86418 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 141.152(a). 

The compliance date for the changes to 

40 CFR part 141, subpart Q (§ 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: 

LCRI@epa.gov. 

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 NonTransient 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86419 

1Protecting Public Health and the Environment 

and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis 

(86 FR 7037, January 20, 2021). 

2The 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). 

3Sandvig 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. 

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. 

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 welloperated 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). 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86420 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 attentiondeficit/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 pointof-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 reoptimize 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 reoptimize 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 pre2021 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86422 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 complete a materials 

evaluation by the time of initial sampling. 

• No requirement to regularly update materials evaluation. 

• All systems must develop an initial lead service 

line (LSL) inventory by October 16, 2024, that includes all service lines, regardless of ownership, 

categorized as lead, non-lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement (GRR), and unknown.* 

• The inventory must be made publicly accessible 

and available online for systems serving >50,000 

persons.* 

• The publicly available inventory must include a locational identifier for each lead and GRR service 

line. 

• The LSL inventory must be updated based on the 

system’s tap sampling frequency but no more than 

annually. 

• All systems must review specified information that 

describes connector materials and locations. 

• Systems must include each identified connector in 

their baseline inventory by the LCRI compliance 

date. 

• Connector material categories include lead, nonlead, unknown, and no connector present. 

• The inventory must include a street address with 

each service line and connector, if available. 

• 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. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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 

• No requirement. 

Replacement Plan 

• All systems with at least one lead, GRR, or unknown service line must develop an LSLR plan by 

the compliance date. 

• The plan must include a strategy to prioritize service line replacement.* 

Replacement Plan 

• All systems with at least one lead, GRR, or unknown service line must develop the service line 

replacement plan by the compliance date. The plan 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86423 

EXHIBIT 1—COMPARISON OF THE 2021 LCRR, PROPOSED LCRI, AND FINAL LCRI REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Pre-2021 LCR 2021 LCRR Final LCRI 

• 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 

• Replacement program requirements are based on 

the lead 90th percentile (P90) lead level, CCT installation, and/or source water treatment. 

• Systems conducting LSLR must annually replace at 

least 7 percent of LSLs in their distribution system. 

• Systems must replace the LSL portion they own 

and offer to replace the private portion. Systems 

are not required to bear the cost of replacing the 

private portion.a

• Full LSLR, partial LSLR, and LSLs with lead sample results ≤ 0.015 mg/L (‘‘test-outs’’) count toward 

the 7 percent replacement rate. 

• Systems can discontinue LSLR after 2 consecutive 

6-month monitoring periods at or below the lead action level. 

• Requires replacement of LSLs only (i.e., no GRR 

service lines). 

LSLR 

• Replacement program requirements are dependent 

on P90 lead level for CWSs serving >10,000 persons: 

Æ If P90 > 0.015 mg/L: Must fully replace 3 percent of lead and GRR service lines per year 

based upon a 2-year rolling average (mandatory 

replacement) for at least 4 consecutive 6-month 

monitoring periods. 

Æ If P90 > 0.010 mg/L but ≤ 0.015 mg/L: Implement a goal-based LSLR program and consult 

the primacy agency (or State) on replacement 

goals for 2 consecutive 1-year monitoring periods. 

• CWSs serving ≤10,000 persons and all non-transient, non-community water systems (NTNCWSs) 

that select LSLR as their compliance option must 

complete LSLR within 15 years if P90 > 0.015 mg/ 

L. See the Small System Flexibility section of this 

exhibit. 

• Annual LSLR rate is applied to the number of lead 

and GRR service lines when the system first exceeds the trigger or action level plus the number of 

unknown service lines at the beginning of the year. 

• Only full LSLR (replacement of the entire length of 

the service line) counts toward mandatory rate* 

and goal-based rate. 

• All systems must replace their portion of an LSL if 

notified by consumer of private side replacement 

within 45 days of notification of the private replacement. If the system cannot replace the system’s 

portion within 45 days, it must notify the State and 

replace the system’s portion within 180 days.* 

• Following each service line replacement, systems 

must: 

Æ Provide pitcher filters or point-of-use devices 

and 6 months of replacement cartridges to each 

customer after replacement.* Provide pitcher filters and cartridges before the affected portion of 

the line or the fully replaced service line is returned to service.* 

Æ Offer to collect a lead tap sample at locations 

served by the replaced line within 3 to 6 months 

after replacement.* 

Service Line Replacement 

• Replacement program requirements are independent of systems’ P90 lead levels. 

• All CWSs and NTNCWSs with one or more lead, 

GRR, or unknown service line in their inventory 

must replace lead and GRR service lines under 

their control within 10 years, unless subject to a 

shortened or deferred deadline. 

• Systems must replace service lines at a cumulative 

average annual rate of 10 percent, unless subject 

to a shortened or deferred deadline. 

• Cumulative average replacement rate is applied to 

the total number of unknown, lead, and GRR service lines in the baseline inventory minus the number of unknown service lines that have been determined to be non-lead since the baseline inventory. 

• Systems that would have to annually replace more 

than 39 service lines per 1,000 service connections 

are eligible for deferred deadlines longer than 10 

years. 

• States are required to set a shorter deadline for a 

system where it determines that a shorter deadline 

is feasible. 

• Where property owner consent is required for a 

system to access the service line, systems must 

make a reasonable effort (at least 4 attempts) to 

engage property owners about full service line 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.* 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86424 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 1—COMPARISON OF THE 2021 LCRR, PROPOSED LCRI, AND FINAL LCRI REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Pre-2021 LCR 2021 LCRR Final LCRI 

LSL-Related Outreach 

• If a system replaces its portion only: 

Æ Provide notification to affected residences within 

45 days prior to replacement on possible elevated short-term lead levels and measures to 

minimize exposure.* 

Æ Include offer to collect lead tap sample within 72 

hours of replacement. 

Æ Provide test results within 3 business days after 

receiving results. 

LSL-Related Outreach 

• Notify consumers annually if they are served by a 

lead, GRR, or unknown service line.* 

• Provide notice and educational materials to consumers during water-related work that could disturb 

LSLs. 

• Provide filters to consumers for disturbances to a 

lead, GRR, or unknown service line caused by replacement of an inline water meter, water meter 

setter, or connector. 

• Systems subject to goal-based program must: 

Æ Conduct targeted outreach that encourages consumers with LSLs to participate in the LSLR program. 

Æ Conduct an additional outreach activity if they 

fail to meet their goal. 

• Systems required to conduct LSLR must include 

information about the LSLR program in public education (PE) materials that are provided in response 

to P90 > action level.* 

Service Line-Related Outreach 

• Provide notice and educational materials during 

water-related work that could disturb lead, GRR, or 

unknown service lines, including disturbances due 

to inventorying efforts, to consumers within 24 

hours or before the service line is returned to service, and to customers within 30 days. 

• Provide filters to consumers 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. 

• If a CWS does not 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 level of 0.015 mg/L or 

copper action level of 1.3 mg/L requires additional 

actions. 

• Lead action level exceedance requires 7 percent 

LSLR (includes partial replacements), CCT recommendation and possible study and installation, 

and PE within 60 days after the end of the monitoring period. 

• P90 level above lead action level of 0.015 mg/L or 

copper action level of 1.3 mg/L requires more actions than the previous rule. 

• Defines lead trigger level as P90 > 0.010 mg/L and 

triggers additional planning, monitoring, and treatment requirements. 

• Lead action level exceedance requires 3 percent 

full LSLR, OCCT installation or re-optimization, PE, 

and public notification (PN) within 24 hours. 

• Trigger level exceedance requires goal-based 

LSLR and steps taken towards CCT installation or 

re-optimization. 

• Removes the lead trigger level. 

• P90 level above lead action level of 0.010 mg/L or 

copper action level of 1.3 mg/L requires actions including installing or re-optimizing CCT, and PE as 

well as Tier 1 PN (for lead action level 

exceedances). 

• Mandatory full service line replacement of lead and 

GRR service lines is independent of P90 lead levels. 

Lead and Copper Tap Sampling 

Sample Site Selection 

• Prioritizes collection of samples from sites with 

sources of lead in contact with drinking water. 

• Highest priority given to sites served by copper 

pipes with lead solder installed after 1982 or containing lead pipes and sites served by LSLs. 

• Systems must collect 50 percent of samples from 

LSLs, if available. 

Sample Site Selection 

• Prioritizes collecting samples from sites served by 

LSLs. All samples must be collected from sites 

served by LSLs, if available.* 

• Equal priority to copper pipes with lead solder, irrespective of installation date.* 

• Adds 2 tiers to prioritize sampling at lead and GRR 

service line sites above sites with copper with lead 

solder.* 

Sample Site Selection 

• Combines the tap sample site selection tiering criteria for CWSs and NTNCWSs. 

• Removes galvanized service line or premise 

plumbing formerly downstream of a lead connector 

from Tier 3 sites. 

• 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 Percentile 

Calculation 

• Requires collection of the first-liter sample after 

water has sat stagnant for a minimum of 6 hours. 

Sample Collection and Inclusion in 90th Percentile 

Calculation 

• Requires collection of the fifth-liter sample in 

homes with LSLs after water has sat stagnant for a 

minimum of 6 hours. 

• Requires first-liter sample collection in homes without LSLs.* 

• Requires systems with insufficient Tier 1 and 2 

sites to meet the minimum number of samples required by calculating the P90 from all Tier 1 and 2 

sites and the highest samples from the next highest tier to equal the minimum number required. 

• Prohibits inclusion of samples collected under findand-fix in the P90 calculation.* 

• Adds requirement that samples must be collected 

in wide-mouth bottles.* 

• Prohibits sampling instructions that include recommendations for aerator cleaning/removal and 

pre-stagnation flushing prior to sample collection.* 

Sample Collection and Inclusion in 90th Percentile 

Calculation 

• Requires collection of the first- and fifth-liter samples in structures with LSLs after water has sat 

stagnant for a minimum of 6 hours. 

• Requires systems with insufficient Tier 1 and 2 

sites to meet the minimum number of samples required by calculating the P90 from the highest 

sample values from the highest tiers sampled 

equal to the minimum number required. 

• Requires the higher value of the first- and fifth-liter 

lead concentration in structures with LSLs to be 

used to calculate the P90 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86425 

EXHIBIT 1—COMPARISON OF THE 2021 LCRR, PROPOSED LCRI, AND FINAL LCRI REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Pre-2021 LCR 2021 LCRR Final LCRI 

Monitoring Frequency 

• Samples are analyzed for both lead and copper. 

• Systems must collect standard number of samples 

based on population; semi-annually unless they 

qualify for reduced monitoring. 

• Systems can qualify for annual or triennial monitoring at reduced number of sites. Monitoring 

schedule based on the number of consecutive 

years meeting the following criteria: 

Æ Serves ≤50,000 persons and P90 is at or below 

the lead and copper action levels. 

Æ Serves any population size, meets State-specified optimal water quality parameters (OWQPs), 

and P90 ≤ lead action level. 

• Triennial monitoring also applies to any system with 

lead P90 ≤ 0.005 mg/L and copper P90 ≤ 0.65 mg/ 

L for 2 consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. 

• Based on rule criteria, systems serving ≤ 3,300 persons can apply for a 9-year monitoring waiver.* 

Monitoring Frequency 

• Samples are analyzed for lead and copper, only 

copper, or only lead. This occurs when lead monitoring is conducted more frequently or at more 

sites than copper, and at LSL sites where a fifthliter sample is only analyzed for lead.* 

• Lead monitoring schedule is based on the P90 

level for all systems as follows: 

Æ P90 > 0.015 mg/L: Semi-annually at the standard number of sites. 

Æ P90 > 0.010 mg/L but ≤ 0.015 mg/L: Annually at 

the standard number of sites. 

Æ P90 ≤ 0.010 mg/L: Annually at the standard 

number of sites and triennially at reduced number of sites using same criteria as the LCR except copper P90 level is not considered. 

• Initial standard monitoring required for systems 

with lead and GRR service lines, and any system 

that does not sample under the requirements of 

the LCRR by the compliance date. 

• Systems must conduct standard monitoring if they 

exceed the action level, have a water quality parameter (WQP) excursion, and other criteria. 

Monitoring Frequency 

• Monitoring schedule is based on both the P90 for 

lead and copper for all systems. Systems may retain or qualify for reduced monitoring based on the 

number of consecutive tap monitoring periods: 

Æ P90 ≤ action level for 2 consecutive 6-month periods: Annual monitoring at standard number of 

sites for lead and reduced number of sites for 

copper. 

Æ P90 < practical quantitation limit (PQL) for 2 

consecutive periods: Triennial monitoring at the 

reduced number of sites for both lead and copper. 

• Initial standard monitoring schedule required for 

most systems with lead and/or GRR service lines 

in their 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 

• Systems serving > 50,000 persons were required to 

install treatment by January 1, 1997, with limited 

exception. 

• Systems serving ≤ 50,000 that exceed lead and/or 

copper action level(s) are subject to CCT requirements (e.g., CCT recommendation, study if required by the State, CCT installation). They can 

discontinue CCT steps if no longer exceed both action levels for 2 consecutive 6-month monitoring periods. 

• Systems must operate CCT to meet any OWQPs 

designated by the State that define optimal CCT. 

• There is no requirement for systems to re-optimize. 

CCT 

• Specifies CCT requirements for systems with P90 

lead level >0.010 mg/L but ≤ 0.015 mg/L: 

Æ No CCT: Must conduct a CCT study if required 

by the State. 

Æ With CCT: Must follow the steps for re-optimizing CCT, as specified in the rule. 

• Systems with P90 lead level >0.015 mg/L: 

Æ No CCT: Must complete CCT installation regardless of subsequent P90 levels if system has 

started to install CCT. 

Æ With CCT: Must re-optimize CCT. 

• CWSs serving ≤ 10,000 persons and all 

NTNCWSs can select an option other than CCT to 

address lead. See the Small System Flexibility section of this exhibit. 

CCT 

• Systems with P90 lead level >0.010 mg/L: 

Æ No CCT: Must install CCT regardless of their 

subsequent P90 levels if they have started to install CCT. 

Æ With CCT: Must re-optimize OCCT. 

Æ Systems with OCCT and lead and GRR service 

lines meeting OWQPs need only re-optimize 

OCCT once after the compliance date, unless 

required to do so by the State. 

Æ Systems with OCCT that exceed the lead action 

level after removing all lead and GRR service 

lines will need to re-optimize again. 

• CWSs serving ≤ 3,300 persons and all NTNCWSs 

can select an option other than CCT to address 

lead. See the Small System Flexibility section of 

this exhibit. 

• 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-orless service line replacement program. 

CCT Options 

Includes alkalinity and pH adjustment, calcium hardness adjustment, and phosphate or silicate-based 

corrosion inhibitor. 

CCT Options 

Removes calcium hardness as an option and specifies any phosphate inhibitor must be 

orthophosphate.* 

CCT Options 

No changes from the LCRR. 

WQPs 

• No CCT: pH, alkalinity, calcium, conductivity, temperature, orthophosphate (if phosphate-based inhibitor is used), silica (if silica-based inhibitor is used). 

• With CCT: pH, alkalinity, and based on type of CCT 

either orthophosphate, silica, or calcium. 

WQPs 

• Eliminates WQPs related to calcium hardness (i.e., 

calcium, conductivity, and temperature).* 

• All other parameters are the same as in the LCR.* 

WQPs 

No changes from the LCRR. 

WQP Monitoring 

• Systems serving >50,000 persons must conduct 

regular WQP monitoring at entry points and within 

the distribution system. 

• Systems serving ≤ 50,000 persons conduct monitoring only in those periods that exceed the lead or 

copper action level. 

• Contains provisions to sample at reduced number 

of sites in distribution system less frequency for all 

systems meeting their OWQPs. 

WQP Monitoring 

• Systems serving >50,000 persons must conduct 

regular WQP monitoring at entry points and within 

the distribution system. 

• Systems serving ≤50,000 persons must continue 

WQP monitoring until they no longer exceed the 

lead and/or copper action level(s) for 2 consecutive 

6-month monitoring periods. 

• To qualify for reduced WQP distribution monitoring, 

P90 lead level must be ≤ 0.010 mg/L and the system must meet its OWQPs.* 

WQP Monitoring 

• Systems with CCT (unless deemed optimized) 

serving >10,000 persons must conduct regular 

WQP monitoring at entry points and within the distribution system. 

• Systems serving ≤10,000 persons and systems 

without CCT serving >10,000 persons but ≤50,000 

persons that exceed the lead and/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 

≤50,000 persons that exceed the lead action level 

that are required to install CCT, must continue to 

conduct WQP monitoring. 

Sanitary Survey Review 

Treatment must be reviewed during sanitary surveys; 

no specific requirement to assess CCT or WQPs. 

Sanitary Survey Review 

CCT and WQP data must be reviewed during sanitary surveys against most recent CCT guidance 

issued by the EPA.* 

Sanitary Survey Review 

No changes from the LCRR. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86426 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 1—COMPARISON OF THE 2021 LCRR, PROPOSED LCRI, AND FINAL LCRI REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Pre-2021 LCR 2021 LCRR Final LCRI 

Find-and-Fix 

No required follow-up samples or additional actions if 

an individual sample exceeds the lead action level. 

Find-and-Fix 

If individual tap samples >0.015 mg/L lead, find-andfix steps include: 

• Conduct WQP monitoring at or near the site 

>0.015 mg/L. 

• Collect tap sample at the same tap sample site 

within 30 days.* 

Æ For LSL, collect any liter or sample volume.* 

• Perform needed corrective action.* 

• Document customer refusal or non-response after 

2 attempts.* 

• Provide information to local and State health officials.* 

Distribution System and Site Assessment (DSSA) 

• Changes the name from ‘‘Find-and-Fix’’ to ‘‘Distribution System and Site Assessment’’ to describe 

this requirement more precisely. 

• Requirements from the LCRR affect systems with 

individual tap samples >0.010 mg/L lead. 

• Clarifies that the distribution system sample 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 alternative treatment approach but sets specific requirements for 

CCT and LSLR. 

Allows CWSs serving ≤10,000 persons and all 

NTNCWSs to implement an alternate compliance 

option to address lead with State approval: 

• Systems with lead P90 > 0.010 mg/L recommend 

CCT, LSLR, provision and maintenance of point-ofuse (POU) devices, or replacement of all leadbearing plumbing materials. 

• If the system’s P90 lead level > 0.015 mg/L, the 

system must implement the compliance option. 

Allows CWSs serving ≤ 3,300 persons and all 

NTNCWSs with P90 levels > lead action level and 

≤ copper action level to conduct the following actions in lieu of CCT requirements to address lead 

with State approval: 

• Choose a compliance option: (1) 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 level must provide 

PE to customers about lead sources, health effects, 

measures to reduce lead exposure, and additional 

information sources. 

• Systems with P90 > lead action level must offer 

lead tap sampling to customers who request it. 

• Systems must provide lead consumer notice to individuals served at tested taps within 30 days of 

learning results. 

• For water systems serving a large proportion of 

consumers with limited English proficiency, PE materials must contain information in the appropriate 

language(s) regarding the importance of the materials or information on where consumers can get a 

translated copy or assistance in other languages. 

• Water systems must provide updated lead health 

effects language in PN and PE materials. CWSs 

must provide updated health effects language in 

the Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR). 

• For water systems serving a large proportion of 

consumers with limited English proficiency, PE materials must contain information in the appropriate 

language(s) regarding the importance of the materials or information on where consumers can get a 

translated copy or assistance in other languages. 

• If P90 > lead action level: 

Æ LCRR PN and LCR PE requirements apply. 

Æ Water systems must offer to sample the tap for 

lead for any customer who requests it. 

• Water systems must provide the lead consumer 

notice to consumers whose individual tap sample 

is >0.015 mg/L lead as soon as practicable but no 

later than 3 calendar days. 

• CWSs must provide information to local and State 

health agencies.* 

Also see the Public Notification, Consumer Confidence Report, and LSL-Related Outreach sections of this exhibit. 

• Revises the mandatory lead health effects language to improve completeness and clarity. 

• Water systems must provide the updated health effects language in PN and all PE materials. CWSs 

must provide updated health effects language in 

the CCR. 

• For water systems serving a large proportion of 

consumers with limited English proficiency, all PE 

materials must contain information in the appropriate language(s) regarding the importance of the 

materials and information on where consumers can 

get a translated copy or assistance in other languages. 

• Water systems must deliver consumer notice of 

lead and copper tap sampling results to 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: 

Æ LCRR PN requirements apply. 

Æ 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. 

Æ 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86427 

EXHIBIT 1—COMPARISON OF THE 2021 LCRR, PROPOSED LCRI, AND FINAL LCRI REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Pre-2021 LCR 2021 LCRR Final LCRI 

Public Notification 

• If P90 > action level: 

Æ No PN required for P90 > action level. 

• Tier 2 PN required for violations to §§ 141.80 

through 141.85. 

• Tier 3 PN required for violations to §§ 141.86 

through 141.89. 

Also see the Public Education and Outreach section 

of this exhibit. 

• If P90 > lead action level: 

Æ Systems must notify consumers of P90 > action 

level within 24 hours (Tier 1 PN). Systems must 

comply by October 16, 2024. 

• Tier 2 PN required for violations to §§ 141.80 (except paragraph (c)) through 141.84, 141.85(a) 

through (c) and (h), and 141.93. 

• Tier 3 PN required for violations to §§ 141.86 

through 141.90. 

Also see the Public Education and Outreach section 

of this exhibit. 

• If P90 > lead action level of 0.010 mg/L: 

Æ LCRR Tier 1 PN requirements apply, but for the 

LCRI action level of 0.010 mg/L. 

• Tier 2 PN required for violations to §§ 141.80 (except paragraph (c)) through 141.84, 141.85(a) 

through (c) (except paragraph (c)(3)), (h), and (j), 

and 141.93. 

• Tier 3 PN required for violations to §§ 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 educational material in the 

annual CCR. 

• CWSs must provide updated health effects language in the CCR. 

• All CWSs are required to include information on 

how to access the LSL inventory and how to access the results of all tap sampling in the CCR. 

• Revises the mandatory health effects language to 

improve accuracy and clarity. 

• Revises the mandatory lead health effects language and informational statement as well as includes additional information about risk of lead exposure in the 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 schedule must 

obtain prior State approval before changing their 

source or treatment. 

Systems on any tap monitoring schedule must obtain 

prior State approval before changing their source 

or treatment. These systems must also resume a 

standard lead and copper tap monitoring schedule.* 

No changes from the LCRR. 

Source Water Monitoring and Treatment 

Periodic source water monitoring for lead and copper 

is required for systems with: 

• Source water treatment; or 

• P90 > action level and no source water treatment. 

States can waive continued source water monitoring 

for lead and copper if the:* 

• System has already conducted source water monitoring for a previous P90 > action level; 

• State has determined that source water treatment 

is not required; and 

• System has not added any new water sources. 

Updated cross-reference to requirement for conducting standard monitoring when there is a source 

water addition. 

Lead in Drinking Water at Schools and Child Care Facilities 

• Does not include separate testing and education 

program for CWSs at schools and child care facilities. 

• Schools and child care facilities that are classified 

as NTNCWSs must sample for lead and copper.* 

• CWSs must provide annual public education materials to all schools and licensed child care facilities 

they serve. 

• CWSs must conduct sampling at 20 percent of elementary schools and 20 percent of licensed child 

care facilities they serve per year and conduct 

sampling at secondary schools on request for first 

testing cycle (5 years) and conduct sampling on request of all schools and child care facilities thereafter. 

• Sample results must be provided to each sampled 

school/child care facility, State, and local or State 

health department. 

• Excludes schools and licensed child care facilities 

constructed on or after January 1, 2014. 

• Waives sampling in schools and child care facilities 

that were sampled under a State or other program 

after October 16, 2024. 

Expands on LCRR requirements to include: 

• Waivers for CWSs to sample in schools and licensed child care facilities they serve during the 

first 5-year testing cycle if the facility has been 

sampled between January 1, 2021, and the LCRI 

compliance date. 

• Requires CWSs to include a statement about the 

opportunity for schools and licensed child care facilities to be sampled in the CCR. 

• Excludes schools and licensed child care facilities 

constructed or that had full plumbing replacement 

on or after 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86428 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 1—COMPARISON OF THE 2021 LCRR, PROPOSED LCRI, AND FINAL LCRI REQUIREMENTS—Continued 

Pre-2021 LCR 2021 LCRR Final LCRI 

Primacy Agency (or State) Requirements 

States must report information to the EPA that includes, but is not limited to: 

• All P90 lead levels for systems serving > 3,300 persons, and only levels > 0.015 mg/L for smaller systems. 

• Only copper P90 levels above the copper action 

level for all systems. 

• Systems that are required to initiate LSLR and the 

date replacement must begin. 

• Systems for which OCCT has been designated. 

States must keep records on information that includes, but is not limited to: 

• Records of the currently applicable or most recent 

State determinations, including all supporting information and an explanation of the technical basis for 

each decision. 

State primacy requirements include, but are not limited to: 

• Designating OCCT. 

• Designating source water treatment methods. 

• Verifying service line replacement schedules. 

States must report information to the EPA that includes, but is not limited to: 

• All lead and copper P90 levels for all system 

sizes.* 

• The number of lead, GRR, and unknown service 

lines for every water system.* 

• The goal-based or mandatory replacement rate 

and the date each system must begin LSLR. 

• OCCT status of all systems including OWQPs 

specified by the State.* 

• For systems triggered into source water treatment, 

the State-designated date or determination for no 

treatment required.* 

States must keep records on information that includes, but is not limited to: 

• LSLR plans.* 

• Compliance sampling pools.* 

• Determinations related to source water treatment.* 

• Determinations related to compliance alternatives 

for small CWSs and NTNCWSs.* 

• LSL inventories.* 

State primacy requirements include, but are not limited to: 

• Reviewing service line inventory.* 

• Approving LSLR goals. 

• Determining if a faster LSLR rate is feasible.* 

• Defining school and child care program and determining if State or local testing program is at least 

as stringent as Federal requirements. 

• Verifying compliance with ‘‘Find-and-Fix’’ requirements.* 

• Reviewing any change in source water treatment.* 

States must report information to the EPA that includes, but is not limited to: 

• The current numbers of lead, GRR, unknown, and 

non-lead service lines, lead connectors, and unknown connectors in each system’s inventory. 

• The numbers and types of service lines replaced 

and the replacement rate for every system conducting mandatory service line replacement. 

• The deadline for the system to complete replacement of all lead and GRR service lines. 

• The expected date of completion of service line replacement. 

• The lead P90 levels of systems with an action level 

exceedance within 15 days of the end of the monitoring period or, if earlier, within 24 hours of receiving the notice from the system. 

• 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. 

States must keep records on 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. 

aSee 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 noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs). 

A CWS, as defined in § 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 § 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: 

Category Examples of potentially affected entities 

Public water systems ......................................................... CWSs; NTNCWSs. 

State and Tribal government agencies .............................. Agencies responsible for developing, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86429 

4The 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.’’ 

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 twoyear 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; 

• 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 noncommunity 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 nonVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Oct 29, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM 30OCR2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86430 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

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

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 ‘‘testouts’’ (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, reoptimizing 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86432 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nearterm 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 nearterm 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86433 

6Where 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.’’ 

7Note, 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. 

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. 

Third, with respect to the technical 

possibility 7 component of the feasibility 

standard, for lead and copper drinking 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86434 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

8Note, 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). 

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. 

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 technologyforcing 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-sizebased 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 multifaceted 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86435 

9For 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. 

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 shortterm 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86436 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 antibacksliding 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 antibacksliding 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 antibacksliding 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 reoptimize 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 reoptimized 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 reoptimized 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 reoptimize 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 § 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 leadbearing 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 reoptimize 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 pre2021 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86438 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 BidenHarris 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 nocost 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 longterm, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86440 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-technicalassistance-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_sourcesfinal.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-inwater 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, lowerincome 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 customerside 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 limitedEnglish 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 limitedEnglish 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 reevaluating 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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86442 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 reevaluated 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86443 

10The 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.’’ 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86444 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86446 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 goalbased 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 reoptimization 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86448 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86450 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 firstand 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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’’ (MerriamWebster Dictionary. Retrieved August 

27, 2024, from https://www.merriamwebster.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’’ (MerriamWebster Dictionary. Retrieved August 

27, 2024, from (n) https://www.merriamwebster.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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86452 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonregulatory 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 systemowned 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 nonowner 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86454 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 labscale 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86456 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 customerinitiated 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 (§ 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 ‘‘testouts’’ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 perhousehold 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86458 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

11Replacement 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). 

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). 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86460 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

(§§ 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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 upto-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 threeyear 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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86462 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 threeyear 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 § 141.80(a)(3)’’ to 

§ 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 noncompliance 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-anddrinking-water/revised-lead-andcopper-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 noncompliance 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86464 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86466 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86468 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 welldeveloped 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86470 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 leadlined 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-todate service line replacement plan will 

facilitate customer and consumer 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonresidential 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86472 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 rereview 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86474 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 noncommunity 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 nonpotable 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 singlefamily 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 (§ 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 

§ 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 nonlead, 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 leadlined 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 leadlined galvanized service line is found, 

then all galvanized lines in the system 

are lined with lead. Because the EPA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86476 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 leadlined 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 § 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 

§ 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 evidencebased record, method, or technique to 

not be a lead or GRR service line. The 

final LCRI includes a definition of 

newly regulated PWSs in § 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 ‘‘nonlead.’’ Water systems may also provide 

more information regarding their nonlead 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 upto-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 141.84(b); 

they fulfill the same purpose of ensuring 

State and public access to the most upto-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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86478 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonlead), 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 § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonowner occupied buildings, parents and 

guardians of children at in-home child 

care facilities, and residents of longterm 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86480 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonlead 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86482 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonlead 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 nonlead 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonlead service line is included in the 

validation pool because the systemowned 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 customerowned portion of the service line is nonlead through at least one point of visual 

inspection of the pipe exterior. 

The size of the random sample of nonlead 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 nonlead 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 timeconsuming 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86484 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 reoptimizing 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-literpaired 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86486 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 sixmonth 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86488 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

fifth liter should not be used at multifamily 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 leadsensing 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 fifthliter 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 bestavailable 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 firstand fifth-liter sampling protocol is less 

effective for evaluating CCT than the 

first-liter sampling protocol. The firstand 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 firstand 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 singlefamily 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86490 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 singlefamily 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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-ofuse 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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 (§ 141.86(g)(1)) 

and a monitoring criteria 

(§ 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 coppercontaining 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 nineyear 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 Byproducts 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86492 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 fifthliter 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.86(b)(1)(ii), all 

sample collection requirements in 

§ 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 § 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 nonlead 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 (§ 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.86(c)(2)(ii). The EPA added the 

requirement at § 141.86(c)(2)(ii), and 

maintained the provision at 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 (§ 141.90(a)(2)(i)). This is 

the same information as required in the 

site sample plan under § 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86494 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 lowerpriority 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 reevaluation 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 

(§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 consumerrequested 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 (§ 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) (§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 141.86(b)(1)(iv) that systems 

have flexibility to use alternate 

sampling protocols for consumerrequested samples. Consumer-requested 

sampling in accordance with § 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 § 141.85(c) that do not 

meet the appropriate tier and protocol 

requirements of § 141.86(a) and (b) may 

not be included in the 90th percentile 

calculation in accordance with 

§ 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 (§ 141.86(e)). 

g. Wide-Mouth Bottles 

The EPA requested comment on the 

proposed updated definition of widemouth 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86496 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 widemouth 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-ofentry 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 

§ 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 pointof-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 § 141.86(a), and finalizes 

proposed language to give States 

additional authority for invalidation 

based on sample collection criteria 

under § 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 (§ 136.2(f)). The 

current lead PQL is based on the 

approved MDLs of the analytical 

methods for lead detection in 

§ 141.23(k)(1). Based on these methods, 

the EPA established the MDL for lead as 

0.001 mg/L in § 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 

(§ 141.86(b)) and use the higher of the 

two values to calculate the 90th 

percentile lead level (§ 141.80(c)(ii)(A) 

and § 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

(§ 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 sixmonth 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 fifthliter sampling protocol at sites served by 

LSLs as described in § 141.86(b)(1)(ii), 

all sample collection requirements in 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 141.83(a)(4) regarding the requirement 

for systems to conduct standard 

monitoring following installation of 

source water treatment under 

§ 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(F), due to the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86498 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (§ 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 (§ 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 

(§ 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 

§ 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 

(§ 141.85(c)) that meet the requirements 

of § 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 

§ 141.86(b). However, only consumerrequested samples collected in 

accordance with the requirements of 

§ 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 (§ 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 

§ 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 § 141.86(a), including samples 

collected incorrectly at sites with 

installed point-of-use and/or point-ofentry 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 systemspecific, 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86500 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

(§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 (§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 reoptimization studies while 

simultaneously implementing their 

service line replacement program when 

further reduction in lead levels is 

unlikely due to various water systemspecific 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 reoptimized 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 reoptimize. 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 (§ 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 flowthrough 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86502 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 reoptimized OCCT requirements apply to 

consecutive systems in § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 reoptimize 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 reoptimization 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 §§ 141.81(h) 

and 141.90(a)(4). The final LCRI 

consolidates most of the requirements in 

§ 141.81(h) with a cross-reference in 

§ 141.90(a)(4). The EPA also revised the 

second sentence in § 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 (§ 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 § 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 longterm 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 timeconsuming 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 § 141.84(d)(5)(v)); and (2) 

have no lead, GRR, or unknown service 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86503 

lines remaining at the end of the fiveyear 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 fiveyear 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 

§ 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 

(§ 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 § 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 reoptimize OCCT after exceeding the lead 

action level (§ 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 

(§ 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-today process control since source water 

quality can vary both daily and 

seasonally. 

The EPA proposed to streamline some 

requirements in § 141.80, which 

resulted in the EPA proposing to move 

a 2021 LCRR provision from 

§ 141.80(d)(4) to § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86504 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 141.29 to modify 

monitoring requirements, noting that 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 byproducts, 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.81(f) to replace all lead and 

GRR service lines in five years or less, 

or § 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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

(§ 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 § 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 reoptimize 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 reoptimization 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 

§ 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 reoptimization 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 § 141.81(a)(1) 

through (3). The EPA finalized the 

requirements in § 141.81(a)(1) through 

(3) and added language to each section 

clarifying that the State may require a 

system to re-optimize under § 141.82(h). 

The EPA agrees that under some 

circumstances, treatment could be reevaluated 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 § 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 

§ 141.81(a)(1) through (3) that the State 

can require a system to re-optimize 

under the existing provision in 

§ 141.82(h). The State can modify its 

decision for either OCCT or the OWQPs 

for OCCT. Under § 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 

§ 141.81(a)(1) through (3) to clarify that 

States have the discretion to require 

systems to re-optimize under 

§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 reoptimized. 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 reoptimizing CCT and the need for reoptimization during and after service 

line replacement given competing 

system requirements and the changes in 

the distribution system. This is similar 

to the requirement in § 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 reoptimize unless the State has 

determined after a full and carefully 

documented consideration that reoptimization is not needed. Under this 

provision, eligible systems will have 

already performed two optimizations, 

their initial optimization and the reoptimization 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86506 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 

(§ 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 fiveyear-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 § 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 Stateapproved 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/reoptimization 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 (§ 142.16(d)(6)) and the 

agency does not intend for the deferral 

option in § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86507 

§ 141.81(f)(1)(ii) based on the total 

number of years for replacement in 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 141.81(f)(1)(i). This text also helps to 

clarify that the requirement for systems 

on a shortened service line replacement 

deadline at § 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 

§ 141.81(f)(1). Since the maximum 

length of the replacement program 

under § 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 § 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 § 141.81(h) on 

notification requirements for upcoming 

long-term change in treatment or source 

is confusing. In the proposed LCRI, 

language from § 141.90(a)(3) under the 

2021 LCRR was moved to § 141.81(h) as 

it relates to the notification and 

approval requirements before a longterm 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 § 141.81(h) and has 

included the examples of long-term 

treatment changes in §§ 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 § 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 § 141.82(g) for continued operation 

and maintenance for OCCT and reoptimized 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 § 141.81(d)(1)(iv) or (f), will need to 

conduct a mandatory harvested pipe rig/ 

loop study (§ 141.81(d)(1)(i) and 

(e)(1)(i)). Under the final LCRI 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.82(h). The EPA also included a 

requirement under § 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 reoptimize again if they exceed the lead 

action level. In addition, the EPA also 

added § 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 § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86508 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 141.81(d)(1)(iv) for 

re-optimization for some systems. The 

EPA is finalizing the revisions under 

§ 141.81(a)(2) that medium systems with 

CCT (except those that meet 

§ 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 nonsubstantive 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 § 141.81(h) 

and has included the examples of longterm treatment changes in 

§§ 141.90(a)(4) and 141.81(h) to ensure 

these examples are considered longterm 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 reoptimized). 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’’ (§ 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 § 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 realword 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86510 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 fifthliter 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] 

LSL and CCT status 

(number of systems) 1

P90 2 ≤ 0.015 

mg/L 

(%) 

P90 2 ≤ 0.010 

mg/L 

(%) 

P90 2 ≤ 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. 2Systems 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 reevaluate 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86512 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 reoptimize 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86514 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 reoptimized 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 reoptimizing 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

(§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86516 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (§§ 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 

§ 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 § 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-andfix’’ 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 

§ 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 (§ 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 reoptimizing do not need to submit 

treatment recommendations to the State 

as they are already undergoing 

treatment processes to reduce lead 

exposures in drinking water. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

(§ 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 

§ 141.82(j)(1)(ii)(B). The addition of 

WQP sites under § 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 shortterm 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 Statedesignated 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 halfmile ‘‘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 NonTransient 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 § 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 pointof-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 leadbearing 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86518 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

The EPA also proposed to consolidate 

the small system flexibility provisions 

in § 141.93 and remove cross-references 

to § 141.93 in other rule sections 

(except for those in § 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 leadbearing plumbing instead of reoptimizing 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-ofuse 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 pointof-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, pointof-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-ofuse 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

(§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 nonconsumptive 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 pointof-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 § 141.93(c)(1)(v)(A) for 

the final LCRI that public education 

materials must also meet requirements 

of § 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 § 141.93(c)(1)(iv) in 

the final LCRI for the water system to 

notify consumers, customers, and/or 

building management when a point-ofuse 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 § 141.93 and 

removes cross-references to § 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 § 141.93(c)(1)(v) for the 

final LCRI that public education 

materials must also meet requirements 

of § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86520 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 multifamily 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 reoptimizing 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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, § 141.92 

requires lead sampling and public 

education in schools and child care 

facilities (see section IV.L of this 

preamble). In addition, § 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86522 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 

(§ 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 

(§ 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 

§ 141.85(d). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 141.85(b)(2) for CWSs and 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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-ofuse devices from § 141.85 to § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86524 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 faceto-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-toface 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 

§ 141.85(h) while systems serving more 

than 3,300 persons must conduct at 

least one of the activities from 

§ 141.85(h)(2)(i) through (iv) or at least 

two of the activities from 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86526 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 multiday 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86527 

by the disturbance. Although a nonresident 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 

§ 141.86 as well as consumer-requested 

tap sampling results from supplemental 

tap water monitoring carried out under 

the requirements of § 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 onrequest 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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86528 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 consumerinitiated 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 consumerrequested 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 

§ 141.85(b)(2) for CWSs and 

§ 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 § 141.85(b)(2)(ii) through 

(vi) for CWSs (or § 141.85(b)(4)(i) and 

(ii) for NTNCWSs) and would not apply 

to delivery of public education materials 

directly to consumers under 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.85 prior to delivery, in accordance 

with § 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 

§ 141.85(a)(1) of the rule; however, there 

is not a corresponding reporting 

requirement in § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

(§ 141.153(h)) and PN Rule 

(§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86530 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 141.85(g) of the 

proposed LCRI but updated to 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

(§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 141.85(a)(1)(ii) 

and steps consumers can take to reduce 

their risk of exposure provided in 

§ 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86532 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA is requiring CWSs to conduct the 

public education activities under 

§ 141.85(b)(2) and NTNCWSs to conduct 

the public education activities under 

§ 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 

§ 141.85(b)(2)(ii) through (vi) for CWSs 

and the activities in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-ofuse 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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86534 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 (§ 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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 141.85(j), along with the other 

public education requirements under 

§ 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 § 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 communityspecific 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 § 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86536 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

3. Final Rule Requirements 

For the LCRI, the EPA is finalizing 

requirements for water systems related 

to multiple lead action level 

exceedances at § 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 fiveyear period ends five years after the 

compliance date specified in 

§ 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 

(§ 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 

§ 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 pointof-use devices available and conducting 

community outreach activities when 

there are no longer three ALEs in a fiveyear period (§ 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) (§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.2. The EPA does not 

have the authority under SDWA section 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

(§ 141.86), conduct public education 

(§ 141.85), conduct mandatory LSLR 

(§ 141.84), optimize or re-optimize 

OCCT (§§ 141.81 and 141.82) or 

implement a small system flexibility as 

applicable (§ 141.93). Requiring schools 

and child care facilities that are 

regulated PWSs to comply with the 

requirements of § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86538 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 141.92 will build upon these nonregulatory 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 142.16(d)(12). See section V.C of 

this preamble for more discussion about 

the special primacy requirements 

associated with § 141.92. 

While § 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 § 141.92(b). The provision in 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.92(a). The 

agency notes the requirements for 

conducting public education in schools 

and child care facilities in § 141.92(c) 

and sampling in § 141.92(d) and (e) all 

reference the schools and licensed child 

care facilities identified in the list in 

§ 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 141.93(c)(2). The EPA is 

revising § 141.92(a)(1) in the final LCRI 

to add a clause § 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 § 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 § 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 § 141.92(c) for 

CWSs to provide information to schools 

and licensed child care facilities 

consistent with § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86540 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 

§ 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 § 141.92. 

Therefore, the EPA is revising 

§ 141.92(c)(1) in the final LCRI to 

specify CWSs must provide information 

about health risks from lead in drinking 

water consistent with § 141.85(a)(1)(ii) 

through (iv) and (vi). This omits only 

the content in § 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 § 141.85(a)(1) if 

the system has an action level 

exceedance in accordance with 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 firstand 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86542 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.92. The EPA has included criteria 

in § 141.92(h) for States to determine if 

the alternative program is at least as 

stringent as the sampling requirements 

in § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonregulatory 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 § 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 (§ 141.92(h)). 

The EPA proposed allowing States to 

waive water systems from the sampling 

requirements in § 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 fiveyear 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86544 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (§ 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 § 141.92(a)(1) to 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 141.92(a)(2)). The 

EPA is also finalizing the proposed 

reorganization of § 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 

§ 141.92(b)(1) that schools and licensed 

child care facilities that are excluded 

under § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

(§ 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 (§ 141.92(d)(1)). 

Additionally, CWSs must notify all 

secondary schools annually that they 

may request lead sampling from the 

water system (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 § 141.92(b), the CWS must 

conduct the outreach in § 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 (§ 141.92(d)(3)). 

d. Sampling 

The EPA is retaining the proposed 

sampling protocol requirements in the 

final LCRI in § 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 § 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-ofuse 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 § 141.92(f)(2). Samples 

may be collected by the CWS, the school 

or child care facility staff, or another 

appropriately trained individual 

(§ 141.92(f)(3)). 

e. Providing Sample Results 

The EPA is finalizing the proposed 

requirements in § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86545 

child care facilities along with sample 

results in § 141.92(g)(1)(i)). 

f. Waivers 

The EPA is finalizing the proposed 

provision in § 141.92(h)(5) allowing 

States to waive the sampling 

requirements for water systems in 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 141.92(b) starting in the sixth 

year after the LCRI compliance date, 

unless those facilities are covered by a 

different waiver under § 141.92(h). 

The EPA is also finalizing the 

proposed provision allowing States to 

waive the sampling requirements for 

water systems in § 141.92 for any 

schools or licensed child care facilities 

that install and maintain filters certified 

to reduce lead (§ 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 § 141.92 as provided in § 141.92(h). 

CWSs are required to fulfill all the 

requirements of § 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 (§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 141.153(d), along with the new 

requirement for water systems to 

provide notification to consumers of 

their individual copper tap sampling 

results under § 141.85(d). The EPA 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86546 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§§ 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86548 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 § 141.90(a)(2)(iii) 

and (f)(4) and (7). Conversely, in 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 (§ 141.90(a)(1)(ii)). 

The EPA revised § 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 (§ 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 § 141.86(a)(4). 

The final LCRI added a requirement 

for systems qualifying under 

§ 141.86(b)(3) to submit updated 

documentation when there are changes 

to standing times and/or locations for 

substitute compliance tap samples 

(§ 141.90(a)(3)(i)). The agency is adding 

this clarification to be consistent with 

other requirements in § 141.86(b)(3). 

In the proposal, § 141.90(a)(4) 

contained language that described 

system and State requirements when 

implementing a new source or a longterm treatment change. The EPA 

determined this language is substantive 

language about system and State 

requirements beyond reporting. 

Therefore, the EPA added this language 

to § 141.81(h), because § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 141.90(e)) to 

provide clarity and ease 

implementation. This description is also 

provided under the service line 

replacement requirements 

(§ 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 

(§ 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 § 141.84(a)(2) through 

(4). 

For the final LCRI, the EPA added a 

requirement (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 141.90(e)(3)(iii)) that 

requires systems eligible for the deferred 

deadline provisions for LSLR to report 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86549 

updated service line replacement plan 

information to the State at intervals 

described in § 141.84(d)(5)(vi) (see 

section IV.C of this preamble). The EPA 

added this language to be consistent 

with the requirements in 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 141.90(e)(10) to § 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 

(§ 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 § 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 

(§ 141.90(f)(2)). 

The EPA added clarifications to 

§ 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 § 141.85(d). 

This requirement applies to all tap 

sampling results, including those used 

to calculate the 90th percentile value as 

described in § 141.86 and consumerrequested 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 § 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86550 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 141.80(d), § 141.81, § 141.82, § 141.83, 

§ 141.84, or § 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 

§§ 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 

§ 141.85 or requirements for sampling in 

schools and child care facilities under 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 onetime 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 

(§ 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 (§ 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 

§ 141.154(d)(2). Under the scope of the 

revised CCR Rule, the EPA revised 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 

§ 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 §§ 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86552 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 141.92 (see § 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 § 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 (§ 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 

(§ 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 § 141.153(d)(4)(xi) to 

§ 141.153(h)(8)(ii) and the requirement 

for information about accessing 

complete lead tap sampling data from 

§ 141.153(d)(4)(xii) to § 141.153(h)(8)(i) 

of the CFR. Therefore, the final LCRI is 

also moving other requirements that 

were proposed in § 141.153(d)(4) to 

§ 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 

§ 141.153(h)(8)(iii) which the final LCRI 

moved to § 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 § 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 

§§ 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, § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 §§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 (§ 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 § 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 

§ 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-implementationtools#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 (§ 141.205(c)(1)). The PN Rule 

also includes multilingual requirements 

for public notices (§ 141.205(c)(2)). The 

PN Rule requires water systems serving 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86554 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

(§ 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 § 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 

(§ 141.31(d)(2)), the agency 

inadvertently removed the pre-existing 

requirement in § 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 §; 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 § 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 §§ 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, 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.85(h), 

which requires outreach activities for 

systems that do not meet the mandatory 

service line replacement rate, and 

§ 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 

§§ 141.86 through 141.90 and 141.92, 

which concern tap water monitoring, 

water quality parameter monitoring, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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,’’ ‘‘mediumsize 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 singlefamily 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86556 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 sitespecific 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 repressurization 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 innerdiameter 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 § 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 § 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,’’ ‘‘mediumsize 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86558 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 (§§ 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 (§§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.80(a)(4)(i) for the reporting 

requirements associated with 

notifications of a known or potential 

LSL as codified on July 1, 2023 

(§ 141.90(e)(13) and (f)(4)). Additionally, 

for the final LCRI, the EPA is not 

requiring water systems to comply with 

§ 141.84(a)(6) as codified on July 1, 

2023. This requirement references 

submitting an updated inventory to the 

State in accordance with § 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 

§ 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 (§§ 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 (§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86560 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

effects language in § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 141.2 as codified on July 

1, 2020, that correspond to the 

requirements in §§ 141.80 through 

141.91 as codified on July 1, 2020. See 

section V.B.3, § 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 twoyear 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 threeyear 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86562 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Service Line Replacement Projects 

Funded by the Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund’’ details the risk 

mitigation measures, including followup 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 § 141.80(a)(4)(i). 

Beginning on October 16, 2024, water 

systems are required to comply with the 

requirements of §§ 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 

§ 141.84(a)(1) through (10) (excluding paragraphs (a)(6) and 

(7)).

Initial public service line inventory development. 

§ 141.90(e)(1) ........................................................................... Submission of initial inventory to the State. 

§ 141.85(e) ................................................................................ Initial and annual notification of known or potential service line containing lead. 

§ 141.85(a)(1)(ii) ....................................................................... Revised lead health effects language. 

§ 141.90(e)(13) and (f)(4) ......................................................... Annual reporting and certification of the notifications in § 141.85(e) to the State. 

§ 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). 

§§ 141.201(a)(3)(vi) and 141.202(a)(10) .................................. Tier 1 PN for exceedance of the lead action level as specified in § 141.80(c).1

§§ 141.201(c)(3) and 141.31(d)(2) ........................................... Submit copy of Tier 1 PN for a 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 Q, section I.C.1 (excluding § 141.90, except paragraphs (e)(1) and (13) and 

(f)(4)).

Tier 3 PN required for: failure to notify persons served at service connections of 

a known 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 Q, section D.23 ...... Revised lead health effects language for required PN. 

1As codified on July 1, 2020. 

Additionally, starting October 16, 

2024, failure to conduct the reporting 

requirements in Exhibit 3 (i.e., 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

(§ 141.153(d)(4)(xii) as codified July 1, 

2023, and renumbered to 

§ 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 § 142.17). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86563 

Under § 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-bycase 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 leadrelated 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 (§ 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); §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86564 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 142.16(d). 

The EPA included § 142.16(d)(9) in 

the final LCRI, which requires, as a 

condition of primacy, States to make 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§§ 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 § 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 § 141.84(b)(5). 

The EPA also included a special 

primacy requirement in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 142.14(d)(8). 

Revisions to the LCR in 2000 added a 

requirement that if no change is made 

to the State determinations under 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 142.14(d)(9) with other reports and 

information submitted under § 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 § 141.90(g)(1) and 

that the final rule (§ 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 § 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 § 142.14(d)(8) and 

therefore has not made any additions to 

the final LCRI regulatory text that 

require maintaining this type of 

documentation. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86566 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

c. Final Rule Requirements 

State recordkeeping requirements 

found in § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 142.14(d) were renumbered to 

accommodate this inserted requirement. 

The final LCRI also adds 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 

(§ 142.15). Specifically, the agency 

added language to the introductory 

paragraph (§ 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 

§ 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 § 142.15(c)(4)(iii)(H). 

These new requirements correspond to 

new State requirements in 

§ 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 nonquantifiable health risk reduction 

benefits from reductions in co-occurring 

contaminants; (3) quantifiable and nonquantifiable 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86568 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 reoptimization 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 nonquantifiable 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 nonrevenue 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86570 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

12Note 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. 13Note two systems provided two projects each. 

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. 

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 peractivity 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86571 

14The 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. 15Note 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. 

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 nontransient non-community water systems 

(NTNCWSs), 49,529 and 17,418, 

respectively. The agency also assumed, 

for modeling purposes, 56 primacy 

agencies.14

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). 

EXHIBIT 4—DATA SOURCES USED TO DEVELOP THE BASELINE FOR THE FINAL LCRI 

Data source Baseline data derived from the source 

SDWIS/Fed fourth quarter 2020 ‘‘frozen’’ dataset 1 ................. • PWS inventory, 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 ≤50,000 persons that installed CCT in response to the pre-2021 LCR. 

• 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 Update .................. • Service line material characterization. 

• Service line replacement costs. 

State service line information ................................................... • Service line material characterization. 

Geometries and Characteristics of Public Water Systems 

(USEPA, 2000c).

• Design and average daily flow per system. 

Six-Year Review 3 ICR Occurrence Dataset (2006–2011) ..... • Baseline distribution of pH for various CCT conditions. 

• Baseline orthophosphate dose for CCT. 

State of Michigan Lead and Copper Compliance Monitoring 

Data (Michigan EGLE, 2019–2021).

• Analysis of the ratio of fifth- to first-liter lead tap samples to estimate the increase in lead 90th 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. 

2A 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86572 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

16The 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). 

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 PWSspecific 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

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 reVerDate Sep<11>2014 19:10 Oct 29, 2024 Jkt 265001 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30OCR2.SGM 30OCR2

ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86573 

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. 

18The 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. 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86574 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

19The 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. 

20Note 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. 

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. 

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, pointof-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 subcomponents 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 

Administrative Costs.

4.3.1.1: PWS One-Time Implementation and Administrative 

Costs.

(a) Read and understand the rule. 

(b) Assign personnel and resources for rule implementation. 

(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 Tap Sampling (a) Update 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 customerinitiated lead sampling program. 

(u) Inform customers of lead tap sample results for customer-initiated 

lead sampling program. 

4.3.2.2: PWS Lead Water Quality 

Parameter Monitoring.

(v) Collect lead WQP samples from the distribution system. 

(w) Analyze lead WQP samples from the distribution system. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86575 

EXHIBIT 5—PWS COST COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS, AND ACTIVITIES ORGANIZED BY SECTION 1—Continued 

Component Subcomponents Activities 2

(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 Copper Water Quality Parameter Monitoring.(aa) Collect copper WQP samples from the distribution system. 

(bb) Analyze copper 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 Source Water Monitoring.(ff) Collect source water samples. 

(gg) Analyze source water samples. 

(hh) Report source water monitoring results to the State. 

4.3.2.5.1: CWS School and Child 

Care Facility Lead Sampling 

Costs—First Five-Year Cycle.

(ii) Create a list of schools and child care facilities served by CWS 

and submit to State. 

(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 School and Child 

Care Facility Lead Sampling 

Costs—Second Five-Year Cycle 

On.

(ww) Update the list of schools and child care facilities and submit to 

the State. 

(xx) Contact schools and child care 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 Costs 4.3.3.1: CCT Installation ................ (a) Conduct a CCT study. 

(b) Install CCT (PO4, PO4 with post treatment, pH adjustment, or 

modify pH). 

4.3.3.2: Re-optimization of Existing 

Corrosion Control Treatment.

(c) Revise CCT study. 

(d) Re-optimize existing CCT. 

4.3.3.3: DSSA Costs ..................... (e) Contact customers 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 Lead CCT Routine Costs.(l) Review CCT guidance. 

(m) Provide WQP data to the State and discuss during sanitary survey. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86576 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 5—PWS COST COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS, AND ACTIVITIES ORGANIZED BY SECTION 1—Continued 

Component Subcomponents Activities 2

(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 Inventory 

and Replacement Costs.

4.3.4.1: Service Line Inventory ...... (a) Conduct records review for connector 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 Line Replacement 

Plan.

(g) Develop initial service line 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 Service Line Replacements.(l) Systems replace lead and GRR service lines. 

4.3.4.4: Ancillary Service Line Replacement Activities.(m) Contact customers and conduct site visits prior to service line 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 

(Small System Compliance Option).

4.3.5.1: POU Device Installation 

and Maintenance.

4.3.5.2: POU Ancillary Activities ....

(a) Provide, monitor, and maintain POU devices. 

(b) Develop POU plan and submit to the 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 Education, 

Outreach, and Notification Costs.

4.3.6.1: Consumer Notice .............. (a) Develop lead consumer notice 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: Activities Regardless of 

Lead 90th Percentile Level.

(c) Update CCR language. 

(d) Develop new customer outreach 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86577 

21For 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 5—PWS COST COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS, AND ACTIVITIES ORGANIZED BY SECTION 1—Continued 

Component Subcomponents Activities 2

(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 Education Activities 

in Response to Lead ALE.

(t) Update mandatory language for lead ALE public education and 

submit to the 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 Education Activities 

in Response to Multiple Lead 

ALEs.

(bb) Develop plan for making filters available and submit to the State 

for review. 

(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. 2The 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. 3This 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 lowand 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). 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86578 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

22Note that, although the EPA assumed in the 

cost analysis that systems would pay for customerside 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 6—ESTIMATED NATIONAL TOTAL MONETIZED ANNUALIZED PWS RULE COSTS—2 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE— 

Continued 

[Millions of 2022 USD] 

PWS annual costs Low estimate High estimate 

Rule component Baseline LCRI Incremental Baseline LCRI Incremental 

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, pointof-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 lowand 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

EXHIBIT 7—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD BY COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM CATEGORY— 

LOW SCENARIO

[2022 USD] 

Ownership Source water Size Mean 10th 

percentile 

25th 

percentile 

50th 

percentile 

75th 

percentile 

90th 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86579 

EXHIBIT 7—ESTIMATED ANNUALIZED INCREMENTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD BY COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEM CATEGORY— 

LOW SCENARIO—Continued 

[2022 USD] 

Ownership Source water Size Mean 10th 

percentile 

25th 

percentile 

50th 

percentile 

75th 

percentile 

90th 

percentile 

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] 

Funding Source Water Size Mean 10th 

percentile 

25th 

percentile 

50th 

percentile 

75th 

percentile 

90th 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86580 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 9—STATE COST COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS, AND ACTIVITIES ORGANIZED BY SECTION 1

Component Subcomponents Activities 2

4.4.1: State Implementation and 

Administrative Costs.

4.4.1.1: State Start-up Implementation and Administrative Activities.(a) Adopt rule and develop program. 

(b) Modify data management systems. 

(c) Provide system training and technical assistance. 

(d) Provide staff training. 

(e) Review and approve small system flexibility option. 

4.4.1.2: State Annual Implementation and Administrative Activities.(f) Coordinate with the EPA. 

(g) Provide ongoing technical assistance. 

(h) Report to SDWIS/Fed. 

(i) Train staff for annual administration. 

4.4.2: State Sampling Related 

Costs.

4.4.2.1: State Lead Tap Sampling 

Costs.

(a) Provide templates for revised sampling 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 Lead WQP Sampling Costs.(i) Review lead WQP sampling data and compliance with OWQPs. 

4.4.2.3: State Copper WQP Monitoring Costs.(j) Review copper WQP sampling data and compliance with OWQPs. 

4.4.2.4: State Source Water Monitoring Costs.(k) Review source water monitoring results. 

4.4.2.5: State School Sampling 

Costs.

(l) Review list of schools and child 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 Installation ................ (a) Review CCT study and determine type of CCT to be installed. 

(b) Set OWQPs after CCT installation. 

4.4.3.2: Re-optimization ................. (c) Review CCT study and determine needed OCCT adjustment. 

(d) Reset OWQPs after CCT re-optimization. 

4.4.3.3: State DSSA Costs ............ (e) Consult with system prior to any DSSA CCT adjustments. 

(f) Review report on DSSA responses. 

4.4.3.4: State Lead CCT Routine 

Costs.

(g) Review CCT guidance and 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 Inventory 

and Replacement Related Costs.

4.4.4.1: Service Line Inventory 

Costs.

(a) Review connector updated LCRR initial inventory (baseline inventory). 

(b) Review annual service line inventory updates. 

(c) Review inventory validation report. 

4.4.4.2: Service Line Replacement 

Plan Review Costs.

(d) Review initial service line replacement plan. 

(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 Line Replacement 

Report Review Costs.

(h) Review annual service line replacement program report. 

4.4.5: State POU Related Costs ..... 4.4.5.1: One-Time POU Program 

Costs.

(a) Review POU plan. 

(b) Provide templates for POU outreach materials. 

(c) Review POU public education materials. 

4.4.5.2: Ongoing POU Program 

Costs.

(d) Review sample invalidation request for POU monitoring. 

(e) Review customer notification certifications. 

(f) Review annual POU program report. 

4.4.6: State Public Education-Related Costs.4.4.6.1: Consumer Notice .............. (a) Provide templates for consumer notice materials. 

(b) Review lead consumer notice materials. 

(c) Review copy of the consumer notice and certification. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86581 

23The 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. 

EXHIBIT 9—STATE COST COMPONENTS, SUBCOMPONENTS, AND ACTIVITIES ORGANIZED BY SECTION 1—Continued 

Component Subcomponents Activities 2

4.4.6.2: Activities Regardless of 

the Lead 90th Percentile Level.

(d) Provide templates for updated CCR language. 

(e) Provide templates 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 Education Activities 

in Response to Lead ALE.

(n) Provide templates for updated public education materials for systems with a 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 Education Activities 

in Response to Multiple Lead 

ALEs.

(q) Review plan for making filters available. 

(r) Provide templates for systems with 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. 2The 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 lowand 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). 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86582 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86583 

24Note 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. 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86584 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

25Note, no GRR lines are part of the profile 

dataset. See below in this section for a discussion 

of assumed GRR water lead concentrations. 

26The 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. 

27For 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). 

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). 

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 logscale 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86585 

28The 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). 

29Note 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. 

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). 

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) 

LSL status CCT status 

Simulated 

mean of log 

lead 

(μg/L) 

Simulated 

SD a of log 

lead 

Simulated 

geometric 

mean lead 

(μg/L) 

Simulated 

geometric 

SD 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. aStandard deviations reflect ‘‘among-sampling event’’ variability. 

bSimulated 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 highscenario 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86586 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-ofuse 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 mg/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

Lead service line status Corrosion control 

treatment status 

Water 

concentration 

(μg/L) 

GM blood lead level (μg/dL) b for specified year of life 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2

I I I I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86587 

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—Continued 

Lead service line status Corrosion control 

treatment status 

Water 

concentration 

(μg/L) 

GM blood lead level (μg/dL) b for specified year of life 

0–1 a 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 Avg. c

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 

aBlood lead levels for the first year of life are based on regression from IEUBK for 0.5- to 1-year-olds only. 

bThese 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. cThis 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 mg/m3

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 

(mg/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

Lead service 

line status 

Corrosion control 

treatment status Sex 

Geometric mean blood lead level (μg/dL) for specified age group 1 in years from the AALM 

8–15 16–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–79 

LSL .......................... None ....................... Male ........................

Female ....................

1.33 

1.25 

1.28 

1.44 

1.70 

1.99 

1.82 

2.14 

1.92 

2.27 

1.98 

2.35 

1.36 

1.56 

1.94 

2.31 

Partial LSL/GRR ..... None ....................... Male ........................

Female ....................

1.03 

0.97 

1.00 

1.10 

1.30 

1.47 

1.35 

1.53 

1.37 

1.56 

1.39 

1.59 

1.36 

1.56 

1.34 

1.53 

No LSL .................... None ....................... Male ........................

Female ....................

0.80 

0.74 

0.77 

0.83 

0.98 

1.06 

0.97 

1.03 

0.94 

1.00 

0.92 

0.98 

0.88 

0.94 

0.85 

0.91 

LSL .......................... Partial ..................... Male ........................

Female ....................

1.08 

1.01 

1.04 

1.15 

1.36 

1.55 

1.42 

1.62 

1.45 

1.66 

1.47 

1.70 

1.45 

1.67 

1.42 

1.65 

Partial LSL/GRR ..... Partial ..................... Male ........................

Female ....................

0.92 

0.85 

0.89 

0.96 

1.14 

1.26 

1.16 

1.28 

1.16 

1.28 

1.15 

1.28 

1.12 

1.25 

1.10 

1.22 

No LSL .................... Partial ..................... Male ........................

Female ....................

0.80 

0.74 

0.77 

0.83 

0.98 

1.06 

0.97 

1.03 

0.94 

1.00 

0.92 

0.98 

0.88 

0.94 

0.85 

0.91 

LSL .......................... Representative ....... Male ........................

Female ....................

0.93 

0.87 

0.90 

0.98 

1.16 

1.29 

1.19 

1.32 

1.19 

1.32 

1.19 

1.32 

1.16 

1.29 

1.13 

1.27 

Partial LSL/GRR ..... Representative ....... Male ........................

Female ....................

0.85 

0.79 

0.82 

0.89 

1.05 

1.15 

1.05 

1.14 

1.03 

1.12 

1.02 

1.11 

0.99 

1.07 

0.96 

1.04 

No LSL .................... Representative ....... Male ........................

Female ....................

0.80 

0.74 

0.77 

0.83 

0.98 

1.06 

0.97 

1.03 

0.94 

1.00 

0.92 

0.98 

0.88 

0.94 

0.85 

0.91 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86588 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

30The 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. 

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—Continued 

Lead service 

line status 

Corrosion control 

treatment status Sex 

Geometric mean blood lead level (μg/dL) for specified age group 1 in years from the AALM 

8–15 16–19 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–79 

POU or pitcher filter ................................. Male ........................

Female ....................

0.80 

0.74 

0.77 

0.83 

0.98 

1.06 

0.97 

1.03 

0.94 

1.00 

0.92 

0.98 

0.88 

0.94 

0.85 

0.91 

1The 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. 

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 sevenyear-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<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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86589 

31Note 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. 

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). 

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 reoptimization, 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 ≤5 mg/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 (<6 mg/dL), and with maternal or 

cord BLLs (2–5 mg/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 concentrationresponse 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86590 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 reoptimization, 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, pointof-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86591 

32The 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. 

33The 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. 

34Note 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. 

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 reoptimization, 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 <5 mg/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). 

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 <5 mg/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 reoptimization, 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 reoptimization 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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86592 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86593 

35Although 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). 

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. 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86594 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

36The 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. 

owned by both water systems and 

homeowners (Levin, 2023). The 

corrosion inhibitors used by systems 

that are required to install or reoptimize 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 DVGWTechnologiezentrum 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 nonquantifiable 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 nonquantifiable 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 nonquantifiable costs. 

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 nonmonetized 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 nonquantifiable 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 reoptimization 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 reoptimize 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 nonquantifiable negative environmental 

impacts the incremental phosphorus 

loadings to WWTPs and receiving 

waterbodies cause by the increased use 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86595 

37Because 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). 

38The 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. 

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 nonquantified 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. 

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 

Area Alternative option considered Final LCRI 

Lead Action Level ................ 1. Lead Action Level of ≤0.015 mg/L ..............................

2. Lead Action Level of ≤0.005 mg/L 

Lead AL of ≤0.010 mg/L (proposed rule). 

Service Line Replacement 

Rate.

Service lines are replaced at an annual rate of 7% ....... Service lines are replaced at an annual rate of 10% 

(proposed rule). 

Definition of Lead Content to 

be Replaced.

Systems must replace lead service lines and galvanized lines previously downstream of lead lines or 

unknown lead content lines, and lead connectors and 

galvanized lines previously downstream of lead connectors.

Systems must replace lead service lines and galvanized lines previously downstream of lead lines or 

unknown lead content lines. Lead connectors are replaced when encountered (proposed rule). 

SLR Deferred Deadline ........ 1. Systems may be given a deferred deadline for finishing all LSL and GRR replacements resulting in a 

maximum rate which is the lower of 10,000 lines per 

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.

Systems may be given a deferred deadline for finishing 

all lead and GRR service line replacements resulting 

in a maximum rate of 39 replacements per 1,000 

connections. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86596 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

39Note 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 16—SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED FOR THE FINAL LCRI—Continued 

Area Alternative option considered Final LCRI 

Lead Tap Sampling .............. All systems return to standard 6-month monitoring with 

an ALE. Systems with lead, GRR, and/or unknown 

service lines at the compliance date conduct standard 6-month monitoring at the compliance date and 

non-lead service line systems remain on LCR monitoring schedule until new LCRI protocol sampling 

may change P90. When (and if) a non-lead system 

finds a lead or GRR service line they return to 6- 

month monitoring. (proposed rule). Systems that 

sampled using the new protocol and are below the 

LCRI action level prior to the compliance date may 

qualify to retain their current schedule.

All systems return to standard 6-month monitoring with 

an ALE. Systems with lead and GRR service lines 

return to standard 6-month monitoring at compliance 

date. Unknown and non-lead service line systems remain on LCR monitoring schedule until new LCRI 

protocol sampling may change P90. When (and if) a 

non-lead/all unknown system finds a lead or GRR 

service line they return to 6-month monitoring. Systems with lead and GRR service lines that sampled 

using the new protocol and are below the LCRI action level prior to the compliance date may qualify to 

retain their current schedule. 

Multiple ALE Filter Programs Systems with at least 2 lead ALEs in a rolling 5-year 

period must prepare and submit a filter plan to State. 

Systems with at least 3 lead ALEs in a rolling 5-year 

period must: 

1. Make filters available to all customers with lead, 

GRR, and unknown lead content service lines.

2. Deliver filters directly to all customers. 

Systems with at least 2 lead ALEs in a rolling 5-year 

period must prepare and submit a filter plan to State. 

Systems with at least 3 lead ALEs in a rolling 5-year 

period must make filters available to all customers 

(proposed rule—with filter plan being required after 2 

ALEs instead of 3 ALEs for the final rule). 

Small System Flexibility ....... CWSs that serve 10,000 or fewer persons, and all 

NTNCWSs, are provided compliance flexibility when 

they exceed the action level.

CWSs that serve 3,300 or fewer persons, and all 

NTNCWSs, are provided compliance flexibility when 

they exceed the 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

EXHIBIT 17—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COST COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINAL LCRI AND ALTERNATIVE

LEAD ACTION LEVEL OPTION (AL >0.015 mg/L)—HIGH SCENARIO—2 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

[Millions of 2022 USD] 

PWS annual costs 

Final rule Alternative option 

(AL ≤0.015 mg/L) 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86597 

EXHIBIT 17—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COST COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINAL LCRI AND ALTERNATIVE

LEAD ACTION LEVEL OPTION (AL >0.015 mg/L)—HIGH SCENARIO—2 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE—Continued 

[Millions of 2022 USD] 

PWS annual costs 

Final rule Alternative option 

(AL ≤0.015 mg/L) 

Baseline LCRI Incremental Baseline LCRI Incremental 

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 >0.015 mg/L)—HIGH SCENARIO—2 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

[Millions of 2022 USD] 

Final rule Alternative option 

(AL ≤0.015 mg/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 ≤0.005 mg/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 ≤0.010 mg/L. 

EXHIBIT 19—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COST COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINAL LCRI AND ALTERNATIVE

LEAD ACTION LEVEL OPTION (AL >0.005 mg/L)—HIGH SCENARIO—2 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

[Millions of 2022 USD] 

PWS annual costs 

Final rule Alternative option 

(AL ≤0.005 mg/L) 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86598 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

EXHIBIT 19—ESTIMATED NATIONAL ANNUALIZED RULE COST COMPARISON BETWEEN THE FINAL LCRI AND ALTERNATIVE

LEAD ACTION LEVEL OPTION (AL >0.005 mg/L)—HIGH SCENARIO—2 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE—Continued 

[Millions of 2022 USD] 

PWS annual costs 

Final rule Alternative option 

(AL ≤0.005 mg/L) 

Baseline LCRI Incremental Baseline LCRI Incremental 

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 >0.005 mg/L)—HIGH SCENARIO—2 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

[Millions of 2022 USD] 

Final rule Alternative option 

(AL ≤0.005 mg/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] 

PWS Annual Costs 

Final rule Alternative option 

(SLR Rate = 7%) 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86599 

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—Continued 

[Millions of 2022 USD] 

PWS Annual Costs 

Final rule Alternative option 

(SLR Rate = 7%) 

Baseline LCRI Incremental Baseline LCRI Incremental 

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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86600 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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] 

PWS Annual Costs 

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 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86602 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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] 

PWS Annual Costs 

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 

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 nonlead/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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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] 

PWS Annual Costs 

Final rule Alternative option (temporary filters made 

available to lead, GRR, and unknown lead 

content service line customers only in systems 

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 nonlead, GRR, and unknown service line 

customers. The analysis for the final 

LCRI was not able to quantify the 

potential benefits of filter use at nonlead and GRR households, resulting in 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86604 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonquantifiable 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] 

PWS Annual Costs 

Final rule Alternative option (deliver temporary filters 

directly to all customers in systems 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 72.1 308.1 236.0 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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] 

PWS Annual Costs 

Final rule Alternative option (small system flexibility for 

CWSs serving up to 10,000 persons) 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86606 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 sixmonth 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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/lawsregulations/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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86608 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nontransient 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 lowand 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., perand 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 reoptimizing 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 costbenefit 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 costbenefit 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86610 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 pointof-use devices and replacement of leadbearing 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86612 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 141.84(c)(2), systems must make their 

service line replacement plan publicly 

available. Systems are also required to 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86614 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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, pre1980 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 lowincome 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86616 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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/2022AWWALead

CommunicationsGuideAndToolkit.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.0000000

000002223. 

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-ofBenton-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-HQOW-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-WhitePaper-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-HQOW-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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/EPAHQOAR-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/breastfeedingspecial-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/leadprevention/php/data/blood-leadsurveillance.html. 

CDC. (2023). Lead in Drinking Water. Last 

reviewed February 28, 2023. Retrieved 

from https://www.cdc.gov/leadprevention/prevention/drinkingwater.html. 

CDC. (2024). CDC Updated Blood Lead 

Reference Level. Last reviewed April 2, 

2024. Retrieved from https://

www.cdc.gov/lead-prevention/php/newsfeatures/updates-blood-lead-referencevalue.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/ClientSolutions/Insights/Success-Factors-inLead-Service-Line-ReplacementPrograms. 

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/showpublished

document/24584/637873462362500000. 

City of Denver. (2023). Using Filters. 

Retrieved July 18, 2023, from https://

www.denverwater.org/your-water/waterquality/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-garybrown-attends-white-house-watersummit-detroit-signs-great-lakes-leadpipes. 

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/pipesexcavated-at-20490-flint-homes-to-datethrough-mayor-weavers-fast-startinitiative/. 

City of Kalamazoo. (2023). Request Free 

Water Filters. Retrieved July 18, 2023, 

from https://www.kalamazoocity.org/ 

Residents/Water-Sewer-Service/RequestFree-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-lineservice-lines-are-replaced-as-crews-workthrough-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-directorsmessage. 

City of Newark. (n.d.). Water Filter and 

Replacement Cartridge Distribution 

Program. New Jersey. Retrieved July 18, 

2023, from https://www.newark

leadserviceline.com/filters. 

City of Philadelphia. (2022). Bill Number 

220221–A. Retrieved from https://

phila.legistar.com/Legislation

Detail.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/. 

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-qareadiness-to-supply-copper-for-leadservice-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-servicelines/yes-theres-enough-copper-toreplace-lead-pipes-plus-federal-fundingfor-using-american-made-products?_

hsenc=p2ANqtz-_k43NkbyAcVZpd83kncaW4Tbk0VreE4LUkX-XEk0YBkvf

SjX6XPBfl9ZrW9hVOgn7go1g

bmWPYEDFJb72Q6iV4Sh7Dg&_

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-p9781119625506. 

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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86618 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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). Shortand 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 longterm 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-ReplacingAmericas-Lead-Service-Lines_August2021.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-replacementprograms. 

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 LowIncome 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/10.1177/10901981

14560790. 

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; Borne ́, Y; 

Engstro ̈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/newsreleases/2023/02.14.23-IEPA-Lead

ServiceLineFunding-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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.lslrcollaborative.org/preparing-aninventory.html. 

LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.a). Legal Factors. 

Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://

www.lslr-collaborative.org/legalfactors.html. 

LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.b). Requiring LSL 

Replacement When Opportunities Arise. 

Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://

www.lslr-collaborative.org/requiring-lslreplacement.html. 

LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.c). Getting Started 

on an LSL Inventory. Retrieved July 10, 

2024, from https://www.lslrcollaborative.org/preparing-aninventory.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.lslrcollaborative.org/effectiveness-ofanticipated-communicationsoptions.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-ofmadisons-lead-service-replacementprogram. 

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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86620 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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/michiganadministrative-code/departmentenvironmental-quality/drinking-waterand-municipal-assistance-division/ 

supplying-water-to-the-public/part-16- 

general-plans/section-r-32511604- 

contents-of-general-plans-for-allapplicable-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-linematerialverification-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/ndwaclcrwg

finalreportaug2015.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-summarynovember-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-summaryjanuary-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-purificationindustry/. 

Reese, A.C, Burgos-Gil, R., Cleary, S.D., 

Seper, S., Monge-Rojas, R., and ColonRamas, 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-Garcı ́a, A; Coull, 

BA; Wright, RO; Te ́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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-of2023. 

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). LongTerm 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; S ̧u ̈ ku ̈r, YE; Ozkavukcu, S; 

Seval, MM; Ates ̧, C; Tu ̈rksoy, VA; 

Ecemis ̧, T; Atabekog ̆lu, CS; O ̈ zmen, B; 

Berker, B; So ̈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 smallscale 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86622 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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-forstate-local-and-tribal-governments/stateand-local-fiscal-recovery-funds/publicdata. 

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-advisoryboard-evaluation-effectiveness-partiallead-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-anddrinking-water/3ts-reducing-leaddrinking-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&Fuzzy

Degree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x

150y150g16/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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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-reducelead-exposures-and-disparities-uscommunities. 

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-grantreducing-lead-drinkingwater#:∼:text=February%2013%2C

%202023%20%2D%20EPA%

20announces,drinking%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-implementationmemo_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/epalaunchesnew-initiative-accelerate-leadpipereplacement-protect-underserved. 

USEPA. (2023d). LSLR Financing Case 

Study: North Providence, RI. Retrieved 

from https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/ 

lslrfinancing-case-study-northprovidenceri. 

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-samplingobjectives. 

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/leadservice-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-FactsheetCombined-06072023%20508-final.pdf. 

USEPA. (2023p). Planning and Conducting 

Lead Service Line Replacement. 

Retrieved July 8, 2024, from https://

www.epa.gov/ground-water-anddrinking-water/planning-andconducting-lead-service-linereplacement. 

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/getlead-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_lcrrcompliance-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-copperrule-revisions-frequently-askedquestions_4102024_508.pdf. 

USEPA. (2024i). Implementing Lead Service 

Line Replacement Projects Funded by 

the Drinking Water State Revolving 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86624 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Fund. May 1, 2024. Office of Water. 

Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/ 

system/files/documents/2024-05/ 

implementing-lead-service-linereplacement-projects-funded-by-thedrinking-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-batssct_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-anddrinking-water/managing-cyanotoxinspublic-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/factsheet_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-%20

Lead.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/factsheet-the-biden-harris-lead-pipe-andpaint-action-plan/. 

The White House. (2023). Fact Sheet: BidenHarris 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/factsheet-biden-harris-administrationannounces-new-actions-and-progress-toprotect-communities-from-lead-pipesand-paint/. 

The White House. (2024a). Fact Sheet: BidenHarris 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-harrisadministration-announces-3-billion-toreplace-toxic-lead-pipes-and-deliverclean-drinking-water-to-communitiesacross-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/factsheet-president-biden-announces-newworkforce-hubs-to-train-and-connectamerican-workers-to-good-jobs-createdby-the-presidents-investing-in-americaagenda/. 

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/LSLmandatory

Ordinances.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 ewaste 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: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86625 

PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY 

DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 141.2 by: 

■ a. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Action 

level’’ and ‘‘Child care facility’’; 

■ b. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Connector’’ and 

‘‘Distribution System and Site 

Assessment’’; 

■ c. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Elementary school’’; 

■ d. Removing the definitions of ‘‘Findand-fix’’ and ‘‘First draw sample’’; 

■ e. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘First-liter sample’’; 

■ f. Removing the definition of ‘‘Full 

lead service line replacement’’; 

■ g. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Galvanized requiring 

replacement service line’’; 

■ h. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Galvanized service line’’; 

■ i. Removing the definition of 

‘‘Gooseneck, pigtail, or connector’’; 

■ j. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Lead 

service line’’ and ‘‘Lead status unknown 

service line’’; 

■ k. Removing the definitions of ‘‘Lead 

trigger level’’ and ‘‘Medium-size water 

system’’; 

■ l. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Medium water system’’ 

and ‘‘Newly regulated public water 

system’’; 

■ m. Removing the definitions of 

‘‘Optimal corrosion control treatment’’ 

and ‘‘Partial lead service line 

replacement’’; 

■ n. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions for ‘‘Optimal corrosion 

control treatment (OCCT)’’ and ‘‘Partial 

service line replacement’’; 

■ o. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Pitcher 

filter’’ and ‘‘Secondary school’’; 

■ p. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Service line’’; 

■ q. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Small 

water system’’ and ‘‘System without 

corrosion control treatment’’; 

■ r. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘Tap monitoring period’’; 

■ s. Removing the definition of ‘‘Tap 

sampling monitoring period’’; and 

■ t. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Tap 

sampling period’’, ‘‘Tap sampling 

protocol’’, and ‘‘Wide-mouth bottles’’. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 141.3; 

or 

(2) An existing water system that did 

not meet the definition of a public water 

system in § 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. 

* * * * * 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86626 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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. 

■ 3. Amend § 141.31 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Revise and republish § 141.80 to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 §§ 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 noncommunity 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 § 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 

§ 141.86(e) for the purpose of 

calculating the 90th percentile and 

tested using the analytical methods 

specified in § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.86(a) with sufficient Tier 1 and 2 

sites to meet the minimum number of 

sites required in § 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 

§ 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-andfifth-liter-paired lead samples in 

accordance with § 141.86(a)(2), or has 

failed to collect at least five copper 

samples or five first-liter-and fifth-literpaired 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 

§ 141.86(a) with an insufficient number 

of Tier 1 or 2 sites to meet the minimum 

number of sites required in § 141.86(c) 

or (d) as applicable: 

(A) For lead, the system must use the 

higher value of the first-liter and fifthliter 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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-andfifth-liter-paired lead samples in 

accordance with § 141.86(a)(2), or has 

failed to collect at least five copper 

samples or five first-and-fifth—literpaired 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 

§ 141.86(c) or (d), the system must 

calculate the 90th percentile lead and 

copper levels following the steps in 

§ 141.80(c)(3)(i)(A) through (C). 

■ 5. Revise § 141.81 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 141.80(a)(3); 

(B) Is meeting optimal water quality 

parameters designated by the State; and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86628 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(C) Is continuing to operate and 

maintain corrosion control treatment as 

required in § 141.82(g). 

(ii) The State may require a large 

water system that does not have to reoptimize under paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) 

through (C) of this section to re-optimize 

under § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 ≤50,000 people). (i) 

Medium 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 § 141.80(a)(3); 

(B) Is meeting optimal water quality 

parameters designated by the State; and 

(C) Is continuing to operate and 

maintain corrosion control treatment as 

required in § 141.82(g). 

(ii) The State may require a medium 

water system that does not have to reoptimize under paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) 

through (C) of this section to re-optimize 

under § 141.82(h). 

(iii) After completing service line 

replacement in accordance with the 

requirements in § 141.84(d) and there 

are no lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service lines remaining in the inventory, 

if at the end of a subsequent tap 

sampling period, the system exceeds the 

lead action level, a medium water 

system with corrosion control treatment 

must meet the requirements under 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(iv) Medium water systems with 

corrosion control treatment that do not 

exceed either the lead action level or the 

copper action level and do not have 

optimal water quality parameters 

designated by the State must complete 

the steps specified in paragraph (d) of 

this section starting with step 6 under 

paragraph (d)(6) of this section unless 

the system is deemed optimized under 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section. 

(v) Medium water systems without 

corrosion control treatment that exceed 

either the lead or copper action level 

must complete the OCCT steps specified 

in paragraph (e) of this section. 

(3) Small water systems (serving 

≤10,000 people) and non-transient noncommunity water systems. (i) Small and 

non-transient non-community water 

systems with corrosion control 

treatment that exceed either the lead 

action level or the 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 § 141.80(a)(3); 

(B) Is meeting optimal water quality 

parameters designated by the State; and 

(C) Is continuing to operate and 

maintain corrosion control treatment as 

required in § 141.82(g). 

(ii) The State may require a small 

water system that does not have to reoptimize under paragraphs (a)(3)(i)(A) 

through (C) of this section to re-optimize 

under § 141.82(h). 

(iii) After completing service line 

replacement in accordance with the 

requirements in § 141.84(d) and there 

are no lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service lines remaining in the inventory, 

if at the end of a subsequent tap 

sampling period, the system exceeds the 

lead action level, a small water system 

with corrosion control treatment must 

meet the requirements under paragraph 

(d) of this section. 

(iv) Small and non-transient noncommunity water systems without 

corrosion control treatment that exceed 

either the lead action level or copper 

action level must complete the 

corrosion control treatment steps 

specified in paragraph (e) of this 

section. 

(b) Systems deemed to have optimized 

corrosion control. A system without 

corrosion control treatment is deemed to 

have OCCT as defined in § 141.2 if the 

system meets the requirement of either 

paragraph (b)(1) or (3) of this section. A 

system with corrosion control treatment 

is deemed to have OCCT as defined in 

§ 141.2 or re-optimized OCCT if the 

system meets the requirements of either 

paragraphs (b)(1) and (4) or (b)(3) and 

(4) of this section. Systems must submit 

documentation of meeting the 

applicable requirements to the State in 

accordance with § 141.90(c)(1) by the 

applicable deadline for submitting tap 

sampling results under § 141.90(a)(2). 

(1) A medium water system without 

corrosion control treatment or a small 

water system is deemed to have OCCT 

if the water system does not exceed the 

lead action level and copper action level 

during two consecutive six-month tap 

monitoring periods and then remains at 

or below the lead action level and 

copper action level in all tap sampling 

periods conducted in accordance with 

§ 141.86. 

(i) A small water system with 

corrosion control treatment is not 

eligible to be deemed to have OCCT 

pursuant to this paragraph (b)(1) where 

the State has set optimal water quality 

parameters (OWQPs) under paragraph 

(d) or (e) of this section. 

(ii) If a medium water system without 

corrosion control treatment or a small 

water system deemed to have OCCT 

under this paragraph (b)(1) exceeds the 

lead action level or copper action level, 

the system must follow the 

requirements in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(2) [Reserved] 

(3) A water system is deemed to have 

optimized or re-optimized corrosion 

control treatment if it submits tap 

sampling results in accordance with 

§ 141.86 demonstrating that the 90th 

percentile lead level is less than or 

equal to the lead practical quantitation 

limit of 0.005 mg/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 

§ 141.86(d)(1) and collecting samples at 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86629 

times and locations specified in 

§ 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 reoptimize optimal corrosion control 

treatment under paragraph (a) of this 

section must complete the following 

steps (described in the referenced 

portions of §§ 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 

§ 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 reoptimized optimal corrosion control 

treatment (§ 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 reoptimized 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 reoptimization (§ 141.82(c)(2)). If the State 

does not require the system to perform 

such studies, the State must specify reoptimized optimal corrosion control 

treatment (§ 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 (§ 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 reoptimized OCCT based on CCT study 

results. The State must designate reoptimized OCCT (§ 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 

(§ 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 

§ 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(D) and water quality 

parameter monitoring under 

§ 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 reoptimized OCCT and designate OWQPs 

(§ 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 (§ 141.82(g)) and conduct tap 

sampling under § 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E) and 

water quality parameter monitoring 

under § 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 

§§ 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86630 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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) 

(§ 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 

(§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 

§ 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(D) and water quality 

parameter monitoring under 

§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 141.82(g)) and conduct tap 

sampling under § 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E) and 

water quality parameter monitoring 

under § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86631 

(4) At the end of each year of the fiveyear-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 § 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 § 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 longterm 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. 

■ 6. Revise § 141.82 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 141.81(e)(2) and re-optimized OCCT 

under § 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 reoptimization evaluation). 

(c) Performance of corrosion control 

studies. (1) Systems without corrosion 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86632 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

control treatment required to conduct 

corrosion control studies under 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 reoptimized 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 reoptimized OCCT. Each system must 

install and operate the OCCT or reoptimized 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 141.87. 

(1) Compliance with the requirements 

of this paragraph (g) must be determined 

every six months, as specified under 

§ 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 Statespecified 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 § 142.16(d)(1)(ii) of this 

chapter in the State’s application for a 

program revision submitted pursuant to 

§ 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 reoptimized 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.86 exceed 0.010 

mg/L and the site is included in the site 

sample plan under § 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; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86634 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 

§ 141.87(b)(1)(i). Sites must be added 

until a system has twice the minimum 

number of sites listed in table 1 to 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.90(g)(2), explaining 

why it was unable to collect a followup 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 sitespecific 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 reoptimizing 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 § 141.81(e). 

(6) Step 6: Follow-up sampling. Water 

systems adjusting OCCT must complete 

follow-up sampling in accordance with 

§§ 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 §§ 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 

§§ 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E) and 141.87(b)(4). 

■ 7. Amend § 141.83 by revising 

paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: 

§ 141.83 Source water treatment 

requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(4) Step 4. The system shall complete 

follow-up tap water monitoring 

(§ 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(F)) and source water 

monitoring (§ 141.88(c)) within 36 

months after completion of step 2 as 

described in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section. 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Revise § 141.84 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 141.80(a)(3). Newly regulated public 

water systems, as defined in § 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 § 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 evidencebased 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 ‘‘NonLead’’. 

(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 § 141.2. 

(ii) ‘‘Galvanized Requiring 

Replacement’’ where the service line is 

a galvanized requiring replacement 

service line as defined in § 141.2. 

(iii) ‘‘Non-Lead’’ where the service 

line is determined through an evidencebased 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 § 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 

§ 141.90(e)(4). These updates begin one 

year after the compliance date in 

§ 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; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86636 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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) 

Size of validation pool Number of validations 

required 

<1,500 ....................... 20 percent of validation pool. 

1,500 to 2,000 ........... 322. 

2,001 to 3,000 ........... 341. 

3,001 to 4,000 ........... 351. 

4,001 to 6,000 ........... 361. 

6,001 to 10,000 ......... 371. 

10,001 to 50,000 ....... 381. 

>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 § 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 nonlead service lines in their baseline 

inventory, submitted to the State in 

accordance with § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 141.80(a)(3) and 

submit a service line replacement plan 

to the State in accordance with 

§ 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; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 leadlined 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 § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86638 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86640 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonlead 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) 

System-owned portion Customer-owned portion Categorization for entire 

service line 

Lead ................................................................... Lead .................................................................. Lead. 

Lead ................................................................... Galvanized Requiring Replacement ................. Lead. 

Lead ................................................................... Non-lead ........................................................... Lead. 

Lead ................................................................... Lead Status Unknown ...................................... Lead. 

Non-lead ............................................................ Lead .................................................................. Lead. 

Non-lead and never previously lead ................. Non-lead, specifically galvanized pipe material Non-lead. 

Non-lead ............................................................ Non-lead, material other than galvanized pipe 

material.

Non-lead. 

Non-lead ............................................................ Lead Status Unknown ...................................... Lead Status Unknown. 

Non-lead, but system is unable to demonstrate 

it was not previously Lead.

Galvanized Requiring Replacement ................. Galvanized Requiring Replacement. 

Lead Status Unknown ....................................... Lead .................................................................. Lead. 

Lead Status Unknown ....................................... Galvanized Requiring Replacement ................. Galvanized Requiring Replacement. 

Lead Status Unknown ....................................... Non-lead ........................................................... Lead Status Unknown. 

Lead Status Unknown ....................................... Lead Status Unknown ...................................... Lead Status 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 § 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 

§ 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 customerinitiated 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 systemowned 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 § 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 § 141.85(a)(1)(ii) 

through (iv) and contact information for 

the water system. In instances where 

multi-family dwellings or multiple nonresidential 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 nonresidential 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 § 141.86(b). 

The water system must provide the 

results of the sample to the persons 

served by the service line in accordance 

with § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86642 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 nonresidential 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 § 141.86(b). The water system 

must provide the results of the sample 

to the consumer in accordance with 

§ 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 § 141.90(e). 

■ 9. Revise and republish § 141.85 to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 noncommunity 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 formulafed 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 fourmonth 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 communitybased 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) 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86644 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 noncommunity 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 noncommunity 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86645 

based on tap samples collected in 

accordance with § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 noncommunity 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86646 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.86, must conduct 

the activities in this section. The first 

rolling five-year period begins on the 

compliance date in § 141.80(a)(3). If a 

water system exceeds the lead action 

level at least three times within a fiveyear period, the system must conduct 

these actions upon the third action level 

exceedance even if the rolling five-year 

period has not elapsed. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 resubmit 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 noncommunity 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 § 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 § 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. 

■ 10. Revise § 141.86 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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-ofuse 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86648 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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 singlefamily 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 singlefamily 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 widemouth, one-liter sample bottles, as 

defined at § 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 § 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 firstliter sample and must be analyzed for 

lead. To collect a first-liter-and-fifthliter-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 

§ 141.82(j)(2) and consumer-requested 

samples under § 141.85(c) to assess the 

source of lead. Consumer-requested 

samples must be collected in 

accordance with § 141.85(c). Systems 

must submit these sample results to the 

State in accordance with 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 141.85(b)(8), that does not have 

enough sites with taps from which firstliter samples or first-liter-and-fifth-literpaired 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-andfifth-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-fifthliter-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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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) 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Standard 

number of 

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 

≤100 ...................................... 5 

(2) Criteria for standard monitoring. 

The following systems must conduct 

standard monitoring for at least two 

consecutive tap monitoring periods 

beginning January 1 or July 1, 

whichever is sooner, following the tap 

sampling period in which the criterion 

is met. Systems may then reduce 

monitoring in accordance with 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(i) All water systems with lead or 

galvanized requiring replacement 

service lines in their inventories as of 

November 1, 2027, including those 

deemed optimized under § 141.81(b)(3), 

must conduct standard monitoring in 

the first six-month tap monitoring 

period following November 1, 2027, 

unless the system has, before or by that 

date, met all the following criteria: 

(A) The system conducts compliance 

monitoring of sites that meet the correct 

priority tiering targeting sites served by 

lead and galvanized requiring 

replacement service lines in accordance 

with paragraph (a)(4) of this section; 

(B) The system collects samples in 

accordance with all sample collection 

requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) and 

(3) of this section; and 

(C) The system collects either firstliter samples or first-liter-and-fifth-literpaired samples in accordance with 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

(ii) Any water system whose most 

recent 90th percentile lead and/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 § 141.82(f) for more than 

nine days in any tap monitoring period 

as specified in § 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 

§ 141.82. 

(F) Any water system that installs 

source water treatment pursuant to 

§ 141.83(a)(3). 

(G) Any water system that has notified 

the State in writing in accordance with 

§ 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 § 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 pointof-use sites under § 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) 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Reduced 

minimum 

number of 

sites for 

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 

≤100 ...................................... 5 

(2) Criteria for reduced monitoring. 

Systems are eligible for reduced 

monitoring if they meet all the 

requirements of this section, including 

collecting at least the minimum number 

of samples required, for at least two 

consecutive tap monitoring periods. The 

State may require an eligible system to 

conduct more frequent monitoring. 

(i) Annual monitoring for any system 

size. Any system that does not exceed 

the lead and copper action levels and, 

for systems with State-designated 

OWQPs, also maintains the range of 

optimal water quality parameters 

designated by the State in accordance 

with § 141.82(f), for two consecutive sixmonth tap monitoring periods may 

reduce the monitoring frequency to 

annual monitoring. Systems with an 

annual tap monitoring period must 

sample at least the standard number of 

sampling sites for lead in paragraph 

(c)(1) of this section and at least the 

reduced number of sites for copper as 

specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section. Prior to conducting annual 

monitoring, systems must receive a 

written determination from the State 

approving annual monitoring based on 

the State’s review of monitoring, 

treatment, and other relevant 

information submitted by the system as 

required by § 141.90. For systems that 

reduce to annual monitoring, the first 

annual tap monitoring period must 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86650 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

begin no later than six months following 

the last tap monitoring period. 

(ii) Triennial monitoring for small and 

medium water systems. Any small or 

medium water system that does not 

exceed the lead and copper action levels 

and, for systems with State-designated 

OWQPs, also maintains the range of 

optimal water quality parameters 

designated by the State in accordance 

with § 141.82(f), during three 

consecutive years of monitoring, 

including monitoring conducted at both 

standard and annual frequencies 

(standard monitoring completed during 

both six-month periods of a calendar 

year is considered one year of 

monitoring), 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 § 141.90. For systems that 

reduce to triennial monitoring, the first 

triennial tap monitoring period must 

immediately follow the last annual 

monitoring period, and the first 

triennial sampling period must begin no 

later than three calendar years after the 

last calendar year in which the system 

sampled. 

(iii) Triennial monitoring for any 

system size. Any water system that 

demonstrates for two consecutive tap 

monitoring periods that its 90th 

percentile lead level, calculated under 

§ 141.80(c)(3), is less than or equal to 

0.005 mg/L, the 90th percentile copper 

level, calculated under § 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 § 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 § 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 nontransient 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 Stateapproval 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 sixmonth 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 leadcontaining 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 § 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 coppercontaining 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86652 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(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 § 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 

§ 141.80(a)(3) are still in effect if the 

system has demonstrated that it is both 

free of lead-containing and coppercontaining 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.90(a)(2)(iii) and must retain 

monitoring data in accordance with the 

recordkeeping requirements under 

§ 141.91. 

■ 11. Revise § 141.87 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.86(a). 

Systems may consider selecting sites 

also used for total coliform sampling 

under § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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) 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Minimum 

number of 

sites for 

water 

quality 

parameters 

>100,000 ............................... 25 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86653 

TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(1)(i)— 

Continued 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Minimum 

number of 

sites for 

water 

quality 

parameters 

10,001 to 100,000 ................ 10 

3,301 to 10,000 .................... 3 

501 to 3,300 ......................... 2 

101 to 500 ............................ 1 

≤100 ...................................... 1 

(ii) Samples at entry points. (A) 

Systems without installed or reoptimized OCCT and without Statedesignated optimal water quality 

parameters required to collect entry 

point samples must collect a minimum 

of two entry point samples for each 

applicable water quality parameter at 

each entry point to the distribution 

system at least once during each 

monitoring period specified in 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. 

(B) Systems with installed OCCT or 

re-optimized OCCT and/or Statedesignated 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 sixmonth 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 § 141.81(d)(5) or (e)(5) and 

is required to conduct follow-up 

monitoring for lead or copper pursuant 

to § 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 

§ 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 Statedesignated 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.86(c). For any small water system 

that is subject to a reduced monitoring 

frequency pursuant to § 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 § 141.86(c). 

(iii) Compliance with State-designated 

optimal water quality parameter values 

must be determined as specified under 

§ 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86654 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

§ 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) 

System size 

(number of people served) 

Reduced 

minimum 

number 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 

≤100 ...................................... 1 

(2)(i) A water system that maintains 

the range of values for the water quality 

parameters reflecting OCCT specified by 

the State under § 141.82(f) and does not 

exceed the lead action level or copper 

action level during three consecutive 

years of monitoring may reduce the 

frequency with which it collects 

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 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section from 

every six months to annually. This 

sampling must begin during the 

calendar year immediately following the 

end of the monitoring period in which 

the third consecutive year of six-month 

monitoring occurs. 

(ii) A water system may reduce the 

frequency with which it collects 

distribution system samples for 

applicable water quality parameters 

specified in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section to every year if it demonstrates 

during two consecutive monitoring 

periods that its tap water lead level at 

the 90th percentile is less than or equal 

to the practical quantitation limit for 

lead of 0.005 mg/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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 141.82(f) for 

more than nine cumulative days, as 

specified in § 141.82(g), in any sixmonth 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 § 141.82. 

■ 12. Amend § 141.90 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and 

(c)(1) and (4); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (c)(5); 

■ c. Revising paragraph (e); 

■ d. Revising and republishing 

paragraph (f); and 

■ e. Revising paragraphs (g) through (i) 

and (j)(1) and (2). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 141.86(c)(1) or (d)(1), as 

required under § 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 § 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 86655 

(2) Notwithstanding the requirements 

of § 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 § 141.86 and for all 

water quality parameter distribution 

system and entry point samples 

specified in § 141.87, within the first 10 

days following the end of each 

applicable sampling period specified in 

§§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 141.86(f); 

(iii) With the exception of initial tap 

sampling conducted pursuant to 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 noncommunity water system, or a 

community water system meeting the 

criteria of § 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 sixhour 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 § 141.86(b)(3) by 

the start of the system’s first applicable 

tap monitoring period under § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 141.86(g), or subject to a 

waiver granted pursuant to 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.86(g)(2) or (4), 

the system must provide the 

information required by § 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 coppercontaining 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86656 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 141.88. 

(1) The sampling results for all source 

water samples collected in accordance 

with § 141.88. 

(2) With the exception of the first 

round of source water sampling 

conducted pursuant to § 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 § 141.81(b)(1) through (3). 

* * * * * 

(4) For systems required to install 

OCCT or re-optimized OCCT designated 

by the State under § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.84: 

(1) No later than October 16, 2024, the 

water system must submit an initial 

inventory of service lines as required in 

§ 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 § 141.80(a)(3), the water system must 

submit to the State a baseline inventory 

of service lines and connectors as 

required in § 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 § 141.80(a)(3), submit a service line 

replacement plan as specified in 

§ 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 § 141.84(d)(5)(vi) 

must also meet the requirements 

described in § 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 § 141.84(a) and (b). 

A water system must provide the 

information regarding service line 

material identification and replacement 

as specified in § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 customerinitiated 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 141.84(d)(6)(iii)(A): 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 141.80(a)(3) unless 

otherwise specified by the State in 

accordance with § 141.84(b)(5)(iv). 

Documentation of previous validation 

efforts may be submitted by the 

compliance date in § 141.80(a)(3) for 

approval by the State as described in 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 141.84(b)(4). 

(f) Public education program 

reporting requirements. (1) Any water 

system conducting public education 

requirements in § 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 

§ 141.85(a)(1). 

(2) Any water system that is subject to 

the public education requirements in 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 141.85(a) and the delivery 

requirements in § 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86658 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

with a lead, galvanized requiring 

replacement, or lead status unknown 

service line in accordance with 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 141.85(f) must also report the number 

of sites with disturbances that require 

filters as specified under § 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 § 141.85(h) when it 

does not meet the service line 

replacement rate as specified in 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 §§ 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 §§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 141.80(a)(3) in accordance with 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 141.92(g)(1)(iii). 

(3) Beginning one year after the 

compliance date in § 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 

§ 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 § 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 § 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 141.92(c)(1). 

(iii) During the first five years after the 

compliance date in § 141.80(a)(3), 

certification that the water system has 

completed the notification and sampling 

requirements in § 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 § 141.80(a)(3), 

certification that the water system has 

completed the notification and sampling 

requirements of § 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 § 141.80(a)(3), 

the water system must certify 

completion of the notification 

requirements of § 141.92(c)(3) and 

sampling requirements of § 141.92(d)(2) 

in elementary schools and child care 

facilities and § 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 noncommunity water systems 

implementing the point-of-use device 

option under § 141.93(c)(1), must report 

the results from the tap sampling 

required under § 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 noncommunity water systems 

implementing the small system 

compliance flexibility option to replace 

all lead-bearing plumbing under 

§ 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 

§ 141.93(c)(2). 

■ 13. Revise § 141.92 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 141.90(i)(1) by the 

compliance date specified in 

§ 141.80(a)(3). 

(2) Within five years following the 

compliance date in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 141.85(a)(1)(ii) 

through (iv) and (vi). 

(2) Within the first five years 

following the compliance date in 

§ 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 § 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 

§ 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. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86660 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

(i) Community water systems must 

provide documentation to the State in 

accordance with § 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 § 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 fiveyear 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 141.80(a)(3) that otherwise meets the 

requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this 

section. 

■ 14. Revise § 141.93 to read as follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.87 and, if the 

system has not re-optimized OCCT in 

accordance with § 141.81(d), evaluate 

compliance options in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) of this section and corrosion 

control treatment under § 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 § 141.87 and, if the 

system has not installed OCCT in 

accordance with § 141.81(e), evaluate 

compliance options in paragraphs (c)(1) 

and (2) of this section and corrosion 

control treatment under § 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 

§ 141.81(d) for systems with corrosion 

control or § 141.81(e) for systems 

without corrosion control treatment. 

Water systems must follow the 

schedules in § 141.81(d) or (e), 

beginning with step 3 in § 141.81(d)(3) 

or (e)(3) unless the State specifies 

optimal corrosion control treatment 

pursuant to either § 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 nontransient non-community water systems 

as described under § 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 

§ 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86662 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

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 noncommunity 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 § 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 § 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 

§ 141.90(j)(2). 

■ 15. Amend § 141.152 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 141.153 by revising 

paragraph (f)(3) and revising and 

republishing paragraph (h)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

§§ 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 § 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 EPAdesignated 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. 

■ 17. Amend § 141.154 by revising 

paragraph (d)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 141.154 Required additional health 

information. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(1) A short informational statement 

about lead in drinking water and its 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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 

Contaminant 

(units) 

Traditional 

MCL in 

mg/L 

To convert for 

CCR, multiply 

by 

MCL in 

CCR units MCLG Major sources in drinking water Health effects language 

*******

Inorganic contaminants 

*******

Lead (mg/L) ................ AL = 0.010 1,000 AL = 10 ... 0 Corrosion of household plumbing systems and service 

lines connecting 

buildings to water 

mains, erosion of 

natural deposits.

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. 

*******

* * * * * 

■ 19. Amend § 141.202 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 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; 

* * * * * 

■ 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: 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86664 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix A to Subpart Q of Part 141— 

NPDWR Violations and Other 

Situations Requiring Public Notice 1

Contaminant 

MCL/MRDL/TT violations 2 Monitoring & testing procedure violations 

Tier of 

public 

notice 

required 

Citation 

Tier of 

public 

notice 

required 

Citation 

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 paragraph (c)) 

through 141.84, 141.85(a) 

through (c) (except paragraphs 

(c)(3)), (h), and (j), and 141.93.

3 141.86 through 141.90, 141.92. 

* * * * * * * 

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 

§ 141.202(a) and § 141.203(a). 

2. MCL—Maximum contaminant level, 

MRDL—Maximum residual disinfectant 

level, TT—Treatment technique 

* * * * * 

■ 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 

Contaminant MCLG 1 mg/L MCL 2 mg/L Standard health effects 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 

■ 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. 

■ 23. Amend § 142.14 by revising 

paragraphs (d)(8) and (9) and (d)(10)(ii) 

to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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; 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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)—systemspecific determinations regarding use of 

samples that do not meet the six hour 

minimum stagnation time at nontransient non-community water 

systems, and community water systems 

meeting the criteria of § 141.85(b)(8) of 

this chapter, that operate 24 hours a 

day; 

(xii) Section 141.86(d)—systemspecific designations of sampling 

locations for systems subject to reduced 

monitoring; 

(xiii) Section 141.86(d)(3)—systemspecific 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 longterm 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)—systemspecific decisions regarding the 

resubmission of detailed documentation 

demonstrating completion of public 

education requirements, including 

resubmission of filter plans under 

§ 141.90(f)(9) of this chapter; and 

(xix) Section 141.93—identification of 

community water systems and nontransient 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 

§ 141.90 of this chapter, including: 

(i) Records of any 90th percentile 

values calculated by the State under 

§ 141.90(h) of this chapter; 

(ii) Completed initial service line 

inventories, baseline inventories, and 

required updates to inventories and 

information under § 141.90(e) of this 

chapter; 

(iii) Service line replacement plans 

under § 141.90(e)(3) of this chapter and 

any updates to the plan under 

§ 141.90(e)(4) of this chapter; and 

(iv) Compliance sampling pools in 

site sample plan and any changes to 

sampling pools under § 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 § 141.84(f), (g), and 

(h)(1) and (2), compliance with full 

service line replacement under 

§ 141.84(h)(3) of this chapter, and 

compliance with lead connector 

replacement when encountered under 

§ 141.84(e) of this chapter; and 

* * * * * 

■ 24. Amend § 142.15 by revising and 

republishing paragraph (c)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 141.82(f) of 

this chapter, the specific corrosion 

control treatment designated, the date of 

the determination, and the paragraph(s) 

under § 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 § 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 § 141.82 of this chapter, 

completed applicable source water 

treatment requirements pursuant to 

§ 141.83 of this chapter, and/or 

completed mandatory service line 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
86666 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

replacement requirements pursuant to 

§ 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 § 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 § 141.82(d) of this chapter, the 

date of the determination and the date 

the system completed installation of 

treatment as certified under 

§ 141.90(c)(4) of this chapter; 

(3) The date the State designates 

optimal water quality parameters under 

§ 141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the 

system to have optimized corrosion 

control pursuant to § 141.81(b)(1) or (3) 

of this chapter; 

(4) For systems which the State has 

required to install source water 

treatment under § 141.83(b)(2) of this 

chapter, the date of the determination, 

the date the State designates maximum 

permissible source water levels under 

§ 141.83(b)(4) of this chapter or 

determines pursuant to § 141.83(b)(2) 

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 

§ 141.84(d) of this chapter. 

(6) For systems not required to 

complete the corrosion control 

treatment steps under § 141.81(f) of this 

chapter, the date the system is required 

to complete mandatory service line 

replacement pursuant to § 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 

§ 141.80(c)(1) of this chapter within the 

first 15 days following the end of each 

tap sampling period specified in 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 25. Amend § 142.16 by revising 

paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(3) through 

(10) and adding paragraphs (d)(11) 

through (13) to read as follows: 

§ 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 

§ 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 

§ 141.84(b) of this chapter, including 

making determinations on whether 

previous inventory validations are at 

least as stringent as the requirements 

specified in § 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 

§ 141.84(b)(5) of this chapter. 

(7) Section 141.82—verifying 

compliance with Distribution System 

and Site Assessment requirements in 

accordance with § 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 § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 § 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 210 / Wednesday, October 30, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 

§ 141.2 of this chapter to issue waivers. 

* * * * * 

■ 26. In § 142.19, revise paragraph (a) 

introductory text and paragraph (a)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 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 §§ 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 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES2