
Administrator and to the head of the primacy agency as soon as 
practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the system learns of the 
exceedance. However, in the final LCRI, the EPA is requiring water 
systems to continue to comply with Sec.  141.31(d) as codified on July 
1, 2020, between October 16, 2024, and the LCRI compliance date. This 
is to correct an error introduced in the 2021 LCRR that inadvertently 
removed the requirement for water systems to submit a representative 
copy of other types of Tier 1 notices to the State when certifying the 
system has complied with the notice requirements. See section IV.O.2 of 
this preamble for further discussion. Additionally, in the final LCRI, 
the EPA is also retaining the October 16, 2024, compliance date for the 
reporting requirement in Sec.  141.90(h)(3) as codified on July 1, 
2023. This provision requires States to provide the results of the 90th 
percentile lead and copper calculations, in writing, to the water 
system within 15 days of the end of the tap sampling period in 
instances where the State calculates the water system's 90th percentile 
level. The EPA is maintaining the October 16, 2024, compliance date for 
this provision in the final LCRI to facilitate timely compliance with 
the Tier 1 PN requirement for a lead action level exceedance.
    In the final LCRI, the EPA is also adding specific citations in 
Sec.  141.80(a)(4)(i) to identify which requirements apply during the 
time period between October 16, 2024, and the LCRI compliance date that 
relate to the provisions discussed in the proposal. For example, the 
EPA is clarifying that between October 16, 2024 and the LCRI compliance 
date water systems must comply with the definitions in Sec.  141.2 as 
codified on July 1, 2020, that correspond to the requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  141.80 through 141.91 as codified on July 1, 2020. See 
section V.B.3, Sec.  141.80(a)(4), and section II.C of this preamble 
for additional information.
    The EPA disagrees with commenters who indicate that the agency 
should change the compliance date for submitting the initial inventory. 
Water systems and States are aware of and should be prepared to meet 
this deadline. The EPA provided Guidance for Developing and Maintaining 
a Service Line Inventory in August 2022 (USEPA, 2023n). The EPA's 
December 17, 2021, Federal Register notification on the review of the 
LCRR and the December 6, 2023, proposed LCRI specifically stating that 
the agency expected systems to submit an initial inventory by October 
16, 2024 (86 FR 71574, 71579, USEPA, 2021b; 88 FR 84968, USEPA, 2023a). 
Inventories are critical to support lead reduction efforts because they 
help systems identify the location of lead and GRR service lines, allow 
customers to know if they are served by those lines, and evaluate the 
extent of these sources in the drinking water system. With the 
inventory, water systems will be able to conduct the required 
notification of persons served by a lead, GRR, or unknown service line 
and provide them with steps they can take to reduce their lead 
exposure. Additionally, the inventory is integral to help water systems 
take actions that will facilitate compliance with the LCRI: identify 
sampling locations; determine the extent of lead and GRR service lines 
within their systems; plan for service line replacement, including 
applying for grants and loans; and replace lead and GRR service lines.
    The EPA also disagrees with commenters requesting that the agency 
formally delay the 2021 LCRR requirements prior to the final LCRI. 
Formally delaying the 2021 LCRR prior to the final LCRI is unnecessary 
because the final LCRI largely replaces provisions in the 2021 LCRR in 
this action. Additionally, a delay of the 2021 LCRR requirements would 
have required a separate rulemaking and diverted agency resources from 
other actions, including finalizing the LCRI. It is also unnecessary 
because the final LCRI largely replaces the 2021 LCRR in this action. 
The EPA disagrees that water systems must assume they must comply with 
the 2021 LCRR starting October 16, 2024. The EPA recognizes the 
uncertainty caused by the LCRI rulemaking, but also notes the agency's 
efforts to help water systems and States make informed decisions in 
light of the uncertainty. For example, in the December 17, 2021, 
Federal Register notification, the agency stated it did not intend to 
change the compliance dates for the initial service line inventory, 
notification of service line material, or the Tier 1 PN notice for a 
lead ALE. Similarly, the EPA stated that the agency ``also expects to 
propose to delay the October 16, 2024, deadline for submitting LSLR and 
tap sampling plans so that systems can incorporate any potential 
revisions made through the LCRI rulemaking'' (82 FR 71580, USEPA, 
2021b). The EPA provided additional clarity in the proposed LCRI by 
proposing for water systems to continue to comply with the LCR between 
October 16, 2024, and the LCRI compliance date, with limited 
exceptions. Additionally, on April 17, 2024, the EPA released a fact 
sheet and frequently asked questions document on the 2021 LCRR 
compliance and encouraged water systems to focus resources on complying 
with the provisions introduced in the 2021 LCRR for which EPA did not 
intend to change the October 16, 2024, compliance date (USEPA, 2024g; 
USEPA, 2024h).
b. LCRI Compliance Date
    The EPA received comments supporting the agency's proposal for 
setting the LCRI rule compliance date three years after the rule is 
finalized, noting the complexity of the rule and need for time to 
prepare to implement the requirements. Some of these commenters stated 
that it is not practicable to set compliance dates for any LCRI 
requirements earlier than three years. The EPA also received comment 
that the agency should provide an additional nationwide two-year 
extension to the LCRI compliance date as provided under SDWA section 
1412(b)(10). The comment indicated the extension would be for capital 
improvements in the form of LSLR. Conversely, some commenters stated 
that some of the LCRI requirements do not substantially differ from the 
2021 LCRR requirements and requested that the EPA set earlier 
compliance dates for the LCRI for some or all of the requirements 
(e.g., no later than one year after rule publication). These commenters 
stated that a faster compliance schedule would maximize public health 
benefits and better align with Federal funding sources currently 
available to assist water systems.
    Section 1412(b)(10) of SDWA provides that NPDWRs shall take effect 
three years after promulgation ``unless the Administrator determines 
that an earlier date is practicable.'' The EPA agrees with commenters 
that the complexity of the LCRI and time needed to prepare to implement 
the final rule support a compliance date three years from the date the 
rule is promulgated. Providing water systems three years from the date 
the LCRI is finalized

[[Page 86561]]

provides the amount of time necessary for States to work with water 
systems to prepare to comply with the final LCRI requirements, which 
includes revisions to most of the provisions introduced in the 2021 
LCRR. The EPA disagrees with commenters that indicate one year is 
sufficient. The LCRI is complex and while some aspects may have 
similarities with 2021 LCRR requirements, it is different and water 
systems will need time to plan for and implement these changes. For 
example, new requirements for tap sampling, changes in tap sampling 
schedules for many water systems, a lower lead action level and the 
actions prompted by that level, including corrosion control treatment 
(CCT) requirements and new requirements for multiple ALEs, will require 
significant water system and State resources to prepare to implement. 
Furthermore, these requirements are all highly interrelated, and 
therefore setting different compliance dates for different provisions 
would increase rule complexity further, create implementation 
challenges, and may lead to widespread non-compliance (88 FR 84969, 
USEPA, 2023a).
    Specifically, one of the key features of the LCRI is for all water 
systems to identify and replace all lead and GRR service lines as 
quickly as feasible, regardless of system lead levels. While some 
systems are voluntarily initiating service line replacement programs 
due to historic funding provided under the BIL, many systems have not 
or are not currently conducting service line replacement. Many systems 
have not been required to conduct LSLR under the LCR and may not have 
experience developing replacement programs. Water systems and States 
have noted the potential challenges of implementing replacement 
programs effectively, including availability of equipment and supplies, 
difficulty securing funding, and hiring crews to complete replacements. 
The EPA is working with States and water systems to demonstrate best 
practices for overcoming or mitigating these challenges through the 
technical assistance initiatives, Lead Service Line Replacement 
Accelerators (USEPA, 2023c) and the Get the Lead Out (GLO) Initiative 
(USEPA, 2024e). The three-year period after promulgation of the final 
LCRI is for systems to plan for compliance, including hiring additional 
staff, soliciting bids for contractors, securing grants or other types 
of funding, and continuing to improve inventories to ensure that they 
are better positioned to conduct mandatory service line replacement. It 
would also provide time for the market to correct for potential 
shortages in resources or workers.
    Additionally, the EPA is concerned that not providing water systems 
enough time to prepare to implement these requirements could undermine 
their efficacy. For example, as discussed in section IV.B of this 
preamble, water systems must be prepared to conduct a variety of 
actions that if not adequately prepared for, may result in fewer 
service line replacements. The EPA anticipates that water systems will 
use the three-year period prior to the LCRI compliance date to identify 
unknowns, develop their service line replacement plan, identify 
barriers to full service line replacement, and develop outreach 
materials that are intended to support full service line replacement. 
Additionally, an earlier compliance date for all the other LCRI 
requirements besides mandatory LSLR would divert resources from 
planning for mandatory service line replacement and may delay a 
system's ability to start replacing lead and GRR service lines.
    The EPA also disagrees with providing a nationwide two-year 
extension to the compliance date under SDWA section 1412(b)(10). As 
described in section II.C of this preamble, in accordance with SDWA 
section 1412(b)(10), the Administrator, or a State (in the case of an 
individual system), may allow up to two additional years to comply with 
a treatment technique if the Administrator or State (in the case of an 
individual system) determines that additional time is necessary for 
capital improvements. Where a State, or the EPA where it has primacy, 
chooses to provide such an extension, the system would have up to five 
years from the rule's promulgation date to begin compliance with the 
treatment technique. The EPA has not determined that an additional two 
years is necessary for water systems nationwide to make capital 
improvements to begin compliance with the LCRI. Systems have been 
subject to more stringent requirements for LSLR and CCT since the 
promulgation for the 2021 LCRR that allowed time to prepare and obtain 
funding for any necessary capital improvements. Moreover, there is 
significant funding available through the BIL and other sources for LSL 
identification and replacement. The EPA has also been working with 
States to provide extensive technical assistance to water systems to 
replace LSLs. Additionally, as noted above, the EPA is providing water 
systems three years before the LCRI compliance date to identify 
unknowns and prepare for service line replacement, which may include 
voluntarily replacing lead and GRR service lines. The EPA has 
determined that a cumulative average 10 percent per year replacement 
schedule is feasible in the LCRI and provides deferred deadline options 
for some systems (section IV.B.8). Furthermore, the commenter does not 
indicate why an additional two years is necessary for capital 
improvements in the form of LSLR to comply with the requirements of the 
LCRI.
c. Early Implementation of LCRI Risk Mitigation Provisions
    The EPA requested comment on whether the agency should require 
water systems to comply with the LCRI requirements for risk mitigation 
after a full or partial service line replacement, service line 
disturbances, and associated reporting upon the effective date of the 
LCRI. Commenters supported such a requirement citing the similarity of 
the LCRI requirements to those first introduced in the 2021 LCRR and 
the value of providing health protective measures sooner while water 
systems are conducting service line replacement. Others disagreed on 
the grounds that it would be impracticable to implement these 
requirements upon the effective date of the LCRI. Some commenters 
supported voluntary implementation of the provisions prior to the LCRI 
compliance date.
    The EPA agrees that a compliance date earlier than three years 
after promulgation is not practicable and therefore, implementation of 
the LCRI risk mitigation requirements prior to that date should be 
voluntary. As noted in the proposal, while the EPA expects that earlier 
implementation of these actions would reduce lead exposure, setting an 
earlier implementation date for these select LCRI requirements would 
result in systems complying with a mix of requirements across three 
versions of the CFR (i.e., as amended by LCR, LCRR, and LCRI). The EPA 
is concerned about this complexity and that it could divert resources 
away from preparing to comply with the other LCRI requirements. In 
addition, water systems would not likely have time to prepare to 
implement this requirement by October 16, 2024, the 2021 LCRR 
compliance date. As described above, setting an implementation date 
between October 16, 2024 and the LCRI compliance date would introduce 
confusion and complexity for implementation, reporting, and 
recordkeeping. The EPA strongly encourages water systems to voluntarily 
implement these provisions as best practices prior to the LCRI 
compliance date. The EPA's May 1, 2024 memorandum ``Implementing Lead

[[Page 86562]]

Service Line Replacement Projects Funded by the Drinking Water State 
Revolving Fund'' details the risk mitigation measures, including 
follow-up tap sampling, point-of-use devices and pitcher filters, that 
are eligible under the DWSRF funding (USEPA, 2024i). Additionally, 
States can require water systems to implement these provisions early.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    For the final LCRI, the EPA is setting the compliance dates for the 
LCRI revisions to 40 CFR 141.2 and 141.31 and subparts I, Q, and O of 
part 141 to three years after the publication date of this final rule 
in the Federal Register (see section II.C of this preamble).
    The EPA is also specifying provisions as codified in the CFR on 
July 1, 2020, and on July 1, 2023, that water systems must comply with 
between October 16, 2024, and the LCRI compliance date, in accordance 
with Sec.  141.80(a)(4)(i).
    Beginning on October 16, 2024, water systems are required to comply 
with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  141.2, 141.31(d), and 141.80 
through 141.91 as codified on July 1, 2020. In addition, water systems 
will also be required to comply with the provisions listed in Exhibit 3 
as codified on July 1, 2023.

 Exhibit 3--Requirements Introduced in the 2021 LCRR That Water Systems
 Must Comply With Between October 16, 2024, and the LCRI Compliance Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Citation  (CFR codified July 1, 2023)             Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   141.84(a)(1) through (10)         Initial public service line
 (excluding paragraphs (a)(6) and (7)).   inventory development.
Sec.   141.90(e)(1)....................  Submission of initial inventory
                                          to the State.
Sec.   141.85(e).......................  Initial and annual notification
                                          of known or potential service
                                          line containing lead.
Sec.   141.85(a)(1)(ii)................  Revised lead health effects
                                          language.
Sec.   141.90(e)(13) and (f)(4)........  Annual reporting and
                                          certification of the
                                          notifications in Sec.
                                          141.85(e) to the State.
Sec.   141.90(h)(3)....................  State provides results of the
                                          90th percentile lead
                                          calculations, in writing, to
                                          the water system within 15
                                          days of the end of the tap
                                          sampling period (if
                                          applicable).
Sec.  Sec.   141.201(a)(3)(vi) and       Tier 1 PN for exceedance of the
 141.202(a)(10).                          lead action level as specified
                                          in Sec.   141.80(c).\1\
Sec.  Sec.   141.201(c)(3) and           Submit copy of Tier 1 PN for a
 141.31(d)(2).                            lead action level exceedance
                                          to the head of the primacy
                                          agency and the EPA
                                          administrator no later than 24
                                          hours after the system learns
                                          of the exceedance.
40 CFR part 141, appendix A to subpart   Tier 3 PN required for: failure
 Q, section I.C.1 (excluding Sec.         to notify persons served at
 141.90, except paragraphs (e)(1) and     service connections of a known
 (13) and (f)(4)).                        or potential service line
                                          containing lead and failure to
                                          submit initial inventory to
                                          the State by October 16, 2024.
40 CFR part 141, appendix B to subpart   Revised lead health effects
 Q, section D.23.                         language for required PN.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As codified on July 1, 2020.

    Additionally, starting October 16, 2024, failure to conduct the 
reporting requirements in Exhibit 3 (i.e., Sec.  141.90(e)(1) and (13) 
and (f)(4)) require Tier 3 PN in accordance with 40 CFR part 141, 
appendix A to subpart Q. Tier 3 PN for failure to conduct other 
requirements in Sec.  141.90 will not begin until the LCRI compliance 
date associated with those provisions.
    The EPA notes that the CCR requirements in 40 CFR part 141, subpart 
O, that were revised under the 2021 LCRR rulemaking also have a 
compliance date of October 16, 2024, in accordance with Sec.  
141.152(a). The one exception is the requirement for water systems to 
notify consumers in the CCR that complete lead tap sampling data are 
available for review and include information on how to access the data 
(Sec.  141.153(d)(4)(xii) as codified July 1, 2023, and renumbered to 
Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(i) in the final CCR Rule (89 FR 45980, USEPA, 
2024c)), which has a compliance date of three years after the 
publication of the LCRI. This is because the current requirements for 
tap sampling and calculating the 90th percentile are subject to the 
LCRI compliance date. The compliance date for systems to notify the 
public that this data is publicly available should not be earlier than 
the compliance date for the data collection to avoid administrative 
complications of these piecemeal implementation of these related 
provisions.

C. State Primacy and Special Primacy Requirements

1. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    SDWA authorizes the EPA to promulgate and enforce NPDWRs (SDWA 
section 1412 and 1414). States that have been approved by the EPA for 
primary enforcement authority may also enforce drinking water standards 
under State law. SDWA section 1413 and the EPA's implementing 
regulations set forth the requirements that primacy agencies (States) 
must meet to obtain and maintain primary enforcement responsibility 
(primacy) for its public water systems (PWSs). These include: (1) 
adopting drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than 
Federal NPDWRs under section 1412(a) and 1412(b) of SDWA, as well as 
the CCR Rule and the PN Rule under section 1414 of SDWA; (2) adopting 
and implementing adequate procedures for enforcement; (3) keeping 
records and making reports available on activities that the EPA 
requires by regulation; (4) issuing variances and exemptions (if 
allowed by the State) under conditions no less stringent than allowed 
by SDWA sections 1415 and 1416; and (5) adopting and being capable of 
implementing an adequate plan for the provision of safe drinking water 
under emergency situations. The regulations in 40 CFR part 142 set out 
the specific program implementation requirements for States, Tribes, 
and Territories to obtain and maintain primacy for the Public Water 
System Supervision (PWSS) Program, as authorized under section 1413 of 
the SDWA.
    PWSs in these primacy States must then comply with both sets of 
State and Federal regulations, although in practice, PWSs would only 
comply with the more stringent of the two regulations. Generally, 
primacy States monitor compliance with regulations; however, the EPA 
can also take enforcement actions against water systems for failure to 
comply with NPDWRs. The EPA conducts annual reviews of State programs 
and can also withdraw primacy under certain circumstances (see Sec.  
142.17).

[[Page 86563]]

    Under Sec.  142.12(b), all primacy agencies are required to submit 
a revised program to the EPA for approval within two years of 
promulgation of the final LCRI or request an extension of up to two 
years in certain circumstances. In order to be granted an extension, a 
primacy agency will be required to meet certain requirements as deemed 
appropriate by the EPA on a case-by-case basis to ensure adequate 
implementation and enforcement of the LCRI until the program revision 
is approved. To be approved for a program revision, primacy agencies 
are required to adopt revisions at least as stringent as the revised 
LCR, CCR, and PN lead-related provisions. To obtain primacy for this 
rule, primacy applications must address the general requirements 
specified in subpart B of part 142. The EPA proposed special primacy 
requirements for the lead and copper NPDWR (Sec.  142.16(d)), to ensure 
compliance with the revised State requirements described in the LCRI.
    To retain primary enforcement authority, States must adopt 
revisions at least as stringent as the provisions in 40 CFR part 141, 
subpart I (Control of Lead and Copper); Sec. Sec.  141.153, 141.154, 
141.201, and 141.202; appendix A to subpart O of part 141 ([Consumer 
Confidence Report] Regulated Contaminants); appendix A to subpart Q of 
part 141 (NPDWR Violations and Other Situations Requiring Public 
Notice); and appendix B to subpart Q of part 141 (Standard Health 
Effects Language for Public Notification).
    In the proposed LCRI, the EPA proposed revising the existing 
special primacy requirements by modifying some, and establishing new, 
special primacy requirements for States as a condition of primacy. The 
EPA proposed to eliminate the special primacy requirement related to 
systems' goal-based service line replacement programs, given the 
proposed LCRI requirement for mandatory service line replacement. The 
EPA also proposed a new special primacy requirement that States would 
be required to identify State laws, including statutes and 
constitutional provisions, relevant to a water system's ability to 
obtain access to conduct a full service line replacement and notify 
water systems in writing whether such laws exist or not. States would 
be required to provide this notification by the compliance date and 
within six months of the enactment of new or revised State law that 
pertains to access. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure States 
are informing systems about requirements under State law and provide 
consistent interpretation of State law across the State. The State is 
the appropriate entity to compile this information because many systems 
are unlikely to have expertise to make these interpretation 
determinations. Consistent interpretation of laws regarding access is 
important because mandatory full service line replacement of lead and 
GRR service lines is an important component of the LCRI to protect 
public health to the extent feasible and compliance should be enforced 
uniformly within States.
    Under the 2021 LCRR, like the 1991 LCR, States must determine if a 
greater mandatory LSLR rate is feasible and to notify the system of its 
determination in writing. The EPA proposed to modify this to require 
States to set a shortened deadline at any time throughout a system 
replacement program if the State determines a shorter deadline is 
feasible. The EPA also proposed requiring States to establish an 
appropriate deadline to complete inventory validation when they 
determine a shortened deadline is feasible. The purpose of these 
requirements is to ensure that States are meeting their 
responsibilities to make determinations on whether a faster mandatory 
LSLR rate is feasible. State oversight of the service line replacement 
rate is essential because lead and GRR service lines are a major source 
of lead in drinking water so increasing the replacement rate when 
feasible will have significant public health benefits.
    The EPA also proposed modifications to special primacy requirements 
under the LCRI with respect to the requirement for States to set a 
deadline for systems to prepare an updated inventory where they find 
discrepancies in their inventory. The 2021 LCRR only requires States to 
set this deadline where water systems identify an LSL that was 
categorized as non-lead in the inventory. In the LCRI, the EPA proposed 
inclusion of GRRs because these are included in the proposed service 
line replacement requirements and may also be improperly identified. In 
addition, the EPA proposed inclusion of lead connectors in the 
inventory and requiring systems that have inventories with no lead 
connectors and no unknown connectors to update their inventory if a 
lead connector is found. Therefore, the EPA proposed a requirement for 
States to set a deadline for systems to prepare an updated inventory in 
these cases.
    The EPA also proposed, related to monitoring for lead in schools 
and child care facilities, requiring States to describe how the State 
will determine if an alternative lead sampling program is as 
``stringent as the Federal requirements'' including how the State will 
use the definitions of elementary schools, secondary schools, and child 
care facilities as defined in Sec.  141.2 to issue waivers. The EPA 
also proposed that States describe how they will meet the requirement 
to review the lists of schools and child care facilities submitted by 
CWSs to ensure entries conform to the definitions of school and child 
care facility in Sec.  141.2, and that States would be required to 
ensure that the list of schools and child care facilities is complete. 
Prior to proposal, the EPA received questions about the LCRR 
requirement for States to define schools and child care facilities. The 
EPA is aware that the types of facilities that meet the definition of 
child care facility under Sec.  141.2 may differ among States (e.g., 
which facilities are licensed by the State). However, it is not the 
EPA's intention for States to develop new definitions for schools and 
child care facilities for purposes of complying with the new rule. In 
LCRI, the EPA proposed the definition of ``child care facility.''
    The EPA proposed requiring that States verify that systems have 
complied with follow-up requirements following a single site sampled 
above the action level. Under the 2021 LCRR, this requirement was part 
of ``find-and-fix''. In the proposed LCRI, this requirement was 
relabeled as Distribution System and Site Assessment (see section IV.H 
of this preamble). This change was proposed to be consistent with the 
terminology in the rest of the LCRI and is not a substantive change in 
requirements from the 2021 LCRR.
2. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
a. Identifying State Laws Pertaining to Access
    The EPA received comments both in favor of and against the special 
primacy requirement in Sec.  142.16(d)(8) for States to identify State 
laws, including statutes and constitutional provisions, that pertain to 
a water system's access to conduct full service line replacement and to 
notify water systems in writing whether any such laws exist or not. 
Commenters against this provision stated that individual systems should 
be responsible for determining which laws, statutes, or constitutional 
provisions apply to their system and that there would be additional 
State burden associated with this research. Commenters in favor of this 
provision felt that it would be a benefit to systems to have access to 
this information. The EPA retained this requirement in the final rule 
because while the EPA acknowledges that this provision will

[[Page 86564]]

require additional effort by States, there is value and efficiency in 
having the State provide consistent information to all systems in the 
State. In addition, States are better positioned to interpret State 
laws or statutes than individual water systems. Neither the proposed 
nor final rule require States to identify specific local laws relevant 
to a water system's ability to obtain access to conduct a full service 
line replacement.
b. Setting Shortened Replacement Deadlines
    In the proposal, the EPA requested comment on whether States, as a 
condition of primacy, or the EPA when it is directly implementing the 
program, should be required to set initial shortened service line 
replacement deadlines by a certain timeframe, such as no later than 60 
days after the compliance date. Many commenters responded to this 
request for comment by saying that shortened deadlines are not feasible 
and that States should not have the authority to set shortened 
deadlines. (See section IV.B.7 of this preamble for more information 
about the EPA's determination to require States to evaluate shortened 
replacement deadlines.) Those who commented on defining the timeframe 
for the decision about shortened deadlines were split on the need to 
establish a specific timeframe for the State's decision. Some supported 
a shorter timeframe, citing the need to establish shortened deadlines 
quickly for faster public health protection and to establish 
predictability for systems. Some supported longer timeframes or no 
timeframes at all, citing the State burden of evaluating complex 
information for multiple systems simultaneously before reaching a 
conclusion. For systems that are not eligible for deferred deadlines, 
the EPA decided not to include a specific timeframe for State decisions 
on shortened service line replacement deadlines in the final LCRI 
because the conditions for which a system may be able to replace at a 
faster rate may change throughout the replacement program. Therefore, 
the LCRI language in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(v) requires the State to make a 
shortened deadline determination at any time throughout a system's 
replacement program when a State determines a shorter deadline is 
feasible, which would include within 60 days of the compliance date. 
This would address the burden concerns expressed by some commenters by 
not requiring States to review all replacement programs at the same 
time, but also provide the flexibility to make shortened deadline 
decisions as early as possible to enhance public health and provide 
predictability for systems. This also allows States to use information 
obtained during the replacement period through inventory investigations 
that may inform the State's decision to require a shorter deadline. The 
EPA intends to develop guidance to assist States in making shortened 
deadline determinations. For systems that are eligible for deferred 
deadlines, the EPA included specific deadlines for State decisions on 
whether the deferred deadline and associated replacement rate 
identified by the system is the fastest feasible. Specifically, States 
are required under Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi)(C) to make determinations as 
soon as practicable, but no later than the end of the second program 
year and every three years thereafter. This is not expected to 
significantly impact State burden because of the small number of 
systems that will be eligible for deferred deadlines. (See section 
IV.B.8 of this preamble for more information on State requirements for 
making these determinations and the public health value of these 
provisions.)
c. Deferred Deadlines
    The EPA requested comment on whether to require the State, as a 
condition of primacy, to approve the use of the deferred deadline 
provision where the water system qualifies for it and/or whether to 
require the State to assess whether it would be feasible for a system 
to meet the 10-year deadline or a shorter deadline even if the system 
meets the regulatory criteria for the deferred deadline. The EPA 
received mixed comments in response to this request. Some commenters 
favored requiring States to approve the use of the deferred deadline 
provisions and not permitting States to set shorter deadlines for 
systems that qualify and apply for deferred deadlines, as described in 
Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi). These commenters stated that this placed 
additional burden on States and that systems could be subject to 
arbitrary decisions by States about deferred deadlines. Other 
commenters stated that States should always be required to assess 
whether systems that meet the requirements of Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi) 
could meet the standard 10-year deadline and therefore a special 
primacy condition is appropriate because extremely long timeframes for 
replacement could put people at risk for much longer than necessary.
    The EPA agrees that due to the urgency to complete lead and GRR 
service line replacement as quickly as feasible, States should be 
required to regularly evaluate whether shorter deadlines are feasible 
for systems eligible for a deferred deadline. The LCRI maintains the 
proposed requirement for States to set a shortened deadline at any time 
throughout a system replacement program if the State determines a 
shorter deadline is feasible. The final LCRI also contains new 
provisions that require States to evaluate, as soon as practicable, but 
no later than the end of the second program year and every three years 
thereafter, and either approve the continued use of the deferred 
deadline and replacement rate as the fastest feasible for the system, 
or set a shorter deferred deadline and identify an associated 
replacement rate to ensure the system is replacing service lines at the 
fastest feasible rate for the system (see section IV.B.8 of this 
preamble). The LCRI requires States to determine whether the system's 
recommended deferred deadline and associated cumulative average 
replacement rate are the fastest feasible to conduct mandatory service 
line replacement. In addition, the EPA cannot preclude a State from 
adopting or enforcing more stringent requirements, consistent with 
other SDWA regulations.
d. Translation Support
    In the preamble for the proposal, the EPA requested comment on 
``Whether the Agency should require States, as a condition of primacy, 
to provide translation support to water systems that are unable to do 
so for public education materials to consumers with limited English 
proficiency.'' (See section IV.J.3.g of this preamble for the EPA's 
response to these comments.) The EPA elected to include a special 
primacy requirement to require States to provide technical assistance 
to systems in meeting the requirement to provide translation assistance 
to consumers with limited English proficiency. The EPA selected this 
approach because it is consistent with the approach in the Final CCR 
Rule Revisions (89 FR 45980, USEPA, 2024c).
3. Final Rule Requirements
    The EPA retained the proposed special primacy requirements, with 
minor editorial revisions for clarity, to ensure effective oversight 
and implementation of the LCRI by States. In addition to finalizing the 
proposed items, the EPA made minor adjustments to include provisions 
that implement other requirements of the LCRI as described below. State 
primacy requirements are located in Sec.  142.16(d).
    The EPA included Sec.  142.16(d)(9) in the final LCRI, which 
requires, as a condition of primacy, States to make

[[Page 86565]]

determinations about systems eligible for deferred deadlines, including 
determining if the deferred deadline is the fastest feasible or whether 
a faster deadline is feasible, and reporting the results of these 
determinations to the EPA. This requirement is necessary to implement 
State requirements in Sec. Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi) and 
142.15(c)(4)(iii)(H). The EPA intends to issue guidance to assist 
States in making determinations on the fastest feasible deadlines for 
service line replacement. For more information on the changes to the 
deferred deadlines provisions, please see section IV.B.8 of this 
preamble.
    The EPA included a special primacy requirement in Sec.  
142.16(d)(5)(ii) for States to provide or require the review of 
inventory validation efforts, including making determinations on 
whether previous validation efforts are at least as stringent as the 
requirements and providing written approval to the system, and 
requiring additional actions for systems based on the results of the 
inventory validations. This requirement is necessary to implement State 
requirements in Sec.  141.84(b)(5).
    The EPA also included a special primacy requirement in Sec.  
142.16(d)(10) to require States, as a condition of primacy, to make 
determinations about which water systems serve a large proportion of 
consumers with limited English proficiency and provide technical 
assistance to these systems in meeting the requirement to provide 
translation assistance in these communities. This requirement is 
necessary to implement State requirements in Sec.  141.85(b)(1).

D. State Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

1. State Recordkeeping Requirements
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    State recordkeeping provisions are essential elements of the LCRI 
because they ensure that States and the EPA have the data and 
information they need in order to ensure effective implementation and 
enforcement of the rule. State recordkeeping requirements are located 
in Sec.  142.14 of the final rule.
    The EPA proposed several changes to State recordkeeping 
requirements to conform with changes proposed elsewhere in the proposed 
LCRI. Because the EPA proposed eliminating the trigger level and 
requiring mandatory full service line replacement, the EPA also 
proposed removing recordkeeping requirements for any State 
determinations of LSLR goal rates. The EPA proposed changing instances 
of LSLR to ``service line replacement'' and ``lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines'' to reflect the proposed mandatory 
full service line replacement requirements of both lead and GRR service 
lines. The EPA also proposed clarifying that the requirement in Sec.  
142.14(d)(8)(ix) for States to maintain records of system-specific 
determinations for some NTNCWSs and CWSs to collect non-first draw 
samples refers to samples that do not meet the minimum six-hour 
stagnation time.
    The EPA also proposed clarifying existing requirements regarding 
the length of the records retention period. The EPA requires each State 
with primacy enforcement responsibility to retain records listed under 
Sec.  142.14(d) for not less than 12 years. States must maintain 
records of all currently applicable or most recent State 
determinations, including all supporting information and technical 
basis for each decision, under Sec.  142.14(d)(8). Revisions to the LCR 
in 2000 added a requirement that if no change is made to the State 
determinations under Sec.  142.14(d)(8) during the 12-year retention 
period, that the State must retain the record until a new decision, 
determination, or designation has been issued. The EPA proposed 
revising Sec.  142.14(d)(8) in the LCRI to clarify the existing record 
retention requirement and improve implementation. The EPA also proposed 
changing the order of provisions in Sec.  142.14(d)(8) to improve 
readability.
    The EPA also proposed moving requirements for States to maintain 
records of service line replacement plans, service line inventories, 
and compliance sampling pools to Sec.  142.14(d)(9) with other reports 
and information submitted under Sec.  141.90. The EPA proposed this 
change to improve organization and clarity because these records are 
not State determinations. Because the EPA proposed requiring systems to 
complete a baseline service line material inventory by the rule 
compliance date, the EPA also proposed requiring that States maintain 
records on these baseline inventories in addition to the initial 
service line inventory and any required updates to the inventory.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    In the proposal, the EPA requested comment on whether States should 
be required to maintain records related to Distribution System and Site 
Assessments (DSSA) conducted by water systems. Some commenters stated 
that this information would be valuable to States and therefore should 
be maintained. Other commenters stated that retaining this information 
would cause additional burdens for States with no additional benefit. 
Some commenters not in favor of State maintenance of records indicated 
that systems should be required to maintain the information and make it 
available to the State upon request. Some commenters also expressed 
concern that the data systems that are used to store State data may not 
be set up to store this information. The EPA agrees with commenters 
concerned about the burden of such a requirement for States to maintain 
records on DSSAs and therefore is not adding a requirement to do so in 
the final LCRI. The EPA also received general comments about State 
burden and agrees that adding such a requirement would increase the 
overall burden of the LCRI on States. The EPA does not want to create 
additional unnecessary burden on the States so they can focus on 
implementing the requirements of the LCRI that have important direct 
public health benefits such as LSLR, CCT, and public education, among 
other things. The EPA notes that States will be receiving DSSA 
information from systems as required in Sec.  141.90(g)(1) and that the 
final rule (Sec.  142.14(d)(8)) requires the State to retain all 
currently applicable or most recent State determinations, including 
supporting information, for all decisions regarding the LCRI. To the 
extent that DSSA information was used in State decision making, it must 
be retained under this provision. Should States need information on 
DSSA sites they can request this information from the water system.
    In the proposal, the EPA requested comment on ``whether States 
should be required to maintain documentation of determinations of more 
stringent implementation, including but not limited to conditions or 
approvals related to reduced compliance monitoring and additional 
information required to conduct a review or designate OCCT.'' Some 
commenters stated support for maintaining this information, while other 
commenters did not. One commenter stated that the provisions of Sec.  
142.14(a) and (d)(8) require States to maintain records on which their 
decisions are made, so a specific requirement on more stringent 
implementation would be redundant. The EPA agrees that the requirements 
in this request for comment would be redundant based on Sec.  
142.14(d)(8) and therefore has not made any additions to the final LCRI 
regulatory text that require maintaining this type of documentation.

[[Page 86566]]

c. Final Rule Requirements
    State recordkeeping requirements found in Sec.  142.14(d)(8) 
through (10) in the proposal were all finalized without substantive 
changes from the proposal. Minor revisions to these sections in the 
final LCRI include updates for clarification and organizational 
purposes. Additional revisions were made to match revisions in other 
sections of the final rule with corresponding revisions or to correct 
references to other sections of the rule.
    The final LCRI adds Sec.  142.14(d)(8)(v), which requires State to 
keep records of designations of optimal water quality parameters 
(OWQPs), as a technical correction to ensure consistency with Sec.  
142.15(c)(4)(iii)(C), which requires States to report this information 
to the EPA on a quarterly basis. These requirements mirror the 
requirements for States to designate and review OWQPs under Sec.  
141.82(f). This should not require any additional effort by States 
because States are required to report this information, so they would 
need to collect it. The rest of the items in Sec.  142.14(d) were 
renumbered to accommodate this inserted requirement.
    The final LCRI also adds Sec.  142.14(d)(8)(ix) to correspond to 
the addition of a new requirement for additional system reporting and 
State approvals for systems that are eligible for deferred deadlines 
provisions in their LSLR program as defined in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi). 
There is a corresponding State reporting requirement for this 
information, therefore the States must retain this information. For 
more information on the revisions to the deferred deadlines provisions, 
please see section V.B of this preamble.
2. State Reporting Requirements
a. Rationale and Proposed LCRI Revisions
    State reporting provisions are essential elements of the LCRI 
because they ensure that States and the EPA have the data and 
information they need to ensure effective implementation and 
enforcement of the rule. State reporting requirements are located in 
Sec.  142.15 of the finalized rule.
    The EPA proposed making two changes to quarterly State reporting to 
conform with the changes proposed elsewhere in the LCRI. In the 2021 
LCRR, States were required to report summary numbers of LSLs, GRR 
service lines, and unknown service lines, as reported by systems in 
their mandatory service line inventories. The EPA proposed requiring in 
the LCRI to expand the inventories to include lead connectors and non-
lead service lines and to require States to report totals for these 
additional categories per system. In the 2021 LCRR, goal-based LSLR was 
introduced in addition to mandatory LSLR upon an action level 
exceedance and requires States to report the date that systems must 
begin LSLR for all systems required to do so. As the LCRI proposed 
mandatory service line replacement irrespective of measured lead 
levels, the EPA proposed that States instead report the calculated 
replacement deadline for each system under either the proposed 
mandatory 10-year deadline, shortened deadlines, or under proposed 
options for deferred deadlines. In addition, the EPA proposed requiring 
States to report the number and type of service lines replaced each 
year, as reported by systems.
    The EPA also proposed consolidating reporting requirements in Sec.  
142.15(c)(4)(i) and (iii). Under LCRR, the EPA removed dates 
differentiating reports submitted by States to the EPA prior to January 
1, 2000, and those submitted after January 1, 2002, resulting in some 
duplicative requirements. Specifically, the EPA proposed maintaining 
requirements for States to report the date of CCT and source water 
treatment related milestones (e.g., the date CCT study results are 
submitted to the State, date of OCCT installation is complete) and 
removing duplicative requirements such as reporting the systems with 
action level exceedances given that States are required under LCRI to 
report the 90th percentile values of all water systems in addition to 
the first and last days of the tap monitoring period. These reporting 
elements are necessary for the EPA's enforcement and oversight.
    The EPA also proposed changing State reporting to implement section 
1414(c)(2)(D) of SDWA, as amended by the Water Infrastructure 
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act. This provision requires the EPA 
to issue a Tier 1 PN of a system's lead action level exceedance if a 
system fails to do so; however, the EPA would need to know of the 
action level exceedance to conduct the notice. Therefore, the EPA 
proposed requiring that States submit the 90th percentile lead level 
for any system with an action level exceedance within 15 days following 
the end of each applicable tap monitoring period or within 24 hours of 
receiving notification of a lead action level exceedance from a water 
system, whichever is earlier.
b. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Responses
    Commenters expressed general concern that the proposed rule placed 
additional burden on States and that more resources in the form of 
funding, staffing and time would be needed by States to effectively 
implement the rule. The EPA has accounted for costs to States to 
implement and enforce the rule in the proposed and final rules. While 
the costs to States have increased in the final rule relative to the 
currently implemented LCRR provisions, the increase in State burden is 
needed to ensure the improvements to the LCRI, including increased 
public health protection, are correctly implemented and enforced. See 
section VI.D.3 of this preamble for more information about State costs.
    Commenters also expressed concerns that the additional burdens on 
States would be compounded by additional burdens associated with the 
EPA's final NPDWR for six PFAS. Under the requirements in SDWA section 
1412(b)(3)(C), Economic Analyses for NPDWRs must be conducted using the 
costs and benefits associated with the rule under consideration only 
and are not permitted to factor in costs or benefits associated with 
other proposed or final EPA regulations. Therefore, costs and benefits 
associated with the PFAS rule have not been included in the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis and it is not appropriate to factor any PFAS burden 
considerations into the EPA's decision-making on the LCRI. The EPA also 
notes that while there are new requirements the States must perform in 
the LCRI and other recent regulations, including PFAS, many of the 
State requirements for the LCRI are the same or similar to existing 
regulations. Therefore, States will be in a good position to continue 
the similar requirements while adapting to the new requirements. States 
will have three years between the final rule date and the compliance 
date to prepare for the new requirements.
    Commenters expressed that the complexity of the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements of the LCRI require an appropriate data 
system to manage the data requirements of the LCRI. Some commenters 
also specifically mentioned the need for updates to the Safe Drinking 
Water Information System (SDWIS) and/or the Drinking Water State 
Federal Tribal Information Exchange System (DW SFTIES) to match the 
reporting requirements of the LCRI. Commenters also expressed a concern 
that these updates would not be possible in time

[[Page 86567]]

for LCRI implementation. The EPA remains committed to providing high 
quality tools to assist States with their implementation of NPDWRs. The 
EPA intends to support the data management needs of primacy agencies 
for the LCRI through the Drinking Water State Federal Tribal 
Information Exchange System (DW SFTIES) development project, and to 
have a product available for State use by the compliance date of the 
LCRI. The EPA will work closely with State program and information 
technology staff on LCRI database needs and on overall SDWIS 
modernization. The EPA is intending to provide LCRI Data Entry 
Instructions (DEIs). The LCRI DEIs will provide detailed guidance to 
primacy agencies regarding the LCRI monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements.
    Commenters recommended that the EPA strengthen reporting 
requirements to ensure improved enforcement of the LCRI provisions. 
Some comments suggested that the proposed rule, in their view, lacked 
timely and transparent reporting needed to assure compliance. The EPA 
does not agree that the reporting requirements in the LCRI are 
insufficient to support effective enforcement. The EPA added further 
reporting requirements to align with new requirements for the final 
LCRI as described in section IV.N of this preamble. The EPA carefully 
considered all reporting requirements to ensure that all required 
reporting elements provided some value to the State and/or the EPA for 
public health or enforcement. Some commenters suggested that the LCRI 
should require direct electronic reporting of sample results from labs 
and/or systems to a database shared by the EPA and the States. The EPA 
did not include such a requirement because the EPA does not wish to 
place overly prescriptive requirements on States on how reporting 
should be done. The EPA acknowledges that in some States, direct 
electronic reporting may be an option for systems to report to States. 
However, not all systems and States are set up for this type of 
reporting therefore it is not appropriate to require it in the LCRI. 
The EPA notes the LCRI does not prohibit States from setting up direct 
electronic reporting. In addition, the EPA notes that the recently 
promulgated Consumer Confidence Rule Revisions include a requirement 
for States to submit compliance monitoring data annually to EPA for all 
NPDWRs beginning in 2027, which will improve the EPA's ability to 
fulfill oversight responsibilities under SDWA, including those 
associated with the LCRI. Prior to adoption of DW SFTIES, the EPA will 
facilitate primacy agency reporting to minimize reporting burden. A 
primacy agency could submit CMD using one of two formats: (1) As a data 
extract using the EPA's SDWIS State Data Extraction Tool; or (2) As an 
extracted copy of its database and database documentation (USEPA, 
2024c).
    Commenters expressed concern with the deadline of 15 days after the 
sampling period to calculate the 90th percentile and report the results 
to the EPA. Commenters pointed out that the systems have up to 10 days 
to submit the results to the State, which means in some circumstances 
the State would only have five days to perform the analysis necessary 
to calculate the 90th percentile and report to the EPA. Since the 
language does not say five business days, it could become even more 
challenging to meet in cases where a weekend is within the five-day 
window. The final LCRI retains the 10-day reporting timeframe for 
systems and the 15-day reporting timeframe for States. The EPA 
determined that these timeframes are appropriate, and that systems and 
States will be able to meet these deadlines. The EPA acknowledges that 
in some cases the States may have a short turnaround time to complete 
the calculations and the reporting requirement, however, the public 
health interest in receiving this information in a timely manner is 
extremely important. When a system has an action level exceedance, 
there are various actions that systems, States, or the EPA must take in 
order to alert the public to the potential risks to their health. 
Section 1414(c)(2)(D) of SDWA, as amended by the WIIN Act, requires the 
EPA to issue a Tier 1 PN (a 24-hour notification) of a system's lead 
action level exceedance if a system fails to do so. The EPA would need 
to know of the action level exceedance to conduct the notice. Given the 
public health interest in issuing the Tier 1 notice in a timely manner, 
in cases where the EPA is issuing the notice, the EPA must be made 
aware in an appropriate timeframe.
c. Final Rule Requirements
    The EPA finalized proposed State reporting requirements found in 
Sec.  142.15(c)(4)(iii)(B) through (G) without substantive changes from 
the proposal. The agency made minor adjustments from the proposal for 
clarification and organizational purposes. The EPA made additional 
revisions to align with revisions in other sections of the final rule 
with corresponding revisions or to correct references to other sections 
of the rule.
    The EPA made a technical correction to the Reports by States 
section (Sec.  142.15). Specifically, the agency added language to the 
introductory paragraph (Sec.  142.15(c)(4)) to clarify that the 
requirement for States to report the 90th percentile calculation for 
systems that exceed the action level to the EPA is not a quarterly 
requirement as originally stated in the introduction. In the proposal, 
this language was not consistent with the language in Sec.  
142.15(c)(4)(iii)(G) in the proposal and final rule, which requires 15 
days of the end of the tap sampling period.
    The EPA added new State reporting requirements in Sec.  
142.15(c)(4)(iii)(H). These new requirements correspond to new State 
requirements in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi) to review service line 
replacement plans for those systems that are eligible for deferred 
deadlines and make determinations as to whether a shortened deferred 
deadline is feasible. Under this provision, States are required to 
report the result of the State's determination as to whether the 
deferred deadline is the fastest feasible, the deadline at the fastest 
feasible rate, and the reasons for the State's decision. For more 
information on the changes to the deferred deadlines provisions, please 
see section IV.B.8 of this preamble.

VI. Economic Analysis

    This section summarizes the final Lead and Copper Rule Improvements 
(LCRI) Economic Analysis supporting document (USEPA, 2024a), which was 
prepared in compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) section 
1412(b)(3)(C). This analysis is commonly called the Health Risk 
Reduction Cost Analysis (HRRCA). SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i) lists 
the analytical elements of the required HRRCA as follows: (1) 
quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risk reduction benefits; (2) 
quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risk reduction benefits from 
reductions in co-occurring contaminants; (3) quantifiable and non-
quantifiable costs that are likely to occur solely as a result of 
compliance; (4) incremental costs and benefits of rule options; (5) 
effects of the contaminant on the general population and sensitive 
subpopulations including infants, children, pregnant women, the 
elderly, and individuals with a history of serious illness; (6) any 
increased health risks that may occur as a result of compliance, 
including risks associated with co-occurring contaminants; and (7) 
other relevant factors such as uncertainties in the analysis and 
factors with respect to the degree and nature of the risk.
    Based on this final LCRI HRRCA analysis, the United States

[[Page 86568]]

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator reaffirms the 
finding made at proposal, under SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(C), that the 
estimated quantified and non-quantifiable benefits of the regulation 
justify the quantified and non-quantifiable costs.
    In this analysis, the EPA assumes that the LCRI National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) will be promulgated in 2024. The 
agency estimated the year or years in which all costs and benefits 
accrue over a 35-year period of analysis. The 35-year window was 
selected to capture costs associated with rule implementation as well 
as water systems conducting service line replacement and installing and 
operating optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT). The EPA accounts 
for the Illinois, New Jersey, Michigan, and Rhode Island State-required 
service line replacement programs in the regulatory analysis baseline, 
so that the estimated final LCRI cost will not double count the service 
line replacement costs already required by States.
    The EPA annualized the estimated future streams of costs and 
benefits that accrue from compliance activities occurring over this 
same period of analysis symmetrically. The EPA does not capture the 
effects of compliance with the final LCRI after the end of the period 
of analysis, although, the agency does account for benefits that 
continue to accrue in the future from compliance activities that occur 
during the 35-year window. Costs and benefits are presented as 
annualized values in 2022 dollars. The EPA determined the present value 
of these costs and benefits using a discount rate of two percent as 
prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 
(OMB, 2023).
    Estimated benefits, in terms of health risk reduction from the 
final LCRI, result from the activities performed by water systems, 
which are expected to reduce risk to the public from exposure to lead 
and copper in drinking water at the tap. The EPA quantifies and 
monetizes some of this health risk reduction from lead exposure by 
estimating the decrease in lead exposures accruing to both children and 
adults from the installation and re-optimization of OCCT, service line 
replacement, the implementation of point-of-use filter devices, and the 
provision of pitcher filters in systems with multiple action level 
exceedances and by quantifying and monetizing the resulting increases 
in intelligence quotient (IQ) in children zero to seven years old, and 
reductions in incidents of low birth weight, attention-deficit/
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, and adult cardiovascular 
disease premature mortality.

A. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response

    The EPA published an economic analysis for the proposed rule in 
accordance with SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C) (USEPA, 2023q). The proposed 
rule Economic Analysis and the appendices to the proposed rule Economic 
Analysis can be found in the rule docket, under the document ID number 
EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-0712. The EPA requested comment, information, and 
data on all aspects of the proposed rulemaking including the Economic 
Analysis.
    The EPA received comments and data submissions. As a result of the 
new information submitted by commenters and additional data obtained by 
the EPA in response to comments, the agency has improved the estimates 
of costs and benefits for the final rule.
    Commenters indicated that the EPA should be using a two percent 
discount rate when calculating the annualized social costs and benefits 
of the LCRI, not the three and seven percent rates used in the proposed 
rule analysis. The EPA agrees with the commenters and notes that the 
U.S. White House and OMB recently finalized and re-issued the A-4 
benefit-cost analysis guidance (OMB, 2023), and the update includes new 
guidance to use a social discount rate of two percent. The updated OMB 
Circular A-4 states that the discount rate should equal the real 
(inflation-adjusted) rate of return on long-term U.S. government debt 
which provides an approximation of the social rate of time preference. 
For the LCRI, the OMB Circular A-4 does not require the agency to 
follow the updated guidance for this final rulemaking; however, the 
guidance does encourage ``to the extent feasible and appropriate, as 
determined in consultation with OMB, agencies should follow this 
Circular's guidance earlier than these effective dates.'' Given the 
OMB's statement encouraging early implementation of the Circular A-4 
guidance and public input received on the discount rates considered by 
the EPA in the proposed LCRI, for this final rule, the EPA estimated 
national benefits and costs at the two percent discount rate and 
incorporated those results into the final LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2024a). Because the EPA provided cost estimates discounted at 
three and seven percent for the proposed LCRI based on OMB guidance, 
which was in effect at the time of the proposed rule analysis (OMB, 
2003), the agency has also calculated the cost impacts at both the 
three and seven percent discount rates. See the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), appendix F for results.
    Commenters requested that the EPA should show the costs of the LCRI 
over each year of the period of analysis. The EPA agrees that having 
information on the distribution of cost over the course of the period 
of analysis can be useful in understanding impacts to regulated 
entities. Providing this information is also consistent with OMB 
Circular A-4 (OMB, 2023) guidance. See the final LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2024a), chapter 6, section 6.3 for the undiscounted annual 
costs and benefits of the final LCRI.
    Commenters suggested that the agency should include the social cost 
of the incremental greenhouse gas emissions that might result from 
compliance with the final LCRI. The EPA disagrees with commenters that 
SDWA requires the EPA to quantify and consider the climate disbenefits 
associated with GHG emission increases from this final rule in the 
HRRCA. The HRRCA requirements of SDWA 1412 (b)(3)(C)(i)(III) require 
the agency to analyze ``quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs . . . 
that are likely to occur solely as a result of compliance with the 
maximum contaminant level''. Therefore, the EPA considered as part of 
its HRRCA analysis the compliance costs to facilities, including the 
costs to purchase electricity for the operation of OCCT at drinking 
water treatment facilities and fuel costs for the use of construction 
and transport vehicles in the replacement of lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement (GRR) service lines. Also, the agency did not 
include in the HRRCA analysis the climate disbenefits from GHG 
emissions associated with producing the electricity needed to operate 
CCT and the combustion of the fuel used in the replacement of service 
lines because these impacts do not qualify as compliance costs to 
public water systems (PWSs).
    The EPA is committed to understanding and addressing climate change 
impacts in carrying out the agency's mission of protecting human health 
and the environment. While the EPA is not required by SDWA 
1412(b)(3)(C) to consider climate disbenefits under the HRRCA the 
agency has estimated the potential climate disbenefits from the 
operation of OCCT at drinking water treatment facilities and the use of 
construction and transport vehicles in the replacement of lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement (GRR) service lines. The EPA's final 
rule is based on the EPA's record-based analysis of the

[[Page 86569]]

statutory factors in SDWA 1412(b), and this disbenefits analysis is 
presented solely for the purpose of complying with the directives in 
E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB Circular A-4 states 
``[l]ike other benefits and costs, an effort should be made to quantify 
and monetize additional effects when feasible and appropriate'' (OMB, 
2023). The scope of the monetized climate disbenefits analysis is 
limited to the climate impacts associated with the incremental GHG 
emissions from the operation of OCCT at drinking water treatment 
facilities and the use of construction and transport vehicles in the 
replacement of lead and galvanized requiring replacement (GRR) service 
lines required under the final LCRI. See section VI.E.10 of this 
preamble for a summary of the EPA's assessment of the final rule's 
incremental greenhouse gas emissions, and see chapter 5, section 5.9 of 
the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for additional detail 
on the analysis.
    Commenters raised a number of points associated with the general 
concept that the EPA should consider, in this LCRI rulemaking, 
including the potential financial impacts to affected drinking water 
systems of the LCRI, other ongoing capital management obligations, 
Clean Water Act (CWA) compliance obligations (for combined sewer and 
drinking water systems), climate change related expenditures, and a 
number of other regulations proposed by the EPA. One of the commenters 
highlighted the proposed per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) 
NPDWR, which since the closure of the LCRI proposed rule comment period 
was finalized on April 10, 2024, indicating that overlapping compliance 
schedules will create affordability issues. A commenter also indicated 
that the agency should consider the percentages of systems likely to 
make treatment changes due to PFAS NPDWR maximum contaminant level 
(MCL) exceedances and how that would impact the costs associated with 
LCRI requirements. The other proposed rules mentioned by commenters 
were the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (CERCLA) hazardous substance designation, the Stage 3 
Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts NPDWR rulemaking, and the CWA 
designated use and water quality criteria rulemaking for the Delaware 
River. Commentors indicated that the EPA cannot impose a cumulative 
regulatory burden on communities that is not economically sustainable 
or leads to inadequate resources for other key public health 
protections. In response, the EPA notes that the HRRCA, required by 
SDWA, excludes costs that result from compliance with other 
regulations. Specifically, SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(III) requires 
that the EPA include quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs that are 
likely to occur solely as a result of compliance with the rule 
including monitoring, treatment, and other costs and excluding costs 
resulting from compliance with other proposed or promulgated 
regulations. The agency also notes that the impact from other non-NPDWR 
regulations (e.g., CWA water quality standards), aging water 
infrastructure, and non-revenue water control are not part of the 
evaluation of routine compliance in drinking water regulations and, 
thus, are not accounted for in the EPA's cost analysis. Nonetheless, 
the EPA has not identified any other drinking water regulations or 
requirements that will inhibit compliance with the final LCRI, nor 
should the final LCRI regulation significantly impair compliance with 
other regulations (e.g., installing a treatment technology to comply 
with the PFAS NPDWR MCLs does not inhibit a system from taking action 
to meet OCCT requirements under the final LCRI). The potential 
implementation overlap between the PFAS NPDWR (now final) and the LCRI 
could potentially result in a large number of public water systems 
(PWSs) and States facing rule start-up, administrative, and sampling/
service line inventory costs associated with both rules within a few 
years after the promulgation of the rules. Also, the more significant 
costs of installing and operating OCCT and/or conducting full service 
line replacement along with installing and operating PFAS treatment 
technology in a similar time frame are expected to fall on some 
systems. The EPA does not have sufficiently detailed lead/GRR service 
line information and 90th percentile lead tap sample data, and PFAS 
occurrence data to explore the potential treatment cost interactions of 
the two rules. However, it is feasible for water systems to comply with 
both regulations by taking appropriate mitigating actions, potentially 
similar to the ones outlined in the PFAS NPDWR Best Available 
Technologies (BAT) and Small Systems Compliance Technologies (SSCT) 
Support Document (see the PFAS BAT/SSCT Support Document, USEPA 2024j) 
to address the impacts that PFAS treatment may have on CCT. This is 
especially true in light of increased funding available under the BIL, 
including $11.7 billion in DWSRF funding that can be used for PFAS 
treatment and lead service line replacement, $15 billion in dedicated 
funding for service line replacement, and $9 billion in dedicated 
funding for emerging contaminants in drinking water, especially PFAS 
($4 billion in DWSRF emerging contaminants funds and $5 billion from 
the Emerging Contaminants in Small or Disadvantaged Communities (EC-
SDC) grant program). Note, the EPA reasonably anticipates BIL funding 
is likely to be able to support a substantial portion of the initial 
capital costs of the final PFAS rule. (See section 1.5 in the LCRI 
Response to Comment document and section 2.4 of the PFAS Response to 
comment document (USEPA, 2024k; USEPA, 2024l).) The EPA also notes that 
the extended five-year compliance date for meeting the PFAS MCLs may 
provide implementation flexibility for those systems facing the 
potential for simultaneous installation of PFAS and OCCT treatment 
technologies. The EPA acknowledges the potential that operational 
adjustments may be necessary to adjust the corrosivity of finished 
water if treatment is installed to meet the PFAS NPDWR MCLs. Ion 
exchange resins or reverse osmosis, for instance, may make water more 
corrosive if post-treatment stabilization (e.g., pH adjustment) is not 
performed. However, the increase in corrosivity is short-lived after an 
ion exchange media change-out (see the PFAS BAT/SSCT Support Document, 
USEPA 2024j) and would likely not create the long-term water chemistry 
issues that would trigger the LCRI study requirements associated with 
significant treatment changes nor significant adjustment to LCRI 
corrosion control treatment (CCT). Systems using reverse osmosis would 
likely need post-treatment stabilization to address corrosivity 
although as part of the PFAS regulatory analysis the EPA found that it 
is highly unlikely that drinking water systems would select this 
technology largely due to the challenges presented by managing the 
treatment residuals, in fact the final PFAS analysis assumed that no 
systems would implement reverse osmosis (see chapter 5 of the Economic 
Analysis for the Final PFAS NPDWR (USEPA, 2024f)). Given this 
information, the EPA made no changes to its baseline assumptions on 
existing pH levels in finished water nationally, so the PFAS NPDWR was 
found to have no quantifiable impact on the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis modeling, although the EPA acknowledges that it is possible 
that LCRI CCT costs may be underestimated based on the impact of PFAS 
treatment.

[[Page 86570]]

    The EPA received a number of comments indicating that the agency 
under costed service line replacement. Commenters did not provide 
adequate rationales or supporting data for altering the agency's 
proposed rule national level service line replacement cost methodology 
and estimated cost range. The EPA maintains the 7th Drinking Water 
Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment (DWINSA) survey as the 
source of service line replacement unit costs. The EPA agrees with 
commenters that unit costs for service line replacement can vary 
greatly: the full range of service line replacement unit costs 
considered in the DWINSA data set is $1,248 to $15,837. A wide range of 
costs is also cited by CDM Smith (2022) and Betanzo and Speight (2024). 
The EPA evaluated both its existing and new data, obtained as a result 
of the public comment process, including the DWINSA dataset, the CDM 
Smith report (2022), individual service line replacement costs reported 
by commenters, and the Betanzo and Speight (2024) literature review and 
engineering cost estimate. Based on the EPA's review, which is provided 
in appendix A of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), the 
EPA maintained the DWINSA as the primary source of data for service 
line replacement unit cost estimates. The DWINSA collects actual 
project and asset data from a stratified random statistical sample of 
water systems, which minimizes bias and uncertainty in the survey and 
results. No other data source provided detailed project-level data as 
required by the DWINSA. The DWINSA \12\ cost dataset contains responses 
from small, medium, and large systems and from urban and rural systems, 
representing 31 water systems in 13 States across EPA Regions 1, 2, 3, 
5, 7, and 8 and representing States in the Northeast, the Midwest, and 
the West. These systems serve populations ranging from 3,000 to over 
2,000,000 persons, although the dataset includes more projects for 
systems serving more than 10,000 persons, which is consistent with the 
relative prevalence of lead content service lines in these systems. The 
dataset includes a mix of project types including targeted service line 
replacement for sensitive subpopulations, replacement of lead pipes and 
GRR service lines when found, and service line replacement in 
coordination with water main replacement. The EPA adjusted the DWINSA 
reported costs to account for regional differences in prices to produce 
a national average. Each service line replacement cost estimate, from a 
given system replacement project, is weighted by the DWINSA sample 
weights, which reflect the probability that each system is included in 
the sample. Each project was also weighted by the number of service 
lines included in the project to capture the relative importance of the 
project cost estimate in comparison with the total dataset. The 
weighted values were then used to estimate descriptive statistics for 
the cost of service line replacement per line. Overall, the DWINSA 
dataset provides the most complete picture of the range of possible 
service line replacement costs. As described in chapter 4, section 
4.2.2.2 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), the EPA 
uses the 25th and 75th percentile values to provide a range of national 
costs for the final LCRI that reflect the degree of uncertainty in the 
average service line replacement unit cost ($6,507 and $8,519 for a 
full service line replacement). The EPA did not use the minimum and 
maximum values, from the 33 DWINSA reported projects,\13\ for this 
bounding exercise given that applying these figures to 100 percent of 
service line replacements seemed unreasonably extreme. Using minimum 
and maximum values would have produced a national estimate range 
greater than what is warranted given the uncertainty in the 
distribution of service line replacement unit costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Note 7th DWINSA service line replacement costs data come 
from 2021 survey effort. The replacement cost data was not targeted 
for update as part of the additional one-time update that took place 
in 2023.
    \13\ Note two systems provided two projects each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A commenter raised concerns that the EPA may be overestimating both 
baseline and changes in drinking water lead exposure by its use of 
modeled fifth-liter water lead concentration values (calculated based 
on the agency's drinking water lead concentration profile data) as a 
proxy for exposure in the proposed rule benefits analysis. The EPA 
reassessed its water lead concentration modeling and given recent 
findings (Urbanic et al., 2022) from the comparison of composite 
samples, which approximate lead exposure given water use patterns at a 
residence, and profile samples, where a volume weighted average lead 
concentration was calculated, at sites in two cities, the agency chose 
to use a volume weighted average lead concentration calculated using 
data from the first 10 liters of profile data in approximating exposure 
at the tap for the final LCRI benefits analysis.
    The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) 
provided the EPA with an updated LCRI 2024 version of their Costs of 
States Transactions Study (CoSTS) model which estimated the first five 
years of total and incremental burden to States for implementing the 
proposed LCRI. Burden totals from this model were significantly higher 
for some State oversight activities than those estimated by the EPA for 
the proposed LCRI. The EPA carefully evaluated the information and 
assumptions in the updated 2024 CoSTS model and used a subset of the 
information from the model to assist in the development of revised 
State burden estimates for the cost analysis of the final rule. The EPA 
compared the per-activity State burden estimates in the ASDWA 2024 
CoSTS model to those included in the proposed rule and to those 
included in the 2020 CoSTS model, which ASDWA provided as part of the 
2021 Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) rulemaking, and selected the 
higher burden estimates for use in the cost estimates for the final 
rule. The EPA revised cost estimates for a number of State activities 
including: the review and approval of the small system flexibility 
option, reviewing initial lead monitoring data and preparing systems 
for any new requirements under the LCRI, reviewing changes in tap 
sampling locations, reviewing monitoring results and 90th percentile 
calculations, reviewing school and child care facility testing program 
materials, reviewing CCT study data and determining the type of OCCT to 
be installed, reviewing CCT study data and determining the needed OCCT 
adjustment, reviewing CCT guidance and its applicability to individual 
PWSs, consulting on required actions in response to a treatment change, 
reviewing the filter plan, reviewing annual service line inventory 
updates, reviewing the annual service line replacement program report, 
and reviewing copies of consumer notices and certifications. In 
addition to this list of updated burden variables, several estimates in 
the ASDWA 2024 CoSTS model were consistent with the proposed rule 
requiring no update for the final rule analysis. These included the 
implementation and administration activities, reviewing sample 
invalidation requests, reviewing water quality parameter (WQP) sampling 
data and compliance with OWQPs, reviewing source water monitoring 
results, consulting with the system prior to any Distribution System 
and Site Assessment CCT adjustments, reviewing the report on 
Distribution System and Site Assessment responses, reviewing point-of-
use public education materials, reviewing the inventory validation

[[Page 86571]]

report, reviewing the service line replacement plan, participating in 
joint communication efforts with local and State health departments, 
and consulting with community water systems (CWSs) on other public 
education activities in response to a lead action level exceedance. 
Overall, the updated burden values will result in higher estimated 
State and total costs for the final rule when compared to the burden 
estimates used in the analysis of the proposed rule. See chapter 4 of 
the final LCRI Economic Analysis for more detail on the information the 
EPA used from the ASDWA CoSTS models in the adjustment of State cost 
variables (USEPA, 2024a).

B. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Develop the 
Baseline

    The entities potentially affected by the final LCRI are PWSs 
classified as either CWSs or NTNCWSs and primacy agencies (States). In 
the economic modeling performed, the EPA uses the Safe Drinking Water 
Information System Fed Data Warehouse (SDWIS/Fed) to derive the number 
of CWSs and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs), 49,529 
and 17,418, respectively. The agency also assumed, for modeling 
purposes, 56 primacy agencies.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 56 primacy agencies include 49 States (excluding 
Wyoming), Puerto Rico, Guam, United States Virgin Islands, American 
Samoa, North Mariana Islands, and Navajo Nation. For cost modeling 
purposes, the EPA also included the District of Columbia (DC) as a 
primacy agency when assigning burden and costs of the rule although 
some of these costs are incurred by the actual primacy agency, EPA 
Region 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA used a number of data sources to develop the drinking water 
industry characterization for the regulatory analysis. Exhibit 4 
(Exhibit 3-1 in chapter 3 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a)) lists the major data sources, describes the data used from each 
source, and explains how it was used in the estimation of the 
regulatory analysis baseline, which corresponds to the 2021 LCRR.\15\ 
Additional detailed descriptions of these data sources and how they 
were used in the characterization of baseline industry conditions can 
be found in chapter 3 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Note that the EPA provides an alternative regulatory 
analysis, which assumes a pre-2021 LCR baseline during the 35-year 
period of analysis starting in 2024, in appendix C of the final LCRI 
EA (USEPA, 2024a). Because PWSs and Primacy Agencies will likely not 
have implemented the parts of the 2021 LCRR associated with 
compliance dates after October 16, 2024, the agency is providing 
this alternative baseline analysis that describes LCRI incremental 
costs and benefits relative to a non-LCRR state of the industry.

 Exhibit 4--Data Sources Used To Develop the Baseline for the Final LCRI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Baseline data derived from the
              Data source                             source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDWIS/Fed fourth quarter 2020             PWS inventory,
 ``frozen'' dataset \1\.                  including population served,
                                          number of service connections,
                                          source water type, and water
                                          system type. Also used to
                                          identify NTNCWSs that are
                                          schools and child care
                                          facilities.
                                          Status of CCT,
                                          including identification of
                                          water systems with CCT and the
                                          proportion of water systems
                                          serving  Analysis of lead 90th
                                          percentile concentrations to
                                          identify water systems below,
                                          at, or above the lead and/or
                                          copper action levels at the
                                          start of rule implementation
                                          by LSL status, i.e., presence
                                          or absence of LSLs for the pre-
                                          2021 LCR, 2021 LCRR, and LCRI.
                                          Used in concert with data from
                                          Michigan described below for
                                          the LCRI.\2\
                                          The proportion of
                                          water systems that are on
                                          various reduced monitoring
                                          schedules for lead tap and WQP
                                          monitoring.
                                          The frequency of
                                          source and treatment changes
                                          and those source changes that
                                          can result in additional
                                          source water monitoring.
                                          Number of distribution
                                          system entry points per
                                          drinking water system for
                                          systems that were not included
                                          in the UCMR 3 dataset.
2006 CWSS (USEPA, 2009)................   PWS labor rates.
UCMR 3 (2013-2015).....................   Number of distribution
                                          system entry points per
                                          drinking water system.
7th DWINSA and Supplemental One-time      Service line material
 Update.                                  characterization.
                                          Service line
                                          replacement costs.
State service line information.........   Service line material
                                          characterization.
Geometries and Characteristics of         Design and average
 Public Water Systems (USEPA, 2000c).     daily flow per system.
Six-Year Review 3 ICR Occurrence          Baseline distribution
 Dataset (2006-2011).                     of pH for various CCT
                                          conditions.
                                          Baseline
                                          orthophosphate dose for CCT.
State of Michigan Lead and Copper         Analysis of the ratio
 Compliance Monitoring Data (Michigan     of fifth- to first-liter lead
 EGLE, 2019-2021).                        tap samples to estimate the
                                          increase in lead 90\th\
                                          percentile levels for LSL
                                          systems based on the use of
                                          the higher of the first- or
                                          fifth-liter sample result.
                                          Ratios are applied to SDWIS/
                                          Fed system level lead 90th
                                          percentile data to identify
                                          systems below, at, or above
                                          the action level under the
                                          final LCRI by LSL status.
                                          Percent of individual
                                          samples exceeding 0.010 mg/L
                                          for the final LCRI.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: AWWA = American Water Works Association; CCT = corrosion
  control treatment; CWSS = Community Water System Survey; DWINSA =
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Assessment; ICR = Information
  Collection Request; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; LCRR = Lead and Copper
  Rule Revisions; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; LSL = lead
  service line; Michigan EGLE = Michigan Department of Environment,
  Great Lakes, and Energy; NTNCWS = non-transient non-community water
  system; public water system; SDWIS/Fed = Safe Drinking Water
  Information System/Federal version; UCMR 3 = Third Unregulated
  Contaminant Monitoring Rule; USEPA = United States Environmental
  Protection Agency; WQP = water quality parameter.
Note:
\1\ Contains information reported through December 31, 2020.
\2\ A system's lead 90th percentile level is a key factor in determining
  a system's requirements under the pre-2021 LCR, 2021 LCRR, and final
  LCRI.

[[Page 86572]]

C. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model

    The EPA used its SafeWater Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) model to 
analyze the costs and benefits of the final LCRI. For a detailed 
description of the model, see chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis for 
the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020d). The EPA 
originally developed the SafeWater LCR model because of the need to 
model costs and benefits where significant variability existed in both 
regulated entity characteristics in the baseline and regulatory 
compliance scenarios, a fact that remains true of the analysis for the 
final LCRI. PWSs will face different compliance scenarios depending on 
the size and type of the water system; the presence of lead, GRR, and 
unknown service lines; water quality; and existing corrosion controls. 
In addition, PWSs will also face different unit costs based on water 
system baseline characteristics including size, type, and number of 
entry points (e.g., labor rates, and CCT capital and operation and 
maintenance unit costs).
    One of the strengths of the SafeWater LCR model is that it 
incorporates a large degree of variability across water system baseline 
characteristics that influence compliance and costs. For example, under 
the final LCRI, PWSs will face different compliance scenarios and costs 
depending on their size, primary source water type, number of entry 
points to the distribution system, number of lead and GRR service lines 
in their distribution system, and existing in place corrosion controls. 
The SafeWater LCR model also includes variability in compliance 
characteristics like different labor rates and the number of tap and 
WQP samples required by system size.
    One limitation of the cost-benefit analysis is that the EPA does 
not have all of the PWS-specific data needed to fully reflect baseline 
and compliance variability across PWSs, therefore, the SafeWater LCR 
model applies a ``model PWS'' approach. From a set of system baseline 
characteristic data, including system type, system size, and primary 
water source, the EPA defined 72 PWS categories, or strata, in the 
SafeWater LCR model. The 72 PWS categories consist of each combination 
of PWS type (2), PWS population size category (9), PWS primary source 
water (2), and PWS public/private ownership (2). See the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), chapter 4, section 4.2.1 for more 
information on model strata.
    The SafeWater LCR model creates model PWSs that represent systems 
in each category by combining the PWS-specific data available in SDWIS/
Fed with data on baseline and compliance characteristics available at 
the PWS category level. When categorical data are point estimates, 
every model PWS in a category is assigned the same value. When the EPA 
has probabilistic data representing system variability, the SafeWater 
LCR model assigns each model PWS a value sampled from the distribution. 
Examples of the distributional data inputs that characterize 
variability in the SafeWater LCR model include the burden for PWSs and 
State staff to conduct tasks like sampling and compliance documentation 
and review. These distributions are assumed to be independent, which is 
a limitation of the model.
    While the model system approach allows for a good characterization 
of variability across PWSs, it is less exact than if the EPA had 
complete information on each PWS. Because of this model PWS approach, 
the SafeWater LCR model does not output any results at the PWS level, 
but rather, outputs cost (and benefit) estimates at the PWS category, 
or strata. For additional information on the data sources used in the 
estimation of costs see chapter 3 and chapter 4, sections 4.2.2, 4.3, 
4.4, and 4.5 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
    Chapter 3 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis describes in greater 
detail the baseline data elements, their derivations, and the inherent 
sources of uncertainty in the developed data elements (USEPA, 2024a). 
The EPA estimates the incremental costs and benefits of the final LCRI 
relative to a baseline, as described in chapter 3, that assumes 
compliance with the 2021 LCRR and other State regulations requiring 
lead service line replacement (Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and 
Rhode Island) and tap sampling in schools and child cares (17 States 
and the District of Columbia) that go beyond the 2021 LCRR 
requirements. Chapter 4, sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis discuss how each data element is used in the 
estimation of costs. The chapter also provides examples and references 
to how these data were developed, and the uncertainty associated with 
specific data elements. Chapter 5 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis 
provides detail on the water lead concentrations under the baseline 
conditions (e.g., presence of a lead service line (LSL) and CCT) and 
the functions used to quantify benefit categories, their derivations, 
and the inherent sources of uncertainty associated with the use of 
those functions (USEPA, 2024a). All significant uncertainties of this 
economic analysis are described in the following sections of the final 
LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a). Chapter 3, section 3.4 and 
Exhibit 3-78 outline uncertainties associated with the analytical 
baseline and water system compliance characteristics. The SafeWater LCR 
model and cost uncertainty is discussed in chapter 4, section 4.2.2 and 
Exhibit 4-2. Also, for a discussion of the uncertainties in the 
benefits analysis, see chapter 5, section 5.7 and Exhibit 5-41.
    The SafeWater LCR model follows each model PWS, which represents a 
cohort of systems with the same characteristics, in the sample through 
each year of the period of analysis (35 years) and determines how the 
PWS will comply with each requirement of the final rule, estimating the 
yearly compliance cost and tracking the impact of the compliance 
actions on drinking water lead concentrations and the resultant effects 
on health outcomes. It also tracks how other events, such as changing a 
water source or treatment, effect the water system's compliance 
requirements for the next year. The estimated costs and benefits for 
each model PWS are weighted, so they represent the number of actual 
PWSs known to have similar characteristics (e.g., population served, 
entry points to the distribution system, etc.). Then, the summary 
statistics are calculated, including total quantified costs of the 
regulatory requirement, total quantified benefits of the regulatory 
requirement, the variability in PWS-level costs (e.g., 5th and 95th 
percentile system costs), and the variability in household-level 
costs.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The exception to the use of model PWSs and the assignment 
of system characteristics data in the SafeWater LCR model is the 24 
very large water systems serving more than one million persons. 
Because of the small number of water systems in this size category, 
the uniqueness of their system characteristics, and the potential 
large impact of these systems on estimated national costs and 
benefits, the EPA collected information on very large water systems' 
CCT practices and chemical doses, pH measurements and pH adjustment 
practices, number of LSLs, service populations, and average annual 
flow rates for each entry point to the distribution system. When 
facility-specific data were available, the EPA used them to estimate 
compliance costs and benefits for the very large water systems. If 
data were not available, the EPA assigned baseline characteristics 
using the same process as previously described. See chapter 4, 
section 4.2.3 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis for a summary of 
the data the EPA collected on these very large systems (USEPA, 
2024a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This treatment technique rulemaking, and therefore the SafeWater 
LCR model, is complex, incorporating multiple triggers (e.g., action 
level exceedance, single sample exceedance, multiple action level 
exceedances) that require multiple and varying compliance actions 
(e.g., CCT installation or re-

[[Page 86573]]

optimization, Distribution System and Site Assessment, public 
education, and temporary filter distribution) that also require a large 
number of inputs for the estimation of total compliance costs and 
benefits. Many of these inputs, which are specific to the assessment of 
the costs and benefits of the final LCRI, are uncertain.
    The EPA determined that the agency does not have enough information 
to perform a probabilistic uncertainty analysis as part of the 
SafeWater LCR model analysis for this rule. Instead, to capture 
uncertainty, the EPA estimated compliance costs and benefits using the 
SafeWater LCR model under low and high bracketing scenarios. For costs, 
the bracketing scenarios are defined by the following three cost 
drivers: the number of PWSs that will exceed the action level under the 
revised tap sampling requirements; the cost of service line 
replacement; and the cost of CCT. The low and high scenarios for 
benefits are driven by: the number of PWSs that will exceed the action 
level under the revised tap sampling requirements (the same variable 
which is used to define the low and high cost scenarios); the 
concentration-response functions that characterize how reductions in 
blood lead levels (caused by changes in lead exposure) translate into 
estimates of avoided IQ reductions, cases of ADHD, and cardiovascular 
disease premature mortality; and high and low estimates of the ADHD 
cost of illness. These low and high scenarios are defined by the 
assignment of low and high values for the set of cost and benefit 
drivers listed above. Detailed descriptions of these variables and the 
derivation of their values under the low and high scenarios can be 
found in chapters 4 and 5 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a). Due to the data limitations mentioned above, with the exception 
of the uncertain variables that define the difference between the low 
and high scenarios, the remaining baseline water system and compliance 
characteristics are treated as certain and remain constant across the 
scenarios. While this limits the full description of the uncertainty in 
the monetized cost and benefit estimates, it does allow the EPA to 
clearly define the uncertainty characterized in the cost-benefit range 
provided by the low and high scenarios and maintains consistency 
between the estimation of costs and benefits for the baseline (2021 
LCRR) and final LCRI (e.g., number of systems with lead and/or GRR 
service lines and percent of connections that are lead and/or GRR 
service lines).
    When evaluating the economic impacts on PWSs and households, the 
EPA uses the estimated PWS cost of capital to discount future costs, as 
this best represents the actual costs of compliance that water systems 
would incur over time. The EPA used data from the 2006 Community Water 
System Survey (CWSS) to estimate the PWS cost of capital. The 2006 CWSS 
is the most recent CWSS available. The EPA calculated the overall 
weighted average cost of capital (across all funding sources and loan 
periods) for each size/ownership category, weighted by the percentage 
of funding from each source. The cost of capital for each CWS size 
category and ownership category is shown in appendix B of the final 
LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a). Since similar cost of capital 
information is not available for NTNCWSs, the EPA used the CWS cost of 
capital when calculating the annualized cost per NTNCWS. The EPA's 
estimated total capital cost may be greater than the costs water 
systems actually bear when complying with the LCRI's regulatory 
requirements because low or no interest loans and grants are available 
from State and local governments, EPA programs, and other Federal 
agencies. See section III.G of this preamble for more information on 
available funding. The availability of funds from government sources, 
while potentially reducing the impart of the regulatory costs to 
individual PWSs, does not reduce the social cost of capital to society, 
which looks at the total opportunity cost of the capital expenditures.
    The EPA projects that rule implementation activities will begin 
immediately after rule promulgation. These activities will include one-
time PWS and State costs for staff to read the LCRI, become familiar 
with the rule provisions, and develop training materials and train 
employees on the new rule requirements. States will also incur burden 
hours associated with adopting the rule into State requirements, 
updating their LCR program policies and practices, and modifying data 
management systems. PWSs will incur costs to comply with the service 
line inventory requirements, service line materials notification 
requirements, development of the service line replacement plan, 
updating their lead tap sampling plan and the requirement for public 
notification following an exceedance of 0.015 mg/L (2021 LCRR lead 
action level) in years one through three of the 35-year period of 
analysis. The EPA expects that water systems will begin complying with 
all other LCRI rule requirements three years after promulgation, or in 
year four of the analysis.
    Some requirements of the final LCRI must be implemented by water 
systems regardless of their water quality and tap sampling results 
(e.g., service line inventory updates, service line replacement, and 
CWS school and child care facility sampling programs). However, other 
significant cost drivers are a function of a water system's 90th 
percentile lead tap sample value. Because a water system's lead 90th 
percentile value is important to determining certain regulatory 
requirements and costs and benefits under the final LCRI, the SafeWater 
LCR model tracks each model PWS's 90th percentile value over each 
annual time step in the model. The 90th percentile value, and if it 
exceeds the action level, dictates actions including, but not limited 
to, tap sampling and water quality parameter monitoring schedules, the 
installation or re-optimization of OCCT, the installation of point-of-
use devices or pitcher filters at water systems selecting this 
treatment option instead of CCT as part of the small system 
flexibilities under the final LCRI, and certain public education 
requirements.\17\ Under the final LCRI, the SafeWater LCR model assumes 
a PWS's 90th percentile tap sample values will drop at or below the 
action level once they: (1) install or re-optimize OCCT; \18\ or (2) 
install point-of-use devices. PWSs that remove all service lines with 
lead content are also assigned a new 90th percentile tap sample value 
with a low likelihood of an action level exceedance. When the PWS no 
longer has a 90th percentile tap sample value above the action level, 
it incurs lower sampling and public education costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Distribution System and Site Assessment adjustments to CCT 
are required for a single lead tap sample exceedance of the action 
level of 0.010 mg/L. The provision of temporary pitcher filters is 
triggered by multiple action level exceedances. Both of these 
compliance requirements are also positively associated with system 
level 90th percentile tap sample values.
    \18\ The SafeWater LCR model implements a required systemwide 
Distribution System and Site Assessment activity as a change in pH 
which is equivalent to pH adjustments associated with CCT 
installation or re-optimization in the model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SafeWater LCR model allows for future increases in 90th 
percentile lead values as a result of changes in source water and 
treatment. The likelihood of these events occurring has been derived 
from SDWIS/Fed data (see chapter 3, section 3.3.9 of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a)). When a change in source water or 
treatment occurs in a modeled year, a new 90th percentile value is 
assigned to the water system. This value may be higher or lower than 
the current value, thus potentially triggering new corrective

[[Page 86574]]

actions. In the model, if a water system already has ``optimized'' CCT 
in place, it is assumed that no additional action is needed and that 
the current treatment is adequate; therefore, the 90th percentile value 
will not change.

D. Cost Analysis

    This section summarizes the cost elements and estimates the total 
cost of compliance for the baseline (2021 LCRR), the final LCRI, and 
the incremental cost of the final LCRI, under both the low- and high-
cost scenarios, discounted at two percent.\19\ The EPA presents the 
estimated PWS rule costs; the calculated distributions of incremental 
annualized costs by primary water source and size category for 
households served by CWSs; and the estimated costs to States for 
implementation and administration of the rule.\20\ This section also 
quantifies the potential increase in phosphates that would result from 
the increased use of corrosion inhibitors under the rule, quantifies 
the resulting cost for treating to remove the additional phosphates at 
downstream wastewater treatment plants that may be constrained by 
nutrient discharge limits, and discusses the ecological impacts that 
may result from increased phosphorus loads to surface waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The EPA is reporting final LCRI social costs using the 2 
percent discount rate to be consistent with revised guidance from 
OMB (OMB Circular A-4, 2023). Because the EPA provided cost 
estimates discounted at 3 and 7 percent for the proposed LCRI based 
on OMB guidance which was in effect at the time of the proposed rule 
analysis (OMB Circular A-4, 2003), the agency has also calculated 
the cost impacts at both the 3 and 7 percent discount rates. See the 
final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) appendix F for results.
    \20\ Note that reporting costs are represented in the cost 
totals provided in the estimates below, but a separate summary of 
the reporting costs required by the Paperwork Reduction Act can be 
found in section VII.B of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Public Water System Costs
    The EPA provides estimates of the LCRI regulatory requirement costs 
that accrue to PWSs for the following cost components: rule 
implementation and administration, sampling, service line inventory and 
replacement, CCT, point-of-use program (if a small system selects this 
compliance option), and public education and outreach. For the purpose 
of developing the PWS costs for each of these rule components, the EPA 
further subdivided these groupings into sub-components and activities 
to be completed by systems implementing the LCRI requirements. For most 
activities, water systems will incur labor unit costs (e.g., PWS staff 
participate in training). Systems will also incur unit capital and 
operation and maintenance costs for a number of activities (e.g., 
installation of CCT). Exhibit 5 (Exhibit 4-6 in the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a)) provides an overview of the rule components, 
subcomponents, and activities for which the EPA estimates water system 
unit costs for the rule. Detailed information on the derivation of unit 
costs associated with each activity can be found in the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) sections identified in Exhibit 5.

 Exhibit 5--PWS Cost Components, Subcomponents, and Activities Organized
                             by Section \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Component              Subcomponents        Activities \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.3.1: PWS Implementation and   4.3.1.1: PWS One-  (a) Read and
 Administrative Costs.           Time               understand the rule.
                                 Implementation    (b) Assign personnel
                                 and                and resources for
                                 Administrative     rule implementation.
                                 Costs.            (c) Participate in
                                                    training and
                                                    technical assistance
                                                    provided by the
                                                    State during rule
                                                    implementation.
                                                   (d) Provide small
                                                    system flexibility
                                                    option
                                                    recommendation to
                                                    the State.
4.3.2: PWS Sampling Costs.....  4.3.2.1: PWS Lead  (a) Update sampling
                                 Tap Sampling.      instructions for
                                                    lead tap sampling
                                                    and submit to the
                                                    State.
                                                   (b) Contact homes to
                                                    establish new 100
                                                    percent LSL tap
                                                    sampling pool.
                                                   (c) Update and submit
                                                    tap sampling plan to
                                                    the State.
                                                   (d) Report any
                                                    changes in sampling
                                                    locations to the
                                                    State.
                                                   (e) Confer with the
                                                    State on initial
                                                    lead sampling data
                                                    and status under the
                                                    LCRI.
                                                   (f) Obtain households
                                                    for each round of
                                                    lead tap sampling.
                                                   (g) Offer incentives
                                                    to households to
                                                    encourage
                                                    participation in
                                                    lead tap sampling
                                                    program.
                                                   (h) Ship tap sampling
                                                    material and
                                                    instructions to
                                                    participating
                                                    households.
                                                   (i) Collect lead tap
                                                    samples.
                                                   (j) Determine if a
                                                    sample should be
                                                    rejected and not
                                                    analyzed.
                                                   (k) Analyze lead tap
                                                    samples in-house or
                                                    commercially.
                                                   (l) Prepare and
                                                    submit sample
                                                    invalidation request
                                                    to the State.
                                                   (m) Inform consumers
                                                    of tap sample
                                                    results.
                                                   (n) Certify to the
                                                    State that results
                                                    were reported to
                                                    consumers.
                                                   (o) Submit request to
                                                    renew 9-year
                                                    monitoring waiver to
                                                    the State.
                                                   (p) Submit sampling
                                                    results and 90th
                                                    percentile
                                                    calculation to the
                                                    State.
                                                   (q) Oversee the
                                                    customer-initiated
                                                    lead sampling
                                                    program.
                                                   (r) Ship tap sampling
                                                    material and
                                                    instructions to
                                                    participating
                                                    households for
                                                    customer-initiated
                                                    lead sampling
                                                    program.
                                                   (s) Collect lead tap
                                                    samples for customer-
                                                    initiated lead
                                                    sampling program.
                                                   (t) Analyze lead tap
                                                    samples in-house or
                                                    commercially for
                                                    customer-initiated
                                                    lead sampling
                                                    program.
                                                   (u) Inform customers
                                                    of lead tap sample
                                                    results for customer-
                                                    initiated lead
                                                    sampling program.
                                4.3.2.2: PWS Lead  (v) Collect lead WQP
                                 Water Quality      samples from the
                                 Parameter          distribution system.
                                 Monitoring.       (w) Analyze lead WQP
                                                    samples from the
                                                    distribution system.

[[Page 86575]]

 
                                                   (x) Collect lead WQP
                                                    samples from entry
                                                    points.
                                                   (y) Analyze lead WQP
                                                    samples from entry
                                                    points.
                                                   (z) Report lead WQP
                                                    sampling data and
                                                    compliance with
                                                    OWQPs to the State.
                                4.3.2.3: PWS       (aa) Collect copper
                                 Copper Water       WQP samples from the
                                 Quality            distribution system.
                                 Parameter         (bb) Analyze copper
                                 Monitoring.        WQP samples from the
                                                    distribution system.
                                                   (cc) Collect copper
                                                    WQP samples from
                                                    entry points.
                                                   (dd) Analyze copper
                                                    WQP samples from
                                                    entry points.
                                                   (ee) Report copper
                                                    WQP sampling data
                                                    and compliance with
                                                    OWQPs to the State.
                                4.3.2.4: PWS       (ff) Collect source
                                 Source Water       water samples.
                                 Monitoring.       (gg) Analyze source
                                                    water samples.
                                                   (hh) Report source
                                                    water monitoring
                                                    results to the
                                                    State.
                                4.3.2.5.1: CWS     (ii) Create a list of
                                 School and Child   schools and child
                                 Care Facility      care facilities
                                 Lead Sampling      served by CWS and
                                 Costs--First       submit to State.
                                 Five-Year Cycle.  (jj) Develop lead
                                                    outreach materials
                                                    for schools and
                                                    child care
                                                    facilities.
                                                   (kk) Prepare and
                                                    distribute initial
                                                    letters explaining
                                                    the sampling program
                                                    and the EPA's 3Ts
                                                    Toolkit.
                                                   (ll) Contact
                                                    elementary school or
                                                    child care facility
                                                    to determine and
                                                    finalize its
                                                    sampling schedule
                                                    (one-time) or
                                                    contact secondary
                                                    school to offer
                                                    sampling (annual).
                                                   (mm) Contact school
                                                    or child care
                                                    facility to
                                                    coordinate sample
                                                    collection
                                                    logistics.
                                                   (nn) Conduct
                                                    walkthrough at
                                                    school or child care
                                                    facility before the
                                                    start of sampling.
                                                   (oo) Travel to
                                                    collect samples.
                                                   (pp) Collect samples.
                                                   (qq) Analyze samples.
                                                   (rr) Provide sampling
                                                    results to tested
                                                    facilities.
                                                   (ss) Discuss sampling
                                                    results with the
                                                    school or child care
                                                    facility.
                                                   (tt) Conduct detailed
                                                    discussion of high
                                                    sampling results
                                                    with schools and
                                                    child care
                                                    facilities.
                                                   (uu) Report school
                                                    and child care
                                                    facility sampling
                                                    results to the
                                                    State.
                                                   (vv) Prepare and
                                                    provide annual
                                                    report on school and
                                                    child care facility
                                                    sampling program to
                                                    the State.
                                4.3.2.5.2: CWS     (ww) Update the list
                                 School and Child   of schools and child
                                 Care Facility      care facilities and
                                 Lead Sampling      submit to the State.
                                 Costs--Second     (xx) Contact schools
                                 Five-Year Cycle    and child care
                                 On.                facilities to offer
                                                    sampling.
                                                   (yy) Contact the
                                                    school or child care
                                                    facility to
                                                    coordinate sample
                                                    collection
                                                    logistics.
                                                   (zz) Conduct
                                                    walkthrough at
                                                    school or child care
                                                    facility before the
                                                    start of sampling.
                                                   (aaa) Travel to
                                                    collect samples.
                                                   (bbb) Collect
                                                    samples.
                                                   (ccc) Analyze
                                                    samples.
                                                   (ddd) Provide
                                                    sampling results to
                                                    tested facilities.
                                                   (eee) Discuss
                                                    sampling results
                                                    with the school and
                                                    child care facility.
                                                   (fff) Conduct
                                                    detailed discussion
                                                    of high sampling
                                                    results with schools
                                                    and child care
                                                    facilities.
                                                   (ggg) Report school
                                                    and child care
                                                    facility sampling
                                                    results to the
                                                    State.
                                                   (hhh) Prepare and
                                                    provide annual
                                                    report on school and
                                                    child care facility
                                                    sampling program to
                                                    the State.
4.3.3: PWS Corrision Control    4.3.3.1: CCT       (a) Conduct a CCT
 Costs.                          Installation.      study.
                                                   (b) Install CCT (PO4,
                                                    PO4 with post
                                                    treatment, pH
                                                    adjustment, or
                                                    modify pH).
                                4.3.3.2: Re-       (c) Revise CCT study.
                                 optimization of   (d) Re-optimize
                                 Existing           existing CCT.
                                 Corrosion
                                 Control
                                 Treatment.
                                4.3.3.3: DSSA      (e) Contact customers
                                 Costs.             and collect follow-
                                                    up tap sample.
                                                   (f) Analyze follow-up
                                                    lead tap sample.
                                                   (g) Collect
                                                    distribution system
                                                    WQP sample.
                                                   (h) Analyze
                                                    distribution system
                                                    WQP sample.
                                                   (i) Review incidents
                                                    of systemwide events
                                                    and other system
                                                    conditions.
                                                   (j) Consult with the
                                                    State prior to
                                                    making CCT changes.
                                                   (k) Report follow-up
                                                    sample results and
                                                    overall DSSA
                                                    responses to the
                                                    State.
                                4.3.3.4: System    (l) Review CCT
                                 Lead CCT Routine   guidance.
                                 Costs.            (m) Provide WQP data
                                                    to the State and
                                                    discuss during
                                                    sanitary survey.

[[Page 86576]]

 
                                                   (n) Notify and
                                                    consult with the
                                                    State on required
                                                    actions in response
                                                    to source water
                                                    change.
                                                   (o) Notify and
                                                    consult with the
                                                    State on required
                                                    actions in response
                                                    to treatment change.
4.3.4: PWS Service Line         4.3.4.1: Service   (a) Conduct records
 Inventory and Replacement       Line Inventory.    review for connector
 Costs.                                             materials.
                                                   (b) Compile and
                                                    submit connector
                                                    updated LCRR
                                                    inventory (baseline
                                                    inventory) to the
                                                    State.
                                                   (c) Identify material
                                                    for unknown service
                                                    lines.
                                                   (d) Report annual
                                                    inventory updates to
                                                    the State.
                                                   (e) Conduct field
                                                    investigations for
                                                    inventory
                                                    validation.
                                                   (f) Report validation
                                                    results to the
                                                    State.
                                4.3.4.2: Service   (g) Develop initial
                                 Line Replacement   service line
                                 Plan.              replacement plan and
                                                    submit to the State
                                                    for review.
                                                   (h) Identify funding
                                                    options for full
                                                    service line
                                                    replacements.
                                                   (i) Include
                                                    information on
                                                    deferred deadline
                                                    and associated
                                                    replacement rate in
                                                    the service line
                                                    replacement plan.
                                                   (j) Update service
                                                    line replacement
                                                    plan annually or
                                                    certify no changes.
                                                   (k) Provide an
                                                    undated
                                                    recommendation of
                                                    the deferred
                                                    deadline and
                                                    associated
                                                    replacement rate.
                                4.3.4.3: Physical  (l) Systems replace
                                 Service Line       lead and GRR service
                                 Replacements.      lines.
                                4.3.4.4:           (m) Contact customers
                                 Ancillary          and conduct site
                                 Service Line       visits prior to
                                 Replacement        service line
                                 Activities.        replacement.
                                                   (n) Deliver filters
                                                    and 6 months of
                                                    replacement
                                                    cartridges at time
                                                    of service line
                                                    replacement.
                                                   (o) Collect tap
                                                    sample post-service
                                                    line replacement.
                                                   (p) Analyze post-
                                                    service line
                                                    replacement tap
                                                    sample.
                                                   (q) Inform customers
                                                    of tap sample
                                                    result.
                                                   (r) Submit annual
                                                    report on service
                                                    line replacement
                                                    program to the
                                                    State.
4.3.5: PWS POU-Related Costs    4.3.5.1: POU       (a) Provide, monitor,
 (Small System Compliance        Device             and maintain POU
 Option).                        Installation and   devices.
                                 Maintenance.      .....................
                                4.3.5.2: POU       (b) Develop POU plan
                                 Ancillary          and submit to the
                                 Activities.        State.
                                                   (c) Develop public
                                                    education materials
                                                    and submit to the
                                                    State.
                                                   (d) Print POU
                                                    education materials.
                                                   (e) Obtain households
                                                    for POU monitoring.
                                                   (f) Deliver POU
                                                    monitoring materials
                                                    and instructions to
                                                    participating
                                                    households.
                                                   (g) Collect tap
                                                    samples after POU
                                                    installation.
                                                   (h) Determine if
                                                    sample should be
                                                    rejected and not
                                                    analyzed.
                                                   (i) Analyze POU tap
                                                    samples.
                                                   (j) Prepare and
                                                    submit sample
                                                    invalidation request
                                                    to the State.
                                                   (k) Inform customers
                                                    of POU tap sample
                                                    results.
                                                   (l) Certify to the
                                                    State that POU tap
                                                    results were
                                                    reported to
                                                    customers.
                                                   (m) Prepare and
                                                    submit annual report
                                                    on POU program to
                                                    the State.
4.3.6: PWS Lead Public          4.3.6.1: Consumer  (a) Develop lead
 Education, Outreach, and        Notice.            consumer notice
 Notification Costs.                                materials and submit
                                                    to the State for
                                                    review.
                                                   (b) Provide a copy of
                                                    the consumer notice
                                                    and certification to
                                                    the State.
                                4.3.6.2:           (c) Update CCR
                                 Activities         language.
                                 Regardless of     (d) Develop new
                                 Lead 90th          customer outreach
                                 Percentile Level.  plan.
                                                   (e) Develop approach
                                                    for improved public
                                                    access to lead
                                                    health-related
                                                    information and tap
                                                    sample results.
                                                   (f) Establish a
                                                    process for public
                                                    access to
                                                    information on known
                                                    or potential lead
                                                    content service line
                                                    locations and tap
                                                    sample results.
                                                   (g) Maintain a
                                                    process for public
                                                    access to lead
                                                    health information,
                                                    known or potential
                                                    lead content service
                                                    line locations, and
                                                    tap sample results.
                                                   (h) Respond to
                                                    customer request for
                                                    known or potential
                                                    lead content service
                                                    line information.
                                                   (i) Respond to
                                                    requests from
                                                    realtors, home
                                                    inspectors, and
                                                    potential home
                                                    buyers for known or
                                                    potential lead
                                                    content service line
                                                    information.
                                                   (j) Develop a list of
                                                    local and State
                                                    health agencies.
                                                   (k) Develop lead
                                                    outreach materials
                                                    for local and State
                                                    health agencies and
                                                    submit to the State
                                                    for review.
                                                   (l) Deliver lead
                                                    outreach materials
                                                    for local and State
                                                    health agencies.
                                                   (m) Develop public
                                                    education materials
                                                    for known or
                                                    potential lead
                                                    content service line
                                                    disturbances and
                                                    submit to the State.

[[Page 86577]]

 
                                                   (n) Deliver public
                                                    education for
                                                    service line
                                                    disturbances.
                                                   (o) Deliver filters
                                                    and 6 months of
                                                    replacement
                                                    cartridges during
                                                    disturbances of
                                                    service lines.
                                                   (p) Develop inventory-
                                                    related outreach
                                                    materials and submit
                                                    to the State for
                                                    review.
                                                   (q) Distribute
                                                    inventory-related
                                                    outreach materials.
                                                   (r) Provide
                                                    translation services
                                                    for public education
                                                    materials.
                                                   (s) Certify to the
                                                    State that lead
                                                    outreach was
                                                    completed.\3\
                                4.3.6.3: Public    (t) Update mandatory
                                 Education          language for lead
                                 Activities in      ALE public education
                                 Response to Lead   and submit to the
                                 ALE.               State for review.
                                                   (u) Deliver lead ALE
                                                    public education
                                                    materials to all
                                                    customers.
                                                   (v) Post notice to
                                                    website.
                                                   (w) Prepare press
                                                    release.
                                                   (x) Contact public
                                                    health agencies to
                                                    obtain additional
                                                    organizations and
                                                    update recipient
                                                    list.
                                                   (y) Notify public
                                                    health agencies and
                                                    other organizations.
                                                   (z) Consult with
                                                    State on other
                                                    public education
                                                    activities.
                                                   (aa) Implement other
                                                    public education
                                                    activities.
                                4.3.6.4: Public    (bb) Develop plan for
                                 Education          making filters
                                 Activities in      available and submit
                                 Response to        to the State for
                                 Multiple Lead      review.
                                 ALEs.             (cc) Develop outreach
                                                    materials for
                                                    systems with
                                                    multiple lead ALEs
                                                    and submit to the
                                                    State for review.
                                                   (dd) Conduct enhanced
                                                    public education for
                                                    systems with
                                                    multiple lead ALEs.
                                                   (ee) Consult with
                                                    State on filter
                                                    program for systems
                                                    with multiple lead
                                                    ALEs.
                                                   (ff) Administer
                                                    filter program for
                                                    systems with
                                                    multiple lead ALEs.
                                                   (gg) Make filters
                                                    available due to
                                                    multiple lead ALEs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: 3Ts = ``3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools and
  Child Care Facilities Toolkit: A Training, Testing, and Taking Action
  Approach (Revised Manual)''; ALE = action level exceedance; CCR =
  consumer confidence report; CCT = corrosion control treatment; CWS =
  community water system; DSSA = Distribution System and Site
  Assessment; GRR = galvanized requiring replacement; OCCT = optimal
  corrosion control treatment; OWQPs = optimal water quality parameters;
  PO4 = orthophosphate; POU = point-of-use; PWS = public water system;
  WQP = water quality parameter.
Notes:
\1\ Numbering and lettering in the exhibit represents the section in the
  final LCRI Economic Analysis document (USEPA, 2024a), where additional
  information on the definition of and derivation of burden and cost for
  each activity is located. Systems will also incur burden for
  recordkeeping activities under the LCRI, such as retaining records of
  decisions, supporting documentation, technical basis for decisions,
  and documentation submitted by the system. The EPA has included burden
  for recordkeeping with each activity when applicable as opposed to
  providing separate burden estimates.
\2\ The EPA assigned a unique letter identification (ID) for each
  activity under a given rule component. Activities are generally
  organized with upfront, one-time activities first followed by ongoing
  activities.
\3\ This certification is inclusive of outreach activities in sections
  4.3.6.1 through 4.3.6.4 in the final LCRI Economic Analysis.

    The EPA uses the derived unit costs associated with each regulatory 
activity from Exhibit 5 as inputs to the SafeWater LCR model, which 
estimates low and high scenario PWS total costs for the baseline (2021 
LCRR) and the final LCRI.\21\ Baseline total costs are then subtracted 
from the LCRI total costs to determine the incremental costs of the new 
regulatory requirements under the final LCRI for both the low- and 
high-cost scenarios. These total PWS incremental costs are presented as 
annualized values, discounted at two percent in Exhibit 6. The 
estimated total PWS incremental annualized costs of the final LCRI 
range from $1.45 to $1.95 billion, in 2022 dollars, when a two percent 
discount rate is applied. The exhibits also detail the proportion of 
the annualized costs attributable to each rule component. For estimated 
total and incremental costs by subcomponent see chapter 4, section 4.3 
of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ For additional information on how the SafeWater LCR model 
uses unit cost date to estimate PWS costs, see chapter 4, section 
4.3 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).

                            Exhibit 6--Estimated National Total Monetized Annualized PWS Rule Costs--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                  [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    PWS annual costs                                       Low estimate                                    High estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Rule component                          Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $134.0          $166.0           $32.0          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6
PWS Service Line Replacement *..........................            84.6         1,259.0         1,174.4           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4
Corrosion Control Technology............................           552.0           591.1            39.1           647.8           692.9            45.1
Point-of Use Device Installation and Maintenance........             2.4             5.1             2.7             5.9             9.6             3.7
Public Education and Outreach...........................            69.6           267.3           197.7            72.1           302.2           230.1

[[Page 86578]]

 
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.1             3.4             3.3             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           842.7         2,291.9         1,449.2           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Service line replacement includes full and partial lead and GRR service line replacements.
Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain variables that
  vary between the low- and high-cost scenarios. For the LCRR Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020d), the EPA assumed that the cost of customer-side service
  line replacements made under the goal-based replacement rate would be paid for by households. The agency also assumed that system-side service line
  replacements under the goal-based replacement rate and all service line replacements (both customer-side and systems-side) would be paid by the PWS
  under the three percent mandatory replacement rate. The EPA made these modeling assumptions based on the different levels of regulatory responsibility
  systems faced operating under a goal-based replacement rate versus a mandatory replacement rate. While systems would not be subject to a potential
  violation for not meeting the target replacement rate under the goal-based replacement requirement, under the three percent mandatory replacement
  rate, the possibility of a violation could motivate more systems to meet the target replacement rate even if they had to adopt customer incentive
  programs that would shift the cost of replacing customer-side service lines from customers to the system. To be consistent with these LCRR modeling
  assumptions, under the LCRI, the EPA assumed that mandatory replacement costs would fall only on systems. Therefore, the negative incremental values
  reported for the ``Household Service Line Replacement Costs'' category do not represent a net cost savings to households. They represent an assumed
  shift of the estimated service line replacement costs from households to systems. The EPA has insufficient information to estimate the actual service
  line replacement cost-sharing relationship between customers and systems at a national level for this analysis.

2. Annualized Per-Household Costs
    The SafeWater LCR cost model calculates the annualized cost per 
household by first calculating the cost per gallon of water produced by 
the CWS. This cost per gallon represents the cost incurred by the 
system to comply with the requirements of the LCRI. This is a total 
cost for the system that includes the rule implementation and 
administration, sampling, service line inventory and replacement, CCT, 
point-of-use program (if a small system selects this compliance 
option), and public education and outreach component costs. Because of 
uncertainty in three important LCRI cost input variables, discussed in 
section VI.C of this preamble, the agency developed low- and high-cost 
scenarios. These scenarios produce a range in the estimated cost per 
gallon and two estimates for annualized per household costs.
    The SafeWater LCR model multiplies these low and high scenario 
costs per gallon by the average annual household consumption (in 
gallons) to determine the cost per household per year associated with 
increased costs borne by the CWS. Exhibits 7 and 8 (Exhibits 4-139 and 
4-140 in chapter 4 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis) show the 
distributions of incremental annualized costs for CWS households by 
primary water source and size category. Note that the percentiles 
represent the distribution of average household costs across CWSs in a 
category, not the distribution of costs across all households in a CWS 
category.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Note that, although the EPA assumed in the cost analysis 
that systems would pay for customer-side service line replacement, 
it is possible that, in some systems, individual homeowners may bear 
a much greater annual household burden that includes the customer-
side service line replacement. The EPA estimates the cost of 
removing the customer-owned portion of a service line to range from 
$1,920 to $5,400, with a central tendency (median) of $3,273. The 
percentage of customers in each water system paying the higher 
customer-side service line replacement costs depends on the number 
of lead and GRR service lines in the water system, the rate of 
replacement, and the details of the water system's service line 
replacement program.

                     Exhibit 7--Estimated Annualized Incremental Cost per Household by Community Water System Category--Low Scenario
                                                                       [2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             10th         25th         50th         75th         90th
        Ownership               Source water                 Size               Mean      percentile   percentile   percentile   percentile   percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private.................  Ground..................  Less than 100.........       $67.10       $28.10       $39.80       $57.80       $89.00      $117.00
Private.................  Ground..................  101 to 500............        22.50         6.40        11.40        19.40        28.10        43.50
Private.................  Ground..................  501 to 1,000..........         4.60         1.20         1.60         3.00         6.10         8.50
Private.................  Ground..................  1,001 to 3,300........         2.70         0.60         0.90         1.60         3.60         4.80
Private.................  Ground..................  3,301 to 10,000.......         8.50        -0.20         0.60         5.00        14.50        25.00
Private.................  Ground..................  10,001 to 50,000......         6.50         0.10         0.60         6.40        11.20        14.30
Private.................  Ground..................  50,001 to 100,000.....         7.50         0.00         0.30         8.70        11.70        13.90
Private.................  Ground..................  100,001 to 1,000,000..         4.70         0.00         0.20         3.80         8.50         9.70
Private.................  Surface.................  Less than 100.........        59.20        23.40        32.80        50.90        78.60       106.40
Private.................  Surface.................  101 to 500............        17.70         5.60         8.40        15.00        22.40        33.70
Private.................  Surface.................  501 to 1,000..........         4.30         1.50         1.90         2.80         5.20         8.70
Private.................  Surface.................  1,001 to 3,300........         2.60         0.60         0.70         1.40         3.20         4.60
Private.................  Surface.................  3,301 to 10,000.......         9.70         0.30         0.80         6.40        15.30        26.20
Private.................  Surface.................  10,001 to 50,000......         5.50         0.20         0.50         4.70         9.60        13.00
Private.................  Surface.................  50,001 to 100,000.....         7.00         0.00         2.00         7.90        10.90        13.80
Private.................  Surface.................  100,001 to 1,000,000..         5.70         0.00         0.20         6.10         9.70        12.10
Private.................  Surface.................  Greater than 1,000,000         1.90         1.30         1.30         2.40         2.40         2.60
Public..................  Ground..................  Less than 100.........        52.20        23.40        31.60        43.50        69.50        93.90
Public..................  Ground..................  101 to 500............        14.80         4.90         7.40        11.80        18.60        28.10
Public..................  Ground..................  501 to 1,000..........         3.70         1.20         1.60         2.50         4.40         6.70
Public..................  Ground..................  1,001 to 3,300........         2.00         0.50         0.70         1.30         2.50         3.50
Public..................  Ground..................  3,301 to 10,000.......         7.10         0.20         0.60         4.30        11.30        19.30

[[Page 86579]]

 
Public..................  Ground..................  10,001 to 50,000......         4.50         0.10         0.50         4.00         7.30        10.20
Public..................  Ground..................  50,001 to 100,000.....         5.20         0.00         0.90         6.00         8.20         9.90
Public..................  Ground..................  100,001 to 1,000,000..         5.20         0.00         1.20         6.30         8.00         9.60
Public..................  Ground..................  Greater than 1,000,000         0.60         0.30         0.30         0.80         0.80         0.90
Public..................  Surface.................  Less than 100.........        54.30        21.00        29.70        52.50        72.20        90.30
Public..................  Surface.................  101 to 500............        12.60         4.40         6.30        10.20        15.50        23.60
Public..................  Surface.................  501 to 1,000..........         3.50         1.30         1.60         2.40         4.20         6.40
Public..................  Surface.................  1,001 to 3,300........         2.00         0.50         0.70         1.20         2.30         3.40
Public..................  Surface.................  3,301 to 10,000.......         7.90         0.50         0.80         5.30        12.90        20.60
Public..................  Surface.................  10,001 to 50,000......         5.00         0.20         0.60         4.60         8.40        11.10
Public..................  Surface.................  50,001 to 100,000.....         5.90         0.00         0.40         6.50         9.50        11.80
Public..................  Surface.................  100,001 to 1,000,000..         6.50         0.10         0.50         7.60        10.00        12.10
Public..................  Surface.................  Greater than 1,000,000         2.40         0.30         0.60         2.00         2.40         5.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Rows are not included for system categories that contain zero systems. Detailed rows may not add exactly to the total due to independent
  rounding.
When evaluating the economic impacts on PWSs, the EPA uses the estimated PWS cost of capital to discount future costs (not the 2 percent discount rate
  used to evaluate social costs and benefit) because this best represents the actual costs of compliance that water systems would incur over time. For
  more information on cost of capital, see the final LCRI Economic Analysis chapter 4, section 4.2.3.3.

                    Exhibit 8--Estimated Annualized Incremental Cost per Household by Community Water System Category--High Scenario
                                                                       [2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             10th         25th         50th         75th         90th
         Funding                Source Water                 Size               Mean      percentile   percentile   percentile   percentile   percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private.................  Ground..................  Less than 100.........       $64.60       $25.50       $35.50       $55.40       $87.40      $115.80
Private.................  Ground..................  101 to 500............        22.00         4.60         9.40        18.70        27.70        46.80
Private.................  Ground..................  501 to 1,000..........         4.80         1.00         1.50         2.90         6.50        11.00
Private.................  Ground..................  1,001 to 3,300........         2.80         0.50         0.80         1.50         3.70         5.20
Private.................  Ground..................  3,301 to 10,000.......        11.20        -1.70         0.60         6.20        19.50        34.00
Private.................  Ground..................  10,001 to 50,000......         8.90         0.10         0.50         8.00        15.40        20.40
Private.................  Ground..................  50,001 to 100,000.....        10.60         0.00         0.10        12.00        16.70        20.10
Private.................  Ground..................  100,001 to 1,000,000..         6.50         0.00         0.20         6.10        11.70        13.80
Private.................  Surface.................  Less than 100.........        57.20        20.90        29.90        49.30        79.90       108.10
Private.................  Surface.................  101 to 500............        16.70         2.60         6.90        13.30        21.20        35.10
Private.................  Surface.................  501 to 1,000..........         4.40         1.20         1.80         2.70         5.60         9.70
Private.................  Surface.................  1,001 to 3,300........         2.80         0.50         0.70         1.20         3.40         5.20
Private.................  Surface.................  3,301 to 10,000.......        12.50        -0.50         0.70         7.10        20.30        36.60
Private.................  Surface.................  10,001 to 50,000......         7.50         0.10         0.60         4.90        13.10        18.20
Private.................  Surface.................  50,001 to 100,000.....         9.80         0.00         2.20        10.90        15.30        19.40
Private.................  Surface.................  100,001 to 1,000,000..         8.00         0.00         0.10         8.50        14.00        16.90
Private.................  Surface.................  Greater than 1,000,000         2.50         1.60         1.60         3.20         3.20         3.40
Public..................  Ground..................  Less than 100.........        51.70        22.20        29.40        44.40        71.70        92.10
Public..................  Ground..................  101 to 500............        15.00         4.40         6.40        11.50        18.80        30.60
Public..................  Ground..................  501 to 1,000..........         4.00         1.20         1.50         2.50         4.80         8.20
Public..................  Ground..................  1,001 to 3,300........         2.30         0.40         0.70         1.20         2.70         4.30
Public..................  Ground..................  3,301 to 10,000.......         8.70        -0.60         0.50         4.40        15.00        26.30
Public..................  Ground..................  10,001 to 50,000......         6.20         0.10         0.50         5.70        10.50        14.40
Public..................  Ground..................  50,001 to 100,000.....         7.30         0.00         1.50         8.40        11.70        14.20
Public..................  Ground..................  100,001 to 1,000,000..         7.20         0.00         2.00         8.60        11.00        13.50
Public..................  Ground..................  Greater than 1,000,000         0.80         0.30         0.30         1.10         1.10         1.20
Public..................  Surface.................  Less than 100.........        52.90        19.40        28.50        50.30        71.00        90.50
Public..................  Surface.................  101 to 500............        12.60         3.80         5.40         9.80        15.80        25.50
Public..................  Surface.................  501 to 1,000..........         3.60         1.10         1.50         2.30         4.60         7.60
Public..................  Surface.................  1,001 to 3,300........         2.20         0.40         0.60         1.20         2.60         4.00
Public..................  Surface.................  3,301 to 10,000.......         9.90         0.10         0.70         5.80        17.00        27.90
Public..................  Surface.................  10,001 to 50,000......         7.00         0.20         0.60         6.20        11.70        16.00
Public..................  Surface.................  50,001 to 100,000.....         8.20         0.00         0.40         9.00        13.50        16.70
Public..................  Surface.................  100,001 to 1,000,000..         9.10         0.00         0.60        10.50        14.10        17.00
Public..................  Surface.................  Greater than 1,000,000         3.20         0.30         0.80         2.60         3.30         6.90
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Rows are not included for system categories that contain zero systems. Detailed rows may not add exactly to the total due to independent
  rounding.
When evaluating the economic impacts on PWSs, the EPA uses the estimated PWS cost of capital to discount future costs (not the two percent discount rate
  used to evaluate social costs and benefit) because this best represents the actual costs of compliance that water systems would incur over time. For
  more information on cost of capital, see the final LCRI Economic Analysis chapter 4, section 4.2.3.3.

3. State Costs
    For each of the PWS cost components and subcomponents, previously 
described in section VI.D.1 of this preamble, States (i.e., primacy 
agencies) have associated costs. Exhibit 9 (Exhibit 4-141 in the final 
LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a)) provides a list of the State 
activities, organized by LCRI cost component and subcomponent groups, 
for which the EPA developed unit costs. Detailed information on the 
derivation of the unit costs associated with each State activity can be 
found in the sections of the final LCRI Economic Analysis identified in 
Exhibit 9.

[[Page 86580]]

     Exhibit 9--State Cost Components, Subcomponents, and Activities
                        Organized by Section \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Component              Subcomponents        Activities \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.4.1: State Implementation     4.4.1.1: State     (a) Adopt rule and
 and Administrative Costs.       Start-up           develop program.
                                 Implementation    (b) Modify data
                                 and                management systems.
                                 Administrative    (c) Provide system
                                 Activities.        training and
                                                    technical
                                                    assistance.
                                                   (d) Provide staff
                                                    training.
                                                   (e) Review and
                                                    approve small system
                                                    flexibility option.
                                4.4.1.2: State     (f) Coordinate with
                                 Annual             the EPA.
                                 Implementation    (g) Provide ongoing
                                 and                technical
                                 Administrative     assistance.
                                 Activities.       (h) Report to SDWIS/
                                                    Fed.
                                                   (i) Train staff for
                                                    annual
                                                    administration.
4.4.2: State Sampling Related   4.4.2.1: State     (a) Provide templates
 Costs.                          Lead Tap           for revised sampling
                                 Sampling Costs.    instructions and
                                                    conduct review.
                                                   (b) Review updated
                                                    sampling plan.
                                                   (c) Review initial
                                                    lead monitoring data
                                                    and prepare systems
                                                    for status under the
                                                    LCRI.
                                                   (d) Review change in
                                                    tap sample
                                                    locations.
                                                   (e) Review 9-year
                                                    monitoring waiver
                                                    renewal.
                                                   (f) Review sample
                                                    invalidation
                                                    requests.
                                                   (g) Review consumer
                                                    notification
                                                    certifications.
                                                   (h) Review monitoring
                                                    results and 90th
                                                    percentile
                                                    calculations.
                                4.4.2.2: State     (i) Review lead WQP
                                 Lead WQP           sampling data and
                                 Sampling Costs.    compliance with
                                                    OWQPs.
                                4.4.2.3: State     (j) Review copper WQP
                                 Copper WQP         sampling data and
                                 Monitoring Costs.  compliance with
                                                    OWQPs.
                                4.4.2.4: State     (k) Review source
                                 Source Water       water monitoring
                                 Monitoring Costs.  results.
                                4.4.2.5: State     (l) Review list of
                                 School Sampling    schools and child
                                 Costs.             care facilities.
                                                   (m) Provide templates
                                                    on school and child
                                                    care facility
                                                    testing program.
                                                   (n) Review school and
                                                    child care facility
                                                    testing program
                                                    materials.
                                                   (o) Review school and
                                                    child care facility
                                                    sampling results
                                                    after individual
                                                    sampling events.
                                                   (p) Review annual
                                                    reports on school
                                                    and child care
                                                    facility lead in
                                                    drinking water
                                                    testing program.
4.4.3: State CCT Related Costs  4.4.3.1: CCT       (a) Review CCT study
                                 Installation.      and determine type
                                                    of CCT to be
                                                    installed.
                                                   (b) Set OWQPs after
                                                    CCT installation.
                                4.4.3.2: Re-       (c) Review CCT study
                                 optimization.      and determine needed
                                                    OCCT adjustment.
                                                   (d) Reset OWQPs after
                                                    CCT re-optimization.
                                4.4.3.3: State     (e) Consult with
                                 DSSA Costs.        system prior to any
                                                    DSSA CCT
                                                    adjustments.
                                                   (f) Review report on
                                                    DSSA responses.
                                4.4.3.4: State     (g) Review CCT
                                 Lead CCT Routine   guidance and
                                 Costs.             applicability to
                                                    individual PWSs.
                                                   (h) Review water
                                                    quality data with
                                                    PWSs during sanitary
                                                    survey.
                                                   (i) Consult on
                                                    required actions in
                                                    response to source
                                                    water change.
                                                   (j) Consult on
                                                    required actions in
                                                    response to
                                                    treatment change.
4.4.4: State Service Line       4.4.4.1: Service   (a) Review connector
 Inventory and Replacement       Line Inventory     updated LCRR initial
 Related Costs.                  Costs.             inventory (baseline
                                                    inventory).
                                                   (b) Review annual
                                                    service line
                                                    inventory updates.
                                                   (c) Review inventory
                                                    validation report.
                                4.4.4.2: Service   (d) Review initial
                                 Line Replacement   service line
                                 Plan Review        replacement plan.
                                 Costs.            (e) Review
                                                    information on
                                                    deferred deadline
                                                    and associated
                                                    replacement rate in
                                                    the service line
                                                    replacement plan and
                                                    determine fastest
                                                    feasible rate.
                                                   (f) Review annually
                                                    updated service line
                                                    replacement plan or
                                                    certification of no
                                                    change.
                                                   (g) Conduct triennial
                                                    review of water
                                                    system updated
                                                    recommended deferred
                                                    deadline and
                                                    associated
                                                    replacement rate and
                                                    determine fastest
                                                    feasible rate.
                                4.4.4.3: Service   (h) Review annual
                                 Line Replacement   service line
                                 Report Review      replacement program
                                 Costs.             report.
4.4.5: State POU Related Costs  4.4.5.1: One-Time  (a) Review POU plan.
                                 POU Program       (b) Provide templates
                                 Costs.             for POU outreach
                                                    materials.
                                                   (c) Review POU public
                                                    education materials.
                                4.4.5.2: Ongoing   (d) Review sample
                                 POU Program        invalidation request
                                 Costs.             for POU monitoring.
                                                   (e) Review customer
                                                    notification
                                                    certifications.
                                                   (f) Review annual POU
                                                    program report.
4.4.6: State Public Education-  4.4.6.1: Consumer  (a) Provide templates
 Related Costs.                  Notice.            for consumer notice
                                                    materials.
                                                   (b) Review lead
                                                    consumer notice
                                                    materials.
                                                   (c) Review copy of
                                                    the consumer notice
                                                    and certification.

[[Page 86581]]

 
                                4.4.6.2:           (d) Provide templates
                                 Activities         for updated CCR
                                 Regardless of      language.
                                 the Lead 90th     (e) Provide templates
                                 Percentile Level.  for local and State
                                                    health department
                                                    lead outreach.
                                                   (f) Review lead
                                                    outreach materials
                                                    for local and State
                                                    health departments.
                                                   (g) Participate in
                                                    joint communication
                                                    efforts with local
                                                    and State health
                                                    departments.
                                                   (h) Provide templates
                                                    for service line
                                                    disturbance outreach
                                                    materials.
                                                   (i) Review public
                                                    education materials
                                                    for service line
                                                    disturbances.
                                                   (j) Provide templates
                                                    for inventory-
                                                    related outreach
                                                    materials.
                                                   (k) Review inventory-
                                                    related outreach
                                                    materials.
                                                   (l) Provide technical
                                                    assistance to PWSs
                                                    for public education
                                                    materials.
                                                   (m) Review public
                                                    education
                                                    certifications.
                                4.4.6.3: Public    (n) Provide templates
                                 Education          for updated public
                                 Activities in      education materials
                                 Response to Lead   for systems with a
                                 ALE.               lead ALE.
                                                   (o) Review revised
                                                    lead language for
                                                    systems with a lead
                                                    ALE.
                                                   (p) Consult with CWS
                                                    on other public
                                                    education activities
                                                    in response to lead
                                                    ALE.
                                4.4.6.4: Public    (q) Review plan for
                                 Education          making filters
                                 Activities in      available.
                                 Response to       (r) Provide templates
                                 Multiple Lead      for systems with
                                 ALEs.              multiple lead ALEs.
                                                   (s) Review outreach
                                                    materials provided
                                                    by systems with
                                                    multiple lead ALEs.
                                                   (t) Consult on filter
                                                    program for systems
                                                    with multiple lead
                                                    ALEs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ALE = action level exceedance; CCR = Consumer Confidence
  Report; CCT = corrosion control treatment; CWS = community water
  system; DSSA = Distribution System and Site Assessment; LCRI = Lead
  and Copper Rule Improvements; LSL = lead service line; LSLR = lead
  service line replacement; OWQPs = optimal water quality parameters;
  POU = point-of-use; PWS = public water system; SDWIS/Fed = Safe
  Drinking Water Act Information System/Federal version; WQP = water
  quality parameter.
Notes:
\1\ Numbering and lettering in the exhibit represents the sections in
  the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), where additional
  information on the definition of and derivation of burden and cost for
  each activity is located. States will also incur burden for
  recordkeeping activities under the final LCRI, such as retaining
  records of decisions, supporting documentation, technical basis for
  decisions, and documentation submitted by the system. The EPA has
  included burden for recordkeeping with each activity when applicable
  as opposed to providing separate burden estimates.
\2\ The EPA assigned a unique letter of identification (ID) for each
  activity under a given rule component. Activities are generally
  organized with upfront, one-time activities first followed by ongoing
  activities. Note that these activities are different than the
  activities identified for PWSs in Exhibit 5.

    In the SafeWater LCR model, the majority of the costs associated 
with States are determined on a per water system basis. State 
activities and costs are largely driven by the rule requirements for 
individual water systems. The exception is the implementation and 
administrative costs that are tallied on a per-State basis. The per-
water-system State costs and per-State costs are summed to obtain 
aggregate costs for this category. For additional information on how 
the SafeWater LCR model uses unit cost data to estimate State costs, 
see chapter 4, section 4.4 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a).
    The SafeWater LCR cost model estimates that States will incur 
monetized incremental estimated annualized costs that range from $28 
million to $26 million under the low- and high-cost scenarios, 
respectively, when presented in 2022 dollars and discounted at the two 
percent rate.
4. Costs Impacts Associated With Additional Phosphate Usage
    Adding orthophosphate CCT creates a protective inner coating on 
pipes that can inhibit lead leaching. However, once phosphate is added 
to the public water distribution system, some of this incremental 
loading remains in the water stream as it flows into wastewater 
treatment plants (WWTPs) downstream. This generates treatment costs for 
certain WWTPs. In addition, at those locations where treatment does not 
occur, water with elevated phosphorus concentrations may discharge to 
water bodies and induce certain ecological impacts. Due to many water 
systems operating both the wastewater and drinking water systems, the 
EPA is evaluating the costs of additional phosphate usage for 
informational purposes. Because these costs are associated with 
wastewater treatment to meet Clean Water Act regulatory requirements, 
they are not ``likely to occur solely as a result of compliance'' with 
the final LCRI, and, therefore, are not costs considered as part of the 
HRRCA under SDWA, section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(III).
    To estimate the potential fate of the orthophosphate added at PWSs, 
the EPA developed a conceptual mass balance model. The EPA applied this 
conceptual model to estimate the increase in loading at WWTPs, given an 
initial loading from corrosion control at water treatment plants. The 
WWTPs could incur costs because of upstream orthophosphate additions if 
they have permit discharge limits for phosphorus parameters. The 
percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus limits has increased over time. 
From 2007 to 2024,\23\ in annual percentage rate terms, the growth rate 
in the percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus limits is 3.4 percent (see 
chapter 4, section 4.5.1 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis; USEPA, 
2024a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The agency used WWTP phosphorus limit data from the EPA's 
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) ``Water Pollutant Loading Tool'' 
using search criteria limiting results to the phosphorus parameter 
group and WWTPs only. The DMR Water Pollutant Loading Tool data is 
only available from 2007 onward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA applied the growth rate observed from 2007 to 2024 to 
estimate the anticipated percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus limits in 
future years. This growth rate results in an estimated 61 percent of 
WWTPs with phosphorus discharge limits after 35 years. Applied

[[Page 86582]]

as the percentage of WWTPs that need to take treatment actions, this 
estimate is likely conservative.
    The specific actions a WWTP might need to take to maintain 
compliance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) phosphorus permit limit will depend on the type of treatment 
present at the WWTP and the corresponding phosphorus removal provided. 
Based on a review of NPDES data, it is likely that most of the WWTPs 
that already have phosphorus limits have some type of treatment to 
achieve the limit.
    Some treatment processes can accommodate incremental increases in 
influent loading and still maintain their current removal efficiency. 
Such processes might not need significant adjustment to maintain their 
existing phosphorus removal efficiency, given an incremental increase. 
Other treatment processes may need modifications to their design or 
operation to maintain their removal efficiency in the face of an 
influent loading increase.
    The EPA derived a unit cost of $5.44 per pound for removing 
incremental phosphorus (for additional information, see chapter 4, 
section 4.5.1 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis; USEPA, 2024a). This 
unit cost includes the cost of additional chemical consumption and the 
operating cost of additional sludge processing and disposal. The costs 
a WWTP could incur depend on the magnitude of the loading increase 
relative to the specific WWTP's effluent permit limit. The WWTPs whose 
current discharge concentrations are closer to their limit are more 
likely to have to act. The WWTPs whose current treated water 
concentrations are well below their limit are less likely to incur 
costs but might, under certain conditions, incur costs (e.g., when 
phosphorus removal achieved by technology in place at a WWTP is 
sensitive to incremental phosphorus loading increases and must be 
modified to continue to meet the limit). Furthermore, future phosphorus 
limits could be more stringent than existing limits.
    Therefore, the EPA conservatively assumed that any WWTP with a 
discharge limit for phosphorus parameters could incur costs. 
Accordingly, in calculating costs, the EPA used the anticipated 
percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus discharge limits as the likelihood 
that incremental orthophosphate loading from a drinking water system 
would reach a WWTP with a limit. The EPA combined this likelihood and 
the unit cost (previously estimated) with incremental phosphorus 
loadings to calculate incremental costs to WWTPs for each year of the 
period of analysis. The incremental annualized cost that the WWTPs 
would incur to remove additional phosphorous associated with the LCRI, 
under the low- and high-cost scenario, ranges from $120,000 to $300,000 
at a two percent discount rate.
    The EPA estimates that WWTP treatment reduces phosphorus loads 
reaching water bodies by 59 percent, but they are not eliminated. The 
rule's national-level total incremental phosphorus loads reaching water 
bodies are projected to change over the period of analysis from the 
low/high scenario range of 225,000 to 272,000 pounds 15 years after 
promulgation to the low/high scenario range of 216,000 to 260,000 
pounds at year 35. Note that the EPA model assumes that once CCT is 
installed or re-optimized phosphate use remains constant over the 
remainder of the period of analysis. Because most CCT implementation is 
carried out prior to complete LSL removal and the model does not allow 
for reductions in the use of phosphate after systems remove all their 
lead content service lines the EPA's CCT cost estimates and phosphorus 
loading estimates to both WWTPs and receiving waterbodies may be 
overestimated. See chapter 4, section 4.5.2 of the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for information on how loading estimates are 
calculated. The ecological impacts of these increased phosphorous 
loadings are highly localized: total incremental phosphorus loadings 
will depend on the amount and timing of the releases, characteristics 
of the receiving water body, effluent discharge rate, existing total 
phosphorus levels, and weather and climate conditions. Detailed, 
spatially explicit information on effluents and on receiving water 
bodies does not exist in a form suitable for this analysis. Rather, to 
evaluate the potential ecological impacts of the rule, the EPA 
evaluated the significance of the national-level phosphorus loadings 
compared to other phosphorous sources in the terrestrial ecosystem.
    To put these phosphorus loadings in context, estimates from the 
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Spatially Referenced Regression On 
Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) model suggest that anthropogenic sources 
deposit roughly 750 million pounds of total phosphorus per year (USEPA, 
2019c). The total phosphorus loadings from the LCRI high-cost scenario 
would contribute about 0.5 percent (3.6 million/750 million) of total 
phosphorus entering receiving waterbodies in a given year, and the 
incremental amount of total phosphorus associated with the final LCRI 
relative to the baseline (2021 LCRR) grows only 0.03 percent (260,000/
750 million). At the national level, the EPA expects total phosphorus 
entering waterbodies as a result of the final LCRI update to be small, 
relative to the total phosphorus load deposited annually from all other 
sources. National average load impacts may obscure localized ecological 
impacts in some circumstances, but the existing data do not allow an 
assessment as to whether this incremental load will induce ecological 
impacts in particular areas. It is possible, however, that localized 
impacts may occur in certain water bodies without restrictions on 
phosphate influents or in locations with existing elevated phosphate 
levels.
    An increase in phosphorus loadings can lead to economic impacts and 
undesirable aesthetic impacts. Excess nutrient pollution can cause 
eutrophication (excessive plant and algae growth) in lakes, reservoirs, 
streams, and estuaries throughout the United States. Eutrophication, by 
inducing primary production, leads to seasonal decomposition of 
additional biomass and consumption of oxygen, creating a state of 
hypoxia (or low oxygen) within the water body. In extreme cases, the 
low- to no-oxygen states can create dead zones, or areas in the water 
where aquatic life cannot survive. Studies indicate that eutrophication 
can decrease aquatic diversity for this reason (e.g., Dodds et al., 
2009). Eutrophication may also stimulate the growth of harmful algal 
blooms (HABs) or over-abundant algae or cyanobacteria populations. 
Algal blooms can seriously harm the aquatic ecosystem by blocking 
sunlight and creating diurnal swings in oxygen levels because of 
overnight respiration. Such conditions can starve and deplete aquatic 
species. In addition, rapid photosynthesis may consume dissolved 
inorganic carbon and elevate pH levels (Chislock et al., 2013). Certain 
types of phosphorous-fueled cyanobacterial blooms may produce toxins to 
both humans and aquatic life. These toxins can include microcystins 
(liver toxins) and neurotoxins. This issue is particularly prevalent in 
lakes or other slow-flowing water bodies. HABs producing cyanotoxins 
that occur in sources in drinking water can impact drinking water 
(USEPA, 2024m). HAB events have also directly or indirectly contributed 
to fish kill events by causing the absorption or ingestion of toxins, 
or by creating conditions of limited sunlight and oxygen (Glibert et 
al., 2005). In addition to lethal impacts on aquatic organisms, toxins 
produced

[[Page 86583]]

by HABs can harm terrestrial wildlife and livestock that are exposed to 
toxins in sufficient levels (Backer, 2002; Chislock et al., 2013).
5. Total Monetized Costs
    The estimated annualized low- and high-cost scenarios, discounted 
at two percent, that PWSs, households,\24\ and States will incur in 
complying with the baseline (2021 LCRR), the final LCRI, and 
incrementally are summarized in Exhibit 10. The estimated total 
monetized incremental annualized cost of the final LCRI range from 
$1.47 to $1.95 billion at a two percent discount rate, in 2022 dollars. 
The exhibit also details the proportion of the annualized costs 
attributable to each rule component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Note that as part of the baseline (LCRR) analysis of 
service line replacement costs the EPA assumed that customer-side 
service line replacements under the goal-based service line 
replacement program would be paid by the household. For the 
estimation of LCRI service line replacement costs the EPA assumed 
that all replacement cost would be borne by the PWS. These differing 
costing assumptions result in the positive household costs (not 
accruing to PWSs) reported under the baseline (LCRR) cost estimates 
while no household service line replacement costs are reported under 
the LCRI. These assumptions also result in decreased incremental 
costs for the LCRI under household service line replacement costs, 
but the cost of replacing the customer portion of service lines is 
now included, by assumption, in the LCRI incremental costs for PWS 
service line replacement.

                                 Exhibit 10--Estimated National Monetized Annualized Rule Costs--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    PWS annual costs                                       Low estimate                                    High estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Rule component                          Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $134.0          $166.0           $32.0          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6
PWS Service Line Replacement *..........................            84.6         1,259.0         1,174.4           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4
Corrosion Control Technology............................           552.0           591.1            39.1           647.8           692.9            45.1
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             2.4             5.1             2.7             5.9             9.6             3.7
Public Education and Outreach...........................            69.6           267.3           197.7            72.1           302.2           230.1
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.1             3.4             3.3             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           842.7         2,291.9         1,449.2           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1
Household Service Line Replacement Costs **.............             8.1             0.0            -8.1            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            38.4            66.1            27.7            41.8            67.6            25.8
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs ***....................             3.0             3.0             0.0             4.8             5.1             0.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................           892.2         2,361.0         1,468.8         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain variables
  which vary between the low- and high-cost scenarios.
* Service line replacement includes full and partial lead and GRR service line replacements.
** The EPA in the LCRR Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020d) assumed that the cost of customer-side service line replacements made under the goal-based
  replacement rate would be paid for by households. The agency also assumed that system-side service line replacements under the goal-based replacement
  rate and all service line replacements (both customer-side and systems-side) would be paid by the PWS under the 3 percent mandatory replacement rate.
  The EPA made these modeling assumptions based on the different levels of regulatory responsibility systems faced operating under a goal-based
  replacement rate versus a mandatory replacement rate. While systems would not be subject to a potential violation for not meeting the target
  replacement rate under the goal-based replacement requirement, under the 3 percent mandatory replacement rate, the possibility of a violation could
  motivate more systems to meet the target replacement rate even if they had to adopt customer incentive programs that would shift the cost of replacing
  customer-side service lines from customers to the system. To be consistent with these LCRR modeling assumptions, under the LCRI, the EPA assumed that
  mandatory replacement costs would fall only on systems. Therefore, the negative incremental values reported for the ``Household Service Line
  Replacement Costs'' category do not represent a net cost savings to households. They represent an assumed shift of the estimated service line
  replacement costs from households to systems. The EPA has insufficient information to estimate the actual service line replacement cost-sharing
  relationship between customers and systems at a national level for this analysis.
*** Due to many water systems operating both the wastewater and drinking water systems, the EPA is evaluating the costs of additional phosphate usage
  for informational purposes. Because these costs are not incurred by the public water system, these costs are not ``likely to occur solely as a result
  of compliance'' with the LCRI, and, therefore, are not costs considered as part of HRRCA under SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(III).
Acronyms: LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; PWS = public water system.

E. Benefits Analysis

    The final LCRI is expected to result in significant health 
benefits, since both lead and copper are associated with adverse health 
effects. Lead is a highly toxic pollutant that can damage neurological, 
cardiovascular, immunological, developmental, and other major body 
systems (USEPA, 2024b). The EPA is particularly concerned about ongoing 
exposure experienced by children because lead can affect brain 
development, which impacts lifelong level of function. Additionally, 
children, through their physiology and water ingestion requirements, 
may be at higher risk. Research shows that, on average, formula-fed 
infants and young children consume more drinking water per day on a 
body weight basis than adolescents. Using the USDA Continuing Survey of 
Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) data, (Kahn and Stralka, 2008) 
demonstrated this trend is most pronounced in children under one year 
of age who drink more than double the amount older children and adults 
drink per kg of body weight. Additionally, children absorb two to four 
times more lead than adults through the gastrointestinal tract (Mushak, 
1991; WHO, 2011; and Ziegler et al., 1978). No safe blood lead level in 
children has been identified (CDC, 2024). The EPA assessed the 
quantification potential of those health endpoints identified in the 
agency's lead integrated science

[[Page 86584]]

assessments (ISAs) (2013 and 2024) and the NTP monograph (NTP, 2012), 
and summarized in appendix D of the final LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2024a). The EPA's health risk reduction and benefits assessment 
of the LCRI requirements concentrates on quantification and 
monetization of the estimated impact of reductions in lead exposure on 
four health endpoints: IQ values and cases of ADHD in children, lower 
birth weights in children of women of childbearing age, and cases of 
cardiovascular disease premature mortality in adults. The EPA has 
focused on these four health endpoints as the dose-response functions 
for these quantified health endpoints have been extensively reviewed by 
the agency and in the case of reductions in IQ losses, low birth weight 
and cardiovascular mortality, externally peer reviewed. Also, the 
approach used for IQ has been used in multiple rulemakings and 
undergone SAB review. As explained in appendix D of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), there are additional non-quantified 
lead health impacts to both children and adults that will be realized 
as a result of this rulemaking including: cardiovascular morbidity 
effects, renal effects, reproductive and developmental effects (apart 
from ADHD), immunological effects, neurological effects (apart from 
children's IQ), and cancer. Therefore, the quantified benefits of this 
rule likely underestimate the true social benefits.
    Although copper is an essential element for health, excess intake 
of copper has been associated with several adverse health effects. Most 
commonly, excess exposure to copper results in gastrointestinal 
symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (National Research 
Council, 2000). In susceptible populations, such as individuals with 
genetic disorders (i.e., Wilson's Disease) or predispositions to 
accumulate copper, chronic exposure to excess copper can result in 
liver toxicity. Because household level data on the changes in copper 
concentrations that result from changes in CCT are not available, this 
analysis does not quantify any potential benefits from reduced copper 
exposure that may result from the rule. See appendix E in the final 
LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for additional copper health 
impact information.
1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead Concentrations
    In updating the EPA's drinking water lead concentrations for the 
LCRI, the agency built upon the data and models used in the analysis 
for the 2021 LCRR. Detailed information on the residential lead 
concentration data and modeling from the 2021 LCRR can be found in 
chapter 6 of the final LCRR Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020d). In the 
2021 LCRR analysis, the EPA collected and used data on lead 
concentrations and information regarding LSL \25\ and CCT status, 
location, and date of sample collection, representing 14 water systems 
across the United States and Canada. The EPA updated this data for the 
LCRI analysis by initially identifying eight additional sampling 
datasets.\26\ After close assessment, it was determined that seven of 
the datasets had data availability and study design issues and could 
not be included.\27\ Only the 532 samples collected from the City of 
Clarksburg, WV, in fall to winter of 2021 could be added to the lead 
concentration dataset, resulting in a total of 18,571 samples collected 
from 1,657 homes in 16 cities representing 15 city water systems. The 
EPA grouped the samples into LSL status categories (``LSL,'' ``Partial 
LSL,'' and ``No LSL''). The samples were also grouped by CCT treatment, 
assigning status as having ``None,'' ``Partial,'' or 
``Representative.'' ``Partial'' includes those water systems with some 
pH adjustment and lower doses of a phosphate corrosion inhibitor, but 
this treatment is not optimized. ``Representative'' are those water 
systems in the dataset that have higher doses of phosphate inhibitors, 
which are considered optimized in the model. For additional 
information, see chapter 5, section 5.2.1 of the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Note, no GRR lines are part of the profile dataset. See 
below in this section for a discussion of assumed GRR water lead 
concentrations.
    \26\ The EPA identified 8 datasets from Clarksburg, WV, 
Cleveland, OH, Chicago, IL, Kalamazoo, MI, Parchment, MI, Flint, MI, 
Galesburg, IL, and Sebring, OH, with drinking water lead samples 
collected from 2016 to 2021.
    \27\ For additional information on the assessment of the lead 
concentration data, see chapter 5, section 5.2.1 of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA fit several regression models, following the same 
methodology from the 2021 LCRR benefits analysis (see chapter 6, 
section 6.2.2 of the final LCRR Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020d), of 
tap water lead concentrations as predicted by LSL presence (``LSL'' or 
``No LSL''), LSL extent (``Partial LSL''), CCT status, and ``profile 
liter.'' ``Profile liter'' is the cumulative volume a sample 
represented within a consecutive sampling series at a single location 
and time. Models that describe the profile liter accounted for the 
variation among sampling events, sampling sites, and city. The water 
lead concentrations exhibited a right-skewed distribution; therefore, 
the variable was log-transformed to provide a better modeled fit of the 
data. The EPA selected one of the regression models based on its fit 
and parsimony and used it to produce simulated lead concentrations for 
use in the benefits analysis (see Exhibit 5-8 in chapter 5 of the final 
LCRI Economic Analysis). The selected model suggests that besides water 
system, residence (sampling location), and sampling event, the largest 
effects on lead concentration in tap water come from the presence of 
LSLs and the number of liters drawn since the last stagnation period. 
Although CCT can reduce lead concentrations from LSLs and other sources 
of lead, such as residential plumbing fixtures, the presence or absence 
of CCT produces smaller effects on water lead concentration than the 
presence or absence of LSLs. Because locations with LSLs are more 
likely to have high lead concentrations than those without, CCT reduces 
water lead concentrations more in homes served by LSLs than in those 
not served by LSLs. See Exhibit 5-9 in chapter 5, section 5.2.2 of the 
final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for additional details and 
estimated regression coefficients. The regression results indicate 
that, although CCT can significantly reduce water lead concentrations, 
the removal of LSLs in systems with representative CCT will still 
reduce water lead concentrations.
    To statistically control for some sources of variability in the 
input data, the EPA, following the 2021 LCRR analysis, did not use 
summary statistics from the original data directly in estimating the 
effects of LSL and CCT status. Instead, the EPA produced simulated mean 
lead concentrations for 500,000 samples based on the selected 
regression model. These concentrations were simulated for the first 10 
profile liter values taken after stagnation. The simulations were 
performed on the log-scale to conform to the fitted model (which used a 
log-transformed water lead concentration variable) and converted to the 
original scale to produce geometric means and geometric standard 
deviations. Geometric means are more representative of the central 
tendency of a right-skewed distribution than are arithmetic means and 
prevent overestimation of the impact of water lead levels on estimated 
blood lead levels and resulting benefits values. The simulated sample 
concentrations represent new estimates for the updated lead 
concentration dataset. These simulations rely on estimates of 
variability and uncertainty from the regression model (described above) 
and

[[Page 86585]]

given information on LSL and CCT status. For more detail regarding this 
analysis, see chapter 5, section 5.2.2 of the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a). Individual estimates are best thought of as 
the central tendency for a lead tap sample concentration, given 
regression model parameters and estimated variance. The simulated 
samples represent the volume weighted average lead concentration using 
data from the first 10 liters of profile data, approximating lead 
exposure at the tap for the final LCRI benefits analysis.
    The EPA estimates that improving CCT will produce significant 
reductions in lead tap water concentration overall. However, in the 
case of ``no LSL'' presence, the final model produced predictions of 
drinking water concentrations that overlapped almost completely for all 
CCT conditions.\28\ In the available profile data, there were no 
statistically significant differences in measured water lead 
concentrations between the different CCT scenarios when LSLs were not 
present, likely because, apart from and compared to LSLs, the remaining 
sources of lead in residential plumbing (old solder and brass) are 
small and contribute far less lead to a multi-liter sequential sampling 
profile. Therefore, the EPA used the pooled estimate of predicted 
drinking water concentrations for all residences with no LSL presence, 
regardless of CCT condition, for the main analysis in chapter 5 of the 
final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).\29\ Uncertainties in the 
water modeling are discussed in section 5.2.5 and in section 5.7, 
Exhibit 5-36 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ The EPA does not think that there are lead water mains in 
the country. Water mains are typically 6 to 16 inches in diameter 
whereas service lines have a smaller diameter. The common water main 
materials include ductile iron, PVC, asbestos cement, HDPE, and 
concrete steel (Folkman, 2018). LSLs are typically two inches or 
less in diameter (LSLR Collaborative, 2021).
    \29\ Note that, in the economic analysis, the EPA does not make 
restrictive assumptions in pairing specific CCT and LSL statuses. It 
is not improbable to have systems with CCT in place where no LSLs 
are present. The pre-2021 LCR requires all systems serving more than 
50,000 persons to install CCT. Systems may also install CCT for 
other reasons apart from the LCR. Also, a number of systems have had 
90th percentile tap sample values above the action level that 
require CCT even where LSLs are not present due to initial 
corrosivity of the water and secondary sources of lead like old 
brass and solder. It is possible for a system to have LSLs, but no 
CCT, because the existing water chemistry in a system may be non-
corrosive and, therefore, lead 90th percentile lead tap sample 
values may be lower than the action level. The EPA combined data 
from two sources to estimate the percent of CCT systems with LSLs 
(SDWIS/Fed and Needs Survey data). See sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 of 
the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for additional 
details.

    Exhibit 11--LSL and CCT Scenarios and Simulated Geometric Mean Tap Water Lead Concentrations and Standard
 Deviations for the First Ten Liters Drawn After Stagnation for Each Combination of LSL and CCT Status (Exhibit
                    Includes Assumed GRR, POU, and Pitcher Filter Water Lead Concentrations)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Simulated
                                                  Simulated mean   Simulated SD   geometric mean     Simulated
          LSL status               CCT status       of log lead     \a\ of log    lead ([micro]g/  geometric SD
                                                   ([micro]g/L)        lead             L)          \a\ of lead
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL...........................  None............            2.67            1.32           14.38            3.75
Partial LSL/GRR...............  None............            1.92            1.33            6.85            3.77
No LSL........................  None............       \b\ -0.19        \b\ 1.33        \b\ 0.83        \b\ 3.78
LSL...........................  Partial.........            2.07            1.33            7.93            3.77
Partial LSL/GRR...............  Partial.........            1.35            1.33            3.84            3.78
No LSL........................  Partial.........       \b\ -0.19        \b\ 1.33        \b\ 0.83        \b\ 3.78
LSL...........................  Representative..            1.45            1.33            4.27            3.78
Partial LSL/GRR...............  Representative..            0.76            1.33            2.14            3.78
No LSL........................  Representative..       \b\ -0.19        \b\ 1.33        \b\ 0.83        \b\ 3.78
POU and pitcher filters.........................       \b\ -0.19        \b\ 1.33        \b\ 0.83        \b\ 3.78
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: LSL = lead service line; CCT = corrosion control treatment; POU = point-of-use; SD = standard
  deviation.
\a\ Standard deviations reflect ``among-sampling event'' variability.
\b\ Simulated results were pooled to produce a common estimate for homes with no LSL presence across CCT
  conditions. Also, thee ``No LSL'' values were used for POU and pitcher filter lead tap concentrations.
Note: GRR service line water lead concentrations are assumed to equal ``Partial LSL'' concentrations.

    In the estimation of the benefits of the final LCRI, each modeled 
person within a water system is assigned to one of the estimated 
drinking water lead concentrations in Exhibit 11, depending on CCT, 
point-of-use, pitcher filter, and LSL/GRR service line status. Note 
that the EPA assumes GRR service lines produce water lead 
concentrations equivalent to the ``Partial LSL'' status, therefore, all 
households served by GRR service lines will have a starting water lead 
concentration equal to one of the three possible ``Partial LSL'' 
categories: ``Partial LSL/None CCT'', ``Partial LSL/Partial CCT'', 
``Partial LSL/representative CCT''. The EPA estimated benefits under 
both the low and high scenarios used in the final LCRI analysis to 
characterize uncertainty in the estimates. With regard to benefits, the 
low and high scenarios differ by the following: the number of PWSs that 
will exceed the action level under the revised tap sampling 
requirements; the concentration-response functions that characterize 
how reductions in blood lead levels (caused by changes in lead 
exposure) translate into estimates of avoided IQ reductions, cases of 
ADHD, and cardiovascular disease premature mortality; and high and low 
estimates of the ADHD cost of illness. See chapter 4, section 4.2 for 
an overview of the SafeWater LCR model and chapter 5, section 5.5 for a 
summary of the variables driving the benefit scenarios in the final 
LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a). The EPA predicted the status of 
each system under the low and high scenarios prior to rule 
implementation and in each year of rule implementation for both the 
baseline (2021 LCRR) and final LCRI. Depending on the timing of 
required actions that can change CCT, point-of-use device, pitcher 
filter, and LSL/GRR service line status under both the baseline (2021 
LCRR) and final LCRI low- and high-scenario model runs, changes in lead 
concentrations and resultant blood lead levels are predicted every year 
for the total population served by the systems for the 35-year period 
of analysis. In the primary benefits analysis for the final rule, 
improvements to CCT and the use of installed point-of-use devices are

[[Page 86586]]

only predicted for individuals in households with LSL/GRRs prior to 
implementation of the baseline (2021 LCRR) and final LCRI requirements 
(consistent with the discussion above about the limits of the data for 
predicting the impact of CCT when LSLs are not present). In the model, 
LSL/GRR service line removals are predicted by water system and year 
for both the baseline (2021 LCRR) and final LCRI and multiplied by the 
average number of persons per household (across demographic categories) 
to determine the number of people shifting from one LSL/GRR service 
line status to another. To predict the changes in lead exposure that 
result from an improvement in CCT, the EPA assumes the entire LSL/GRR 
service line population of a water system will move to the new CCT 
status at the same time. The EPA also assumes that when a small system 
implements point-of-use devices under the LCRI's small system 
compliance flexibilities the entire water system moves to a drinking 
water lead concentration equivalent to the ``No LSL/Representative 
CCT'' status in Exhibit 11, which implies that everyone in households 
in a distribution system with LSLs/GRR service lines is properly using 
the point-of-use devices. See section IV.I of this preamble for 
additional information on the compliance alternatives available to 
small CWSs and NTNCWSs. As part of the multiple action level exceedance 
requirements under the final LCRI, the EPA assumes that 100 percent of 
a water system's population with lead, GRR, and unknown service lines 
will request and receive pitcher filters or point-of-use devices and, 
hence, will move to a water lead concentration equivalent to the ``No 
LSL/Representative CCT'' status in Exhibit 11. This assumption implies 
that everyone who receives a pitcher filter or point-of-use device is 
using it properly. See section IV.K of this preamble for additional 
information on the regulatory requirements associated with multiple 
action level exceedances. See chapter 5, section 5.3 of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for more detailed information on the 
number of people switching lead concentration categories under the low 
and high scenarios.
2. Blood Lead Modeling
    The EPA has determined that health impact functions exist in the 
literature, so that the agency can quantify the improvements from the 
decreases in water lead concentrations that result from implementation 
of the final LCRI. The four health endpoints the EPA quantifies are 
increased IQ values and reduced cases of ADHD in children, reductions 
in lower birth weights in children of women of childbearing age, and 
reduced cases of cardiovascular disease premature mortality in adults. 
As a prerequisite to estimating the impact to these health endpoints, 
the EPA must first use the drinking water lead concentration data the 
agency developed to determine the potential impact to blood lead levels 
from the regulatory requirements under the baseline (2021 LCRR) and the 
final LCRI for both children aged zero to seven years, using the 
coupled Stochastic Human Exposure and Dose Simulation Multimedia 
(SHEDS-multimedia) model and the Integrated Exposure and Uptake 
Biokinetic model (SHEDS-Pb, formerly known as SHEDS-IEUBK), and 
children eight years old through adulthood with the All Ages Lead Model 
(AALM) version 3.
3. Estimating Blood Lead Levels in Children (0-7 year olds)
    Consistent with the 2021 LCRR benefits analysis, the EPA estimated 
the distribution of blood lead levels in children, aged zero to seven, 
using the EPA's SHEDS-Multimedia model coupled with its IEUBK model. 
For further information on SHEDS-Pb model development and evaluation, 
refer to Zartarian et al. (2017). As a first step in estimating the 
blood lead levels, the EPA utilized the SHEDS-Multimedia model, which 
can estimate distributions of lead exposure using a two-stage Monte 
Carlo sampling process, given input lead concentrations in various 
media and human behavior data from the EPA's Consolidated Human 
Activity Database (CHAD) and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention's (CDC) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 
(NHANES). SHEDS-Multimedia, in this case, uses individual time-activity 
diaries from the CDC's NHANES and the EPA's CHAD for children aged zero 
to seven to simulate longitudinal activity diaries. Information from 
these diaries is then combined with relevant lead input distributions 
(e.g., outdoor air lead concentrations) to estimate exposure. Drinking 
water tap concentrations for each of the modeled LSL and CCT scenarios 
were used as the drinking water inputs to SHEDS-Multimedia. For more 
detail on the other lead exposure pathways that are held constant as 
background in the model, see chapter 5, section 5.4 of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
    In the SHEDS-Pb coupled methodology, the SHEDS model takes the 
place of the exposure and variability components of the IEUBK model by 
generating a probability distribution of lead intakes across media. 
These intakes are multiplied by route-specific (e.g., inhalation and 
ingestion) absorption fractions to obtain a distribution of lead 
uptakes (see Exhibit 5-17 in chapter 5, section 5.4 of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis; USEPA, 2024a). This step is consistent with the 
uptake estimation that would normally occur within the IEUBK model. The 
media-specific uptakes can be summed across exposure routes to give 
total lead uptake per day. Next, the EPA used age-based relationships 
derived from the IEUBK model, through the use of a polynomial 
regression analysis, to relate these total lead uptakes to blood lead 
levels. Exhibit 12 presents modeled SHEDS-Pb blood lead levels in 
children by year of life and LSL presence, CCT status, and pitcher 
filter or point-of-use device. The blood lead levels in this exhibit 
represent what children's blood lead levels would be if they lived 
under the corresponding LSL or GRR service line, point-of-use device, 
pitcher filter, and CCT status combination for their entire lives. Note 
that when ``No LSL'' is the beginning or post-rule state, 0.83 
[micro]g/L (the simulated geometric mean) is the assumed concentration 
across all levels of CCT status (none, partial, or representative). As 
previously noted, the extent to which changes in CCT status make 
meaningful differences in lead concentrations for those without lead or 
GRR service lines cannot be determined from the data available to the 
EPA in this analysis.

 Exhibit 12--Modeled SHEDS-Pb Geometric Mean Blood Lead Levels in Children for Each Possible Drinking Water Lead Exposure Scenario for Each Year of Life
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Water                 GM blood lead level ([micro]g/dL) \b\ for specified year of life
   Lead service line status     Corrosion control  concentration ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 treatment status   ([micro]g/L)   0-1 \a\      1-2        2-3        3-4        4-5        5-6        6-7      Avg. \c\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL...........................  None.............          14.38       4.94       2.74       2.82       2.71       2.78       2.95       2.61       3.08
Partial LSL/GRR...............  None.............           6.85       3.12       1.98       2.01       2.01       2.01       2.08       1.84       2.15

[[Page 86587]]

 
No LSL........................  None.............           0.83       1.19       1.28       1.30       1.28       1.30       1.39       1.10       1.26
LSL...........................  Partial..........           7.93       3.27       2.11       2.13       2.10       2.08       2.21       1.95       2.27
Partial LSL/GRR...............  Partial..........           3.84       2.18       1.64       1.66       1.68       1.64       1.72       1.47       1.71
No LSL........................  Partial..........           0.83       1.19       1.28       1.30       1.28       1.30       1.39       1.10       1.26
LSL...........................  Representative...           4.27       2.36       1.72       1.73       1.74       1.73       1.80       1.53       1.80
Partial LSL/GRR...............  Representative...           2.14       1.65       1.47       1.45       1.47       1.46       1.51       1.28       1.47
No LSL........................  Representative...           0.83       1.19       1.28       1.30       1.28       1.30       1.39       1.10       1.26
POU or pitcher filter.........  .................           0.83       1.19       1.28       1.30       1.28       1.30       1.39       1.10       1.26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Blood lead levels for the first year of life are based on regression from IEUBK for 0.5- to 1-year-olds only.
\b\ These values represent the blood lead for a child living with the LSL/CCT status in the columns to the left. Each year blood lead corresponding to
  actual modeled child is summed and divided by 7 in the model to estimate lifetime average blood lead.
\c\ This column contains calculated average lifetime blood lead levels assuming a child lived in the corresponding LSL/GRR service line, CCT, POU, or
  pitcher filter scenario for their entire life.

4. Estimating Older Child and Adult Blood Lead Levels
    In order to estimate the changes in blood lead levels in 
individuals from eight years old through adulthood (referred to here as 
adults) associated with the final LCRI, the EPA selected the AALM 
version 3. The AALM tool is primarily intended for ``quantitatively 
relating lead (Pb) exposures from environmental media that occur over 
the life time to Pb levels and concentrations in blood, other body 
tissues, and excreta'' (USEPA, 2019d). The tool consists of a lead 
exposure model and a lead biokinetics model. User inputs for selected 
environmental media (soil, dust, water, air, and food) are used in the 
exposure model to predict lead intake per day for a simulated 
individual, accounting for sex and age differences. Lead absorption by 
inhalation or ingestion is simulated in the biokinetics model to 
calculate the daily total rate of lead transfer to the central 
compartment. The AALM tool produces an estimate of lead concentration 
in various tissues and excreta, including estimates of blood lead 
levels over a lifetime.
    The water concentrations calculated for each combination of LSL and 
CCT status from the EPA's regression modeling (see Exhibit 11 in 
section VI.E.1 of this preamble) was used to estimate the distribution 
of blood lead levels in males and females aged 8 to 79 years using the 
EPA's AALM tool. Each distinct LSL and CCT scenario was modeled and 
represented by water lead concentrations. Each scenario was run for 
females and males as the AALM tool requires that each sex be modeled 
separately. Model inputs include: water intake rates per age group, 
which are the same across sexes and were obtained from the EPA's 2011 
Exposure Factors Handbook (Table 3-1); lead intake from food for each 
age group, which varies by sex and was calculated using values from 
appendix C of the AALM Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2019d); lead 
concentrations in soil and dust, which are consistent for all age 
groups and calculated as a weighted average based on data from the U.S. 
Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) American Healthy 
Homes Survey (AHHS) I and II Lead Findings report (USHUD, 2021); soil 
and dust intake rates by age group up to age 21 were estimated by 
Ozkaynak et al. (2022), which used the EPA's SHEDS Soil and Dust model; 
and an air lead concentration of 0.01 [micro]g/m\3\ was used for all 
age groups and sexes based on national air monitoring results reporting 
in Cavender (2013).
    The AALM modeling output provides the yearly estimated blood lead 
level ([micro]g/dL) by age from 8 to 79 years for each status 
combination of sex, LSL, CCT, and point-of-use device or pitcher 
filter. For additional detailed information on the AALM inputs and 
modeling results, see chapter 5, section 5.4.2 of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a). A summary of the AALM results by sex 
are presented in Exhibit 13.

    Exhibit 13--Estimates of Geometric Mean Blood Lead Levels in Older Children and Adults (Ages 8-79) for Each Possible Drinking Water Lead Exposure
                                                                        Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Geometric mean blood lead level ([micro]g/dL) for specified age group \1\ in years
                                   Corrosion                                                           from the AALM
   Lead service line status         control            Sex       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               treatment status                      8-15      16-19      20-29      30-39      40-49      50-59      60-69      70-79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LSL..........................  None............  Male...........       1.33       1.28       1.70       1.82       1.92       1.98       1.36       1.94
                                                 Female.........       1.25       1.44       1.99       2.14       2.27       2.35       1.56       2.31
Partial LSL/GRR..............  None............  Male...........       1.03       1.00       1.30       1.35       1.37       1.39       1.36       1.34
                                                 Female.........       0.97       1.10       1.47       1.53       1.56       1.59       1.56       1.53
No LSL.......................  None............  Male...........       0.80       0.77       0.98       0.97       0.94       0.92       0.88       0.85
                                                 Female.........       0.74       0.83       1.06       1.03       1.00       0.98       0.94       0.91
LSL..........................  Partial.........  Male...........       1.08       1.04       1.36       1.42       1.45       1.47       1.45       1.42
                                                 Female.........       1.01       1.15       1.55       1.62       1.66       1.70       1.67       1.65
Partial LSL/GRR..............  Partial.........  Male...........       0.92       0.89       1.14       1.16       1.16       1.15       1.12       1.10
                                                 Female.........       0.85       0.96       1.26       1.28       1.28       1.28       1.25       1.22
No LSL.......................  Partial.........  Male...........       0.80       0.77       0.98       0.97       0.94       0.92       0.88       0.85
                                                 Female.........       0.74       0.83       1.06       1.03       1.00       0.98       0.94       0.91
LSL..........................  Representative..  Male...........       0.93       0.90       1.16       1.19       1.19       1.19       1.16       1.13
                                                 Female.........       0.87       0.98       1.29       1.32       1.32       1.32       1.29       1.27
Partial LSL/GRR..............  Representative..  Male...........       0.85       0.82       1.05       1.05       1.03       1.02       0.99       0.96
                                                 Female.........       0.79       0.89       1.15       1.14       1.12       1.11       1.07       1.04
No LSL.......................  Representative..  Male...........       0.80       0.77       0.98       0.97       0.94       0.92       0.88       0.85
                                                 Female.........       0.74       0.83       1.06       1.03       1.00       0.98       0.94       0.91

[[Page 86588]]

 
POU or pitcher filter........  ................  Male...........       0.80       0.77       0.98       0.97       0.94       0.92       0.88       0.85
                                                 Female.........       0.74       0.83       1.06       1.03       1.00       0.98       0.94       0.91
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The estimated values reported in this exhibit represent the mean blood lead level for the ages specified in the range. The AALM tool reports age-
  specific, yearly blood lead levels for each single year age that are used in the SafeWater LCR benefits model.

5. Quantifying and Monetizing Health Endpoints
    The EPA quantified and monetized the change in four health 
endpoints in the final LCRI Economic Analysis. The endpoints are 
reductions: in IQ values and cases of ADHD in children, lower birth 
weights in children of women of childbearing age, and cases of 
cardiovascular disease premature mortality in adults. The concentration 
response functions for the four quantified health endpoints that have 
been extensively reviewed by the agency \30\ and in the case of 
reductions in IQ losses, low birth weight and cardiovascular disease 
premature mortality, externally peer reviewed. Also, the approach used 
for IQ has been used in multiple prior rulemakings and undergone SAB 
review. The subsections below outline the methods the EPA used in 
analysis of each of these endpoints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The EPA undertook a rigorous process to identify 
concentration response functions to quantify benefits. This included 
reviewing all available studies which could be used to develop 
quantitative relationships between changes in lead exposure and/or 
changes in blood lead levels and changes in health endpoints. The 
EPA evaluated the studies for quality and potential biases. The EPA 
then drafted a separate report for each health endpoint. In addition 
to the quality review findings, each report provides quantitative 
estimates, based on the identified functions, of potential changes 
in the health endpoint and was reviewed by EPA experts and/or 
externally peer reviewed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Estimating IQ Benefits
    The EPA uses the SHEDS-Pb estimated set of potential geometric mean 
blood lead levels for children zero to seven years of age (presented in 
Exhibit 12 in section VI.E.3 of this preamble) as inputs in the 
modeling of IQ benefits for the final LCRI. The benefits analysis uses 
lifetime average blood lead values to determine estimates of avoided IQ 
loss that correspond to reductions in water lead concentrations 
resulting from changes in LSL/GRR, point-of-use device, pitcher filter, 
and CCT status at some point in a representative child's life (between 
ages zero and seven), and those made prior to the child's birth for 
those born seven years after the baseline (2021 LCRR) or final LCRI 
resulted in a water lead concentration status change. Therefore, the 
SafeWater LCR model, in each year of the analysis, calculates IQ 
benefits based on the cohort, or percent of the modeled population, 
that turns seven years of age in the year being analyzed. The SafeWater 
LCR model, for both the baseline (2021 LCRR) and final LCRI, tracks PWS 
implementation over the 35-year period of analysis. This data allows 
the model to determine the number of children that fall within each of 
the 11 possible LSL/GRR service line, CCT, point-of-use device, and 
pitcher filter lead exposure scenarios for each of the seven years 
prior to the year being modeled. The model then calculates a set of 
average lifetime blood lead levels for the possible LSL/GRR service 
line, CCT, point-of-use device, and pitcher filter exposure scenarios. 
The average lifetime blood lead levels are affected by both the change 
in LSL/GRR service line, CCT, point-of-use device, and pitcher filter 
status, and the years zero to seven in which the status change occurs. 
The model then applies these average lifetime blood lead level values 
to the appropriate percentage of the seven-year-old cohort (the percent 
of seven year olds that are estimated to experience the scenarios 
represented by the average lifetime blood lead levels) for that 
analysis year under both the baseline (2021 LCRR) and final LCRI 
requirements. The change in average lifetime blood lead levels for the 
seven-year-old cohort is then used to determine the incremental benefit 
of avoided IQ losses for both the baseline (2021 LCRR) and final LCRI.
    In order to relate the child's estimated average lifetime blood 
lead level to an estimate of avoided IQ loss, the EPA selected 
concentration-response functions based on lifetime blood lead levels 
from two studies. For the high estimate function, the agency used a 
study by Lanphear et al. (2019). For the low estimate, the EPA selected 
the independent analysis by Crump et al. (2013), which is based on the 
same data used in Lanphear et al. (2019). Since the regulatory 
requirements are expected to reduce chronic exposures to lead, the EPA 
selected lifetime blood lead levels as the most appropriate measure to 
evaluate benefits, with lifetime defined for purposes of this 
particular analysis as age zero to seven. No threshold has been 
identified for the neurological effects of lead (Budtz-J[oslash]rgensen 
et al., 2013; Crump et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 1991; USEPA, 2013). 
Therefore, the EPA assumes that there is no threshold for this endpoint 
and quantified avoided IQ loss associated with all blood lead levels.
    The estimated value of an IQ point decrement is derived from the 
EPA's (2019c) reanalysis of Salkever (1995), which estimates that a 
one-point increase in IQ results in a 1.9 percent increase in lifetime 
earnings for males and a 3.4 percent increase in lifetime earnings for 
females. Lifetime earnings are estimated using the average of 10 
American Community Survey (ACS) single-year samples (2008 to 2017) and 
projected cohort life tables from the Social Security Administration. 
Projected increases in lifetime earnings are then adjusted for the 
direct costs of additional years of education and forgone earnings 
while in school. The EPA's (2019c) reanalysis of Salkever (1995) 
estimates a change of 0.08 years of schooling per change in IQ point 
for males and a change of 0.09 years of schooling per change in IQ 
point for females resulting from a reduction in lead exposure.
    To estimate the uncertainty underlying the model parameters of the 
Salkever (1995) reanalysis, the EPA (2019c) used a bootstrap approach 
to estimate a distribution of model parameters over 10,000 replicates 
(using random sampling with replacement). For each replicate, the net 
monetized value of a one-point increase in IQ is subsequently estimated 
as the gross value of an IQ point based on a lifetime of earnings, less 
the value of additional education costs and foregone earnings while in 
school. The EPA uses an IQ point value discounted to age seven. Based 
on the EPA's reanalysis of Salkever (1995), the mean value of an IQ 
point in 2022 dollars and discounted to age seven, is $42,226 using a 
two

[[Page 86589]]

percent discount rate.\31\ See appendix F of the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for a sensitivity analysis of the value of 
avoided IQ loss benefits based on Lin et al. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Note that the EPA's use of the term ``two percent discount 
rate'' with regard to the calculation of the IQ point high and low 
values (which represent the present value of the change in lifetime 
earnings) is shorthand for a declining discount rate that begins 
with a two percent discount rate for the years 2024-2079, a 1.9 
percent discount rate used for the years 2080-2094, and a 1.8 
percent discount rate used in years 2095-2102. This declining rate 
structure was implemented to comply with updates to the OMB Circular 
A-4 (OMB, 2023) guidance, which indicates that a declining discount 
rate may be used to capture the uncertainty in the appropriate 
discount rate over long time horizons like lifetime labor force 
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA used the estimated changes in lifetime (age zero to seven) 
average blood lead levels that result from changes in LSL/GRR, CCT, 
point-of-use device, and/or pitcher filter status as inputs to the 
concentration response functions estimated by Lanphear et al. (2019) 
and Crump et al. (2013). The resultant high and low estimates of annual 
avoided IQ decrements per change in LSL/GRR, CCT, point-of-use device, 
and/or pitcher filter status change are then summed and multiplied by 
the EPA's reanalyzed Salkever (1995) values per IQ point. These high 
and low annual benefit values for each year of the period of analysis 
were then further annualized over the period of analysis using a two 
percent discount rate. Note that this analysis quantifies the benefits 
from water quality changes that occur during the 35-year period of 
analysis, but also accounts for the fact that monetized IQ benefits 
continue to accrue beyond the 35-year period because they are not 
experienced by modeled children until they reach adulthood. See Exhibit 
14 in section VI.E.10 of this preamble for the estimated benefit from 
avoided IQ losses from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT 
installation and re-optimization, point-of-use device program 
operation, and the provision of pitcher filters in systems with 
multiple ALEs as a result of the baseline (2021 LCRR), the final LCRI, 
and the incremental difference between the two sets of regulatory 
requirements under both the low and high scenarios. For detailed 
information on the quantification and monetization of the IQ benefits 
associated with the final LCRI see chapter 5, sections 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 
of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
7. Estimated ADHD Benefits
    This is the first regulation in which the EPA has estimated 
benefits of avoided cases of ADHD associated with reductions in lead 
exposure; as discussed below the approach for quantifying such benefits 
will continue to evolve as our understanding of the potential 
relationship improves. As described in appendix D, the USEPA ISA 
(2024b) strengthened the conclusions of the 2013 ISA and concluded that 
there was a causal relationship between lead exposure and inattention, 
impulsivity, and hyperactivity in children based on recent studies of 
children with group mean BLLs dL. The 2024 ISA states that 
``prospective studies of ADHD, including a study of clinical ADHD that 
controlled for parental education and SES [Socioeconomic status], 
although not quality of parental caregiving reported positive 
associations'' (USEPA, 2024b. p. IS-30). The causes of ADHD are not 
fully understood, but research suggests a number of potential causes, 
including genetics, exposure to environmental toxins, prenatal 
cigarette smoking or alcohol intake, and brain changes (Tripp et al., 
2009; Pliszka et al., 2007). The EPA's 2013 lead ISA stated that in 
children, ``attention was associated with biomarkers of Pb exposure 
representing several different lifestages and time periods. Prospective 
studies did not examine a detailed Pb biomarker history, and results do 
not identify an individual critical lifestage, time period, or duration 
of Pb exposure associated with attention decrements in children. 
Associations in prospective studies for attention decrements with tooth 
Pb level, early childhood average and lifetime average blood Pb levels 
point to an effect of cumulative Pb exposure.'' The 2024 ISA addresses 
the uncertainties presented in the 2013 ISA by stating that ``The 
largest uncertainty addressed by the recent evidence base is the 
previous lack of prospective studies examining ADHD (Appendix 3.5.2.4-
3.5.2.5). The bulk of the recent evidence comprises prospective studies 
that establish the temporality of the association between Pb [lead] 
exposure and parent or teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms and clinical 
ADHD. Across studies, associations were observed with tooth Pb 
concentrations, childhood BLLs (dL), and with maternal or cord 
BLLs (2-5 [mu]g/dL).'' The available studies relating blood lead to 
ADHD use one-time BLLs, while it is possible that cumulative exposure 
is also important. However, one-time and cumulative measures of BLLs in 
children are often correlated. Therefore, the EPA has chosen diagnosed 
cases of ADHD as an endpoint in this benefits analysis, because 
literature exists linking ADHD diagnosis to these monetizable outcomes. 
The larger body of literature on attention, impulsivity, and 
hyperactivity symptoms in children supports this association. The EPA 
chose a higher and lower concentration-response function for the 
estimates of avoided cases to partially address the uncertainty in the 
most appropriate function to use in estimating avoided cases due to the 
rule. Additional future research will help to further understand the 
critical exposure window (thus exposure metric), the mode of action of 
lead in the development of ADHD and/or related symptoms, and the 
interplay with genetic factors and exposures to other substances.
    The approach used to quantify ADHD here is based on review and 
analysis that Abt Associates (Abt Associates, 2022a conducted under 
contract to the EPA. The benefits analysis uses average blood lead 
values to determine estimates of avoided diagnosed ADHD cases that 
correspond to reductions in water lead concentrations resulting from 
changes in LSL, point-of-use device, pitcher filter, and CCT status. 
The EPA used the concentration-response functions from two studies to 
bracket the estimated number of ADHD cases avoided. The EPA's high 
estimate is based on a study by Froelich et al. (2009), and the low 
estimate is based on a study by Ji et al. (2018). The EPA utilized the 
AALM estimated set of potential geometric mean blood lead levels for 
the 8- to 15-year-old age group (presented in Exhibit 13 in section 
VI.E.4 of this preamble) as inputs in the modeling of ADHD benefits 
when using the Froelich et al. (2009) concentration response function 
to estimate the high scenario. Because Ji et al. (2018) measured early 
childhood blood lead levels in their study, the EPA used the set of 
potential geometric mean blood lead levels estimated by the SHEDS-Pb 
model (shown in Exhibit 12 in section VI.E.3 of this preamble) as the 
input values for the Ji et al. (2018) concentration response function 
for the low ADHD benefits scenario.
    As described above in section VI.E of this preamble, the SafeWater 
LCR model, with the strengths and limitations characterized in section 
VI.C of this preamble and sections 4.2.2 and 5.7 of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), is able to track the population in 
water systems that are affected by changes in LSL/GRR service line, 
point-of-use device, pitcher filter, and CCT status and the resultant 
changes in water and blood lead concentration for each population group 
per year of the 35-year period of

[[Page 86590]]

analysis. These changes in blood lead levels for each population group 
are then used to estimate the number of avoided cases of ADHD using the 
Froelich et al. (2009) function for the high benefits scenario and the 
Ji et al. (2018) function for the low benefits scenario.
    The EPA uses information on ADHD costs estimated from Doshi et al. 
(2012) in the monetization step. The Doshi et al. (2012) costs include 
incremental child and adolescent costs for patient and family health 
care, family productivity losses, educational expenses, and justice 
system expenses. The cost estimate also includes incremental adult 
patient and family health care and justice system costs. The adult 
costs are adjusted downward to account for the fact that not all ADHD 
cases persist into adulthood. Because there is uncertainty over what 
percent of ADHD cases persist into adulthood, the EPA uses a high and 
low estimate of the ADHD cost of illness based on a high and low 
estimate of ADHD persistence into adulthood. The high estimate assumes 
that 90 percent of childhood cases of ADHD persist into adulthood, 
based on Sibley et al. (2022). The low estimate is based on Barbaresi 
et al. (2013), which reports a 29.3 percent persistence rate. The high 
and low persistence rates are both used to adjust the Doshi et al. 
(2012) healthcare and justice system benefits realized at ages 18 and 
older for an avoided case of ADHD diagnosed in childhood.
    In order to apply these avoided cost values in the benefits 
analysis, the EPA produced two net present value estimates for all 
avoided ADHD costs incurred through age 64. The first value used the 
Doshi et al. (2012) costs adjusted by the 29.3 percent adult 
persistence rate discounted back to age seven for use with Ji et al. 
(2018) in the estimation of the low benefit scenario (Ji et al. (2018) 
used blood lead levels measured in young children). The second value 
used the Doshi et al. (2012) costs adjusted by the 90 percent adult 
persistence rate discounted back to age 11 for use with the Froelich et 
al. (2009) function in estimating the high benefits scenario (Froelich 
et al. (2009) used blood lead levels measured in children 8 to 15 years 
of age so the EPA selected age 11 as the average value). The net 
present values of both the low and high avoided costs were computed 
using a two percent discount rate. The costs were also adjusted to 2022 
dollars. The estimated per-case ADHD avoided costs under the high 
benefits scenario and discounted at a two percent rate to age 11 is 
$184,194. The per-case ADHD avoided costs under the low benefits 
scenario and discounted at a two percent rate to age seven is $128,559.
    The estimated number of ADHD cases avoided under the low and high 
benefits scenarios in each year of the 35-year period of analysis was 
then multiplied by the corresponding net present value to compute the 
avoided cost per year. This annual stream of benefits was annualized at 
two percent over the 35-year period of analysis, and further discounted 
to year one of the period of analysis. See Exhibit 14 in section 
VI.E.10 of this preamble for the estimated benefit from avoided ADHD 
cases from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT installation and 
re-optimization, point-of-use device program operation, and the 
provision of pitcher filters in systems with multiple ALEs as a result 
of the baseline (2021 LCRR), the final LCRI, and the incremental 
difference between the two sets of regulatory requirements under both 
the low and high scenarios. For detailed information on the 
quantification and monetization of the ADHD benefits associated with 
the final LCRI see chapter 5, sections 5.5.3 and 5.5.4 of the final 
LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
8. Estimated Low Birth Weight Benefits
    Blood lead levels from the AALM tool for women of childbearing age 
(17 to 45 years of age) were used to estimate reduced lower birth 
weight in infants. The concentration response function characterizing 
the relationship between changes in female blood lead level and 
reductions in lower birth weight in infants comes from a study by Zhu 
et al. (2010). The agency used the Zhu et al. (2010) function for both 
the low- and high-benefits scenarios because the EPA did not identify a 
second concentration response function based on a similarly high-
quality dataset and analysis; however, several other smaller studies 
were identified that support the relationship between lead exposures 
and reduced birth weight (see the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a), appendix D, section D.3.6 and Abt Associates (2022b) for 
additional material on the relationship between maternal blood lead and 
changes in birth weight). The choice of Zhu et al. (2010) was peer 
reviewed (Versar, 2015).
    The valuation of changes in birth weight is based on a review and 
analysis that Abt Associates (2022b) conducted, which was finalized 
after undergoing peer review coordinated by the EPA. Their analysis of 
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Medical Expenditure Panel 
Survey data found that birth weight in the very low birth weight/low 
birth weight and normal ranges influences inpatient hospital stays. In 
the EPA's LCRI analysis, annual average inpatient expenditures (avoided 
costs) by initial birth weight (2-10 pounds) are the product of: (1) 
the predicted probability of having at least one medical event in the 
period, and (2) the mean conditional expenditures (i.e., conditional on 
observing at least one medical event in the period). The mean 
conditional expenditures have been estimated based on projected initial 
birth weight and projected increases in weight of 0.04, 0.11, and 0.22 
pounds.
    Generally, as initial birth weight increases, the size of avoided 
expenditures deceases. Similarly, as expected increase in weight goes 
up, the avoided costs increase. For example, at a starting birth weight 
of 3.3 pounds, an increase in birth weight of 0.22 pounds results in a 
decrease in inpatient hospital expenditures of $1,652 (2010$), but the 
cost saving is less than $100 at a starting birth weight of 5.5 pounds. 
In applying the average inpatient avoided cost values to the LCRI case, 
the EPA adjusted the study's 2010 cost estimates to 2022 dollars. The 
agency also assumed that baseline birth weights for the affected 
infants are equal to the distribution of birth weights in the United 
States. See Exhibit 14 (discounted at two percent), in section VI.E.10 
of this preamble, for the estimated benefit from avoided low birth 
weight impacts from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT 
installation and re-optimization, point-of-use device program 
operation, and the provision of pitcher filters in systems with 
multiple action level exceedances as a result of the LCRR, the final 
LCRI, and the incremental difference between the two sets of regulatory 
requirements under both the low and high scenarios. For detailed 
information on the quantification and monetization of the low birth 
weight benefits associated with the final LCRI see chapter 5, sections 
5.5.5 and 5.5.6 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a).
9. Estimated Cardiovascular Disease Premature Mortality Benefits
    The EPA's estimation of benefits from avoided cardiovascular 
disease (CVD) associated premature mortality follows the methodology 
outlined in Brown et al. (2020) and Abt Associates (2023). The latter 
document is a revised report incorporating feedback from an independent 
peer review of an earlier draft of the report (MDB Incorporated, 2019) 
that articulated the strengths and limitations of our understanding of 
the relationship between lead exposure and cardiovascular disease 
premature

[[Page 86591]]

mortality, and thus the strengths and limitations of the method 
presented. These strengths and limitations are discussed in more detail 
in the final LCRI Economic Analysis, chapter 5 (USEPA, 2024a). In order 
to bracket the reduction in CVD premature mortality risk avoided, and 
the calculated monetized benefits, associated with reductions in blood 
lead levels resulting from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT 
installation and re-optimization, point-of-use device program 
operation, and pitcher filter distribution accruing under the final 
LCRI, the EPA selected two concentration response functions. The high 
scenario function is based on the blood lead level dL 
analysis in Lanphear et al. (2018), and the low scenario function is 
based on Aoki et al. (2016). While additional concentration response 
functions for this relationship are available as detailed in Brown et 
al. (2020) and Abt Associates (2023), these two functions represent, 
respectively, the highest and lowest changes in cardiovascular disease 
premature mortality associated with a given change in adult blood lead 
level available in peer-reviewed studies estimating continuous 
functions using high quality, nationally representative datasets. The 
EPA will evaluate new and novel data as they become available, and will 
consider updating this methodology for estimating cardiovascular 
premature mortality effects of changes in adult lead exposure as 
appropriate.
    In order to value the reduced CVD premature mortality risk, the EPA 
uses the same approach it uses in estimating the benefits associated in 
reductions of particulate matter and ozone in air pollution 
regulations. Specifically, the EPA draws on the published academic 
surveys about how much people are willing to pay for small reductions 
in their risks of dying from adverse health conditions that may be 
caused by environmental pollution. In the scientific literature, these 
estimates of willingness to pay for small reductions in mortality risks 
are often referred to as the ``value of a statistical life.'' This is 
because these values are typically reported in units that match the 
aggregate dollar amount that a large group of people would be willing 
to pay for a reduction in their individual risks of dying in a year, 
such that we would expect one fewer death among the group during that 
year on average. The EPA's value of a statistical life was adjusted to 
2022 dollars, and the resulting value of $12.98 million was applied to 
each avoided case, or reduction in population risk resulting in one 
fewer CVD death.\32\ Avoided cases of CVD premature mortality are 
estimated for each annual time step, over the 35-year period of 
analysis in the SafeWater LCR model, for all adults ages 40 to 79, 
using the yearly blood lead levels modeled by the AALM, and shown in 
Exhibit 13, for both the low and high scenarios (as defined by the 
concentration response functions and the estimated range of PWSs that 
will exceed the action level under the baseline (2021 LCRR) and final 
LCRI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The EPA uses a value of a statistical life (VSL) of $12.98 
million, which is estimated using the EPA's (2014) recommended VSL 
of $4.8 million in 1990 dollars and EPA's (2014) recommended method 
for adjusting the VSL for income growth and inflation. The $4.8 
value in 1990 dollars is updated to the $12.98 million in 2022 
dollars by adjusting for inflation using the U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' (2019) Consumer Price Index and adjusting it for income 
growth using real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and an 
income elasticity of 0.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under both scenarios, the SafeWater LCR model is able to track the 
population in water systems that are affected by changes in LSL/GRR 
service line, point-of-use device, pitcher filter, and CCT status and 
the resultant changes in water and blood lead concentration for each 
population group per year of the 35-year period of analysis. These 
changes in blood lead levels for each population group are then used to 
estimate the number of avoided cases of CVD premature mortality using 
the dL Lanphear et al. (2018) function in the high scenario 
and the Aoki et al. (2016) function for the low scenario, assuming 
baseline cases of CVD premature mortality due to lead follow the same 
distribution of all cardiovascular mortality cases in the U.S. 
population.
    See Exhibit 14 (discounted at two percent), in section VI.E.10 of 
this preamble, for the estimated benefit from avoided CVD premature 
mortality risk from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT 
installation and re-optimization, point-of-use device program 
operation, and the provision of pitcher filters in systems with 
multiple ALEs as a result of the baseline (2021 LCRR), the final LCRI, 
and the incremental difference between the two sets of regulatory 
requirements under both the low and high scenarios. For detailed 
information on the quantification and monetization of the CVD premature 
mortality benefits associated with the final LCRI see chapter 5, 
sections 5.5.7 and 5.5.8 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a).
10. Total Monetized Benefits
    Exhibit 13 shows the estimated, monetized national annualized total 
benefits, under the low and high scenarios,\33\ associated with the 
baseline (2021 LCRR), the final LCRI, and the increment of change 
between the two, discounted at two percent. The benefits from the final 
LCRI result from the activities performed by water systems which are 
expected to reduce risk to the public from exposure to lead in drinking 
water at the tap. The EPA quantifies and monetizes some of this health 
risk reduction from lead exposure by estimating the decrease in lead 
exposures accruing to both children and adults from the installation 
and re-optimization of CCT, service line replacement, the 
implementation of point-of-use filter devices, and the provision of 
pitcher filters in systems with multiple ALEs.\34\ The total and 
incremental benefits reported are subdivided into estimated health 
endpoint benefits stemming from avoided reductions in IQ and cases of 
ADHD in children, lower birth weights in children of women of 
childbearing age, and cases of CVD premature mortality in adults. The 
estimated monetized benefits associated with avoided premature 
mortality are much larger than those associated with neurodevelopmental 
impacts in children. Still the public health impact of this regulation 
is important for children given the life-long impact of the early life 
health effects, the potential of health impacts from cumulative lead 
exposures, and the fact that there are several other avoided health 
impacts that were not quantified. See appendix D of the final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for additional information on the non-
quantified health impacts of lead exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The low and high benefits scenarios are defined by: 
differences in the estimated number of systems experiencing lead 
ALEs based on calculated lead tap sampling 90th percentile values; 
the concentration-response functions that characterize how 
reductions in blood lead levels (caused be changes in lead exposure) 
translate into estimates of avoided IQ reductions, cases of ADHD, 
and CVD premature mortality; two alternative high and low valuations 
for an IQ point; and high and low estimates of the ADHD cost of 
illness.
    \34\ Note that because of the lack of granularity in the 
assembled lead concentration profile data, with regard to CCT status 
when samples were collected (see section VI.E.1 of this preamble), 
the benefits of small improvements in CCT, like those resulting from 
the Distribution System and Site Assessment rule requirements, 
cannot be quantified in the model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total annualized monetized benefits range from $13.5 to $25.1 
billion at a two percent discount rate in 2022 dollars. The Exhibit 14 
also details the proportion of the annualized

[[Page 86592]]

benefits attributable to each health endpoint category of monetizable 
benefit. For additional information on estimated health endpoint 
benefits subdivided by final LCRI regulatory activity see chapter 5 of 
the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a). See section VI.F.2 of 
this preamble for information on non-quantifiable benefits. In addition 
to the uncertainties in the dose response functions and the 
quantification of the economic impacts noted above and in chapter 5 of 
the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), the estimated benefits 
are contingent on the assumptions in the baseline--principally, whether 
or not the provisions of the prior 2021 LCRR to remove LSLs have been 
successfully met. Therefore, the EPA provides in appendix C of the 
final LCRI Economic Analysis for the final rule (USEPA, 2024a) 
estimated national costs and benefits of the LCRI utilizing the 
regulatory requirements of the pre-2021 LCR as a baseline.

                                    Exhibit 14--Estimated National Monetized Annual Benefits--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Low estimate                                    High estimate
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual IQ Benefits......................................        $1,208.5        $6,831.3        $5,622.8        $3,279.0       $10,963.0        $7,684.0
Annual Low-Birth Weight Benefits........................             1.0             5.4             4.4             1.8             5.7             3.9
Annual ADHD Benefits....................................            33.6           196.3           162.7           179.9           599.5           419.6
Annual Adult CVD Premature Mortality Benefits...........         1,750.7         9,454.3         7,703.6         8,174.9        25,210.0        17,035.1
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Benefits...............................         2,993.8        16,487.3        13,493.5        11,635.6        36,778.2        25,142.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; IQ = intelligence quotient; ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CVD = cardiovascular
  disease.

    The EPA is committed to understanding and addressing climate change 
impacts in carrying out the agency's mission of protecting human health 
and the environment. While the EPA is not required by SDWA 
1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(III) to consider climate disbenefits under the HRRCA, 
the agency has estimated the potential climate disbenefits caused by 
increased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with the operation 
of CCT at drinking water treatment facilities and the use of 
construction and transport vehicles in the replacement of lead and GRR 
service lines. As explained in section VI.A of this preamble, this 
disbenefits analysis is presented solely for the purpose of complying 
with Executive Order 12866. The EPA analysis found that the climate 
disbenefits of the final LCRI from CO2, CH4, and 
N2O emissions associated with increased electricity use in 
the operation of CCT at drinking water treatment facilities and the 
direct combustion of fossil fuels from the use of construction and 
transport vehicles in the replacement of lead and GRR service lines 
resulted in monetized annualized values that range from $2.1 million 
under the low scenario to $2.0 million under the high scenario 
discounted at two percent, in 2022 dollars. These disbenefit values 
constitute less than 0.02- 0.01 percent of the monetized benefits of 
the rule, at a two percent discount rate, under the low and high 
scenarios, respectively. Note that the EPA did not quantify the 
potential emissions changes associated with the production and delivery 
of CCT chemicals, the construction required for the installation of CCT 
technology, and the production and transport of copper and plastic 
replacement piping and plumbing components. The EPA recognizes that 
many activities directly and indirectly associated with drinking water 
treatment produce GHG emissions; however, the agency determined that it 
could not accurately quantify all the potential factors that could 
increase and decrease greenhouse gas emissions that are not solely 
attributable to the onsite CCT operations and service line replacement 
field operations directly required by the rule. The EPA also notes that 
this analysis uses the 2021 LCRR as a baseline in order to calculate 
the incremental GHG emissions.

F. Cost-Benefit Comparison

    This section summarizes and describes the numeric relationship 
between the monetized incremental costs and benefits of the final LCRI 
regulatory requirements. The section also discusses both the non-
monetized costs and benefits of the rulemaking. Exhibit 15 compares the 
annualized monetized incremental costs and benefits of the final LCRI 
for the low and high scenarios. The net annualized incremental 
monetized benefits, under the low and high scenarios, range from $12.0 
to $23.2 billion at a two percent discount rate in 2022 dollars.

    Exhibit 15--Comparison of Estimated Monetized National Annualized
   Incremental Costs to Benefits of the LCRI--2 Percent Discount Rate
                           [millions 2022 USD]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            PWS annual costs               Low scenario    High scenario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Incremental Costs............        $1,468.8        $1,953.8
Annualized Incremental Benefits.........        13,493.5        25,142.6
                                         -------------------------------
    Annual Net Benefits.................        12,024.7        23,188.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 86593]]

1. Non-Monetized and Non-Quantified Costs
    The final LCRI is expected to result in additional phosphate being 
added to drinking water to reduce the amount of lead leaching into the 
water in the distribution system. Although the downstream ecological 
impacts are not ``likely to occur solely as a result of compliance'' 
with the final LCRI, and therefore are not costs considered as part of 
the HRRCA under SDWA, section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(III), the EPA for 
informational purposes has quantified incremental phosphorus loadings 
and outlined potential downstream ecological impacts. The EPA's cost 
model estimated that, nationwide, the final LCRI may result in post-
WWTP total incremental phosphorus loads to receiving waterbodies 
increasing over the period of analysis, under the low and high 
scenarios, by a range of 225,000 to 272,000 pounds fifteen years after 
promulgation, and by a range of 216,000 to 260,000 pounds at year 35. 
At the national level, under the high scenario, this additional 
phosphorous loading to waterbodies is relatively small, less than 0.03 
percent of the total phosphorous load deposited annually from all other 
anthropogenic sources. However, national average receiving waterbody 
phosphorus load impacts may obscure significant localized ecological 
impacts. Impacts, such as eutrophication, may occur in water bodies 
without restrictions on phosphate deposits, or in locations with 
existing elevated phosphate levels. See chapter 4, section 4.5.2 of the 
final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) for additional information.
    The EPA also notes that there exist unquantified costs associated 
with service line replacement. Costs associated with the disruption of 
normal traffic patterns in communities implementing service line 
replacement programs are not accounted for in the monetized cost 
estimates of the rule. This impact to traffic could be significant in 
localized areas where lead, GRR, and unknown service lines are co-
located with high traffic roads. During service line replacement, 
worksite activities and characteristics have the potential to increase 
car and pedestrian accidents. Also given the necessity to shut off 
water service to buildings and residences during service line 
replacement, the probability of fire damage and negative health/
sanitation impacts may increase. Given that service line replacement 
takes a relatively small amount of time (four hours on average), the 
low probability of accidents and fire, the advance notice provided to 
building occupants, and alternative local sources of water available in 
emergencies (e.g., fire hydrants) it is unlikely that these 
unquantified costs are nationally significant.
2. Non-Quantified and Non-Monetized Benefits
    In addition to the benefits monetized in the final LCRI analysis 
for reductions in lead exposure, there are several other benefits that 
are not quantified. The risk of adverse health effects due to lead 
exposure that are expected to decrease as a result of the final LCRI 
are summarized in appendix D of the final LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2024a) and are expected to affect both children and adults. The 
EPA focused its non-quantified impacts assessment on the endpoints 
identified using two comprehensive U.S. Government documents 
summarizing the literature on lead exposure health impacts. These 
documents are the EPA's Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (ISA) 
(USEPA, 2024b); and the U.S. Department of Human and Health Services' 
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Monograph on Health Effects of Low-
Level Lead (NTP, 2012). Both sources present comprehensive reviews of 
the literature as of the time of publication on the risk of adverse 
health effects associated with lead exposure. The EPA summarized those 
endpoints to which either the EPA ISA or the NTP Lead Monograph 
assigned one of the top two tiers of confidence in the relationship 
between lead exposure and the risk of adverse health effects. These 
endpoints include cardiovascular morbidity effects, renal effects, 
reproductive and developmental effects (apart from ADHD and low birth 
weight initial hospitalization), immunological effects, neurological 
effects (apart from children's IQ), and cancer.
    There are a number of final LCRI requirements that reduce lead 
exposure to both children and adults that the EPA could not quantify. 
The final rule will require additional lead public education 
requirements that target consumers directly, schools and child care 
facilities, health agencies, and people living in homes with lead and 
GRR service lines. Increased education will lead to additional averting 
behavior on the part of the exposed public, resulting in reductions in 
the negative impacts of lead. The rule will also require the 
development of service line inventories that include additional 
information on lead connectors and make the location of the lead 
content service lines publicly accessible. This will give potentially 
exposed consumers more information and will provide potential home 
buyers with this information as well. Homeowners may request LSL/GRR 
service line removal earlier than a water system might otherwise plan 
on replacing the line. The benefits of moving these lead and GRR 
service line removals forward in time are not quantified in the 
analysis of the final LCRI. Because of the lack of granularity in the 
lead tap water concentration data available to the EPA for the 
regulatory analysis, the benefits of small improvements in CCT to 
individuals residing in homes with lead content service lines, like 
those modeled under the Distribution System and Site Assessment 
requirements, are not quantified.
    The EPA also did not quantify the CCT benefits of reduced lead 
exposure from lead-containing plumbing components (not including from 
lead and/or GRR service lines) to individuals who reside in both: (1) 
homes that have lead and/or GRR service lines but also have other lead-
containing plumbing components, and (2) those that do not have lead 
and/or GRR service lines but do have lead-containing plumbing 
components.\35\ The EPA has determined that the final LCRI requirements 
may result in reduced lead exposure to the occupants of both these 
types of buildings as a result of improved monitoring and additional 
actions to optimize CCT. In the analysis of the LCRI, the number of 
both homes served by lead and/or GRR service lines and homes not served 
by lead and/or GRR service lines potentially affected by water systems 
increasing their corrosion control during the 35-year period of 
analysis is 5.2 million in the low scenario and 9.1 million in the high 
scenario. Some of these households may have leaded plumbing materials 
apart from lead or GRR service lines, including lead connectors, leaded 
brass fixtures, and lead solder. These households could potentially see 
reductions in tap water lead concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Although the EPA estimated an average lead concentration 
for the first 10 liters of drinking water to inform the water lead 
concentration estimates used to quantify benefits the EPA could not 
calculate the CCT benefits associated with lead containing plumbing 
components (apart from lead and/or GRR service lines), because the 
EPA used a pooled estimate for all CCT conditions in residences with 
no lead and/or GRR service lines in place (See the Final LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA(2024a) chapter 5, section 5.2.3 for 
additional information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some researchers have pointed to the potential for CCT cobenefits 
associated with reduced corrosion, or material damage, to plumbing 
pipes, fittings, and fixture, and appliances that use water

[[Page 86594]]

owned by both water systems and homeowners (Levin, 2023). The corrosion 
inhibitors used by systems that are required to install or re-optimize 
OCCT as a result of the final LCRI are expected to result in additional 
benefits associated with the increased useful life of the plumbing 
components and appliances (e.g., water heaters), reduced maintenance 
costs, reduced treated water loss from the distribution system due to 
leaks, and reduced potential liability and damages from broken pipes in 
buildings that receive treated water from the system. The replacement 
of GRR service lines may also lead to reduced treated water loss from 
the distribution system due to leaks (AwwaRF and DVGW-
Technologiezentrum Wasser, 1996). The EPA did not have sufficient 
information to estimate these impacts nationally for the final rule 
analysis.
    Additionally, the risk of adverse health effects associated with 
copper that are expected to be reduced by the final LCRI are summarized 
in appendix E of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a). These 
risks include acute gastrointestinal symptoms, which are the most 
common adverse effect observed among adults and children. In sensitive 
groups, there may be reductions in chronic hepatic effects, 
particularly for those with rare conditions such as Wilson's disease 
and children pre-disposed to genetic cirrhosis syndromes. These 
diseases disrupt copper homeostasis, leading to excessive accumulation 
that can be worsened by excessive copper ingestion (National Research 
Council, 2000).
3. Reaffirm Cost-Benefit Determination
    When proposing an NPDWR, SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(C) requires that 
the Administrator shall publish a determination as to whether the 
benefits of the proposed rule justify, or do not justify, the costs 
based on the analysis conducted under SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C). Note 
the SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C) analysis the HRRCA, the components of 
which are described in introduction to section VI. For the proposed 
LCRI, the Administrator determined that the quantified and non-
quantifiable benefits of the proposed LCRI NPDWR justified the 
quantifiable and non-quantifiable costs.
    The EPA fully weighed the costs and benefits of the final rule 
HRRCA analysis, as discussed in the final LCRI Economic Analysis of the 
action, the agency considered the monetized values (discounted at two 
percent in addition to those discounted at three and seven 
percent,\36\) the potential impacts of the non-quantifiable 
uncertainties, the non-quantifiable costs and benefits, and public 
comments received by the agency related to the quantitative and 
qualitative assessment of the costs and benefits. For the final rule, 
the EPA is reaffirming the Administrator's determination made at 
proposal that the quantified and non-quantifiable benefits of the rule 
justify its quantified and non-quantifiable costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The EPA used the two percent discount rate as prescribed by 
the Office of Management and Budget's updated Circular A-4 (OMB 
Circular A-4, 2023). Because the EPA provided cost estimates 
discounted at three and seven percent for the proposed LCRI based on 
OMB guidance which was in effect at the time of the proposed rule 
analysis (OMB Circular A-4, 2003), the agency has also calculated 
the cost impacts at both the three and seven percent discount rates. 
See the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), appendix F for 
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As indicated in section VI.F of this preamble, the monetized costs 
and benefits result in net annualized incremental benefits that range 
from $12.0 to $23.2 billion under the low and high scenarios at a two 
percent discount rate in 2022 dollars. The EPA estimated the monetized 
net benefits of the final LCRI under low and high bracketing scenarios 
in order to capture the variability in system characteristics and the 
significant uncertainty associated with a set of lead specific data 
inputs which drive both the estimated costs and benefits in the 
SafeWater LCR model. With regard to costs, the uncertain variables 
which define the measurable difference between the low and high 
scenarios, are the number of PWSs that will exceed the lead action 
level under the revised tap sampling requirements, the cost of lead and 
GRR service line replacement, and the cost of CCT. The difference 
between low and high benefits scenarios are driven by the number of 
PWSs that will exceed the action level under the revised tap sampling 
requirements; the concentration response functions that estimate the 
impact lead concentrations have on avoided reductions in IQ, cases of 
ADHD in children, and cases of cardiovascular disease premature 
mortality in adults; and high and low estimates of the ADHD cost of 
illness.
    There are also a number of potentially significant non-quantifiable 
and non-monetized costs and benefits that weight into the reaffirmation 
of the determination of benefits justifying costs. On the cost side of 
the equation the EPA considered the potential temporary costs 
associated with service line replacement including traffic congestion, 
increased probability of vehicular and pedestrian accidents, fire 
damage, and negative sanitation impacts. With regard to benefits, the 
final LCRI will reduce the non-quantifiable harmful impacts of lead 
exposure which include cardiovascular morbidity effects, renal effects, 
reproductive and developmental effects (apart from ADHD and low birth 
weight initial hospitalization), immunological effects, neurological 
effects (apart from children's IQ), and cancer. The EPA analysis did 
not quantify the impacts from changes in consumer averting behavior, 
such as flushing lines before drinking water is drawn, filter use, or 
customer-initiated service line replacement due to the final LCRI's 
additional lead public education requirements that target all potential 
affected consumers directly, schools and child care facilities, health 
agencies, and people living in homes with lead and GRR service lines; 
and the development of service line inventories that include lead 
connector information with the requirement for public access to the 
information. The analysis was also unable to quantify the potentially 
significant benefits of reducing lead concentrations in drinking water 
from: all households with leaded plumbing inside the home in water 
systems where the final LCRI requires installation or re-optimization 
of OCCT; and all households in systems implementing small improvements 
in OCCT because of the Distribution System and Site Assessment final 
rule requirements. Corrosion inhibitors used by systems that are 
required to install or re-optimize OCCT as a result of the final LCRI 
would experience an additional benefit in terms of the increased useful 
life of the plumbing components and appliances (e.g., water heaters), 
reduced maintenance costs, reduced treated water loss from the 
distribution system due to leaks, and reduced potential liability and 
damages from broken pipes in buildings that receive treated water from 
the system. The final LCRI is also expected to reduce the potential for 
negative copper exposure heath impacts. Taken as a group the quantified 
and non-quantifiable benefits outweigh the quantified and non-
quantifiable costs leading to the determination that the final LCRI's 
benefits justify the costs.
    Note that although not included in the SDWA HRRCA analysis the EPA, 
as part of its Executive Order 12866 assessment of the final LCRI, has 
also considered: (1) the monetized cost and non-quantifiable negative 
environmental impacts the incremental phosphorus loadings to WWTPs and 
receiving waterbodies cause by the increased use

[[Page 86595]]

of orthophosphate as a corrosion inhibitor; and (2) the climate 
disbenefits resulting from the greenhouse gas emissions associated with 
increased energy consumption as a result of the regulatory requirements 
of the final LCRI.\37\ In the case of additional phosphorus loadings, 
the EPA estimates that incremental national annualized WWTP costs 
associated with the final LCRI will range from $120,000 to $300,000 at 
a two percent discount rate in 2022 dollars.\38\ In addition to the 
monetized impacts increased phosphorus reaching receiving waterbodies 
raises the potential for non-quantified costs associated with 
eutrophication, HABs, and other significant localized ecological 
impacts. With regard to the disbenefits resulting from greenhouse gas 
emissions, the EPA analysis found that the climate disbenefits of the 
final LCRI from CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions associated with 
increased electricity use in the operation of CCT at drinking water 
treatment facilities and the direct combustion of fossil fuels from the 
use of construction and transport vehicles in the replacement of LSLs 
and GRR service lines resulted in monetized annualized values that 
range from $2.1 million under the low scenario to $2.0 million under 
the high scenario discounted at two percent, in 2022 dollars. These 
disbenefit values constitute less than 0.02-0.01 percent of the 
monetized benefits of the rule, at a two percent discount rate, under 
the low and high scenarios, respectively. For additional information on 
the impacts of the additional phosphorus loadings at WWTPs and 
receiving waterbodies, and the climate disbenefits of incremental 
greenhouse gas emissions see the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a), chapter 4, section 4.5, and chapter 5, section 5.9, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Because these costs are not incurred by the public water 
system, these costs are not ``likely to occur solely as a result of 
compliance'' with the final LCRI, and, therefore, are not costs 
considered as part of the HRRCA under SDWA, section 
1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(III).
    \38\ The EPA included the monetized estimated cost of WWTP 
phosphorus removal in it estimated total cost values in the final 
LCRI economic analysis in order to conservatively demonstrate the 
potential impact to PWSs given the fact that many systems operate 
both the drinking water and wastewater systems, however these costs 
are not part of the HRRCA under SDWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Alternative Regulatory Options Considered

    The Office of Management and Budget recommends that ``it is 
generally informative to explore modifications of some or all of a 
regulation's key individual attributes or provisions'' (OMB, 2023). 
Pursuant to this guidance, the EPA considered alternative regulatory 
options when developing the final LCRI related to: the required lead 
action level; the service line replacement rate; the definition of lead 
content to be replaced as part of the service line replacement program; 
the potential for deferred deadlines under the service line replacement 
program; changes to the lead tap sampling schedule; the filter 
requirements under a multiple lead ALE program; and the size threshold 
of the small system compliance flexibility. Due to the large number of 
alternative options considered, this analysis uses the high scenario 
assumptions to illustrate how their monetized benefits and costs 
compare to those of the final LCRI. Also note that EPA has feasibility 
concerns with the implementation of some of the alternative options 
analyzed which raises the level of uncertainty associated with the 
estimated cost and benefit values for those alternatives. The agency 
has noted in the following subsections the alternative options impacted 
by feasibility concerns. Exhibit 16 provides a detailed summary of the 
final LCRI requirements and the alternative options considered.

Exhibit 16--Summary of Alternative Options Considered for the Final LCRI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Alternative option
            Area                   considered            Final LCRI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Action Level...........  1. Lead Action Level  Lead AL of L.      mg/L (proposed
                              2. Lead Action Level   rule).
                               of L.
Service Line Replacement      Service lines are     Service lines are
 Rate.                         replaced at an        replaced at an
                               annual rate of 7%.    annual rate of 10%
                                                     (proposed rule).
Definition of Lead Content    Systems must replace  Systems must replace
 to be Replaced.               lead service lines    lead service lines
                               and galvanized        and galvanized
                               lines previously      lines previously
                               downstream of lead    downstream of lead
                               lines or unknown      lines or unknown
                               lead content lines,   lead content lines.
                               and lead connectors   Lead connectors are
                               and galvanized        replaced when
                               lines previously      encountered
                               downstream of lead    (proposed rule).
                               connectors.
SLR Deferred Deadline.......  1. Systems may be     Systems may be given
                               given a deferred      a deferred deadline
                               deadline for          for finishing all
                               finishing all LSL     lead and GRR
                               and GRR               service line
                               replacements          replacements
                               resulting in a        resulting in a
                               maximum rate which    maximum rate of 39
                               is the lower of       replacements per
                               10,000 lines per      1,000 connections.
                               year or 39
                               replacements per
                               1,000 connections
                               per year (proposed
                               rule--with change
                               to connections per
                               year from
                               households per
                               year).
                              2. Systems may be
                               given a deferred
                               deadline for
                               finishing all LSL
                               and GRR
                               replacements
                               resulting in a
                               maximum rate which
                               is the lower of
                               8,000 lines per
                               year or 39
                               replacements per
                               1,000 connections
                               per year.

[[Page 86596]]

 
Lead Tap Sampling...........  All systems return    All systems return
                               to standard 6-month   to standard 6-month
                               monitoring with an    monitoring with an
                               ALE. Systems with     ALE. Systems with
                               lead, GRR, and/or     lead and GRR
                               unknown service       service lines
                               lines at the          return to standard
                               compliance date       6-month monitoring
                               conduct standard 6-   at compliance date.
                               month monitoring at   Unknown and non-
                               the compliance date   lead service line
                               and non-lead          systems remain on
                               service line          LCR monitoring
                               systems remain on     schedule until new
                               LCR monitoring        LCRI protocol
                               schedule until new    sampling may change
                               LCRI protocol         P90. When (and if)
                               sampling may change   a non-lead/all
                               P90. When (and if)    unknown system
                               a non-lead system     finds a lead or GRR
                               finds a lead or GRR   service line they
                               service line they     return to 6-month
                               return to 6-month     monitoring. Systems
                               monitoring.           with lead and GRR
                               (proposed rule).      service lines that
                               Systems that          sampled using the
                               sampled using the     new protocol and
                               new protocol and      are below the LCRI
                               are below the LCRI    action level prior
                               action level prior    to the compliance
                               to the compliance     date may qualify to
                               date may qualify to   retain their
                               retain their          current schedule.
                               current schedule.
Multiple ALE Filter Programs  Systems with at       Systems with at
                               least 2 lead ALEs     least 2 lead ALEs
                               in a rolling 5-year   in a rolling 5-year
                               period must prepare   period must prepare
                               and submit a filter   and submit a filter
                               plan to State.        plan to State.
                               Systems with at       Systems with at
                               least 3 lead ALEs     least 3 lead ALEs
                               in a rolling 5-year   in a rolling 5-year
                               period must:          period must make
                              1. Make filters        filters available
                               available to all      to all customers
                               customers with        (proposed rule--
                               lead, GRR, and        with filter plan
                               unknown lead          being required
                               content service       after 2 ALEs
                               lines.                instead of 3 ALEs
                              2. Deliver filters     for the final
                               directly to all       rule).
                               customers..
Small System Flexibility....  CWSs that serve       CWSs that serve
                               10,000 or fewer       3,300 or fewer
                               persons, and all      persons, and all
                               NTNCWSs, are          NTNCWSs, are
                               provided compliance   provided compliance
                               flexibility when      flexibility when
                               they exceed the       they exceed the
                               action level.         action level
                                                     (proposed rule).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; GRR = galvanized
  requiring replacement; ALE = action level exceedance; CWS = community
  water system; NTNCWS = non-transient, non-community water system; LSL
  = lead service line; GRR = galvanized requiring replacement service
  line; P90 = calculated 90th percentile lead tap sample.
Note: (Proposed Rule) indicates if a final rule component or alternative
  option were originally considered as part of the proposed LCRI.

1. Alternative Lead Action Levels
    Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18 compare the quantified costs and benefits 
of the final LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits at an action 
level of 0.015 mg/L holding all other final LCRI rule requirements 
constant. Results in these tables are provided for the high scenario at 
a two percent discount rate.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Note the following for all cost results in this section 
VI.G Alternative Regulatory Options Considered: The EPA in the 2021 
LCRR economic analysis (USEPA, 2020b) assumed that the cost of 
customer-side service line replacements made under the goal-based 
replacement requirement would be paid for by households. The agency 
also assumed that system-side service line replacements under the 
goal-based replacement requirement and full service line 
replacements (both customer-side and systems-side) would be paid by 
the PWS under the three percent mandatory replacement requirement. 
The EPA made these modeling assumptions based on the different 
levels of regulatory responsibility systems faced operating under a 
goal-based replacement requirement versus a mandatory replacement 
requirement. While systems would not be subject to a potential 
violation for not meeting the replacement target under the goal-
based replacement requirement, the possibility of a violation under 
the three percent mandatory replacement requirement could motivate 
more systems to meet the replacement target even if they decided 
that it was necessary to adopt customer incentive programs that 
would shift the cost of replacing customer-side service lines from 
customers to the system. To be consistent with these 2021 LCRR 
modeling assumptions, under the final LCRI, the EPA assumed that 
mandatory replacement costs would fall only on systems. Therefore, 
the negative incremental values reported for the ``Household SLR 
Costs'' category do not represent a net cost savings to households. 
They represent an assumed shift of the estimated service line 
replacement costs from households to systems. The EPA has 
insufficient information to estimate the actual service line 
replacement cost sharing relationship between customers and systems 
at the national level of analysis.

 Exhibit 17--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Lead Action Level Option (AL L)--High
                                                            Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                         Alternative option (AL L)
                    PWS annual costs                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $168.1           $24.5
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,765.2         1,640.7
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           621.1           -26.7
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9             5.6            -0.3
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           274.7           202.6
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         2,838.1         1,844.0
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            66.2            24.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs....................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             3.3            -1.5

[[Page 86597]]

 
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         2,907.6         1,840.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: AL = action level; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; PWS = public water system; SLR = lead service line replacement; USD = United
  States dollar.
Notes:
(1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain variables
  which vary between the low and high cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

    Exhibit 18--Estimated National Annual Benefit Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Lead Action Level Option (AL L)--High
                                                            Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                         Alternative option (AL L)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual IQ Benefits......................................        $3,279.0       $10,963.0        $7,684.0        $3,279.0       $10,586.0        $7,307.0
Annual Low-Birth Weight Benefits........................             1.8             5.7             3.9             1.8             5.5             3.7
Annual ADHD Benefits....................................           179.9           599.5           419.6           179.9           580.4           400.5
Annual Adult CVD Premature Mortality Benefits...........         8,174.9        25,210.0        17,035.1         8,174.9        24,203.4        16,028.5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Benefits...............................        11,635.6        36,778.2        25,142.6        11,635.6        35,375.3        23,739.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; AL = action level; CVD = cardiovascular disease; IQ = intelligence quotient; LCRI = Lead and
  Copper Rule Improvements; USD = United States dollar.
Note: Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model,
  and/or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

    Exhibit 19 and Exhibit 20 compare the quantified costs and benefits 
of the final LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits at an action 
level of 0.005 mg/L holding all other final LCRI rule requirements 
constant. Results in these tables are provided for the high scenario at 
a two percent discount rate. Note that the estimated results for the 
alternative option, which assumes water systems can achieve lead levels 
at or below a lead action level of L, must be viewed as 
having a higher degree of uncertainty. Although the EPA has adjusted 
action level exceedance data that allows for the calculation of the 
cost and benefits of this alternative, the agency has concerns about 
the feasibility of implementing this option. See section IV.F.4 of this 
preamble for a detailed discussion of the lead action level and its 
function to support the feasibility of the CCT treatment technique. 
Given the concerns over feasibility and therefore the uncertainty 
associated with the estimated costs and benefits of this alternative 
option, the EPA is discounting the fact that estimated net benefits for 
this alternative option are greater than the estimated net benefits for 
the final LCRI. The final LCRI maintains the lead action level at 
L.

 Exhibit 19--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Lead Action Level Option (AL L)--High
                                                            Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                         Alternative option (AL L)
                    PWS annual costs                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $198.7           $55.1
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,762.4         1,637.9
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           819.4           171.6
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9            15.7             9.8
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           374.2           302.1
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.6             3.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         3,174.0         2,179.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 86598]]

 
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            71.7            29.9
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             8.2             3.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         3,253.9         2,186.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: AL = action level; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; PWS = public water system; SLR = lead service line replacement; USD = United
  States dollar.
Notes:
(1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by EPA's assumptions on three uncertain variables which
  vary between the low and high cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

    Exhibit 20--Estimated National Annual Benefit Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Lead Action Level Option (AL L)--High
                                                            Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                         Alternative option (AL L)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual IQ Benefits......................................        $3,279.0       $10,963.0        $7,684.0        $3,279.0       $11,651.2        $8,372.2
Annual Low-Birth Weight Benefits........................             1.8             5.7             3.9             1.8             6.0             4.2
Annual ADHD Benefits....................................           179.9           599.5           419.6           179.9           634.9           455.0
Annual Adult CVD Premature Mortality Benefits...........         8,174.9        25,210.0        17,035.1         8,174.9        27,044.4        18,869.5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Benefits...............................        11,635.6        36,778.2        25,142.6        11,635.6        39,336.5        27,700.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; AL = action level; CVD = cardiovascular disease; IQ = intelligence quotient; LCRI = Lead and
  Copper Rule Improvements; SLR = lead service line replacement; USD = United States dollar.
Note: Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model,
  and/or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

2. Alternative Service Line Replacement Rate
    Exhibit 21 and Exhibit 22 compare the quantified costs and benefits 
of the final LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of the rule with 
an alternative service line replacement rate of seven percent, holding 
all other rule requirements constant. Results are provided for the high 
scenario at a two percent discount rate.

 Exhibit 21--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Service Line Replacement Option (SLR Rate = 7%)--
                                                         High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                          Alternative option (SLR Rate = 7%)
                    PWS Annual Costs                     -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $176.1           $32.5
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,672.2         1,547.7
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           696.0            48.2
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9            10.2             4.3
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           341.0           268.9
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         2,898.9         1,904.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            67.7            25.9

[[Page 86599]]

 
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             5.2             0.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         2,971.8         1,904.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; PWS = public water system; SLR = lead service line replacement; USD = United States dollar.
Notes: (1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain
  variables which vary between the low- and high-cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

  Exhibit 22--Estimated National Annual Benefit Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Service Line Replacement Option (SLR Rate = 7%)--High
                                                            Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                          Alternative option (SLR Rate = 7%)
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual IQ Benefits......................................        $3,279.0       $10,963.0        $7,684.0        $3,279.0        $9,994.8        $6,715.8
Annual Low-Birth Weight Benefits........................             1.8             5.7             3.9             1.8             5.2             3.4
Annual ADHD Benefits....................................           179.9           599.5           419.6           179.9           540.5           360.6
Annual Adult CVD Premature Mortality Benefits...........         8,174.9        25,210.0        17,035.1         8,174.9        22,997.8        14,822.9
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Benefits...............................        11,635.6        36,778.2        25,142.6        11,635.6        33,538.3        21,902.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CVD = cardiovascular disease; IQ = intelligence quotient; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule
  Improvements; SLR = lead service line replacement USD = United States dollar.
Note: Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model,
  and/or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

3. Alternative Definition of Lead Content Service Lines To Be Replaced
    Exhibit 23 and Exhibit 24 compare the quantified costs and benefits 
of the final LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of requiring all 
lead connectors and all galvanized lines downstream and previously 
downstream from lead connectors be replaced along with LSLs and 
galvanized service lines downstream of LSLs or unknown lead content 
service lines at the 10 percent annual replacement rate. Results are 
provided for the high scenario at the two percent discount rate. As 
discussed in sections IV.B.2 and IV.O.3 of this preamble, both the 
complete inventorying and mandatory removal of lead connectors and 
galvanized service lines downstream and previously downstream of lead 
connectors is not feasible without significantly delaying the 
replacement of lead and GRR service lines. Therefore, note that 
although the EPA was able to estimate costs and benefits for this 
alternative option, using 7th DWINSA survey data on lead content 
service lines, the estimated results are uncertain and likely 
overestimate both costs and benefits since full lead and GRR service 
line replacement is assumed to still occur within the required 10 year 
window (except for those systems on deferred deadlines) when in fact 
these replacement may be delayed as a result of implementing the 
requirements of this option. Given the concerns over feasibility and 
therefore the uncertainty associated with the estimated costs and 
benefits of this alternative option (note benefits estimates would be 
overestimated to a larger extent than costs), the EPA is discounting 
the fact that estimated net benefits for this alternative option are 
greater than the estimated net benefits for the final LCRI. The final 
LCRI maintains the final rules requirement to replace all LSLs and 
galvanized service lines downstream of LSLs or unknown lead content 
service lines at the 10 percents annual replacement rate (except for 
those systems on deferred deadlines).

[[Page 86600]]

 Exhibit 23--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Option Including Lead Connectors in Definition of
                                          Service Lines To Be Replaced--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                        Alternative option (lead connectors and
                                                         ------------------------------------------------ galvanized lines previously downstream of lead
                                                                                                                   connectors must be replaced)
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWS Annual Costs
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $176.4           $32.8
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,921.7         1,797.2
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           701.3            53.5
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9             9.7             3.8
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           306.6           234.5
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         3,119.1         2,125.0
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            67.9            26.1
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             5.3             0.5
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         3,192.3         2,125.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; SLR = lead service line replacement; PWS = public water system; USD = United States dollar.
Notes: (1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain
  variables which vary between the low and high cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

    Exhibit 24--Estimated National Annual Benefit Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Option Including Lead Connectors in Definition of
                                          Service Lines To Be Replaced--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                        Alternative option (lead connectors and
                                                         ------------------------------------------------ galvanized lines previously downstream of lead
                                                                                                                   connectors must be replaced)
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual IQ Benefits......................................        $3,279.0       $10,963.0        $7,684.0        $3,279.0       $12,646.8        $9,367.8
Annual Low-Birth Weight Benefits........................             1.8             5.7             3.9             1.8             6.4             4.6
Annual ADHD Benefits....................................           179.9           599.5           419.6           179.9           684.8           504.9
Annual Adult CVD Premature Mortality Benefits...........         8,174.9        25,210.0        17,035.1         8,174.9        28,943.5        20,768.6
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Benefits...............................        11,635.6        36,778.2        25,142.6        11,635.6        42,281.5        30,645.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CVD = cardiovascular disease; IQ = intelligence quotient; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule
  Improvements; USD = United States dollar.
Note: Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model,
  and/or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

4. Alternative Service Line Replacement Deferred Deadline
    Exhibit 25 and Exhibit 26 compare the quantified costs and benefits 
of the final LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits under an 
alternative service line replacement deferred deadline which would 
allow systems to replace lead and GRR service lines at a maximum rate 
equal to the lower of two alternatives: (1) 10,000 lines per year; or 
(2) 39 replacements per 1000 connections per year, holding all other 
rule requirements constant. Results are provided for the high scenario 
at a two percent discount rate.

[[Page 86601]]

   Exhibit 25--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Deferred Deadline Option (Adding Max Rate of
                                               10,000 SL Per Year)--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                      Alternative option (SL replacement deferred
                                                         ------------------------------------------------   deadline with additional potential maximum
                    PWS Annual Costs                                                                                rate of 10,000 SL per year)
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $176.0           $32.4
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,763.1         1,638.6
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           692.8            45.0
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9             9.7             3.8
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           302.4           230.3
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         2,947.4         1,953.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            67.6            25.8
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             5.0             0.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         3,020.0         1,952.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; PWS = public water system; SL = service line; SLR = lead service line replacement; USD = United
  Stated dollar.
Notes: (1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain
  variables which vary between the low and high cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

 Exhibit 26--Estimated National Annual Benefit Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Deferred Deadline Option (Adding Max Rate of 10,000 SL
                                                    Per Year)--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                      Alternative option (SL replacement deferred
                                                         ------------------------------------------------   deadline with additional potential maximum
                                                                                                                    rate of 10,000 SL per year)
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual IQ Benefits......................................        $3,279.0       $10,963.0        $7,684.0        $3,279.0       $10,960.3        $7,681.3
Annual Low-Birth Weight Benefits........................             1.8             5.7             3.9             1.8             5.7             3.9
Annual ADHD Benefits....................................           179.9           599.5           419.6           179.9           599.3           419.4
Annual Adult CVD Premature Mortality Benefits...........         8,174.9        25,210.0        17,035.1         8,174.9        25,203.7        17,028.8
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Benefits...............................        11,635.6        36,778.2        25,142.6        11,635.6        36,769.0        25,133.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CVD = cardiovascular disease; IQ = intelligence quotient; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule
  Improvements; SL = service line; USD = United States dollar.
Note: Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model,
  and/or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

    Exhibit 27 and Exhibit 28 compare the quantified costs and benefits 
of the final LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits under an 
alternative service line replacement deferred deadline which would 
allow systems to replace lead and GRR service lines at a maximum rate 
equal to the lower of two alternatives: (1) 8,000 lines per year; or 
(2) 39 replacements per 1000 connections per year, holding all other 
rule requirements constant. Results are provided for the high scenario 
at a two percent discount rate.

[[Page 86602]]

Exhibit 27--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Deferred Deadline Option (Adding Max Rate of 8,000
                                                  SL Per Year)--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                      Alternative option (SL replacement deferred
                                                         ------------------------------------------------   deadline with additional potential maximum
                    PWS Annual Costs                                                                                rate of 8,000 SL per year)
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $176.0           $32.4
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,761.8         1,637.3
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           692.8            45.0
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9             9.7             3.8
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           302.7           230.6
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         2,946.4         1,952.3
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            67.6            25.8
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             5.0             0.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         3,019.0         1,951.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; PWS = public water system; SL = service line; SLR = lead service line replacement; USD = United
  Stated dollar.
Notes: (1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain
  variables which vary between the low and high cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

  Exhibit 28--Estimated National Annual Benefit Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Deferred Deadline Option (Adding Max Rate of 8,000 SL
                                                    per Year)--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                      Alternative option (SL replacement deferred
                                                         ------------------------------------------------   deadline with additional potential maximum
                                                                                                                    rate of 8,000 SL per year)
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual IQ Benefits......................................        $3,279.0       $10,963.0        $7,684.0        $3,279.0       $10,943.3        $7,664.3
Annual Low-Birth Weight Benefits........................             1.8             5.7             3.9             1.8             5.7             3.9
Annual ADHD Benefits....................................           179.9           599.5           419.6           179.9           598.3           418.4
Annual Adult CVD Premature Mortality Benefits...........         8,174.9        25,210.0        17,035.1         8,174.9        25,164.0        16,989.1
    Total Annual Benefits...............................        11,635.6        36,778.2        25,142.6        11,635.6        36,711.3        25,075.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CVD = cardiovascular disease; IQ = intelligence quotient; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule
  Improvements; SL = service line; USD = United States dollar.
Note: Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model,
  and/or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

5. Alternative Lead Tap Sampling Standard Monitoring Requirements
    Under the final LCRI, there are a number of criteria that can 
result in a system's starting standard six-month lead tap sample 
monitoring. Systems are required to conduct six-month lead tap sample 
monitoring if the system: exceeds an action level at the compliance 
date; has known lead and/or GRR service lines at the LCRI compliance 
date; or discovers any lead and/or GRR service lines after the 
compliance date (unless the system replaces all the discovered service 
lines prior to the next tap monitoring period), in addition to other 
criteria unchanged from the LCRR. Note that under the final LCRI 
requirements, non-lead and non-lead/unknown service line systems remain 
on their existing LCR monitoring schedule at the rule compliance date. 
They remain on their previous tap sampling schedule until new sampling, 
which is compliant with the LCRI sampling protocols, may change the 
system's calculated 90th percentile to exceed the action level. Also, 
systems with lead and GRR service lines that sampled using the new LCRI 
protocol (i.e., correct priority tiering sites, correct sample volume, 
and either first-liter sample (at non-LSL service line sites) or first- 
and fifth-liter samples (at sites with LSLs)) and are below the LCRI 
action level prior to the compliance date may qualify to retain their 
current tap sampling schedule. As part of the development of the final 
rule, the EPA

[[Page 86603]]

considered an alternative option that would also require systems with 
unknown lead content service lines (even when no lead and/or GRR 
service lines are known to be present in the system) to conduct 
standard six-month monitoring.
    The EPA's analysis of this alternative option found that the 
expected increase in sampling cost and potential increase in benefits 
associated with systems (non-lead/unknown and 100 percent unknown) 
taking earlier corrective action as a result of action level 
exceedances were small and did not affect estimated nation annualized 
costs and benefits at the EPA $100,000 significant digit level. 
Therefore, the EPA is not presenting exhibits characterizing the 
differences between the estimated costs and benefit of the final rule 
and the lead tap sampling alternative option. However, it is important 
to note that the EPA has feasibility concerns associated with the 
alternative option. The additional cost and burden to PWSs and States 
would draw resources away from the implementation of other LCRI rule 
components such as CCT and public education, and the implementation of 
tap sampling in higher risk locations. See section IV.E of this 
preamble for further discussion. Because of these concerns it is likely 
that the estimated cost and benefit of the alternative option are less 
certain than those of the final rule.
6. Alternative Temporary Filter Programs for Systems With Multiple Lead 
Action Level Exceedances
    The final LCRI includes a requirement that systems with at least 
two lead ALEs in a rolling year-year period must prepare and submit a 
filter plan to the State. In addition, if a system has three or more 
ALEs in a rolling five-year period, it must make filters available to 
all consumers in the distribution system. The EPA assessed two 
additional alternative filter programs while developing the final rule. 
Under both alternatives, systems with at least two ALEs in a rolling 
five-year period will follow the final rule requirements to develop and 
submit to the State a filter plan. For systems with at least three ALEs 
in a rolling five-year window, alternative one would require systems to 
make temporary filters available to all customers having lead, GRR, and 
unknown lead content service lines. Alternative two would require 
systems to directly deliver temporary filters to all customers in the 
distribution system.
    Exhibit 29 compares the quantified costs of the final LCRI to the 
quantified costs of requiring systems with at least three ALEs in a 
rolling five-year window to make filters available to customers with 
lead, GRR, or unknown lead content service lines. Under this 
alternative temporary filter option, all other final LCRI rule 
requirements have been held constant. Cost results are provided for the 
high scenario at the two percent discount rate.

Exhibit 29--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Temporary Filters Program for Multiple ALE Systems
              Option (Filters Made Available to Lead, GRR, and Unknown Service Line Customers Only)--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                      Alternative option (temporary filters made
                                                         ------------------------------------------------    available to lead, GRR, and unknown lead
                                                                                                          content service line customers only in systems
                    PWS Annual Costs                                                                              meeting multiple ALE criteria)
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $176.1           $32.5
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           692.9            45.1
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9             9.6             3.7
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           274.8           202.7
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         2,920.7         1,926.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            67.6            25.8
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             5.1             0.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         2,993.4         1,926.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ALE = action level exceedance; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; PWS = public water system; LSL = lead service line; GRR = galvanized
  requiring replacement service line; SLR = lead service line replacement; United States dollar.
Notes: (1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain
  variables which vary between the low and high cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

    Because the EPA's benefit analysis cannot quantify benefits from 
reducing lead exposures at residences that do not initially have lead 
or GRR service lines, the estimated benefits for this option are equal 
to those estimated for the final rule and therefore are not repeated. 
See Exhibit 14 for the estimated benefits of both the final LCRI and 
this alternative option. A discussion of the EPA's lead concentration 
data can be found in section VI.E.1 of this preamble. The quantified 
benefits of the final rule are in fact a more accurate representation 
of the alternative option where filters would not be made available to 
non-lead, GRR, and unknown service line customers. The analysis for the 
final LCRI was not able to quantify the potential benefits of filter 
use at non-lead and GRR households, resulting in

[[Page 86604]]

an underestimate of benefits. Therefore, although not shown in the 
estimated values, the benefits of the final LCRI are likely larger than 
those of the alternative option.
    Exhibit 30 compares the quantified costs of the final LCRI to the 
quantified costs of requiring systems with at least three ALEs in a 
rolling five-year window to directly deliver filters to all customers 
in the distribution system. Results are provided for the high scenario 
at a two percent discount rate. Again, the EPA does not present benefit 
values for this option. The monetized benefits are equivalent to those 
of the final LCRI, see Exhibit 14. Given concerns over the potential to 
underestimate the cost impact of the final LCRI multiple ALE filter 
program, which is dependent on the number of customers in a system that 
chose to obtain a filter from the PWS, the EPA assumed a 100 percent 
customer filter pick-up rate. This assumption, made to ensure a 
conservative assessment of the cost impacts of the program could lead 
to a potential overestimate of the benefits of such a program. However, 
this potential to overestimate benefits is tempered by the fact that, 
as discussed above, the EPA can only calculate benefits accruing to 
households that initially have lead or GRR service lines. Therefore, 
although benefits accruing to this household group may be 
overestimated, the increased assumed pick-up rate among the non-lead 
and GRR service line households do not affect estimated benefits. So, 
given that both the final LCRI and the direct delivery of filters 
option assume 100 percent filter use rates in the estimation of 
benefits, the estimated benefits are equal and likely overestimated. It 
seems reasonable to postulate that the filter use rate may be higher 
for the direct delivery option, given the increased level of effort 
required of consumers to pick-up a filter from a PWS designated 
location under the LCRI (although the EPA has no documented information 
to indicated this is true) and therefore this option would result in 
greater benefits. Note, however, that the EPA has feasibility concerns, 
discussed in section IV.K.2 of this preamble, with the required direct 
delivery of temporary filters to all customers. Therefore, the 
alternative option costs and benefits are more uncertain and may be 
overestimated because the values assume timely implementation of the 
requirement.
    Because the EPA is unable to quantify benefits from reducing lead 
exposures at residences that do not initially have lead or GRR service 
lines and given the concerns over the feasibility of requiring direct 
delivery of temporary filters to all customers, the EPA cannot wholly 
rely on estimates of net benefits to determine the optimal temporary 
filter program regulatory requirements when systems have multiple ALEs. 
Although the estimated net benefits for the ``only make filters 
available to customers with lead, GRR, or unknown lead content service 
lines'' are greater than those estimated for the final rule the EPA has 
determined that the additional non-quantifiable potential benefits 
associated with lead reductions at households that did not initially 
have lead or GRR service lines outweighs the additional cost of the 
final rule program. Also as stated above the EPA has feasibility 
concerns with the option requiring direct delivery to all customers. 
The final rule requires that, if a system has three or more ALEs in a 
rolling five-year period, it must make filters available to all 
consumers in the distribution system.

Exhibit 30--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Temporary Filters Program for Multiple ALE Systems
                                    Option (Deliver Filters to All Customers)--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                     Alternative option (deliver temporary filters
                                                         ------------------------------------------------  directly to all customers in systems meeting
                    PWS Annual Costs                                                                                  multiple ALE criteria)
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $176.1           $32.5
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           692.9            45.1
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9             9.6             3.7
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           308.1           236.0
Rule Implementation and Administration..................             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.4             3.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         2,954.0         1,959.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            67.6            25.8
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             5.1             0.3
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         3,026.7         1,959.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ALE = action level exceedance; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; PWS = public water system; SL = service line; SLR = lead service line
  replacement; United States dollar.
Notes: (1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain
  variables which vary between the low and high cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

[[Page 86605]]

7. Alternative Size Threshold for Small System Compliance Flexibility
    Exhibit 31 and Exhibit 32 compare the quantified costs and benefits 
of the final LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits for an 
alternative option where the small system compliance flexibility size 
threshold for CWSs is equal to systems serving 10,000 or fewer persons. 
The final LCRI sets the small system compliance flexibility threshold 
at systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons. Note under both the final 
rule and the assessed alternative NTNCWSs are allowed compliance 
flexibility. Results are provided for the high scenario at a two 
percent discount rate. The estimated costs and benefits under the 
alternative small system compliance flexibility threshold, of systems 
serving up to 10,000 persons, assumes the effective implementation of 
POU in place of system wide CCT. As discussed in section IV.I of this 
preamble the agency finds that in CWSs serving greater than 3,300 
persons it is highly unlikely that POU programs, given their 
complexity, will be implemented effectively and could not make a 
determination that a POU program is as effective as CCT at minimizing 
exposure to lead in water for systems serving more than 3,300 persons. 
Therefore, under the alternative threshold option the estimated costs 
and, to a larger degree, the estimated benefits are uncertain. Given 
the concerns over feasibility and therefore the uncertainty associated 
with the estimated costs and benefits of this alternative option, the 
EPA is discounting the fact that estimated net benefits for this 
alternative option are greater than the estimated net benefits for the 
final LCRI. The final rule sets the small system compliance flexibility 
threshold at systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons.

 Exhibit 31--Estimated National Annualized Rule Cost Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Small System Flexibility Option (Flexibility for
                                       CWSs Serving Up to 10,000 Persons)--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                     Alternative option (small system flexibility
                                                         ------------------------------------------------     for CWSs serving up to 10,000 persons)
                    PWS Annual Costs                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sampling................................................          $143.6          $176.2           $32.6          $143.6          $176.0           $32.4
PWS SLR.................................................           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4           124.5         1,763.9         1,639.4
Corrosion Control Technology............................           647.8           692.9            45.1           647.8           692.7            44.9
Point-of Use Installation and Maintenance...............             5.9             9.6             3.7             5.9             9.6             3.7
Public Education and Outreach...........................            72.1           302.2           230.1            72.1           302.0           229.9
    Rule Implementation and Administration..............             0.2             3.4             3.2             0.2             3.4             3.2
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual PWS Costs..............................           994.1         2,948.2         1,954.1           994.1         2,947.6         1,953.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Household SLR Costs.....................................            26.4             0.0           -26.4            26.4             0.0           -26.4
State Rule Implementation and Administration............            41.8            67.6            25.8            41.8            67.6            25.8
Wastewater Treatment Plant Costs........................             4.8             5.1             0.3             4.8             5.2             0.4
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Rule Costs.............................         1,067.1         3,020.9         1,953.8         1,067.1         3,020.4         1,953.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: CWS = community water system; LCRI = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; SLR = lead service line replacement; PWS = public water system; United
  States dollar.
Notes: (1) Previous Baseline costs are projected over the 35-year period of analysis and are affected by the EPA's assumptions on three uncertain
  variables which vary between the low and high cost scenarios.
(2) Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model, and/
  or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

  Exhibit 32--Estimated National Annual Benefit Comparison Between the Final LCRI and Alternative Small System Flexibility Option (Flexibility for CWSs
                                          Serving Up to 10,000 Persons)--High Scenario--2 Percent Discount Rate
                                                                 [Millions of 2022 USD]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Final rule                     Alternative option (small system flexibility
                                                         ------------------------------------------------     for CWSs serving up to 10,000 persons)
                                                                                                         -----------------------------------------------
                                                             Baseline          LCRI         Incremental      Baseline          LCRI         Incremental
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual IQ Benefits......................................        $3,279.0       $10,963.0        $7,684.0        $3,279.0       $10,963.1        $7,684.1
Annual Low-Birth Weight Benefits........................             1.8             5.7             3.9             1.8             5.7             3.9
Annual ADHD Benefits....................................           179.9           599.5           419.6           179.9           599.5           419.6
Annual Adult CVD Premature Mortality Benefits...........         8,174.9        25,210.0        17,035.1         8,174.9        25,210.5        17,035.6
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Annual Benefits...............................        11,635.6        36,778.2        25,142.6        11,635.6        36,778.8        25,143.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: ADHD = attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; CVD = cardiovascular disease; CWS = community water system; IQ = intelligence quotient; LCRI
  = Lead and Copper Rule Improvements; USD = United States dollar.

[[Page 86606]]

 
Note: Very small differences in results between the final rule and the regulatory option are due to inter-run variability in the SafeWater LCR model,
  and/or rounding, and should not be interpreted at true differences between the costs and benefits of the final rule and the alternative option.

    The EPA's analysis of the alternative regulatory options found that 
the following options had estimated annual net benefits greater than 
the final LCRI: (1) setting the action level to 0.005 mg/L; (2) 
including lead connectors and galvanized service lines previously 
downstream of lead connectors in the definition of lead content 
requiring replacement; (3) requiring systems with multiple action level 
exceedances to make temporary filters available to households with 
lead, GRR, or unknown lead content service lines; and (4) allowing 
systems serving up to 10,000 persons the ability to utilize the small 
system compliance flexibility options. From a purely economic 
standpoint that would mean these four options are preferable to the 
final LCRI. However, three of these options were not selected, in place 
of the final rule, because of questionable technical feasibility. SDWA 
section 1412(b)(4)(D) says 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. The EPA has discussed the agency's feasibility concerns with 
regard to: setting the action level to 0.005 mg/L; including lead 
connectors and galvanized service lines previously downstream of lead 
connectors in the definition of lead content requiring replacement; and 
allowing systems serving up to 10,000 persons the ability to utilize 
the small system compliance flexibility options, in preceding sections 
of this preamble. Regarding setting the action level at a level below 
0.010 mg/L, the EPA has expressed concern associated with feasibility. 
See section IV.F.4 of this preamble for information on feasibility. 
When considering the inclusion of lead connectors and galvanized 
service lines previously downstream of lead connectors in the set of 
service lines that must be actively replaced, the EPA was concerned 
about how these activities might pull resources away from the removal 
of lead and GRR service lines that pose a greater exposure risk. See 
sections IV.B.2 and IV.O.3 of this preamble for a detailed discussion. 
In the case of setting the threshold for the small system flexibility 
option to include systems serving up to 10,000 persons or fewer, 
despite the modeling results showing an increase net benefits under 
this option, the EPA finds that the complexity of implementing point-
of-use filtration at all residences in a system serving 3,300 to 10,000 
individuals, or potentially 1,300 to 4,000 separate locations, cannot 
be correctly captured in the estimated cost structure within the 
economic model and makes this option infeasible. See section IV.I of 
this preamble for additional information on point-of-use feasibility. 
In addition, the monetized benefits associated with the implementation 
of CCT are known to be underestimated given the potential reductions in 
lead exposure at homes without lead and GRR service lines in a system 
implementing CCT which is not captured in the EPA benefit estimates. 
The CCT benefits also do not capture reduced water loss, plumbing 
repair cost, and water damage costs associated with the increased use 
of corrosion control. See section VI.F.2. of this preamble for more 
information on the unquantified impacts. See section IV.F of this 
preamble for additional information on corrosion control treatment. 
With regard to estimated annual net benefits being greater for the 
alternative option where systems with multiple action level exceedances 
would be required to only make temporary filters available to 
households with lead, GRR, or unknown lead content service lines, the 
EPA has highlighted the inability of the benefits analysis to monetize 
positive health impact from reduced lead exposure at non-lead and GRR 
service line locations which leads to an underestimate of final LCRI 
benefits relative to the benefits estimated for this alternative 
option. Note also that the EPA made a conservative costing assumption 
that 100 percent of households that are eligible to receive a filter 
would pick-up a filter when made available. The EPA has very little 
information on what the actual pick-up rate may be but it is possible 
that the rate could be significantly less than 100 percent and 
therefore the costs for both the final LCRI and this alternative 
multiple ALE temporary filters program are overestimated, and given the 
fact that the final LCRI is making filters available to all households 
in a system its estimated costs are likely overestimated to a greater 
extent than the alternative option. Because of the similar annual 
estimated net benefits between the two alternatives, only $27.5 million 
in 2022 dollars, and the benefit and cost estimation uncertainties 
outlined above the EPA cannot rely on the relative size of the 
estimated net benefits in selecting between these options. Therefore, 
the EPA selected the final LCRI multiple ALE option because it protects 
individuals in systems with multiple ALEs that do not have lead, GRR, 
or unknown service lines, were as the alternative option while 
addressing most of the exposure issues in lead, GRR service line 
systems today does not cover systems with multiple ALEs and no lead, 
GRR, or unknown service lines. The alternative option will also 
effectively sunset as all unknowns are identified and lead and GRR 
service lines are replaced (13 years except for systems on approved 
differed deadlines) leaving consumers in systems with chronic ALEs and 
no lead or GRR service lines to be exposed to potentially high levels 
of lead coming from premise plumbing. The final rule addresses this 
issue into the future by requiring filters be made available to all 
customers in systems with multiple ALEs.
    In the case of the alternative lead tap sample monitoring 
requirements that would have systems with unknown lead content service 
lines start standard six-month lead tap sampling at the LCRI compliance 
date, the EPA's monetized cost and benefit estimates were too close to 
conclusively determine if this alternative option or the final LCRI has 
greater net benefits. Due to the potentially high volume of systems 
required to start standard monitoring, the EPA did not select to move 
forward with this alternative lead tap sampling option. One concern is 
the ability of the States to handle the increased demands of overseeing 
the potentially large number of systems requiring sampling assistance 
during the compressed time period immediately following the rule 
compliance date. Another concern is that requiring systems with 
unknowns to start standard six-month lead tap sampling would affect a 
large number of small systems, as the EPA estimates that 45 percent of 
small systems, or 20,200 systems, have an inventory with unknown 
material service lines and no lead or GRR service lines. Lastly, the 
EPA considered a phased approach to include systems with unknowns in 
the standard monitoring requirements but decided that the complexity of 
a phased approach was not commensurate with the benefits, as nearly all 
systems will conduct monitoring within three years of the rule 
promulgation based on their LCR sampling schedule. See section

[[Page 86607]]

IV.E of this preamble for additional information on lead tap sampling.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive 
Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review)

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'', as defined 
under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive 
Order 14094. Accordingly, the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) submitted this action to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for Executive Order 12866 review. Documentation of any 
changes made in response to the Executive Order 12866 review is 
available in the docket. The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential 
costs and benefits associated with this action. This analysis, the 
Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Improvements or 
final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a), is also available in the 
docket and is summarized in section VI of this preamble.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted for approval to the OMB under the PRA. The Information 
Collection Request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been 
assigned the EPA ICR number 2788.02 and OMB control number 2040-NEW. 
You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is 
briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are 
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    The paperwork burden associated with this final rule consists of 
the burden imposed on systems to read and understand the LCRI as well 
as the burden associated with certain new or revised collections of 
information. Specifically, public water systems (PWSs) will have to 
assign personnel and devote resources to implement the rule. In 
addition, public water systems will need to attend training sessions 
and receive technical assistance from their State during implementation 
of the LCRI. Furthermore, PWSs will have to update the 2021 LCRR 
initial inventory and include information on lead connectors and submit 
the updated inventory to the State. For the PWSs that have lead, GRR, 
or unknown service lines, a service line replacement plan will need to 
be developed. PWSs will need to develop, submit to the State, and 
annually distribute public education materials on service line material 
type to those consumers served by lead, GRR, or unknown service lines. 
Systems must also update and submit to the State a tap site sample 
plan.
    Likewise, the paperwork burden for States include reading and 
understanding the LCRI. The State will have to adopt the rule and 
develop programs to implement the LCRI. This may result in the State 
modifying their data system while implementing the LCRI. Also, the 
State will have to provide staff with training and technical assistance 
as well as provide water systems with training and technical assistance 
for implementation of the LCRI. The State is also responsible for 
reviewing the updated LCRR initial inventories (referred to as the 
baseline inventory in the LCRI) which will contain lead connector 
information and PWS demonstrations and written statements of only non-
lead service lines, non-lead connectors, or no connectors present from 
systems in lieu of a publicly accessible inventory as well as reviewing 
service line replacement plans. States will have to review service line 
replacement plans. States will have to review language for public 
education materials on service line material type. States must also 
review updated tap site sample plans.
    The information collected under the ICR is critical to States and 
other authorized entities that have been granted primacy (i.e., primary 
enforcement authority) for the LCRI. These authorized entities are 
responsible for overseeing the LCRI implementation by certain public 
water systems within their jurisdiction. States would utilize these 
data to determine compliance, designate additional treatment controls 
to be installed, and establish enforceable operating parameters. The 
collected information is also necessary for PWSs. PWSs would use these 
data to demonstrate compliance, assess treatment options, operate and 
maintain installed treatment equipment, and communicate water quality 
information to consumers served by the water system. States would also 
be required to report a subset of these data to the EPA. The EPA would 
utilize the information to protect public health by ensuring compliance 
with the LCRI, measuring progress toward meeting the LCRI's goals, and 
evaluating the appropriateness of State implementation activities. No 
confidential information would be collected as a result of this ICR.
    Respondents/affected entities: Respondents would include owners and 
operators of public water systems who must report to their State, and 
States, who must report to the Federal Government.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: The collection requirements are 
mandatory under sections 1401(1)(D), 1445(a)(1)(A), and 1413(a)(3) of 
SDWA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 67,003; includes 56 primacy 
agencies and 66,947 public water systems.
    Frequency of response: For the first three years after the final 
rule is published, the majority of the responses are required once, 
with some outliers being required annually.
    Total estimated burden: 3,987,886 hours (per year). Burden is 
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $348,472,952 (per year), includes 
$166,786,198 in annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    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 the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    Pursuant to section 603 and 609(b) of the RFA, the EPA prepared an 
initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule 
and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain 
advice and recommendations from small entity representatives that 
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. Summaries of 
the IRFA and Panel recommendations are presented in the proposed rule 
at 88 FR 85040 (USEPA, 2023a).
    As required by section 604 of the RFA, the EPA prepared a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action. The FRFA 
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA for the 
proposed rule. The complete FRFA is available for review in section 7.4 
of the final LCRI Economic Analysis in the docket and is summarized 
here.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small 
entities, the EPA considered small entities to be

[[Page 86608]]

water systems serving 10,000 persons or fewer. This is the threshold 
specified by Congress in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water 
Act (SDWA) for small water system flexibility provisions. As required 
by the RFA, the EPA proposed using this alternative definition in the 
Federal Register (63 FR 7620, USEPA, 1998c), requested public comment, 
consulted with the Small Business Administration (SBA), and finalized 
the alternative definition in the agency's Consumer Confidence Reports 
(CCR) regulation (63 FR 44524, USEPA, 1998d). As stated in the final 
CCR rule (USEPA, 1998d), the alternative definition would apply to all 
future drinking water regulations.
    The EPA used the Federal Safe Drinking Water Information System 
(SDWIS/Federal) data from the fourth quarter 2020 to identify about 
63,000 small public water systems (PWSs) that may be impacted by the 
final LCRI. A small PWS serves between 25 and 10,000 persons. These 
water systems include over 45,000 community water systems (CWSs) that 
serve year-round residents and more than 17,000 non-transient non-
community (NTNCWSs) that serve the same persons at least six months per 
year (e.g., a water system that is an office park or church). The EPA 
used data from the 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and 
Assessment (DWINSA or Needs Survey) and its supplemental one-time 
update to estimate that, of the total number of small systems serving 
10,000 persons or fewer, 22,235 CWSs and 434 NTNCWSs have service lines 
with lead content, potential lead content, or unknown content. For 
additional information on the development of estimated counts of 
systems with potential lead content service lines, see the final 
Economic Analysis document section 3.4.4 (USEPA, 2024a). The percent of 
small systems that are estimated to exceed the lead action level (0.010 
mg/L) ranges from 4.4 to 38.9 percent depending on the variation 
between projected low- and high-cost scenarios of 90th percentile lead 
tap sample values and the presence of LSLs in systems (see Exhibits 7-
3, 7-4, and 7-5 in the final Economic Analysis for more information; 
USEPA, 2024a).
    SDWA is the core statute addressing drinking water quality at the 
Federal level. Under SDWA, the EPA sets public health goals and 
enforceable standards for drinking water quality. The EPA promulgated 
the LCR NPDWR to require PWSs to minimize lead and copper in drinking 
water by reducing water corrosivity and preventing lead and copper from 
leaching from premise plumbing and drinking water distribution system 
components.
    The regulatory revisions in the LCRI will strengthen public health 
protection and improve rule implementation. The final rule includes 
requirements that can be categorized as follows: conducting a service 
line inventory that includes lead connectors and is updated annually; 
requiring mandatory full service line replacement under the control of 
water systems; improving tap sampling; installing or re-optimizing 
corrosion control treatment (CCT); enhancing lead tap and water quality 
parameter monitoring; evaluating sites with lead tap sample results 
above 0.010 mg/L to assess issues with CCT performance in the 
distribution system; utilizing pitcher filters and point-of-use 
devices; improving customer outreach; and revising reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements. The regulatory requirement categories can 
also be thought of as the main cost categories affecting small systems. 
States are required to implement operator certification (and 
recertification) programs per SDWA section 1419 to ensure operators of 
CWSs and NTNCWSs, including small water system operators, have the 
appropriate level of certification.
    The EPA solicited small entity stakeholder input during the 
development of the LCRI. Sections VII.E and VII.F of this preamble 
contain detailed information on stakeholder outreach during the 
rulemaking process, including material on the federalism and Tribal 
consultation processes, respectively. The EPA also specifically sought 
input from small entity stakeholders through the SBAR Panel process. On 
November 15, 2022, the EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson 
convened the Panel, which consisted of the Chairperson, the Director of 
the Standards and Risk Management Division within the EPA's Office of 
Ground Water and Drinking Water, the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the OMB, and the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. The SBAR Panel process was completed 
on May 31, 2023. Detailed information on the overall panel process can 
be found in the panel report available in the LCRI docket (EPA-HQ-OW-
2022-0801).
    The EPA received comments on the rule proposal, including from the 
Deputy Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy of the SBA, on the 
impact and cost burden for small water systems and their consumers. The 
SBA commented on Federal funding availability and access for small 
systems, upcoming and competing compliance needs (e.g., per- and 
polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water and as a hazardous 
substance), the effect of potential increases to ratepayer costs for 
disadvantaged communities and the complexity of the updated tap 
sampling protocol for small systems with LSLs. The SBA recommended that 
the EPA revise its cost estimates for the LCRI to account for the 
stated concerns, revise the environmental justice analysis to include 
the impact of rate increases caused by the rule on disadvantaged 
communities, and work with small entities to ensure they have the 
personnel and resources necessary to achieve compliance with the LCRI 
requirements. The EPA discussed Federal funding and technical 
assistance avenues for systems, including small systems, in the 
preamble of the proposed LCRI (88 FR 84878, USEPA, 2023a) and in 
section III.G of this preamble. For additional discussion on the SBA's 
and others' comments on funding and technical assistance, see sections 
III.G and III.D of this preamble. For the EPA's response to the SBA's 
recommendations, see section VI of this preamble for the cost estimates 
and section VII.J of this preamble for more information on the 
environmental justice analysis.
    The SBA commented on the feasibility of the proposed 10-year 
replacement deadline, noting that, ``under the RFA, the EPA is required 
to examine whether alternative timetables or requirements would be 
appropriate to help small systems comply with the LCRI'' and 
recommending that the agency revise and extend service line replacement 
deadlines for small systems. The SBA also commented on the ability of 
small systems to access private property for service line replacement. 
For the EPA's discussion on the feasibility of the mandatory service 
line replacement requirement, which is based on a sample of systems 
currently conducting replacement programs, see section IV.B of this 
preamble. The LCRI also includes the deferred deadlines provision, 
where any system with a high proportion of known lead and GRR service 
lines to service connections may defer their mandatory replacement 
deadline to a calculated later date (see section IV.B.8 of this 
preamble for more information). The EPA discussed customer access 
barriers and provided examples of successful systems in the preamble 
for the proposed LCRI. The final LCRI includes a requirement for 
systems to make a reasonable effort to obtain property owner consent.
    Under the final rule requirements, small CWSs serving 3,300 or 
fewer

[[Page 86609]]

persons and all NTNCWSs with a 90th percentile lead value above the 
lead action level of 0.010 mg/L may choose an alternative compliance 
option to CCT, including installing and maintaining point-of-use 
devices or removing all lead-bearing plumbing material from the system. 
As discussed in section IV.F.1 of this preamble, the EPA previously 
determined that optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) is an 
affordable technology for all size systems (63 FR 42039, USEPA, 1998a; 
USEPA, 1998b). However, allowing the smallest systems (serving 3,300 or 
fewer persons) and all NTNCWSs to utilize these alternative compliance 
options provides these systems with flexibility in complying with the 
LCRI that may still have technical difficulties implementing CCT. These 
alternative compliance options are as effective at reducing risk from 
lead in drinking water for this category of systems as CCT. See section 
IV.I of this preamble for more information on these requirements.
    In addition to the small system flexibility provisions for action 
level exceedances, there are other flexibilities included in the rule, 
such as in tap sampling, CCT, and public education, that will ensure 
sufficient public health protection for the communities served. For 
instance, systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer may apply to the State 
to reduce the frequency of tap sampling and monitoring to once every 
nine years if the system demonstrates that the distribution system and 
drinking water supply plumbing are free of lead- and copper-containing 
materials. The EPA clarified in the final LCRI that waivers approved by 
the State in writing prior to the LCRI effect date, rather than April 
11, 2000, are still in effect unless the system no longer meets the 
90th percentile of 0.005 mg/L for lead and 0.65 mg/L and the system 
does not meet the ineligibility criteria. In addition Sec.  
141.86(g)(7)(ii) was removed as it is no longer applicable. Systems 
serving 10,000 persons or fewer are only required to install or re-
optimize corrosion control treatment if they exceed the action level, 
whereas most systems with CCT serving between 10,001 and 50,000 persons 
must now optimize their CCT similar to systems serving more than 50,000 
persons as well as meet optimized water quality parameters. Systems 
serving 3,300 persons or fewer that exceed the lead action level do not 
have to submit a press release to media outlets as long as they meet 
the requirement to distribute public education materials to all 
households served. Also, systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer that 
exceed the lead action level must only complete one additional public 
outreach activity, whereas larger systems must complete three 
activities.
    Another form of flexibility provided to all water systems, but that 
is most likely to benefit small systems, is the provision that systems 
with at least one lead or GRR service line and a lead action level 
exceedance (or lead practical quantitation limit (PQL) exceedance for 
large systems) may defer installing or re-optimizing OCCT as they 
replace all lead and GRR service lines in five years or less at a 
mandatory minimum annual rate. This provision allows systems to avoid 
the expense of having to conduct studies, such as a pipe loop study, 
prior to installing or re-optimizing OCCT while the system 
configurations are changing. In addition, this allows systems to 
prioritize the health protection afforded by mandatory full service 
line replacement. At the end of the five-year-or-less period, the 
system must remove all lead and GRR service lines (the system must have 
access to all lead and GRR service lines) and identify the material of 
all unknown service lines, replacing any lines found to be lead or GRR 
service lines. For systems with approximately 50 LSLs or fewer, most or 
all the lines can be replaced for the cost of the pipe rig/loop study, 
given the cost of a pipe loop study for small systems ($307,744) and 
assuming that the costs for a full service line replacement will range 
between $6,507 and $8,519, the estimated 25th and 75th percentile cost 
estimates derived by the EPA using 7th DWINSA data (USEPA, 2024a). If 
the system had an action level exceedance after completing mandatory 
service line replacement within five years or less, the system could 
evaluate corrosion control treatments with much less expensive coupon 
or desktop studies (chapter 4, section 4.3.3, USEPA 2024a). See section 
IV.F of this preamble for more information on this flexibility.
    The EPA assessed the degree to which the final LCRI small system 
flexibilities would mitigate compliance costs. The EPA is estimating 
low- and high-cost scenarios to characterize uncertainty in the cost 
model results. These scenarios are functions of assigning different 
input values (low and high) to a number of variables that affect the 
relative cost of the small system compliance options. The number of 
systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons that choose to install and 
maintain point-of-use devices under the final LCRI range from 2,406 to 
4,066, serving between 250,048 and 474,266 persons. The total monetized 
annualized cost for small systems under the low-and high-cost scenarios 
range from $277 to $313 million discounted at two percent. The low and 
high scenarios also produce between $1.4 and $2.5 billion in small 
system total monetized annualized benefits discounted at two percent. 
See chapter 7, section 7.4.5 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis for a 
breakdown of cost and benefit estimates by small system size sub-
categories. Under the final LCRI, the number of small CWSs that will 
experience incremental annual costs of more than one percent of 
revenues ranges from 35,895 to 37,069 (80 percent to 82 percent of all 
small CWSs) and the number of small CWSs that will have annual 
incremental costs exceeding 3 percent of revenues ranges from 26,993 to 
27,568 (60 percent to 61 percent of small CWSs). Lead-bearing plumbing 
was not analyzed in the EPA's cost-benefit model. See chapter 7, 
section 7.4 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis for more information on 
the characterization of the impacts under the final rule.
    The EPA has considered an alternative approach to provide 
regulatory flexibility to small water systems. The alternative would 
make small system flexibility available to all NTNCWSs and CWSs serving 
up to 10,000 persons when a system has an action level exceedance. 
Systems that meet the criteria may choose from among the following 
compliance options: (1) optimizing existing CCT or installing new CCT; 
(2) installing and maintaining point-of-use devices at all locations 
being served; or (3) removal of all lead-bearing plumbing material from 
the system. Note that the EPA's cost-benefit model does not include an 
analysis of the removal of lead-bearing plumbing. The total monetized 
annualized cost for the high scenario under the alternative small 
system compliance option is $500,000 less than the final LCRI at a two 
percent discount rate. The alternative small system compliance option 
also results in increased monetized annualized benefits under the high 
scenario equal to $600,000 at a two percent discount rate. Note that 
the SafeWater Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) model cost minimization 
calculations producing these results do not capture the impact of the 
feasibility concerns associated with implementing point-of-use at 
systems serving over 3,300 persons. See Exhibits 31 and 32 in section 
VI.G.7 of this preamble for a more detailed comparison of the costs and 
benefits of the final LCRI and this alternative small system 
flexibility compliance requirement. Also see chapter 7, section

[[Page 86610]]

7.4 and chapter 8, section 8.8 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis for 
additional information on the analysis of the alternative approach 
(USEPA, 2024a).
    In addition, the EPA will develop a Small Entity Compliance Guide 
to help small entities comply with this rule. The EPA plans to develop 
the Small System Compliance Guide within the first three years after 
promulgating the rule and make it available on the EPA's LCRI website.

D. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate that may result in 
expenditures of $174 million in 2022$ ($100 million in 1995$ adjusted 
for inflation using the GDP implicit price deflator) or more as 
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, for State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. 
Accordingly, the EPA prepared a written statement required under 
section 202 of UMRA. The statement is included in the docket for this 
action (see chapter 7, section 7.5 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2024a)) and is briefly summarized here.
    The EPA conducted a cost analysis of the final rule as required 
under SDWA, UMRA, and Executive Order 12866. For additional detail on 
the analysis see section VI of this preamble and chapters 4 and 6 of 
the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2024a). The EPA finds that 
under the low-cost scenario, the highest annual incremental cost over 
the 35-year period of analysis is estimated to happen in the fourth 
year after rule promulgation. In this year, publicly owned PWSs are 
expected to have undiscounted incremental costs of $3.8 billion, 
privately owned PWSs are expected to have undiscounted incremental 
costs of $700 million, and States will have undiscounted incremental 
costs of $119 million. Under the high-cost scenario, the highest annual 
incremental cost over the 35-year period of analysis is estimated to 
happen in the eighth year after rule promulgation. In this year, 
publicly owned PWSs are expected to have undiscounted incremental costs 
of $5.9 billion, privately owned PWSs are expected to have undiscounted 
incremental costs of $875 million, and States will have undiscounted 
incremental costs of $40 million. Therefore, the final LCRI has 
projected estimated total undiscounted costs for the high cost year of 
the period of analysis that range from $4.6 billion to $6.8 billion in 
2022 dollars and is therefore subject to the requirements of Sections 
202 of UMRA. The EPA notes that the Federal Government is providing 
potential sources of funds to offset some of those direct compliance 
costs of the LCRI, including $15 billion as part of the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. However, the rule's costs still exceed $174 million 
for a given year even when considering currently available Federal 
funds.
    Consistent with the intergovernmental consultation provisions of 
UMRA section 204, the EPA consulted with governmental entities affected 
by this rule. The EPA describes the government-to-government dialogue 
and comments from State, local, and Tribal governments in sections 
VII.E and VII.F of this preamble.
    Consistent with UMRA section 205, the EPA identified and analyzed a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to determine the treatment 
technique requirements in the final LCRI. See section VI.G of this 
preamble and chapter 8 of the final LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2024a) for descriptions and analysis of alternative options that were 
considered.
    This action may significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 
The EPA consulted with small governments concerning regulatory 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. The EPA 
describes this consultation in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
section VII.C of this document.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    The EPA concluded that this action has federalism implications 
because it imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State or 
local governments, and the Federal Government will not provide the 
funds necessary to pay those costs. However, the EPA notes that the 
Federal Government is providing a potential source of funds to offset 
some of those direct compliance costs through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law. The EPA estimates that the net change in primacy 
agency related costs for State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
aggregate is between $25.8 and $27.7 million in 2022 dollars at a two 
percent discount rate (USEPA, 2024a).
    The EPA provides the following federalism summary impact statement. 
The EPA consulted with State and local officials early in the process 
of developing the proposed action to permit them to have meaningful and 
timely input into its development. On October 13, 2022, the EPA held a 
federalism consultation through a virtual meeting. The EPA invited the 
following national organizations representing State and local officials 
to that meeting: the National Governor's Association, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the 
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
Association of Counties, the International City/County Management 
Association, the National Association of Towns and Townships, the 
Council of State Governments, County Executives of America, and the 
Environmental Council of the States. The EPA also invited the 
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the Association of 
Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Rural Water Association, the 
American Water Works Association, the Association of State and 
Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and 
City Health Officials, the American Public Works Association, the 
Association of Clean Water Administrators, the Western States Water 
Council, the African American Mayors Association, the National 
Association of State Attorneys General, the Western Governors' 
Association, the National School Board Association, the American 
Association of School Administrators, and the Council of the Great City 
Schools to participate in the meeting. Representatives from 15 
organizations participated in the meeting.
    The EPA also provided the members of the various associations an 
opportunity to provide input during follow-up meetings. The EPA 
received requests for additional meetings and held meetings with the 
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators and member States on 
October 5, 2022, and November 2, 2022.
    In addition to input received during the meeting on October 13, 
2022, the EPA provided an opportunity to receive written input within 
60 days after the date of that meeting. A summary report of the views 
expressed during the federalism consultation meeting and written 
submissions is available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0813).

F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments)

    This action has Tribal implications because it imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on Tribal governments, and the Federal 
Government will not provide funds necessary to pay all of those direct 
compliance costs. There are 996 PWSs serving Tribal communities, where 
87 of them are federally-owned (USEPA, 2024a). The final LCRI Economic 
Analysis estimated that the total annualized incremental costs placed 
on

[[Page 86611]]

all systems serving Tribal communities ranges from $5.9 to $7.2 million 
(USEPA, 2024a). The EPA notes that these estimated impacts will not 
fall evenly across all Tribal systems. The LCRI small system 
flexibility provisions offer regulatory relief by providing 
flexibilities for CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer persons and all NTNCWSs 
that choose alternatives to CCT, such as installation and maintenance 
of point-of-use devices and replacement of lead-bearing materials to 
address lead in drinking water. This flexibility may result in LCRI 
implementation cost savings for many Tribal systems since 89 percent of 
Tribal CWSs serve 3,300 or fewer persons and 16 percent of all Tribal 
systems are NTNCWSs (USEPA, 2024a). Lastly, the EPA notes that the 
Federal Government is providing a potential source of funds to offset 
some of those direct compliance costs through the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law (BIL). Tribal communities may apply for funding and 
technical assistance to support reduction of lead in drinking water 
through the Drinking Water Infrastructure Grants Tribal Set-Aside 
Program, specifically, the Lead Service Line Replacement Supplemental 
funding, which includes $60 million per year for five years (fiscal 
year (FY) 2022-FY 2026) from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to 
supports lead service line identification and replacement in water 
systems serving Tribes. The EPA also provides support to Tribal 
communities through Tribal Grant Programs established under the WIIN 
Act, specifically the Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Tribal Grant 
Program that supports lead reduction projects for public water systems 
that serve Tribal communities and the Voluntary School and Childcare 
Lead Testing and Reduction Tribal Grant Program to support lead testing 
in drinking water at any school or child care facility, public or 
private, that serves federally recognized Tribal populations.
    The EPA consulted with federally recognized Tribal officials early 
in the process of developing this action to permit them to have 
meaningful and timely input into its development. Between October 6, 
2022, and December 9, 2022, the EPA consulted with federally recognized 
Indian Tribes. The consultation included two national webinars with 
interested Tribes on October 27, 2022, and November 9, 2022, during 
which the EPA provided an overview of proposed rulemaking information 
and requested input. A total of 11 Tribal representatives participated 
in the two webinars. The EPA received oral comments from one commenter 
who supported the EPA's proposal to collect both first- and fifth-liter 
samples at lead service line sites and use the higher of the two in the 
lead 90th percentile calculation. The same commenter also asked if EPA 
has any programs that provide tap sampling assistance in Tribal homes. 
The EPA did not receive any written consultation comments from Tribal 
organizations during the comment period that followed the webinars. 
Over the course of the rulemaking, the agency did not receive any 
consultation requests from Tribal nations. Lastly, the EPA did not 
receive any written or oral comments from Tribal representatives on the 
proposed rule. A summary report of the views expressed during Tribal 
consultations is available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).
    The EPA has met the needs of Tribes that were made known during the 
development of the LCRI. Specifically, for in-home sampling of lead and 
copper, the EPA intends to develop guidance documents to assist water 
systems in implementing the LCRI requirements, including tap sampling. 
Further, water systems serving Tribes can apply for WIIN grants to 
support both compliance tap sampling and the requirement for systems to 
offer supplemental sampling by consumer request.

G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health and Safety Risks)

    Executive Order 13045 directs Federal agencies to include an 
evaluation of the health and safety effects of the planned regulation 
on children in Federal health and safety standards and explain why the 
regulation is preferable to potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives. This action is subject to Executive Order 13045 
because it is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(1) of 
Executive Order 12866. The EPA believes that the environmental health 
or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate effect 
on children as developing fetuses, infants, and young children are most 
susceptible to the harmful health effects of lead (ATSDR, 2020). 
Accordingly, the EPA evaluated the environmental health or safety 
effects of lead found in drinking water on children and estimated the 
risk reduction and health endpoint impacts to children associated with 
treatment to reduce lead in drinking water including the adoption and 
optimization of CCT technologies and the replacement of LSLs and GRR 
service lines. The results of these evaluations are included in chapter 
5, sections 5.6 and 5.8, and appendix D of the final LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2024a) and described in section VI of this preamble. 
Copies of the final LCRI Economic Analysis and supporting information 
are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).
    Furthermore, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health also applies to 
this action. Information on how the Policy was applied is available in 
section III.B of this preamble.

H. Executive Order 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    This action is not a ``significant energy action,'' because it is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. The water systems affected by this 
action do not generally generate power. In addition, this action does 
not propose to regulate any aspect of energy distribution because the 
water systems that would be regulated by the LCRI already use 
electrical service providers. Finally, the EPA determined that the 
incremental energy used to implement CCT at drinking water systems and 
replace LSLs and GRR service lines in response to the regulatory 
requirements is minimal. As such, the EPA does not anticipate that this 
final rule would have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    This action involves technical standards. The requirements under 
the LCRI may involve existing voluntary consensus standards because the 
LCRI requires additional monitoring for lead and copper. The EPA's 
monitoring and sampling methodologies generally include voluntary 
consensus standards developed by agencies, such as the American 
National Standards Institute (ANSI) and other similar types of entities 
wherever the EPA deems these methodologies appropriate for compliance 
monitoring. The rule includes requirements to use filters that are 
certified by an ANSI-accredited certifier. Additional information is 
available in sections IV.B and IV.I of this preamble. The LCRI does 
not, however, change any methodological requirements for monitoring or 
sample analysis. Additional information is available in section IV.E of 
this preamble. The EPA notes that in some cases, the LCRI revises the 
required frequency and number of lead tap samples.

[[Page 86612]]

J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) and 
Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to 
Environmental Justice for All)

    The EPA believes that the human health or environmental conditions 
that exist prior to this action result in or have the potential to 
result in disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. The EPA 
found in the literature review conducted as part of the environmental 
justice analysis for the LCRI that there are environmental justice 
concerns associated with lead exposure in the baseline. With respect to 
the EPA's case study analysis, the data indicate a range of 
environmental justice concerns associated with baseline LSL presence. 
The EPA anticipates the LCRI will not create disproportionate and 
adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with 
environmental justice concerns under Executive Order 14096 (88 FR 
25251, April 21, 2023); see also Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 
February 16, 1994). The EPA believes that this action is likely to 
reduce existing disproportionate and adverse effects on communities 
with environmental justice concerns. The EPA expects that the LCRI will 
reduce differential impacts associated with lead exposure from drinking 
water compared to the baseline identified in the environmental justice 
analysis. The documentation for this finding, including additional 
details on the methodology, results, and conclusions, are included in 
the EPA's Environmental Justice Analysis for the Proposed Lead and 
Copper Rule Improvements Report and is available in the public docket 
for this action (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).
    Executive Order 12898 first established Federal executive policy on 
environmental justice. Executive Order 14096 supplemented Executive 
Order 12898, and among other things, directs Federal agencies, as 
appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to build upon and 
strengthen their commitment to deliver environmental justice to all 
communities across America through an approach that is informed by 
scientific research, high-quality data, and meaningful Federal 
engagement with communities with environmental justice concerns.
    Consistent with the agency's ``Technical Guidance for Assessing 
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis'' (USEPA, 2016c), the EPA 
conducted an environmental justice analysis for the LCRI to assess 
impacts anticipated to result from the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023a). 
The analysis builds on and advances the analysis conducted under the 
LCRR, which evaluated baseline exposure to lead in drinking water. The 
LCRI's environmental justice analysis evaluated potential environmental 
justice concerns associated with lead in drinking water in the baseline 
and the proposed LCRI, including consideration of whether potential 
environmental justice concerns would be created or mitigated by the 
proposed LCRI relative to the baseline. The EPA compiled recent peer-
reviewed research on the relationship between lead exposure and 
socioeconomic status and found that Black, Indigenous, and People of 
Color (BIPOC) and/or low-income populations are at higher risk of lead 
exposure and associated health risks. The EPA's literature review 
identified some trends indicating disproportionate and adverse human 
health risk for exposure to lead in populations of color and low-income 
populations, and also that populations of children in households 
occupied by people of color and/or low-income households are 
disproportionately at risk of exposure to lead in drinking water 
because they are more likely to live in housing built when LSLs were 
more commonly used. The EPA also conducted an analysis of seven case 
study cities and found a range of outcomes with respect to the 
sociodemographic and housing unit variables in areas served by LSLs in 
the cities investigated. In addition to LSL presence, the EPA 
considered housing age and traffic proximity as indicators of other 
potential lead exposure pathways.
    Updated inventories are similarly not widely available yet; 
however, some systems have published updated inventories online. In the 
environmental justice analysis for the LCRI, the EPA evaluated service 
line inventories from seven water systems to estimate baseline exposure 
to lead in drinking water using LSL presence as a proxy for lead 
exposure (USEPA, 2023e). The EPA found a range of outcomes with respect 
to the sociodemographic and housing unit variables in areas served by 
LSLs in the cities investigated. While the EPA found that block groups 
with LSLs often had higher percentages of low-income residents, 
renters, and People of Color (specifically, Black, Hispanic, or 
linguistically isolated individuals) compared to block groups without 
LSLs, there was little evidence that the number of LSLs per capita was 
positively correlated with block group demographic characteristics for 
these seven case studies. However, block groups with the highest number 
of LSLs per capita (top quartile) had a notably larger percentage of 
Black residents than the service area as a whole for six case studies. 
Two other measures (traffic density and pre-1960 housing) were included 
to capture the possibility of other sources of lead. The analysis 
results showed that pre-1960 housing is notably higher in block groups 
with LSLs compared to those without. The percent of housing built prior 
to 1960 was also positively correlated with the number of LSLs per 
capita for every case study and was also elevated in the top quartile 
compared to the service area as a whole. A separate EPA analysis also 
revealed that LSL prevalence in Cincinnati, OH, and Grand Rapids, MI, 
was a stronger predictor of the prevalence of elevated blood lead 
levels compared with the EPA's EJScreen 2017 Lead Paint EJ Index or the 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Deteriorated Paint 
Index (Tornero-Velez et al., 2023).
    Taken together, these findings support the concern that adverse 
health effects associated with lead exposure from LSLs may be 
inequitably distributed with respect to LSL presence. While the limited 
number of water systems included in the analysis do not permit 
conclusions to be made about environmental justice and LSL presence 
outside of the context of these individual systems, the analysis does 
point to several findings. The analysis demonstrated significant 
differences in socioeconomic and housing characteristics and the 
prevalence of LSLs across these systems. It also demonstrated the 
importance of considering the specific characteristics within the 
individual system context. Taken together, these findings support the 
concern that adverse health effects associated with lead exposure from 
LSLs may be inequitably distributed with respect to LSL presence in 
some systems.
    Statistical analysis did not identify strong associations between 
LSLR and the characteristics of the Census block group in which they 
occurred (e.g., socioeconomic and housing characteristics) in any of 
the case studies. This is because, in general, at the time of the 
analysis either no LSLs or relatively few LSLs have been removed in the 
locations of the case studies, which affects the EPA's ability to 
quantify a relationship. Conversely, in the case study of the water 
system in Newark, New Jersey, almost all LSLs were removed in a short 
period of time,

[[Page 86613]]

similarly obscuring the relationship between removals and the 
socioeconomic and housing unit variables. Nevertheless, the EPA 
recognizes the potential that even in a water system where there are no 
environmental justice concerns with respect to LSL presence, the 
sequence and timing in which lead and GRR service lines are replaced by 
a system's service line replacement program can potentially create a 
concern. For example, research on a voluntary LSLR program in Trenton, 
New Jersey, found that owner-occupied and higher valued properties were 
more likely to participate in the program (Klemick et al., 2024). Many 
LCRI provisions will have the effect of preventing or minimizing 
environmental justice concerns from being created within the 
replacement program, as well as other requirements that can make full 
replacements and information more accessible to all customers (section 
III.H). The EPA expects that LCRI provisions, such as service line 
replacement prioritization, would reduce baseline differential impacts 
associated with lead exposure from drinking water. In sections III.G 
and III.H of this preamble, the EPA also highlights external funding 
available to support full service line replacement, as well as water 
systems' obligations under Federal civil rights laws.
    Additionally, on October 25, 2022, and November 1, 2022, the EPA 
held public meetings related to environmental justice and the 
development of the proposed LCRI. The meetings provided an opportunity 
for the EPA to share information and for individuals to offer input on 
environmental justice considerations related to the development of the 
proposed LCRI and how to more equitably address lead in drinking water 
issues in their communities.
    During the meetings and in subsequent written comments, the EPA 
received public comment on topics including disproportionate exposure 
to lead and its health effects among BIPOC and low-income communities; 
lead service line replacement (LSLR) funding; methods to prioritize 
LSLR; access to LSLR for renters; filter distribution and use during 
LSLR; lowering the lead action level; establishing an maximum 
contaminant level (MCL) for lead; updating the lead health effects 
language required for public education, public notification, and the 
CCR; ensuring that public education and public notification reaches 
communities that are most at risk; first- and fifth-liter lead tap 
sampling; remediating lead identified through sampling in schools and 
child care facilities; environmental justice concerns with corrosion 
control studies; community engagement; and regulatory enforcement and 
oversight. For more information on the public meetings, please refer to 
the Public Meeting on Environmental Justice Considerations for the 
Development of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) 
Meeting Summary for each of the meeting dates in the public docket at 
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801. Written public 
comments can also be found in the docket.
1. Summary of Public Comments and the EPA's Response
    The EPA received several comments regarding the agency's LCRI 
environmental justice analysis, in addition to general comments about 
environmental justice and equity in response to lead contamination of 
drinking water broadly. Commenters stated that low-income and BIPOC 
communities are disproportionately impacted by lead exposure from LSLs. 
Furthermore, commenters expressed that LCRI is a meaningful step 
forward to help many communities experiencing inequities due to several 
different and cumulative factors, including a lack of resources and 
investment. Commenters further suggested that analyzing disparities and 
inequities of environmental exposures is necessary to address 
environmental justice concerns. The EPA agrees that identifying and 
addressing disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental 
effects, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, is 
essential for environmental justice considerations.
    Some commenters alleged perceived deficiencies in the environmental 
justice analysis for LCRI based on proposed rule requirements with 
potential impacts on communities with environmental justice concerns. 
Since those comments were more specifically about individual rule 
requirements compared to how the EPA implemented the directives in 
Executive Orders 12898 and 14096, as allowed under SDWA, the EPA has 
responded to those comments in the relevant sections of the preamble 
and Response to Comments document (see section III.H of this preamble 
and section 22.10.1 of the Response to Comments document (USEPA, 
2024k).
    The EPA received comments concerning environmental justice and 
equity with respect to service line replacement and service line 
replacement plans. The agency's responses to comments are addressed in 
those sections and the LCRI Response to Comments (see sections IV.B and 
IV.C of this preamble and section 9 of the Response to Comments 
document (USEPA, 2024k)). Commenters recommended that the agency 
require systems to prioritize criteria for service line replacement in 
the final rule for communities with the greatest burden from lead 
exposure and that Federal funding should be allocated to communities 
with the highest concentration of LSLs. Commenters stated that the 
costs of service line replacement should not fall on the customers, 
especially given that, in their view, many communities with 
environmental justice concerns have not been prioritized in past public 
works investments. Commenters concluded that further disparities could 
be created if customers are required to pay to replace their portion of 
the LSL. While the EPA acknowledges the concern of the potential 
environmental justice impacts of paying for service line replacement, 
the agency has not used its section 1412 authority under SDWA to direct 
how a water system covers the costs of compliance with a NPDWR, which 
is, at its core, a matter of State and local law. There is no explicit 
statutory authority for EPA to do so; State and local governments 
regulate how water systems provide and charge for services to their 
customers. However, there is an unprecedented amount of Federal funds 
available to cover LSLR, such as from the BIL. BIL requires that States 
provide 49 percent of their LSLR and General Supplemental 
capitalization grant amounts as additional subsidization in the form of 
principal forgiveness and/or grants to disadvantaged communities, as 
defined under SDWA section 1452(d)(3). Additional Federal funding 
sources, such as the Housing and Urban Development Community 
Development Block Grants, U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural 
Development, and the U.S. Economic Development Administration Public 
Works program, also provide opportunities for equitable funding 
opportunities for communities to utilize for LSLR. Additional examples 
of funding customer-side service line replacement are given in section 
III.G of this preamble.
    The final LCRI also includes requirements for systems regarding 
their service line replacement plans to advance transparency for 
communities, including communities with environmental justice concerns. 
Specifically, under LCRI at Sec.  141.84(c)(2), systems must make their 
service line replacement plan publicly available. Systems are also 
required to

[[Page 86614]]

include a prioritization strategy and a funding strategy for conducting 
full service line replacement as part of their plans.
    The EPA received one comment that stated the agency failed to 
consider the implications of the proposed rule on the affordability of 
water services and the associated water rate impacts on BIPOC 
households. The commenter stated that on top of the differential 
effects of specific rule provisions within the LCRI, the EPA must 
consider impacts of household water rate increases in disadvantaged 
households, opportunity costs of BIPOC households, and negative 
secondary effects the LCRI requirements will have on households. The 
EPA points out that ratemaking is generally governed by State and local 
authorities and the EPA does not have the authority to control those 
rates. The environmental justice analysis was conducted consistent with 
SDWA.

K. Consultations With the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and the National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council

    In accordance with SDWA sections 1412(d) and 1412(e), the EPA 
consulted with the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) (or 
the Council) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The following 
summarizes these requirements and consultations.
1. SAB
    SDWA section 1412(e) requires that the EPA request comments from 
the SAB prior to the proposal of any NPDWR. As required by SDWA section 
1412(e), in 2022, the EPA initiated consultation with the SAB to seek 
comments in advance of the publication of the proposed LCRI. During 
this consultation, the EPA asked the SAB to consider service line 
inventory data at select case study locations to advise the EPA about 
the most appropriate tools, indicators, and measures for evaluating 
environmental justice with respect to the presence and replacement of 
LSLs. The EPA also asked the SAB to evaluate the potential 
environmental justice impacts of the proposed LCRI in accordance with 
Executive Order 12898, which directs agencies to ``identify and address 
the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations'' (E.O. 
12898, 1994).
    On November 3, 2022, the EPA held a consultation with the SAB 
regarding the agency's draft case studies for the proposed LCRI 
environmental justice analysis. SAB members were asked to address the 
following questions:

    (1.a.) Please comment on the tools/indicators/metrics, such as 
the recently released Environmental Justice Index (EJI) and Climate 
and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), that EPA should 
consider using when developing LSLR case studies to support the 
development of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements EJ analysis.
    (1.b.) Given the identified tools and indices (i.e., EJScreen, 
Social Vulnerability Index, Area Deprivation Index) please comment 
on whether there is a sub-set of variables within the indices which 
should be given higher weights in the Lead and Copper Rule 
Improvements EJ assessment.
    (2) Please comment on the indicator/measure that is most 
suitable for studying the EJ impacts associated with lead service 
lines and their replacement.
    (3) Please comment on whether any of the tools or indicators 
under consideration for use in the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements 
assessment of the drinking water EJ impacts can help to better 
assess lead impacts from other co-located exposure pathways (e.g., 
lead paint, soil, and dust) to inform the EPA's understanding of 
lead exposures from non-drinking water sources.

    Materials shared with the SAB are available in the docket (EPA-HQ-
OW-2022-0801).
    In response, the EPA received a range of recommendations from SAB 
members. The recommendations primarily focused on the tools and 
indicators the EPA should use in its environmental justice analysis to 
support the LCRI. SAB members recommended using indicators from 
multiple tools (e.g., EJScreen, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC)'s EJI, CDC/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 
Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), Area Deprivation 
Index (ADI)) to more effectively identify communities that are 
disproportionately burdened by lead exposure and evaluate environmental 
justice impacts of LSLs and LSLR. One member suggested not using tools 
that use an index that is based on different indicators or composite 
tools (evaluating multiple indicators together) (e.g., EJScreen, CDC's 
EJI, CDC/ATSDR SVI, ADI). Instead, some members advised extracting and 
evaluating demographic and socioeconomic factors from these tools 
individually. SAB members recommended using individual socioeconomic 
variables from the 2020 U.S. Census in conjunction with the American 
Community Survey (ACS), CDC's Minority Health Social Vulnerability 
Index (MH SVI), and the University of South Carolina's Social 
Vulnerability Index (SoVI). One member recommended relying more heavily 
on tools that have finer resolution and use geographic units at the 
Census block group level, such as EJScreen and ADI. In addition, SAB 
members recommended indicators for studying LSL and LSLR environmental 
justice impacts including minority populations, low-income population, 
population under age five, pre-1960 housing, pre-1980 housing, people 
with disabilities, single-parent households, occupied housing units 
without complete plumbing, proximity to lead mines, hazardous waste 
proximity, superfund proximity, and particulate matter (PM) 2.5. A few 
members recommended including indicators that address drinking water or 
infrastructure vulnerabilities.
    Some members suggested that the EPA focus on indicators most 
relevant to children, such as children under age five, maternal 
education, birth weight, and quality of home environment, because 
children are most sensitive to the effects of lead. One member 
suggested including a subset of indicators that are children-specific 
and comprise relevant subgroups of persons under five years and/or 18 
years, such as children belonging to non-white racial/ethnic groups, 
children not born in the U.S., children with disabilities, and children 
at or below the poverty level. Some members pointed out that race/
ethnicity indicators should be disaggregated to focus on only one race/
ethnicity instead of an aggregate ``people of color'' indicator.
    Some members suggested giving higher weights to indicators that 
address populations disproportionately vulnerable to lead exposure and 
its adverse health effects, such as population under 5 years old and 
low-income communities, because they are more likely to consume tap 
water. Additional indicators suggested for weighting were location 
based, including residential areas near legacy pollution sites.
    Some SAB members suggested individual indicators from the following 
tools be used to consider lead from other pathways: EJScreen, SVI, ADI, 
and EJI. Some SAB members recommended using proximity to traffic and 
pre-1960s housing, as these could indicate compound lead exposure from 
pathways other than drinking water. For example, proximity to traffic 
could correspond to elevated lead in soil due to past emissions of 
leaded gasoline, while pre-1960s housing is more likely to have lead 
paint, contributing to lead in dust and soil.
    As a result of the consultation, the EPA incorporated the 
suggestions from the SAB in a study of the environmental justice 
implications of the LCRI (USEPA, 2023e). The EPA evaluated correlations 
between per capita LSLs (in

[[Page 86615]]

a Census block group) and different ethnic groups including American 
Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, other or two races, 
Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Black, and Non-Hispanic white. The EPA also 
evaluated the relationship between the presence of LSL and indicators 
representing the populations most at risk of lead exposure such as low 
income and children under age five. Indicators addressing 
characteristics that are associated with exposure to other lead sources 
were also incorporated in the study including structures built prior to 
1960 and proximity to traffic. Additional information on SAB 
recommendations is included in the SAB report available in the docket 
(EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).
2. NDWAC
    SDWA section 1412(d) requires the EPA to consult with the NDWAC in 
proposing and promulgating any NPDWR. The EPA met this requirement for 
the proposed LCRI on November 30, 2022, when the EPA consulted with the 
NDWAC prior to the rule proposal. During the November 30 consultation 
meeting, the EPA provided background on lead in drinking water and the 
LCR, an overview of the LCRR published in January 2021, and a summary 
of the outcome of the EPA's review of the LCRR published in the 
December 2021 Federal Register notification (86 FR 71574). The EPA also 
discussed topics for the potential revisions in the proposed LCRI, 
including service line replacement, tap sampling and compliance, ways 
to reduce rule complexity, and small system flexibilities, to collect 
input and generate discussion among NDWAC members. A summary of the 
NDWAC consultation is available in the National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council, Fall 2022 Meeting Summary Report (NDWAC, 2022) and the docket 
for this rule (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801). The EPA carefully considered NDWAC 
recommendations during the development of the proposed LCRI.
    On January 31, 2024, the EPA consulted with the NDWAC again. During 
the consultation the EPA provided general background on lead in 
drinking water and the LCR. The EPA provided an overview of the 
proposed LCRI including discussing the key revisions in the proposed 
rule. The EPA carefully considered the information provided by the 
NDWAC during the development of the final LCRI. A summary of the NDWAC 
input from that meeting is available in the NDWAC Summary Report 
(NDWAC, 2024) and is also available in the docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801).

L. Consultation With the Department of Health and Human Services Under 
SDWA Section 1412(d)

    In accordance with section 1412(d) of SDWA, the agency consulted 
with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). On August 18, 
2023, the EPA consulted with the HHS on the proposed LCRI and on July 
15, 2024, the EPA consulted with the HHS on the final rule. The EPA 
received and considered comments from the HHS for both the proposal and 
final rule through the interagency review process under Executive Order 
12866, described in section VII.A of this preamble. Summaries of the 
consultation meetings with the HHS can be found in the docket (EPA-HQ-
OW-2022-0801).

M. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule 
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of 
the United States. This action meets the criteria set forth in 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

VIII. Severability

    The purpose of this section is to clarify the EPA's intent with 
respect to the severability of the components of the rule. The major 
components of the rule are: (1) a service line inventory, (2) service 
line replacement, (3) corrosion control treatment, (4) public 
education, including additional requirements for multiple lead action 
level exceedances, (5) sampling at schools and child care facilities, 
and (6) the small system compliance flexibility option.
    If a court finds the EPA erred in its promulgation of some aspect 
of this rule, the EPA expects to request briefing on whether vacatur, 
partial vacatur, or remand would be the appropriate remedy. While parts 
of the rule are interdependent, other parts of the rule may be easily 
severed and implemented or vacated without disrupting the other parts 
of the rule. In addition, if one component of the rule is vacated, the 
remaining portions may or may not be adequate to meet the anti-
backsliding standard for a revised NPDWR. For example, the LCRI's 
adjustments to the re-optimization requirements were made in part 
because systems will be conducting lead and GRR service line 
replacement. The EPA does not intend those adjustments to take effect 
in the absence of a mandatory service line replacement requirement. 
Conversely, if a court were to vacate or partially vacate some aspect 
of the corrosion control treatment requirements, such as the action 
level, the service line replacement requirements can be implemented, 
and the remaining components of the rule would meet the anti-
backsliding standard in SDWA. Therefore, with the exceptions noted 
below, the EPA expects that additional briefing would be needed to 
address whether the provision at issue is integral to either the 
operation of the rule or the anti-backsliding requirement.
     The service line inventory requirement is severable from 
all other components of the rule, including the service line 
replacement requirements. While it supports the service line 
replacement requirements, and the public education requirement to 
notify customers that are served by lead, GRR, or unknown service lines 
work in tandem with the inventory, it is also critical to the EPA's 
administration of financial assistance programs authorized under SDWA 
for the replacement of service lines. Therefore, even if the service 
line replacement requirements or the public education requirements are 
vacated or partially vacated, the service line inventory requirements 
can operate independently and support the EPA's non-regulatory efforts 
to support the removal of lead service lines.
     If a court were to vacate any portion of the school and 
child care facility sampling requirements, the remainder of the rule 
could be implemented effectively. School and child care facility 
sampling is not integral to the other components of the rule or the 
EPA's evaluation of whether the rule as a whole meets the anti-
backsliding provision of SDWA. Similarly, the school and child care 
facility sampling requirements can operate independently if other 
components of the rule are vacated.
     The small system compliance flexibility option, if 
vacated, is not integral to the rule or the underlying analyses of 
feasibility of the rule for small systems. As explained in section IV.I 
of this preamble, the EPA structured this provision so that it could be 
easily severed from the remainder of the rule because States are not 
required to adopt this provision to obtain primacy for the rule, and 
the EPA expects that some primacy States will exercise their discretion 
to not adopt this flexibility provision.
     The service line replacement requirements, together with 
the service line inventory, can be implemented if the court vacates any 
provisions for (1) corrosion control treatment, including the action 
level, (2) public education requirements, including additional 
requirements for multiple action level

[[Page 86616]]

exceedances, (3) school and child care facility sampling, and (4) the 
small system compliance flexibility option. By remaining in effect, the 
service line replacement provision will significantly reduce adverse 
health effects known to occur as a result of lead contamination from 
lead and galvanized service lines.

IX. References

Abt Associates. (2022a). Developing a Concentration-Response 
Function Relating Childhood Lead Exposures and ADHD. Prepared for: 
National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
Abt Associates. (2022b). Assessment of the Literature on the Dose-
Response Relationship between Lead Exposure in Expectant Mothers and 
Lower Birth Weight in Newborns. Prepared for: National Center for 
Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency.
Abt Associates. (2023). Selection of Concentration-Response 
Functions between Lead Exposure and Adverse Health Outcomes for Use 
in Benefits Analysis: Cardiovascular-Disease Related Mortality. 
Prepared for: National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of 
Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). (2020). 
Toxicological Profile for Lead. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. August 2020. 
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp13.pdf.
Ala, A., Walker, A.P., Ashkan, K., Dooley, J.S., & Schilsky, M.L. 
(2007). Wilson's disease. The Lancet, 369(9559), 397-408. doi: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60196-2.
American Water Works Association v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (D.C. 
Cir. 1994).
American Water Works Association (AWWA) (2017). Replacement and 
Flushing of Lead Service Lines. ANSI/AWWA C810-17. Effective date: 
November 1, 2017.
AWWA. (2022). Lead Communications Guide and Toolkit. https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/Communications/2022LeadPageAssets/2022AWWALeadCommunicationsGuideAndToolkit.pdf. Andrew, A., Zhou, J., 
Gui, J., Harrison, A.,Shi, X., Li, M., Guetti, B., Nathan, R., 
Tischbein, M., Pioro, E., Stommel, E., and Bradley, W. (2022). 
Airborne lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are associated 
with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) risk in the U.S. Sci Total 
Environ, 819: 153096. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153096.
Aoki, Y., Brody, D.J., Flegal, K.M., Fakhouri, T.H., Axelrad, D.A., 
& Parker, J.D. (2016). Blood Lead and Other Metal Biomarkers as Risk 
Factors for Cardiovascular Disease Mortality. Medicine (Baltimore), 
95(1), e2223. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000002223.
Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC). (2023). Methodology for 
ABC's Construction Backlog Indicator/Construction Confidence 
Indicator. Retrieved May 22, 2023, from https://www.abc.org/Portals/1/ABC%20CBI_CCI%20Methodology%20June%202023.pdf.
AwwaRF. (2008). Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures 
to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978-1-60573-031-7.
AwwaRF and DVGW-Technologiezentrum Wasser. (1996). Internal 
Corrosion of Water Distribution Systems. 2nd edition. AwwaRF Order 
90508. Project #725. AWWA Research Foundation (now Water Research 
Foundation) and AWWA. Denver, CO.
Backer, L.C. (2002). Cyanobacterial Harmful Algal Blooms 
(CyanoHABs): Developing a Public Health Response. Lake and Reservoir 
Management, 18(1), 20-31. doi:10.1080/07438140209353926.
Baehler, K.J., McGraw, M., Aquino, M.J., Heslin, R., McCormick, L., 
& Neltner, T. (2022). Full Lead Service Line Replacement: A Case 
Study of Equity in Environmental Remediation. Sustainability, 14(1), 
352-378. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010352.
Barbaresi, W.J., R.C. Colligan, et al. (2013). Mortality, ADHD, and 
psychosocial adversity in adults with childhood ADHD: a prospective 
study. Pediatrics, 131(4): 637-644.
Barn, P., Nicol, A., Struck, S., Dosanjh, S., Li, R., and Kosatsky, 
T. (2014). Investigating elevated copper and lead levels in school 
drinking water. Environmental Health Review, 56(04): 96-102. https://doi.org/10.5864/d2014-006.
Berrien County Health Department (2023). Water Lead Response in 
Benton Harbor. Retrieved July 18, 2023, from https://www.berriencounty.org/1599/City-of-Benton-Harbor.
Betanzo, E., Rhyan, C., and Hanna-Attisha, M. (2021). Lessons from 
the first year of compliance sampling under Michigan's revised Lead 
and Copper Rule and national Lead and Copper Rule Implications. AWWA 
Water Science, 3(6): e1261. https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1261t.
Betanzo, E., and Attal, N. (2022). Independent Verification and 
Validation of DC Water's Lad Free DC Lead Service Line Removal Plan: 
Final Report. Retrieved July 10, 2024, from https://lims.dccouncil.gov/downloads/LIMS/51294/Introduction/RC24-0221-Introduction.pdf?Id=146215.
Betanzo, E., and Spieght, V. (2024). Lead Service Line Replacement 
Costs and Strategies for Reducing Them. National Resources Defense 
Council. Submitted by NRDC as part of their comment on the proposed 
LCRI. Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-0840.
BlueConduit. (2020). Principles of Data Science for Lead Service 
Line Inventories and Replacement Programs. https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ASDWA-BlueConduit-White-Paper-on-Data-and-LSL.pdf.
BlueConduit. (2024). Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 
``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 
Improvements (LCRI).'' Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-1098.
Bosscher, V., Lytle, D.A., Schock, M., Porter, A., and Del Toral, M. 
(2019). POU water filters effectively reduce lead in drinking water: 
a demonstration field study in Flint, Michigan. Journal of 
Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 54(5): 484-493. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31074704/.
Brita Brand and The Clorox Company. (2024). Comments on the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking: ``National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI).'' Available 
at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-0809.
Brown, M., J. Raymond, D. Homa, C. Kennedy, and T. Sinks. (2011). 
Association between children's blood lead levels, lead service 
lines, and water disinfection, Washington, DC, 1998-2006. 
Environmental Research, 111(1):67-74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21112052/.
Brown, J., Hamoudi, A., Jeuland, M., and Turrini, G. (2017). Seeing, 
believing, and behaving: Heterogeneous effects of an information 
intervention on household water treatment. Journal of Environmental 
Economics and Management, 86, 141-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.08.005.
Brown, L., M. Lynch, A. Belova, R. Klein, and A. Chiger. (2020). 
Developing a Health Impact Model for Adult Lead Exposure and 
Cardiovascular Disease Mortality. Environmental Health Perspectives, 
128(9):097005-1; https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6552.
Budtz-Jorgensen, E., D. Bellinger, B. Lanphear, and P. Grandjean. 
(2013). An international pooled analysis for obtaining a benchmark 
dose for environmental lead exposure in children. Risk Analysis, 
33(3):450-461.doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01882.x.
The Cadmus Group, Inc. (2024a). Memorandum from the Cadmus Group, 
Inc. to USEPA, regarding the results of web search for lead. March 
19, 2024.
The Cadmus Group, Inc. (2024b). Memorandum from the Cadmus Group, 
Inc. to USEPA, OGWDW, USEPA, regarding the Results of Historical 
Plumbing Codes and Catalogues for Lead Connectors. April 4, 2024.
Camara, E., Montreuil, K.R., Knowles, A.K, and Gagnon, G.A. (2013). 
Role of the water main in lead service line replacement: A utility 
case study. Journal AWWA, 105(8): E423-E431. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0102.
Cardew, P.T. (2009). Measuring the benefit of orthophosphate 
treatment on lead in drinking water. Journal of Water and Health, 
7(1): 123-131. https://doi.org/10.2166/wh.2009.015.
Cavender, K.A. (2013). Memorandum from Kevin A. Cavender to Ambient

[[Page 86617]]

Monitoring Rule Docket (EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619)-Supporting information 
for reconsideration of existing requirements to monitor lead at 
Urban NCore Sites. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPAHQ-OAR-2013-0619-0002.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (2022a). Health Effects of Lead 
Exposure. Retrieved July 19, 2023, from https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/symptoms-complications/.
CDC. (2022b). Breastfeeding and Special Circumstances: Environmental 
and Chemical Exposures: Lead. Last reviewed May 18, 2022. Retrieved 
from https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding-special-circumstances/hcp/exposures/lead.html.
CDC. (2022c). CDC updates blood lead reference value to 3.5 mg/dL. 
Last reviewed December 16, 2022. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/php/data/blood-lead-surveillance.html.
CDC. (2023). Lead in Drinking Water. Last reviewed February 28, 
2023. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/prevention/drinking-water.html.
CDC. (2024). CDC Updated Blood Lead Reference Level. Last reviewed 
April 2, 2024. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/php/news-features/updates-blood-lead-reference-value.html.
CDM Smith. (2022). Considerations when Costing Lead Service Line 
Identification and Replacement. American Water Works Association. 
Submitted by AWWA as part of the Small Business Advocacy Review 
(SBAR) comments.
CDM Smith (n.d.). Success Factors in Lead Service Line Replacement 
Programs. Retrieved July 19, 2023, from https://www.cdmsmith.com/en/Client-Solutions/Insights/Success-Factors-in-Lead-Service-Line-Replacement-Programs.
Central Arkansas Water. (2022). Green Bond Report: Investing in 
Green-Gray Infrastructure FY 2021. Retrieved July 10, 2024, from 
https://carkw.com/site/assets/files/4573/caw-045_green_bond_report_final.pdf.
Chislock, M.F., E. Doster, R.A. Zitomer, and A.E. Wilson. (2013). 
Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, and controls in aquatic 
ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge, 4(4):10.
City of Appleton. (2022). An Ordinance Creating section 20-44 of 
Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Appleton, Relating 
to Lead and Galvanized Water Service Line Replacement, Municipal 
Code section 20-44 of Chapter 20 CFR Wisconsin. Retrieved from 
https://www.appleton.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24584/637873462362500000.
City of Denver. (2023). Using Filters. Retrieved July 18, 2023, from 
https://www.denverwater.org/your-water/water-quality/lead/filter-program.
City of Detroit (2023, May 12). Detroit to replace 5,000 lead 
service lines this year, ramping up to 10,000 per year starting in 
2024. Water and Sewerage Department. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from 
https://detroitmi.gov/news/detroit-replace-5000-lead-service-lines-year-ramping-10000-year-starting-2024.
City of Detroit. (2024). DWSD Director Gary Brown attends The White 
House Water Summit; Detroit signs on with Great Lakes Lead Pipes 
Partnership. Retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://detroitmi.gov/news/dwsd-director-gary-brown-attends-white-house-water-summit-detroit-signs-great-lakes-lead-pipes.
City of Elgin. (2023). Lead Testing and Filter Distribution. 
Retrieved July 18, 2023, from https://www.cityofelgin.org/2347/Lead-Testing.
City of Flint. (n.d.). Progress Report on Flint Water. Michigan. 
Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://www.cityofflint.com/progress-report-on-flint-water/.
City of Flint. (2019 January 28). Pipes Excavated at 20,490 Flint 
Homes To Date through Mayor Weaver's FAST Start Initiative. 
Retrieved May 3, 2024, from https://www.cityofflint.com/pipes-excavated-at-20490-flint-homes-to-date-through-mayor-weavers-fast-start-initiative/.
City of Kalamazoo. (2023). Request Free Water Filters. Retrieved 
July 18, 2023, from https://www.kalamazoocity.org/Residents/Water-Sewer-Service/Request-Free-Water-Filters.
City of Milwaukee. (2023). Chapter 225-Plumbing and Drainage. 
Milwaukee Code of Ordinances. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/ccClerk/Ordinances/Volume-2/CH225.pdf.
City of Newark (2020, April 10). More than half of Newark's lead 
line service lines are replaced as crews work through covid-19 
crisis. Retrieved May 6, 2024, from https://www.newarknj.gov/news/more-than-half-of-newarks-of-lead-line-service-lines-are-replaced-as-crews-work-through-covid-19-crisis.
City of Newark (2024 February 6). Newark residents and businesses to 
be advised of service line audits happening on properties with 
potential leftover lead components. Retrieved June 5, 2024, from 
https://water.newarknj.gov/alerts-1/feb-6-lead-service-line-audit-directors-message.
City of Newark. (n.d.). Water Filter and Replacement Cartridge 
Distribution Program. New Jersey. Retrieved July 18, 2023, from 
https://www.newarkleadserviceline.com/filters.
City of Philadelphia. (2022). Bill Number 220221-A. Retrieved from 
https://phila.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5521749&GUID=9D91F31C-7792-49A7-A3FB-+0515F7A4AFE3&Options=ID%7cText%7c&Search=220221.
City of Pittsburgh. (n.d.) The Pittsburgh Safe Water Program. 
Retrieved July 18, 2023, from https://pittsburghpa.gov/safepgh2o/ safepgh2o/.
City of Rochester. (n.d.). Lead service line replacement projects. 
Retrieved June 3, 2024, from https://www.cityofrochester.gov/departments/department-environmental-services/lead-service-line-replacement-projects.
Clark, B., Cartier, C., St. Clair, J., Triantafyllidou, S., Prevost, 
M., and Edwards, M. (2013). Effect of connection type on galvanic 
corrosion between lead and copper pipes. Journal AWWA, 105(10): 
E576-E586. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0113.
Clark, B., Masters, S.V., and Edwards, M. (2014). Profile Sampling 
To Characterize Particulate Lead Risks in Potable Water. 
Environmental Science & Technology, 48(12): 6836-6843. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es501342j.
Copper Development Association Inc. (CDA). (2024a). CDA Member Q&A: 
Readiness to Supply Copper for Lead Service Line Replacement 
Initiatives. Retrieved June 13, 2024, from https://blog.copper.org/water-service-lines/cda-member-qa-readiness-to-supply-copper-for-lead-service-line-replacement-initiatives?_hsmi=311083058.
CDA. (2024b). Yes, There's Enough Copper to Replace Lead Pipes--Plus 
Federal Funding for Using American-Made Products. Retrieved June 27, 
2024, from https://blog.copper.org/water-service-lines/yes-theres-enough-copper-to-replace-lead-pipes-plus-federal-funding-for-using-american-made-products?_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_k43NkbyAcVZp-d83kncaW4Tbk0VreE4LUkX-XEk0YBkvfSjX6XPBfl9ZrW9hVOgn7go1gbmWPYEDFJb72Q6iV4Sh7Dg&_hsmi=313333070.
Crump, K.S., C. Van Landingham, T.S. Bowers, D. Cahoy, and J.K. 
Chandalia. (2013). A statistical reevaluation of the data used in 
the Lanphear et al. (2005) pooled-analysis that related low levels 
of blood lead to intellectual deficits in children. Critical Reviews 
in Toxicology 43(9): 785-799. Doi:10.3109/10408444.2013.832726.
Daniel, W., and Cross, C. (2013). Biostatistics: A Foundation for 
Analysis in the Health Sciences, 10th Edition. Wiley. ISBN: 978-1-
119-62550-6. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Biostatistics%3A A 
Foundation for Analysis in the Health Sciences%2C 10th Edition-p-
9781119625506.
Del Toral, M.A., Porter, A., and Schock, M.R. (2013). Detection and 
Evaluation of Elevated Lead Release from Service Lines: A Field 
Study. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(16): 9300-9307. 
https://doi.org/10.1021/es4003636.
DeSantis, M., Triantafyllidou, S., Schock, M., and Lytle, D. (2018). 
Mineralogical Evidence of Galvanic Corrosion in Drinking Water Lead 
Pipe Joints. Environmental Science & Technology, 52(6): 3365-3374. 
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b06010.
Deshommes, E., Laroche, L., Nour, S., Cartier, C., and Prevost, M 
(2010). Source of occurrence of particulate lead in tap water. Water 
Research, 44(12): 3734-3744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2010.04.019.
Deshommes, E., Bannier, A., Laroche, L., Nour, S., and Prevost, M. 
(2016).

[[Page 86618]]

Monitoring-Based Framework to Detect and Manage Lead Water Service 
Lines. Journal AWWA, 108(11): E555-E570. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2016.108.0167.
Deshommes, E., Laroche, L., Deveau, D., Nour, S., and Prevost, M. 
(2017). Short- and Long-Term Lead Release after Partial Lead Service 
Line Replacements in a Metropolitan Water Distribution System. 
Environmental Science and Technology, 51(17); 9507-9515. DOI: 
10.1021/acs.est.7b01720.
Deshommes, E., Trueman, B., Douglas, I., Laroche, L., Swertfeger, 
J., Spielmacher, A., Gagnon, G.A., Prevost, M. (2018). Lead Levels 
at the Tap and Consumer Exposure form Legacy and Recent Lead Service 
Line Replacements in Six Utilities. Environmental Science and 
Technology, 52, 16, 9451-9459. Retrieved from: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b02388.
Diebler, K., and Basu, P. (2013). Continuing issues with Lead: 
Recent Advances in Detection. European Journal of Inorganic 
Chemistry, 2013(7): 1086-1096. DOI: 10.1002/ejic.201200997.
Dodds, W.K., W.W. Bouska, J.L. Eitzmann, T.J. Pilger, K.L. Pitts, 
A.J. Riley, J.T. Schloesser, and D.J. Thornbrugh. (2009). 
Eutrophication of U.S. freshwaters: Analysis of potential economic 
damages. Environmental Science Technology 43(1): 12-19. Folkman, S. 
2018. Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive 
Study. Utah State University, Buried Structures Laboratory.
Dore, E., Deshommes, E., Laroche, L., Nour, S., Prevost, M. (2019). 
Study of the long-term impacts of treatments on lead release from 
full and partially replaced harvested lead service lines. Water 
Research. Vol. 149, 566-577. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135418309667.
Dorsey, A., and Ingerman, L. (2004). Toxicological Profile for 
Copper. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Atlanta, 
GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health 
Service.
Doshi, J.A., Hodgkins, P., Kahle, J., Sikirica, V., Cangelosi, M. 
J., Setyawan, J., & Neumann, P. J. (2012). Economic impact of 
childhood and adult attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the 
United States. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent 
Psychiatry, 51(10), 990-1002.
E2. (2021). Getting the Lead Out: Employment & Economic Impacts from 
Replacing America's Lead Pipes. Retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://e2.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/E2-UA-Economic-Impacts-from-Replacing-Americas-Lead-Service-Lines_August-2021.pdf.
Edwards, M., & Dudi, A. (2004). Role of chlorine and chloramine in 
corrosion of lead-bearing plumbing materials. Journal-American Water 
Works Association, 96(10), 69-81.
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), & American University. (2020). 
Lead Pipes and Environmental Justice: A study of lead pipe 
replacement in Washington, DC.
EDF. (2024). Transparency in action: Map of public LSL replacement 
programs. Retrieved from https://www.edf.org/national-map-LSL-replacement-programs.
Elfland et al. (2010). Lead-contaminated water from brass plumbing 
devices in new buildings. J. Water Works Assoc, 102, 11.
Executive Order 12898. (1994). Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations. Federal Register. 59 FR 7629. February 16, 1994.
Executive Order 13990. (2021). Protecting Public Health and the 
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. 
Federal Register. 86 FR 7037. January 25, 2021.
Executive Order 14096. (2023). Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment 
to Environmental Justice for All. Federal Register. 88 FR 25251. 
April 26, 2023.
Fisher, M. et al. Association between toxic metals, vitamin D and 
preterm birth in the Maternal-Infant research on environmental 
chemicals study. Paediatr. Perinat. Epidemiol. 37, 447-457 (2023).
Florida Department of State. (2010). Rule: 25-30.140. Florida 
Administrative Code & Administrative Register. Retrieved July 24, 
2023, from https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?id=25-30.140.
Froehlich, T.E., Lanphear, B.P., Auinger, P., Hornungh, R., 
Eppstein, J.N., Braun, J., Kahn, R.S. (2009). Association of Tobacco 
and Lead Exposures with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. 
Pediatrics. 124(6):e1054-1063. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0738.
Glibert, P.M., D.M. Anderson, P. Gentien, E. Graneli, and K.G. 
Sellner. (2005). The global, complex phenomena of harmful algal 
blooms. Oceanography, 18(2):136-147.
Goto, Y; Mandai, M; Nakayama, T; Yamazaki, S; Nakayama, SF; Isobe, 
T; Sato, T; Nitta, H. (2021). Association of prenatal maternal blood 
lead levels with birth outcomes in the Japan Environment and 
Children's Study (JECS): A nationwide birth cohort study. Int J 
Epidemiol 50: 156-164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa162.
Greene, D., Tehranifar, P., DeMartini, D.P., Faciano, A., and Nagin, 
D. (2015). Peeling Lead Paint Turns Into Poisonous Dust. Guess Where 
It Ends Up? A Media Campaign to Prevent Childhood Lead Poisoning in 
New York City. Health Education & Behavior, 42(3), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198114560790.
Griffin, S. & Dunwoody, R.J. (2000). The Relation of Communication 
to Risk Judgment and Preventive Behavior Related to Lead in Tap 
Water. Health Communication, 12(1): 81-107. DOI:10.1207/
S15327027HC1201_05.
Harari, F; Sallsten, G; Christensson, A; Petkovic, M; Hedblad, B; 
Forsgard, N; Melander, O; Nilsson, PM; Born[eacute], Y; 
Engstr[ouml]m, G; and Barregard, L. (2018). Blood lead levels and 
decreased kidney function in a population-based cohort. Am J Kidney 
Dis 72: 381-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.02.358.
Harding, A.K., and Anadu, E.C. (2000). Consumer response to public 
notification. Journal AWWA, 92(8), 32-41. DOI:10.1002/j.1551-
8833.2000.tb08989.x.
Harvard School of Public Health. (2024). Case Study Brief: Denver 
Water Filter Program.
Hayes, C.R., Incledion, S., and Balch, M. (2008). Experience in 
Wales (UK) of the optimisation of ortho-phosphate dosing for 
controlling lead in drinking water. Journal of Water and Health, 
6(2): 177-185. DOI: 10.2166/wh.2008.044.
Hayes, C.R. and Hydes, O.D. (2012). UK experience in the monitoring 
and control of lead in drinking water. Journal of Water and Health, 
10(3): 337-348. DOI:10.2166/wh.2012.210.
Hensley, K., V. Bosscher, S. Triantafyllidou, and D.A. Lytle. 
(2021). Lead Service Line Identification: A Review of Strategies and 
Approaches. AWWA Water Science.
Hu, JMY; Arbuckle, TE; Janssen, P; Lanphear, BP; Zhuang, LH; Braun, 
JM; Chen, A; McCandless, LC. (2021). Prenatal exposure to endocrine 
disrupting chemical mixtures and infant birth weight: A Bayesian 
analysis using kernel machine regression. Environ Res 195: 110749.
ICF. (2024a). Memorandum from ICF to USEPA, regarding Capacity 
concerns related to meeting the increased demand for lead-free pipes 
resulting from the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) 
provision that requires full replacement of lead service lines 
within 10 years. August 13, 2024.
ICF. (2024b). Memorandum from ICF to USEPA, regarding Labor shortage 
concerns related to the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) 
provision that requires full replacement of lead service lines 
within 10 years. August 13, 2024.
ICF. (2024c). Memorandum from ICF to USEPA, regarding Discussion of 
lead filter capacity in response to concerns that demand for filters 
will outpace production and lead to supply challenges. April 30, 
2024.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). (2023) Illinois EPA 
Announces Nearly $4 Million in Loan Forgiveness to the City of 
Batavia to Replace Lead Service Lines. Illinois.gov Press Releases. 
https://epa.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/epa/about-us/documents/news-releases/2023/02.14.23-IEPA-LeadServiceLineFunding-Batavia-Final.pdf.
Illinois General Assembly. (2021). HB3739 Lead Service Line 
Replacement. 102nd General Assembly. Retrieved July 31, 2023, from 
https://ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=3739&GAID=16&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=132788&SessionID=110&SpecSess=&Session=&GA=102.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM). (n.d.) 
Guidance

[[Page 86619]]

Document for Developing a Lead Service Line (LSL) Inventory. 
Retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://www.in.gov/idem/cleanwater/files/dw_compliance_guidance_dev_lsl_inv.pdf.
Indiana General Assembly (2024). Lead water line replacement and 
lead remediation, Senate Enrolled Act No. 5 (SB0005), Second Regular 
Session of the 123rd Indiana General Assembly, 2024. Retrieved July 
10, 2024, from https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2024/bills/senate/5/details.
Jennings, B. and Duncan, L.L. (2017). Water Safety and Lead 
Regulation: Physicians' Community Health Responsibilities. AMA J 
Ethics, 19(10): 1027-1035. DOI:10.1001/
journalofethics.2017.19.10.pfor1-1710.
Ji, Y., Hong, X., Wang, G., Chatterjee, N., Riley, A.W., Lee, L.C., 
Surkan, P.J., Bartell, T.R., Zuckerman, B., and Wang, X. (2018). A 
prospective birth cohort study on early childhood lead levels and 
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: New insight on sex 
differences. J Pediatr, 199: 124-131.e128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.03.076.
Jordan, C.M., Yust, Y.L., Robison, L.L., Hannan, P., and Deinard, 
A.S. (2003). A randomized trial of education to prevent lead burden 
in children at high risk for lead exposure: efficacy as measured by 
blood lead monitoring. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(16), 
1947-1951. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/ehp.6352.
Kahn, H. and K. Stralka. Estimated Daily Average Per Capita Water 
Ingestion By Child And Adult Age Categories Based On USDA's 1994-96 
And 1998 Continuing Survey Of Food Intakes By Individuals (Journal 
Article). Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental 
Epidemiology. Nature Publishing Group, London, UK, 19:396-404, 
(2008).
Kimbrough, D.E. (2007). Brass corrosion as a source of lead and 
copper in traditional and all-plastic distribution systems. Journal 
AWWA, 99(8): 70-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2007.tb08008.x.
Klemick, H., Wolverton, A., Parthum, B., Epstein, K., Kutzing, S., 
and Armstrong, S. (2024). Factors Influencing Customer Participation 
in a Program to Replace Lead Pipes for Drinking Water. Environmental 
and Resource Economics, 87: 791-832.
Krueger, W.S. and Wade, T.J. (2016). Elevated blood lead and cadmium 
levels associated with chronic infections among non-smokers in a 
cross-sectional analysis of NHANES data. Environ Health, 15: 16. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0113-4.
Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA). (2024). 
Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: ``National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements 
(LCRI).'' Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-1132.
Lanphear, B.P., Rauch, S., Auinger, P., Allen, R.W., & Hornung, R.W. 
(2018). Low-level lead exposure and mortality in US adults: a 
population-based cohort study. Lancet Public Health, 3(4), e177-
e184. doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(18)30025-2.
Lanphear, B.P., Hornung, R., Khoury, J., Yolton, K., Baghurst, P., 
Bellinger, DC, Canfield, R.L., Dietrich, K.N., Bornschein, R., 
Greene, T., Rothenberg, S.J., Needleman, H.L., Schnaas, L., 
Wasserman, G., Graziano, J., and Roberts, R. (2019). Erratum: ``Low-
level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual 
function: An international pooled analysis'' [Erratum]. Environ 
Health Perspect, 127(9): 099001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP5685.
Laquatra, J. (2014). Lead in Household Products. In: Snedeker, S. 
(eds) Toxicants in Food Packaging and Household Plastics. Molecular 
and Integrative Toxicology. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6500-2_9.
Lee, J., & Meehan, M. (2017). Survival Analysis of US Water Service 
Lines Utilizing a Nationwide Failure Data Set. American Water Works 
Association. doi:10.5942/jawwa.2017.109.0098.
Lee, S., Min, J.Y., and Min, K.B. (2020). Female infertility 
associated with blood lead and cadmium levels. Int J Environ Res 
Public Health, 17(5): 1794. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051794.
Levin, R., and J. Schwartz. 2023. A better cost:benefit analysis 
yields better and fairer results: EPA's lead and copper rule 
revision. Environmental Research 229: 115738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.115738.
LSLR Collaborative. 2021. Preparing a Lead Service Line Inventory. 
Accessed: October 12, 2021. https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/preparing-an-inventory.html.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.a). Legal Factors. Retrieved July 24, 2023, 
from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/legal-factors.html.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.b). Requiring LSL Replacement When 
Opportunities Arise. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/requiring-lsl-replacement.html.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.c). Getting Started on an LSL Inventory. 
Retrieved July 10, 2024, from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/preparing-an-inventory.html.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.d). Roles for Community Groups in LSL 
Replacement Efforts: Case Example from Clean Water Fund in Chelsea, 
Massachusetts. Retrieved July 26, 2023, from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/uploads/9/2/0/2/92028126/community_groups_role_in_supporting_lsl_replacement_v2_-_formatted.pdf.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.e). Roadmap. Effectiveness of Anticipated 
Communication Options. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/effectiveness-of-anticipated-communications-options.html.
Lewis, C.M., Couillard, L.A., Klappa, P.J. and Vandenbush, T.D. 
(2017). Lead Water Service Lines: Extensive Sampling and Field 
Protocol Protect Public Health. Journal AWWA, 109: 34-41. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2017.109.0016.
Lilje, J., and Mosler, H.-J. (2018). Effects of a behavior change 
campaign on household drinking water disinfection in the lake Chad 
basin using the Ranas approach. Science of the Total Environment, 
619-620, 1599-1607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.142.
Lin, D., R. Lutter, and C.J. Ruhm. (2018). Cognitive performance and 
labour market outcomes. Labour Economics, 51:121-135.
Louisiana Department of Health (LDH). (n.d.). Lead Service Line 
Inventory Template User Guide. Retrieved May 22, 2024, from https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-EH/engineering/LCRR/LDH_Service_Line_Inventory_Presentation.pdf.
Lytle, D.A., Schock, M.R., Wait, K., Cahalan, K., Bosscher, V., 
Porter, A., and Del Toral, M. (2019). Sequential Drinking Water 
Sampling as a Tool for Evaluating Lead in Flint, Michigan. Water 
Research, 15(157): 40-54. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2019.03.042.
Lytle, D.A., Schock, M.R., Formal, C., Bennett-Stamper, C., Harmon, 
S., Nadagouda, M.N., Williams, D., DeSantis, M.K., Tully, J., and 
Pham., M. (2020). Lead Particle Size Fractionation and 
Identification in Newark, New Jersey's Drinking Water. Environmental 
Science & Technology. Vol. 54. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03797.
Lytle, D.A., Formal, C., Cahalan, K., Muhlen, C., Triantafyllidou, 
S. (2021). The impact of sampling approach and daily water usage on 
lead levels at the tap. Water Research. Vol. 197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2021.117071.
Madison Water Utility. (2014 November 7). EPA seeks details of 
Madison's Lead Service Replacement Program. https://www.cityofmadison.com/water/blog/2014-11-07/epa-seeks-details-of-madisons-lead-service-replacement-program.
Massachusetts Water Research Authority (MWRA). (2023 June 16). Lead 
Service Line Replacement Loan Program or Lead Loan Program (LLP), an 
Enhancement to the Local Water System Assistance Program (LWSAP) for 
Member Communities. MWRA Online. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from 
https://www.mwra.com/comsupport/lrp/lrpprogram.html.
Masters, S.V., Parks, J., Atassi, A., and Edwards, M.A. (2016). 
Inherent variability in lead and copper collected during 
standardized sampling. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 
188(3): 177. DOI: 10.1007/s10661-016-5182-x.
Masters, S.V., Bradley, T.C., Burlingame, G.A., Seidel, C.J., 
Schmelling, M., and Bartrand, T.A. (2021). What Can Utilities Expect 
from New Lead Fifth-Liter Sampling Based on Historic First-Draw 
Data? Environmental Science & Technology, 55(17): 11491-11500. 
DOI:10.1021/acs.est.1c00421.

[[Page 86620]]

McFadden, M., R. Giani, P. Kwan, and S. Reiber. (2011). 
Contributions to Drinking Water Lead from Galvanized Iron Corrosion 
Scales. Journal American Water Works Association, 103(4), pp 76-89. 
DOI: 10.1002/j.1551-8833.2011.tb11437.x
MDB Incorporated. (2019). ``Selection of Concentration-Response 
Functions between Lead Exposure and Adverse Health Outcomes for Use 
in Benefits Analysis: Cardiovascular-Disease Related Mortality'' 
Peer Review Combined Documents. https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_record_report.cfm?Lab=NCEE&dirEntryId=342855.
Michigan Administrative Rules. (2023). R325.11604--Contents of 
general plans for all applicable systems. Michigan Administrative 
Code for Environment, Great Lakes and Energy-Drinking Water and 
Environmental Health Division. Retrieved July 31, 2023 from https://casetext.com/regulation/michigan-administrative-code/department-environmental-quality/drinking-water-and-municipal-assistance-division/supplying-water-to-the-public/part-16-general-plans/section-r-32511604-contents-of-general-plans-for-all-applicable-systems.
Michigan Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE). 
(2021). Minimum Service Line Material Verification Requirements. 
Revised March 2021. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/egle-dwehd-min-service-line-materialverification-req_720143_7.pdf.
Mishrra, A., Johnson, E., and Giammar, D.E. (2021). Estimating Lead 
Concentrations in Drinking Water after Stagnation in Lead Service 
Lines Using Water Quality Data from across the United States. 
Environmental Science & Technology Letters, 8(10): 878-883. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00580.
Mulhern, R., Grubbs, B., Gray, K., & Macdonald Gibson, J. (2022). 
User experience of point-of-use water treatment for private wells in 
North Carolina: Implications for outreach and well stewardship. 
Science of the Total Environment, 806, 150448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150448.
Mushak, P. (1991). Gastro-intestinal absorption of lead in children 
and adults: Overview of biological and biophysico-chemical aspects. 
Chemical Speciation and Bioavailability, 3(3-4):87-104.
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). (2015). Report of 
the Lead and Copper Rule Working Group to the National Drinking 
Water Advisory Council. August 24, 2015. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/ndwaclcrwgfinalreportaug2015.pdf.
NDWAC. (2022). National Drinking Water Advisory Council Meeting 
Summary, November 30, 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-02/ndwac-summary-november-2022.pdf.
NDWAC. (2024). National Drinking Water Advisory Council Meeting 
Summary, January 31, 2024. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-06/ndwac-meeting-summary-january-2024-508_1.pdf.
National Research Council (NRC). (2000). Copper in Drinking Water. 
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2012). NTP Monograph on Health 
Effects of Low-Level Lead. Durham, NC. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/ohat/lead/final/monographhealtheffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf.
The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference 
(NELAC) Institute. (2021, October 1). Fields of Proficiency Testing. 
Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://nelac-institute.org/content/NEPTP/fopt.php.
Neri, A., McNaughton, C., Momin, B., Puckett, M., and Gallaway, M.S. 
(2018). Measuring public knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related 
to radon to inform cancer control activities and practices. 
International Journal of Indoor Environment and Health, 28(4), 604-
610. https://doi.org/10.1111/ina.12468.
New York State Department of Health (NYDOH). (2019). Governor Cuomo 
Announces $10 Million Awarded to Communities for Second Round of 
Replacement of Residential Drinking Water Lead Service Lines. 
https://www.health.ny.gov/press/releases/2019/2019-07-26_millions_awarded_to_communities_for_round_two_replacement_residential_water.htm.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (2003). Circular A-4. Obama 
White House Archives. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/.
Office of the People's Counsel for the District of Columbia (OPC-
DC). (2024). Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: 
``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: 
Improvements (LCRI).'' Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-0796.
OMB. (2021). 2020 Standards for Delineating Core Based Statistical 
Areas. Federal Register. 86 FR 37770. July 16, 2021.
OMB. (2023). Circular A-4. November 9, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CircularA-4.pdf.
Ozkaynak, H., G. Glen, J. Cohen, H. Hubbard, K. Thomas, L. Phillips, 
and N. Tulve. (2022). Model based prediction of age specific soil 
and dust ingestion rates for children. Journal of Exposure Science & 
Environmental Epidemiology, 32:472-480. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-021-00406-5.
Park, Y., and Han, J. (2021). Blood lead levels and cardiovascular 
disease risk: Results from the Korean National Health and Nutrition 
Examination Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 18: 10315. DOI: 
10.3390/ijerph181910315.
Pennsylvania General Assembly (2017 Oct. 30). 2017 Act 44-Fiscal 
Code-Omnibus Amendments. Unconsolidated Statutes. Retrieved July 28, 
2023, from https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2017&sessInd=0&act=44.
Pliszka, S. AACAP Work Group on Quality Issues. Practice parameter 
for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with 
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc 
Psychiatry. 2007 Jul;46(7):894-921.
Proctor, C.R., Rhoads, W.J., Keane, T., Salehi, M., Hamilton, K., 
Pieper, K.J., Cwiertny, D.M., Prevost, M., and Whelton, A.J. (2020). 
Considerations for large building water quality after extended 
stagnation. Journal AWWA, 2(4): 1186. https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1186.
Razgaitis, R. (2023). Growth Trends In The Water Purification 
Industry. Available online at https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/11/15/growth-trends-in-the-water-purification-industry/.
Reese, A.C, Burgos-Gil, R., Cleary, S.D., Seper, S., Monge-Rojas, 
R., and Colon-Ramas, U. (2023). Use of a Water Filter at Home 
Reduces Sugary Drink Consumption among Parents and Infants/Toddlers 
in a Predominantly Hispanic Community: Results from the Water 
Up!@Home Intervention Trial. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and 
Dietetics, 123(1): 41-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2022.06.006
Rhode Island General Assembly. (2023). H5007 Lead Poisoning 
Prevention Act, State of Rhode Island, January Session of the 
General Assembly. Retrieved July 10, 2024, from https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/BillText/BillText23/HouseText23/H5007.pdf.
Rockey, N.C., Shen, Y., Haig, S.J., Wax, M., Yonts, J., Wigginton, 
K.R., Raskin, L., and Olson, T.M. (2021). Impact of service line 
replacement on lead, cadmium, and other drinking water quality 
parameters in Flint, Michigan. Environmental Science: Water Research 
& Technology, 7(4): 797-808. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EW00975J.
Rodosthenous, RS; Burris, HH; Svensson, K; Amarasiriwardena, CJ; 
Cantoral, A; Schnaas, L; Mercado-Garc[iacute]a, A; Coull, BA; 
Wright, RO; T[eacute]llez-Rojo, MM; Baccarelli, AA. (2017). Prenatal 
lead exposure and fetal growth: Smaller infants have heightened 
susceptibility. Environ Int 99: 228-233. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.11.023.
Roy, S. and Edwards, M.A. (2020). Efficacy of corrosion control and 
pipe replacement in reducing citywide lead exposure during the 
Flint, MI water system recovery. Environmental Science: Water 
Research & Technology, 2020(6): 3024-3031. DOI: 10.1039/d0ew00583e.
Ruiz, M.T. (2019, Sept. 10). Senate Bill4110--Allows municipalities 
to adopt ordinance to enter properties to perform lead service line 
replacements. New Jersey 218th Legislature. Retrieved July 28, 2023, 
from https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/S4110/2018.
Salkever, D.S. (1995). Updated estimates of earnings benefits from 
reduced exposure of children to environmental lead.

[[Page 86621]]

Environmental Research, 70:1-6. doi:0013-9351/95.
Sandvig, A., P. Kwan, G. Kirmeyer, B. Maynard, D. Mast, R.R. 
Trussell, S. Trussell, A. Cantor, and A. Prescott. (2008). 
Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and 
Copper Rule Compliance Issues. Denver, Colo.: Awwa Research 
Foundation. Peer reviewed by AwwaRF Project Advisory Committee.
Sarver, K. (2019). Failure at the Faucet: A Proactive and 
Preventative Approach to Keep Lead out of Drinking Water. University 
of Toledo Law Review, 51, 147.
Schock, M. (1990). Causes of temporal variability of lead in 
domestic plumbing systems. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 
15: 59-82. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00454749.
Schock, M., Hyland, R., and Welch, M. (2008). Occurrence of 
Contaminant Accumulation in Lead Pipe Scales from Domestic Drinking-
Water Distribution Systems. Environmental Science and Technology, 42 
(12): 4285-4291. DOI: 10.1021/es702488v.
Schwartz, J., and Otto, D. (1991). Lead and minor hearing 
impairment. Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health, 
46(5): 300-305. doi:10.1080/00039896.1991.9934391
Sedimentary Ores. (n.d.). Lead-lined Galvanized Pipe--A Lurking 
Danger for Homeowners and Utilities. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from 
https://www.sedimentaryores.net/Pipe%20Scales/Fe%20scales/Galvanized_lead-lined.html.
Shi, X., Chan, C.P.S., Man, G.K.Y., Chan, D.Y.L., Wong, M.H., and 
Li, T.C. (2021). Associations between blood metal/metalloid 
concentration and human semen quality and sperm function: A cross-
sectional study in Hong Kong. J Trace Elem Med Biol, 65: 126735. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtemb.2021.126735.
Sibley, M.H., L.E. Arnold, et al. (2022). Variable patterns of 
remission from ADHD in the multimodal treatment study of ADHD. 
American Journal of Psychiatry, 179(2): 142-151.
Slabaugh, R.M., R.B. Arnold, S. Chaparro, and C.P. Hill. (2015). 
National Cost Implications of Potential Long-Term LCR Requirements. 
Journal American Water Works Association, 107(8):E389-E400.
Smart, P., McRae, L., Formal, C., and Lytle, D.A. (2023). 
Development and optimization of a systematic approach to identifying 
lead service lines: One community's success. Water Research, 246. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.120725.
Stanek, L.W., J. Xue, C.R. Lay, E.C. Helm, M. Schock, D.A. Lytle, 
T.F. Speth, and V.G. Zartarian. (2020). Modeled impacts of drinking 
water Pb reduction scenarios on children's exposures and blood lead 
levels. Environmental Science and Technology 54(15): 9474-9482. 
doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c00479.
State of Indiana. (2017). House Bill 1519--Infrastructure 
development zone utility service. Retrieved from https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2017/bills/house/1519/details.
State of Kansas and Office of Attorney General of Kansas. (2024). 
Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: ``National Primary 
Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements 
(LCRI).'' Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-1132.
State of Michigan. (2023). Clean Drinking Water Access Act--Act 154. 
Retrieved from https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Laws/MCL?objectName=mcl-Act-154-of-2023.
State of Minnesota (2023). Chapter 39-H.F. No 24. Minnesota Session 
Laws--2023, 93rd Legislature, Regular Session. Office of the Revisor 
of Statutes. Retrieved from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/2023/0/SessionLaw/Chapter/39/.
State of New Jersey. (2020). Governor Murphy Signs Legislation 
Allowing Municipalities to Enter Properties to Perform Lead Service 
Line Replacements. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.nj.gov/governor/news/news/562020/approved/20200109d.shtml.
State of New Jersey. (2021a). New Jersey Legislature. Assembly Bill 
5343. Regular Session 2020-2021. Public Law 2021 Chapter 183. 
Retrieved from https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A5343/2020. Accessed 
January 4, 2022.
State of New Jersey. (2021b). New Jersey Legislature. Public Law 
2021 Chapter 183. Retrieved from https://pub.njleg.state.nj.us/Bills/2020/PL21/183_.PDF.
State of Rhode Island. (2023a). Lead Poisoning Prevention Act. 
General Assembly.H5007. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://legiscan.com/RI/bill/H5007/2023.
State of Rhode Island. (2023b). Relating to Health and Safety: Lead 
Poisoning Prevention Act. General Assembly. S0002. Retrieved from 
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText23/SenateText23/S0002.pdf.
State of Vermont. (2019). Vermont Act 66. Retrieved from https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/Docs/ACTS/ACT066/ACT066%20As%20Enacted.pdf.
St. Clair, J., Cartier, C., Triantafyllidou, T., Clark, B., and 
Edwards, M. (2016). Long-Term Behavior of Simulated Partial Lead 
Service Line Replacements. Environmental Engineering Science, 33(1): 
53-64. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2015.0337.
Stratton, S., Ettinger, A., Doherty, C., and Buckley, B. (2023). The 
lead and copper rule: Limitations and lessons learned from Newark, 
New Jersey. WIRES Water, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1620.
Sweeney, S. (2020). Central Arkansas Water's Lead Service Line 
Replacement Program: Investigation, Communication, Implementation. 
Journal AWWA, 112(4): 32-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/awwa.1479.
Tam, Y.S., and Elefsiniotis, P. (2009). Corrosion control in water 
supply systems: Effect of pH, alkalinity, and orthophosphate on lead 
and copper leaching from brass plumbing. Journal of Environmental 
Science and Health Part A, 44(12): 1251-1260. DOI: 10.1080/
10934520903140009.
Tang, M., Lytle, D., Achtemeier, R., and Tully, J. (2023). Reviewing 
performance of NSF/ANSI 53 certified water filters for lead removal. 
Water Research, 244: 120425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2023.120425.
Taylor, CM; Golding, J; Emond, AM. (2015). Adverse effects of 
maternal lead levels on birth outcomes in the ALSPAC study: A 
prospective birth cohort study. BJOG, 122: 322-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12756.
Tolunay, HE; [Scedil][uuml]k[uuml]r, YE; Ozkavukcu, S; Seval, MM; 
Ate[scedil], C; T[uuml]rksoy, VA; Ecemi[scedil], T; 
Atabeko[gbreve]lu, CS; [Ouml]zmen, B; Berker, B; S[ouml]nmezer, M. 
(2016). Heavy metal and trace element concentrations in blood and 
follicular fluid affect ART outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod 
Biol, 198: 73-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.01.001.
Tornero-Velez, R., Christian, M., Zartarian, V., and Simoneau, K.R. 
(2023). Tapping into Lead Service Line Information: Two City Case 
Study: Lead Data Mapping: Methods and Tools for Lead Prioritization, 
Prevention, and Mitigation. Presented at the National Environmental 
Health Association Annual Education Conference & Exhibition, July 
31-August 3, New Orleans.
Triantafyllidou, S., Parks, J., and Edwards, M. (2007). Lead 
Particles in Potable Water. Journal AWWA, 99(6): 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2007.tb07959.x.
Triantafyllidou, S., and Edwards, M. (2011). Galvanic corrosion 
after simulated small-scale partial lead service line replacements. 
Journal AWWA, 103(9): 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2011.tb11535.x.
Triantafyllidou, Simoni & Edwards, Marc. (2012). Lead (Pb) in Tap 
Water and in Blood: Implications for Lead Exposure in the United 
States. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 
42: 1297-1352. 10.1080/10643389.2011.556556.
Triantafyllidou, S., M. Schock, M.K. DeSantis, and C. White. (2015). 
Low contribution of PbO2-coated lead service lines to water lead 
contamination at the tap. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(6): 
3746-3754.
Triantafyllidou, S., Burkhardt, J., Tully, J., Cahalan, K., 
DeSantis, M., Lytle, D., and Schock, M. (2021). Variability and 
Sampling of Lead (Pb) in Drinking water: Assessing Potential Human 
Exposure Depends on the Sampling Protocol. Environment 
International, 146:106259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.106259.
Tripp, G., Wickens, J.R. Neurobiology of ADHD. Neuropharmacology. 
2009 Dec;57(7-8):579-89.
Trueman, B.F., Camara, E., and Gagnon, G.A. (2016). Evaluating the 
Effects of Full and

[[Page 86622]]

Partial Lead Service Line Replacement on Lead Levels in Drinking 
Water. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(14): 7389-7396. 
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b01912.
Tully, J., DeSantis, M.K., and Schock, M.R. (2019). Water quality-
pipe deposit relationships in Midwestern lead pipes. AWWA Water 
Science, 1(2): e1127. DOI: 10.1002/aws2.1127.
Tully, J., Schilling, S., Bosscher, V., Schock, M., and Lytle, D. 
(2023). Benton Harbor Drinking Water Study. U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-22/269. April 2023.
Urbanic, M., D. Lytle, R. Achtemeier, and A. Paul. Lead Exposure, 
Service Line Identification, and Other Sampling Methods--Comparison 
of two cities with opposite levels of corrosion control. Presented 
at 2022 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference Cincinnati, OH, 
Cincinnati, OH, November 14-16, 2022.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015a). ``S1701POVERTY STATUS in the PAST 12 
MONTHS.'' Data.census.gov. data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2015.S1701?t=Income%20and%20Poverty&g=160XX00US2629000&y=2015.
 Accessed 21 Aug. 2024.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015b). ``Income and Poverty in the United 
States: 2015.'' Census.gov, 25 July 2018, www.census.gov/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.html. Accessed 21 Aug. 2024.
U.S. Department of Treasury (USDT). (2024). State and Local Fiscal 
Recovery Funds: Public Data. https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds/public-data.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1988). Proposed 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. 
Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 53 FR 31516. August 18, 1988.
USEPA. (1991). Drinking Water Regulations; Maximum Contaminant Level 
Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and 
Copper. Final Rule. Federal Register. 56 FR 26460. June 7, 1991.
USEPA. (1992). Consecutive Systems Regulated under the National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Lead and Copper. January 10, 
1992.
USEPA. (1998a). Announcement of Small System Compliance Technology 
Lists for Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations and 
Findings Concerning Variance Technologies. Federal Register. 63 FR 
42032. August 6, 1998.
USEPA. (1998b). Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-
Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996. EPA 815-R-98-002.
USEPA. (1998c). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Report. Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 63 FR 
7606. February 13, 1998.
USEPA. (1998d). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Report. Final Rule. Federal Register. 63 FR 
44512. August 19, 1988.
USEPA. (2000a). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead 
and Copper. Federal Register. 65 FR 1950. January 12, 2000.
USEPA. (2000b). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public 
Notification Rule. Federal Register. 65 FR 25982. May 4, 2000.
USEPA. (2000c). Geometries and Characteristics of Public Water 
Systems. December 2000. EPA 815-R-00-24.
USEPA. (2004a). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical 
Assessment Summary for Lead and compounds (inorganic); CASRN 7439-
92-1. https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0277_summary.pdf.
USEPA. (2004b). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Minor 
Corrections and Clarification to Drinking Water Regulations. Final 
Rule. Federal Register. 69 FR 38850. June 29, 2024.
USEPA. (2004c). Lead and Copper Rule--Clarification of Requirements 
for Collecting Samples and Calculating Compliance. Water Supply 
Guidance 174.
USEPA. (2005). Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan--EPA Activities to 
Improve Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule. March 2005. EPA 
810-F-05-001. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P10051WL.txt.
USEPA. (2006). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Stage 2 
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule; Final Rule. Federal 
Register. 71 FR 388. January 4, 2006.
USEPA. (2007a). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead 
and Copper: Short-Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications. 
Final Rule. Federal Register. 72 FR 57782. October 10, 2007.
USEPA. (2007b). Office Ground Water and Drinking Water's Error Code 
Tracking Tool [for SDWIS/Fed]. Developed 2007.
USEPA. (2009). 2006 Community Water System Survey Volume II: 
Detailed Tables and Survey Methodology. May 2009. Office of Water. 
EPA 815-R-09-002. Available at https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1009USA.PDF?Dockey=P1009USA.PDF.
USEPA. (2011a). Science Advisory Board (SAB) Evaluation of the 
Effectiveness of Partial Lead Service Line Replacements. September 
2011. Science Advisory Board. EPA-SAB-11-015. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/science-advisory-board-evaluation-effectiveness-partial-lead-service-line-replacements.
USEPA. (2011b). National Characteristics of Drinking Water Systems 
Serving 10,000 or Fewer People. EPA 816-R-10-022. Washington, DC: 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/epa816r10022.pdf.
USEPA. (2013). Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. (EPA/600/R-
10/075F). Office of Research and Development. (EPA/600/R-10/075F). 
Research Triangle Park, NC.
USEPA. (2016a). Lead and Copper Rule Revisions White Paper. October 
2016. Office of Water. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/508_lcr_revisions_white_paper_final_10.26.16.pdf.
USEPA. (2016b). Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation 
Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water 
Systems. EPA 816-B-16-003. Updated 2019. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/occtmarch2016.pdf.
USEPA. (2016c). Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental 
Justice in Regulatory Analysis. June 2016. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf.
USEPA. (2018). 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools 
and Child Care Facilities: A Training, Testing, and Taking Action 
Approach (Revised Manual). October 2018. Office of Water. EPA 815-B-
18-007. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water-toolkit.
USEPA. (2019a). Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line 
Replacement. October 2019. EPA 815-R-19-003. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-10/documents/strategies_to_achieve_full_lead_service_line_replacement_10_09_19.pdf
.
USEPA. (2019b). Memorandum of Understanding on Reducing Lead in 
Drinking Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities. September 2019. 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/mou_reducing_lead_in_drinking_water_in_schools_final.pdf.
USEPA. (2019c). All-Ages Lead Model (AALM), Version 2.0 (External 
Review Draft, 2019). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Washington, DC, 2019.
USEPA. (2019d). Technical Support Document for the All Ages Lead 
Model: Parameters, Equations, and Evaluations. May 2019. EPA 600-R-
19-011. Retrieved from https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1012GIX.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2016+Thru2020&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5Czyfiles%5CIndex%20Data%5C16thru20%5CTxt%5C00000024%5CP1012GIX.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1&SeekPage=x&ZyPURL.
USEPA. (2020a). Economic Analysis Appendices for the Final Lead and

[[Page 86623]]

Copper Rule Revisions. EPA 816-R-20-008a. December 2020. Retrieved 
from https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-1768.
USEPA. (2020b). Funding and Technical Resources for Lead Service 
Line Replacement in Small and Disadvantaged Communities. EPA 
Headquarters. Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. Washington, 
DC. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/funding-lead-service-line-replacement.
USEPA. (2020c). Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder 
and Flux for Drinking Water. Final Rule. Federal Register. 85 FR 
54235. September 1, 2020.
USEPA. (2020d). Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule 
Revisions. EPA 816-R-20-008.
USEPA. (2020e). Public Comment and Response Document for the Final 
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. December 2020. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-1622.
USEPA. (2021a). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead 
and Copper Rule Revisions. Final Rule. Federal Register. 86 FR 4198. 
January 15, 2021.
USEPA. (2021b). Review of the National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR). Federal Register. 
86 FR 71574. December 17, 2021.
USEPA. (2021c). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead 
and Copper Rule Revisions; Delay of Effective Date. Federal 
Register. 86 FR 14003. March 12, 2021.
USEPA. (2021d). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead 
and Copper Rule Revisions; Delay of Effective and Compliance Dates. 
Federal Register. 86 FR 14063. March 12, 2021.
USEPA. (2021e). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead 
and Copper Rule Revisions; Delay of Effective and Compliance Dates. 
Final Rule. Federal Register. 86 FR 31939. June 16, 2021.
USEPA. (2021f). Small, Underserved, and Disadvantaged Communities 
(SUDC) Grant Program Grant Implementation Document. U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Retrieved from 
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/updated_sudc_implementation_document_508-compliant.pdf.
USEPA. (2022a). Strategy to Reduce Lead Exposures and Disparities in 
U.S. Communities. EPA 540-R-22-006. October 2022. Retrieved from 
https://www.epa.gov/lead/final-strategy-reduce-lead-exposures-and-disparities-us-communities.
USEPA. (2022b). WIIN Grant: Reducing Lead in Drinking Water. Press 
Release. EPA Headquarters. Office of Water. Washington, DC. 
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/wiin-grant-reducing-
lead-drinking-
water#:~:text=February%2013%2C%202023%20%2D%20EPA%20announces,drinkin
g%20water%2C%20such%20as%20PFAS.
USEPA. (2022c). Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a Service 
Line Inventory. August 2022. Office of Water. EPA 816-B-22-001. 
Available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/Inventory%20Guidance_August%202022_508%20compliant.pdf.
USEPA. (2022d). Implementation of the Clean Water and Drinking Water 
State Revolving Fund Provisions of the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
Law. Memorandum. March 8, 2022. Office of Water. Retrieved from 
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-03/combined_srf-implementation-memo_final_03.2022.pdf.
USEPA. (2023a). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead 
and Copper Rule Improvements. Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 88 FR 
84878. December 6, 2023.
USEPA. (2023b). Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
(WIFIA)-- 2022 Annual Report. Publication number 830R23001. 
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/wifia/wifia-annual-report.
USEPA. (2023c). EPA Launches New Initiative to Accelerate Lead Pipe 
Replacement to Protect Underserved Communities. Press Release. EPA 
Headquarters. Office of Water. Washington, DC. Retrieved from 
https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epalaunches-new-initiative-accelerate-leadpipe-replacement-protect-underserved.
USEPA. (2023d). LSLR Financing Case Study: North Providence, RI. 
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lslrfinancing-case-study-north-providenceri.
USEPA. (2023e). Environmental Justice Analysis for the Proposed Lead 
and Copper Rule Improvements. November 2023. Docket number EPA-HQ-
OW-2022-0801.
USEPA. (2023f). Flint Water Sampling Objectives. Retrieved from 
https://www.epa.gov/flint/flint-water-sampling-objectives.
USEPA. (2023g). Public Meeting on Environmental Justice (EJ) 
Considerations for the Development of the Proposed Lead and Copper 
Rule Improvements (LCRI), October 25, 2022 Meeting Summary.
USEPA. (2023h). Public Meeting on Environmental Justice (EJ) 
Considerations for the Development of the Proposed Lead and Copper 
Rule Improvements (LCRI), November 1, 2022 Meeting Summary.
USEPA. (2023i). Summary Report on Federalism and Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA) Consultation for the Development of the Proposed 
LCRI National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
USEPA. (2023j). Panel Report of the Small Business Advocacy Review 
Panel on EPA's Planned Proposed Rule: Lead and Copper Rule 
Improvements (LCRI) National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. May 
2023.
USEPA. (2023k). Technical Support Document for the Proposed Lead and 
Copper Rule Improvements. EPA 815-R-23-003.
USEPA. (2023l). 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and 
Assessment. Fact Sheet. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-04/Final_DWINSA%20Public%20Factsheet%204.4.23.pdf.
USEPA. (2023m). Lead Service Line Replacement Accelerators. 
Retrieved May 20, 2024, from https://www.epa.gov/water-infrastructure/lead-service-line-replacement-accelerators.
USEPA. (2023n). Developing and Maintaining a Service Line Inventory: 
Small Entity Compliance Guide. Office of Water. EPA 815-B-23-005. 
June 2023. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/Final%20Small%20System%20Entity%20Inventory%20Guide_508.pdf.
USEPA. (2023o). Fact Sheet for Developing and Maintaining a Service 
Line Inventory. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-06/EPA-Factsheet-Combined-06072023%20508-final.pdf.
USEPA. (2023p). Planning and Conducting Lead Service Line 
Replacement. Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/planning-and-conducting-lead-service-line-replacement.
USEPA. (2023q). Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper 
Rule Improvements. November 2023. Office of Water. EPA 815-R-23-005.
USEPA. (2024a). Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule 
Improvements. October 2024. Office of Water. EPA 810-R-24-005.
USEPA. (2024b). Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (Final 
Report). EPA 600-R-23-375 Office of Research and Development. 
January 2024.
USEPA. (2024c). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Report. Final Rule. Federal Register. 89 FR 
45980. May 24, 2024.
USEPA. (2024d). Technical Support Document for the Final Lead and 
Copper Rule Improvements.
USEPA. (2024e). Get the Lead Out Initiative. Retrieved May 20, 2024, 
from https://www.epa.gov/water-infrastructure/get-lead-out-initiative.
USEPA. (2024f). Economic Analysis for the Final PFAS NPDWR. EPA 815-
R-24-001.
USEPA. (2024g). 2021 LCRR Implementation Fact Sheet. April 17, 2024. 
Office of Water. EPA 815-F24-002. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/revised-508_lcrr-compliance-fact-sheet_4.17.24.pdf.
USEPA. (2024h). Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) Frequently 
Asked Questions (FAQs). April 17, 2024. Office of Water. EPA 816-F-
24-002. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/lead-and-copper-rule-revisions-frequently-asked-questions_4102024_508.pdf.
USEPA. (2024i). Implementing Lead Service Line Replacement Projects 
Funded by the Drinking Water State Revolving

[[Page 86624]]

Fund. May 1, 2024. Office of Water. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/implementing-lead-service-line-replacement-projects-funded-by-the-drinking-water-state-revolving-fund-05-01-2024.pdf.
USEPA. (2024j). PFAS NPDWR Best Available Technologies and Small 
Systems Compliance Technical Support Document. March 2024. Office of 
Water. EPA 815-R24-011. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/2024-final-pfas-bat-ssct_final-508.pdf.
USEPA. (2024k). Response to Public Comments on the Lead and Copper 
Rule Improvements. EPA 815-R24-029.
USEPA. (2024l). EPA's Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed 
PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. EPA 815-R-24-005.
USEPA. (2024m). Managing Cyanotoxins in Public Drinking Water 
Systems. March 1, 2024. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/managing-cyanotoxins-public-drinking-water-systems.
USEPA. (2024n). Updated 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs 
Survey & Assessment. Fact Sheet. May 2024. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-05/fact-sheet_one-time-update_2024.04.30_508_compliant_1.pdf.
USEPA and USHHS. (2023). EPA and HHS Joint Statement to Governors on 
Federal Resources for Lead Testing and Remediation in Early Child 
Care and Education Settings. March 23, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/EPA%20ADM%20Regan%2BHHS%20Sec.%20Becerra%20-%20Lead.pdf.USGAO. 
(2018). K-12 Education, Lead Testing of School Drinking Water Would 
Benefit from Improved Federal Guidance. GAO-18-328. July 2018. 
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/692979.pdf.
USHHS. (2024). Supporting the Head Start Workforce and Consistent 
Quality Programming. Final Rule. Federal Register. 89 FR 67720. 
August 21, 2024.
USHUD. (2020). Community Development. https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/comm_planning/communitydevelopment.
USHUD. (2021). American Health Homes Survey II Lead Findings. Office 
of Lead Hazard Control and Health Homes. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/HH/documents/AHHS_II_Lead_Findings_Report_Final_29oct21.pdf.
USHUD. (2023). Fact Sheet: HUD's Work to Address Lead-based Paint 
and Additional Housing-Related Hazards. hud.gov/sites/dfiles/PA/documents/Lead_Hazards_Fact_Sheet.pdf.
Versar. (2015). External Peer Review of EPA's Approach for 
Estimating Exposures and Incremental Health Effects from Lead Due to 
Renovation, Repair, and Painting Activities in Public and Commercial 
Buildings. Prepared for EPA under contract EP-C-12-045 Task Order 
39.
Vijayashanthar, V., Small, M.J., and Van Briesen, J.M. (2023). 
Assessment of Lead in Drinking Water from Multiple Drinking Water 
Sampling Programs for a Midsize City. Environmental Science & 
Technology, 57: 842-851. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c06614.
Water Quality Association (WQA). (2024). Comments on the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking: ``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations 
for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI).'' Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-0914.
Wang, Y., Jing, H., Mehta, V., Welter, G.J., and Giammar, D.E. 
(2012). Impact of galvanic corrosion on lead release from aged lead 
service lines. Water Research, 46(16): 5049-5060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2012.06.046.
Wang, Y., Mehta, V., Welter, G., and Giammar, D. (2013). Effect of 
connection methods on lead release from galvanic corrosion. Journal 
AWWA, 105(7): E337-E351. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0088.
Wei, YD; Zhu, JM. (2020). Blood levels of endocrine-disrupting 
metals and prevalent breast cancer among US women. Med Oncol 37: 1. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12032-019-1328-3.
The White House. (2021). Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Lead Pipe and 
Paint Action Plan. December 16, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/16/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-lead-pipe-and-paint-action-plan/.
The White House. (2023). Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration 
Announces New Actions and Progress to Protect Communities From Lead 
Pipes and Paint. January 27, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/27/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-and-progress-to-protect-communities-from-lead-pipes-and-paint/.
The White House. (2024a). Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration 
Announces $3 Billion to Replace Toxic Lead Pipes and Deliver Clean 
Drinking Water to Communities Across the Country. May 2, 2024. 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/02/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-3-billion-to-replace-toxic-lead-pipes-and-deliver-clean-drinking-water-to-communities-across-the-country/.
The White House. (2024b). Fact Sheet: President Biden Announces New 
Workforce Hubs to Train and Connect American Workers to Good Jobs 
Created by the President's Investigating in America Agenda. April 
25, 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/04/25/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-workforce-hubs-to-train-and-connect-american-workers-to-good-jobs-created-by-the-presidents-investing-in-america-agenda/.
WHO. (2011). Lead in Drinking Water: Background Document for 
Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. World 
Health Organization Press.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR). (2020 September 
10). Sample Mandatory Lead Service Line Replacement Ordinances. 
Retrieved July 18, 2023, from WI DNR. Sample Mandatory Lead Service 
Line Replacement Ordinances. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/Aid/loans/lead/LSLmandatoryOrdinances.pdf.
WI DNR. (2022). Considerations for Setting Up a Private Lead Service 
Line Replacement Program. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/Aid/loans/pubs/CF0054.pdf.
Xie, Y., Giammar, D.E. (2011). Effects of flow and water chemistry 
on lead release rates from pipe scales. Water Research. 45(19), 
6525-6534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.09.050.
Xu, XJ; Yang, H; Chen, AM; Zhou, YL; Wu, KS; Liu, JX; Zhang, YL; 
Huo, X. (2012). Birth outcomes related to informal e-waste recycling 
in Guiyu, China. Reprod Toxicol, 33: 94-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2011.12.006.
Zartarian, V., J. Xue, R. Tornero-Velez, and J. Brown. (2017). 
Children's Lead Exposure: A multimedia Modeling Analysis to Guide 
Public Health Decision-Making. Environmental Health Perspectives. 
125(9). CID 097009. Available at https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1605.
Zhu, M., Fitzgerald, E.F., Gelberg, K.H., Lin, S., and Druschel, 
C.M. (2010). Maternal low-level lead exposure and fetal growth. 
Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(10), 1471-1475. doi:10.1289/
ehp.0901561.
Ziegler, E.E., B.B. Edwards, R.L. Jensen, K.R. Mahaffey, and S.J. 
Fomon. (1978). Absorption and retention of lead by infants. 
Pediatric Research, 12(1):29-34.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, Lead service line, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Water supply.

40 CFR Part 142

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Lead service 
line, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency amends 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 as follows:

[[Page 86625]]

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

0
2. Amend Sec.  141.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Action level'' and ``Child care 
facility'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Connector'' and 
``Distribution System and Site Assessment'';
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Elementary school'';
0
d. Removing the definitions of ``Find-and-fix'' and ``First draw 
sample'';
0
e. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``First-liter 
sample'';
0
f. Removing the definition of ``Full lead service line replacement'';
0
g. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Galvanized requiring 
replacement service line'';
0
h. Revising the definition of ``Galvanized service line'';
0
i. Removing the definition of ``Gooseneck, pigtail, or connector'';
0
j. Revising the definitions of ``Lead service line'' and ``Lead status 
unknown service line'';
0
k. Removing the definitions of ``Lead trigger level'' and ``Medium-size 
water system'';
0
l. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Medium water system'' 
and ``Newly regulated public water system'';
0
m. Removing the definitions of ``Optimal corrosion control treatment'' 
and ``Partial lead service line replacement'';
0
n. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Optimal corrosion 
control treatment (OCCT)'' and ``Partial service line replacement'';
0
o. Revising the definitions of ``Pitcher filter'' and ``Secondary 
school'';
0
p. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Service line'';
0
q. Revising the definitions of ``Small water system'' and ``System 
without corrosion control treatment'';
0
r. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Tap monitoring 
period'';
0
s. Removing the definition of ``Tap sampling monitoring period''; and
0
t. Revising the definitions of ``Tap sampling period'', ``Tap sampling 
protocol'', and ``Wide-mouth bottles''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  141.2   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Action level, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, means 
the concentrations of lead or copper in water as specified in Sec.  
141.80(c) which determines requirements under subpart I of this part. 
The lead action level is 0.010 mg/L and the copper action level is 1.3 
mg/L.
* * * * *
    Child care facility, for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only, means a location that houses a provider of child care, day care, 
or early learning services to children, as licensed by the State, 
local, or Tribal licensing agency.
* * * * *
    Connector, also referred to as a gooseneck or pigtail, means a 
short segment of piping not exceeding three feet that can be bent and 
is used for connections between service piping, typically connecting 
the service line to the main. For purposes of subpart I of this part, 
lead connectors are not considered to be part of the service line.
* * * * *
    Distribution System and Site Assessment means the requirements 
under subpart I of this part, pursuant to Sec.  141.82(j), that water 
systems must perform at every tap sampling site that yields a lead 
result above the lead action level of 0.010 mg/L.
* * * * *
    Elementary school, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means a school classified as elementary by State and local practice and 
composed of any span of grades (including pre-school) not above grade 
8.
* * * * *
    First-liter sample, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means a sample collected of the first one-liter volume of tap water 
drawn in accordance with Sec.  141.86(b).
* * * * *
    Galvanized requiring replacement service line, for the purpose of 
subpart I of this part only, means a galvanized service line that 
currently is or ever was downstream of a lead service line; or is 
currently downstream of a lead status unknown service line. For this 
definition, downstream means in the direction of flow through the 
service line. If the water system is unable to demonstrate that the 
galvanized service line was never downstream of a lead service line, it 
is a galvanized requiring replacement service line for purposes of the 
service line inventory and replacement requirements pursuant to Sec.  
141.84.
    Galvanized service line, for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only, means a service line that is made of iron or steel that has been 
dipped in zinc to prevent corrosion and rusting.
* * * * *
    Lead service line, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means a service line that is made of lead or where a portion of the 
service line is made of lead. A lead-lined galvanized service line is 
defined as a lead service line.
    Lead status unknown service line, for the purpose of subpart I of 
this part only, means a service line whose pipe material has not been 
demonstrated to be a lead service line, galvanized requiring 
replacement service line, or a non-lead service line pursuant to Sec.  
141.84(a)(3).
* * * * *
    Medium water system, for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only, means a water system that serves greater than 10,000 persons and 
less than or equal to 50,000 persons.
* * * * *
    Newly regulated public water system, for the purpose of subpart I 
only, refers to either:
    (1) An existing public water system that was not subject to 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in this part on October 16, 
2024, because the system met the requirements of section 1411 of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act and Sec.  141.3; or
    (2) An existing water system that did not meet the definition of a 
public water system in Sec.  141.2 on October 16, 2024. This term does 
not include existing water systems under new or restructured ownership 
or management.
* * * * *
    Optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT), for the purpose of 
subpart I of this part only, means the corrosion control treatment that 
minimizes the lead and copper concentrations at users' taps while 
ensuring that the treatment does not cause the water system to violate 
any National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in this part.
    Partial service line replacement, for the purpose of subpart I of 
this part only, means replacement of any portion of a lead service line 
or galvanized requiring replacement service line, as defined in this 
section, that leaves in service any length of lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line upon completion of the work.
* * * * *
    Pitcher filter means a non-plumbed water filtration device, which 
consists of a gravity fed water filtration cartridge and a filtered 
drinking water reservoir, that is certified by an American National 
Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead in drinking 
water.
* * * * *

[[Page 86626]]

    Secondary school, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means a school comprising any span of grades beginning with the next 
grade following an elementary school (usually 7, 8, or 9) and ending 
with grade 12. Secondary schools include both junior high schools and 
senior high schools and typically span grades 7 through 12.
* * * * *
    Service line, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, means 
a portion of pipe that connects the water main (or other conduit for 
distributing water to individual consumers or groups of consumers) to 
the building inlet. Where a building is not present, the service line 
connects the water main (or other conduit for distributing water to 
individual consumers or groups of consumers) to the outlet.
* * * * *
    Small water system, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means a water system that serves 10,000 persons or fewer.
* * * * *
    System without corrosion control treatment, for the purpose of 
subpart I of this part, means a water system that does not have or 
purchases all of its water from a system that does not have:
    (1) An optimal corrosion control treatment approved by the State; 
or
    (2) Any pH adjustment, alkalinity adjustment, and/or corrosion 
inhibitor addition resulting from other water quality adjustments as 
part of its treatment train infrastructure.
    Tap monitoring period, for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only, means the period of time during which each water system must 
conduct tap sampling for lead and copper analysis. The applicable tap 
monitoring period is determined by lead and copper concentrations in 
tap samples. The length of the tap monitoring period can range from six 
months to nine years.
    Tap sampling period, for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only, means the time period, within a tap monitoring period, during 
which the water system is required to collect samples for lead and 
copper analysis.
    Tap sampling protocol means the method for collecting tap samples 
pursuant to Sec.  141.86(b).
* * * * *
    Wide-mouth bottles, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means bottles one liter in volume that have a mouth with an inner 
diameter that measures at least 40 millimeters wide.

0
3. Amend Sec.  141.31 by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.31   Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (d)(1) The public water system, within 10 days of completing the 
public notification requirements under subpart Q of this part for the 
initial public notice and any repeat notices, must submit to the 
primary agency a certification that it has fully complied with the 
public notification regulations under subpart Q. The public water 
system must include with this certification a representative copy of 
each type of notice distributed, published, posted, and made available 
to the persons served by the system and to the media.
    (2) For Tier 1 notices for a lead action level exceedance, public 
water systems must provide a copy of the Tier 1 notice to the 
Administrator and the head of the primacy agency as soon as 
practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the public water system 
learns of the exceedance.
* * * * *

0
4. Revise and republish Sec.  141.80 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.80   General requirements and action level.

    (a) Applicability, effective date, and compliance deadlines. The 
requirements of this subpart constitute the national primary drinking 
water regulations for lead and copper.
    (1) The provisions of this subpart apply to community water systems 
and non-transient, non-community water systems (in this subpart 
referred to as ``water systems'' or ``systems'') as defined at Sec.  
141.2.
    (2) The requirements of this subpart are effective as of December 
30, 2024.
    (3) Community water systems and non-transient non-community water 
systems must comply with the requirements of this subpart no later than 
November 1, 2027, except where otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.  
141.81, 141.84, 141.85, 141.86, and 141.90, or where an exemption in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 142, subpart C or F, has been issued by the 
Administrator.
    (4)(i) Between October 30, 2024, and November 1, 2027, community 
water systems and non-transient non-community water systems must comply 
with 40 CFR 141.2, 141.31(d), and 141.80 through 141.91, as codified on 
July 1, 2020, except systems must also comply with 40 CFR 141.84(a)(1) 
through (10) (excluding paragraphs (a)(6) and (7)), 141.85(a)(1)(ii) 
and (e), 141.90(e)(1) and (13), (f)(4), and (h)(3), 141.201(a)(3)(vi) 
and (c)(3), and 141.202(a)(10); 40 CFR part 141, appendix A to subpart 
Q, entry I.C.1 (excluding Sec.  141.90, except paragraphs (e)(1) and 
(13) and (f)(4)) and entry I.C.2; 40 CFR part 141, appendix B to 
subpart Q, entry D.23; and 40 CFR 141.31(d)(2), as codified on July 1, 
2024.
    (ii) If an exemption from subpart I of this part has been issued in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 142, subpart C or F, prior to December 16, 
2021, then the water systems must comply with 40 CFR 141.80 through 
141.91, as codified on July 1, 2020, until the expiration of that 
exemption.
    (b) Scope. The regulations in this subpart constitute a treatment 
technique rule that includes treatment techniques to control corrosion, 
treat source water, replace service lines, and provide public 
education. The regulations in this subpart include requirements to 
support the treatment technique including a service line inventory, tap 
sampling, and monitoring for lead in schools and child care facilities. 
Some of the requirements in this subpart only apply if there is an 
exceedance of the lead or copper action levels, specified in paragraph 
(c) of this section, as measured in samples collected at consumers' 
taps.
    (c) Lead and copper action levels and method for determining 
whether there is an exceedance of the action level. Action levels must 
be determined based on tap water samples that must be considered for 
inclusion under Sec.  141.86(e) for the purpose of calculating the 90th 
percentile and tested using the analytical methods specified in Sec.  
141.89. The action levels described in this paragraph (c) are 
applicable to all sections of subpart I of this part. Action levels for 
lead and copper are as follows:
    (1) The lead action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile 
concentration of lead as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section 
is greater than 0.010 mg/L.
    (2) The copper action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile 
concentration of copper as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section is greater than 1.3 mg/L.
    (3) For purposes of this subpart, the 90th percentile concentration 
must be derived as follows:
    (i) For water systems that do not have Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 sites 
and only have sites identified as Tier 3, 4, or 5 under Sec.  
141.86(a):
    (A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken during a tap 
sampling period and eligible for inclusion in the 90th percentile 
calculation under Sec.  141.86(e) must be placed in ascending order 
from the sample with the lowest concentration of lead or copper to the 
sample with the highest concentration of lead or copper. Each sampling 
result

[[Page 86627]]

must be assigned a number, in ascending order beginning with the number 
1 for the sample with the lowest concentration of lead or copper. The 
number assigned to the sample with the highest concentration must be 
equal to the total number of samples taken and considered for inclusion 
in the 90th percentile calculation, in accordance with Sec.  141.86(e).
    (B) The number of samples taken during the tap sampling period must 
be multiplied by 0.9.
    (C) The 90th percentile concentration is the concentration of lead 
or copper in the numbered sample yielded after multiplying the number 
of samples by 0.9 in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
    (D) For water systems that collect five samples per tap sampling 
period, the 90th percentile concentration is the average of the highest 
and second highest concentration from the results in paragraph 
(c)(3)(i)(A) of this section.
    (E) For a water system that is allowed by the State to collect 
fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(a)(2) or has 
failed to meet their required minimum number of samples and collected 
fewer than five samples, the sample result with the highest 
concentration from the results in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A) of this 
section is considered the 90th percentile value.
    (ii) For water systems with sites identified as Tier 1 or 2 under 
Sec.  141.86(a) with sufficient Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet the minimum 
number of sites required in Sec.  141.86(c) or (d) as applicable:
    (A) For lead, water systems must include the higher of the first-
liter and fifth-liter lead sample results at each Tier 1 and 2 site (or 
first-liter lead sample if tiering is based on premise plumbing) taken 
during the tap sampling period in paragraphs (c)(3)(ii)(B) through (D) 
of this section. For copper, water systems must include all first-liter 
copper samples collected at each Tier 1 and 2 site taken during the tap 
sampling period. Lead or copper sample results from Tier 3, 4, or 5 
sites cannot be included in this calculation.
    (B) The results of the lead or copper samples taken during a tap 
sampling period and eligible for inclusion in the 90th percentile 
calculation under Sec.  141.86(e) identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) 
of this section must be placed in ascending order from the sample with 
the lowest concentration to the sample with the highest concentration. 
Each sampling result must be assigned a number, in ascending order 
beginning with the number 1 for the sample with the lowest 
concentration. The number assigned to the sample with the highest 
concentration must be equal to the total number of samples.
    (C) The number of samples identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) 
must be multiplied by 0.9.
    (D) The 90th percentile concentration is the concentration of lead 
or copper in the numbered sample yielded after multiplying the number 
of samples by 0.9 in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C) of this section.
    (E) For water systems that collect samples from five sites per tap 
sampling period, the 90th percentile concentration is the average of 
the highest and second highest concentration from the results in 
paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) of this section.
    (F) For a water system that is allowed by the State to collect 
fewer than five copper samples or five first-liter-and-fifth-liter-
paired lead samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(a)(2), or has 
failed to collect at least five copper samples or five first-liter-and 
fifth-liter-paired lead samples, the sample result with the highest 
concentration from the results in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) is considered 
the 90th percentile value.
    (iii) For water systems with sites identified as Tier 1 or 2 under 
Sec.  141.86(a) with an insufficient number of Tier 1 or 2 sites to 
meet the minimum number of sites required in Sec.  141.86(c) or (d) as 
applicable:
    (A) For lead, the system must use the higher value of the first-
liter and fifth-liter lead sample for each Tier 1 or 2 site (or first-
liter lead sample if tiering is based on premise plumbing) and the 
first-liter lead samples from sites in the next highest available tier 
(i.e., Tier 3, 4, and 5) to meet the minimum number of sites required 
in Sec.  141.86(c) or (d) sampled during a tap sampling period for the 
steps in paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(B) through (D) of this section. For 
copper, the system must use all first-liter copper samples collected.
    (B) The results of all of the lead or copper samples identified in 
paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(A) of this section must be placed in ascending 
order from the sample with the lowest concentration to the sample with 
the highest concentration. The water system must reduce this list to 
only include samples with the highest concentrations such that the 
number of sample results equals the minimum number of sites required to 
be sampled by Sec.  141.86(c) or (d), as applicable. From this reduced 
list, each sampling result must be assigned a number, in ascending 
order beginning with the number 1 for the sample with the lowest 
concentration. The number assigned to the sample with the highest 
concentration must be equal to the minimum number of sites required by 
Sec.  141.86(c) or (d), as applicable.
    (C) The number of samples identified in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) 
must be multiplied by 0.9.
    (D) The 90th percentile concentration is the concentration of lead 
or copper in the numbered sample yielded after multiplying the number 
of samples by 0.9 in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(C) of this section.
    (E) For water systems that collect samples from five sites per tap 
sampling period, the 90th percentile concentration is the average of 
the highest and second highest concentration from the results in 
paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) of this section.
    (F) For a water system that is allowed by the State to collect 
fewer than five copper samples or five first-liter-and-fifth-liter-
paired lead samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(a)(2), or has 
failed to collect at least five copper samples or five first-and-
fifth--liter-paired lead samples, the sample result with the highest 
concentration from the results in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) is 
considered the 90th percentile value.
    (G) If a water system does not collect enough samples sufficient to 
meet the minimum number of sites required in Sec.  141.86(c) or (d), 
the system must calculate the 90th percentile lead and copper levels 
following the steps in Sec.  141.80(c)(3)(i)(A) through (C).

0
5. Revise Sec.  141.81 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.81   Applicability of corrosion control treatment steps to 
small, medium, and large water systems.

    (a) Corrosion control treatment. All water systems are required to 
install, optimize, or re-optimize optimal corrosion control treatment 
(OCCT) in accordance with this section. This section sets forth when a 
system must complete the corrosion control treatment steps under 
paragraph (d) or (e) of this section based on size, whether the system 
has corrosion control treatment, and whether it has exceeded the lead 
practical quantitation limit, lead action level, and/or the copper 
action level.
    (1) Large water systems (serving 50,000 people). (i) 
Large water systems with corrosion control treatment that exceed either 
the lead action level or copper action level must complete the re-
optimized OCCT steps specified in paragraph (d) of this section unless 
the system:
    (A) Has re-optimized OCCT once under paragraph (d) of this section 
after the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3);
    (B) Is meeting optimal water quality parameters designated by the 
State; and

[[Page 86628]]

    (C) Is continuing to operate and maintain corrosion control 
treatment as required in Sec.  141.82(g).
    (ii) The State may require a large water system that does not have 
to re-optimize under paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of this 
section to re-optimize under Sec.  141.82(h).
    (iii) A large water system must meet the requirements under 
paragraph (d) of this section if it exceeds the lead action level at 
the end of a tap sampling period after completing service line 
replacement in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  141.84(d) and 
there are no lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service lines remaining in the system's inventory.
    (iv) Large water systems with corrosion control treatment with 90th 
percentile results as calculated in accordance with Sec.  141.80(c)(3) 
that exceed the lead practical quantitation limit of 0.005 mg/L but do 
not exceed the lead action level or the copper action level may be 
required by the State to complete the re-optimized OCCT steps in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (v) Large water systems without corrosion control treatment with 
90th percentile results as calculated in accordance with Sec.  
141.80(c)(3) that exceed either the lead practical quantitation limit 
of 0.005 mg/L or the copper action level must complete steps to study 
and install OCCT, as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) Medium water systems (serving 10,000 and L for two consecutive six-month tap monitoring 
periods, it does not exceed the copper action level for two consecutive 
six-month tap monitoring periods, and it does not have OWQPs designated 
by the State under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.
    (i) A system with 90th percentile tap sampling results that later 
exceeds the lead practical quantitation limit of 0.005 mg/L or copper 
action level during any tap sampling period is not eligible to be 
deemed to have optimized OCCT in accordance with this paragraph (b)(3) 
until the system has completed the treatment steps specified in 
paragraph (d) or (e) of this section.
    (ii) A system deemed to have OCCT in accordance with this paragraph 
(b)(3) must 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 Sec.  141.86(d)(1) and collecting samples 
at

[[Page 86629]]

times and locations specified in Sec.  141.86(d)(2)(iii).
    (4) A system with corrosion control treatment deemed to have OCCT 
under this paragraph (b) must continue to operate and maintain the 
corrosion control treatment and also meet any additional requirements 
that the State determines are appropriate to ensure OCCT is maintained.
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Treatment steps and deadlines for water systems re-optimizing 
optimal corrosion control treatment. Water systems with corrosion 
control treatment that are required to re-optimize optimal corrosion 
control treatment under paragraph (a) of this section must complete the 
following steps (described in the referenced portions of Sec. Sec.  
141.82, 141.86, and 141.87) by the indicated time periods. Water 
systems must conduct tap sampling for lead and copper in accordance 
with the requirements of Sec.  141.86 while they complete the corrosion 
control steps in this section.
    (1) Step 1: Initiate mandatory pipe rig/loop or CCT study or 
treatment recommendation. (i) Large or medium water systems with lead 
service lines that exceed the lead action level must harvest lead 
service lines from the distribution system and construct flowthrough 
pipe rigs/loops and operate the rigs/loops with finished water within 
one year after the end of the tap sampling period in which they exceeds 
the lead action level. These water systems must proceed to step 3 in 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section and conduct the corrosion control 
studies for re-optimization under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section 
using the pipe rigs/loops.
    (ii) Large water systems without lead service lines that exceed the 
lead action level or copper action level must conduct the corrosion 
control studies for re-optimization under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this 
section (step 3).
    (iii) A water system other than those covered in paragraph 
(d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section must recommend re-optimized optimal 
corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(a)) within six months after 
the end of the tap sampling period in which the system exceeded either 
the lead action level or copper action level.
    (iv) Systems may make an existing corrosion control treatment 
modification recommendation to the State within six months after the 
end of the tap sampling period in which the system exceeded the lead 
action level. The State must evaluate a system's past corrosion control 
treatment study results prior to approving an existing treatment 
modification. When a State approves existing treatment modifications, 
the State must specify re-optimized OCCT within 12 months after the end 
of the tap sampling period in which the system exceeded the lead action 
level. The system must complete modifications to corrosion control 
treatment to have re-optimized OCCT installed within six months of the 
State specifying re-optimized OCCT. These systems must proceed to step 
6 in paragraph (d)(6) of this section and conduct follow-up monitoring.
    (2) Step 2: State requires CCT study or State designates re-
optimized OCCT. Within one year after the end of the tap sampling 
period in which a medium water system without lead service lines or a 
small system exceeded the lead action level or copper action level, the 
State may require the water system to perform corrosion control studies 
for re-optimization (Sec.  141.82(c)(2)). If the State does not require 
the system to perform such studies, the State must specify re-optimized 
optimal corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)) within the 
timeframes specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. 
The State must provide its determination to the system in writing:
    (i) For a medium water system, within one year after the end of the 
tap sampling period during which such water system exceeded the lead 
action level or copper action level.
    (ii) For a small water system, within 18 months after the end of 
the tap sampling period in which such water system exceeded the lead 
action level or copper action level.
    (3) Step 3: Study duration. (i) Any water system with lead service 
lines that exceeds the lead action level, in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(1)(i) of this section, must complete the pipe rig/loop corrosion 
control treatment studies and recommend re-optimized OCCT within 30 
months after the end of the tap sampling period in which the system 
exceeded the lead action level.
    (ii) If the water system is required to perform corrosion control 
studies under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) or (d)(2) of this section, the water 
system must complete the studies (Sec.  141.82(c)) and recommend re-
optimized OCCT within 18 months after the end of the tap sampling 
period in which the system exceeded the lead or copper action level or 
after the State requires that such studies be conducted.
    (4) Step 4: State designation of re-optimized OCCT based on CCT 
study results. The State must designate re-optimized OCCT (Sec.  
141.82(d)) within six months after the water system completes paragraph 
(d)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section (step 3).
    (5) Step 5: Re-optimized OCCT installation deadlines. Water systems 
must install re-optimized OCCT (Sec.  141.82(e)) within one year after 
the State completes paragraph (d)(4) of this section (step 4) or the 
State completes paragraph (d)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section (step 2).
    (6) Step 6: Follow-up monitoring. Water systems must complete 
standard monitoring for at least two consecutive tap monitoring periods 
under Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(D) and water quality parameter monitoring 
under Sec.  141.87(b)(3) after completing paragraph (d)(5) of this 
section (step 5). The first tap monitoring period for standard 
monitoring must begin on January 1 or July 1, whichever is sooner, 
after completing paragraph (d)(5) (step 5).
    (7) Step 7: State sets optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs). 
The State must review the water system's re-optimized OCCT and 
designate OWQPs (Sec.  141.82(f)) within six months after completing 
paragraph (d)(6) of this section (step 6).
    (8) Step 8: Systems meet OWQPs to demonstrate compliance. Water 
systems must comply with the State-designated OWQPs (Sec.  141.82(g)) 
and conduct tap sampling under Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E) and water 
quality parameter monitoring under Sec.  141.87(b)(4).
    (e) Treatment steps and deadlines for systems without corrosion 
control treatment. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 
water systems without corrosion control treatment must complete the 
following corrosion control treatment steps (described in the 
referenced portions of Sec. Sec.  141.82, 141.86, and 141.87) by the 
indicated time periods. Water systems must conduct tap sampling for 
lead and copper in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  141.86 
while they complete the corrosion control steps in this section.
    (1) Step 1: Initiate mandatory pipe rig/loop or CCT study or 
treatment recommendation. (i) A medium or large water system with lead 
service lines that exceeds the lead action level must harvest lead 
pipes from the distribution system and construct flowthrough pipe rigs/
loops and operate the rigs/loops with finished water within one year 
after the end of the tap sampling period during which the system 
exceeded the lead action level. These water systems must proceed to 
step 3 in paragraph (e)(3) of this section and conduct the corrosion 
control studies for optimization under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this 
section using the pipe rigs/loops.
    (ii) Large water systems under paragraph (a)(1)(v) of this section 
must

[[Page 86630]]

conduct the corrosion control studies for optimization under paragraph 
(e)(3) of this section (step 3).
    (iii) A water system other than those covered in paragraph 
(e)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section must recommend optimal corrosion 
control treatment (OCCT) (Sec.  141.82(a)) within six months after the 
end of the tap sampling period during which the system exceeded either 
the lead action level or copper action level.
    (2) Step 2: State requires CCT study or State designates OCCT. 
Within one year after the end of the tap sampling period in which the 
water system exceeded the lead action level or copper action level, the 
State may require the water system to perform corrosion control studies 
(Sec.  141.82(b)(1)) if those studies are not otherwise required by 
this subpart. The State must notify the system in writing of the 
requirement in the preceding sentence. If the State does not require 
the system to perform such studies, the State must specify OCCT (Sec.  
141.82(d)) within the timeframes established in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) 
and (ii) of this section. The State must provide its determination to 
the system in writing:
    (i) For a medium water system, within 18 months after the end of 
the tap sampling period in which such water system exceeds the lead 
action level or copper action level.
    (ii) For a small water system, within 24 months after the end of 
the tap sampling period in which such water system exceeds the lead 
action level or copper action level.
    (3) Step 3: Study duration. (i) Large and medium water systems with 
lead service lines that exceed the lead action level must complete the 
corrosion control treatment studies and recommend OCCT within 30 months 
after the end of the tap sampling period in which they exceeded the 
lead action level.
    (ii) If a water system is required to perform corrosion control 
studies under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or (e)(2) of this section, the water 
system must complete the studies (Sec.  141.82(c)) and recommend OCCT 
within 18 months after the end of the tap sampling period in which the 
system exceeded the lead or copper action level or the State notifies 
the system in writing that such studies must be conducted.
    (4) Step 4: State designation of OCCT based on CCT study results. 
The State must designate OCCT (Sec.  141.82(d)) within six months after 
water systems complete paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section 
(step 3).
    (5) Step 5: OCCT installation deadlines. Water systems must install 
OCCT (Sec.  141.82(e)) within 24 months after the State designates OCCT 
under paragraph (e)(2) or (4) of this section (step 2 or step 4).
    (6) Step 6: Follow-up monitoring. Water systems must complete 
standard monitoring for at least two consecutive tap monitoring periods 
under Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(D) and water quality parameter monitoring 
under Sec.  141.87(b)(3) after completing paragraph (e)(5) of this 
section (step 5). The first tap monitoring period for standard 
monitoring must begin on January 1 or July 1, whichever is sooner, 
after completing paragraph (e)(5) (step 5).
    (7) Step 7: State sets optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs). 
The State must review the water system's installation of treatment and 
designate OWQPs (Sec.  141.82(f)) within six months after completing 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section (step 6).
    (8) Step 8: Systems meet OWQPs to demonstrate compliance. Water 
systems must comply with the State-designated OWQPs (Sec.  141.82(g)) 
and conduct tap sampling under Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E) and water 
quality parameter monitoring under Sec.  141.87(b)(4).
    (f) Systems with lead or galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines that can complete full service line replacement in five years or 
less. (1) A water system with one or more lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service lines is not required to complete the steps under 
paragraph (d) or (e) of this section if the system meets all the 
following requirements:
    (i) Deadline to complete mandatory service line replacement.
    (A) A water system must complete the service line replacement 
requirements under Sec.  141.84(d) in five years or less from the date 
of the end of the tap sampling period in which the system first exceeds 
the lead action level; or
    (B) A large water system without corrosion control treatment must 
complete the service line replacement requirements under Sec.  
141.84(d) in five years or less from the date of the end of the tap 
sampling period in which the system's 90th percentile results first 
exceed the lead practical quantitation limit; and
    (C) For a water system with less than five years remaining to 
complete mandatory service line replacement in accordance with Sec.  
141.84(d), the system must complete the service line replacement 
requirements under this paragraph (f)(1)(i) by that deadline.
    (ii) At a minimum, a system must replace the total number of lead 
and/or galvanized requiring replacement service lines each year, as 
identified in that system's inventory on the date of the end of the tap 
sampling period in which the system first exceeds the lead action level 
or in which the system's 90th percentile first exceeds the lead 
practical quantitation limit, whichever applies, at an annual rate 
equally divided by the total number of years for service line 
replacement provided in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section. For 
purposes of calculating the annual rate, the system must replace all 
lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines within the 
least number of years feasible not to exceed five years from the date 
of the end of the tap sampling period in which the system first exceeds 
the lead action level or in which the system's 90th percentile first 
exceeds the lead practical quantitation limit, whichever applies. If 
the State determines a replacement deadline less than five years is 
feasible for a water system, the system must replace service lines by 
that deadline and establish an annual replacement rate based on that 
number of years until that deadline.
    (iii) By the end of the five-year-or-less period in paragraph 
(f)(1)(i) of this section, the system must have replaced all lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines calculated in accordance 
with Sec.  141.84(d)(6) (i.e., no lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement or lead status unknown service lines remain in the 
inventory), and identified the material of all lead status unknown 
service lines, completed the inventory validation requirements in 
accordance with Sec.  141.84(b)(5), and replaced all unknowns found to 
be lead or galvanized requiring replacement service lines.
    (iv) Except as provided in this section, all other requirements in 
Sec.  141.84(d) apply.
    (2) Throughout the five-year-or-less period in paragraph (f)(1)(i) 
of this section, systems with corrosion control treatment must continue 
to operate and maintain corrosion control treatment in addition to 
completing the mandatory service line replacement requirements under 
this section.
    (3) A water system that does not replace lead and/or galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines calculated in accordance with Sec.  
141.84(d)(6) at the minimum annual rate provided in paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii) of this section in any one year of the five-year-or-less 
period in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section or complete the service 
line replacement requirements under Sec.  141.84(d) in accordance with 
paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section, must meet the requirements under 
paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, as applicable, starting 
immediately after the system fails to meet the annual removal 
requirements under paragraph (f)(1)(ii).

[[Page 86631]]

    (4) At the end of each year of the five-year-or-less period, the 
system must submit written documentation to the State about the number 
of lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines removed that 
year and whether the minimum annual replacement rate in paragraph 
(f)(1)(ii) of this section was met. If a system reports or a State 
determines that the system did not meet its minimum annual replacement 
rate that year, the system is no longer eligible to defer the 
requirements under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, and must meet 
those requirements, as applicable.
    (5) After completing service line replacement in accordance with 
the requirements in this paragraph (f), a water system must meet the 
requirements under paragraph (d) or (e) of this section, as applicable, 
if at the end of a subsequent tap sampling period, the system either 
exceeds the lead action level or the lead practical quantitation limit, 
whichever is applicable.
    (g) Completing corrosion control steps for small and medium water 
systems without corrosion control treatment. (1) Any small or medium 
water system without corrosion control treatment required to complete 
the steps in paragraph (e) of this section that does not exceed the 
lead action level and copper action level during two consecutive six-
month tap monitoring periods pursuant to Sec.  141.86 prior to the 
start of step 3 in paragraph (e)(3) of this section or prior to or 
concurrent with the end of step 4 in paragraph (e)(4) of this section 
may stop completing the steps and is not required to complete paragraph 
(e)(3) or (5) (step 3 or step 5), respectively, except that medium 
water systems without corrosion control treatment and with lead service 
lines must complete a corrosion control treatment study under paragraph 
(e)(3)(i) of this section. A 90th percentile level at or below the lead 
action level or copper action level based on less than the required 
minimum number of samples under Sec.  141.86 cannot be used to meet the 
requirements of this paragraph (g)(1). Eligible systems can only use 
the exception in this paragraph (g)(1) once.
    (2) Any system that starts step 5 in accordance with paragraph 
(e)(5) of this section must complete all remaining steps (i.e., steps 6 
through 8) in paragraphs (e)(6) through (8) of this section and is not 
permitted to stop the steps.
    (3) Any small or medium water system without corrosion control 
treatment under paragraph (g)(1) of this section that stopped the steps 
in paragraph (e) of this section and subsequently exceeds either the 
lead action level or copper action level must complete the corrosion 
control treatment steps in paragraph (e) beginning with the first 
treatment step that was not completed.
    (4) The State may require a water system to repeat treatment steps 
previously completed by the water system when the State determines that 
this is necessary to implement the treatment requirements of this 
section. The State must notify the system in writing of such a 
determination and explain the basis for its decision.
    (h) Notification requirements for upcoming long-term change in 
treatment or source. At a time specified by the State, or if no 
specific time is designated, as early as possible but no later than six 
months prior to the addition of a new source or any long-term change in 
water treatment, a water system must submit written documentation 
describing the addition of a new source or long-term change in 
treatment to the State. Systems may not implement the addition of a new 
source or long-term treatment change without State approval. The State 
must review and approve the addition of a new source or long-term 
change in water treatment before it can be implemented by the water 
system. The State may require any such water system to take actions 
before or after the addition of a new source or long-term treatment 
change to ensure that the water system will operate and maintain 
optimal corrosion control treatment, such as additional water quality 
parameter monitoring, additional lead or copper tap sampling, and re-
evaluating corrosion control treatment. Examples of long-term treatment 
changes include but are not limited to the addition of a new treatment 
process or modification of an existing treatment process. Examples of 
modifications include switching secondary disinfectants, switching 
coagulants (e.g., alum to ferric chloride), and switching corrosion 
inhibitor products (e.g., orthophosphate to blended phosphate). Long-
term treatment changes can also include dose changes to existing 
chemicals if the system is planning long-term changes to its finished 
water pH or residual inhibitor concentration. Long-term treatment 
changes would not include chemical dose fluctuations associated with 
daily raw water quality changes where a new source has not been added.

0
6. Revise Sec.  141.82 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.82   Description of corrosion control treatment requirements.

    This section provides the requirements for systems and States 
designating optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) for a system 
that is optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT. All systems must complete the 
corrosion control treatment requirements in this section as applicable 
under Sec.  141.81.
    (a) System recommendation regarding corrosion control treatment. 
(1) Any system without corrosion control treatment that is required to 
recommend a treatment option in accordance with Sec.  141.81(e)(1)(iii) 
must, based on the results of lead and copper tap sampling and water 
quality parameter monitoring, recommend designating one or more of the 
corrosion control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(1) of this section 
to the State as the optimal corrosion control treatment for that 
system. The State may require the system to conduct additional water 
quality parameter monitoring to assist the State in reviewing the 
system's recommendation.
    (2) Any system with corrosion control treatment that exceeds the 
lead action level that is required to recommend a treatment option to 
the State in accordance with Sec.  141.81(d)(1)(iii) must recommend 
designating one or more of the corrosion control treatments listed in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section as the optimal corrosion control 
treatment for that system.
    (3) States may waive the requirement for a system to recommend OCCT 
if the State requires the system, in writing, to complete a corrosion 
control study within three months after the end of the tap sampling 
period in which the lead or copper action level exceedance occurred. 
These systems must proceed directly to paragraph (c) of this section 
and complete a corrosion control study.
    (b) State decision to require studies to identify initial OCCT 
under Sec.  141.81(e)(2) and re-optimized OCCT under Sec.  
141.81(d)(2). (1) The State may require any small or medium water 
system without corrosion control treatment that exceeds either the lead 
action level or copper action level to perform corrosion control 
treatment studies under paragraph (c)(1) of this section to identify 
OCCT for the system.
    (2) The State may require any small or medium water system with 
corrosion control treatment exceeding either the lead action level or 
copper action level to perform corrosion control treatment studies 
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section to identify re-optimized OCCT 
for the system (i.e., OCCT after a re-optimization evaluation).
    (c) Performance of corrosion control studies. (1) Systems without 
corrosion

[[Page 86632]]

control treatment required to conduct corrosion control studies under 
Sec.  141.81(e) must evaluate the effectiveness of each of the 
following treatments, and if appropriate, combinations of the following 
treatments, to identify OCCT for the system:
    (i) Alkalinity and pH adjustment;
    (ii) The addition of an orthophosphate- or a silicate-based 
corrosion inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to maintain an 
effective corrosion inhibitor residual concentration in all test 
samples;
    (iii) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor 
at a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 1 mg/L (as PO4) in all test samples; and
    (iv) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at 
a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 3 mg/L (as PO4) in all test samples.
    (2) Systems with corrosion control treatment required to conduct 
corrosion control studies under Sec.  141.81(d) must evaluate the 
effectiveness of the following treatments, and if appropriate, 
combinations of the following treatments, to identify re-optimized OCCT 
for the system:
    (i) Alkalinity and/or pH adjustment or re-adjustment;
    (ii) The addition of an orthophosphate- or a silicate-based 
corrosion inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to maintain an 
effective corrosion inhibitor residual concentration in all test 
samples if no such inhibitor is currently utilized;
    (iii) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor 
at a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 1 mg/L (as PO4) in all test samples unless 
the current inhibitor process already meets this residual; and
    (iv) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at 
a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 3 mg/L (as PO4) in all test samples unless 
the current inhibitor process already meets this residual.
    (3) Systems must evaluate each of the corrosion control treatments 
specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section individually or, 
if appropriate, in combinations, using pipe rig/loop tests, metal 
coupon tests, partial-system tests, and/or analyses based on documented 
analogous treatments with similar size systems that have a similar 
water chemistry and similar distribution system configurations. Large 
and medium water systems with lead service lines, and other systems as 
required by the State, that exceed the lead action level must conduct 
pipe rig/loop studies using harvested lead service lines from their 
distribution systems to assess the effectiveness of corrosion control 
treatment options on the existing pipe scale. Metal coupon tests can be 
used as a screen to reduce the number of options evaluated in the pipe 
rig/loop studies to the current water quality and at least two 
additional treatment options.
    (4) Systems must measure the following water quality parameters in 
any tests conducted under paragraph (c)(3) of this section both before 
and after evaluating the corrosion control treatments listed in 
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section:
    (i) Lead;
    (ii) Copper;
    (iii) pH;
    (iv) Alkalinity;
    (v) Orthophosphate as PO4 (when an orthophosphate-based 
inhibitor is used);
    (vi) Silicate (when a silicate-based inhibitor is used); and
    (vii) Any additional parameters necessary to evaluate the 
effectiveness of a corrosion control treatment as determined by the 
State.
    (5) Systems must identify all chemical or physical constraints that 
limit or prohibit the use of a particular corrosion control treatment 
and document those constraints by providing either of the following:
    (i) Data and documentation showing a particular corrosion control 
treatment has adversely affected other drinking water treatment 
processes when used by another water system with comparable water 
quality characteristics. Systems using metal coupon tests to screen 
and/or pipe rig/loop studies to evaluate treatment options cannot 
exclude treatment strategies from the studies based on the constraints 
identified in this paragraph (c)(5)(i).
    (ii) Data and documentation demonstrating the water system 
previously attempted to evaluate a particular corrosion control 
treatment and found the treatment was ineffective or adversely affects 
other drinking water quality treatment processes. Systems using metal 
coupon tests to screen and/or pipe rig/loop studies to evaluate 
treatment options cannot exclude treatment strategies from the studies 
based on the constraints identified in this paragraph (c)(5)(ii), 
unless the treatment was found to be ineffective in a previous pipe 
rig/loop study.
    (6) Systems must evaluate the effect of the chemicals used for 
corrosion control treatment on other drinking water quality treatment 
processes. Systems using metal coupon tests to screen and/or pipe rig/
loop studies to evaluate treatment options cannot exclude any of the 
required treatment strategies specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of 
this section from the studies based on the effects identified in this 
section.
    (7) Based on the data and analysis for each treatment option 
evaluated under this paragraph (c), systems must recommend to the 
State, in writing, the treatment option that the corrosion control 
studies indicate constitutes OCCT for that system as defined in Sec.  
141.2. Systems must provide the State with a rationale for the OCCT 
recommendation and all supporting documentation specified in paragraph 
(c)(1) or (2) and paragraphs (c)(3) through (7) of this section.
    (d) State designation of OCCT and re-optimized OCCT--(1) 
Designation of OCCT or re-optimized OCCT. Based on available 
information including, where applicable, studies conducted under 
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section and/or a system's recommended 
corrosion control treatment option, the State must either approve the 
corrosion control treatment option recommended by the system or 
designate alternative corrosion control treatment(s) from among those 
listed in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable. The 
State must notify the water system, in writing, of its designation of 
OCCT or re-optimized OCCT and explain the basis for this determination.
    (i) When designating OCCT, the State must consider the effects that 
additional corrosion control treatment will have on water quality 
parameters and other drinking water quality treatment processes.
    (ii) If the State requests additional information to aid its 
review, the water system must provide that information.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) Installation of OCCT and re-optimized OCCT. Each system must 
install and operate the OCCT or re-optimized OCCT designated by the 
State under paragraph (d) of this section throughout its distribution 
system.
    (f) State review of treatment and designation of optimal water 
quality parameters for OCCT and re-optimized OCCT. The State must 
evaluate the results of all lead and copper tap and water quality 
parameter sampling submitted by the water system and determine whether 
the water system has installed and operated the OCCT designated by the 
State in paragraph (d) of this section. Upon reviewing the system's tap 
and water quality parameter sampling results, both before and after the 
water system installs

[[Page 86633]]

OCCT, or re-optimizes OCCT, the State must designate each of the 
following:
    (1) A minimum value or a range of values for pH measured at each 
entry point to the distribution system.
    (2) A minimum pH value measured in all distribution system samples. 
This value must be equal to or greater than 7.0, unless the State 
determines that meeting a pH level of 7.0 is not technologically 
feasible or is not necessary for OCCT.
    (3) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum concentration or a 
range of concentrations for orthophosphate (as PO4) or 
silicate measured at each entry point to the distribution system.
    (4) If a corrosion inhibitor is used, a minimum orthophosphate (as 
PO4) or silicate concentration measured in all tap samples 
that the State determines is necessary to form a passivating film on 
the interior walls of the pipes of the distribution system. When 
orthophosphate is used, for OCCT designations for systems previously 
without corrosion control treatment, the orthophosphate concentration 
must be equal to or greater than 0.5 mg/L (as PO4) and for 
OCCT designations for systems previously with corrosion control 
treatment, the orthophosphate concentration must be equal to or greater 
than 1.0 mg/L, unless the State determines that meeting the applicable 
minimum orthophosphate residual is not technologically feasible or is 
not necessary for OCCT.
    (5) If alkalinity is adjusted as part of OCCT, a minimum 
concentration or a range of concentrations for alkalinity, measured at 
each entry point to the distribution system and in all tap samples.
    (6) The values for the applicable water quality parameters in 
paragraphs (f)(1) through (5) of this section must be the values the 
State determines reflect OCCT or re-optimized OCCT for the water 
system. The State may designate values for additional water quality 
parameters the State determines reflect OCCT or re-optimized OCCT for 
the water system. The State must notify the system, in writing, of 
these determinations and explain the basis for its decisions.
    (g) Continued operation and monitoring for OCCT and re-optimized 
OCCT. All systems, including those optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT, 
must continue to operate and maintain OCCT, including maintaining water 
quality parameters at or above the minimum values or within the ranges 
designated by the State under paragraph (f) of this section, in 
accordance with this paragraph (g) for all water quality parameter 
samples collected under Sec.  141.87(b)(4) through (d). The 
requirements of this paragraph (g) apply to all systems, including 
consecutive systems that distribute water that has been treated to 
control corrosion by another system, and any water system with 
corrosion control treatment, OCCT, or re-optimized OCCT that is not 
required to monitor water quality parameters under Sec.  141.87.
    (1) Compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (g) must be 
determined every six months, as specified under Sec.  141.87(b)(4). A 
water system is out of compliance with the requirements of this 
paragraph (g) for a six-month period if it has excursions for any 
State-specified parameter on more than nine days, cumulatively, 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 set out in paragraph (g)(2) of this 
section. States have discretion to not include results of obvious 
sampling errors from this calculation. Sampling errors must still be 
recorded even when not included in calculations.
    (2)(i) On days when more than one measurement for the water quality 
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value must 
be the average of all results collected at that sampling location 
during the same 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 Sec.  142.16(d)(1)(ii) of 
this chapter in the State's application for a program revision 
submitted pursuant to Sec.  142.12 of this chapter, the State's formula 
must be used to aggregate multiple measurements taken at a sampling 
point for the water quality parameters in lieu of the formula in this 
paragraph (g)(2).
    (ii) On days when only one measurement for the water quality 
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value must 
be the result of that measurement.
    (iii) On days when no measurement is collected for the water 
quality parameter at the sampling location, the daily value must be the 
daily value calculated on the most recent day on which the water 
quality parameter was measured at the sampling location.
    (h) Modification of State treatment determination for OCCT and re-
optimized OCCT. Upon its own initiative or in response to a request by 
a water system or other interested party, a State may modify its 
determination of OCCT under paragraph (d) of this section, or optimal 
water quality parameters under paragraph (f) of this section. A request 
for modification by a system or other interested party must be in 
writing, explaining why the modification is appropriate, and providing 
supporting documentation. The State may require a system to conduct a 
CCT study to support modification of the determination of OCCT or re-
optimized OCCT. The State may modify its determination where it 
concludes that such change is necessary to ensure that the water system 
continues to optimize corrosion control treatment. A revised 
designation must be made in writing, set forth the new treatment 
requirements and/or optimal water quality parameters, explain the basis 
for the State's determination, and provide an implementation schedule 
for completing the treatment modifications for re-optimized corrosion 
control treatment.
    (i) Treatment decisions by EPA in lieu of the State on OCCT and re-
optimized OCCT. Pursuant to the procedures in Sec.  142.19 of this 
chapter, the EPA Regional Administrator may review OCCT determinations 
made by a State under paragraph (d), (f), or (h) of this section and 
issue Federal corrosion control treatment determinations consistent 
with the requirements of paragraph (d), (f), or (h) where the EPA 
Regional Administrator finds that:
    (1) A State failed to issue a treatment determination by the 
applicable deadlines contained in Sec.  141.81;
    (2) A State abused its discretion; or
    (3) The technical aspects of a State's determination would be 
indefensible in a Federal enforcement action taken against a water 
system.
    (j) Distribution System and Site Assessment for tap sample sites 
with lead results that exceed 0.010 mg/L. The water system must conduct 
the following steps when the lead results from an individual tap sample 
site sampled under Sec.  141.86 exceed 0.010 mg/L and the site is 
included in the site sample plan under Sec.  141.86(a)(1):
    (1) Step 1: Corrosion control treatment assessment. Within five 
days of receiving the tap sampling results, the water system must 
sample at a water quality parameter site in accordance with paragraph 
(j)(1)(ii) of this section that is on the same size water main in the 
same pressure zone and located within a half mile radius of the site 
with the lead result exceeding 0.010 mg/L. Water systems without 
corrosion control treatment are not required to collect these samples.
    (i) The water system must measure the following water quality 
parameters:
    (A) pH;

[[Page 86634]]

    (B) Alkalinity;
    (C) Orthophosphate (as PO4), when an inhibitor 
containing an orthophosphate compound is used; and
    (D) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is 
used.
    (ii) The water system must measure at the following locations:
    (A) Water systems with an existing water quality parameter site 
that meets the requirements in this paragraph (j)(1) can conduct this 
sampling at that site.
    (B) All water systems required to meet optimal water quality 
parameters but do not have an existing water quality parameter site 
that meets the requirements in this paragraph (j)(1) must add new sites 
to the minimum number of sites as described in Sec.  141.87(b)(1)(i). 
Sites must be added until a system has twice the minimum number of 
sites listed in table 1 to Sec.  141.87(b)(1)(i). When a system exceeds 
twice the number of sites, the State has discretion to determine if 
these additional newer sites can better assess the effectiveness of the 
corrosion control treatment and whether to remove existing sites during 
sanitary survey evaluation of OCCT.
    (2) Step 2: Site assessment. Within 30 days of receiving the tap 
sampling results, water systems must collect and analyze a follow-up 
sample for lead at any tap sample site that exceeds 0.010 mg/L. These 
follow-up samples may use different sample volumes or different sample 
collection procedures to assess the source of elevated lead levels. 
Samples collected under this section must be submitted to the State but 
cannot be included in the 90th percentile calculation for compliance 
monitoring under Sec.  141.86. If the water system is unable to collect 
a follow-up sample at a site, the water system must provide 
documentation to the State, as specified in Sec.  141.90(g)(2), 
explaining why it was unable to collect a follow-up sample.
    (3) Step 3: Evaluate results and system treatment recommendation. 
Water systems must evaluate the results of the sampling conducted under 
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section to determine if either 
localized or centralized adjustment of the OCCT or other distribution 
system actions are necessary and submit the recommendation to the State 
within six months after the end of the tap sampling period in which the 
site(s) exceeded 0.010 mg/L. Corrosion control treatment modification 
may not be necessary to address every exceedance of 0.010 mg/L. Other 
distribution system actions may include flushing to reduce water age. 
Water systems must note the cause of the elevated lead level, if known 
from the site assessment, in their recommendation to the State as site-
specific issues can be an important factor in why the system is not 
recommending any adjustment of corrosion control treatment or other 
distribution system actions. Systems in the process of optimizing or 
re-optimizing OCCT under paragraphs (a) through (f) of this section do 
not need to submit a treatment recommendation for distribution system 
and site assessment.
    (4) Step 4: State approval of treatment recommendation. The State 
must approve the treatment recommendation or specify a different 
approach within six months of completing step 3 as described in 
paragraph (j)(3) of this section and notify the water system in 
writing.
    (5) Step 5: Modifications to OCCT. If the State-approved treatment 
recommendation requires the water system to adjust the OCCT process, 
the water system must complete modifications to its corrosion control 
treatment within 12 months of receiving notification from the State as 
described in paragraph (j)(4) of this section. Systems without 
corrosion control treatment required to install OCCT must follow the 
schedule in Sec.  141.81(e).
    (6) Step 6: Follow-up sampling. Water systems adjusting OCCT must 
complete follow-up sampling in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
141.86(c)(2)(iii)(D) and 141.87(b)(3) within 12 months after completing 
step 5 as described in paragraph (j)(5) of this section and submit 
sampling results to the State in accordance with Sec. Sec.  141.86 and 
141.87.
    (7) Step 7: State OWQP designation. For water systems adjusting 
OCCT, the State must review the water system's modification of 
corrosion control treatment and designate optimal water quality 
parameters in accordance with paragraph (f) of this section within six 
months of receiving sampling result in paragraph (j)(6) of this 
section.
    (8) Step 8: Operate in compliance. For a water system adjusting 
OCCT, the water system must operate in compliance with the State-
designated optimal water quality parameters in accordance with 
paragraph (g) of this section and continue to conduct tap sampling in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E) and 141.87(b)(4).

0
7. Amend Sec.  141.83 by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.83   Source water treatment requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (4) Step 4. The system shall complete follow-up tap water 
monitoring (Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(F)) and source water monitoring 
(Sec.  141.88(c)) within 36 months after completion of step 2 as 
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
* * * * *

0
8. Revise Sec.  141.84 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.84   Service line inventory and replacement requirements.

    (a) Service line and connector inventory development. All water 
systems must develop a service line inventory that identifies the 
material and location of each service line connected to the public 
water distribution system. The inventory must include all service lines 
connected to the public water distribution system regardless of 
ownership status (e.g., where service line ownership is shared, the 
inventory includes both the portion of the service line owned by the 
water system and the portion of the service line owned by the 
customer). The inventory must meet the following requirements:
    (1) All water systems are required to develop an initial inventory 
and submit it to the State by October 16, 2024, as specified in Sec.  
141.80(a)(4)(i).
    (2) All water systems must develop an updated initial inventory, 
known as the ``baseline inventory''. Systems must submit the baseline 
inventory to the State by the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). 
Newly regulated public water systems, as defined in Sec.  141.2, must 
develop a baseline inventory on a schedule established by the State 
that does not exceed three years from the date the system becomes 
subject to National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in this part. 
The baseline inventory must include each service line and identified 
connector that is connected to the public water distribution system 
regardless of ownership status (e.g., where service line ownership is 
shared, the inventory includes both the portion of the service line 
owned by the water system and the portion of the service line owned by 
the customer).
    (i) For the baseline inventory, water systems must conduct a review 
of any information listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section that describes connector materials and locations. Water systems 
must also conduct a review of any information on lead and galvanized 
iron or steel materials that they have identified pursuant to Sec.  
141.42(d) to identify connector materials and locations. The water 
system may use other sources of information not listed in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i) through (iii) if approved or required by the State.

[[Page 86635]]

    (ii) Water systems must include each connector identified in 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section in their baseline inventory. 
Connector materials must be categorized in the following manner:
    (A) ``Lead'' where the connector is made of lead.
    (B) ``Non-Lead'' where the connector is determined through an 
evidence-based record, method, or technique not to be made of lead. 
Water systems are not required to identify the specific material of a 
non-lead connector; however, they may use the material (e.g., copper or 
galvanized) as an alternative to categorizing it as ``Non-Lead''.
    (C) ``Unknown'' where the material of the connector is not known.
    (D) ``No connector present'' where there is no connector at the 
location (e.g., where a service line directly connects a water main to 
a building inlet).
    (iii) All water systems must include any new information on service 
line materials from all applicable sources described in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section in the baseline inventory.
    (3) Each service line, or portion of the service line where 
ownership is shared, must be categorized in the following manner:
    (i) ``Lead'' where the service line is a lead service line as 
defined in Sec.  141.2.
    (ii) ``Galvanized Requiring Replacement'' where the service line is 
a galvanized requiring replacement service line as defined in Sec.  
141.2.
    (iii) ``Non-Lead'' where the service line is determined through an 
evidence-based record, method, or technique not to be a lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service line. Water systems are not 
required to identify the specific material of a non-lead service line; 
however, they may use the material (e.g., plastic or copper) as an 
alternative to categorizing it as ``Non-Lead''.
    (iv) ``Lead Status Unknown'' or ``Unknown'' where the service line 
material is not known to be lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or 
non-lead, such as where there is no documented evidence or evidence 
reliably supporting material categorization. Water systems may elect to 
provide more information regarding their unknown service lines as long 
as the inventory clearly distinguishes unknown service lines from those 
where the categorization of the material is based on the categorization 
methods approved under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (4) The inventory must include a street address associated with 
each service line and connector. Where a street address is not 
available for an individual service line or connector, a unique 
locational identifier (e.g., block, Global Positioning System or GPS 
coordinates, intersection, or landmark) may be used.
    (5) The inventory must be publicly accessible.
    (i) The publicly accessible inventory must include the information 
described in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of this section and be 
updated in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.
    (ii) Water systems serving greater than 50,000 persons must make 
the publicly accessible inventory available online.
    (6) When a water system has no lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service lines, no known lead 
connectors, and no connectors of unknown material, it may comply with 
the requirements in paragraph (a)(5) of this section using a written 
statement in lieu of the publicly accessible inventory, declaring that 
the distribution system has no lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 
or lead status unknown service lines, no known lead connectors, and no 
connectors of unknown material. The statement must include a general 
description of all applicable sources used in the inventory as 
described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (b)(2) of this section to 
make this determination.
    (7) Instructions to access the publicly accessible inventory 
(including inventories consisting only of a statement in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(6) of this section) must be included in the Consumer 
Confidence Report in accordance with Sec.  141.153(h)(8)(ii).
    (b) Additional requirements for service line and connector 
inventory maintenance. (1) All water systems must update the baseline 
inventory of service lines and connectors developed in paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section and submit the updates to the State on an annual basis 
in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e)(4). These updates begin one year 
after the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). The publicly 
accessible inventory must reflect any updates no later than the 
deadline to submit the updated inventory to the State.
    (i) All water systems must identify the material of all lead status 
unknown service lines by the applicable mandatory service line 
replacement deadline in paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
    (ii) Water systems whose inventories contain only non-lead service 
lines and non-lead connectors or no connectors present are not required 
to provide updated inventories to the State or updates to the publicly 
accessible inventory. If, in the future, such a water system discovers 
a lead service line, galvanized requiring replacement service line, or 
lead connector within its system, the system must notify the State no 
later than 60 days after the discovery, prepare an updated inventory in 
accordance with this section on a schedule established by the State, 
replace the lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line in 
accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section, and replace any 
lead connector along the service line in accordance with paragraph (e) 
of this section.
    (2) Water systems must update the inventory annually with any new 
information acquired from all applicable sources described in 
paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) of this section and follow all applicable 
requirements for the inventory in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this 
section. The water system may update the inventory using other sources 
of information not listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section if the use of those sources is approved or required by the 
State.
    (i) All construction and plumbing codes, permits, and records or 
other documentation that indicate the service line and connector 
materials used to connect structures to the distribution system.
    (ii) All water system records on service lines and connectors, 
including distribution system maps and drawings, recent or historical 
records on each service connection and connector, meter installation 
records, historical capital improvement or master plans, and standard 
operating procedures.
    (iii) All records of inspections in the distribution system that 
indicate the material composition of the service connections and 
connectors that connect a structure to the distribution system.
    (iv) Water systems must update their inventory annually based on 
any lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line replacements, 
service line material inspections, or lead connector replacements that 
have been conducted. Each updated inventory and subsequent update to 
the publicly accessible inventory must include the following 
information regarding service line material identification and 
replacement:
    (A) The total number of lead service lines in the inventory;
    (B) The total number of galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines in the inventory;
    (C) The total number of lead status unknown service lines in the 
inventory;
    (D) The total number of non-lead service lines in the inventory;
    (E) The total number of lead connectors in the inventory;

[[Page 86636]]

    (F) The total number of connectors of unknown material in the 
inventory;
    (G) The total number of full lead service line replacements and 
full galvanized requiring replacement service line replacements that 
have been conducted in each preceding program year as defined in 
paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section; and
    (H) The total number of partial lead service line replacements and 
partial galvanized requiring replacement service line replacements that 
have been conducted in each preceding program year as defined in 
paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section.
    (v) Water systems must identify service line material in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, connector material in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, and addresses in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section as they are encountered in the course 
of normal operations (e.g., checking service line materials when 
reading water meters or performing maintenance activities). Water 
systems must update the inventory annually based on the identified 
service line materials, connector materials and addresses.
    (3) Water systems that discover a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line that was previously inventoried as non-lead 
must update their inventory in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section and, if applicable, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. Water 
systems must notify the State in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e) and 
comply with any additional actions required by the State to address the 
inventory inaccuracy.
    (4) If a consumer or customer (if different from the person served 
at that service connection) notifies the water system of a suspected 
incorrect categorization of their service line material in the 
inventory, the system must respond to the consumer or customer within 
30 days of receiving the notification to make an offer to inspect the 
service line.
    (5) All water systems must validate the accuracy of the non-lead 
service line category in the inventory as follows:
    (i) The water system must identify a validation pool consisting of 
all service lines categorized as ``non-lead,'' but excluding non-lead 
service lines identified by the following: records showing the service 
line was installed after June 19, 1988, or after the compliance date of 
a State or local law prohibiting the use of service lines that do not 
meet the 1986 definition of lead free in accordance with section 1417 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended in 1986 (Pub. L. 99-339, 
title I, sec. 109(a), 100 Stat. 651) and 40 CFR 141.43(d)(1) and (2), 
as codified on July 1, 1991, whichever is earlier; visual inspection of 
the pipe exterior at a minimum of two points (e.g., excavation, visual 
inspection in the meter pit or stop box, or visual inspection inside 
the home); or previously replaced lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service lines.
    (ii) The water system must confirm the service line material of a 
random sample (e.g., a sample selected by use of a random number 
generator or lottery method) of non-lead service lines from the 
validation pool. Confirmation of service line material must be done by 
visual inspection of the pipe exterior at a minimum of two points. 
Where ownership is shared, the water system must conduct at least one 
visual inspection on each portion of the service line. Where ownership 
is shared and only one portion of the service line is included in the 
validation pool, systems must conduct at least one point of visual 
inspection on the unconfirmed portion of the service line. Water 
systems must validate at least as many service lines as are required in 
table 1 to this paragraph (b)(5)(ii).

                     Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Number of validations
          Size of validation pool                     required
------------------------------------------------------------------------
50,000...................................  384.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iii) If physical access to private property is necessary to 
complete the validation and the water system is unable to gain access, 
the system is not required to conduct a validation at that site. The 
system must replace the site by randomly selecting a new service line 
that meets the requirements of paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section to 
conduct the validation.
    (iv) The deadlines for inventory validation are:
    (A) No later than December 31 following seven years after the 
compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) for water systems subject to the 
mandatory service line replacement deadline in paragraph (d)(4) of this 
section or water systems who have reported only non-lead service lines 
in their baseline inventory, submitted to the State in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(e)(9);
    (B) A deadline established by the State for water systems 
conducting mandatory service line replacement on a shortened deadline 
for service line replacement as established by the State in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(5)(v) of this section; or
    (C) A deadline established by the State to be no later than three 
years prior to the deadline for completing mandatory service line 
replacement if the water system is eligible for and plans to use a 
deferred deadline under paragraph (d)(5)(vi) of this section or an 
extended schedule for mandatory service line replacement pursuant to an 
exemption or a variance.
    (v) Water systems that conduct inventory validation pursuant to 
this paragraph (b)(5) must complete the validation by the applicable 
deadline described in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section, submit the 
results of the validation in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e)(9), and 
comply with any additional actions required by the State to address 
inventory inaccuracies. The system must submit to the State the 
specific version (including the date) of the service line inventory 
that was used to determine the number of non-lead service lines 
included in the validation pool in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e)(9).
    (vi) Water systems may make a written request to the State to 
approve a waiver of the inventory validation requirements in this 
paragraph (b). To obtain a waiver, the water system must submit 
documentation to the State to demonstrate the system has conducted an 
inventory validation that is at least as stringent as the inventory 
validation requirements specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iii) 
of this section by the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) and obtain 
written approval of the waiver from the State.
    (c) Service line replacement plan. All water systems with one or 
more lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown 
service lines in their distribution system must create a service line 
replacement plan by the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) and 
submit a service line replacement plan to the State in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(e). The service line replacement plan must be sufficiently 
detailed to ensure a system is able to comply with the service line 
inventory and replacement requirements in this section.
    (1) The service line replacement plan must include a description 
of:
    (i) A strategy for determining the material composition of lead 
status unknown service lines in the service line inventory under 
paragraph (a) of this section;

[[Page 86637]]

    (ii) A standard operating procedure for conducting full service 
line replacement (e.g., techniques to replace service lines);
    (iii) A communication strategy to inform consumers (i.e., persons 
served at the service connection) and customers before a full or 
partial lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line 
replacement consistent with the requirements for notification and 
mitigation in paragraph (h) of this section;
    (iv) A procedure for consumers and customers to flush service lines 
and premise plumbing of particulate lead following disturbance of a 
lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service 
line in accordance with Sec.  141.85(f) and following full or partial 
replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line 
consistent with the requirements for notification and mitigation in 
paragraph (h) of this section;
    (v) A strategy to prioritize service line replacement based on 
factors including, but not limited to, known lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines and community-specific factors, 
such as populations disproportionately impacted by lead and populations 
most sensitive to the effects of lead;
    (vi) A funding strategy for conducting service line replacement. 
Where the water system intends to charge customers for the cost to 
replace all or a portion of the service line because it is authorized 
or required to do so under State or local law or water tariff 
agreement, the funding strategy must include a description of whether 
and how the water system intends to assist customers who are unable to 
pay to replace the portion of the service line they own;
    (vii) A communication strategy to inform residential and non-
residential customers and consumers (e.g., property owners, renters, 
and tenants) served by the water system about the service line 
replacement plan and program; and
    (viii) Identification of any laws, regulations, and/or water tariff 
agreements that affect the water system's ability to gain access to 
conduct full lead and galvanized requiring replacement service line 
replacement, including the citation to the specific laws, regulations, 
or water tariff agreement provisions. This includes identification of 
any laws, regulations, and/or water tariff agreements that require 
customer consent and/or require or authorize customer cost-sharing.
    (ix) For any water system that identifies any lead-lined galvanized 
service lines in the service line inventory as described in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section, a strategy to determine the extent of the 
use of lead-lined galvanized service lines in the distribution system 
and categorize any lead-lined galvanized service lines as lead pursuant 
to table 2 to paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A) of this section.
    (x) For any water system that is eligible for and plans to use a 
deferred deadline pursuant to paragraph (d)(5)(vi) of this section:
    (A) Documentation to support the system's determination that it is 
eligible for a deferred deadline, showing that 10 percent of the total 
number of known lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines 
in the replacement pool exceeds 39 annual replacements per 1,000 
service connections as calculated in paragraph (d)(5)(vi)(A) of this 
section;
    (B) Identification of the deferred deadline and the associated 
cumulative average replacement rate that the system considers to be the 
fastest feasible but no slower than a deadline and replacement rate 
corresponding to 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service connections 
as calculated in paragraph (d)(5)(vi)(A) of this section, as well as 
the annual number of replacements required, the length of time (in 
years and months), and the date of completion for this deadline and 
rate; and
    (C) Information supporting the system's determination that 
replacing lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines by an 
earlier date and faster rate than provided under the deferred deadline 
provision in paragraph (d)(5)(vi) of this section is not feasible.
    (2) The service line replacement plan must be made accessible to 
the public. Water systems serving greater than 50,000 persons must make 
the plan available to the public online.
    (3) Water systems must annually update the service line replacement 
plan to include any new or updated information and submit the updates 
to the State on an annual basis in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e). The 
water system must make the updated plan publicly accessible no later 
than the deadline to submit the updated plan to the State.
    (i) If there is no new or updated information to include in the 
service line replacement plan since the previous iteration, the water 
system may certify to the State that the plan has no updates in lieu of 
resubmitting the plan unless the system is replacing service lines in 
accordance with a deferred deadline and paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this 
section applies.
    (ii) If there is no new or updated information to include in the 
service line replacement plan and the water system is replacing service 
lines in accordance with a deferred deadline pursuant to paragraph 
(d)(5)(vi) of this section, every three years after the initial 
submission of the plan, the system must update the information 
specified in paragraph (c)(1)(x) of this section to support why the 
system continues to need the deferred deadline and resubmit the plan to 
the State.
    (iii) If there are no longer lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, and unknown service lines in the inventory as described in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, water systems are not required 
to resubmit the service line replacement plan or certify to the State 
that the plan has no updates.
    (d) Mandatory full service line replacement. (1) All water systems 
must replace all lead and galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines under the control of the water system unless the replacement 
would leave in place a partial lead service line.
    (2) Where a water system has access (e.g., legal access, physical 
access) to conduct full service line replacement, the service line is 
under its control, and the water system must replace the service line. 
Where a water system does not have access to conduct full service line 
replacement, the water system is not required by this subpart to 
replace the line, but the water system must document the reasons that 
the water system does not have access and include any specific laws, 
regulations, and/or water tariff agreements that affect the water 
system's ability to gain access to conduct full replacement of lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines. The water system must 
provide this documentation to the State pursuant to Sec.  
141.90(e)(10).
    (i) This subpart does not establish the criteria for determining 
whether a system has access to conduct full service line replacement. 
Any applicable State or local laws or water tariff agreement 
requirements to gain access to conduct full service line replacement 
must be identified in the service line replacement plan as described in 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) Where a water system has legal access to conduct full service 
line replacement only if property owner consent is obtained, the water 
system must make a ``reasonable effort'' to obtain property owner 
consent. If such a water system does not obtain consent

[[Page 86638]]

after making a ``reasonable effort'' to obtain it from any property 
owner, then the water system is not required by this subpart to replace 
any portion of the service line at that address unless there is a 
change in ownership of the property as described in paragraph 
(d)(3)(ii) of this section. The water system must provide documentation 
of the reasonable effort to the State pursuant to Sec.  141.90(e)(10).
    (i) A ``reasonable effort'' must include at least four attempts to 
engage the property owner using at least two different methods of 
communication (e.g., in-person conversation, phone call, text message, 
email, written letter, postcard, or information left at the door such 
as a door hanger) before the applicable deadline of mandatory service 
line replacement as described in paragraph (d)(4) of this section. The 
State may require systems to conduct additional attempts and may 
require specific outreach methods to be used.
    (ii) Within six months of any change in ownership of the property, 
the water system must offer full service line replacement to any new 
property owner. Systems may use new service initiation or service 
transfer to a new customer to identify when there is a change in 
ownership. Within one year of any change in ownership of the property, 
the system must make a ``reasonable effort'' to obtain the property 
owner's consent as described in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section. If 
the water system is unable to obtain consent from the current property 
owner after making a ``reasonable effort'' to obtain it, the water 
system is not required under this subpart to replace the line. This 
paragraph (d)(3)(ii) continues to apply until all lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines are replaced.
    (4) The deadline for water systems to replace all lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines under the control of the 
water system is no later than 10 program years after the compliance 
date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) unless the system is subject to a 
different deadline under paragraphs (d)(5)(v) and (vi) of this section.
    (i) Water systems must start mandatory service line replacement 
programs no later than the compliance date specified in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3).
    (ii) If a lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line is 
discovered when the system's inventory is comprised of only non-lead 
service lines, the system must complete the following requirements:
    (A) Update the replacement pool calculated under paragraph 
(d)(6)(i) of this section.
    (B) Conduct a full service line replacement of the affected service 
line as soon as practicable but no later than 180 days after the date 
the service line is discovered. Where a system determines that it is 
not practicable to conduct full service line replacement within 180 
days after the date of discovery (e.g., due to freezing ground 
conditions), the system may request State approval for an extension of 
no later than one year after the date the service line was discovered 
to replace the affected service line. The request for an extension must 
be made no later than 90 days after the date of discovery of the 
affected service line.
    (5) Water systems must meet a minimum cumulative average annual 
replacement rate for completing mandatory service line replacement in 
accordance with this paragraph (d)(5):
    (i) Annual replacement rate. A water system must replace lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines as described in 
paragraph (d)(6) of this section at an average annual replacement rate 
of at least 10 percent calculated across a cumulative period unless the 
system is subject to a shortened replacement rate or eligible for a 
deferred replacement rate in accordance with paragraphs (d)(5)(v) and 
(vi) of this section.
    (ii) Cumulative percent of service lines replaced. To calculate the 
cumulative percent of service lines replaced, at the end of each 
mandatory service line replacement ``program year'' as specified in 
paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, water systems must divide the 
total number of lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines 
replaced thus far in the program in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(6)(iii) of this section by the number of service lines within the 
replacement pool in accordance with paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this 
section.
    (iii) Program year. The first mandatory service line replacement 
``program year'' is from the compliance date specified in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3) to the end of the next calendar year. Every program year 
thereafter is on a calendar year basis. This paragraph (d)(5)(iii) 
applies for the purposes of this section.
    (iv) Cumulative average replacement rate. The annual replacement 
rate in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section is assessed annually as a 
cumulative average. The first cumulative average replacement rate must 
be assessed at the end of the third program year and is calculated by 
dividing the cumulative percent of service lines replaced in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(5)(ii) of this section by the number of completed 
program years (or three in this case). Annually thereafter, at the end 
of each program year, systems must assess the cumulative average 
replacement rate by dividing the most recent cumulative percent of 
service lines replaced in accordance with paragraph (d)(5)(ii) by the 
number of completed program years. Except as provided in paragraph 
(d)(5)(iv)(A) of this section, the cumulative average replacement rate 
must be 10 percent or greater each program year, and the water system 
must replace all lead and galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines under its control by the applicable deadline for completing 
mandatory service line replacement in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) 
of this section.
    (A) A water system is not required by this section to meet the 
cumulative average replacement rate described in this paragraph (d)(5) 
where, after the compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), the 
system has replaced all lead and galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines in the replacement pool as described in paragraph 
(d)(6)(i) of this section that are under the control of the system, 
identified all unknown service lines in the inventory, and documented 
and submitted to the State the reasons the system currently does not 
have access to conduct full replacement of the remaining lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines in the replacement pool 
in accordance with paragraphs (d)(2) and (3) of this section. When lead 
and galvanized requiring replacement service lines come under the 
control of the system, the water system is required to replace the 
service lines as described in this paragraph (d). This paragraph 
(d)(5)(iv)(A) continues to apply until all lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines are replaced.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (v) Shortened deadline and associated replacement rate. Where the 
State determines that a shortened replacement deadline is feasible for 
a water system (e.g., by considering the number of lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines in a system's inventory), the 
system must replace service lines by the State-determined deadline and 
by a faster minimum replacement rate in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(5)(v)(A) of this section. The State must make this determination in 
writing and notify the system of its finding. The State must set a 
shortened deadline at any time throughout a system's replacement 
program if a State determines a shorter deadline is feasible. This 
paragraph (d)(5)(v) also applies to systems eligible for a deferred

[[Page 86639]]

deadline as specified in paragraph (d)(5)(vi) of this section.
    (A) Systems must replace lead and galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines at an average annual replacement rate calculated by 
dividing 100 by the number of years needed to meet the shortened 
deadline determined by the State, expressed as a percentage. Systems 
must comply with the cumulative average replacement rate in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section, where the first cumulative 
average replacement rate is assessed at the end of the program year 
that is at least one year after the shortened deadline determination, 
as determined by the State, unless the shortened replacement deadline 
is less than three years. If the system's shortened replacement 
deadline is less than three years, the cumulative average replacement 
rate must be assessed on a schedule determined by the State.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (vi) Deferred deadlines and associated replacement rates. A water 
system may defer service line replacement past the deadline in 
paragraph (d)(4) of this section if the system meets the following 
criteria:
    (A) If a water system replacing 10 percent of the total number of 
known lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines in a 
system's replacement pool results in an annual number of service line 
replacements by the water system that exceeds 39 per 1,000 service 
connections, the system may complete replacement of all lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines by a deadline that 
corresponds to the system conducting 39 annual replacements per 1,000 
service connections at a cumulative average replacement rate assessed 
in accordance with paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section. This paragraph 
(d)(5)(vi)(A) is also applicable if a water system with service lines 
newly under their control, after previously not having control as 
described in paragraph (d)(5)(iv)(A) of this section, is required to 
conduct more than 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service connections. 
The number of annual replacements corresponding to 39 annual 
replacements per 1,000 service connections can be calculated by 
multiplying the number of service connections in a system by 0.039. The 
number of years needed to complete replacement is the total number of 
known lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines in a 
system's replacement pool divided by the calculated number of annual 
replacements. To calculate the minimum cumulative average replacement 
rate, the system must divide 100 by the number of years needed to 
achieve replacing 39 annual replacements per 1,000 service connections, 
expressed as a percentage.
    (B) Any water system that is eligible for and plans to use a 
deferred deadline must include information, in accordance with 
paragraph (c)(1)(x) of this section, to support the use of a deferred 
deadline including identifying the deadline and associated cumulative 
average rate of replacement to meet this deferred deadline in the 
system's initial service line replacement plan and subsequent updates 
to the plan in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. The 
system must identify an annual replacement rate that is no less than 39 
annual replacements per 1,000 service connections.
    (C) As soon as practicable, but no later than the end of the second 
program year as defined in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, and 
every three years thereafter, the State must determine in writing 
whether the deferred deadline and associated cumulative average 
replacement rate the system documented in paragraph (c)(1)(x)(B) of 
this section are the fastest feasible to conduct mandatory service line 
replacement and either approve the continued use of this deferred 
deadline and replacement rate as the fastest feasible for the system, 
or set a shorter deferred deadline and identify an associated 
replacement rate to ensure the system is replacing service lines at the 
fastest feasible rate for the system. The State must consider 
information that includes, but is not limited to, the system's 
submissions of the service line inventory and replacement plan in 
accordance with paragraph (a) through (c) of this section and 
information collected from other water systems conducting mandatory 
service line replacement. The State may require the system to provide 
additional information for the State to consider in its assessment of 
the continued use of a deferred deadline and the fastest feasible 
replacement rate.
    (D) In the first two program years, the system must comply with the 
annual replacement rate identified in its initial replacement plan 
(unless the State determines a faster rate is feasible sooner). In 
subsequent program years, the system must comply with the applicable 
deferred deadline and associated replacement rate identified in the 
State's written determination of the deadline and replacement rate in 
paragraph (d)(5)(vi)(C) of this section.
    (6) Calculation of the replacement pool, the annual number of 
replacements required, and the number of service lines replaced each 
year to calculate a system's cumulative average replacement rate 
described in paragraph (d)(5) of this section are as follows:
    (i) Replacement pool. To calculate the replacement pool, systems 
must add the total number of lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 
and lead status unknown service lines in the baseline inventory 
submitted by the compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). The 
water system must not subtract lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines from the replacement pool when they are replaced. The 
water system must not subtract service lines that are not under the 
control of the system from the replacement pool. At the beginning of 
each program year, water systems must update the replacement pool 
according to the counts of specific types of recategorized service 
lines in the inventory annually thereafter as described in this 
paragraph (d)(6)(i):
    (A) Unknown service lines that are identified as non-lead service 
lines must be subtracted from the replacement pool. Unknown service 
lines that are identified as lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines must be recategorized appropriately in the inventory and 
replacement pool, but they do not change the number of service lines in 
the replacement pool because recategorization does not remove these 
service lines from the replacement pool.
    (B) Non-lead service lines discovered to be lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines must be added to the replacement 
pool.
    (C) Lead or galvanized requiring replacement service lines 
discovered to be non-lead service lines must be subtracted from the 
replacement pool.
    (D) Each entire service line must count only once for purposes of 
calculating the replacement pool.
    (ii) Annual number of replacements required. To calculate the 
number of lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines a 
system is required to replace in a given program year, divide the 
number of service lines in the most up-to-date replacement pool, 
calculated at the beginning of each program year, by the total number 
of years remaining under paragraph (d)(4) of this section to complete 
mandatory service line replacement (e.g., 10 years).
    (iii) Number of service lines replaced. When calculating the 
cumulative average replacement rate, the water system may only include 
full service line replacements of lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service lines when counting the number of service lines 
replaced. Wherever the system conducts a replacement of a lead or

[[Page 86640]]

galvanized requiring replacement service line (either a portion of a 
service line or the entire service line), the replacement counts as a 
full service line replacement only if, after the replacement, the 
entire service line can be categorized in the inventory as non-lead 
under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (A) For purposes of mandatory service line replacement, systems 
must count each entire service line once, including where ownership of 
the service line is shared, with a single material categorization in 
accordance with table 2 to this paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A).

                   Table 2 to Paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Categorization for
      System-owned portion          Customer-owned      entire service
                                        portion              line
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lead............................  Lead..............  Lead.
Lead............................  Galvanized          Lead.
                                   Requiring
                                   Replacement.
Lead............................  Non-lead..........  Lead.
Lead............................  Lead Status         Lead.
                                   Unknown.
Non-lead........................  Lead..............  Lead.
Non-lead and never previously     Non-lead,           Non-lead.
 lead.                             specifically
                                   galvanized pipe
                                   material.
Non-lead........................  Non-lead, material  Non-lead.
                                   other than
                                   galvanized pipe
                                   material.
Non-lead........................  Lead Status         Lead Status
                                   Unknown.            Unknown.
Non-lead, but system is unable    Galvanized          Galvanized
 to demonstrate it was not         Requiring           Requiring
 previously Lead.                  Replacement.        Replacement.
Lead Status Unknown.............  Lead..............  Lead.
Lead Status Unknown.............  Galvanized          Galvanized
                                   Requiring           Requiring
                                   Replacement.        Replacement.
Lead Status Unknown.............  Non-lead..........  Lead Status
                                                       Unknown.
Lead Status Unknown.............  Lead Status         Lead Status
                                   Unknown.            Unknown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) A full service line replacement is counted where a non-lead 
service line is installed for use and the lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line is disconnected from the water main or other 
service line. If the lead or galvanized requiring replacement service 
line is disconnected from the water main or system-owned portion of the 
service line but not removed, the water system must be subject to a 
State or local law or have a written policy to preclude the water 
system from reconnecting the lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line to the water main or other service line.
    (C) A full service line replacement may be counted where a system 
physically disconnects a service line that is not in use and the water 
system does not install a new non-lead service line because there is no 
service line in use (e.g., at an abandoned property). If the 
disconnected lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line is 
not removed, the water system must be subject to a State or local law 
or have a written policy to preclude the water system from reconnecting 
the disconnected service line (i.e., a new non-lead service line must 
be installed if active use is to resume).
    (D) Water systems must not count the following as a full service 
line replacement for purposes of this subpart:
    (1) Where the service line is partially replaced as defined in 
Sec.  141.2.
    (2) Where a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or unknown 
service line is determined to be a non-lead service line.
    (3) Where only a lead connector is replaced.
    (4) Where pipe lining or coating technologies are used while the 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line remains in use.
    (5) Where a water system does not replace a lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line because it is not be under the 
control of the system as described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (e) Replacement of lead connectors when encountered by a water 
system. (1) The water system must replace any lead connector when 
encountered during planned or unplanned water system infrastructure 
work unless the connector is not under the control of the system (e.g., 
where the system does not have and cannot obtain access to conduct the 
connector replacement).
    (i) Upon replacement of any connector that is attached to a lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service line, the water system must 
follow risk mitigation measures for disturbances as specified in Sec.  
141.85(f)(2).
    (ii) Following replacement of a lead connector, the water system 
must update the information on the connector material and location in 
its inventory in accordance with paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (b)(2) of 
this section.
    (2) The water system must comply with any State or local laws that 
require additional connectors to be replaced.
    (f) Replacement of a service line prompted by the customer. If 
State or local laws or water tariff agreements do not prevent customers 
from conducting partial lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line replacements (``customer-initiated replacements''), the 
water system must meet the following requirements:
    (1) If the water system is notified by the customer that the 
customer intends to conduct a partial lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line replacement, the water system must:
    (i) Replace the remaining portion of the lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line at the same time as, or as soon as 
practicable after, the customer-initiated replacement, but no later 
than 45 days from the date the customer conducted the partial 
replacement;
    (ii) Provide notification and risk mitigation measures in 
accordance with paragraph (h) of this section, as applicable, before 
the affected service line is returned to service; and
    (iii) Notify the State within 30 days if it cannot meet the 
deadline in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section and complete the 
replacement no later than 180 days from the date the customer conducted 
the partial replacement.
    (2) If the water system is notified or otherwise learns that a 
customer-initiated replacement occurred within the previous six months 
and left in place the system-owned portion of a lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line, the water system must:
    (i) Replace any remaining portion of the affected service line 
within 45 days

[[Page 86641]]

from the day of becoming aware of the customer-initiated replacement; 
and
    (ii) Provide notification and risk mitigation measures in 
accordance with paragraph (h) of this section within 24 hours of 
becoming aware of the customer replacement.
    (iii) Notify the State within 30 days if it cannot meet the 
deadline in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this section and complete the 
replacement no later than 180 days of the date the system learns of the 
customer-initiated replacement.
    (3) When a water system is notified or otherwise learns of a 
customer-initiated replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line that occurred more than six months in the 
past, this section does not require the water system to complete the 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement of 
the system-owned portion under this paragraph (f). However, the 
remaining portion of the lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line must be identified in the inventory in accordance with 
paragraph (b) of this section and replaced in accordance with paragraph 
(d) of this section.
    (g) Requirements for conducting partial service line replacements. 
This paragraph (g) prohibits water systems from conducting a partial 
lead service line replacement or a partial galvanized requiring 
replacement service line replacement as defined under Sec.  141.2 
unless it is conducted as part of an emergency repair or in 
coordination with planned infrastructure work that impacts service 
lines, excluding planned infrastructure work solely for the purposes of 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement. 
Where a water system has access to conduct full service line 
replacement as specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, the water 
system must fully replace the service line. Where a water system 
conducts partial service line replacement, the system must comply with 
the notification and mitigation requirements specified in paragraphs 
(h)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Whenever a water system conducts a partial replacement of a 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line, the system must 
include a dielectric coupling separating the remaining service line and 
the replaced service line (i.e., newly installed service line) to 
prevent galvanic corrosion unless the replaced service line is made of 
plastic.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (h) Protocols for notification and mitigation for partial and full 
service line replacements--(1) Notification and mitigation requirements 
for planned partial service line replacement. Whenever a water system 
plans to partially replace a lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line in coordination with planned infrastructure work that 
impacts service lines, the water system must provide written notice to 
the property owner, or the owner's authorized agent, as well as non-
owner occupant(s) served by the affected service line at least 45 days 
prior to the replacement. Where a water system has access to conduct 
full service line replacement only if property owner consent is 
obtained, the water system must make a reasonable effort to obtain 
property owner consent to replace the remaining portion of the service 
line in accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section. The 
reasonable effort must be completed before the partial lead service 
line replacement.
    (i) Before the affected service line is returned to service, the 
water system must provide written notification that explains that 
consumers may experience a temporary increase of lead levels in their 
drinking water due to the replacement and that meets the content 
requirements of Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) and contact 
information for the water system. In instances where multi-family 
dwellings or multiple non-residential occupants are served by the 
affected service line to be partially replaced, the water system may 
elect to post the information at a conspicuous location instead of 
providing individual written notification to all residents or non-
residential occupants.
    (ii) Before the affected service line is returned to service, the 
water system must provide written information about a procedure for 
consumers to flush service lines and premise plumbing of particulate 
lead following partial replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line.
    (iii) Before the affected service line is returned to service, the 
water system must provide the consumer with a pitcher filter or point-
of-use device certified by an American National Standards Institute 
accredited certifier to reduce lead, six months of replacement 
cartridges, and instructions for use. If the affected service line 
serves more than one residence or non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-
unit building), the water system must provide a pitcher filter or 
point-of-use device, six months of replacement cartridges and use 
instructions to every residential and non-residential unit in the 
building.
    (iv) The water system must offer to the consumer to collect a 
follow up tap sample between three months and six months after the 
completion of any partial replacement of a lead service line. The tap 
sample must be a first- and fifth-liter paired sample after at least 
six hours of stagnation, following the tap sampling protocol under 
Sec.  141.86(b). The water system must provide the results of the 
sample to the persons served by the service line in accordance with 
Sec.  141.85(d).
    (2) Notification and mitigation requirements for emergency partial 
service line replacement. Any water system that creates a partial 
replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line 
due to an emergency repair must provide notice and risk mitigation 
measures to the persons served by the affected service line in 
accordance with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section 
before the affected service line is returned to service. The water 
system must offer to the property owner, or the owner's authorized 
agent, to replace the partial service line created by the emergency 
repair within 45 days.
    (3) Notification and mitigation requirements for full service line 
replacement. Any water system that conducts a full lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line replacement must provide written 
notice to the persons served by the affected service line before the 
affected service line is returned to service; written notice must be 
provided to the owner or the owner's authorized agent, no later than 30 
days following completion of the replacement.
    (i) The written notification must explain that consumers may 
experience a temporary increase of lead levels in their drinking water 
due to the replacement and must meet the content requirements of Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) as well as contact information for the 
water system. In instances where multi-family dwellings or multiple 
non-residential occupants are served by the lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line to be replaced, the water system may 
elect to post the information at a conspicuous location instead of 
providing individual written notification to all persons served in 
residential and non-residential units.
    (ii) Before the replaced service line is returned to service, the 
water system must provide written information about a procedure for 
consumers to flush service lines and premise plumbing of particulate 
lead following full replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line.
    (iii) Before the replaced service line is returned to service, the 
water system must provide the consumer with a pitcher filter or point-
of-use device

[[Page 86642]]

certified by an American National Standards Institute accredited 
certifier to reduce lead, six months of replacement cartridges, and 
instructions for use. If the lead service line serves more than one 
residence or non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-unit building), the 
water system must provide a pitcher filter or point-of-use device, six 
months of replacement cartridges and instructions for use to every 
residential and non-residential unit in the building.
    (iv) The water system must offer to the consumer to collect a 
follow up tap sample between three months and six months after 
completion of any full replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line. The tap sample must be a first-liter sample 
after at least six hours of stagnation, following the tap sampling 
protocol under Sec.  141.86(b). The water system must provide the 
results of the sample to the consumer in accordance with Sec.  
141.85(d).
    (i) Reporting to demonstrate compliance to the State. To 
demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, 
a water system must report to the State the information specified in 
Sec.  141.90(e).

0
9. Revise and republish Sec.  141.85 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.85   Public education and supplemental monitoring and 
mitigation requirements.

    A water system that exceeds the lead action level based on tap 
water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86 must distribute 
the public education materials contained in paragraph (a) of this 
section in accordance with the delivery requirements in paragraph (b) 
of this section. Water systems that exceed the lead action level must 
offer to sample the tap water of any person served by the water system 
who requests it in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. Water 
systems must offer to sample for lead in the tap water of any person 
served by a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service line who requests it in accordance with paragraph (c) 
of this section. All water systems must deliver a consumer notice of 
lead tap water monitoring results and copper tap water monitoring 
results to persons served by the water system at sites that are 
sampled, as specified in paragraph (d) of this section. A water system 
with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown 
service lines must deliver public education materials to persons with a 
lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service 
line as specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section. All 
community water systems that do not meet the minimum replacement rate 
for mandatory service line replacement as required under Sec.  
141.84(d) must conduct outreach activities as specified in paragraph 
(h) of this section. All community water systems must conduct annual 
outreach to local and State health agencies as outlined in paragraph 
(i) of this section. Water systems with multiple lead action level 
exceedances, as specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section, must 
conduct public outreach and make filters certified to reduce lead 
available as specified in paragraphs (j)(2) through (6) of this 
section. For water systems serving a large proportion of consumers with 
limited English proficiency, as determined by the State, all public 
education materials required under this section must comply with the 
language requirements in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (a) Content of written public education materials--(1) Community 
water systems and non-transient non-community water systems. Water 
systems must include the following elements in written materials (e.g., 
printed or digital brochures and pamphlets) in the same order as listed 
in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section. In addition, 
language in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), and (vii) of this section must 
be included in the materials, exactly as written, except for the text 
in brackets for which the water system must include system-specific 
information. States may approve changes to the content requirements if 
the State determines the changes are more protective of human health. 
Any additional information presented by a water system must be 
consistent with the information in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vii) 
of this section and be in plain language that can be understood by the 
general public. Water systems must submit a copy of all written public 
education materials to the State prior to delivery. The State may 
require the system to obtain approval of the content of written public 
education materials prior to delivery.
    (i) Important information about lead in your drinking water.

Figure 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)(i)

Important Information About Lead in Your Drinking Water
    [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found elevated levels of lead in 
drinking water in some homes/buildings. Lead can cause serious health 
problems, especially for pregnant people and young children. Please 
read this information closely to see what you can do to reduce lead in 
your drinking water.
    (ii) Health effects of lead.

Figure 2 to Paragraph (a)(1)(ii)

    There is no safe level of lead in drinking water. Exposure to lead 
in drinking water can cause serious health effects in all age groups, 
especially pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and breastfed), 
and young children. Some of the health effects to infants and children 
include decreases in IQ and attention span. Lead exposure can also 
result in new or worsened learning and behavior problems. The children 
of persons who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy may be at 
increased risk of these harmful health effects. Adults have increased 
risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system 
problems. Contact your health care provider for more information about 
your risks.
    (iii) Sources of lead. (A) Explain what lead is.
    (B) Explain possible sources of lead in drinking water and how lead 
enters drinking water. Include information on home/building plumbing 
materials, service lines, and connectors that may contain lead and 
include information about the definition of lead free as provided in 
Safe Drinking Water Act section 1417 of 1986 and as subsequently 
revised in 2011. Explain that lead levels may vary and therefore lead 
exposure is possible even when tap sampling results do not detect lead 
at one point in time.
    (C) Discuss other important sources of lead exposure in addition to 
drinking water (e.g., paint).
    (iv) Consumer steps to reduce lead exposure. Discuss the steps the 
consumer can take to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water.
    (A) Explain that using a filter, certified by an American National 
Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead, is effective 
in reducing lead exposures. If the system makes filters available in 
accordance with paragraph (j)(2) of this section, also include 
information on how the consumer can obtain a filter.
    (B) Encourage running the water to flush out the lead. Explain that 
lead levels increase over time as water sits in lead-containing 
plumbing materials and regular water usage in the building can reduce 
lead levels in drinking water. Advise consumers served by lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines that they may need to 
flush the water for longer periods.
    (C) Explain concerns with using hot water from the tap and 
specifically

[[Page 86643]]

caution against the use of hot water for preparing baby formula.
    (D) Explain that boiling water does not reduce lead levels.
    (E) Encourage regular cleaning of faucet aerators.
    (F) Discuss other steps consumers can take to reduce exposure to 
lead in drinking water, especially for pregnant persons, infants, and 
young children, such as using alternative sources of water.
    (G) Suggest that parents have their child's blood tested for lead. 
Provide contact information for the State and/or local health 
department.
    (H) Tell consumers how to get their water tested, including 
information in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (v) Levels of lead in drinking water. Explain why there are 
elevated levels of lead in the system's drinking water (if known) and 
what the water system is doing to reduce the lead levels in homes/
buildings in this area.
    (vi) Information on lead, galvanized requiring replacement, and 
unknown service lines. For systems with lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service lines in the system's 
inventory pursuant to Sec.  141.84(a) and (b), public education 
materials must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(vi)(A) 
through (G) of this section. For systems with lead connectors or 
connectors of unknown material in the system's inventory pursuant to 
Sec.  141.84(a) and (b), public education materials must meet the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(C) of this section:
    (A) Discuss opportunities to replace lead and galvanized requiring 
replacement service lines;
    (B) Discuss opportunities to have the material of a lead status 
unknown service line identified;
    (C) Include information on how to obtain a copy of the service line 
inventory or view the inventory on the internet if the system is 
required to make the inventory available online so the consumer can 
find out if they are served by a lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service line, or known lead 
connector or connector of unknown material;
    (D) Include information on how to obtain a copy of the service line 
replacement plan or view the plan on the internet if the system is 
required to make the service line replacement plan available online;
    (E) Include information about opportunities to replace lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines. Where the water system 
intends for customer payment for a portion of the replacement where it 
is required or authorized by State or local law or a water tariff 
agreement, the notice must include information about programs that 
provide financing solutions to assist property owners with replacement 
of their portion of a lead or galvanized requiring replacement service 
line;
    (F) Include a statement that the water system is required to 
replace its portion of a lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line when the property owner notifies the water system that 
they are replacing their portion of the lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line; and
    (G) Include a statement that provides instructions for the customer 
or consumer to notify the water system if they disagree with the 
service line material categorization in the inventory.
    (vii) More information about lead.

Figure 3 to Paragraph (a)(1)(vii)

    For more information, contact [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] at 
[INSERT WATER SYSTEM PHONE NUMBER OR EMAIL ADDRESS] [(IF APPLICABLE), 
or visit our website at [INSERT WATER SYSTEM WEBSITE]. For more 
information on reducing lead exposure around your home/building and the 
health effects of lead, visit EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/lead 
or contact your health care provider.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (b) Timing, format, and delivery method of public education 
materials. (1) For water systems serving a large proportion of 
consumers with limited English proficiency, as determined by the State, 
all public education materials required under this section must contain 
information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of 
the materials and either contain information on where such consumers 
may obtain a translated copy of the public education materials, or 
assistance in the appropriate language(s), or the materials must be in 
the appropriate language(s).
    (2) Each time a community water system exceeds the lead action 
level based on tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  
141.86, the system must conduct the public education tasks under this 
paragraph (b)(2) within 60 days after the end of the tap sampling 
period in which the exceedance occurred. For community water systems 
that are on standard monitoring, the end of the tap sampling period is 
June 30 or December 31. For community water systems that are required 
to conduct monitoring annually or less frequently, the end of the tap 
sampling period is September 30 of the calendar year in which the 
sampling occurs, or, if the State has established an alternate four-
month tap sampling period, the last day of that period.
    (i) Deliver written materials meeting the content requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section to each customer receiving a bill and to 
other service connections to which water is delivered by the water 
system. In the case of multi-family dwellings, the water system must 
deliver the written materials to each unit or post the information at a 
conspicuous location.
    (ii)(A) Contact consumers who are most at risk by delivering 
education materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) 
of this section to local public health agencies even if they are not 
located within the water system's service area, along with an 
informational notice that encourages distribution to all of the 
agencies' potentially affected customers or community water system's 
users. The water system must contact the local public health agencies 
directly by phone, email, or in person. If local public health agencies 
provide a specific list of additional community-based organizations 
serving populations at greatest risk from lead exposure (e.g., pregnant 
people, children), including organizations outside the service area of 
the water system, then the system must deliver education materials that 
meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) to all organizations on 
the provided lists.
    (B) Contact consumers who are most at risk by delivering materials 
that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to 
the following organizations listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii)(B)(1) 
through (7) of this section that are located within the water system's 
service area, along with an informational notice that encourages 
distribution to all the organization's potentially affected customers 
or community water system's users:
    (1) Schools, child care facilities, and school boards.
    (2) Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and Head Start programs.
    (3) Public and private hospitals and medical clinics.
    (4) Pediatricians.
    (5) Family planning clinics.
    (6) Local welfare agencies.
    (7) Obstetricians-gynecologists and midwives.
    (iii) No less often than quarterly, provide information with each 
water bill as long as the system exceeds the action level for lead. The 
message on the water bill must include the statement in figure 4 to 
this paragraph (b)(2)(iii)

[[Page 86644]]

exactly as written except for the text in brackets for which the water 
system must include system-specific information. The message or 
delivery mechanism can be modified in consultation with the State; 
specifically, the State may allow a separate mailing of public 
education materials to customers if the water system cannot place the 
information on water bills.

Figure 4 to Paragraph (b)(2)(iii)

    [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found elevated levels of lead in 
drinking water in some homes/buildings. Lead can cause serious health 
problems. For more information please contact [INSERT NAME OF WATER 
SYSTEM] [or visit (INSERT WATER SYSTEM WEBSITE)].
    (iv) Post material meeting the content requirements of paragraph 
(a) of this section on the water system's website if the system serves 
a population greater than 50,000. The system must retain material on 
the website for as long as the system exceeds the action level.
    (v) Submit a press release to media outlets including newspaper, 
television, and radio stations. The submitted press release must state 
the water system found elevated levels of lead in drinking water in 
some homes/buildings and meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) 
of this section.
    (vi) Implement at least three additional activities from one or 
more categories listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(vi)(A) through (J) of this 
section. The educational content and selection of these activities must 
be determined in consultation with the State.
    (A) Public service announcements.
    (B) Paid advertisements.
    (C) Public area information displays.
    (D) Emails to customers.
    (E) Public meetings.
    (F) Household deliveries.
    (G) Targeted individual customer contact.
    (H) Direct material distribution to all multi-family homes and 
institutions.
    (I) Contact organizations representing plumbers and contractors to 
provide information about lead in drinking water, sources of lead, and 
the importance of using lead free plumbing materials.
    (J) Other methods approved by the State.
    (vii) [Reserved]
    (3) A community water system must repeat the activities in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section until the system is at or below the 
lead action level based on tap water samples collected in accordance 
with Sec.  141.86. These repeated activities must be completed within 
60 days of the end of each tap sampling period. A calculated 90th 
percentile level at or below the lead action level based on fewer than 
the minimum number of required samples under Sec.  141.86 cannot be 
used to meet the requirements of this paragraph (b)(3).
    (4) Within 60 days after the end of each tap sampling period in 
which a lead action level exceedance occurs, a non-transient non-
community water system must deliver the public education materials 
specified by paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
    (i) Post informational posters on lead in drinking water in a 
public place or common area in each of the buildings served by the 
system until the system is at or below the lead action level based on 
tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86; and
    (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.
    (iii) For systems that are on standard monitoring, the end of the 
tap sampling period is June 30 or December 31. For systems that are 
required to conduct monitoring annually or less frequently, the end of 
the tap sampling period is September 30 of the calendar year in which 
the sampling occurs, or, if the State has established an alternate tap 
sampling period, the last day of that period.
    (5) A non-transient non-community water system must repeat the 
tasks contained in paragraph (b)(4) of this section until the system is 
at or below the lead action level based on tap water samples collected 
in accordance with Sec.  141.86. These repeated activities must be 
completed within 60 days of the end of each tap sampling period. A 
calculated 90th percentile level at or below the lead action level 
based on fewer than the minimum number of required samples under Sec.  
141.86 cannot be used to meet the requirements of this provision.
    (6) A water system may discontinue delivery of public education 
materials if the system is at or below the lead action level during the 
most recent six-month tap sampling period conducted pursuant to Sec.  
141.86. Such a system must recommence public education in accordance 
with this section if it subsequently exceeds the lead action level 
during any tap sampling period.
    (7) A water system may request an extension from the State, in 
writing, to complete the activities in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) through 
(vi) of this section for community water systems, or paragraphs 
(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section for non-transient non-community 
water systems, as follows:
    (i) The extension must be approved in writing by the State before 
the 60-day deadline;
    (ii) The State may only grant the extension on a case-by-case basis 
if the system has demonstrated that it is not feasible to complete the 
activities in paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) through (vi) of this section for 
community water systems, or paragraphs (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this 
section for non-transient non-community water systems; and
    (iii) The activities in paragraph (b)(2) or (4) of this section 
must be completed no later than six months after the end of the tap 
sampling period in which the exceedance occurred.
    (8) A community water system meeting the criteria of paragraphs 
(b)(8)(i) and (ii) of this section may apply to the State, in writing 
(unless the State has waived the requirement for prior State approval), 
to perform the tasks listed in paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this 
section in lieu of the tasks in paragraphs (b)(2) and (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.
    (9) A community water system serving 3,300 or fewer persons may 
limit certain aspects of their public education programs as follows:
    (i) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of 
this section, a system serving 3,300 or fewer persons may limit the 
distribution of the public education materials required under paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) to facilities and organizations served by the system that 
are most likely to be visited regularly by pregnant people and 
children.
    (ii) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(v) of 
this section, the State may waive this requirement for systems serving 
3,300 or fewer persons as long as the system distributes notices to 
every household served by the system.
    (iii) With respect to the requirements of paragraph (b)(2)(vi) of 
this section, a system serving 3,300 or fewer persons must implement at 
least one of the activities listed in paragraph (b)(2)(vi).
    (c) Supplemental monitoring and notification of results. (1) A 
water system that exceeds the lead action level

[[Page 86645]]

based on tap samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86 must 
offer to sample for lead in the tap water of any person served by the 
water system who requests it. At sites served by a lead, galvanized 
requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line, the samples 
must capture both water in contact with premise plumbing and water in 
contact with the service line (e.g., first- and fifth-liter samples).
    (2) Water systems must offer to sample for lead in the tap water of 
any person served by a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead 
status unknown service line who requests it, regardless of whether the 
water system exceeds the lead action level. The samples must capture 
both water in contact with premise plumbing and water in contact with 
the service line (e.g., first- and fifth-liter samples).
    (3) All water systems must provide a consumer notice of the 
individual tap results from supplemental tap water monitoring carried 
out under the requirements of this paragraph (c) to the persons served 
by the water system at the specific sampling site from which the sample 
was taken (e.g., the occupants of the building where the tap was 
sampled). Water systems must provide the consumer notice in accordance 
with the requirements of paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this section.
    (d) Notification of results--(1) Notice requirement. All water 
systems must provide a consumer notice of the individual tap results 
from any lead and copper tap water monitoring carried out under the 
requirements of Sec.  141.86 to the persons served by the water system 
at the specific sampling site from which the sample was taken (e.g., 
the occupants of the building where the tap was sampled).
    (2) Timing of notification. A water system must provide the 
consumer notice as soon as practicable but no later than three business 
days after the water system learns of the tap monitoring results. 
Notification by mail must be postmarked within three business days of 
the system learning of the tap monitoring results.
    (3) Content. (i) The consumer notice for lead must include the 
results of lead tap water monitoring for the tap that was tested, an 
explanation of the health effects of lead that meets the requirements 
of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section, information on possible 
sources of lead in drinking water that meets the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) of this section, a list of steps consumers can 
take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section, and contact 
information for the water system. The notice must also provide the 
maximum contaminant level goal and the action level for lead and the 
definitions for these two terms from Sec.  141.153(c).
    (ii) The consumer notice for copper must include the results of 
copper tap water monitoring for the tap that was tested, an explanation 
of the health effects of copper as provided in appendix B to subpart Q 
of this part, a list of steps consumers can take to reduce exposure to 
copper in drinking water, and contact information for the water system. 
The notice must also provide the maximum contaminant level goal and the 
action level for copper and the definitions for these two terms from 
Sec.  141.153(c).
    (4) Delivery. Water systems must provide consumer notice to persons 
served at the tap that was sampled. The notice must be provided 
electronically (e.g., email or text message), by phone call or voice 
message, hand delivery, by mail, or another method approved by the 
State. For example, upon approval by the State, a non-transient non-
community water system could post the results in a conspicuous area, 
such as on a bulletin board, in the facility to allow users to review 
the information. Water systems that choose to deliver the notice to 
consumers by phone call or voice message must follow up with a written 
notice to consumers hand delivered or postmarked within 30 days of the 
water system learning of the tap monitoring results. The notices of 
lead and copper tap sampling results may be combined in one notice.
    (e) Notification of service line that is known to or may 
potentially contain lead--(1) Notification requirements. All water 
systems with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service lines in their inventory pursuant to Sec.  141.84(a) 
and (b) must provide notification of a service line that is known to or 
may potentially contain lead to customers and all persons served by the 
water system at the service connection with a lead, galvanized 
requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line.
    (2) Timing of notification. A water system must provide 
notification no later than 30 days after completion of the baseline 
inventory required under Sec.  141.84(a)(2) and repeat the notification 
no later than 30 days after the deadline for each annual update to the 
service line inventory under Sec.  141.90(e)(4) until the entire 
service connection is no longer a lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service line. For notifications to 
new customers, water systems must provide the notice at the time of 
service initiation.
    (3) Content--(i) Persons served by a confirmed lead service line or 
galvanized requiring replacement service line. The notice must include:
    (A) A statement that the person's service line is lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement as applicable.
    (B) An explanation of the health effects of lead that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (C) Steps persons at the service connection can take to reduce 
exposure to lead in drinking water that meet the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (D) A statement that the consumer can request to have their tap 
water sampled in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
    (E) Include information on how to obtain a copy of the service line 
replacement plan or view the plan on the internet if the system is 
required to make the service line replacement plan available online.
    (F) Information about opportunities to replace lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines. Where the water system intends for 
customer payment for a portion of the replacement where it is required 
or authorized by State or local law or a water tariff agreement, the 
notice must include information about programs that provide financing 
solutions to assist property owners with replacement of their portion 
of a lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line.
    (G) A statement that the water system is required to replace its 
portion of a lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line when 
the property owner notifies the water system that they are replacing 
their portion of the lead or galvanized requiring replacement service 
line.
    (H) A statement that provides instructions for the customer to 
notify the water system if they disagree with the service line material 
categorization in the inventory.
    (ii) Persons served by a lead status unknown service line. The 
notice must include a statement that the person's service line material 
is unknown but may be lead, the information in paragraphs (e)(3)(i)(B) 
through (E) of this section, and information about opportunities to 
verify the material of the service line.
    (4) Delivery. The notice must be provided to customers and persons 
served by the water system at the service connection with a lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line, 
by

[[Page 86646]]

mail or by another method approved by the State.
    (f) Notification due to a disturbance to a service line that is 
known to or may potentially contain lead. (1) Water systems that cause 
disturbance to a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service line must provide customers and the persons served by 
the water system at the service connection with information about the 
potential for elevated lead levels in drinking water as a result of the 
disturbance. Actions taken by a water system that cause a disturbance 
include actions that result in a shut off or bypass of water to an 
individual service line or a group of service lines (e.g., operating a 
valve on a service line or meter setter, or reconnecting a service line 
to the main) or other actions that cause a disturbance to a service 
line or group of service lines, such as undergoing physical action or 
vibration, that could result in pipe scale dislodging and associated 
release of particulate lead. The provided information must include:
    (i) Public education materials that meet the content requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) through (iv) and (vi) of this section and 
contact information for the water system; and
    (ii) Instructions for a flushing procedure to remove particulate 
lead.
    (2) If the disturbance of a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 
or lead status unknown service line results from the replacement of an 
inline water meter, a water meter setter, or connector, or from the 
replacement of a water main whereby the service line pipe is physically 
cut, the water system must provide the persons served by the water 
system at the service connection with the information in paragraphs 
(f)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section and a pitcher filter or point-of-use 
device certified by an American National Standards Institute accredited 
certifier to reduce lead, instructions to use the filter, and six 
months of filter replacement cartridges.
    (3)(i) Persons at the service connection. The water system must 
comply with the requirements in this paragraph (f) for persons served 
by the water system at the service connection before any service line 
that has been shut off or bypassed is returned to service. Where there 
was a disturbance, but service was not shut off or bypassed, the water 
system must comply with the requirements in this paragraph (f) as soon 
as possible, but not to exceed 24 hours following the disturbance.
    (ii) Customers. The water system must comply with the requirements 
in paragraph (f)(1) of this section for customers associated with the 
service connection who are not persons served by the water system at 
the service connection (e.g., a customer who is a property owner and 
renting their property) no later than 30 days following the 
disturbance.
    (4) A water system that conducts a partial or full replacement of a 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line must follow 
procedures in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  141.84(h). 
Partial or full replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line is not considered a ``disturbance'' for 
purposes of this paragraph (f).
    (g) [Reserved]
    (h) Outreach activities to encourage participation in full service 
line replacement. (1) Community water systems that do not meet the 
service line replacement rate calculated across a cumulative period as 
required under Sec.  141.84(d)(5) must conduct at least one outreach 
activity listed in paragraph (h)(2) of this section to discuss their 
mandatory service line replacement program and opportunities for 
replacement and to distribute public education materials that meet the 
content requirements in paragraph (a) of this section except paragraphs 
(a)(1)(i) and (v) of this section. The water system must conduct the 
activity in the year following the program year for which the system 
does not meet their cumulative average replacement rate and annually 
thereafter until the water system meets the cumulative average 
replacement rate or until there are no lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service lines remaining in the 
inventory, whichever occurs first.
    (2) For community water systems serving more than 3,300 persons, 
the outreach activity must be one of the activities identified in 
paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section or the water system 
must conduct two activities listed in paragraphs (h)(2)(v) through 
(viii) of this section. For community water systems serving 3,300 
persons or fewer, the outreach activity must be one of the activities 
identified in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (viii) of this section.
    (i) Conduct a public meeting.
    (ii) Participate in a community event to provide information about 
its service line replacement program.
    (iii) Contact customers by phone call or voice message, text 
message, email, or door hanger.
    (iv) Use another method approved by the State to discuss the 
service line replacement program and opportunities for lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement.
    (v) Send certified mail to customers and all persons served by the 
water system at the service connection with a lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line to inform them about the water 
system's service line replacement program and opportunities for 
replacement of the service line.
    (vi) Conduct a social media campaign.
    (vii) Conduct outreach via the media including newspaper, 
television, or radio.
    (viii) Visit targeted customers (e.g., customers in areas with 
lower service line replacement participation rates) to discuss the 
service line replacement program and opportunities for replacement.
    (i) Public education to local and State health agencies--(1) 
Distribution System and Site Assessment results. All community water 
systems must provide information to local and State health agencies 
about Distribution System and Site Assessment activities conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  141.82(j) including the location of the tap 
sample site that exceeded 0.010 mg/L, the result of the initial tap 
sample, the result of the follow up tap sample, the result of water 
quality parameter monitoring, and any distribution system management 
actions or corrosion control treatment adjustments made.
    (2) Timing and content. Community water systems must annually send 
Distribution System and Site Assessment information and copies of the 
public education materials provided under paragraphs (a) and (h) of 
this section for actions conducted in the previous calendar year no 
later than July 1 of the following year.
    (3) Delivery. Community water systems must send public education 
materials and Distribution System and Site Assessment information to 
local and State health agencies by mail, email, or by another method 
approved by the State.
    (j) Additional requirements for water systems with multiple lead 
action level exceedances. (1) A water system that exceeds the lead 
action level at least three times in a rolling five-year period, based 
on tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86, must 
conduct the activities in this section. The first rolling five-year 
period begins on the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). If a water 
system exceeds the lead action level at least three times within a 
five-year period, the system must conduct these actions upon the third 
action level exceedance even if the rolling five-year period has not 
elapsed.

[[Page 86647]]

    (2) No later than 60 days after the tap sampling period in which a 
water system meets the criteria of paragraph (j)(1) of this section, a 
water system must make available to all consumers pitcher filters or 
point-of-use devices certified by an American National Standards 
Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead, six months of 
replacement cartridges, and instructions for use. A water system must 
continue to make replacement cartridges available until the system may 
discontinue actions in accordance with paragraph (j)(6) of this 
section.
    (3) No later than 60 days after a water system exceeds the lead 
action level for the second time in a rolling five-year period, the 
water system must submit a filter plan to the State. The State must 
review and approve the filter plan within 60 days. If the water system 
subsequently meets the criteria of paragraph (j)(1) of this section 
again, the water system is not required to re-submit the filter plan, 
unless the system has made updates to the plan or otherwise requested 
by the State. The plan must include:
    (i) A description of which methods the system will use to make 
filters and replacement cartridges available in accordance with 
paragraph (j)(2) of this section (e.g., operating distribution 
facilities, delivering filters when requested by the consumer); and
    (ii) A description of how the system will address any barriers to 
consumers obtaining filters.
    (4) A water system that meets the criteria of paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section must conduct a community outreach activity to discuss the 
multiple lead action level exceedances, steps the system is taking to 
reduce lead in drinking water, measures consumers can take to reduce 
their risk consistent with the content requirements of paragraph 
(a)(1)(iv) of this section, and how to obtain a filter certified to 
reduce lead as required in paragraph (j)(2) of this section. This 
activity is in addition to the public education activities required 
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section for community water systems, and 
under paragraph (b)(4) of this section for non-transient non-community 
water systems, that exceed the lead action level. The water system must 
conduct at least one activity from paragraphs (j)(4)(i) through (v) of 
this section within six months of the start of the tap sampling period 
after the most recent lead action level exceedance. The water system 
must conduct at least one of the activities in paragraphs (j)(4)(i) 
through (v) every six months until the system no longer meets the 
criteria of paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
    (i) Conduct a public meeting.
    (ii) Participate in a community event where the system can make 
information about ongoing lead exceedances available to the public.
    (iii) Contact customers by phone call or voice message, text 
message, email, or door hanger.
    (iv) Conduct a social media campaign.
    (v) Use another method approved by the State.
    (5) A water system that is already conducting an outreach activity 
listed in paragraph (j)(4) of this section in order to meet the 
requirements of paragraph (h) of this section may conduct one activity 
that meets the requirements of paragraphs (j)(4) and (h), unless 
otherwise directed by the State.
    (6) A water system may discontinue the requirements of this 
paragraph (j) when the system no longer has at least three lead action 
level exceedances in a rolling five-year period, based on tap water 
samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86. A calculated 90th 
percentile level at or below the lead action level based on fewer than 
the minimum number of required samples under Sec.  141.86 cannot be 
used to meet the requirements of this paragraph (j)(6). States have the 
discretion to allow a water system to discontinue the requirements of 
this paragraph (j) earlier if the system has taken actions to reduce 
lead levels (e.g., re-optimized optimal corrosion control treatment or 
completed the service line replacement program) and the system is at or 
below the lead action level for two consecutive tap monitoring periods.

0
10. Revise Sec.  141.86 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.86  Monitoring requirements for lead and copper in tap water.

    All water systems must sample for lead and copper at taps used to 
provide water for human consumption in accordance with the requirements 
of this section.
    (a) Sample site location. (1) By the start of the first tap 
monitoring period in which sampling for lead and copper is required 
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each water system must 
identify potential tap sampling sites and submit a site sample plan to 
the State as required in Sec.  141.90(a)(1)(i). States may require 
modifications to submitted site sample plans. Each water system must 
identify a pool of tap sampling sites that will allow the water system 
to collect the number of lead and copper tap samples required in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of this section.
    (i) To select sampling sites, a water system must use information 
regarding the material of service lines and connectors, including lead, 
copper, and galvanized iron or steel, required to be collected under 
Sec.  141.84.
    (ii) Water systems must identify locations in the site sample plan 
by selecting from sites in the highest tier, unless the site has been 
found to be unavailable, in accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section.
    (iii) Sampling sites cannot include sites with installed point-of-
entry (POE) treatment devices or taps with point-of-use devices 
designed to remove inorganic contaminants, except in water systems 
using these devices at all service connections for primary drinking 
water taps to meet other primary and secondary drinking water standards 
as under Sec.  141.93(c)(1).
    (2) A water system that has fewer than five sites with drinking 
water taps that can be used for human consumption meeting the sample 
site criteria of this paragraph (a) to reach the required number of 
sample sites listed in paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of this section, 
must collect at least one sample from each tap and collect additional 
samples from those taps on different days during the tap sampling 
period to meet the required number of sites. Alternatively, the State 
may allow these water systems to collect a number of samples fewer than 
the number of sites specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1), provided 
that 100 percent of all taps that can be used for human consumption are 
sampled. The State must approve this reduction of the minimum number of 
samples in writing based on a request from the system or onsite 
verification by the State.
    (3) A water system serving sites with premise plumbing made of lead 
and/or that are served by a lead service line must collect all samples 
for monitoring under this section from sites with premise plumbing made 
of lead and/or served by a lead service line. A water system that 
cannot identify enough sampling sites with premise plumbing made of 
lead and/or served by lead service lines to meet the minimum number of 
sites required in paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of this section must 
still collect samples from every available site, in accordance with 
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, containing premise plumbing made of 
lead and/or served by a lead service line and collect the remaining 
samples in accordance with the tiering requirements under paragraph 
(a)(4).
    (4) Sampling sites must be selected from the highest tier available 
(Tier 1 is the highest tier and Tier 5 is the lowest tier). Sites are 
available unless a customer refuses to participate in sampling or a 
system has made at least two outreach attempts at a site and has

[[Page 86648]]

not received a response. The number of customer refusals and non-
responses for compliance sampling during each tap sampling period must 
be submitted to the State in accordance with the requirements at Sec.  
141.90(a)(2)(viii). Systems may continue conducting outreach at sites 
considered unavailable and may subsequently add such sites to the site 
sample plan for any reason, such as receiving a service initiation 
request from a new property owner or occupant or receiving a new 
consumer request for sampling. A system without a large enough number 
of sites from a higher tier to meet the number of sites required in 
paragraphs (c)(1) and (d)(1) of this section may sample sites from the 
next highest tier. For water systems where Tier 2 sites comprise at 
least 20 percent of the residential structures served by the community 
water system, Tier 2 sites may be sampled even when Tier 1 sites are 
available.
    (i) Tier 1 sampling sites are single-family structures with premise 
plumbing made of lead and/or served by a lead service line.
    (ii) Tier 2 sampling sites are buildings, including multiple-family 
residences, with premise plumbing made of lead and/or served by a lead 
service line.
    (iii) Tier 3 sampling sites are sites that are served by a lead 
connector. Tier 3 sites are also sites served by a galvanized service 
line or containing galvanized premise plumbing identified as ever 
having been downstream of a lead service line. Tier 3 for community 
water systems only includes single-family structures.
    (iv) Tier 4 sampling sites are sites that contain copper premise 
plumbing with lead solder installed before the effective date of the 
State's applicable lead ban. Tier 4 for community water systems only 
includes single-family structures.
    (v) Tier 5 sampling sites are sites that are representative of 
sites throughout the distribution system. For purpose of this paragraph 
(a), 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.
    (b) Sample collection protocol. (1) Except for samples described in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and (iv) of this section, all tap samples 
collected for analysis of lead and copper must be one liter in volume 
and have stood motionless in the plumbing system and/or service line of 
each sampling site for at least six hours. Bottles used to collect 
samples for analysis must be wide-mouth, one-liter sample bottles, as 
defined at Sec.  141.2. Samples from residential housing must be 
collected from an interior kitchen or bathroom sink cold-water tap. 
Samples from a nonresidential building must be collected at an interior 
cold-water tap from which water is typically drawn for human 
consumption. Samples may be collected by the system, or the system may 
allow members of the public to collect samples after providing 
instructions for collecting samples in accordance with this paragraph 
(b)(1). Sample collection instructions cannot direct the sample 
collector to remove or clean the aerator or flush taps prior to the 
start of the minimum six-hour stagnation period. To protect members of 
the public from injury due to handling nitric acid, samples may be 
acidified up to 14 days after the sample is collected. After 
acidification to resolubilize the metals, the sample must stand in the 
original container for a period of time, as specified by the approved 
EPA method in Sec.  141.23 selected for sample analysis. If a system 
allows members of the public to sample, the system cannot challenge the 
accuracy of the sampling results based on alleged sample collection 
errors.
    (i) The first-liter sample must be analyzed for lead and copper at 
sample sites where both contaminants are required to be monitored. At 
sample sites where only lead is required to be monitored, the first-
liter sample may be analyzed for only lead.
    (ii) For sites served by a lead service line, which fall under Tier 
1 and Tier 2, an additional fifth-liter sample must be collected at the 
same time as the first-liter sample and must be analyzed for lead. To 
collect a first-liter-and-fifth-liter-paired sample, systems must 
collect tap water in five consecutively numbered, wide-mouth, one-liter 
sample bottles after the water has stood motionless in the plumbing of 
each sampling site, including the lead service line, for at least six 
hours without flushing the tap prior to sample collection. Systems must 
collect samples starting with the first sample bottle and then fill 
each subsequently numbered bottle in consecutive order until the final 
bottle is filled, with the water running constantly while the samples 
are being collected. In this sequence, the first-liter sample is the 
first sample collected and the fifth-liter sample is the final sample 
collected.
    (iii) State-approved samples collected pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section may include samples with stagnation periods less than 
six hours, but must meet all the other sample collection criteria in 
this paragraph (b)(1), including being one-liter in volume using a 
wide-mouth bottle and collected at an interior tap from which water is 
typically drawn for human consumption.
    (iv) Systems may use different sample volumes and/or different 
sample collection procedures when they collect follow-up samples for 
Distribution System and Site Assessment under Sec.  141.82(j)(2) and 
consumer-requested samples under Sec.  141.85(c) to assess the source 
of lead. Consumer-requested samples must be collected in accordance 
with Sec.  141.85(c). Systems must submit these sample results to the 
State in accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(i) and (g).
    (2) Systems must sample at sites listed in the site sample plan. 
Additionally, systems must prioritize sampling at the same sites that 
were sampled in the previous tap sampling period. If such a site no 
longer qualifies under the tiering criteria or if, for reasons beyond 
the control of the water system, the water system cannot gain access to 
a sampling site in order to collect a tap sample, the system must 
collect the tap sample from another site in its site sample plan that 
meets the original tiering criteria, where such a site exists. Systems 
must report any change in sites from the previous tap sampling period, 
and include an explanation of why sampling sites have changed, as 
required in Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(v). If changes are needed to the site 
sample plan, systems must submit their updated site sample plan, as 
required under Sec.  141.90(a)(1)(i), before the start of the next tap 
sampling period conducted by the system.
    (3) A non-transient non-community water system, or a community 
water system that meets the criteria of Sec.  141.85(b)(8), that does 
not have enough sites with taps from which first-liter samples or 
first-liter-and-fifth-liter-paired samples meeting the six-hour minimum 
stagnation time can be collected, as provided in paragraph (b)(1) of 
this section, may apply to the State in writing to request approval to 
substitute first-liter or first-liter-and-fifth-liter-paired samples 
that do not meet the six-hour minimum stagnation time. Such systems 
must collect as many first-liter or first-liter-and-fifth-liter-paired 
samples from interior taps used for human consumption as possible 
towards meeting the minimum number of sites required in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (d)(1) of this section. For the remaining samples to meet 
the minimum number required, systems must identify sampling times and 
locations that would likely result in the longest standing times. The 
State has the discretion to waive the requirement for prior State 
approval of sites not meeting the six-hour stagnation time

[[Page 86649]]

either through State regulation or written notification to the system.
    (c) Standard monitoring. Standard monitoring consists of six-month 
tap monitoring periods that begin on January 1 and July 1.
    (1) Standard monitoring sites. During a standard tap monitoring 
period, a water system must collect at least one sample from the number 
of sites in the following table 1 to this paragraph (c)(1). Standard 
monitoring sites must be selected in accordance with the sampling tiers 
identified in paragraph (a) of this section.

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Standard
                                                             number of
          System size (number of people served)           sites for lead
                                                            and copper
                                                             sampling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000................................................             100
10,001 to 100,000.......................................              60
3,301 to 10,000.........................................              40
501 to 3,300............................................              20
101 to 500..............................................              10
or 
copper results as of November 1, 2027, exceeds the lead and/or copper 
action level must conduct standard monitoring in the first six-month 
tap monitoring period following November 1, 2027.
    (iii) Systems meeting any of the following criteria:
    (A) Any water system that exceeds a lead or copper action level.
    (B) Any system that fails to operate at or above the minimum value 
or within the range of values for the optimal water quality parameters 
designated by the State under Sec.  141.82(f) for more than nine days 
in any tap monitoring period as specified in Sec.  141.87.
    (C) Any water system that becomes a large water system without 
corrosion control treatment or any large water system without corrosion 
control treatment whose lead 90th percentile exceeds the lead practical 
quantitation limit of 0.005 mg/L.
    (D) Any water system that installs OCCT or re-optimizes OCCT as a 
result of exceeding the lead or copper action level, or any water 
system that adjusts OCCT following a Distribution System and Site 
Assessment. Systems conducting standard monitoring under this criterion 
must continue standard monitoring until the State designates new 
optimal water quality parameters, at which point systems must comply 
with paragraph (c)(2)(iii)(E) of this section.
    (E) Any water system for which the State has designated new values 
for optimal water quality parameters under Sec.  141.82.
    (F) Any water system that installs source water treatment pursuant 
to Sec.  141.83(a)(3).
    (G) Any water system that has notified the State in writing in 
accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(4) of an upcoming addition of a new 
source or long-term change in treatment, unless the State determines 
that the addition of the new source or long-term change in treatment is 
not significant and, therefore, does not warrant more frequent 
monitoring.
    (H) Any water system without lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service lines in its inventory that notifies the State 
under Sec.  141.90(e)(4)(ii) of any subsequently discovered lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines in its distribution 
system, unless the system replaces all the discovered service lines 
before the start of the next tap monitoring period.
    (d) Reduced monitoring based on 90th percentile levels. Reduced 
monitoring refers to an annual or triennial tap monitoring period. Each 
annual or triennial tap monitoring period includes one tap sampling 
period. The reduced monitoring frequency is based on the 90th 
percentile value for the water system.
    (1) Reduced monitoring sites. During a reduced tap monitoring 
period, a water system must collect at least one sample from the number 
of sites specified in table 2 to this paragraph (d)(1), unless 
otherwise specified. Reduced monitoring sites must be selected in 
accordance with the sampling tiers identified in paragraph (a) of this 
section. Lead and copper sampling results collected from point-of-use 
sites under Sec.  141.93(c)(1) cannot be used to meet the criteria for 
reduced monitoring under this section. States may specify the locations 
of sample sites when a system is conducting reduced monitoring.

                       Table 2 to Paragraph (d)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Reduced
                                                          minimum number
                                                           of sites for
          System size (number of people served)              lead and
                                                              copper
                                                             sampling
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000................................................              50
10,001 to 100,000.......................................              30
3,301 to 10,000.........................................              20
501 to 3,300............................................              10
101 to 500..............................................               5
L, the 90th percentile copper level, 
calculated under Sec.  141.80(c)(3), is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L 
and, for systems with State-designated OWQPs, also maintains the range 
of optimal water quality parameters designated by the State in 
accordance with Sec.  141.82(f), may reduce the monitoring frequency to 
triennial monitoring. Systems on triennial monitoring must sample at 
least the reduced number of sites for lead and copper in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Prior to conducting triennial 
monitoring, systems must receive a written determination from the State 
approving triennial monitoring based on the State's review of 
monitoring, treatment, and other relevant information submitted by the 
system as required by Sec.  141.90. For systems that reduce to 
triennial monitoring, the first triennial tap monitoring period must 
immediately follow the last monitoring period, and the first triennial 
tap sampling period must begin no later than three calendar years after 
the last calendar year in which the system sampled.
    (3) Tap sampling period under reduced monitoring. The tap sampling 
period for systems on reduced monitoring must occur within the months 
of June, July, August, or September, unless the State has approved a 
different tap sampling period in accordance with paragraph (d)(3)(i) of 
this section. Only systems on reduced monitoring can monitor during a 
tap sampling period that is shorter than the tap monitoring period.
    (i) The State may approve a different tap sampling period for 
systems collecting samples on reduced monitoring. An alternative tap 
sampling period approved by the State must be a continuous period of 
time no longer than four consecutive months, must occur entirely within 
one calendar year, 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 must designate a period that represents normal 
operation for the system.
    (ii) Systems that receive State-approval for an alternate tap 
sampling period under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section and have been 
sampling in the months of June through September must complete their 
next tap sampling period no later than 21 months, if on annual 
monitoring, or no later than 45 months, if on triennial monitoring, 
following the end of the previous tap sampling period.
    (iii) 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 
sampling period as per paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section must collect 
their next round of samples before the end of the next nine-year 
period.
    (e) Inclusion of lead and copper tap samples for calculation of the 
90th percentile. Water systems and the State must consider the results 
of any sampling conducted in addition to the minimum number of samples 
required in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section, as applicable, in 
making any determinations (i.e., calculating the 90th percentile lead 
or copper level in accordance with Sec.  141.80(c)(3)) under this 
subpart if the samples meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) 
of this section. Consumer-requested sampling conducted in accordance 
with Sec.  141.85(c) must be considered if the sample meets the 
requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b). If multiple samples from the 
same site, taken during the same tap sampling period, meet the 
requirements of this section for consideration of the 90th percentile 
calculation, only the highest value from each site can be considered, 
except for systems under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) Water systems sampling at one or more Tier 1 and/or Tier 2 
sites in a tap sampling period that are unable to collect the minimum 
number of samples required in paragraph (c) or (d) of this section from 
Tier 1 or 2 sites must consider the lead and copper values from the 
next highest tier available in accordance with paragraph (a) of this 
section. If a water system has sufficient samples after including the 
samples from the next highest available tier to meet the minimum number 
of samples required in paragraph (c) or (d), the system may not 
consider additional samples from other available lower tiers. Systems 
(or the State) must calculate the 90th percentile lead and copper 
values in accordance with Sec.  141.80(c)(3)(iii) using a total number 
of samples equal to the minimum number of samples required in paragraph 
(c) or (d). Systems must submit all additional sampling results to the 
State that were not used in the 90th percentile calculation.
    (2) Systems (or the State when the State is calculating the 90th 
percentile) cannot include samples collected as part of Distribution 
System and Site Assessment under Sec.  141.82(j)(2) in the 90th 
percentile calculation.
    (3) Systems (or the State when the State is calculating the 90th 
percentile) cannot include follow-up samples collected as a result of 
monitoring after service line replacement under Sec.  141.84(h) in the 
90th percentile calculation.
    (f) Invalidation of lead and copper tap samples used in the 
calculation of the 90th percentile. A sample invalidated under this 
paragraph (f) does not count towards determining lead or copper 90th 
percentile levels under Sec.  141.80(c)(3) or towards meeting the 
minimum monitoring requirements of paragraph (c) or (d) of this 
section. The system must report the results of all samples to the State 
and all supporting documentation for samples the system believes should 
be invalidated.
    (1) The State may invalidate a lead or copper tap water sample if 
at least one of the following conditions is met:
    (i) The laboratory establishes that improper sample analysis caused 
erroneous results.

[[Page 86651]]

    (ii) The State determines that a sample collected for compliance 
purposes under this section, that is not an additional sample collected 
under paragraph (e) of this section, was taken from a site that did not 
meet the site selection criteria under paragraph (a) of this section, 
such as when sites of a higher tier were still available.
    (iii) The State determines the sample was collected in a manner 
that did not meet the sample collection protocol under paragraph (b)(1) 
of this section.
    (iv) The sample container was damaged in transit.
    (v) There is a substantial reason to believe that the sample was 
subject to tampering.
    (2) To invalidate a sample under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, 
the State must document in writing both the decision and the rationale 
for the decision. 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.
    (3) 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)(1) or (d)(1) 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 notifies the system of an 
invalidated sample or by the end of the tap sampling period, whichever 
occurs later. Replacement samples taken after the end of the applicable 
tap sampling period can only be used to meet the monitoring 
requirements of the applicable tap monitoring period in paragraph (c) 
or (d) of this section and not a subsequent tap monitoring period. The 
replacement samples must be taken at the same locations as the 
invalidated samples, except when the sample is invalidated due to an 
error in meeting the site selection criteria under paragraph (a) of 
this section, or a system cannot gain access for sampling. The 
replacement samples must then be taken at locations that meet the site 
selection criteria other than those locations already used for sampling 
during the tap monitoring period.
    (g) Monitoring waivers for systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons. 
Any water system serving 3,300 or fewer persons that meets the criteria 
of this paragraph (g) may apply, in writing, to the State to reduce the 
frequency of monitoring for lead and/or copper to once every nine 
years. The system must meet the materials criteria specified in 
paragraph (g)(1) of this section and the monitoring criteria specified 
in paragraph (g)(2) of this section. Systems meeting only the criteria 
for lead may apply for a lead waiver, systems meeting only the criteria 
for copper may apply for a copper waiver, and systems meeting the 
criteria for both lead and copper may apply for a full 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 (g)(1), as follows:
    (i) Lead. To qualify for a lead waiver, the water system must 
certify and provide supporting documentation to the State that the 
system, including the distribution system and all premise plumbing, 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, galvanized requiring 
replacement service lines, lead connectors, 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 copper waiver, the water system must 
certify and provide supporting documentation to the State that the 
system contains no copper service lines or premise plumbing.
    (2) Monitoring criteria. The system must have completed at least 
one six-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)(1) 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.
    (i) Lead levels. To qualify for 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 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 must notify the 
system of its waiver determination, in writing, setting forth the basis 
of its decision and any condition(s) of an approved waiver. As a 
condition of a waiver, the State may require the system to perform 
specific activities (e.g., limited monitoring, periodic outreach to 
customers to remind them to avoid installing materials that might void 
the waiver) to avoid lead or copper concentrations of concern in tap 
water. The water system must continue monitoring for lead and copper at 
the tap as required by paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, as 
appropriate, until it receives written notification from the State that 
a waiver has been approved.
    (4) Monitoring frequency for systems with waivers. (i) A system 
with a full waiver must conduct tap monitoring for lead and copper in 
accordance with paragraph (d) of this section at least once every nine 
years. A system with a full waiver must provide the State with the 
materials certification specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section 
for both lead and copper when submitting their tap sampling results to 
the State. Samples collected every nine years must be collected no 
later than every ninth calendar year.
    (ii) A system with a lead waiver or copper waiver must conduct tap 
monitoring for only the waived contaminant in accordance with paragraph 
(d) of this section at least once every nine years. A system with a 
lead waiver or copper waiver must provide the State with the materials 
certification specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section for only 
the waived contaminant when submitting their tap sampling results to 
the State. Also, a system must continue to monitor for the non-waived 
contaminant in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (c) and 
(d) of this section, as appropriate.
    (iii) Any water system with a waiver must notify the State in 
writing in accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(4) about any addition of a 
new source water or long-term change in treatment, as described in that 
section. The State may 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 the State deems any modifications are necessary to 
address treatment or source water changes at the system.
    (iv) If a system with a waiver becomes aware that the system 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 must notify the State in writing no later than 60 days after 
becoming aware of such a change.

[[Page 86652]]

    (5) Discontinuation of eligibility. A system with a waiver where 
any of the following conditions occurs is not allowed to continue 
monitoring under its waiver:
    (i) A system with a full waiver or a lead waiver no longer 
satisfies the materials criteria of paragraph (g)(1)(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)(1)(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 waiver 
is revoked may re-apply for a waiver when it meets the appropriate 
materials criteria and monitoring criteria of paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) 
of this section. A system whose waiver is revoked by the State is 
subject to the following corrosion control treatment and lead and 
copper tap water monitoring requirements:
    (i) If the system exceeds the lead and/or copper action level, the 
system must implement or re-optimize OCCT in accordance with the 
deadlines specified in Sec.  141.81, and any other applicable 
requirements of this subpart.
    (ii) If the system is at or below both the lead and copper 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 
sampling sites specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (7) Pre-existing waivers. Waivers approved by the State in writing 
prior to the compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) are still 
in effect if the system has demonstrated that it is both free of lead-
containing and copper-containing materials, as required by paragraph 
(g)(1) 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, and the system does not meet the waiver ineligibility 
criteria of paragraph (g)(5) of this section.
    (h) Publicly accessible tap monitoring results used in the 90th 
percentile calculation. Unless done by the State, all water systems 
must make the tap monitoring results, including data used in the 90th 
percentile calculation under Sec.  141.80(c)(3), publicly accessible 
within 60 days of the end of the tap sampling period. Under this 
paragraph (h), water systems are not required to make the addresses of 
tap sampling sites publicly accessible.
    (1) Large water systems must make the tap monitoring results and 
associated data publicly accessible in a digital format.
    (2) Small and medium water systems must make the tap monitoring 
results and associated data publicly accessible in either a print or 
digital format.
    (3) Water systems must certify to the State, in writing, compliance 
with this paragraph (h) in accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(iii) and 
must retain monitoring data in accordance with the recordkeeping 
requirements under Sec.  141.91.

0
11. Revise Sec.  141.87 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.87  Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.

    All large water systems and all medium water systems with corrosion 
control treatment (unless deemed optimized under Sec.  141.81(b)(3)), 
and all small and medium water systems that exceed the lead action 
level or copper action level must sample and monitor water quality 
parameters in addition to lead and copper in accordance with the 
requirements of this section. Any system may be required to monitor 
water quality parameters as determined by the State, including as 
provided in this section.
    (a) General requirements--(1) Distribution system samples for water 
quality parameters. (i) Distribution system samples collected at water 
taps must be representative of water quality throughout the 
distribution system, considering the number of persons served, the 
different sources of water, the different treatment methods employed by 
the system, and seasonal variability. Sites selected for sampling in 
the distribution system under this section can be the same as or 
different from tap sampling sites targeted for lead and copper sampling 
under Sec.  141.86(a). Systems may consider selecting sites also used 
for total coliform sampling under Sec.  141.21(a)(1). Sites selected 
for sampling in the distribution system under this section must be 
included in the site sample plan specified under Sec.  141.90(a)(1). 
The site sample plan must be updated prior to changes to the sampling 
locations.
    (ii) Samples collected in the distribution system must be analyzed 
for the following parameters, when applicable, as specified:
    (A) pH;
    (B) Alkalinity;
    (C) Orthophosphate (as PO4), when an inhibitor 
containing an orthophosphate compound is used;
    (D) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is 
used; and
    (E) Any parameters specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(a)(1) 
or (f)(6).
    (2) Entry point samples for water quality parameters. (i) Samples 
collected at the entry point(s) to the distribution system must be from 
locations representative of each source water after treatment. If a 
system draws water from more than one source water and the source 
waters are combined before distribution, the system must sample at an 
entry point to the distribution system during periods of normal 
operating conditions when water is representative of all sources 
typically being used.
    (ii) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section for 
ground water systems, the following parameters must be measured at each 
entry point to the distribution system, when applicable, as specified:
    (A) pH;
    (B) When alkalinity is adjusted as part of corrosion control, a 
reading of the dosage rate of the chemical used to adjust alkalinity, 
and the alkalinity concentration;
    (C) When a corrosion inhibitor is used as part of corrosion 
control, a reading of the dosage rate of the inhibitor used, and the 
concentration of orthophosphate (as PO4) or silica 
(whichever is applicable); and
    (D) Any parameters specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(a)(1) 
or (f)(6).
    (b) Standard monitoring for water quality parameters--(1) Number of 
samples--(i) Distribution system samples. Systems must collect two 
distribution system samples for applicable water quality parameters 
during each monitoring period specified under paragraphs (b)(2) through 
(4) of this section from each of the minimum number of sites listed in 
table 1 to this paragraph (b)(1)(i). Systems that collect distribution 
system samples for water quality parameters from additional sites as a 
result of the Distribution System and Site Assessment requirements in 
Sec.  141.82(j) must add those sites to the minimum number of sites 
listed in table 1 to this paragraph (b)(1)(i) up to a maximum of not 
more than twice the minimum number of sites.

                     Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(1)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Minimum number
                                                           of sites for
          System size (number of people served)            water quality
                                                            parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000................................................              25

[[Page 86653]]

 
10,001 to 100,000.......................................              10
3,301 to 10,000.........................................               3
501 to 3,300............................................               2
101 to 500..............................................               1
or State-
designated optimal water quality parameters required to collect entry 
point samples, including as provided in paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this 
section, must collect one entry point sample for each applicable water 
quality parameter at each entry point to the distribution system at 
least once every two weeks during each monitoring period the system is 
required to conduct sampling as specified in paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) 
and (c) of this section.
    (2) Initial sampling for water systems. A large water system 
without corrosion control treatment must begin monitoring for water 
quality parameters as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of 
this section during the first two six-month monitoring periods 
beginning no later than January 1 of the calendar year after the system 
either becomes a large water system or exceeds the practical 
quantitation limit for lead. Any medium water system without corrosion 
control treatment that exceeds the lead action level or the copper 
action level must begin monitoring for applicable distribution system 
and entry point water quality parameters as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(2)(i) and (ii) for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods 
beginning the month immediately following the end of the tap monitoring 
period in which the action level exceedance occurred. Any small water 
system that exceeds the lead or copper action level must begin 
monitoring for applicable distribution system and entry point water 
quality parameters as specified in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) for 
two consecutive six-month monitoring periods beginning the month 
immediately following the end of the tap monitoring period in which the 
action level exceedance occurred. Systems must continue monitoring as 
described by paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) of this section.
    (i) At sites in the distribution system, collect two samples for:
    (A) pH; and
    (B) Alkalinity.
    (ii) At each entry point to the distribution system, collect all 
the applicable parameters listed in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 
section.
    (3) Monitoring after installation of OCCT or re-optimized OCCT. (i) 
A system that modifies or installs OCCT pursuant to Sec.  141.81(d)(5) 
or (e)(5) and is required to conduct follow-up monitoring for lead or 
copper pursuant to Sec.  141.81(d)(6) or (e)(6) must monitor for 
applicable distribution system and entry point water quality parameters 
as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section every six 
months until the State designates new water quality parameter values 
for OCCT pursuant to Sec.  141.82(f). Water systems must collect these 
samples at a regular frequency throughout the six-month monitoring 
period to reflect seasonal variability.
    (ii) Any ground water system can limit entry point sampling 
described in paragraph (a)(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 
(b)(3)(ii), the water system must provide to the State, written 
information and documentation identifying the selected entry points, 
including information on seasonal variability, sufficient to 
demonstrate that the sites are representative of water quality and 
treatment conditions throughout the system.
    (iii) States may require small water systems with corrosion control 
treatment for which the State has not designated optimal water quality 
parameters that do not exceed the lead action level or copper action 
level to conduct water quality parameter monitoring as described in 
this paragraph (b) or the State can develop its own water quality 
parameter monitoring structure for these systems.
    (4) Monitoring by systems with State-designated optimal water 
quality parameter values for OCCT. Monitoring must occur at a regular 
frequency throughout the monitoring period to reflect seasonal 
variability and be consistent with the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (i) Medium water systems with corrosion control treatment and all 
large water systems must sample for the applicable water quality 
parameters designated by the State and determine compliance with the 
requirements of Sec.  141.82(g) every six months with the first six-
month monitoring period to begin on either January 1 or July 1, 
whichever comes first, after the State specifies the optimal values 
under Sec.  141.82(f).
    (ii) A small water system with corrosion control treatment that 
exceeds the lead action level or copper action level must begin 
monitoring during the standard six-month tap monitoring period 
immediately following the tap monitoring period in which the action 
level exceedance(s) occurs and continue monitoring until the water 
system no longer exceeds the lead action level and/or copper action 
level and meets the State-designated optimal water quality parameters 
in two consecutive six-month tap monitoring periods under Sec.  
141.86(c). For any small water system that is subject to a reduced 
monitoring frequency pursuant to Sec.  141.86(d) at the time of the 
action level exceedance, the start of the six-month monitoring period 
under this paragraph (b)(4)(ii) must coincide with the start of the tap 
monitoring period under Sec.  141.86(c).
    (iii) Compliance with State-designated optimal water quality 
parameter values must be determined as specified under Sec.  141.82(g).
    (iv) States have the discretion to require systems described in 
paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section to continue to monitor optimal 
water quality parameters.
    (c) Reduced monitoring. (1) A medium or large water system that 
maintains the range of values for the water quality parameters 
reflecting OCCT specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(f) and does 
not exceed the lead action level or copper action level in either of 
the two consecutive six-month monitoring periods under paragraph (b)(4) 
of this section must collect two distribution system samples for 
applicable water quality parameters specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) 
of this section from each of the minimum number of sites listed in 
table 2 to this paragraph (c)(1) during each six-month monitoring 
period. These water systems must collect these samples at a regular 
frequency throughout the six-month monitoring period to reflect 
seasonal

[[Page 86654]]

variability. A system meeting the requirements of this paragraph (c)(1) 
must continue to monitor at the entry point(s) to the distribution 
system as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. Systems with 
sites added as a result of the Distribution System and Site Assessment 
requirements in Sec.  141.82(j) must continue to sample at the added 
sites up to a maximum of not more than twice the minimum number of 
sites specified in table 1 to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.

                       Table 2 to Paragraph (c)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Reduced
                                                          minimum number
          System size (number of people served)            of sites for
                                                           water quality
                                                            parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000................................................              10
10,001 to 100,000.......................................               7
3,301 to 10,000.........................................               3
501 to 3,300............................................               2
101 to 500..............................................               1
L, that its tap water 
copper level at the 90th percentile is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L 
as calculated in accordance with Sec.  141.80(c)(3), and that it also 
has maintained the range of values for the water quality parameters 
reflecting OCCT specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(f).
    (3) A water system that conducts sampling at taps for water quality 
parameters annually must collect these samples at a regular frequency 
throughout the year to reflect seasonal variability.
    (4) A water system monitoring at a reduced frequency that fails to 
operate at or within the range of values for the optimal water quality 
parameters designated by the State in Sec.  141.82(f) for more than 
nine cumulative days, as specified in Sec.  141.82(g), in any six-month 
period under paragraph (b)(4) of this section must resume distribution 
system sampling in accordance with the number and frequency 
requirements in paragraph (b)(4). Such a system may resume annual 
monitoring for water quality parameters in the distribution system at 
the reduced number of sites specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section after it has completed two subsequent consecutive six-month 
rounds of monitoring that meet the criteria of paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section and/or may resume annual monitoring for water quality 
parameters in the distribution system at the reduced number of sites 
after it demonstrates through subsequent rounds of monitoring that it 
meets the criteria of either paragraph (c)(2)(i) or (ii) of this 
section.
    (5) Any water system monitoring at a reduced frequency that exceeds 
the lead action level or copper action level must resume standard water 
quality parameter monitoring beginning with the six-month period 
immediately following the tap monitoring period in which the action 
level exceedance(s) occurs. When the water system no longer exceeds the 
lead action level and/or copper action level and meets the State-
designated optimal water quality parameters in two consecutive six-
month tap monitoring periods, the system may then reduce monitoring in 
accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (d) Additional monitoring by systems. The results of any monitoring 
conducted in addition to the minimum requirements of this section must 
be considered by the water system and the State in determining 
concentrations of water quality parameters under this section or Sec.  
141.82.

0
12. Amend Sec.  141.90 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) and (4);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraph (e);
0
d. Revising and republishing paragraph (f); and
0
e. Revising paragraphs (g) through (i) and (j)(1) and (2).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  141.90   Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) Reporting requirements for tap monitoring for lead and copper 
and for distribution system and entry point monitoring for water 
quality parameters. (1) By the start of a system's first lead and 
copper tap monitoring period in Sec.  141.86(c) and (d), water systems 
must submit the following to the State:
    (i) A site sample plan, including a list of tap sample site 
locations for lead and copper sampling identified from the inventory in 
Sec.  141.84(a), and a list of tap sampling sites and entry point to 
the distribution system sites for water quality parameter monitoring 
selected under Sec.  141.87(a)(1) and (2). Changes to the site sample 
plan require systems to submit an updated site sample plan to the State 
before the start of the next tap sampling period conducted by the 
system. The State may require modifications to the site sample plan as 
necessary.
    (A) Water systems with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, and/
or lead status unknown service lines in the service line inventory 
conducted under Sec.  141.84(a) and (b) must evaluate the tap sampling 
locations for lead and copper used in their sampling pool prior to the 
start of each tap sampling period, beginning with the compliance date 
specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). Evaluations that result in changes to 
the site sample plan require systems to submit an updated site sample 
plan to the State prior to each tap sampling period conducted by the 
system.
    (B) A water system that cannot identify enough sampling sites with 
premise plumbing made of lead and/or served by lead service lines to 
meet the minimum number of sample sites required in Sec.  141.86(c)(1) 
or (d)(1), as required under Sec.  141.86(a)(3), must submit 
documentation, including documentation of applicable customer refusals 
for sampling, in support of the conclusion that there are an 
insufficient number of available sites with premise plumbing made of 
lead and/or served by lead service lines, prior to the next tap 
sampling period.
    (ii) A copy of the sample collection instructions that are provided 
to individuals who are sampling, which meets the requirements of Sec.  
141.86(b). If the water system seeks to modify its sample collection 
instructions specified in this paragraph (a)(1)(ii), it must submit the 
updated version of the instructions to the State for review prior to 
the next tap sampling period.

[[Page 86655]]

    (2) Notwithstanding the requirements of Sec.  141.31(a), a water 
system must report the information specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
through (vii) of this section, for all lead and copper tap samples 
specified in Sec.  141.86 and for all water quality parameter 
distribution system and entry point samples specified in Sec.  141.87, 
within the first 10 days following the end of each applicable sampling 
period specified in Sec. Sec.  141.86 and 141.87, unless the State has 
specified an earlier reporting requirement. For tap sampling periods 
with a duration less than six months, the end of the sampling period is 
the last date samples can be collected as specified in Sec.  141.86.
    (i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper collected 
during the tap sampling period, including results for both first- and 
fifth-liter samples collected at lead service line sites, the location 
of each site, and the site selection criteria under Sec.  141.86(a)(3) 
and (4) used as the basis for which the site was selected for the water 
system's sampling pool;
    (ii) Documentation for each tap water lead or copper sample for 
which the water system requests invalidation pursuant to Sec.  
141.86(f);
    (iii) With the exception of initial tap sampling conducted pursuant 
to Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(i), a certification that the results of 
monitoring from the tap monitoring period before the applicable tap 
monitoring period described in this paragraph (a)(2) were made publicly 
accessible, as specified in Sec.  141.86(h);
    (iv) The 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations calculated 
from lead and copper tap water samples collected during each tap 
sampling period in accordance with Sec.  141.80(c)(3), unless the State 
calculates the water system's 90th percentile lead and copper levels 
under paragraph (h) of this section;
    (v) With the exception of initial tap sampling conducted pursuant 
to Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(i), the water system must identify any site which 
was not sampled during the tap monitoring period previous to the 
applicable tap monitoring period described in this paragraph (a)(2), 
and include an explanation of why sampling sites have changed;
    (vi) The results of all tap samples for water quality parameters 
that are required to be collected under Sec.  141.87(b) through (d);
    (vii) The results of all samples collected at the entry point(s) to 
the distribution system for applicable water quality parameters under 
Sec.  141.87(b) through (d); and
    (viii) The number of sites from which the system requested customer 
participation for sampling during the tap sampling period and the 
customer was either non-responsive after two attempts or refused to 
participate.
    (3) For a non-transient non-community water system, or a community 
water system meeting the criteria of Sec.  141.85(b)(8), that does not 
have enough taps that can provide first liter or first-and fifth-liter 
paired samples meeting the six-hour minimum stagnation time, the water 
system must either:
    (i) Provide written documentation identifying standing times and 
locations for samples that do not meet the six-hour minimum stagnation 
time to make up a system's sampling pool in order to meet the minimum 
number of sites to sample as required in Sec.  141.86(b)(3) by the 
start of the system's first applicable tap monitoring period under 
Sec.  141.86(c), or if there are changes to the documentation, prior to 
the next tap sampling period, unless the State has waived prior 
approval of sample sites not meeting the six-hour stagnation time 
selected by the water system pursuant to Sec.  141.86(b)(3); or
    (ii) If the State has waived prior approval of sample sites not 
meeting the six-hour stagnation time selected by the system, identify, 
in writing, each site that did not meet the six-hour minimum stagnation 
time and the length of standing time for that particular substitute 
sample collected pursuant to Sec.  141.86(b)(3) and include this 
information with the lead and copper tap sample results required to be 
submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section.
    (4) At a time specified by the State, or if no specific time is 
designated, as early as possible but no later than six months prior to 
the addition of a new source or any long-term change in water 
treatment, a water system must submit written documentation describing 
the addition of a new source or long-term change in treatment to the 
State. Systems may not implement the addition of a new source or long-
term treatment change without State approval. The State must review and 
approve the addition of a new source or a long-term change in water 
treatment before it can be implemented by the water system. The State 
may require any such water system to take actions before or after the 
addition of a new source or long-term treatment change to ensure that 
the water system will operate and maintain optimal corrosion control 
treatment, such as additional water quality parameter monitoring, 
additional lead or copper tap sampling, and re-evaluating corrosion 
control treatment. Examples of long-term treatment changes include but 
are not limited to the addition of a new treatment process or 
modification of an existing treatment process. Examples of 
modifications include switching secondary disinfectants, switching 
coagulants (e.g., alum to ferric chloride), and switching corrosion 
inhibitor products (e.g., orthophosphate to blended phosphate). Long-
term treatment changes can also include dose changes to existing 
chemicals if the system is planning long-term changes to its finished 
water pH or residual inhibitor concentration. Long-term treatment 
changes would not include chemical dose fluctuations associated with 
daily raw water quality changes where a new source has not been added.
    (5) Any system serving 3,300 or fewer persons applying for a 
monitoring waiver under Sec.  141.86(g), or subject to a waiver granted 
pursuant to Sec.  141.86(g)(3), must provide the following information 
to the State in writing by the specified deadline:
    (i) By the start of the system's first applicable tap monitoring 
period in Sec.  141.86(c) and (d), any water system applying for a 
monitoring waiver must provide the documentation required to 
demonstrate that it meets the waiver criteria of Sec.  141.86(g)(1) and 
(2) to the State.
    (ii) Prior to the beginning of each tap monitoring period in which 
the system desires to maintain its monitoring waiver pursuant to Sec.  
141.86(g)(2) or (4), the system must provide the information required 
by Sec.  141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii) to the State.
    (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 system with a monitoring waiver must provide written 
notification to the State setting forth the circumstances resulting in 
the lead-containing and/or copper-containing materials being discovered 
in the system and what corrective action, if any, the system plans to 
take to remove these materials.
    (6) Each ground water system that limits water quality parameter 
monitoring to a subset of entry points under Sec.  141.87(b)(3)(ii) 
must 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.
    (b) Source water monitoring reporting requirements. A water system 
must

[[Page 86656]]

report the following within the first 10 days following the end of each 
source water monitoring period (i.e., annually, per compliance period, 
per compliance cycle) specified in Sec.  141.88.
    (1) The sampling results for all source water samples collected in 
accordance with Sec.  141.88.
    (2) With the exception of the first round of source water sampling 
conducted pursuant to Sec.  141.88(b), the system must specify any site 
which was not sampled during the previous monitoring period, and 
include an explanation of why the sampling point has changed.
    (c) * * *
    (1) For water systems demonstrating that they have already 
optimized OCCT without optimized water quality parameters set by the 
State, information required in Sec.  141.81(b)(1) through (3).
* * * * *
    (4) For systems required to install OCCT or re-optimized OCCT 
designated by the State under Sec.  141.82(d), a letter certifying that 
the system has completed installing that treatment.
    (5) For systems not required to complete the corrosion control 
treatment steps under Sec.  141.81(f), a letter certifying that the 
system has completed the mandatory service line replacement program or 
that the system has met the minimum annual replacement rate calculated 
under Sec.  141.81(f)(1)(ii).
* * * * *
    (e) Service line inventory and replacement reporting requirements. 
For the purposes of this paragraph (e), the first mandatory service 
line replacement ``program year'' is from the compliance date specified 
in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) to the end of the next calendar year, where every 
program year afterwards is on a calendar year basis. Water systems must 
report the following information to the State to demonstrate compliance 
with the requirements of Sec.  141.84:
    (1) No later than October 16, 2024, the water system must submit an 
initial inventory of service lines as required in Sec.  141.84(a)(1), 
including the following:
    (i) The number of lead service lines in the initial inventory;
    (ii) The number of galvanized requiring replacement service lines 
in the initial inventory;
    (iii) The number of lead status unknown service lines in the 
initial inventory; and
    (iv) Where ownership of the service line is shared, the system must 
report the information in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section counting each full service line only once.
    (2) No later than the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), the 
water system must submit to the State a baseline inventory of service 
lines and connectors as required in Sec.  141.84(a)(2) through (4), 
including the following:
    (i) The total number of lead service lines in the baseline 
inventory;
    (ii) The total number of galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines in the baseline inventory;
    (iii) The total number of lead status unknown service lines in the 
baseline inventory;
    (iv) The total number of non-lead service lines in the baseline 
inventory;
    (v) The total number of lead connectors in the baseline inventory;
    (vi) The total number of connectors of unknown material in the 
baseline inventory; and
    (vii) Where ownership of the service line is shared, the system 
must report the information in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) through (vi) of 
this section counting each full service line only once.
    (3) Any water system that has inventoried one or more lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service lines 
in its distribution system must:
    (i) No later than the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), submit 
a service line replacement plan as specified in Sec.  141.84(c) to the 
State.
    (ii) By January 30 after the end of the first program year, and 
annually by January 30 thereafter, certify to the State that there have 
been no updates to the service line replacement plan or, if there have 
been updates, submit an updated service line replacement plan. A water 
system may provide instructions on how to access the updated plan 
online instead of providing the entire updated plan to the State.
    (iii) Systems replacing service lines under a schedule based on the 
deferred deadlines criteria in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi) must also meet 
the requirements described in Sec.  141.84(c)(3) for submitting 
information to the State.
    (4) The water system must provide the State with an updated 
inventory by January 30 after the end of the first program year, and 
annually by January 30 thereafter. The updated inventory must conform 
with inventory requirements under Sec.  141.84(a) and (b). A water 
system must provide the information regarding service line material 
identification and replacement as specified in Sec.  141.84(b)(2)(iv) 
if providing instructions on how to access the updated inventory online 
instead of providing a fixed copy of the entire updated inventory as 
described in Sec.  141.84(b) to the State.
    (i) When the water system has demonstrated that its inventory does 
not contain lead, galvanized requiring replacement, and lead status 
unknown service lines, and known lead connectors and connectors of 
unknown material, it is no longer required to submit inventory updates 
to the State, except as required in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this 
section.
    (ii) In the case that a water system meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section subsequently discovers any lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines or lead connectors in 
its distribution system, it must notify the State within 60 days of 
discovering the service line(s) and connector(s) and prepare an updated 
inventory in accordance with Sec.  141.84(b) on a schedule established 
by the State.
    (5) By January 30 after the end of the first program year, and 
annually by January 30 thereafter, the water system must certify to the 
State that it replaced any encountered lead connectors in accordance 
with Sec.  141.84(e) or that it encountered no lead connectors during 
the calendar year.
    (6) By January 30 after the end of the first program year, and 
annually by January 30 thereafter, the water system must certify to the 
State that it conducted the notification and mitigation requirements 
for any partial and full service line replacements in accordance with 
Sec.  141.84(h) or that it conducted no replacements of lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines during the calendar 
year.
    (7) The water system must provide the following information about 
customer-initiated lead and galvanized requiring replacement service 
line replacements:
    (i) By January 30 after the end of the first program year, and 
annually by January 30 thereafter, the water system must certify that 
it completed all customer-initiated lead and galvanized requiring 
replacement service line replacements in accordance with Sec.  
141.84(f).
    (ii) If the water system cannot meet the 45-day deadline to 
complete a customer-initiated lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line replacement pursuant to Sec.  141.84(f), it must notify 
the State within 30 days following the replacement deadline.
    (8) By January 30 after the end of the first program year, and 
annually by January 30 thereafter, water systems conducting mandatory 
service line replacement pursuant to Sec.  141.84(d) must submit the 
following information to the State:
    (i) The following information from the most recent updated 
inventory submitted under paragraph (e)(4) of this section, in 
accordance with table 2 to Sec.  141.84(d)(6)(iii)(A):

[[Page 86657]]

    (A) The total number of lead service lines in the inventory;
    (B) The total number of galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines in the inventory;
    (C) The total number of lead status unknown service lines in the 
inventory;
    (D) The total number of non-lead service lines in the inventory;
    (E) The total number of lead connectors in the inventory;
    (F) The total number of connectors of unknown material in the 
inventory; and
    (G) Where ownership of the service line is shared, the system must 
report the information in paragraphs (e)(8)(i)(A) through (F) of this 
section counting each full service line only once;
    (ii) The total number of full lead service line replacements and 
full galvanized requiring replacement service line replacements that 
have been conducted in the preceding program year and the address 
associated with each replaced service line;
    (iii) The total number of partial lead service line replacements 
and partial galvanized requiring replacement service line replacements 
that have been conducted in the preceding program year and the address 
associated with each partially replaced service line;
    (iv) The total number of lead connectors that have been replaced or 
removed in each preceding program year and the address associated with 
each replaced or removed lead connector;
    (v) The number of service lines in the replacement pool updated at 
the beginning of the preceding program year in accordance with Sec.  
141.84(d)(6)(i);
    (vi) The total number of lead status unknown service lines 
determined to be non-lead in the preceding program year;
    (vii) The address of each non-lead service line discovered in the 
preceding program year to be a lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line and the method(s) originally used to categorize the 
material of the service line;
    (viii) The applicable deadline for completion of service line 
replacement and the expected date of completion of service line 
replacement; and
    (ix) The total number of lead and galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines not replaced because the system does not have access to 
conduct full service line replacement.
    (9) Systems validating service line inventories pursuant to Sec.  
141.84(b)(5) must submit a list of the locations of any non-lead 
service lines identified to be a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line as well as the method(s) used to categorize 
the service lines as a result of the assessment. The system must submit 
the specific version (including the date) of the service line inventory 
used to determine the number of non-lead service lines used when the 
number of non-lead service lines in the validation pool was determined. 
The system may not use an inventory older than the inventory update 
that was submitted to the State pursuant to Sec.  141.84(b)(2)(iv) at 
the start of the year in which the validation pool was determined. The 
information must be submitted no later than January 30 following seven 
years after the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) unless otherwise 
specified by the State in accordance with Sec.  141.84(b)(5)(iv). 
Documentation of previous validation efforts may be submitted by the 
compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) for approval by the State as 
described in Sec.  141.84(b)(5)(vi).
    (10) By January 30 after the end of the first program year, and 
annually by January 30 thereafter, the water system must submit to the 
State documentation of the reasons for each service line not replaced 
due to lack of access in accordance with Sec.  141.84(d)(2). The system 
must also submit to the State documentation of each reasonable effort 
conducted where the system was not able to obtain property owner 
consent in accordance with Sec.  141.84(d)(3) where consent is required 
by State or local law.
    (11) [Reserved]
    (12) Any system that collects samples following a partial or full 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement 
required by Sec.  141.84(h)(1)(iv) or (h)(3)(iv) must report the 
results to the State within the first ten days following the month in 
which the system receives the results or as specified by the State. 
Systems must 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 and galvanized requiring replacement service line 
replacement activities have taken place.
    (13) By January 30 after the end of the first program year, and 
annually by January 30 thereafter, the water system must certify to the 
State that it offered to inspect service lines that consumers who 
suspected the inventory incorrectly categorized their service line 
material within 30 days of receiving the customer notification in 
accordance with Sec.  141.84(b)(4).
    (f) Public education program reporting requirements. (1) Any water 
system conducting public education requirements in Sec.  141.85 must 
submit a copy of all written public education materials to the State 
prior to delivery. The State may require the system to obtain approval 
of the content of written public education materials prior to delivery 
in accordance with Sec.  141.85(a)(1).
    (2) Any water system that is subject to the public education 
requirements in Sec.  141.85 must, within 10 days after the end of each 
period in which the system is required to perform public education in 
accordance with Sec.  141.85(b), send written documentation to the 
State that contains:
    (i) The public education materials that were delivered, and a 
statement certifying that the water system has delivered the public 
education materials that meet the content requirements in Sec.  
141.85(a) and the delivery requirements in Sec.  141.85(b); 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. Unless required 
by the State, a system that previously has submitted this information 
need not resubmit it 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.
    (3) Each water system must send an example copy of the consumer 
notification of tap results to the State along with a certification 
that the notification has been distributed in a manner consistent with 
the requirements of Sec.  141.85(d), according to the schedule as 
follows:
    (i) No later than three months following the end of the tap 
sampling period, for tap samples used to calculate the 90th percentile 
value as described in Sec.  141.86, an example copy of the consumer 
notification provided and a certification that the notification has 
been distributed in a manner consistent with the requirements of Sec.  
141.85(d).
    (ii) Annually by January 30, for tap samples from the previous 
program year that are not included in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this 
section, including, but not limited to consumer-requested samples 
outside the tap sampling period for systems on reduced monitoring, an 
example copy of the consumer notification provided and a certification 
that the notification has been distributed in a manner consistent with 
the requirements of Sec.  141.85(d).
    (4) Annually by January 30, the water system must certify to the 
State that it delivered annual notification and service line 
information materials to customers and all persons served by the water 
system at the service connection

[[Page 86658]]

with a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown 
service line in accordance with Sec.  141.85(e) for the previous 
calendar year. The water system must also provide an example copy of 
the notification and information materials for lead, galvanized 
requiring replacement, and lead status unknown service lines to the 
State.
    (5) [Reserved]
    (6) Annually by January 30, the water system must certify to the 
State that it delivered notification to affected customers and the 
persons served by the water system at the service connection and 
complied with the filter requirements after any disturbance of a 
service line known to contain or potentially containing lead in 
accordance with Sec.  141.85(f) for the previous calendar year, or that 
the water system has not caused any disturbance of a service line known 
to contain or potentially contain lead, during the preceding year. The 
water system must also submit an example copy of the notification to 
the State. Water systems that are required to provide filters under 
Sec.  141.85(f) must also report the number of sites with disturbances 
that require filters as specified under Sec.  141.85(f) and number of 
filters provided.
    (7) Annually by January 30, the water system must certify to the 
State that it conducted an outreach activity in accordance with Sec.  
141.85(h) when it does not meet the service line replacement rate as 
specified in Sec.  141.84(d) for the previous calendar year. The water 
system must also submit a copy to the State of the outreach materials 
provided.
    (8) Annually by January 30, the water system must certify to the 
State that it delivered the required distribution system and site 
assessment information and public education materials to the State and 
local health departments for the previous calendar year in accordance 
with Sec.  141.85(i).
    (9) No later than 60 days after a water system exceeds the lead 
action level for the second time in a rolling five-year period, the 
system must submit a filter plan to the State as specified in Sec.  
141.85(j)(3). Thereafter, a system is not required to resubmit a filter 
plan unless requested by the State or if the system has made updates to 
its plan.
    (10) Every six months, specifically by January 30 and July 30, any 
water system that meets the criteria of multiple lead action level 
exceedances in Sec.  141.85(j)(1) must:
    (i) Certify compliance with the filter requirements in the previous 
six months (the previous July through December for January 30 reports 
and the previous January through June for July 30 reports) in 
accordance with Sec.  141.85(j)(2) and report the number of filters 
provided; and
    (ii) Certify that the water system completed a public outreach 
activity in the previous six months (the previous July through December 
for January 30 reports and the previous January through June for July 
30 reports) in accordance with Sec.  141.85(j)(4) and submit a copy of 
the public education materials provided to consumers.
    (g) Reporting of additional monitoring data. (1) Any water system 
which collects more samples than the minimum required, must report the 
results to the State within the first 10 days following the end of the 
applicable monitoring period under Sec. Sec.  141.86, 141.87, and 
141.88 during which the samples are collected. This includes the 
monitoring data pertaining to distribution system and site assessment 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  141.82(j) and 141.86(b)(1)(iv).
    (2) The system must certify to the State the number of customer 
refusals or non-responses for follow-up sampling under Sec.  
141.82(j)(2) it received and documentation explaining why it was unable 
to collect a follow-up sample, within the first 10 days following the 
end of the applicable tap monitoring period in which an individual 
sample exceeded the action level.
    (h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations 
where the State calculates a water system's 90th percentile 
concentrations. A water system is not required to report the 90th 
percentile lead and copper concentrations measured from all lead and 
copper tap water samples collected during each tap sampling period, as 
required by paragraph (a)(2)(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 the water system 
provides the results of lead and copper tap water samples no later than 
10 days after the end of the applicable tap sampling period; and
    (2) The system has provided the following information to the State 
by the date specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
    (i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper including 
the location of each site and the site selection criteria under Sec.  
141.86(a)(4) used as the basis for which the site was selected for the 
water system's sampling pool; and
    (ii) An identification of sampling sites utilized during the 
current monitoring period that were not sampled during previous 
monitoring periods, and an explanation of 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 within 15 days 
of the end of the tap sampling period.
    (i) Reporting requirements for a community water system's public 
education and sampling in schools and child care facilities. (1) A 
community water system must provide a list of the schools and child 
care facilities they serve, or provide certification that no schools or 
child care facilities are served, to the State by the compliance date 
in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) in accordance with Sec.  141.92(b)(1). A water 
system that certifies that no schools or child care facilities are 
served by the water system is not required to report the information in 
paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of this section. Annually by January 30, 
beginning one year after the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), the 
system must certify that there are no schools or child care facilities 
served by the water system. When the system becomes aware of one or 
more schools or child care facilities that it serves, it must provide a 
list to the State and begin to report the information in paragraphs 
(i)(2) and (3) of this section.
    (2) A community water system must report the lead analytical 
sampling results for schools and child care facilities within 30 days 
of receipt of the results in accordance with Sec.  141.92(g)(1)(iii).
    (3) Beginning one year after the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), a community water system must send a report to the State 
annually by January 30 for the previous year's activity as calculated 
from the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). The report must include 
the following:
    (i) Certification that the water system made a good faith effort to 
identify schools and child care facilities in accordance with Sec.  
141.92(b). The good faith effort may include reviewing customer records 
and requesting lists of schools and child care facilities from the 
State or other licensing agency. If there are changes to the list of 
schools and child care facilities that a water system serves, an 
updated list must be submitted at least once every five years in 
accordance with Sec.  141.92(b)(2). If there are no changes to the list 
of schools or child care facilities the water system serves, the water 
system must certify there are no changes to the list.

[[Page 86659]]

    (ii) Certification that the water system has delivered information 
about health risks from lead in drinking water to the school and child 
care facilities that they serve in accordance with Sec.  141.92(c)(1).
    (iii) During the first five years after the compliance date in 
Sec.  141.80(a)(3), certification that the water system has completed 
the notification and sampling requirements in Sec.  141.92(c)(2)(i) and 
(d)(1) for elementary schools and child care facilities and the 
information in paragraphs (i)(3)(iii)(A) through (E) of this section.
    (A) The number and names of schools and child care facilities 
served by the water system;
    (B) The number and names of schools and child care facilities 
sampled in the previous year;
    (C) The number and names of elementary schools and child care 
facilities that declined sampling;
    (D) The number and names of elementary schools and child care 
facilities that did not respond to outreach attempts for sampling; and
    (E) Information pertaining to outreach attempts for sampling that 
were declined or not responded to by the elementary school or child 
care facility.
    (iv) During the first five years after the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), certification that the water system has completed the 
notification and sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92(c)(2)(ii) and 
(e) for secondary schools and the information in paragraphs 
(i)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section.
    (v) Starting with the sixth year after the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), the water system must certify completion of the 
notification requirements of Sec.  141.92(c)(3) and sampling 
requirements of Sec.  141.92(d)(2) in elementary schools and child care 
facilities and Sec.  141.92(e) for secondary schools and the 
information in paragraphs (i)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, 
thereafter.
    (vi) Certification that sampling results were provided to schools, 
child care facilities, and local and State health departments.
    (j) * * *
    (1) Small water systems serving 3,300 or fewer and non-transient 
non-community water systems implementing the point-of-use device option 
under Sec.  141.93(c)(1), must report the results from the tap sampling 
required under Sec.  141.93(c)(1)(iv) no later than 10 days after the 
end of the tap sampling period. If corrective action is not completed 
within 30 days of a POU sample exceeding 0.010 mg/L, the system must 
provide documentation to the State within 30 days explaining why it was 
unable to correct the issue. Unless waived by the State, the water 
system must provide documentation to certify maintenance of the point-
of-use devices.
    (2) Small water systems serving 3,300 or fewer and non-transient 
non-community water systems implementing the small system compliance 
flexibility option to replace all lead-bearing plumbing under Sec.  
141.93(c)(2) must provide certification to the State that all lead-
bearing material has been replaced on the schedule established by the 
State, within one year of designation of the option under Sec.  
141.93(c)(2).

0
13. Revise Sec.  141.92 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.92   Monitoring for lead in schools and child care 
facilities.

    (a) General requirements. (1) All community water systems must 
conduct public education and lead monitoring at the schools and child 
care facilities they serve unless those schools or child care 
facilities:
    (i) Were constructed or had full plumbing replacement on or after 
January 1, 2014, or the date the State adopted standards that meet the 
definition of lead free in accordance with section 1417 of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, as amended by the Reduction of Lead in Drinking 
Water Act, whichever is earlier; and
    (ii) Are not served by a lead, a galvanized requiring replacement, 
or an unknown service line.
    (2) The provisions of this section do not apply to a school or 
child care facility that is regulated as a public water system.
    (b) List of schools and child care facilities. (1) All community 
water systems must compile a list of schools and child care facilities 
they serve that meet the criteria of paragraph (a) of this section and 
submit the list to the State in accordance with Sec.  141.90(i)(1) by 
the compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3).
    (2) Within five years following the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3) and at least once every five-year period after, all 
community water systems must either certify in writing to the State 
there have been no changes to the list of schools and child care 
facilities or submit a revised list to the State in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(i)(3)(i).
    (c) Public education to schools and child care facilities. (1) At 
least once a year beginning with the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), community water systems must contact all schools and 
child care facilities identified by the system in paragraph (b) of this 
section to provide information about the health risks from lead in 
drinking water consistent with the content requirements of Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) and (vi).
    (2) Within the first five years following the compliance date in 
Sec.  141.80(a)(3), community water systems must:
    (i) Notify elementary schools and child care facilities, in 
accordance with the frequency requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section, that they are eligible to be sampled for lead by the water 
system. This notice must include:
    (A) A proposed schedule for sampling at the facility; and
    (B) Information about sampling for lead in schools and child care 
facilities (EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA-
815-B-18-007, or subsequent EPA guidance).
    (ii) Notify all secondary schools identified in paragraph (b) of 
this section at least once a year that they are eligible to be sampled 
for lead by the community water system on request. The notice must 
provide:
    (A) Information on how to request sampling for lead at the 
facility; and
    (B) Information about sampling for lead in schools and child care 
facilities (EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA-
815-B-18-007, or subsequent EPA guidance).
    (3) Starting with the sixth year after the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), a community water system must contact all elementary 
schools, secondary schools, and child care facilities identified in 
paragraph (b) of this section to notify them that they are eligible to 
be sampled for lead by the community water system on request and 
provide the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (4) Thirty days prior to any sampling event, community water 
systems must provide schools and child care facilities with 
instructions to identify outlets for lead sampling and prepare for a 
sampling event.
    (d) Frequency of sampling at elementary schools and child care 
facilities. (1) Within the first five years following the compliance 
date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), community water systems must collect 
samples from at least 20 percent of the total of elementary schools 
served by the system per year and at least 20 percent of the total of 
child care facilities served by the system per year, or according to an 
alternative schedule approved by the State, until all elementary 
schools and child care facilities identified under paragraph (b) of 
this section have been sampled once or have declined to participate or 
are non-responsive.

[[Page 86660]]

    (i) Community water systems must provide documentation to the State 
in accordance with Sec.  141.90(i)(3)(iii)(D) and (E) if an elementary 
school or child care facility is non-responsive or otherwise declines 
to participate in the monitoring or education requirements of this 
section. For the purposes of this section:
    (A) A community water system may consider an elementary school or 
child care facility non-responsive after the community water system 
makes at least two separate outreach attempts to contact the facility 
to schedule sampling and does not receive any response on either 
attempt; and
    (B) A community water system may count a refusal or non-response 
from an elementary school or child care facility as part of the minimum 
20 percent of elementary schools and child care facilities sampled per 
year.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) Starting with the sixth year after the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), community water systems must conduct sampling as 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section when requested by an 
elementary school or child care facility.
    (i) A community water system is not required under this paragraph 
(d)(2) to sample more than 20 percent of the elementary schools and 
child care facilities identified in paragraph (b) of this section in 
any given year. A community water system is not required under this 
paragraph (d)(2) to sample an individual elementary school or child 
care facility more than once in any five-year period.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) The first time a water system includes an elementary school or 
child care facility in an update to the list of schools and child care 
facilities required to be submitted to the State in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, the water system must conduct outreach at those 
elementary schools and child care facilities as specified in paragraph 
(c)(2) of this section once prior to conducting sampling in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
    (i) A community water system may consider an elementary school or 
child care facility non-responsive after the community water system 
makes at least two separate outreach attempts to contact the facility 
to schedule sampling and does not receive any response on either 
attempt.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (e) Frequency of sampling at secondary schools. (1) Starting with 
the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), community water systems must 
conduct sampling as specified in paragraph (f) of this section when 
requested by a secondary school.
    (2) A community water system is not required under this paragraph 
(e) to sample more than 20 percent of the secondary schools identified 
in paragraph (b) of this section in any given year. A community water 
system is not required under this paragraph (e) to sample an individual 
secondary school more than once in any five-year period.
    (f) Lead sampling protocol for schools and child care facilities. 
(1) Community water systems must collect five samples per school and 
two samples per child care facility at outlets typically used to 
provide water for human consumption. Except as provided in paragraphs 
(f)(1)(iii) through (v) of this section, the outlets cannot have point-
of-use devices. The community water system must sample the following 
types and number of outlets:
    (i) For schools, two drinking water fountains, one kitchen faucet 
used for drinking or cooking, one classroom faucet or other outlet used 
to provide water for human consumption, and one nurse's office faucet, 
as available.
    (ii) For child care facilities, one drinking water fountain, and 
one of either a kitchen faucet used for drinking or cooking or one 
classroom faucet or other outlet used to provide water for human 
consumption.
    (iii) If any school or child care facility has fewer than the 
required number of outlets, the community water system must sample all 
outlets used to provide water for human consumption.
    (iv) The community water system may sample at outlets with point-
of-use devices if the facility has point-of-use devices installed on 
all outlets typically used to provide water for human consumption of if 
the school or child care facility has fewer than the required number of 
outlets.
    (v) If any school or child care facility does not contain the type 
of outlet listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section, 
the community water system must collect a sample from another outlet 
typically used to provide water for human consumption as identified by 
the facility, to meet the required number of samples as provided in 
this paragraph (f)(1).
    (2) Community water systems must collect the samples from the cold 
water tap subject to the following additional requirements:
    (i) Each sample for lead must be a first draw sample;
    (ii) The sample must be 250 ml in volume;
    (iii) The water must have remained stationary in the plumbing 
system of the sampling site (building) for at least 8 but no more than 
18 hours; and
    (iv) Samples must be analyzed using acidification and the 
corresponding analytical methods in Sec.  141.89.
    (3) Community water system, school, or child care facility staff, 
or other appropriately trained individuals must collect samples in 
accordance with paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (g) Notification of results. (1) Community water systems must 
provide sampling results, regardless of lead sample concentration, as 
soon as practicable but no later than 30 days after receipt of the 
results to:
    (i) The sampled school or child care facility, along with 
information about potential options to remediate lead in drinking water 
(consistent with EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit, 
EPA-815-B-18-007, or subsequent EPA guidance);
    (ii) The local and State health department; and
    (iii) The State in accordance with Sec.  141.90(i).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (h) Alternative school and child care lead sampling programs. (1) 
If schools and child care facilities served by a community water system 
are sampled for lead in drinking water under a State or local law or 
program, the State may exempt one or more community water system(s) 
from the sampling requirements of this section by issuing a written 
waiver:
    (i) If the sampling meets the frequency requirements in paragraph 
(d) of this section for elementary schools and child care facilities 
and paragraph (e) of this section for secondary schools and the 
protocol requirements in paragraph (f) of this section; or
    (ii) If the sampling meets the frequency requirements in paragraph 
(d) of this section for elementary schools and child care facilities 
and paragraph (e) of this section for secondary schools and the 
protocol requirements in paragraph (f) of this section with the 
exception of sample size and stagnation time in paragraphs (f)(2)(ii) 
and (iii) of this section and the sampling is conducted in addition to 
any of the following actions to remediate lead in drinking water:
    (A) Disconnect affected fixtures;
    (B) Replace affected fixtures with fixtures certified as lead free; 
and
    (C) Install and maintain point-of-use devices certified by an 
American National Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce 
lead levels; or
    (iii) If the sampling is conducted in schools and child care 
facilities served by the community water system less frequently than 
once every five years

[[Page 86661]]

and that sampling is conducted in addition to any of the actions to 
remediate lead in drinking water specified in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of 
this section; or
    (iv) If the school or child care facility maintains point-of-use 
devices as defined in Sec.  141.2 on all outlets used to provide water 
for human consumption; or
    (v) If the sampling is conducted under a grant awarded under 
section 1464(d) of the SDWA, consistent with the requirements of the 
grant and at least the minimum number of samples required in paragraph 
(f) of this section are collected.
    (2) The duration of the waiver cannot exceed the time period 
covered by the sampling and will automatically expire at the end of any 
12-month period during which sampling is not conducted at the required 
number of schools or child care facilities.
    (3) The State must only issue a waiver to the community water 
system for the subset of the schools or child care facilities served by 
the system as designated under paragraph (b) of this section that are 
sampled under an alternative program as described in paragraph (h)(1) 
of this section.
    (4) The State may issue a written waiver applicable to more than 
one community water system (e.g., one waiver for all community water 
systems subject to a statewide sampling program that meets the 
requirements of this paragraph (h)).
    (5) The State may issue a waiver for community water systems to 
conduct the sampling requirements of this section for the first five 
years following the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) in the 
schools and child care facilities that were sampled for lead between 
January 1, 2021, and the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) that 
otherwise meets the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this section.

0
14. Revise Sec.  141.93 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.93   Small water system compliance flexibility.

    Small community water systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons and 
all non-transient non-community water systems that exceed the lead 
action level, but do not exceed the copper action level, may elect to 
use this provision in lieu of the corrosion control treatment 
requirements otherwise applicable to small systems and non-transient 
non-community water systems in Sec.  141.81(a)(3), if approved by the 
State. This compliance flexibility is not available to water systems 
where the State has obtained primacy for this subpart and the State 
does not adopt regulations to provide compliance flexibility consistent 
with this section.
    (a) Small community water systems and non-transient non-community 
water systems that elect to use this section must:
    (1) For water systems with corrosion control, collect water quality 
parameters in accordance with Sec.  141.87 and, if the system has not 
re-optimized OCCT in accordance with Sec.  141.81(d), evaluate 
compliance options in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section and 
corrosion control treatment under Sec.  141.81(d)(1). Water systems 
with corrosion control treatment in place must continue to operate and 
maintain optimal corrosion control treatment until the State 
determines, in writing, that it is no longer necessary, and meet any 
requirements that the State determines to be appropriate before 
implementing a State approved alternative compliance option described 
in this section.
    (2) For systems without corrosion control, collect water quality 
parameters in accordance with Sec.  141.87 and, if the system has not 
installed OCCT in accordance with Sec.  141.81(e), evaluate compliance 
options in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section and corrosion 
control treatment under Sec.  141.81(e)(1).
    (b) The system must make a compliance option recommendation to the 
State within six months of the end of the tap sampling period in which 
the lead action level exceedance occurred. Within six months of the 
recommendation by the water system, the State must approve or 
disapprove the recommendation. If the State disapproves the 
recommendation, the State may designate the other compliance 
alternative as an option for the system. If the State does not 
designate the other compliance alternative as an option for the system, 
the system must comply with the otherwise applicable corrosion control 
treatment requirements under Sec.  141.81(d) for systems with corrosion 
control or Sec.  141.81(e) for systems without corrosion control 
treatment. Water systems must follow the schedules in Sec.  141.81(d) 
or (e), beginning with step 3 in Sec.  141.81(d)(3) or (e)(3) unless 
the State specifies optimal corrosion control treatment pursuant to 
either Sec.  141.81(d)(2) or (e)(2), as applicable. If the system fails 
to implement the approved alternative compliance option, or the State 
revokes approval for the alternative compliance option, then the system 
must follow the requirements for small and non-transient non-community 
water systems as described under Sec.  141.81(a)(3).
    (c)(1) Alternative compliance option: point-of-use devices. A water 
system that elects the compliance option in this paragraph (c)(1), must 
install, maintain, and monitor POU devices in each household and each 
building served by the water system.
    (i)(A) A community water system must install a minimum of one POU 
device (at one tap) in every household and at every tap that is used 
for cooking and/or drinking in every non-residential building in its 
distribution system on a schedule specified by the State, but not to 
exceed one year after State approval.
    (B) A non-transient non-community water system must provide a POU 
device to every tap that is used for cooking and/or drinking on a 
schedule specified by the State, but not to exceed three months.
    (ii) The POU device must be independently certified by a third 
party to meet the American National Standards Institute standard 
applicable to the specific type of POU unit to reduce lead in drinking 
water.
    (iii) The POU device must be maintained by the water system in 
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations or on a more 
frequent schedule if required by the State to ensure continued 
effective filtration, including but not limited to changing filter 
cartridges and resolving any operational issues. The POU device must be 
equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that consumers are 
automatically notified of operational problems. The water system must 
provide documentation to the State to certify maintenance of the POU 
devices, unless the State waives this requirement, in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(j)(1).
    (iv) The water system must monitor, in accordance with this 
paragraph (c)(1)(iv), one-third of the POU devices each year and all 
POU devices must be monitored within a three-year cycle. First liter 
tap samples collected under this section must be taken after water 
passes through the POU device to assess its performance. Samples must 
be one liter in volume and have had a minimum 6-hour stagnation time. 
All samples must be at or below 0.010 mg/L. Water systems must report 
the results from the tap sampling no later than 10 days after the end 
of the tap sampling period in accordance with Sec.  141.90(j)(1). If a 
sample exceeds 0.010 mg/L, the water system must notify the persons 
served by the POU device, and/or building management no later than one 
business day of receiving the tap sample results. The system must 
document and take corrective action at each site where the sample 
result exceeds the lead action level. Corrective action must be 
completed within 30 days. If the

[[Page 86662]]

corrective action is not completed within 30 days, the system must 
provide documentation to the State within 30 days explaining why it was 
unable to correct the issue.
    (v) The water system must provide public education to consumers to 
inform them of proper use of POU devices.
    (A) Content. All small community water systems serving 3,300 or 
fewer persons and non-transient non-community water systems that are 
approved to implement POU devices under this paragraph (c)(1) must 
provide public education materials to inform users how to properly use 
POU devices to maximize the units' effectiveness in reducing lead 
levels in drinking water. Public education materials must meet the 
requirements of Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv).
    (B) Timing. Water systems must provide the public education 
materials at the time of POU device delivery.
    (C) Delivery. Water systems must provide the public education 
materials in person, by mail, or by another method approved by the 
State, to persons at locations where the system has delivered POU 
devices.
    (vi) The water system must operate and maintain the POU devices 
even if the system is at or below the action level in future tap 
monitoring periods until the system receives State approval to select 
the other compliance flexibility option or follow Sec.  141.81(d) or 
(e) and the system has fully implemented it.
    (2) Alternative compliance option: replacement of lead-bearing 
plumbing. A water system that has control over all plumbing in its 
buildings, and is not served by lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 
or unknown service lines, must replace all plumbing that does not meet 
the definition of ``lead free'' in section 1417 of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, as amended by the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act 
and any future amendments applicable at the time of replacement. The 
replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing must occur on a schedule 
established by the State but not to exceed one year. Water systems must 
provide certification to the State that all lead-bearing material has 
been replaced in accordance with Sec.  141.90(j)(2).

0
15. Amend Sec.  141.152 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.152   Compliance dates.

    (a) Between June 24, 2024, and December 31, 2026, community water 
systems must comply with 40 CFR 141.151 through 141.155 (except Sec.  
141.153(d)(4)(xii)), as codified on July 1, 2023. Beginning January 1, 
2027, community water systems must comply with 40 CFR 141.151 through 
141.156 (except Sec.  141.153(8)(h)(i)), as codified on July 1, 2024. 
Beginning November 1, 2027, community water systems must comply with 40 
CFR 141.151 through 141.156, as codified on July 1, 2025.
* * * * *

0
16. Amend Sec.  141.153 by revising paragraph (f)(3) and revising and 
republishing paragraph (h)(8) to read as follows:

Sec.  141.153   Content of the reports.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Lead and copper control requirements prescribed by subpart I of 
this part. For systems that fail to take one or more actions prescribed 
by Sec. Sec.  141.80 through 141.93, the report must include the 
applicable language of appendix A to this subpart for lead, copper, or 
both.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (8) Systems required to comply with subpart I of this part.
    (i) The report must notify consumers that complete lead tap 
sampling data are available for review and must include information on 
how to access the data.
    (ii) The report must include a statement that a service line 
inventory (including inventories where the publicly accessible 
inventory consists of a written statement that there are no lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service lines, 
known lead connectors or connectors of unknown material) has been 
prepared and include instructions to access the publicly accessible 
service line inventory. If the service line inventory is available 
online, the report must include the direct link to the inventory.
    (iii) For systems with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or 
lead status unknown service lines in the system's inventory pursuant to 
Sec.  141.84(a) and (b), the report must include information on how to 
obtain a copy of the service line replacement plan or a direct link to 
the plan if the system is required to make the service line replacement 
plan available online.
    (iv) The report must contain a plainly worded explanation of the 
corrosion control efforts the system is taking in accordance with 
subpart I of this part. Corrosion control efforts consist of treatment 
(e.g., pH adjustment, alkalinity adjustment, or corrosion inhibitor 
addition) and other efforts contributing to the control of the 
corrosivity of water (e.g., monitoring to assess the corrosivity of 
water). The system may use one of the following templates or use their 
own explanation that includes equivalent information.
    (A) For systems with State or EPA-designated Optimal Corrosion 
Control Treatment:
    (1) Corrosion of pipes, plumbing fittings, and fixtures may cause 
lead and copper to enter drinking water. To assess corrosion of lead 
and copper, [name of system] conducts tap sampling for lead and copper 
at selected sites [insert frequency at which system conducts tap 
sampling]. [Name of system] treats water using [identify treatment 
method] to control corrosion, which was designated as the optimal 
corrosion control treatment by [the State or EPA, as applicable]. To 
ensure the treatment is operating effectively, [name of system] 
monitors water quality parameters set by the [the State or EPA, as 
applicable] [insert frequency at which system conducts water quality 
parameter monitoring].
    (2) If applicable add: [Name of system] is currently conducting a 
study of corrosion control to determine if any changes to treatment 
methods are needed to minimize the corrosivity of the water.
    (B) For systems without State or EPA designated Optimal Corrosion 
Control Treatment:
    (1) Corrosion of pipes, plumbing fittings and fixtures may cause 
metals, including lead and copper, to enter drinking water. To assess 
corrosion of lead and copper, [name of system] conducts tap sampling 
for lead and copper at selected sites [insert frequency at which system 
conducts tap sampling].
    (2) If applicable, add: [Name of system] treats water using 
[identify treatment method] to control corrosion.
    (3) If applicable add: [Name of system] is currently conducting a 
study of corrosion control to determine if any changes to treatment 
methods are needed to minimize the corrosivity of the water.
    (v) The report must include a statement that the water system is 
required to sample for lead in schools and licensed child care 
facilities as requested by the facility and that directs the public to 
contact their school or child care facility for further information 
about potential sampling results.

0
17. Amend Sec.  141.154 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  141.154   Required additional health information.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) A short informational statement about lead in drinking water 
and its

[[Page 86663]]

effects on children. The statement must include the information in 
figure 1 to this paragraph (d)(1):

Figure 1 to Paragraph (d)(1)

    Lead can cause serious health effects in people of all ages, 
especially pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and breastfed), 
and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials 
and parts used in service lines and in home plumbing. [INSERT NAME OF 
SYSTEM] is responsible for providing high quality drinking water and 
removing lead pipes but cannot control the variety of materials used in 
the plumbing in your home. Because lead levels may vary over time, lead 
exposure is possible even when your tap sampling results do not detect 
lead at one point in time. You can help protect yourself and your 
family by identifying and removing lead materials within your home 
plumbing and taking steps to reduce your family's risk. Using a filter, 
certified by an American National Standards Institute accredited 
certifier to reduce lead, is effective in reducing lead exposures. 
Follow the instructions provided with the filter to ensure the filter 
is used properly. Use only cold water for drinking, cooking, and making 
baby formula. Boiling water does not remove lead from water. Before 
using tap water for drinking, cooking, or making baby formula, flush 
your pipes for several minutes. You can do this by running your tap, 
taking a shower, doing laundry or a load of dishes. If you have a lead 
service line or galvanized requiring replacement service line, you may 
need to flush your pipes for a longer period. If you are concerned 
about lead in your water and wish to have your water tested, contact 
[INSERT NAME OF SYSTEM and CONTACT INFORMATION]. Information on lead in 
drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize 
exposure is available at https://www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
* * * * *

0
18. Amend appendix A to subpart O of part 141 under the heading 
``Inorganic contaminants'' by removing the entry for ``Lead'' and 
adding the entry ``Lead (mg/L)'' in its place to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart O of Part 141--Regulated Contaminants

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         To convert for
       Contaminant (units)          Traditional MCL in    CCR, multiply    MCL in CCR units         MCLG         Major sources in       Health effects
                                           mg/L                by                                                 drinking water           language
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Inorganic contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Lead (mg/L)......................  AL = 0.010..........           1,000  AL = 10.............               0  Corrosion of          There is no safe
                                                                                                                household plumbing    level of lead in
                                                                                                                systems and service   drinking water.
                                                                                                                lines connecting      Exposure to lead
                                                                                                                buildings to water    in drinking water
                                                                                                                mains, erosion of     can cause serious
                                                                                                                natural deposits.     health effects in
                                                                                                                                      all age groups,
                                                                                                                                      especially
                                                                                                                                      pregnant people,
                                                                                                                                      infants (both
                                                                                                                                      formula-fed and
                                                                                                                                      breastfed), and
                                                                                                                                      young children.
                                                                                                                                      Some of the health
                                                                                                                                      effects to infants
                                                                                                                                      and children
                                                                                                                                      include decreases
                                                                                                                                      in IQ and
                                                                                                                                      attention span.
                                                                                                                                      Lead exposure can
                                                                                                                                      also result in new
                                                                                                                                      or worsened
                                                                                                                                      learning and
                                                                                                                                      behavior problems.
                                                                                                                                      The children of
                                                                                                                                      persons who are
                                                                                                                                      exposed to lead
                                                                                                                                      before or during
                                                                                                                                      pregnancy may be
                                                                                                                                      at increased risk
                                                                                                                                      of these harmful
                                                                                                                                      health effects.
                                                                                                                                      Adults have
                                                                                                                                      increased risks of
                                                                                                                                      heart disease,
                                                                                                                                      high blood
                                                                                                                                      pressure, kidney
                                                                                                                                      or nervous system
                                                                                                                                      problems. Contact
                                                                                                                                      your health care
                                                                                                                                      provider for more
                                                                                                                                      information about
                                                                                                                                      your risks.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
19. Amend Sec.  141.202 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  141.202   Tier 1 Public Notice--Form, manner, and frequency of 
notice.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Provide a public notice as soon as practical but no later than 
24 hours after the system learns of the violation or situation 
requiring Tier 1 public notice;
* * * * *

0
20. Amend appendix A to subpart Q of part 141 in section I by revising 
the entry ``1. Lead and Copper Rule (TT)'' under the heading ``C. Lead 
and Copper Rule (Action Level for lead is 0.015 mg/L, for copper is 1.3 
mg/L)'' to read as follows:

[[Page 86664]]

Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141--NPDWR Violations and Other 
Situations Requiring Public Notice \1\

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          MCL/MRDL/TT violations \2\           Monitoring & testing procedure
                                   ---------------------------------------               violations
                                                                          --------------------------------------
            Contaminant             Tier of public                         Tier of public
                                        notice             Citation            notice             Citation
                                       required                               required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. * * *
C. Lead and Copper Rule (Action                                                            .....................
 Level for lead is 0.010 mg/L, for
 copper is 1.3 mg/L).
1. Lead and Copper Rule (TT)......               2  141.80 (except                      3  141.86 through
                                                     paragraph (c))                         141.90, 141.92.
                                                     through 141.84,
                                                     141.85(a) through
                                                     (c) (except
                                                     paragraphs (c)(3)),
                                                     (h), and (j), and
                                                     141.93.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A--Endnotes

* * * * *
    1. Violations and other situations not listed in this table 
(e.g., failure to prepare Consumer Confidence Reports), do not 
require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primacy agency. 
Primacy agencies may, at their option, also require a more stringent 
public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead 
of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in this 
Appendix, as authorized under Sec.  141.202(a) and Sec.  141.203(a).
    2. MCL--Maximum contaminant level, MRDL--Maximum residual 
disinfectant level, TT--Treatment technique
* * * * *

0
21. Amend appendix B to subpart Q of part 141 by revising the entry for 
``23. Lead'' under the heading ``D. Lead and Copper Rule'' and endnote 
13 to read as follows:

Appendix B to Subpart Q of Part 141--Standard Health Effects Language 
for Public Notification

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Standard health effects
            Contaminant                   MCLG \1\ mg/L           MCL \2\ mg/L           language for public
                                                                                             notification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             D. Lead and Copper Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Lead...........................  zero..................  TT \13\...............  There is no safe level of
                                                                                      lead in drinking water.
                                                                                      Exposure to lead in
                                                                                      drinking water can cause
                                                                                      serious health effects in
                                                                                      all age groups, especially
                                                                                      pregnant people, infants
                                                                                      (both formula-fed and
                                                                                      breastfed), and young
                                                                                      children. Some of the
                                                                                      health effects to infants
                                                                                      and children include
                                                                                      decreases in IQ and
                                                                                      attention span. Lead
                                                                                      exposure can also result
                                                                                      in new or worsened
                                                                                      learning and behavior
                                                                                      problems. The children of
                                                                                      persons who are exposed to
                                                                                      lead before or during
                                                                                      pregnancy may be at
                                                                                      increased risk of these
                                                                                      harmful health effects.
                                                                                      Adults have increased
                                                                                      risks of heart disease,
                                                                                      high blood pressure,
                                                                                      kidney or nervous system
                                                                                      problems. Contact your
                                                                                      health care provider for
                                                                                      more information about
                                                                                      your risks.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

Appendix B--Endnotes

* * * * *
1. MCLG--Maximum contaminant level goal
2. MCL--Maximum contaminant level
* * * * *
13. Action Level = 0.010 mg/L
* * * * *

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

0
22. The authority citation for part 142 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 
300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

0
23. Amend Sec.  142.14 by revising paragraphs (d)(8) and (9) and 
(d)(10)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  142.14   Records kept by States.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (8) Records of the currently applicable or most recent State 
determinations, including all supporting information and an explanation 
of the technical basis for each decision, made under the provisions of 
40 CFR part 141, subpart I, listed in paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through 
(xix) of this section for the control of lead and copper. For the 
records identified in paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through (xix), if no change 
is made to State determinations during a 12-year retention period, the 
State must retain the record until a new decision, determination, or 
designation has been issued.
    (i) Section 141.81(b)--for any water system deemed to be optimized 
under Sec.  141.81(b) 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;

[[Page 86665]]

    (ii) Sections 141.81(b)(4) and (h) and 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(G) and 
(g)(4)(iii)--determinations of additional monitoring requirements and/
or other actions required to maintain optimal corrosion control by 
systems that change treatment or add a new source of water;
    (iii) Section 141.82(b)--decisions to require a water system to 
conduct corrosion control treatment studies;
    (iv) Section 141.82(d)--designations of optimal corrosion control 
treatment and any simultaneous compliance considerations that factored 
into the designation;
    (v) Section 141.82(f)--designations of optimal water quality 
parameters;
    (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(d)(5)(v)--determinations as to whether a 
shortened replacement deadline and associated replacement rate is 
feasible for mandatory full lead and galvanized requiring replacement 
service line replacement;
    (ix) Section 141.84(d)(5)(vi)--for every system using a deferred 
deadline and associated replacement rate for their mandatory service 
line replacement program as defined in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi) of this 
chapter, every written determination as to whether a shorter deadline 
is feasible, either by approving continued use of the identified 
deferred deadline and rate or by setting a shorter deadline and faster 
replacement rate, including those made by the end of the second program 
year, and subsequent determinations every three years thereafter;
    (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)(3)--system-specific determinations regarding 
use of samples that do not meet the six hour minimum stagnation time at 
non-transient non-community water systems, and community water systems 
meeting the criteria of Sec.  141.85(b)(8) of this chapter, that 
operate 24 hours a day;
    (xii) Section 141.86(d)--system-specific designations of sampling 
locations for systems subject to reduced monitoring;
    (xiii) Section 141.86(d)(3)--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(b)(3)(ii)--determinations regarding 
representative entry point locations at ground water systems;
    (xvi) Sections 141.81(h) and 141.90(a)(4)--evaluation and approval 
of water system source water or long-term treatment changes;
    (xvii) Sections 141.90(e)(6) and (12)--system-specific 
determinations regarding the submission of information to demonstrate 
compliance with partial lead and galvanized requiring replacement 
service line replacement requirements;
    (xviii) Section 141.90(f)--system-specific decisions regarding the 
resubmission of detailed documentation demonstrating completion of 
public education requirements, including resubmission of filter plans 
under Sec.  141.90(f)(9) of this chapter; and
    (xix) Section 141.93--identification of community water systems and 
non-transient non-community water systems utilizing the compliance 
alternatives, and the compliance alternative selected by the water 
system and the compliance option approved by the State.
    (9) Records of reports and any other information submitted by PWSs 
under Sec.  141.90 of this chapter, including:
    (i) Records of any 90th percentile values calculated by the State 
under Sec.  141.90(h) of this chapter;
    (ii) Completed initial service line inventories, baseline 
inventories, and required updates to inventories and information under 
Sec.  141.90(e) of this chapter;
    (iii) Service line replacement plans under Sec.  141.90(e)(3) of 
this chapter and any updates to the plan under Sec.  141.90(e)(4) of 
this chapter; and
    (iv) Compliance sampling pools in site sample plan and any changes 
to sampling pools under Sec.  141.90(a)(1) of this chapter.
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Verify compliance with the requirements related to partial or 
customer-initiated lead and galvanized requiring replacement service 
line replacement under Sec.  141.84(f), (g), and (h)(1) and (2), 
compliance with full service line replacement under Sec.  141.84(h)(3) 
of this chapter, and compliance with lead connector replacement when 
encountered under Sec.  141.84(e) of this chapter; and
* * * * *

0
24. Amend Sec.  142.15 by revising and republishing paragraph (c)(4) to 
read as follows:

Sec.  142.15   Reports by States.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) Timing. States must report quarterly, with the exception of the 
requirements in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(G) and (H) of this section, 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 must report as 
follows:
    (i) through (ii) [Reserved]
    (iii) States must report the PWS identification number of each 
water system identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (H) of 
this section.
    (A) For each public water system, regardless of size, all 90th 
percentile lead levels calculated during each tap sampling period 
specified in Sec.  141.86 of this chapter, and the first and last days 
of the tap sampling period for which the 90th percentile lead level was 
calculated.
    (B) For each water system, regardless of size, the 90th percentile 
copper level calculated during each tap sampling period specified in 
Sec.  141.86 of this chapter, in which the system exceeds the copper 
action level, and the first and last days of each tap sampling period 
in which an exceedance occurred.
    (C) For each water system for which the State has designated 
optimal water quality parameters under Sec.  141.82(f) of this chapter, 
the specific corrosion control treatment designated, the date of the 
determination, and the paragraph(s) under Sec.  141.82(f) which the 
State made its determination, the water system's optimal water quality 
parameters.
    (D) For each water system the total number of lead service lines, 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines, lead status unknown 
service lines, non-lead service lines, lead connectors, and connectors 
of unknown material in its inventory, reported separately.
    (E) For each water system required to conduct mandatory replacement 
of lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines as specified 
in Sec.  141.84(d) of this chapter, the total number and type of 
service lines replaced, the applicable deadline for the system to 
complete replacement of all lead and galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines, and the expected date of completion of mandatory service 
line replacement.
    (F) For each water system that has implemented optimal corrosion 
control pursuant to Sec.  141.82 of this chapter, completed applicable 
source water treatment requirements pursuant to Sec.  141.83 of this 
chapter, and/or completed mandatory service line

[[Page 86666]]

replacement requirements pursuant to Sec.  141.84(d) of this chapter, 
and the date of the State's determination that these requirements have 
been met. The date reported must be the latest of the following events:
    (1) The date the State received the results of corrosion control 
evaluations under Sec.  141.82(d) or (e) of this chapter or optimal 
corrosion control treatment recommendation by the system;
    (2) For systems for which the State has designated optimal 
corrosion control treatment or re-optimized optimal corrosion control 
treatment under Sec.  141.82(d) of this chapter, the date of the 
determination and the date the system completed installation of 
treatment as certified under Sec.  141.90(c)(4) of this chapter;
    (3) The date the State designates optimal water quality parameters 
under Sec.  141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the system to have 
optimized corrosion control pursuant to Sec.  141.81(b)(1) or (3) of 
this chapter;
    (4) For systems which the State has required to install source 
water treatment under Sec.  141.83(b)(2) of this chapter, the date of 
the determination, the date the State designates maximum permissible 
source water levels under Sec.  141.83(b)(4) of this chapter or 
determines pursuant to Sec.  141.83(b)(2) that source water treatment 
is not required; or
    (5) For systems required to conduct mandatory service line 
replacement, the date the system completes mandatory service line 
replacement pursuant to Sec.  141.84(d) of this chapter.
    (6) For systems not required to complete the corrosion control 
treatment steps under Sec.  141.81(f) of this chapter, the date the 
system is required to complete mandatory service line replacement 
pursuant to Sec.  141.84(d) of this chapter.
    (G) Each State which has primary enforcement responsibility must 
submit to the Administrator the 90th percentile lead concentration 
calculated during each tap sampling period in which the system exceeds 
the lead action level in Sec.  141.80(c)(1) of this chapter within the 
first 15 days following the end of each tap sampling period specified 
in Sec.  141.86 of this chapter or 24 hours of receiving notification 
of an action level exceedance, whichever is earlier.
    (H) For each water system that is eligible for and plans to use a 
deferred deadline and associated replacement rate for their mandatory 
service line replacement program as described in Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(vi) 
of this chapter, as soon as practicable, but no later than the end of 
second program year of mandatory service line replacement as defined in 
Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(iii) of this chapter, and every three program years 
thereafter, the result of the State's written determination as to 
whether the deferred deadline and associated replacement rate are the 
fastest feasible, the number of years and months needed to complete 
mandatory service line replacement, the date of completion of mandatory 
service line replacement at the fastest feasible rate, and the reasons 
for the State's determination.
* * * * *

0
25. Amend Sec.  142.16 by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(3) 
through (10) and adding paragraphs (d)(11) through (13) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  142.16   Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (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 Sec.  141.82(g)(2)(i) 
of this chapter.
* * * * *
    (3) Section 141.90(e)--verifying compliance with service line 
replacement schedules and completion of all partial lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service line replacement activities.
    (4) Section 141.86(d)(3)(i)--designating an alternative period for 
sample collection for community water systems subject to reduced 
monitoring.
    (5) Section 141.84(b) as follows--
    (i) Providing or requiring the review of any evidence-based 
resource, information, or identification method for the development of 
the baseline inventory or inventory updates. Requiring water systems 
whose inventories contain no lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or 
lead status unknown service lines, no known lead connectors, and no 
connectors of unknown material to prepare an updated inventory on a 
schedule determined by the State if the system subsequently finds a 
lead service line, galvanized requiring replacement service line, or 
lead connector within its system.
    (ii) Providing or requiring the review of inventory validations 
described in Sec.  141.84(b) of this chapter, including making 
determinations on whether previous inventory validations are at least 
as stringent as the requirements specified in Sec.  141.84(b)(5)(i) 
through (iii) of this chapter and providing written approval to the 
system, and requiring additional actions for systems based on the 
results of the inventory validations.
    (6) Section 141.84(d)(5)(v)--determining whether a shortened 
service line replacement deadline is feasible for mandatory lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement and notifying 
the system of the determination in writing at any time throughout a 
system's replacement program. For systems required to replace service 
lines in accordance with a shortened deadline, or for systems eligible 
for a deferred deadline, determining the deadline to complete inventory 
validation in accordance with Sec.  141.84(b)(5) of this chapter.
    (7) Section 141.82--verifying compliance with Distribution System 
and Site Assessment requirements in accordance with Sec.  141.82(j) of 
this chapter.
    (8) Section 141.84(d)--identifying State laws, including statutes 
and constitutional provisions, that pertain to a water system's access 
to conduct full service line replacement and notifying water systems in 
writing whether such laws exist or not by the compliance date specified 
in Sec.  141.80(a) of this chapter and within six months of the 
enactment of new or revised State law that pertains to a water system's 
access to conduct full service line replacement.
    (9) Section 141.84(d)(5)(vi)--making determinations in writing 
about systems using deferred deadlines, including reviewing the 
systems' eligibility calculation and information on deferred deadlines 
provided in the service line replacement plans as described in Sec.  
141.84(c)(1)(x) of this chapter, determining whether the deferred 
deadline and associated cumulative average replacement rate are the 
fastest feasible or setting a new deferred deadline and replacement 
rate at the fastest feasible for the system, and reporting the results 
of these determinations to EPA as described in Sec.  142.15(c)(4)(H).
    (10) Section 141.85(b)(1)--making determinations about which water 
systems serve a large proportion of consumers with limited English 
proficiency and providing technical assistance to those systems in 
meeting the requirement of Sec.  141.85(b)(1) of this chapter to either 
translate a copy of the public education materials or provide 
translation assistance to consumers with limited English proficiency. 
Examples of technical assistance include providing water systems with 
contact information for inclusion in the system's public education 
materials where consumers can contact the State

[[Page 86667]]

for translation assistance upon request, or providing resources for 
water systems to translate their public education materials, including 
EPA-provided translations of required content for public education 
materials (e.g., health effects language, definitions) and translated 
templates through a website.
    (11) Section 141.88 and 141.81(h)--reviewing any change in source 
water or treatment and making related determinations, including 
approval; establishment of additional requirements to ensure the system 
will operate and maintain optimal corrosion control treatment; and an 
evaluation of how this change may impact compliance with other National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulations in part 141 of this chapter.
    (12) Section 141.92--reviewing lists of schools and child care 
facilities to ensure entries conform to the definitions of school and 
child care facility as defined in Sec.  141.2 of this chapter and is 
complete.
    (13) Section 141.92--determining whether any existing State or 
local testing program for schools and child care facilities is at least 
as stringent as the Federal requirements, including how the State will 
use the definitions of elementary school, secondary school, and child 
care facility as defined in Sec.  141.2 of this chapter to issue 
waivers.
* * * * *

0
26. In Sec.  142.19, revise paragraph (a) introductory text and 
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

Sec.  142.19   EPA review of State implementation of national primary 
drinking water regulations for lead and copper.

    (a) Pursuant to the procedures in this section, the Regional 
Administrator may review State determinations establishing corrosion 
control or source water treatment requirements for lead or copper and 
may issue an order establishing Federal treatment requirements for a 
public water system pursuant to Sec. Sec.  141.82(d), (f) and (h) and 
141.83(b)(2) and (4) of this chapter where the Regional Administrator 
finds that:
* * * * *
    (2) A State has abused its discretion; or
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2024-23549 Filed 10-18-24; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```