Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801-0036
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements
Posted Date: 2023-12-06T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 233 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 84878-85090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26148]

[[Page 84877]]

Vol. 88

Wednesday,

No. 233

December 6, 2023

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

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

  Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 233 / Wednesday, December 6, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 84878]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 141 and 142

[EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801; FRL-5423.2-01-OW]
RIN 2040-AG16

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for public comment; notice of public 
hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing 
revisions to the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for 
lead and copper under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
(SDWA). In this document, EPA is proposing to require water systems to 
replace lead service lines, remove the lead trigger level, reduce the 
lead action level to 0.010 mg/L, and strengthen tap sampling 
procedures, among other changes that would improve public health 
protection and simplify the rule relative to the 2021 Lead and Copper 
Rule Revisions (LCRR). This proposed rule provides improvements in the 
additional following areas: corrosion control treatment, public 
education and consumer awareness, requirements for small systems, and 
sampling in schools and child care facilities. EPA's proposed rule aims 
to address potential disproportionate impacts of lead in drinking water 
in communities, including through proposed lead service line 
replacement and public education, among other areas of the proposed 
rule.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 5, 2024. 
Comments on the information collection provisions submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
(PRA) are best assured of consideration by OMB if OMB receives a copy 
of your comments on or before January 5, 2024. Public hearing: EPA will 
hold a virtual public hearing on January 16, 2024, information is 
available at https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/lead-and-copper-rule-improvements. Please refer to the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section for additional information on the public hearing.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OW-2022-0801, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/ 
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket 
Center, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water Docket, Mail Code 
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West 
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004. 
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID 
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change 
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information 
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation'' 
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goldberg, Standards and Risk 
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code 
4607M, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-1379; email 
address: [email protected]. For more information visit https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/lead-and-copper-rule-improvements. 
Individuals who have speech or other communication disabilities may use 
a relay service to reach the phone number above. To learn more about 
how to make an accessible telephone call, visit the web page for the 
Federal Communications Commission's Telecommunications Relay Service, 
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/telecommunications-relay-service-trs.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Executive Summary
II. Public Participation
    A. Written Comments
    B. Participation in a Virtual Public Hearing
    C. Previous Opportunities for Public Engagement
III. General Information
    A. What is EPA proposing?
    B. Does this action apply to me?
    C. Dates for Compliance
IV. Background
    A. Overview of Lead and Lead Exposures Through Drinking Water
    B. Human Health Effects of Lead and Copper
    1. Lead
    2. Copper
    C. Regulatory History
    D. Statutory Authority
    E. Anti-Backsliding Analysis
    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
V. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Subpart I Control of Lead and Copper
    A. Regulatory Approach
    B. Service Line Replacement
    1. Mandatory Full Service Line Replacement and SDWA Requirements
    2. Feasibility of Proposed Service Line Replacement Requirement 
and Deferred Deadlines
    3. Service Line Replacement Rate
    4. Scope of Mandatory Service Line Replacement Requirement
    5. Water System Access to Full Service Line
    6. Risk Mitigation Activities To Reduce Lead Exposures
    7. Service Line Replacement Plan
    8. Impact of State and Local Laws on Service Line Replacement
    9. Environmental Justice Concerns
    C. Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper
    1. Sample Collection Locations and Methods
    2. Sample Collection Frequency
    3. 90th Percentile Lead Calculation
    D. Service Line Inventory
    1. Timeline To Identify All Unknown Service Lines
    2. Inventory Validation Requirements
    3. Service Line Addresses
    4. Lead Connectors
    E. Corrosion Control Treatment
    1. LCRI Proposed CCT Changes
    2. Lead Action Level and Trigger Level
    F. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring
    1. Systems Required To Monitor for Water Quality Parameters
    2. Distribution System and Site Assessment
    G. Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance 
for Small Community Water Systems and Non-Transient Non-Community 
Water Systems
    H. Public Education
    1. Feasibility of Public Education Requirements
    2. Service Line Related Outreach
    3. Individual Notification of Tap Sample Results
    4. Other Public Education Materials
    5. Requirements for Language Updates and Accessibility
    I. Additional Requirements for Systems With Multiple Lead Action 
Level Exceedances
    J. Lead Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities
    1. Proposed LCRI Requirements
    2. Proposed Waiver Requirements
    3. Public Information About Lead Sampling in Schools and Child 
Care Facilities
    K. Reporting and Recordkeeping
    1. System Reporting Requirements
    2. State Recordkeeping Requirements
    3. State Reporting Requirements

[[Page 84879]]

    L. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141
    1. Consumer Confidence Report (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O)
    2. Public Notification Rule (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q)
    3. Definitions
VI. Rule Areas for Which EPA Is Not Proposing Revisions
VII. Rule Implementation and Enforcement
    A. What are the rule compliance dates?
    B. What are the requirements for primacy?
    C. What are the special primacy requirements?
VIII. Economic Analysis
    A. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Characterize 
the Sample Universe
    B. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model
    C. Cost Analysis
    1. Drinking Water System Costs
    2. Annualized per Household Costs
    3. State Costs
    4. Costs Impacts Associated With Additional Phosphate Usage
    D. Benefits Analysis
    1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead Concentrations
    2. Blood Lead Modeling
    3. Estimating Blood Lead Levels in Children (0-7 Year Olds)
    4. Estimating Older Child and Adult Blood Lead Levels
    5. Quantifying and Monetizing Health Endpoints
    6. Estimating IQ Benefits
    7. Estimated ADHD Benefits
    8. Estimated Low Birth Weight Benefits
    9. Estimated Cardiovascular Disease Premature Mortality Benefits
    10. Total Monetized Benefits
    E. Cost-Benefit Comparison
    1. Non-Monetized Costs
    2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
    F. Other Regulatory Options Considered
    1. Alternative Lead Action Levels
    2. Alternative Service Line Replacement Rate
    3. Alternative Definition of Lead Content Service Lines To Be 
Replaced
    4. Alternative Service Line Replacement Deferral Threshold
    5. Alternative Temporary Filter Programs for Systems With 
Multiple Lead Action Level Exceedances
    6. Alternative Size Threshold for Small System Compliance 
Flexibility
    G. Cost-Benefit Determination
IX. Request for Comment
X. 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) as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)
    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)
    1. SAB
    2. NDWAC
    L. Consultation With the Department of Health and Human Services 
Under SDWA Section 1412(d)
XI. References

I. Executive Summary

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mission 
is to protect human health and the environment. There is no known safe 
level of lead exposure. 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 
impacts of lead exposures. Reduction in lead in drinking water will 
reduce negative neurodevelopmental outcomes for children as well as 
reducing a range of health risk to adults. EPA is proposing the Lead 
and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI) to significantly reduce exposure to 
lead through drinking water. The proposal builds on the 2021 Lead and 
Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR) and the original 1991 Lead and Copper Rule 
(LCR). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule 
may be found at Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801 at https://www.regulations.gov/.
    EPA conducted a review of the LCRR in accordance with Executive 
Order 13990 \1\ and announced its intention to strengthen the LCRR with 
a new rulemaking, the LCRI, to address key issues and opportunities 
identified in the review. The proposed LCRI addresses the priorities 
EPA identified in the LCRR review by proposing to equitably replace all 
lead service lines (LSLs) in the nation, better identify where LSLs are 
and act in communities most at risk of lead exposure, and streamline 
and improve implementation of the rule. This proposed LCRI is the 
culmination of numerous meaningful consultations with stakeholders and 
the public during the LCRR review and development of the proposed LCRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA has found based upon its evaluation of available data and 
stakeholder input that although the LCRR would improve public health 
protection in comparison to the previous version of the rule, there are 
significant opportunities to further improve upon it to achieve 
increased protection of communities from lead exposure through drinking 
water. The proposed LCRI strengthens key elements of the rule in three 
main focus areas: Replacing All Lead Service Lines, Reducing Complexity 
for Public Health Protection, and Increasing Transparency and Informing 
the Public. The proposal also includes an updated benefits and costs 
analysis, updates the compliance dates, and outlines the public 
participation process.

Replacing All Lead Service Lines

    Historically, lead pipes,\2\ as well as lead-bearing fixtures and 
solder, were commonly used in water distribution systems and home 
plumbing. Previous efforts to reduce lead in drinking water prioritized 
corrosion control to reduce lead levels at the tap. Following corrosion 
control, some water systems would be required to take additional 
actions, including service line replacement and public education. 
Replacing the lead service lines does not eliminate lead from tap water 
because plumbing systems inside homes and buildings (i.e., premise 
plumbing) can also contain lead components. Buildings and homes older 
than 1986 can still have LSLs connecting the building's plumbing system 
to the main water supply line under the street. These lines can 
deteriorate or corrode, releasing lead particles into the drinking 
water (Sandvig et al., 2008). The science is clear that there is no 
known safe level of exposure to 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 at 
low

[[Page 84880]]

levels, lead exposure can cause health effects like lower intelligence 
quotient (IQ), learning and behavioral problems. In adults, health 
effects include risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or 
nervous system problems, and cancer. When LSLs are present, they 
represent the greatest lead exposure source through drinking water 
(Sandvig et al., 2008).\3\ Based on over 30 years of implementing the 
LCR, EPA has determined that requiring lead service line replacements 
based on 90th percentile lead levels is insufficient to protect public 
health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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, HDPE, and concrete steel. The oldest 
water mains are cast iron and asbestos cement (Folkman, 2018).
    \3\ Sandvig et al. (2008) found that LSLs contributed an average 
of approximately 50 to 75 percent of the total lead mass measured at 
the tap, while premise piping and the faucet contributed 
approximately 20 to 35 percent and 1 to 3 percent, respectively. At 
sites with no LSL, premise piping and the faucet contributed a 
greater percentage of lead mass to the total lead mass measured at 
the tap (approximately 55 percent and 12 percent, respectively), 
while main samples ranged from approximately 3 to 15 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result, EPA is proposing the elimination of all LSLs and 
certain galvanized service lines from water systems in 10 years or 
less. The proposed LCRI provides, in limited circumstances, additional 
time for some systems to complete system-wide full service line 
replacement. EPA proposes that water systems must replace LSLs and 
certain galvanized service lines regardless of the lead levels 
occurring in tap or other drinking water samples. This proposal would 
significantly reduce the potential for lead releases into drinking 
water. In addition, while corrosion control is generally effective at 
reducing lead to low levels, elimination of LSLs can result in even 
greater public health protection by eliminating a lead exposure source 
and minimizes the opportunities for error that have often occurred over 
the years.
    Knowing where lead pipes are is critical to replacing them 
efficiently and equitably. Under the proposed LCRI, all water systems 
would be required to regularly update their service line inventories, 
create a service line replacement plan, and identify all service lines 
of unknown material by the replacement deadline. EPA is proposing that 
water systems use a validation process to ensure the service line 
inventory is accurate. Water systems would also be required to track 
lead connectors in their inventories and replace them as they are 
encountered. LSLs in communities throughout the United States can often 
be found in lower-income and underserved neighborhoods. Under the 
proposed LCRI, water systems are encouraged to prioritize service line 
replacement in the most efficient, effective, and equitable way to 
eliminate exposure to lead and protect public health.

Reducing Complexity and Improving Public Health Protection

    The proposed LCRI reduces the complexity of the rule and includes 
provisions that support more efficient implementation by water systems 
while reducing lead exposure in more communities. EPA is proposing to 
lower the lead action level to 0.010 mg/L and eliminate the lead 
trigger level to simplify the rule and require water systems to act 
earlier. Water systems with continually high levels of lead determined 
by having multiple lead action level exceedances would be required to 
conduct additional outreach to consumers about lead in the drinking 
water and make filters certified to reduce lead available for 
consumers.
    EPA also proposes an updated tap sampling protocol that would 
require systems to collect first liter and fifth liter samples at sites 
with LSLs. This new method would better represent water that has been 
stagnant within the service line and the plumbing, helping water 
systems better understand the effectiveness of their corrosion control 
treatment. EPA is also proposing to further streamline the rule by 
deferring the optimal corrosion control treatment and re-optimized 
optimal corrosion control treatment processes for systems that can 
remove 100 percent of lead and galvanized requiring replacement (GRR) 
service lines within five years of the date the system is triggered 
into the corrosion control treatment steps.
    The LCRI proposal retains flexibilities for small systems serving 
3,300 persons or fewer, allowing them to choose among three options if 
they exceed the lead action level: installing optimized corrosion 
control treatment, installing and maintaining point-of-use devices, or 
replacing all lead-bearing plumbing. Lead service line replacement 
would no longer be available as a remedial action when small systems 
exceed the lead action level since the proposed LCRI requires all 
systems to conduct mandatory service line replacement.
    To reduce duplicative sampling efforts, EPA is proposing to expand 
the allowable waivers for water systems to conduct sampling and public 
education in schools and child care facilities to include some sampling 
efforts conducted prior to the rule compliance date, such as sampling 
conducted through the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation 
(WIIN) Act grant program.

Increasing Transparency and Informing the Public

    To increase transparency and better inform the public of lead 
exposure and health risks, EPA is proposing to improve the public 
education requirements by updating the content and delivery frequency 
for more proactive messaging about lead in drinking water. The proposal 
also introduces new public education requirements for lead and copper.
    The proposed rule would require systems to provide additional 
information when notifying consumers who are served by a lead, GRR, or 
unknown service line annually. In addition, when a system samples for 
lead or copper at a residence, it must deliver to residents the results 
within three days, regardless of the lead or copper levels in the 
sample. Water systems that exceed the lead action level would be 
required to provide public education no later than 60 days after the 
end of a sampling period and continue providing public education with 
this same frequency until the system no longer exceeds the action 
level. This public education is in addition to the requirement for 
water systems to provide public notification of a lead action level 
exceedance within 24 hours.
    Water systems would also be required to deliver public education 
and notice materials to residents when water-related work is conducted 
that could disturb lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or unknown 
service lines, including disturbances caused when systems are 
conducting inventories. When systems are working to replace LSLs, they 
would be required to encourage customers to allow full replacement of 
their lead lines. Systems would be required to reach out four times 
using at least two different methods to contact customers.
    The annual Consumer Confidence Reports are one important way that 
customers learn about the quality of their drinking water. As part of 
the LCRI rulemaking, EPA also proposes to revise the Consumer 
Confidence Report requirements to include an informational statement 
about lead that has been updated to improve risk communication, updated 
lead health effects language, information about the system's efforts to 
sample in schools and child care facilities, and how to access the 
community's service line replacement plan.

[[Page 84881]]

Benefits and Costs Analysis

    The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) \4\ requires that EPA determine 
whether the benefits of the proposed rule justify the costs. As part of 
its Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA), EPA must evaluate 
quantifiable and nonquantifiable health risk reduction benefits and 
costs of compliance with the proposed treatment techniques. In 
accordance with these requirements, the EPA Administrator has 
determined that the quantified and nonquantifiable benefits of the 
proposed LCRI justify the costs (see section VIII. of this document for 
additional discussion on EPA's HRRCA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 93-523, as amended (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To evaluate these benefits and costs, EPA determined which entities 
would be affected by the LCRI, quantified costs using available data, 
and described nonquantifiable costs. EPA quantified benefits by 
estimating and monetizing avoided reductions in IQ, cases of attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, lower birth weights 
in children, and cases of cardiovascular disease premature mortality in 
adults associated with LSL and GRR service line replacement, corrosion 
control treatment (CCT) installation and re-optimization, and the 
temporary use of point-of-use devices and water filters in systems with 
multiple action level exceedances. Prior efforts to quantify benefits 
associated reductions of 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 quantifying 
benefits to adults. Because existing techniques for quantifying 
cardiovascular disease premature mortality yield larger benefits per 
person than for neurological impacts on children, the total benefits 
are driven by the cardiovascular disease premature mortality benefits. 
The larger monetized benefit to adults is not intended to distract from 
EPA's focus on reducing children's exposure to lead.
    In addition, EPA qualitatively assessed the potential for the 
proposed rule's additional lead public education and service line 
inventory lead connector and public access requirements that target 
consumers directly, schools and child care facilities, health agencies, 
and people living in homes with LSLs and GRR service lines to promote 
averting behavior on the part of the exposed public, including LSL and 
GRR service line replacement, resulting in reductions in the negative 
health impacts of lead. Health benefits qualitatively evaluated include 
cardiovascular morbidity effects, renal effects, reproductive and 
developmental effects (apart from ADHD), immunological effects, 
neurological effects (apart from children's IQ), and cancer. In 
addition, people served by systems required to install or re-optimize 
CCT under the proposed LCRI and living in homes with premise plumbing 
containing lead, but not an LSL or GRR service line, will receive 
health benefits from reduced lead exposure which were not quantified in 
the analysis of the proposed rule. Increased use of CCT resulting from 
the proposed rule's lead requirements may reduce the negative health 
impacts of copper such as acute gastrointestinal conditions and health 
effects associated with Wilson's Disease. Other unquantifiable co-
benefits associated with the increased use of corrosion inhibitors by 
systems 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 lead 
service line replacement (LSLR) projects and associated activities 
directly connected to the identification of LSL and planning for the 
replacement of LSLs.

Compliance and Public Process

    SDWA requires EPA to establish and enforce drinking water 
regulations. EPA delegates primary enforcement responsibility (called 
primacy) for public water systems to States and Indian Tribes if they 
meet certain requirements. Currently, primacy agencies are enforcing 
the Lead and Copper Rule. Water systems must comply with the LCRR 
beginning October 16, 2024. EPA intends to promulgate the LCRI prior to 
that date; in addition to proposing new and improved requirements, EPA 
is proposing to revise the compliance dates for most of the LCRR's 
requirements.
    EPA conducted a review of the LCRR in accordance with Executive 
Order 13990 and announced its intention to strengthen the LCRR with a 
new rulemaking, the LCRI, to address key issues and opportunities 
identified in the review. This proposed LCRI is the culmination of 
numerous meaningful consultations with stakeholders and the public 
during the LCRR review and development of the proposed LCRI. Public 
participation and consultations with key stakeholders are critical in 
developing an implementable rule that protects public health to the 
extent feasible. Throughout the review of the LCRR and the engagements 
and consultations conducted in the development of the proposed LCRI, 
EPA engaged with many stakeholders and received valuable feedback that 
the Agency considered to develop this proposed rule (see section IV.C. 
and section X. of this document on EPA's LCRR review engagements and 
EPA's Statutory and Executive Order Reviews).
    The Agency is requesting comment on this action and has identified 
specific areas where public input will be especially helpful for EPA in 
developing the final rule (see section IX. of this document on specific 
topics highlighted for public comment). In addition to seeking written 
input, EPA will be holding a public hearing on January 16, 2024. 
Details on participating in the public hearing are provided in section 
II.B. of this document.

II. Public Participation

A. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801, at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method), or the 
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. EPA may publish 
any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's 
docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to 
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary Business 
Information (PBI), or other information where disclosure is restricted 
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the 
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish 
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents 
located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 
other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the full EPA 
public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or multimedia 
submissions; and general guidance on providing effective comments.

[[Page 84882]]

B. Participation in a Virtual Public Hearing

    EPA is hosting a virtual public hearing on January 16, 2023, to 
receive public comment and will present the proposed requirements of 
the draft National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR). The 
hearing will be held virtually from approximately 11 a.m. until 
approximately 7 p.m. eastern time. EPA will begin pre-registering 
speakers and attendees for the virtual hearing upon publication of this 
document in the Federal Register. To attend and/or register to speak at 
the virtual hearing, please use the online registration form available 
at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/lead-and-copper-rule-improvements.
    The last day to pre-register to speak at the hearing will be 
January 9, 2023. On January 12, 2023, EPA will post a general agenda 
for the hearing that will list pre-registered speakers in approximate, 
sequential order at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/lead-and-copper-rule-improvements. The number of online 
connections available for the hearing is limited and will be offered on 
a first come, first-serve basis. To submit visual aids to support your 
oral comment, please contact [email protected] for guidelines and 
instructions by January 12, 2023.
    Registration will remain open for the duration of the hearing 
itself for those wishing to provide oral comment during unscheduled 
testimony; however, early registration is strongly encouraged to ensure 
proper accommodations and adequate timing. EPA will make every effort 
to follow the schedule as closely as possible on the day of the 
hearing; however, please plan for the hearings to run either ahead of 
schedule or behind schedule. Please note that the public hearing may 
close early if all business is finished.
    EPA encourages commenters to provide EPA with a copy of their oral 
testimony electronically by submitting it to the public docket at 
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801. Oral 
comments will be time limited to maximize participation, which may 
result in the full statement not being given during the virtual hearing 
itself. Therefore, EPA also recommends submitting the text of oral 
comments as written comments to the rulemaking docket. EPA will also 
accept written comments submitted to the public docket, as provided 
above, from persons not making an oral comment. Written statements and 
supporting information submitted during the comment period will be 
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting 
information presented at the public hearing.
    Please note that any updates made to any aspect of the hearing will 
be posted online at: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/lead-and-copper-rule-improvements. While EPA expects the hearing 
to go forward as set forth above, please monitor the Agency's website 
or contact [email protected] to determine if there are any updates. EPA does 
not intend to publish a document in the Federal Register announcing 
updates about the public virtual hearing.
    If you require any accommodations for the day of the hearing, such 
as language translation, captioning, or special accommodations, please 
indicate this and describe your needs when you register. All requests 
for accommodations should be submitted by January 9, 2023. Without this 
one-week advance notice, EPA may not be able to arrange for 
accommodations. Please contact [email protected] with any questions related 
to the virtual public hearing.

C. Previous Opportunities for Public Engagement

    EPA provided numerous opportunities for public engagement and input 
on these proposed regulations. EPA conducted a series of virtual 
meetings with stakeholders, States, communities impacted by lead 
exposure, and the public and obtained verbal and written feedback on 
the LCRR and the proposed LCRI. A summary of the LCRR review and 
stakeholder engagements is described in section IV.C. of this document, 
and a summary of the external engagements for the proposed LCRI is 
described in section X. of this document. The input received during 
these exchanges was considered in developing the proposed LCRI 
requirements as described in the subsequent sections of this document.

III. General Information

    The proposed LCRI builds upon the previous lead and copper rules. 
This proposal would revise the most recent lead and copper rule, the 
LCRR, which was promulgated on January 15, 2021 (86 FR 4198, USEPA, 
2021a). Key revisions in this proposed LCRI address the opportunities 
identified in the Review of the National Primary Drinking Water 
Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (or LCRR review) including 
proactive and equitable replacement of all 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, and reducing the complexity of the regulation from 
the action and trigger level construct and ensuring that the rule is 
more easily understandable (86 FR 71574; USEPA, 2021b). The proposed 
LCRI was developed considering the input received in numerous 
meaningful consultations and engagements over several years, including 
during LCRR review and in stakeholder outreach conducted to inform the 
development of this proposal.

A. What is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing revisions to require mandatory full service line 
replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines under the control of the 
water system regardless of the system's 90th percentile lead level. 
Water systems would be required to complete replacements within ten 
years, with limited exceptions. EPA is proposing to revise the 
requirements for updates to the service line inventories under the LCRR 
to require systems to categorize all unknown service lines in order to 
identify all LSLs and GRR service lines by the replacement deadline. 
Systems would also be required to track lead connectors in their 
inventories and replace them whenever encountered. All water systems 
with known or potential LSLs or GRR service lines would need to prepare 
a service line replacement plan that would help to ensure an equitable 
replacement of all LSLs or GRR service lines by the replacement 
deadline. EPA is also proposing to lower the lead action level from 
0.015 mg/L to 0.010 mg/L, which would result in more water systems 
controlling corrosion 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 would be required to take additional 
actions to provide public education and make filters available. EPA is 
also proposing an updated tap sampling protocol that would require the 
use of the higher of the first- or fifth-liter values at LSL sites to 
be used when calculating the system's 90th percentile at sites with 
LSLs. The first- and fifth-liter values represent water that has been 
stagnant in premise plumbing (plumbing within buildings) and within the 
service line as well as more accurately identify where higher lead 
levels might be present.
    EPA is proposing that States set optimal water quality parameters 
for medium systems (serving greater than 10,000 persons and less than 
or equal to 50,000 persons) with corrosion control

[[Page 84883]]

treatment and that these systems meet those parameters for the system 
to demonstrate that optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) is being 
maintained. EPA is proposing to defer OCCT or re-optimized OCCT for 
systems that can replace all LSLs and GRR service lines within five 
years of the date they are triggered into CCT steps at a 20 percent 
annual replacement rate. EPA is also proposing that systems with OCCT 
meeting their optimal water quality parameters are not required to re-
optimize their CCT more than once following a lead action level 
exceedance, unless required to do so by the State upon finding that it 
is necessary.
    EPA is proposing to update the public education requirements, 
instituting changes to content and delivery frequency for more 
proactive messaging about lead in drinking water and introducing new 
public education requirements for lead and copper.
    EPA is proposing to revise the small system compliance flexibility 
provision to eliminate LSLR as a compliance option, as all systems 
would conduct mandatory service line replacement regardless of their 
90th percentile lead level. EPA is also proposing to change the 
eligibility threshold for the flexibility for community water systems 
(CWSs) to those serving 3,300 or fewer persons.
    EPA is proposing to retain the requirements for CWSs to conduct 
sampling and public education in schools and child care facilities but 
to expand the available waivers to include sampling efforts conducted 
prior to the rule compliance date, including sampling conducted through 
the WIIN Act grant program. EPA is also proposing to restructure and 
clarify areas of the rule where requirements would not change in an 
effort to increase the clarity of the rule and increase systems' 
ability to implement the rule.
    Exhibit 1 compares the major differences among the pre-2021 LCR 
(promulgated in 1991 and last revised in 2007), the LCRR, and the 
proposed LCRI. In general, only the changes between each rulemaking are 
shown in Exhibit 1. Asterisks (*) in the pre-2021 LCR and LCRR columns 
denote requirements that would be retained in the proposed LCRI.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 84884]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.000

[[Page 84885]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.001

[[Page 84886]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.002

[[Page 84887]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.003

[[Page 84888]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.004

[[Page 84889]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.005

[[Page 84890]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.006

[[Page 84891]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.007

[[Page 84892]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.008

[[Page 84893]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.009

[[Page 84894]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.010

[[Page 84895]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.011

[[Page 84896]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.012

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

B. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities that could potentially be affected by the proposed LCRI 
include the following:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.013

    This Exhibit is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities that could be affected by this 
action if promulgated. To determine whether a facility or activities 
could be affected by this action, please read the full preamble and 
proposed rule.
    As part of this notice for the proposed rule, ``State'' refers to 
the agency of the State, Tribal, or territorial government that has 
jurisdiction over public water

[[Page 84897]]

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 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

    EPA is proposing that water systems begin to comply with the LCRI 
three years after promulgation of the 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 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. EPA is not proposing to provide a two-year 
extension nationwide because 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 lead service line 
replacement and corrosion control treatment since the promulgation of 
the LCRR that allowed time to prepare and obtain funding for any 
necessary capital improvements. Moreover, there is significant funding 
available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and other sources 
for LSL identification and replacement. Finally, EPA notes that the 
requirements in the proposed LCRI for which capital improvements may be 
necessary would not be required to be completed by the compliance date 
for the rule. Instead, the compliance date marks the beginning of an 
extended time period for systems to conduct lead service line 
replacement and install new or re-optimized corrosion control treatment 
under the revised requirements. EPA does not believe that systems 
nationwide need an additional two years to comply with the rule as 
proposed.
    Under SDWA section 1416, States may exempt water systems from any 
treatment technique requirement for no more than three years after the 
otherwise applicable compliance date. For a small system that does not 
serve more than 3,300 persons and which needs financial assistance for 
the necessary improvements, an exemption may be renewed for one or more 
two-year periods, but not to exceed a total of six years. No exemption 
may be granted without a finding that:
     Due to compelling factors (which may include economic 
factors, including qualification of the public water system as a system 
serving a disadvantaged community pursuant to SDWA section 1452(d)),\5\ 
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;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``disadvantaged community'' used in SDWA section 
1416 here refers to the statutory definition of ``disadvantaged 
community'' provided at SDWA section 1452(d)(3): ``[T]he term 
`disadvantaged community' means the service area of a public water 
system that meets affordability criteria established after public 
review and comment by the State in which the public water system is 
located. The Administrator may publish information to assist States 
in establishing affordability criteria.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. 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 corrodes 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, also known as lead service lines or LSLs, these 
pipes are typically the most significant source of lead in water. Lead 
pipes are more likely to be found in older cities and homes built 
before 1986. 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.

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 (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 (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). 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) (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).
    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 system 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).

[[Page 84898]]

Scientists have linked lead's effects on the brain with lowered IQ and 
attention disorders in children, among other health impacts (USEPA, 
2013; Lanphear et al., 2019; Ji et al., 2018). In 1991, EPA established 
a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for lead of zero. SDWA requires 
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. EPA established the MCLG of zero in part due to there being no 
clear threshold for some non-carcinogenic health effects and due to 
lead being a probable carcinogen (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 mother's body during pregnancy, lead 
that 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, low birth weight, and reduced gestation time (USEPA, 
2013). 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, 2013). Some studies also suggest lead exposure is 
associated with risk to the developing renal (kidney) system (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 also associated with a 
number of significant health effects in adults as well, particularly 
renal and gastrointestinal. The 2013 Integrated Science Assessment for 
Lead (USEPA, 2013), 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). EPA's Integrated Risk 
Information System (IRIS) Chemical Assessment Summary provides 
additional health effects information on lead (USEPA, 2004a). EPA is 
currently updating the Integrated Science Assessment for Lead (USEPA, 
2023a). For a more detailed explanation of the health effects 
associated with lead for children and adults, see Appendix D of the 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
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 Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).

C. Regulatory History

    Exercising its longstanding authority under the SDWA, on June 7, 
1991, EPA promulgated the 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 maximum contaminant level goals 
(MCLGs) of 0 mg/L for lead and 1.3 mg/L for copper. In addition, the 
LCR established an NPDWR consisting of treatment technique requirements 
that include LSLR, CCT, source water treatment, and public education. 
The LCR established requirements for CWSs and 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 re-optimizing CCT, conducting public education, treating source 
water if it contributes to lead and copper levels at the tap, and 
replacing lead service lines 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, PE) results in a 
violation of the treatment technique or monitoring and reporting 
requirements.
    On January 12, 2000, 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 or change the rule's basic 
requirements. One of the provisions of the LCRMR required States to 
report the 90th percentile lead value to EPA's Safe Drinking Water 
Information System (SDWIS) database for all water systems serving 
greater than 3,300 persons. States must 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In 2004, 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, 2004c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From 2000 to 2004, the District of Columbia experienced incidences 
of elevated drinking water lead levels, prompting 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). 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, 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, 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, EPA promulgated a set of short-term 
regulatory revisions

[[Page 84899]]

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.
    Long-term issues, requiring additional research and input, were 
identified for a subsequent set of rule revisions. 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 and the formation of a 
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Working Group in 2014 
to provide recommendations (USEPA, 2011; NDWAC, 2015). In 2016, 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. Other identified issues included 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.
    These long-term issues were intended to be addressed in the LCRR 
which was promulgated on January 15, 2021 (86 FR 4198, USEPA, 2021a). 
The LCRR focused 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 LCRR included 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 LCRR removed provisions allowing partial 
service line replacement or ``test-outs'' (i.e., where a service line 
sample measures below the lead action level) to count towards LSLR 
requirements. The rule also revised 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 LCRR also established a lead trigger level at 0.010 mg/L to 
require systems to take actions before an action level exceedance, 
including taking steps to plan for CCT installation, re-optimizing CCT 
if the system already installed CCT, establishing a goal-based LSLR 
program, and increasing monitoring frequency. The LCRR made several 
changes to the CCT requirements and established a requirement for water 
systems to conduct follow-up actions at sites with individual 
compliance sample concentrations exceeding 0.015 mg/L.
    In the LCRR, EPA also revised its Public Notification Rule in 40 
CFR part 141, subpart Q and made changes to the reporting requirements 
for action level exceedances to implement 2016 amendments to section 
1414 of SDWA to require public notification within 24 hours if the 
system exceeds the lead action level.
    The LCRR added new public education requirements, including 
requirements to notify persons served by a known or suspected LSL, and 
timely notify individuals when their lead tap sampling results exceed 
the lead action level of 0.015 mg/L. Under the LCRR, systems that 
exceed the lead trigger level of 0.010 mg/L not only had to conduct 
goal-based LSLR but also are required 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.
    The LCRR also added a new small system flexibility provision that 
allowed CWSs serving 10,000 or fewer persons and all NTNCWSs that 
exceeded the trigger level to choose and implement one out of four 
compliance options (i.e., CCT, LSLR, point-of-use devices, replacement 
of lead-bearing plumbing) 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 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'' by listening to the 
science, to promote and protect public health and advance environmental 
justice, among others. EPA was required to review the LCRR because 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, 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 made the rule unnecessarily complicated, and the 
implementation burdens on systems and States.
    To allow EPA to engage with stakeholders and review the LCRR before 
it took effect, on March 12, 2021, 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, EPA published the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Lead and 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 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, 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, EPA held a series of virtual 
engagements from April to August 2021 to obtain public input on the 
LCRR. Consistent with Executive Order 13990, EPA engaged with States, 
Tribes, and water utilities as well as people who have been

[[Page 84900]]

underrepresented in past rulemaking efforts. 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.
    Throughout this process, 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 EPA with verbal and written comments on the LCRR. 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, EPA published the results of the LCRR review 
(86 FR 71574, USEPA, 2021b). 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 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). EPA also announced in the review 
notice that the LCRR would go into effect to support near-term 
development of actions to reduce lead in drinking water. At the same 
time, EPA committed to developing a new proposed rule, the LCRI, to 
strengthen key elements of the rule. 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). EPA also stated that it does 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. 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, EPA noted that development of 
inventories nationwide over the near-term would assist water systems, 
States, Tribes, and the Federal Government in determining the 
prevalence of these lead sources and would, among other things, enable 
water systems to begin planning for LSLR and apply for funding.

D. Statutory Authority

Establishment and Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
    EPA is publishing these proposed improvements to the LCRR under the 
authority of SDWA, including sections 1412, 1413, 1414, 1417, 1445, and 
1450 of the SDWA. 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.
    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. SDWA is the primary Federal law 
that protects the tap water provided to consumers by water systems 
across the country. The primary regulatory tool for this protection is 
section 1412 of SDWA under which 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 the setting of a ``maximum contaminant level goal'' 
(MCLG), which is set at a 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, EPA established the MCLG for lead at 0 mg/L, and the MCLG for 
copper at 1.3 mg/L.
    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 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) 
a health risk reduction benefits and cost analysis of the rule in 
sections 1412(b)(3)(A), (B), and (C) of SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300g-
1(b)(3)(A)-(C).
Establishment of the Lead and Copper Rule as a Treatment Technique
    In 1991, 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). This proposed rule, LCRI, would 
revise the LCRR, which maintained the NPDWR as a treatment technique. 
Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA authorizes 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). EPA's decision to promulgate a treatment 
technique rule for lead instead of a MCL in 1991 has been 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). See section V.A. for discussion on EPA's findings and 
rationale supporting a treatment technique determination.

[[Page 84901]]

Statutory Requirements Related to the 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.'' 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 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)''. Specifically, EPA must assess the ``best 
technology,'' as opposed to generally available technology, that has 
been tested beyond the laboratory under full-scale conditions; however, 
the technology need not be in widespread, full-scale use (SDWA section 
1412(b)(4)(D)). The legislative history of this provision makes it 
clear that ``feasibility'' is to be defined 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) and 
City of Portland v. EPA, 507 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (upholding EPA's 
treatment technique for Cryptosporidium and the Agency's interpretation 
that ``feasible'' means technically possible and affordable, and does 
not include a cost/benefit determination). As a result, EPA may not set 
different standards based solely on what is reasonably afforded by 
small and medium systems. However, if EPA cannot identify any 
affordable technologies for a particular category of small systems, EPA 
must identify variance technologies that ``achieve the maximum 
reduction or inactivation efficiency that is affordable'' and protect 
public health (SDWA section 1412(b)(15)(A) and (B)).
    SDWA provides for two exceptions to the requirement that a 
treatment technique ``prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on 
the health of persons to the extent feasible''. First, under SDWA 
section 1412(b)(5), EPA is authorized to require the use of a treatment 
technique to achieve a contaminant level other than the feasible level 
if the feasible level would result in an increase in the health risk of 
drinking water by increasing the concentration of other contaminants or 
interfere with the efficacy of drinking water treatment techniques or 
processes that are used to comply with other NPDWRs. Second, under SDWA 
section 1412(b)(6)(A), if EPA determines that the benefits of a 
treatment technique would not justify the costs of compliance, EPA may 
promulgate a treatment technique for the contaminant that maximizes 
health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is justified by the 
benefits.
Notice and Recordkeeping Requirements
    Section 1414(c) of SDWA, as amended by the 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). 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). 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 short-term exposure, including 
that it 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, SDWA section 1414(c)(2)(D) directs 
EPA to issue the required public notice ``not later than 24 hours after 
the Administrator is notified of the exceedance.'' EPA interprets 
section 1414(c)(2)(C)(iii) of SDWA to require systems to report only 
lead action level exceedances to the Administrator because the 
requirements under section 1414 (c)(2)(D) are only triggered in the 
event of an action level exceedance and not any violation of an NPDWR.
    Section 1417(a)(2) of SDWA states 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. 42 U.S.C. 300g-6(a)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).
    Section 1445(a) of SDWA provides that every person subject to a 
requirement of SDWA or 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, determining 
compliance with SDWA, administering any program of financial assistance 
under SDWA, evaluating the health risks of unregulated contaminants, 
and advising the public of such risks. 42 U.S.C. 300j-4(a).
Primacy Enforcement of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
    While EPA always retains its independent enforcement authority, the 
Agency may authorize States, territories, and Tribes for primary 
enforcement responsibility (``primacy''; primacy agencies are also 
referred to as ``States'' in this preamble) to implement the NPDWRs 
under SDWA section 1413(a)(1) when EPA has determined, among other 
conditions, that the State has adopted regulations that are no less 
stringent than the promulgated NPDWR. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(a)(1). 
Conditions for State primacy include, among other things, adequate 
enforcement, including monitoring, inspections, recordkeeping, and 
reporting. To obtain primacy for this rule, States must adopt 
regulations no less stringent than the NPDWR within two years of 
promulgation unless EPA grants the State a two-year extension. EPA must 
approve or deny State primacy applications within 90 days of submission 
to EPA. 42 U.S.C. 300g-2(b)(2). In some cases, a State submitting 
revisions to adopt an NPDWR has primary enforcement authority for a new 
regulation while EPA's decision on the primacy application is pending. 
42 U.S.C. 300g-2(c). Section 1413(b)(1) of SDWA requires EPA to 
establish regulations governing the primacy application and review 
process ``with such modifications as the Administrator deems 
appropriate.'' In addition to proposed revisions to the LCRR that are 
more stringent, this notice includes proposed changes to the primacy 
requirements related to this rule.
    Section 1450 of SDWA authorizes the Administrator to prescribe such 
regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out their 
functions under the Act. 42 U.S.C. 300j-9.

E. Anti-Backsliding Analysis

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, EPA is required to ensure that ``each 
revision'' of an NPDWR

[[Page 84902]]

``shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of 
persons''. EPA has adopted a holistic framework that gives meaning to 
the text, structure, and purpose of the anti-backsliding provision 
based on the best reading of the statutory provision. EPA has 
interpreted the term ``each revision'' to refer to a revision of an 
NPDWR, meaning that each new rule that revises a current regulation, 
shall maintain, or provide for greater health protection. The plain 
meaning of ``revision'' is broad in scope and may contain multiple 
parts. A treatment technique rule is an integrated set of actions 
designed to reduce the level of exposure to a contaminant. As such, in 
assessing whether a treatment technique rule maintains or provides for 
greater health protection, EPA evaluates the entire treatment technique 
rule as a whole, not on a component-by-component basis.
    As described in the LCRR rulemaking, EPA has interpreted the 
backsliding analysis for a treatment technique rule to be ``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 each revision against the anti-backsliding 
standard, EPA has compared the whole of the proposed LCRI (i.e., the 
``revision''), along with components of the LCRR that EPA is not 
revising, against the whole of the LCRR to assess whether the new rule 
would maintain or improve public health protection. Further, EPA 
compared the whole of the proposed LCRI to the whole of the LCRR 
because the LCRR is the most recent revision to the NPDWR for lead and 
copper.
    Recognizing that water systems and States are not yet required to 
comply with the LCRR until October 16, 2024, EPA has also assessed the 
improved public health protection of the proposed LCRI, along with 
elements of LCRR not proposed for revision, relative to the LCR as 
currently implemented. Therefore, EPA compared the whole of the 
proposed LCRI to the whole of the LCR, in addition to the LCRR.
    EPA anticipates the proposed LCRI would improve public health 
protection more than either the LCR or LCRR in accordance with section 
1412(b)(9) of SDWA. Below, EPA has evaluated and provided a more 
detailed breakdown of some of the most significant components that 
would make the proposed LCRI, as a whole, more protective compared to 
the LCR and LCRR. Specifically, EPA compared the proposed LCRI to the 
LCRR because the LCRR is the most recent revision to the NPDWR for lead 
and copper. Also, EPA compared the proposed LCRI to the LCR because 
that is the NPDWR that water systems are currently implementing; at 
present, water systems do not have to comply with the LCRR until 
October 16, 2024.
    The central feature of the proposed LCRI is the mandatory 
replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines regardless of a lead action 
level exceedance; this is a more preventive approach than under either 
the LCR or LCRR. Replacement of LSLs 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 can 
improve public health by reducing the associated health impacts from 
lead exposures. The LCR only required water systems to replace LSLs 
systemwide if a system exceeded the lead action level and allowed them 
to stop once lead levels were reduced below the lead action level. The 
LCRR requires that systems replace LSLs if they exceed the lead action 
level and initiate a goal-based replacement program if they exceed the 
lead trigger level. The proposed LCRI would result in mandatory 
systemwide replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines regardless of 90th 
percentile lead levels and at a faster replacement rate, leading to 
significant public health benefits resulting from the elimination of 
these major lead sources. While EPA projected that 339,000 to 555,000 
LSLs under control of the system would be expected to be replaced under 
the LCRR of a 35-year period, the proposed LCRI requirements would 
require replacement of all LSLs and GRR service lines under control of 
the system (USEPA, 2020e, Exhibit C-1). This is a key element of the 
proposed LCRI and is intended to provide both broader and more certain 
lead risk reduction than any of the prior lead rules.
    In the LCRI, EPA is proposing to remove the lead trigger level and 
reduce the lead action level to 0.010 mg/L, which would require water 
systems to take actions sooner than under the LCR and LCRR and at lower 
lead levels while also simplifying rule requirements to enhance 
effective implementation. This change would maintain or provide greater 
health protection at all systems including those without LSLs or GRR 
service lines as a result of the actions required of a system after an 
action level exceedance (e.g., installation or re-optimization of 
corrosion control treatment, public education). Similarly, EPA's 
proposal to require use of the higher result of the first and fifth 
liter tap sample at LSL sites is expected to result in more systems 
that are required to install or re-optimize corrosion control and 
provide notification and public education. While EPA is also proposing 
to revise the OCCT requirements to not require systems that exceed the 
action level to re-optimize their OCCT if they re-optimized once after 
the compliance date for LCRI and are meeting their optimal water 
quality parameters, the proposed LCRI would maintain or improve public 
health protection for those systems. This is because resources would be 
better devoted to other mitigation activities rather than repeating the 
same steps, as well as the proposed LCRI would require those systems 
that continue to exceed the action level to conduct additional public 
education activities and make filters available upon meeting the 
proposed criterial for having ``multiple lead action level 
exceedances'' (see section V.I.). Also, if there have been no 
significant source water or treatment changes (actions which themselves 
can require a CCT study) a re-optimization study may yield the same 
result as its previous study.
    In addition, the LCRR allows small systems serving 10,000 persons 
or fewer to choose between four compliance options if they exceed the 
lead action level: LSLR, CCT installation, full lead-bearing plumbing 
replacement, and use of point-of-use devices. The proposed LCRI would 
require small water systems with LSLs or GRR service lines to conduct 
mandatory service line replacement regardless of lead levels instead of 
choosing between service line replacement and the other compliance 
options. Accordingly, under the proposed LCRI, small water systems with 
LSLs would be required to remove a significant source of lead and 
protect against corrosion with either OCCT, point-of-use devices, or 
plumbing replacement. Thus, the proposed LCRI would provide greater 
protection of public health than the LCRR for systems with LSLs or GRR 
service lines. For small systems, specifically those serving 3,300 or 
fewer persons (for which EPA is proposing to lower the threshold from 
10,000 under the LCRR), without LSLs or GRR service lines that exceed 
the lead action level, they could choose and implement lead-bearing 
plumbing replacement or point-of-use device installation and 
maintenance in lieu of CCT if approved by the State.
    EPA is proposing additional improvements across other rule areas 
that will result in more actions taken at lower lead levels to better 
protect public health. Exhibit 1 in section III.A. summarizes these 
changes and

[[Page 84903]]

illustrates comparisons among the pre-2021 LCR, LCRR, and proposed LCRI 
requirements.
    As a whole, the proposed LCRI would improve public health 
protection relative to the LCR and LCRR for the reasons described 
above. This is supported by a comparison of the monetized benefits. See 
Chapter 5, section 5.6.1 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2023b) for LCRR to LCRI monetized estimated health benefits comparisons 
and Appendix C, of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis for pre-2021 LCR 
to LCRI monetized estimated health benefits comparisons. Through this 
revision of the NPDWR for lead and copper, EPA is proposing a more 
stringent and comprehensive set of lead reduction requirements compared 
to the LCR or LCRR, including mandatory service line replacement; a 
reduced action level for CCT, which would, among other things, serve as 
a screen for small and medium water systems based on lead levels that 
are generally representative of OCCT; and more robust and meaningful 
public education. Further, EPA is aiming to improve public health 
protections in communities facing the greatest risks from lead in 
drinking water, particularly in areas facing cumulative environmental 
justice impacts, through equity-driven proposed requirements for public 
education and a strategy to prioritize service line replacement in 
parts of communities based on factors including but not limited to 
local communities, such as those disproportionately impacted by lead 
and populations most sensitive to the effects of lead. Therefore, EPA 
anticipates that the proposed LCRI, as a whole, would improve public 
health protections relative to the LCR and LCRR in accordance with SDWA 
section 1412(b)(9).
    As part of the anti-backsliding analysis that the proposed LCRI, as 
a whole, would improve public health protection relative to the LCR and 
LCRR, EPA is also considering the proposed change to the LCRR 
compliance dates for actions other than the service line inventory, 
associated notification and reporting requirements, and the 24-hour 
public notification requirement in 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q. EPA 
began reviewing the LCRR in 2021. Through the consultations EPA 
conducted as part of the LCRR review and the engagements and 
consultations EPA held to support the development of the proposed LCRI, 
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. Because of these challenges, as explained 
further below, EPA is proposing that water systems continue to 
implement the LCR requirements and the LCRR inventory requirements 
between promulgation of the LCRI and the proposed compliance date of 
three years after promulgation.
    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 LCRR. The improvement of public health attributable 
to the 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. EPA does not 
expect those projected improvements from the LCRR to be realized if EPA 
promulgates yet another new regulatory framework for controlling lead 
just as compliance with the LCRR is required. Moreover, EPA expects 
that, if compliance with the entire LCRR is required starting October 
16, 2024, it would negatively affect water systems' abilities to 
realize the greater health risk reduction benefits of the proposed 
LCRI.
    If the LCRI is promulgated as proposed, and LCRI compliance is 
required in the third year of 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. The startup 
activities for a State include adopting State regulations, modifying 
data systems, and conducting internal and external training. 
Compounding that challenge is the fact that systems and States would be 
catching up on the LCRR startup activities that they may have postponed 
in response to EPA's announcement of the proposed LCRI rulemaking. If 
water systems are required to simultaneously implement the LCRR for the 
first time and prepare for LCRI compliance, EPA expects that it would 
be beyond the capacity of both water systems and States and therefore, 
the expected benefits of one or both rules would not be realized.
    Allowing water systems to transition from compliance with the LCR 
to compliance with the LCRI, while requiring systems to comply with the 
LCRR inventory requirements in the interim, would 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 LCRR.

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

    The development of a proposed NPDWR, 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, 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 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 
development of the LCRI is a key action within EPA's Lead Strategy and 
``reflects EPA's commitment to fulfilling the Biden-Harris 
Administration's historic commitment of resources to replace lead pipes 
and support lead paint removal under the Lead Pipe and Paint Action 
Plan'' (USEPA, 2022a).

G. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Other Financial Resources

    There are a number of pathways for systems to receive support for 
LSLR and related activities, including low- to no-cost financing 
through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), lead 
remediation grants 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. EPA 
strongly encourages water systems to

[[Page 84904]]

evaluate these available funding opportunities to support LCRI 
implementation and full service line replacement.
    The BIL appropriated $30.7 billion in supplemental DWSRF funding 
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.'' The dedicated LSLR appropriation and the General Supplemental 
appropriation under the BIL as well as annual base appropriations for 
the DWSRF can pay for LSLR and related activities. Full service line 
replacement is an eligible cost under the DWSRF regardless of the 
ownership of the property on which the service line is located. 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 1452(d)(3). This 49 percent 
additional subsidization requirement in the BIL is greater than the 
additional subsidization requirement under SDWA section 1452(d)(2) for 
annual base DWSRF appropriations, and as such, the BIL makes available 
additional DWSRF funding for LSLR and associated activities that does 
not need to be repaid.
    Corrosion control planning and design as well as associated capital 
infrastructure projects are also eligible for DWSRF funding under the 
DWSRF General Supplemental appropriation under the BIL as well as the 
DWSRF annual base appropriations. However, corrosion control treatment 
is not an eligible activity for DWSRF funding from the $15 billion 
specifically appropriated in BIL for LSLR and associated activities. 
States may use set-aside funds to assist water systems' development of 
corrosion control strategies and LSL inventories and replacement plans. 
In addition, States can also use DWSRF set-aside funds to provide 
operators with ongoing educational opportunities, such as how to 
perform lead monitoring and testing (USEPA, 2019a). Water systems are 
encouraged to contact their State's DWSRF program to learn about 
project eligibilities and requirements.
    The WIIN Act established three drinking water grant programs 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, 2023c). 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 certain public 
water systems in meeting SDWA requirements, including the lead and 
copper National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (USEPA, 2021f).
    EPA administers the WIFIA program, a Federal credit program, to 
accelerate investment in the nation's water infrastructure by providing 
long-term, low-cost supplemental loans for regionally and nationally 
significant projects, including those eligible for funding through 
DWSRFs (USEPA, 2023d). Similar to DWSRF, WIFIA also provides financial 
assistance for full service line replacement unless a portion has 
already been replaced or is being concurrently replaced with another 
funding source.
    EPA also provides water technical assistance (WaterTA) to support 
communities in identifying lead sources, developing removal and 
remediation plans, and applying for water infrastructure funding. EPA 
collaborates with States, Tribes, territories, community partners, and 
other key stakeholders to implement WaterTA efforts. For example, the 
administration and expenses funds appropriated under BIL enabled the 
establishment of numerous Environmental Finance Centers (EFCs) that 
help underserved communities that have historically struggled to access 
Federal funding, such as DWSRF, receive the support they need to access 
resources for water infrastructure improvements, including LSLR.
    In January 2023, EPA announced the ``Lead Service Line Replacement 
Accelerators'' initiative (USEPA, 2023e). This major initiative will 
provide targeted technical assistance services to help underserved 
communities access funds from the BIL and replace lead pipes that pose 
risks to the health of children and families. The initiative involves 
the U.S. Department of Labor and four States (i.e., Connecticut, 
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Wisconsin), and the initiative will work 
with 40 communities across those States in 2023. The Accelerators 
initiative will support these States in strategically deploying funding 
from the BIL for LSLR while developing best practices that can serve as 
a roadmap for the rest of the country. EPA will provide hands-on 
support 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. For additional information 
on EPA funding, see: https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/funding-lead-service-line-replacement. For additional information 
on technical assistance, see: https://www.epa.gov/water-infrastructure/water-technical-assistance-waterta.
    In addition to the EPA-administered funding for service line 
replacement and other lead reduction actions, other Federal programs 
outside of 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 daycare 
centers. Recipients of ARP funds budgeted over $345 million for lead 
remediation projects as of September 30, 2022 (The White House, 2023). 
For example, Washington, DC, budgeted $30 million to increase funding 
available to assist residents in replacing lead water service lines 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.).
    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).

[[Page 84905]]

In 2017, North Providence, Rhode Island, utilized CDBG funding from HUD 
to replace customer-owned LSLs (USEPA, 2023p). 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, 2020a).
    The EDA Public Works Program supports physical infrastructure 
improvements in economically distressed communities (USEPA, 2020a). 
With the creation of the Low-Income Household Water Assistance Program 
(LIHWAP) in 2021, States have an additional funding source to assist 
low-income households with water and wastewater bills and reduce the 
financial burden of water systems. In 2021, over $1.1 billion was 
appropriated for LIHWAP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116-260), 
Div. H, Sec. 533, and American Rescue Plan Act (Pub. L. 117-2), Sec. 
2912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Lead Service Line 
Replacement 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, 2021). The State of Minnesota approved 
$240 million for replacing LSLs, mapping and inventory activities, and 
informing residents about the benefits of LSLR. The State of Minnesota 
established an LSLR grant program, where the awarded grants must cover 
100 percent of the cost of replacing the customer's portion of an LSL 
and prioritize replacing LSLs that are an imminent threat to public 
health and safety, areas with children, lower-income residents, and 
where replacements will provide the most efficient use of the grant 
funding (such as in coordination with main replacement) (State of 
Minnesota, 2023). The funding will be available 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).
    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 service 
line replacement (USEPA, 2019a). For example, the City of Green Bay, 
WI, used funding from a stadium tax to fund customer-side LSLR (USEPA, 
2019a). 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, 2020a).

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

Environmental Justice
    Stakeholder feedback and EPA's environmental justice analysis 
informed the Agency's understanding of how the proposed LCRI could 
benefit communities with environmental justice concerns. As described 
in section IV.C., EPA developed these proposed revisions after engaging 
with community stakeholders in cities with concerns about lead in 
drinking water during the LCRR review by holding two public listening 
sessions on the topic of environmental justice to support the proposed 
LCRI rulemaking. EPA also prepared an environmental justice analysis 
for this proposed rule to inform EPA's understanding of how the 
proposed LCRI could impact communities with environmental justice 
concerns (USEPA, 2023f). EPA is proposing requirements that would 
achieve more equitable outcomes, especially in how service line 
replacement programs are planned and implemented. EPA is proposing 
requirements that would 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. Specific proposed requirements, and their anticipated 
impacts on equity, are described in full in section V. For example, EPA 
is proposing a requirement for water systems to make their service line 
replacement plans accessible and publicly available to inform the 
public of how full service line replacement will be prioritized (see 
section V.B.7.). Section V.B.5. includes a discussion on proposed 
requirements as incentives to overcome access issues and section V.5.9. 
describes environmental justice concerns and how the proposed rule may 
impact those concerns. 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 under SDWA 1452(d)(3) (see 
section IV.G.).
Applicability of Federal Civil Rights Laws
    EPA ensures compliance with Federal civil rights laws that together 
prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, national origin 
(including limited-English proficiency), disability, sex and age, 
respectively Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title IX 
of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Section 13 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Section 13) and 
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975. EPA's nondiscrimination regulations 
at 40 CFR parts 5 and 7 implement these Federal civil rights statutes 
and contain important civil rights baseline elements that are legally 
required 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 civil rights laws prohibit any program or activity receiving 
EPA financial assistance from discrimination based on race, color, 
national origin (including limited-English proficiency), disability, 
sex, and age. Accordingly, water systems 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

[[Page 84906]]

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 should 
ensure compliance with Federal civil rights laws. As a best practice, 
one component of such a plan may be the analysis of the demographic 
data that recipients of EPA financial assistance are required to 
collect under 40 CFR 7.85(a). 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. 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. To support this effort, EPA is proposing a special 
primacy requirement for States to identify any potential barriers to 
full service line replacement, which is discussed further in section 
VII.C.

V. Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Subpart I Control of Lead and Copper

A. Regulatory Approach

    Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA authorizes the 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 LCR, 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 proposed LCRI, EPA is 
finding, as it did in 1991, that an MCL for lead is not feasible to 
ascertain the level of the contaminant within the meaning of the Act 
and in a way that would achieve the basic purposes of the statute. 
Specifically, as described in more detail below, 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 whether the fact that lead and 
copper are both present in water systems' distribution system and 
building premise plumbing, make it infeasible for EPA to establish MCLs 
for lead and copper. In making this finding, EPA conducted a new 
analysis of the issue by re-evaluating the information and data and 
analyses underlying EPA's conclusion in the 1991 LCR and evaluating the 
new information and data available since 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 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. In 1991, 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). 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). EPA discussed how if EPA were to select an MCL, 
it must be ``as close as feasible'' to the MCLG in accordance with the 
statutory standard. 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). 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, between different systems, 
and between individual homes within the same system (56 FR 26473-26475, 
USEPA, 1991). 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 corrosion control 
treatment (56 FR 26473, USEPA, 1991).
    Second, EPA explained an additional challenge for establishing MCLs 
for lead and copper was because much of the lead and copper sources are 
privately owned and/or are outside of the control of the public water 
system. At the time, 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), and therefore 
monitoring for compliance in the distribution system, EPA could 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. The Agency determined that setting an MCL for 
lead and copper at the point the water leaves the control of the public 
water system would be inconsistent with the 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, 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). 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 public water system with lead and copper-bearing 
materials in the homeowners' plumbing'' (56 FR 26472-26473, USEPA, 
1991). Despite the fact that lead and copper sources may be outside the 
control of the water system, 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

[[Page 84907]]

1991 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 way that is technically feasible to set MCLs.
    Third, EPA reasoned in the 1991 rulemaking that the definition of a 
public water system 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). 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. 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 (accounting for the variability of lead and copper 
levels that would persist after treatment installation, given the 
sources of lead and copper). However, 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, 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)).
    Considering the above facts, analyses, and statutory requirements, 
EPA concluded that it was not feasible to set MCLs for lead and copper 
and promulgated a rule comprised of four treatment techniques: 
corrosion control treatment, source water treatment, lead service line 
replacement, and public education. As described in section I.C. of this 
preamble, EPA introduced action levels for lead and copper to implement 
the treatment technique requirements in the rule. The action levels 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, EPA explained how the action levels are not 
MCLs, and they do not function as MCLs. For more information about 
action levels, including the lead action level EPA is proposing for the 
LCRI and EPA's determination about why and action level was not an MCL 
under the LCR and would still not be an MCL under the proposed LCRI, 
see section V.E.2. of this document.
    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 EPA's 
analysis, described above, that it is not feasible to ascertain the 
level of lead in drinking water, the Court upheld EPA's decision not to 
implement an MCL for lead (AWWA, F.3d 1266, 1270-71).
    For the proposed LCRI, EPA has re-evaluated whether a treatment 
technique rule in lieu of an MCL is consistent with the statute. As 
part of the Agency's analysis, EPA re-evaluated the information 
considered and conclusions made in promulgating the LCR in 1991, in 
addition to the best information and data available in more than thirty 
years since the LCR was promulgated, including from stakeholder 
feedback received during the LCRR review. Based on the analysis being 
conducted for the proposed LCRI, EPA is proposing to determine that 
information and factors consistent with the Act that cause lead and 
copper variation identified in the 1991 LCR and supported in the LCRR 
continue to apply today. Therefore, it is not feasible to establish 
MCLs for lead and copper consistent with the SDWA.
    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 does not meet the statutory 
standard for an MCL under SDWA. Several reasons contribute to 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 is 
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 LSL sites across Chicago, Illinois. EPA's 
analysis of 2019 State of Michigan Lead Tap Monitoring Data as part of 
the 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).
    For the proposed LCRI, 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. Six-Year 
Review 4 data were voluntarily provided to EPA from 46 States, 
Washington, DC, and 10 Tribal programs and territories and includes the 
LCR compliance data reported to the State. EPA used Safe Drinking Water 
Information System Federal Reporting Services (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, 2023b). Similar to 
an analysis conducted for the LCR, EPA evaluated the magnitude of 
difference between two points in the distribution as a measure of 
variability (56 FR 26474, USEPA, 1991). Because the 90th percentile is 
used to require actions under the LCR, EPA used a ratio of the 90th 
percentile (P90) and the 50th percentile or median (P50) for lead and 
copper values for each system in each year of data in the dataset (2012 
to 2019). For example, if there are 100 samples, the 50th percentile is 
the 50th highest concentration and the 90th percentile is the 90th 
highest concentration. If the P90/P50 ratio is

[[Page 84908]]

close to one, it means that the values are similar and there is low 
variability among the measured lead levels at that system in a given 
year. Prior to calculating percentiles, EPA assigned a numerical value 
for non-detects. The true value of the non-detect could be anywhere 
between zero and the minimum reporting level (MRL) reported with a 
sample result. As a conservative estimate, EPA substituted one-half of 
the reported MRL associated with each sample result. For sample results 
without a reported MRL value, EPA substituted one-half of the most 
commonly reported MRL for lead or copper in the State the system is 
located in, or nationally (0.005 mg/L for lead and 0.01 mg/L for 
copper) if State-level MRL data was not available. This approach is 
commonly used for evaluating Six-Year Review data (USEPA, 2016b). EPA 
also applied full MRL substitution to show the range of possible 
results. The results in Exhibit 2 show the P90/P50 ratios calculated 
for selected systems representing different sizes, CCT, and LSL status. 
Exhibit 3 shows the results for copper. The results show high 
variability across systems as well as instances where a system has low 
variability in samples for one year and high variability in another. 
Systems with CCT and systems without LSLs also experience variability 
in lead levels both within a single sample collection year and between 
collection years. Higher ratios (e.g., >10) in Exhibits 2 and 3 are 
often due to the P50 value being a non-detectable concentration In 
other words, these systems had some tap samples with high levels of 
lead or copper and others where lead or copper was not detected. 
Additional details and full results for all systems analyzed, including 
results using full MRL substitutions, are found in the data file ``Lead 
and Copper Variability Analysis'' in docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.014

[[Page 84909]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.015

    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 AWWA Research Foundation (2008) 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). The Agency notes that even where 
systems remove all LSLs, it will not sufficiently allow for the 
discontinuation of CCT because of the presence of other lead and copper 
sources that will remain in the plumbing of consumers' homes and other 
buildings (USEPA, 2020c). Accordingly, EPA is aware that systems 
without LSLs can exceed the lead action level, for example, due to the 
corrosion of premise plumbing containing lead. Under the LCRR, EPA 
estimated between 2.3 and 4.7 percent of CWSs without LSLs will exceed 
the current lead action level of 0.015 mg/L (USEPA, 2023b, 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. 
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 public water systems 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,\8\ lowering the amount of lead that may be in plumbing 
materials used in repairs or new installations starting in 2014. The 
Lead Free Rule (85 FR 54236, USEPA, 2020d) requires third-party 
certification for new plumbing products 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. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The term ``lead free'' provided here is defined under SDWA 
section 1417(d) as follows: ``[T]he term `lead free' means--(A) not 
containing more than 0.2 percent lead when used with respect to 
solder and flux; and (B) not more than a weighted average of 0.25 
percent lead when used with respect to the wetted surfaces of pipes, 
pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA heard from stakeholders that the Agency's reasons for not 
setting an MCL for lead are inconsistent, stating that 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 
LCRR for LSLs that apply regardless of water system ownership. This 
argument misconstrues the comprehensive set of reasons for 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 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

[[Page 84910]]

best available treatment technology'' (53 FR 31527, USEPA, 1988). While 
premise plumbing is a contributor to lead and copper at the tap, EPA 
found, and continues to find, that the quality of water delivered to 
customers can be controlled by systems 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).
    In addition to the above points, stakeholders have claimed that EPA 
has established MCLs for other drinking water contaminants, such as 
disinfection byproducts (71 FR 388, USEPA, 2006), and 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 as 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). The variability in lead and copper materials from 
site to site 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 variable across sites. 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 the lead and copper rules and 
the disinfection byproduct rules is that, unlike for lead, water 
systems disinfecting the water supply are the source of disinfection 
byproducts. Water systems 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 have the 
ability to control and account for the formation of disinfection 
byproducts, such as through source water treatment. On the other hand, 
lead is rarely found in source water (86 FR 4231, USEPA, 2021a) and is 
instead introduced into the drinking water supply 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, EPA is determining 
that the same conditions that prompted EPA 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, the condition 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, EPA also notes 
the benefit of a treatment technique. EPA can set requirements that 
compel the system to take various actions to reduce lead in drinking 
water, while an MCL would not compel action until, and unless, the MCL 
is exceeded (USEPA, 2020b). EPA is not authorized to require a specific 
treatment when promulgating an MCL (see SDWA sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and 
1412(b)(7)(A)).
    EPA has reasoned that 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 proposing to continue 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. Mandatory Full Service Line Replacement and SDWA Requirements
    This proposal marks a fundamental improvement in the lead service 
line replacement program, which reflects EPA's experience in 
implementing the lead rule over 30 years, new evidence and data, and is 
supported by the extraordinary commitment of funds for this program 
under the BIL. EPA is proposing mandatory full service line replacement 
of all LSLs and GRR service lines under a water system's control. In 
the LCRR review, EPA recognized the ``urgency of fully removing all 
lead service lines'' and the need to consider an LSLR mandate in an 
improved regulation (i.e., the LCRI) as well as through non-regulatory 
actions (86 FR 71577, USEPA, 2021b). In the LCRR review, EPA noted that 
under the LCRR, millions of LSLs would be left in place and would 
result in ``generations of Americans being at risk of significant lead 
exposure through their drinking water'' (86 FR 71577 USEPA, 2021b).
    The LCRR requires water systems to replace lead and GRR service 
lines after exceeding the lead action level or the LCRR-established 
lead trigger level. Systems that exceed the lead action level and serve 
more than 10,000 people must fully replace three percent of lead, GRR, 
and unknown service lines per year on a two-year rolling basis for at 
least two years. The State must require systems to replace LSLs on a 
shorter schedule if determined to be feasible. A system may cease 
mandatory LSLR on the date the system's 90th percentile lead level has 
been calculated to be at or below the lead action level during each of 
the four consecutive six-month tap sampling monitoring periods. Systems 
that exceed the lead trigger level, but stay at or below the lead 
action level, and serve more than 10,000 people must consult with the 
State on replacement goals and implement a goal-based LSLR program for 
two consecutive one-year monitoring periods.
    Any small CWS (serving 10,000 or fewer people) or NTNCWS that 
exceeds the lead action level and selects lead service line replacement 
as its compliance option under the LCRR small system flexibilities must 
implement a full lead service line replacement program on a schedule 
approved by the State that does not exceed 15 years. The LCRR also 
requires systems, regardless of their 90th percentile lead level, to 
replace the system-owned portion of an LSL when customers choose to 
replace their portion of the line; full LSLR is required in such cases 
because of the risks associated with partial LSLR.
    EPA projected that, under the LCRR, only 854,000 to 1.3 million 
LSLs would be replaced over the 35-year period of analysis for the 
rulemaking (USEPA, 2023b, Exhibit 4-135). Under this projection, 
millions of LSLs that generally account for 50 to 75 percent of lead 
contamination at the drinking water tap (Sandvig et al., 2008) would 
remain in active use in systems both with and without OCCT. Removing 
this significant source of lead exposure for millions of people is 
vital to protect

[[Page 84911]]

public health. During the proposed LCRI external engagements, many 
stakeholders voiced strong support for mandatory replacement of all the 
nation's LSLs through the LCRI, regardless of lead levels or CCT status 
(USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j). Some stakeholders did not 
support a service line replacement mandate by a deadline, citing 
competing demands for water systems (USEPA, 2023j).
    The proposed LCRI lead service line replacement approach is built 
on the experience of systems that are working proactively to replace 
LSLs, the significant funding available for service line replacement 
(including $15 billion for identifying and replacing LSLs from BIL), 
and the four States (Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Rhode Island) 
that currently require systems to replace LSLs by specific deadlines. 
These proactive measures alone cannot achieve the goal of replacing 100 
percent of lead and GRR service lines. A nationwide service line 
replacement mandate would ensure coverage for customers served by lead 
and GRR service lines in States that do not require mandatory 
replacement or where systems are not proactively replacing lead and GRR 
service lines. Mandatory service line replacement provides additional 
public health protection beyond the benefits of CCT, source water 
treatment, and public education alone.
Lead Exposures From Drinking Water
    Where LSLs and GRR service lines remain in place, they continue to 
present risks of lead exposure, especially from particulate lead 
releases. As discussed in section V.B.2. of this document, EPA 
determined that mandatory service line replacement is feasible, and a 
requirement that systems replace all LSLs and GRR service lines over a 
10-year period would ensure that the proposed LCRI ``prevents known or 
anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent 
feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)). The LCR and LCRR relied on replacing 
LSLs initiated by a series of process steps following periodic tap 
sampling results. Over the 30 years of implementing the LCR, EPA has 
found that the sampling and process steps of that rule created 
implementation uncertainties, difficulties, and errors that, in some 
cases, resulted in significant lead exposures. Improper implementation 
of the sampling and corrosion control treatment process has been the 
cause, or one of the primary causes, of significant lead exposures in 
multiple water systems. Moreover, disturbances of LSLs can potentially 
cause lead particulates to be released into drinking water, causing 
higher lead levels at those sites. Although the proposed LCRI includes 
risk mitigation requirements for water systems if they disturb the 
service line, other utilities or heavy traffic may also disturb the 
line (Del Toral et al., 2013; Roy and Edwards, 2019), events which 
would be unknown to the water system and not subject to risk mitigation 
steps. In addition, particulate lead can be released sporadically 
(i.e., not associated with a disturbance), even in systems that have 
OCCT and have measured generally low lead levels (Triantafyllidou et 
al., 2007). Research has also shown that lead exposure is not fully 
eliminated by CCT due to a variety of factors including individual home 
and service line characteristics, water quality, water use (including 
water stagnation following extended periods without water use), 
treatment, infrastructure, and disturbances to service lines (e.g., 
meter installation, road repair, and freezing of the ground that can 
have unintended and unpredictable effects), causing lead releases in 
the water when LSLs or GRR service lines are present (Del Toral et al., 
2013; Masters et al., 2021; Proctor et al., 2020; Roy and Edwards, 
2019; Schock et al., 2014; Triantafyllidou et al., 2007). Examples of 
isolated cases of lead poisoning in children have been documented and 
attributed to drinking water in communities whose systemwide lead 
levels remained below the action level of 0.015 mg/L (Triantafyllidou 
et al., 2007; Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2012).
New Evidence and Data To Support the Feasibility of Mandatory Service 
Line Replacement for All Systems
    Although the LCR and LCRR required water systems that exceeded the 
lead action or trigger levels to conduct LSLR, neither rule required 
all systems in the nation with LSLs and GRR service lines to 
simultaneously replace these service lines at a rapid rate. By 
mandating full service line replacement of all lead and GRR service 
lines in the nation separate from tap sampling and monitoring 
requirements, the proposed LCRI would better protect public health by 
removing a significant source of lead in drinking water (where present) 
and further reducing known or anticipated adverse health effects beyond 
what is able to be tested due to the sporadic nature of particulate 
lead spikes that can make their detection challenging. Furthermore, 
there had been a lack of data regarding the number of LSLs and GRR 
service lines in systems as well as no direct implementation of a broad 
service line replacement mandate in a large geographic region, or State 
laws requiring such, to demonstrate the feasibility of this 
requirement. New and higher quality evidence and data are available to 
assess the feasibility of this proposed requirement more accurately. 
EPA has found this evidence and these data indicate that such a 
requirement for LSLR is feasible as well as likely technically 
possible. For example, four States (Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and 
Rhode Island) have now required LSLR through State law, where New 
Jersey and Rhode Island both require all LSLs and all galvanized 
service lines (irrespective of whether there is or was an upstream LSL) 
to be replaced in ten years unless granted an extension by the State 
(State of New Jersey, 2021; State of Rhode Island, 2023). During the 
development of the LCRR, EPA was only aware of individual systems that 
had or were proactively conducting service line replacement. However, 
the four state service line replacement laws suggest that States expect 
such a requirement to be technically possible given hundreds of systems 
required to conduct service line replacement simultaneously within and 
across these States. EPA notes that these States are estimated to have 
approximately one-fifth of the LSLs in the country (1.8 out of 9.2 
million estimated LSLs) and have among the most LSLs in the country 
(USEPA, 2023k). Specifically, Illinois and Rhode Island are estimated 
to have 28 percent and 25 percent of all their service lines requiring 
replacement, the two highest proportions in the United States. 
Additionally, New Jersey and Michigan have an estimated 14 percent and 
11 percent of their lines requiring replacement, both above the 
national average of 8 percent (USEPA, 2023k). These laws suggest that 
these States anticipate that a broad service line replacement mandate 
is technically possible. Michigan and New Jersey have implemented their 
service line replacement laws since 2021, providing even more support 
that the States' expectations that their replacement requirements are 
in fact technically possible. In addition, BIL and other funding is now 
available to support service line replacement, a primary driver of the 
proposed rule costs. Also, as mentioned in section IV.C. of this 
document, several water systems have had implementation challenges 
associated with the LCR, including the CCT requirements. NDWAC 
recommendations noted the opportunity provided by proactive replacement 
of LSLs to protect public health before

[[Page 84912]]

systems experience higher lead levels'' (USEPA, 2016a).
    Additionally, new data from the 7th Drinking Water Infrastructure 
Needs Survey and Assessment (referred to as ``Needs Survey''), which 
was conducted in 2021 and whose results were published in 2023 (USEPA, 
2023k), allowed for more precise estimates of the number of lead, GRR, 
and unknown service lines in individual systems and nationwide than 
were previously available during the development of the LCRR. These 
data allowed EPA to better estimate the impacts of a broad and rapid 
mandatory service line replacement requirement to ensure such a 
requirement meets SDWA standards for a treatment technique. It also 
allowed EPA to estimate with more precision the systems eligible for 
deferred service line replacement, which EPA is proposing to be 
available to systems for which a 10-year replacement deadline is 
infeasible. Finally, BIL and other funding is now available to support 
service line replacement, which is a primary driver of the rule costs.
    For the reasons discussed in this section, mandatory service line 
replacement programs initiated by 90th percentile lead levels are now 
known not to be sufficient to prevent known or anticipated adverse 
health effects from lead exposure in drinking water to the extent 
feasible. As discussed above, improper implementation of corrosion 
control treatment can result in significant lead exposures and there is 
new data and evidence that support EPA's finding in this proposal that 
a mandatory service line replacement requirement applicable to all 
community water systems is feasible. For more information about EPA's 
feasibility assessment of mandatory service line replacement, see 
section V.B.2. of this document. For more information about available 
funding, see section IV.G. of this document.
2. Feasibility of Proposed Service Line Replacement Requirement and 
Deferred Deadlines
    The proposed LCRI service line replacement requirements are 
consistent with the SDWA requirements for the rule to ``prevent known 
or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent 
feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)). EPA determined that neither of the 
statutory exceptions in SDWA section 1412(b)(5)(A) for establishing a 
treatment technique at a level other than the feasible level apply 
since the proposed mandatory service line replacement requirement does 
not (1) increase concentrations of other (non-LCR) contaminants or (2) 
interfere with the efficacy of drinking water treatment techniques or 
processes used to comply with other NPDWRs. EPA also determined that 
the statutory authorization in SDWA section 1412(b)(6) to establish a 
treatment technique that maximizes benefits at a level justified by the 
cost does not apply here because the benefits of the proposed LCRI 
service line replacement requirements justify the costs (refer to 
section VIII. of this document).
    EPA finds that a minimum average annual replacement rate of 10 
percent, calculated across a rolling three-year period and 
corresponding to a 10-year replacement deadline, is feasible as defined 
in SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(D) because it is technically possible for 
systems of all sizes and affordable relative to large water systems. 
EPA estimates that a 10-year replacement deadline is feasible for 96 to 
99 percent of CWSs nationwide (USEPA, 2023g). In addition, because EPA 
is proposing to retain the requirement that States set a faster rate 
where feasible for systems, the proposed mandatory full service line 
replacement provision would prevent known or anticipated adverse health 
effects of lead ``to the extent feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)).
Examples of Systems Replacing All LSLs in 10 Years or Less
    EPA is aware of several systems of various sizes and LSL prevalence 
that have proactively replaced all LSLs in 10 years or less. Some large 
systems completed their service line inventory and replacement programs 
in less than 10 years. For example, both Tucson, Arizona (City of 
Tucson, 2022), and Spokane, Washington (City of Spokane, 2018), 
replaced all their LSLs in approximately two years. Although these 
systems had a relatively low number of LSLs (<1,000), EPA notes that, 
according to projections from Needs Survey responses, this number is 
representative of the majority of systems--only approximately 1,700 out 
of nearly 50,000 CWSs nationwide (3.5 percent) are expected to have 
more than 1,000 LSLs and GRR service lines (USEPA, 2023g). Some smaller 
systems were also able to complete their service line inventory and 
replacement programs on relatively short timelines. Both Stoughton and 
Mayville, Wisconsin, completed their programs in a single year (City of 
Stoughton Utilities Committee, 2022).
    In the cases of the large systems in Flint, Michigan, and Newark, 
New Jersey, these systems were able to complete or nearly complete 
their service line replacement programs well ahead of the proposed 
LCRI's 10-year deadline. Newark took four years to complete replacement 
(City of Newark, n.d.a). As of July 2023 (the date EPA evaluated this 
information), Flint had identified and replaced over 97 percent of 
LSLs, and the city estimates completing all replacements by 2023, seven 
years after the start of the program (City of Flint, n.d.). Notably, 
both Newark and Flint received substantial funding and technical 
expertise. Newark also passed an ordinance in 2019 that allowed entry 
to private property to evaluate service line materials and replace LSLs 
(City of Newark, 2019), which likely contributed to faster replacement 
rates. Flint, however, was known to have service line material records 
in a logistically challenging paper format with unreliable accuracy 
(BlueConduit, 2020), which EPA expects slowed their replacement 
progress relative to other systems that did not have these 
recordkeeping challenges. Nevertheless, Flint is expected to complete 
their service line replacement program in less than the proposed ten 
years.
    Regarding NTNCWSs, Needs Survey responses from 147 NTNCWSs showed 
LSLs are rarely used in these systems since 132 of them did not report 
any lead, GRR, or unknown service lines (USEPA, 2023g). Of the NTNCWSs 
listed in SDWIS, only 12 out of more than 17,000 NTNCWSs have more than 
1,000 service connections (USEPA, 2023g); therefore, the overwhelming 
majority of NTNCWSs that do have LSLs and GRR service lines are 
expected to have relatively few of these service lines requiring 
replacement over the proposed 10-year deadline.
    While EPA is aware that some systems completed their service line 
replacement programs in more than 10 years, EPA does not interpret 
these examples as conclusive or dispositive evidence that a 10-year 
deadline is infeasible. For example, Madison, Wisconsin, completed its 
LSLR program in just over 11 years (Madison Water Utility, 2014), while 
Lansing, Michigan completed removal of over 12,000 LSLs in 12 years 
(EDF, n.d.a). Additionally, these systems developed their inventories 
and replaced LSLs simultaneously in a shorter period of time than 
provided under the LCRR and proposed LCRI combined. The LCRR initial 
inventory deadline of October 16, 2024, combined with the three-year 
period between promulgation of the LCRI and the start of the 10-year 
deadline for full service line replacement gives systems more time to 
complete the service line inventory and replacement requirements than 
either

[[Page 84913]]

the Madison or Lansing program. In addition, substantial funding from 
the BIL and other sources have already advanced many systems' efforts 
to identify and replace LSLs.
Feasibility of Service Line Replacement Conducted by All Systems 
Simultaneously
    Stakeholders cited concerns about limited workforce and shortages 
of materials and supplies as factors that could impede service line 
replacement progress, especially when all systems in a geographic 
region are conducting replacement simultaneously (USEPA, 2023m). As 
mentioned previously, four States (Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and 
Rhode Island) are already or soon to be requiring systems to conduct 
mandatory service line replacement, which suggests that States expect 
that it is feasible for an individual system to replace LSLs, even when 
a broad service line replacement mandate is in effect across a large 
geographic region. The prevalence of LSLs in these States strengthens 
the evidence for the feasibility of widespread service line 
replacement, with Illinois, New Jersey, and Michigan all having greater 
than 300,000 estimated lead and GRR service lines statewide and Rhode 
Island with an estimated 75,700 LSLs (USEPA, 2023k). According to the 
estimates from the Needs Survey, Illinois is among the States with the 
most lead and GRR service lines in the nation (2nd), while New Jersey 
and Michigan are ranked 9th and 11th respectively, and Rhode Island is 
ranked 24th (USEPA, 2023k). Based on available inventory information, 
an estimated 187 to 331 out of 567 New Jersey systems have at least one 
lead or GRR service line and are thus subject to the 10-year deadline 
(see ``New Jersey LSLR Analysis.xls'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801). 
Similarly, 415 to 1,028 out of over 1,700 Illinois systems and 222 to 
647 out of 1,300 Michigan systems have at least one LSL or GRR service 
line, further demonstrating the magnitude of systems that are 
simultaneously replacing LSLs and GRR service lines across large 
geographic regions (USEPA, 2023g, ``Illinois LSLR Analysis.xls'' and 
``Michigan LSLR Analysis.xls'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).
Deferred Deadlines for Mandatory Service Line Replacement
    One of the goals of EPA's proposed rule is to replace all the 
nation's LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as is feasible. EPA 
estimates that a 10-year replacement deadline is feasible for 96 to 99 
percent of CWSs nationwide (USEPA, 2023g). For the limited number of 
systems for which EPA estimates this deadline is infeasible, EPA is 
proposing two eligibility criteria for systems to defer their service 
line replacement deadline past 10 years in accordance with a schedule 
that is feasible and prevents known or anticipated adverse health 
effects of lead to the extent feasible. To be eligible for a deferred 
replacement deadline, systems must meet either criterion or both 
criteria as described below. EPA notes that systems eligible for 
deferred replacement under the proposed rule may not need the 
additional time to replace all LSLs and GRR service lines; therefore, 
as discussed below, EPA is proposing to retain the provision in the LCR 
and LCRR that States must set a faster rate where feasible for a 
system. This proposed requirement would apply irrespective of whether a 
system is eligible for a deferred replacement deadline under the 
proposed rule.
    The first eligibility criterion for deferred service line 
replacement is proposed for systems with a high proportion of LSLs and 
GRR service lines in their distribution system relative to their total 
number of households served. EPA does not have evidence to support 
that, for systems meeting this criterion, replacement of all LSLs and 
GRR service lines in 10 years would be affordable relative to a large 
system; therefore, EPA cannot conclude that the 10-year timeframe would 
be ``feasible'' as defined by section 1412(b)(4)(D) of SDWA. EPA is 
using the number of LSLs and GRR service lines per household because 
the household metric can be considered as a proxy for the number of 
individual ratepaying customers or households that can contribute to 
the overall replacement program costs through rate revenue.
    EPA is proposing that systems would be eligible to defer their 
replacement deadline if they exceed a threshold identified in the rule. 
The proposed thresholds were calculated to identify the fastest 
feasible rate for the estimated one to four percent of systems for 
which the 10-year replacement deadline is not expected to be feasible. 
Systems would only be able to defer their service line replacement 
programs for as many years as necessary to ensure systems are replacing 
all LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible.
    For this analysis, EPA investigated replacement rates achieved by 
30 large systems (serving more than 50,000 people) with service line 
replacement programs (USEPA, 2023g). EPA assumed that the achieved 
service line replacement rates were affordable and feasible. EPA 
normalized the achieved replacement rate data by the estimated number 
of households served to estimate a per-household replacement rate. EPA 
considers the 95th percentile normalized rate (0.039 replacements per 
household per year) as the affordability threshold because it avoids 
setting the rate at the maximum recorded replacements per year rates, 
which were achieved by systems known to have received technical and 
financial assistance to support their replacement program that is 
unlikely to be broadly available when there is a national requirement 
to replace LSLs and GRR service lines. A stakeholder during the 
proposed LCRI external engagements recommended evaluating a typical 
system and avoiding the outlier cases when setting the pace and scope 
of a replacement program (USEPA, 2023j). Based on estimates developed 
from the number and type of service lines reported in the Needs Survey, 
EPA projects that a total of 663 to 2,134 systems (1.3 to 4.3 percent 
of all systems) would exceed this threshold (USEPA, 2023g) and be 
eligible for the proposed deferred replacement deadline. EPA is 
proposing that systems would be permitted to count only known LSLs and 
GRR service lines reported in their baseline LCRI inventory (the 
service line inventory submitted at the LCRI compliance date). The 
purpose of this limitation is to prevent systems from overestimating 
LSLs and GRR service lines with the number of unknown service lines and 
to avoid incentivizing systems to delay identifying unknown service 
lines to be eligible for the proposed deferred deadline provision. The 
proposed approach would incentivize systems to prioritize identifying 
unknown lines before the rule compliance date and prior to the start of 
their replacement programs (i.e., in the three years before compliance 
begins), creating public health and transparency benefits. EPA is 
seeking additional data on service line replacement rates achieved by 
systems in proactive programs (i.e., while any service line replacement 
rates achieved by systems is helpful, data provided on replacement 
programs that go beyond service line replacement in coordination with 
main replacement or emergency repair are especially useful for 
evaluating a system's capability to replace service lines at a rate 
that protects public health ``to the extent feasible'').
    The second eligibility criterion for deferred service line 
replacement is proposed for systems that would be required to replace 
greater than 10,000 service lines per year under the proposed 10-year 
replacement

[[Page 84914]]

requirement. Similar to the per-household deadline deferral option 
described above, systems would be permitted to count only known LSLs 
and GRR service lines reported in their baseline inventory to be 
eligible for this deferral. EPA selected 10,000 as the proposed upper 
threshold for what is technically possible because of potential system 
capacity to replace up to 10,000 LSLs per year. For example, Detroit's 
water system that announced they intend to replace 10,000 LSLs per year 
(City of Detroit, 2023), which suggests that Detroit's water system 
expects that this many annual replacements is technically possible. 
Another example includes the rates achieved by Newark, New Jersey, 
between January and March 2020 (CDM Smith, 2022). During this period, 
Newark replaced as many as 100 LSLs per day and maintained this rate 4 
to 5 days per week. Due to the COVID pandemic, replacement rates 
dropped substantially in after March 2020. If this rate of 100 LSLs per 
day had been maintained for 20 weeks of the year, it would have 
resulted in between 8,000 and 12,000 replacements (CDM Smith, 2022). 
This indicates that 10,000 annual replacements could be technically 
possible for systems.
    Based on the Needs Survey, EPA projects that only three to four 
systems nationally may be eligible for this deferral option (USEPA, 
2023g). EPA expects that these atypical systems may not be able to 
feasibly replace all LSLs and GRR service lines in 10 years because an 
average annual 10 percent rate across a rolling three-year period would 
correspond to an atypically high number of required annual 
replacements, which EPA does not have evidence to support is 
``feasible'' as defined in SDWA because it is not ``technically 
possible.''
    There are many possible factors that influence the number of annual 
replacements that are technically possible, some of which EPA heard 
during the LCRI external engagements, including seasonal weather 
changes that shorten the construction season in cold weather climates 
and contractor shortages in regions with many LSLs and GRR service 
lines (USEPA, 2023l; USEPA, 2023m). EPA also expects there to be other 
practical limitations in communities with atypically high numbers of 
required annual replacements, such as widespread service line 
replacements and significant street closures interfering with other 
water system operations. Service line replacement deferrals for a high 
number of required annual replacements could also reduce labor 
shortages by preventing larger urban centers from using all the 
contractors in the region.
    EPA is seeking comment on an alternate annual service line 
replacement threshold of 8,000 replacements. One example of a system 
achieving this rate is Newark, New Jersey in phase II of their 
replacement program. This replacement threshold indicates the number of 
annual service line replacements nationwide that a system has 
successfully implemented of which EPA is aware. Additional evidence 
that indicates 8,000 replacements may be technically possible is that 
under Illinois's Lead Service Line Replacement and Notification Act, 
Chicago would be required to replace just under 8,000 LSLs per year 
(see ``Illinois LSLR Analysis'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801), considering 
only LSLs and excluding unknown lines. Based on the Needs Survey, EPA 
projects that only six to seven systems nationally may be eligible for 
this alternative deferral option (USEPA, 2023g). EPA is seeking comment 
on its overall deferred deadlines approach and the two eligibility 
criteria for offering service line replacement deferrals to systems 
with a high rate of replacement per households and systems with 
atypically high numbers of LSLs and GRR service lines. EPA is 
requesting 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 primacy 
agency, as a condition of primacy, to assess whether it would be 
feasible for a system to meet the 10-year deadline or a shorter 
deadline even if they system meets the regulatory criteria for the 
deferred deadline. EPA is requesting additional data that indicate 
which threshold represents the maximum that is technically possible. 
EPA also anticipates that after ten years, when most systems have 
completed their service line replacement programs, there will be less 
competition for workers as well as supplies to conduct replacements. 
Additionally, EPA anticipates that following ten years, supply chains 
will have expanded significantly to meet increased demand and that 
service line replacement efficiency will increase following a decade of 
system experience and the potential availability of new technologies or 
procedures to expedite service line replacement. EPA is also seeking 
comment on whether data are available that would inform if the 
identified maximum replacement rate threshold could increase after ten 
years, such as if the threshold could double from 10,000 annual 
replacements to 20,000. See section IX. of this document for more 
information.
    EPA is not proposing that systems should be able to defer service 
line replacement for other reasons. Allowing opportunities for systems 
to delay service line replacement based on other reasons could create 
loopholes that would impede the achievement of 100 percent replacement 
of LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible. Although 
stakeholders raised concerns during the proposed LCRI external 
engagements that unforeseen factors, such as supply chain delays and 
labor shortages, might create temporary delays in a system's 
replacement program (USEPA, 2023l), EPA's proposed three-year rolling 
average would provide flexibility when temporary shortages impede a 
system's ability to replace service lines in a given year (see section 
V.B.3.).
    EPA also assumes that market forces will largely correct for 
shortages in labor or supplies, especially because the proposed 
compliance date for the final rule would allow three years for market 
corrections to occur before the 10-year service line replacement 
requirements even begin. In making this assumption for the proposed 
LCRI, EPA considered other examples of markets that are correcting in 
the context of drinking water requirements because they could be 
informative here. For example, with respect to the market availability 
of filters, EPA notes that some systems are already implementing 
widespread filter programs (Denver Water, 2023a). EPA is requesting 
comment on the ability of the market to correct for potential shortages 
in workers and materials to conduct service line replacement, as well 
to provide sufficient quantities of filters to comply with the service 
line replacement and other relevant provisions in the proposal. See 
section IX. for more information.
    EPA also expects that system planning efforts can overcome these 
shortages. For example, to increase contractor capacity to accelerate 
their replacement rate, the City of Detroit actively engaged with 
potential contractors in 15 meetings that represented more than 50 
organizations (City of Detroit, 2023). The meetings provided an 
overview of the procurement process and allowed contractors to ask 
questions. These contractors are being solicited to augment Detroit 
Water and Sewer Department's 17 new field service technicians who will 
also be conducting service line replacement. This City is also hiring 
and training local Detroit

[[Page 84915]]

citizens as field service technicians to replace service lines, which 
will increase worker capacity for service line replacement (City of 
Detroit, 2023).
    In another instance, Newark created a lead service line replacement 
apprenticeship program to increase worker capacity in the construction 
trade. As a result of the apprenticeship program, Newark hired 35 
people from the community, most of whom were unemployed prior to the 
program. The apprenticeship program is cited as producing economic and 
employment benefits, with many of the participants still working with 
their company even after certain LSLR contracts have ended. While 
Newark has completed its LSLR program, these workers can contribute to 
LSLR in other parts of the State under New Jersey's law to replace LSLs 
in 10 years (Jersey Water Works, 2020; State of New Jersey, 2021). 
Furthermore, a local collaborative, Jersey Water Works, thinks this 
apprenticeship program can be replicated in other cities in New Jersey 
and other States nationally. With the promulgation of the 2023 Lead 
Poisoning Prevention Act in Rhode Island, any water suppliers and their 
associated contractors that receive an award of $1 million dollars or 
greater for an LSLR program from the State infrastructure bank is 
required to participate in an approved apprenticeship program for all 
apprenticeable crafts or trades that will be employed on the project at 
the time of bid (State of Rhode Island, 2023).
3. Service Line Replacement Rate
Rate Construct
    In the 1991 LCR, EPA first noted the difficulty in determining a 
uniform, national LSLR rate to apply to all PWSs following a lead 
action level exceedance, considering that the number of LSLs and the 
population size served can vary substantially between systems (56 FR 
26508, USEPA, 1991). The Agency had considered alternate rate 
constructs, such as a binning system, to assign different replacement 
rates based on different system characteristics but identified 
difficulties in designing a practical system (56 FR 26508, USEPA, 
1991). EPA promulgated a uniform, national minimum LSLR rate of seven 
percent, corresponding to a 15-year deadline to replace all LSLs, where 
States must set a faster rate where feasible for systems that exceed 
the lead action level. The rule allowed for partial replacement and 
test-outs to count towards the replacement rate. In the LCRR, EPA also 
promulgated a uniform, national minimum LSLR rate, set at three percent 
following a lead action level exceedance and at a goal rate determined 
by the State following a trigger level exceedance, where systems 
calculate compliance using a two-year rolling average. The LCRR does 
not allow partial service line replacements or test-outs to count 
towards the replacement rate.
    For the LCRI, EPA is proposing a national minimum average annual 
service line replacement rate of at least 10 percent, with compliance 
assessed in accordance with a three-year rolling average, equating to a 
10-year replacement deadline. A single, default replacement deadline 
that would apply to all systems, except for systems required by the 
State to replace lines by a shortened deadline or estimated to be 
eligible for a deferred deadline, helps ensure a less complex rule for 
both systems and States, which was identified as a key priority for the 
LCRI in the LCRR review.
    EPA recognizes that some systems can replace their service lines on 
a faster schedule than the default 10-year deadline, so, as noted 
earlier in this section, the Agency proposes to maintain the LCR and 
LCRR requirement that States set a shortened deadline for an individual 
system to complete service line replacement where feasible. EPA 
maintains the reasoning from the 1991 LCR record that ``States will be 
in the best position to assess the factual circumstances of each 
individual system to determine the schedule which the system can 
feasibly meet'' and should be the authority to decide whether 
individual systems can replace lead and GRR service lines on faster 
schedules (56 FR 26508, USEPA, 1991). EPA also maintained this finding 
in the LCRR (USEPA, 2020b). EPA expects this finding is even more true 
today, given that the implementation of many proactive and mandatory 
service line replacement programs nationwide has in recent years 
provided States with additional experience with systems' replacement 
programs. The proposed requirement that States must set a faster rate 
where feasible for individual systems helps ensure that the rule will 
require the replacement of all LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as 
feasible, consistent with the SDWA requirement that a treatment 
technique rule ``prevent[s] known or anticipated adverse health effects 
on the health of persons to the extent feasible'' (SDWA 1412(b)(7)(A)).
    EPA is proposing that States must set a shortened replacement 
deadline where feasible at any time throughout a system's replacement 
program and notify the system of the determination in writing, such as 
when the State determines a shorter deadline is feasible at the 
beginning of the replacement program or at some point further along the 
replacement program. For example, new information obtained during the 
replacement period through inventory investigations may inform the 
State's decision to require a shorter deadline. This proposed 
requirement would ensure systems are replacing service lines as quickly 
as feasible, such as where the conditions relevant to the feasibility 
of a system's replacement program change. EPA is taking comment on 
whether States should be required as a condition of primacy to set 
initial shortened deadlines by a certain timeframe, such as no later 
than 60 days after the compliance date (for more information, see 
section IX. of this document).
    EPA is proposing a minimum average annual replacement rate that is 
calculated across a rolling three-year period (i.e., a three-year 
rolling average). Systems would first assess their average annual 
replacement rate at the end of the third year of mandatory service line 
replacement program by taking the average of the annual replacement 
rate percentages from years one, two, and three. The average annual 
replacement rate would be assessed on an annual basis thereafter 
starting at the end of the fourth year of mandatory service line 
replacement to calculate the average across a three-year period. The 
replacement rate construct would ensure that systems are making regular 
progress to replace these service lines while also allowing for 
flexibility for temporary disruptions to the system's service line 
replacement program. Establishing a minimum replacement rate allows 
States to enforce necessary actions sooner rather than later to ensure 
systems are making regular progress towards service line replacement, 
versus requiring only a single deadline that would not allow for such 
enforcement to take place before the deadline.
    EPA is proposing to use a rolling average because the Agency 
recognizes the potential for annual variability in a system's annual 
replacement program that can affect the percent of service lines 
replaced each year. During the proposed LCRI external engagements, EPA 
heard many stakeholders highlight the potential for temporary 
disruptions to affect the number of service lines a system can replace 
annually, such as supply chain disruptions, workforce limitations, 
natural disaster incidents, and factors related to a system's access to 
conduct full service line replacements like customer consent (USEPA, 
2023l; USEPA, 2023m).

[[Page 84916]]

    EPA is also proposing to extend the two-year rolling average used 
in the LCRR to a three-year rolling average. Starting the rolling 
average at the end of the third year of mandatory service line 
replacement program would allow systems flexibility during the initial 
years of their replacement programs to identify unknown service lines, 
create and manage a replacement program, adjust for market corrections 
in labor and supplies, and obtain funding for service line replacement. 
It would also provide the system and community served with more time to 
advocate for or propose changes to water service agreements, State and 
local laws, ordinances, or regulations, to facilitate full service line 
replacement, as well as more time for those changes to take effect. For 
more information about potential changes to water service agreements, 
laws, ordinances, and regulations, please see section V.B.8. of this 
document.
    A three-year rolling average also addresses stakeholder 
recommendations for the end of a replacement program, where 
stakeholders said additional flexibility is needed if there is 
declining interest in the replacement program, which may require 
systems to conduct more outreach for customers to consent to 
replacement (USEPA, 2023j). For example, the rolling average could 
provide flexibility, so the system remains in compliance if declining 
customer interest (such as towards the end of a replacement program) or 
temporary disruptions prevent the system from meeting the minimum 
annual rate in a single year, so long as the system had achieved higher 
replacement rates in the previous two years of its replacement program, 
such that the average of the rate across three years is at least ten 
percent. The system could then identify and implement strategies to 
increase their replacement rate in the future. The rolling average 
could also better allow systems to conduct replacements at prioritized 
sites, as this approach may take additional time relative to replacing 
service lines considering only replacement efficiency (e.g., focusing 
on areas with high LSL density).
Minimum Replacement Rate
    In the LCRR, systems serving more than 10,000 people are required 
to conduct full service line replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines 
after exceeding the trigger level under a goal-based program at a rate 
approved by the State as well as to replace service lines under a 
mandatory replacement program after exceeding the lead action level at 
a minimum rate of three percent over a two-year period. To calculate 
the number of service lines requiring replacement in the LCRR, systems 
add the number of LSLs and GRR service lines in the initial inventory 
when the system first exceeds the trigger or action level plus the 
number of unknown lines in the beginning of each year of a system's 
annual goal or mandatory LSLR program.
    EPA has found that its proposed minimum average annual rate of 10 
percent calculated across a three-year rolling period is feasible as 
defined in section 1412(b)(4)(D) of SDWA. See section V.B.2. for a 
discussion on feasibility of the proposed service line replacement 
requirements. During the LCRR review and proposed LCRI external 
engagements, some stakeholders recommended that all LSLs should be 
replaced as soon as possible but not in more than 10 years, given the 
benefits of replacement to lower lead exposure from drinking water 
(USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j). Other stakeholders 
recommended retaining the three-percent rate because a higher rate is 
more challenging to meet when partial replacements and test-outs do not 
count as full service line replacements (USEPA, 2023j). Some 
stakeholders said that the LCRI should maintain the LCR's minimum seven 
percent replacement rate because the LCRR's three-percent replacement 
rate was too slow to protect public health, not counting partial 
replacement or test-outs (see docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255; USEPA, 
2023j). Other stakeholders said that replacing all LSLs in less than 10 
years may not be feasible for many systems that have a large number of 
LSLs (USEPA, 2023j), and that any timeline should be balanced with 
other competing activities the system is required to conduct (USEPA, 
2023j). While EPA determined that a 10-year replacement deadline is 
feasible in accordance with SDWA requirements (see section V.B.2.), EPA 
is also proposing service line replacement deferral options for systems 
meeting specific criteria because the 10-year replacement may be 
infeasible, as described in section V.B.2.
    EPA is proposing that a system's ``replacement pool'' be calculated 
and updated annually in a similar way as the LCRR's number of service 
lines requiring replacement: the sum of the LSLs and GRR service lines 
in the baseline inventory (the inventory submitted by the LCRI 
compliance date), any non-lead service lines discovered as lead or GRR 
service lines, and the current number of unknown service lines in the 
inventory. The proposal details how a system calculates the annual 
number of replacements needed for a given program year by dividing the 
number of lines in the replacement pool by the number of years of the 
system's replacement deadline (e.g., 10 years, or an alternative 
deadline for a State-set shortened deadline or a deferred deadline). 
EPA is proposing the replacement pool be updated annually to subtract 
unknown service lines identified as non-lead lines as well as to add 
any non-lead lines found to be LSLs or GRR service lines. Unknown 
service lines identified to be LSLs or GRR service lines would be 
recategorized in the replacement pool; although, this recategorization 
would not change the number of lines in the replacement pool nor would 
it affect the replacement rate because they would already have been 
counted as LSLs or GRRs in determining the replacement pool and rate. 
EPA is also proposing the replacement pool be updated annually to 
subtract unknown service lines identified as non-lead lines as well as 
to add any non-lead lines found to be LSLs or GRR service lines. This 
approach incentivizes systems to investigate unknown service lines at a 
faster rate to reduce their replacement pool and, therefore, the annual 
number of replacements they must conduct. Faster identification of 
unknown lines, including prior to the rule compliance date, would both 
improve public health protection and transparency with the community.
    EPA is seeking comment on its proposed minimum average annual 
replacement rate and proposed replacement deadline of ten years. EPA is 
seeking comment on whether it is feasible or systems across the nation 
to complete service line replacement in a shorter timeframe than ten 
years, such as in six, seven, or eight years. EPA also is seeking 
comment on the rate construct approach, including how to calculate 
compliance with a given service line replacement deadline and average 
annual rate calculated across a rolling three-year period. EPA also 
seeks comment on whether systems should be required to meet a given 
minimum replacement rate in the first three years to give States an 
opportunity to enforce replacement rate progress sooner than three 
years after the compliance date. Lastly, EPA seeks comment on the 
complexity of the rate construct (see section IX. of this document).
4. Scope of Mandatory Service Line Replacement Requirement
Full Service Line Replacement
    EPA is proposing to specify which replacements would count as a 
full

[[Page 84917]]

service line replacement in Sec.  141.84(d)(6)(iii)(B) and (C) and 
which do not count in Sec.  141.84(d)(6)(iii)(D), as described below. 
While the LCRR used the definition of ``full lead service line 
replacement'' in subpart A of part 141 to specify full replacement 
criteria, these are substantive provisions that are integral to the 
requirements in Sec.  141.84 (the service line inventory and 
replacement section). Including these substantive requirements in the 
service line replacement section of subpart I of part 141 instead of 
the definitions section of subpart A of part 141 should help water 
systems and States in implementation of these regulatory requirements.
    EPA is proposing to modify the requirement in the LCRR definition 
of full lead service line replacement, which specified that the line 
had to meet the SDWA section 1417 definition of lead free that is 
applicable at the time of the full replacement. As raised by 
stakeholders in the proposed LCRI external engagements, the previous 
requirement could have required systems to prove that all solder or 
fittings meet the latest lead free definition in order to count as a 
full service line replacement (USEPA, 2023m), which was not EPA's 
intent. EPA recommends removing all sources of lead from drinking 
water; however, a requirement for the water system to document the 
material composition of each fitting and all solder in the service line 
would not be practicable and would divert resources from replacing LSLs 
and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible as well as likely result 
in the unnecessary replacement of lead free fittings and solder where 
documentation of their material is unable to be obtained. EPA is 
therefore changing the criteria for full service line replacement to 
require that the new service line (replacing the old line) must meet 
the proposed LCRI definition for the ``non-lead'' service line material 
categorization. To meet the definition of ``non-lead,'' a service line 
must be determined through an evidence-based record, method, or 
technique not to be an LSL or GRR service line.
    EPA is proposing to allow systems to physically disconnect the 
service line (such as by cutting the pipe) and count the disconnection 
as a full service line replacement if the service line is not in active 
use (such as at abandoned properties) and there is a State or local law 
in place or a system policy documented in writing that prohibits 
disconnected LSLs and GRR service lines from being put back into 
service. This proposed flexibility is in response to input heard during 
the proposed LCRI consultations, where a stakeholder recommended 
mandatory service line replacement account for cities that are 
sometimes home to tens of thousands of vacant housing units, which are 
not in active use and do not pose a risk of lead exposure in drinking 
water (USEPA, 2023j). This approach would address these lead sources 
more quickly and at a lower cost than a full service line replacement, 
which could likely increase the annual number of replacements a system 
may conduct, reduce costs by avoiding full replacement of lines that 
are not expected to be used again or by deferring the cost of 
replacement until the building is used again or the property is 
redeveloped. These costs savings could benefit the entire community by 
lowering the costs of the entire replacement program, potentially 
stretching external funding to conduct replacement of more lines and 
provide greater health protection to more individual customers. EPA 
notes that a potential downside of this approach is that allowing these 
disconnections to count as full service line replacements, which do not 
generate public health benefits, may delay public health benefits to 
consumers if these disconnections are conducted before full service 
line replacements of occupied residences.
    EPA is seeking comment on allowing this practice to count towards a 
full service line replacement under the mandatory service line 
replacement program, whether the Agency should prohibit reconnection of 
these disconnected LSL or GRR service lines, and any alternative 
approaches to this practice. See section IX. of this document for more 
information.
    EPA is also proposing to count full service line replacements where 
a non-lead service line is installed for use and the lead or GRR 
service line is disconnected from the water main or other service line. 
EPA is also proposing that when the lead or GRR 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. EPA is seeking comment on 
EPA's approach to counting these lines as full replacements.
    The proposed LCRI also would not permit lining or coating 
technologies to count as full service line replacement. Central to this 
rule is the goal of permanently removing from service all LSLs and GRR 
service lines in the nation. Lining and coating technologies do not 
permanently remove these lead sources from service. In addition, the 
uncertainty of the performance of these technologies over time would 
potentially require additional monitoring to ensure lead levels at the 
tap remain low. The added costs of site-specific evaluation to 
determine if this technology is appropriate, continued site monitoring 
to evaluate performance, and eventual re-lining or replacement of the 
service line when it reaches the end of its useful life, may reduce any 
potential cost savings associated with lining and coating technologies 
relative to full service line replacement, especially when compared to 
less expensive replacement methods (i.e., trenchless replacement 
technologies).
Partial Service Line Replacement
    While the LCRR eliminates any requirement for water systems to 
conduct partial replacements to comply with the rule's mandatory and 
goal-based LSLR requirements, the rule does not explicitly restrict or 
ban partial replacements because partial replacements may be necessary 
to maintain water service in certain cases (e.g., following an 
emergency repair where the water system does not have access to conduct 
full service line replacement). The LCRR requires that, when conducting 
a partial LSLR, systems must provide advance notification to customers 
along with an offer to replace the customer-owned portion of the LSL 
and take risk mitigation measures after a partial replacement to reduce 
lead exposure that may result from the partial replacement, including 
providing public education and a pitcher filter or point-of-use device. 
The proposed LCRI, like the LCRR, would continue to prohibit both 
partial service line replacements and ``test-outs'' (i.e., where a tap 
sample from the service line tests at or below the lead action level 
following a minimum six-hour stagnation and is therefore considered 
``replaced'') from counting towards the required average annual 
replacement rate, permitting only full service line replacements to 
count towards the replacement rate. Research has found that partial 
LSLR has not been shown to reliably reduce lead levels in the short 
term and may temporarily increase lead levels due to disruptions of 
established scales or galvanic corrosion (USEPA, 2011; see sections 
V.B.6. and V.B.9.), while service lines that have been sampled and have 
tested-out may contribute to lead at a later date (Del Toral et al., 
2013).

[[Page 84918]]

    In the LCRI, EPA is proposing to prohibit partial service line 
replacements unless it is conducted as part of an emergency repair or 
in coordination with planned infrastructure work, excluding planned 
infrastructure work solely for the purposes of LSL or GRR service line 
replacement. The exclusion clause would 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. Planned 
infrastructure work would 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. EPA discourages 
partial service line replacement due to its potential to temporarily 
increase lead levels in drinking water; however, the Agency anticipates 
an outright ban on the practice could be infeasible (USEPA, 2020b). 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, 2020b; USEPA, 2023j). Although EPA views planned 
and emergency infrastructure work as an opportunity for coordination 
with full service line replacement, barriers to access to the customer-
owned service line may occur. EPA seeks any supporting or contrary 
views, any data or analyses about this exclusion of planned 
infrastructure work from the prohibition on partial service line 
replacement, and whether there are any additional limitations that 
could be added to ensure that partial service line replacements are 
only performed when necessary to avoid greater harms as a result of the 
emergency or inability to conduct planned infrastructure work for 
purposes other than solely to replace LSLs and GRR service lines. EPA 
strongly encourages water systems to conduct full service line 
replacement in coordination with planned infrastructure work to realize 
the efficiencies that can be gained (see section V.B.7. of this notice 
for additional information on service line replacement plans).
    EPA considered requests from stakeholders to ban all partial 
replacements in all circumstances. However, as stated above, the Agency 
anticipates an outright ban on the practice could be infeasible (USEPA, 
2020b). In the case of some emergency repairs, a partial replacement 
may be necessary to ensure prompt restoration of water service to the 
customer. Water service is critical to public health as it provides 
water for drinking, cooking, and sanitation.
    LSLs and GRR service lines are likely to undergo significant 
disturbance as a result of planned infrastructure work or emergency 
repairs, increasing the risk from all lead sources that remain 
following the infrastructure work including partial, customer-side 
LSLs. To address the increased risk as a result of the disturbance, EPA 
is proposing that the system implements additional risk mitigation 
actions (see section V.B.6.). Proposed risk mitigation measures would 
take place immediately following the partial replacement and extend for 
up to six months after the partial replacement to protect public 
health. Coordinating replacements with existing infrastructure work may 
also result in lower costs of the overall replacement program and lower 
cost impacts to households where the program is funded through rate 
revenue. A stakeholder noted that this can also benefit low-income 
customers, who may be paying a larger percentage of their income 
towards their water bill (USEPA, 2023j). Proposed risk mitigation 
measures would take place prior to, during, and immediately following 
the partial replacement and extend for up to six months after the 
partial replacement to protect public health.
    The proposed requirement to prohibit partial replacements, except 
during the limited circumstances described above, would improve public 
health protection by further limiting instances of partial service line 
replacements that pose risks to public health. EPA anticipates it will 
also strengthen environmental justice outcomes by eliminating partial 
replacements for lower-income customers solely for the purpose of 
service line replacement, given the greater costs of full replacement. 
In cases where partial replacement is planned to occur in coordination 
with non-emergency infrastructure work, EPA is proposing that systems 
must offer to replace the customer-owned portion at least 45 days prior 
to the replacement. The system would not be required to complete the 
full service line replacement where it does not have access to the 
customer-owned portion of the line. For more information about EPA's 
proposed requirements related to access, see section V.B.5. of this 
document. In the cases where the system is unable to gain access to 
complete the full service line replacement, it must take the proposed 
risk mitigation and notification protocols to reduce lead exposure to 
the consumer(s). The proposed rule also would require systems to 
include a dielectric coupling separating the remaining service line and 
the new service line to prevent galvanic corrosion unless the new 
service line is made of plastic (see section V.B.6. of this document 
for more information).
    EPA is seeking comment on its approach to prohibit partial service 
line replacement unless the replacement is conducted in coordination 
with an emergency repair or planned infrastructure work (excluding 
planned infrastructure work that solely replaces LSLs and GRR service 
lines as part of a service line replacement program). See section IX. 
of this document for more information.
Lead Sources Subject To Replacement
    Galvanized service lines that are or ever were downstream of an LSL 
can adsorb upstream lead particulates and contribute to lead in 
drinking water even after the original lead source has been removed 
(Deshommes et al., 2010; McFadden et al., 2011). EPA's proposed rule, 
like the LCRR, refers to these lines as ``galvanized requiring 
replacement'' or ``GRR'' service lines. Lead particles released from 
upstream LSLs can adsorb onto exposed iron scales, resulting in a 
buildup of lead particles in GRR service lines, which can persist even 
after the upstream LSL is removed (Wasserstrom, 2017). Lead can release 
from these scales contributing to lead occurrence in drinking water 
(Deshommes et al., 2010; Pieper, 2017; Sandvig et al., 2008). The co-
occurrence of lead with iron was documented in a study in Washington, 
DC, that found at least 10 homes with galvanized iron premise plumbing 
that, after full or partial LSLR, still had tap samples exceeding 0.015 
mg/L lead, which was attributed to continued release of lead particles 
from exposed iron scales (McFadden et al., 2011). This study also 
conducted laboratory experiments on harvested galvanized iron pipes 
that had been downstream of LSLs specifically and showed elevated lead 
release over the entire 21 weeks of experiments. Due to the depth of 
lead scales in these iron pipes, the authors concluded that lead 
release could be triggered over the remaining pipe lifetime, 
acknowledging that changes in flow patterns or other site-specific 
circumstances could impact whether or not such releases occur (McFadden 
et al., 2011). While one stakeholder recommended that galvanized lines 
that were downstream of an LSL should be classified as non-lead after a 
period of time, stating that these lines eventually stop being a lead 
source (USEPA, 2023j), EPA disagrees with this stakeholder

[[Page 84919]]

because the scientific literature does not support a timeline for these 
GRR service lines to cease contributing lead into drinking water.
    These factors are why the LCRR service line replacement 
requirements include GRR service lines. It is also why the proposed 
LCRI retains the inclusion of GRR service lines in the mandatory 
service line replacement program. Where systems are unable to 
demonstrate that a galvanized service line never was downstream of an 
LSL, it must be categorized as a GRR service line and be subject to the 
proposed rule's service line replacement requirement to ensure that all 
potential GRR service lines are eliminated from the system. By 
downstream, EPA means that the galvanized service line was located 
after the LSL and in the direction of flow. For example, a customer's 
galvanized line would be downstream of an LSL if the LSL was installed 
in between the galvanized line and the water main.
    The LCRR does not include lead connectors in the mandatory or goal-
based LSLR program requirements. Lead connectors are short segments of 
lead pipe that are used for connections, usually between the service 
line and the water main. These connectors were excluded from the LCRR 
inventory requirements, and the LCRR did not require connectors to be 
replaced to meet the mandatory or goal-based LSLR requirements because 
in many cases connector material records are not available, and field 
investigating all connector material in the absence of records ``would 
not be feasible or practical for most systems'' as material 
identification would generally require disturbing pavement and repaving 
(86 FR 4213, USEPA, 2021a). The LCRR requires connectors to be replaced 
when the connector is encountered by the water system during planned or 
unplanned infrastructure work, which would include the required service 
line replacement program if encountered. Therefore, even without an 
affirmative requirement to locate, inventory, and replace a percentage 
of lead connectors, the LCRR requires the removal of some of these lead 
sources over time as they are encountered by the water system.
    EPA is proposing to retain the LCRR requirement that systems must 
replace lead connectors as they are encountered, consistent with some 
stakeholder feedback EPA received during the proposed LCRI external 
engagements (USEPA, 2023m). While other stakeholders recommended that 
EPA go farther and require all lead connectors to be inventoried and 
included in the mandatory service line replacement requirement (USEPA, 
2023j; USEPA, 2023l), the proposed rule does not include those 
requirements because it would reduce the resources available for 
service line identification and replacement. The approach of the 
proposal ensures regular progress towards lead connector replacement is 
made in coordination with other activities, such as planned 
infrastructure work, while resources are prioritized for replacement of 
all LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible. EPA notes that, 
where lead connectors are encountered during replacement of an LSL, 
they would be required to be replaced. Thus, all lead connectors that 
are attached to a lead or GRR service line would be replaced by the end 
of the mandatory service line replacement program. EPA also expects 
that many lead connectors may be connected to aging water mains and 
likely to undergo replacement with routine main replacement activities 
in coming years. Given the Federal lead piping ban in 1986, any lead 
connector is expected to be a minimum of 41 years old by the LCRI 
compliance date in 2027. The average service life of cast iron, ductile 
iron, and asbestos-cement pipe is 40 years (Florida Department of 
State, 2010). A recent survey determined that 82 percent of all cast 
iron mains and 27 percent of all cement mains are over 50 years old 
(Folkman, 2018). Correspondingly, overall leak rates have increased 
almost 30 percent between 2012 and 2018, with even greater increases in 
iron and cement mains (Folkman, 2018). Thus, many aging mains may 
likely be replaced in the coming years, either because they are at the 
end of their useful life or because they are leaking, resulting in the 
replacement of additional lead connectors attached to those aging 
mains. Main replacement involves cutting pavement, digging, and 
reconnecting service lines to the new main; therefore, lead connectors 
replaced in coordination with main replacement can be more efficient 
and a better use of time and resources. Additionally, as discussed in 
section V.D.4., EPA is proposing to require lead connectors to be 
inventoried where records are available as well as where lead 
connectors are replaced and for that inventory information to be made 
available to the public. Including in the inventory where lead 
connectors have been replaced can provide additional information to the 
public on potential sources of lead in drinking water, which can be 
especially informative for customers with galvanized service lines or 
premise plumbing, since these galvanized pipes previously downstream of 
a lead connector could be a source of lead as further discussed below. 
These additional requirements increase transparency about this 
potential source of lead exposure. EPA is also proposing a definition 
for lead connectors to not exceed two feet to ensure all LSLs are 
captured in the mandatory replacement requirement (see section V.L.3.) 
and not improperly categorized as connectors.
    Some stakeholders have recommended that EPA require replacement of 
galvanized service lines downstream of lead connectors because these 
lines may adsorb lead by the same mechanism as galvanized service lines 
downstream of LSLs. EPA supports water system efforts to remove any 
potential source of lead in drinking water, including galvanized 
service lines that are or were downstream of lead connectors. EPA notes 
that these service lines are eligible for funding under the $15 billion 
BIL DWSRF LSLR appropriation along with service line identification and 
replacement of LSLs, GRR service lines, and lead connectors as well as 
planning, design, and other pre-project costs directly connected to 
LSLR. EPA is proposing that the LCRI service line replacement 
requirements focus on eliminating the most significant sources of lead 
in drinking water, which are lead and GRR service lines where present, 
from the system as quickly as is feasible. This approach would not 
delay the public health benefits associated with replacing these more 
significant lead sources for customers served by these service lines. 
It is hypothesized that galvanized service lines that are or were 
downstream of an LSL may be a more significant lead source than those 
that are or were downstream of a lead connector, given that previous 
research has suggested that the length and diameter of LSLs are likely 
to be key factors in the amount of lead released (Deshommes, 2016; 
Sandvig et al., 2008). Given that LSLs are tens of feet long, while 
EPA's proposed definition of connectors does not exceed two feet, EPA 
expects that galvanized lines downstream of lead connectors may 
contribute less lead into drinking water than those that were 
downstream of much longer LSLs.
    Additionally, EPA expects that some systems may voluntarily replace 
galvanized service lines that are or ever were downstream of a lead 
connector when encountered during main replacement, given the age and 
likely poor condition of these service lines. The average service life 
(i.e., the period of service that can be reasonably

[[Page 84920]]

expected) of a galvanized steel pipe is 35 years (Florida Department of 
State, 2010). By the proposed LCRI compliance date in 2027, most 
galvanized service lines that are or were attached to a lead connector 
will be a minimum of 41 years old, as lead piping was banned at the 
Federal level in 1986. An examination of the galvanized pipe and 
related products certified by NSF to NSF 61 revealed only one 
manufacturer of galvanized water pipes (National Sanitation Foundation, 
2023), so EPA does not expect that it would be common for new 
galvanized service lines to be installed. Because both the system-owned 
and customer-owned portions of a galvanized service line would be 
beyond their useful life, and because it is more cost efficient to 
simultaneously replace both portions of the service line, EPA expects 
that some systems may fully replace these galvanized service lines. It 
is also possible that due to the significant rusting and likely poor 
condition of these lines, service lines at or past their physical life 
may break during construction or burst following re-pressurization 
following a main replacement or following a partial service line 
replacement, necessitating their replacement to allow for continued 
water service. EPA expects that some replacement of these galvanized 
service lines that are or were downstream of a lead connector may occur 
in coming years with planned or emergency main replacement as well as 
when these service lines fail. Focusing the proposed service line 
replacement requirements on LSLs and galvanized service lines that are 
or were downstream of an LSL will allow these more significant lead 
sources to be eliminated as quickly as feasible, and with lower overall 
replacement program costs.
    EPA has found limited information of the existence of lead-lined 
galvanized service lines and little information about their prevalence 
(MWRA, 2023; Sedimentary Ores, n.d.). A lead-lined galvanized service 
line is covered by the definition of an LSL under the LCRR (USEPA, 
2022b), and this remains true under the proposed LCRI. Therefore, any 
lead-lined pipe would be required to be categorized as an LSL in the 
inventory and would be subject to the same proposed LCRI requirements 
as other LSLs in the inventory, such as mandatory service line 
replacement, public education, tap sample tiering, and risk mitigation. 
As EPA notes in its ``Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a Service 
Line Inventory'' (or the LCRR Inventory Guidance, USEPA (2022b)), 
systems that attempt to identify lead-lined pipes by visual observation 
(such as excavation) may not see an interior lead lining, and the 
guidance contains recommendations for systems to consider information 
available that indicates the possible presence of lead-lined service 
lines when categorizing their service lines and choosing material 
investigation techniques (USEPA, 2022b).
    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of its proposed scope of 
the replacement requirements, including what constitutes a full service 
line replacement and which lead sources are subject to replacement 
under the mandatory service line replacement program. For more 
information, see section IX. of this document.
5. Water System Access to Full Service Line
    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 1401(4)(A)). 
In the LCRR, EPA permits only full lead service line replacement to 
count towards a system's replacement rate, but allows the system to 
remain in compliance if they were 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.
    The proposed LCRI would require water systems to replace all lead 
and GRR service lines, and any lead connectors encountered, that are 
``under control of'' the water system. EPA is proposing to treat a 
service line as under the system's control wherever a water system has 
adequate access (e.g., legal access, physical access) to conduct full 
service line replacement. This means that a water system would be in 
violation of the rule if the system fails to replace a service line in 
accordance with the proposed requirements even though it has adequate 
access to conduct a full service line replacement. EPA is proposing to 
treat a connector as under the system's control wherever a water system 
has adequate access (e.g., legal access, physical access) to conduct 
replacement of the connector. EPA is not proposing 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. Instead, EPA 
emphasizes the many requirements proposed in the LCRI, in addition to 
funding and non-regulatory actions, that can increase a system's access 
to full service line replacement. EPA is aware of data and anecdotes 
from water systems demonstrating the ability to increase access for 
full service line replacement, such as where customer consent or 
payment is required for access. EPA included in the proposed LCRI 
requirements and flexibilities to increase access and expedite full 
service line replacement and are described in detail in the following 
sections.
Service Line Replacement Plan
    As described in section V.B.8. on the service line replacement 
plan, EPA is proposing that systems include in their plans 
identification of any State or local laws or water tariff agreement 
provisions that govern the water system's access to conduct full 
service line replacement. States would be required to identify any 
State laws, including statutes and constitutional provisions, that 
pertain to a water system's access to conduct full service line 
replacement and notify water systems in writing whether any such laws 
exist or not by the LCRI compliance date. States must also notify 
systems within six months of the enactment of any new or revised State 
law impacting access to full service line replacement. Based on EPA's 
evaluation of full service line replacement programs, EPA is aware that 
there are laws and water tariff agreements relevant to whether a water 
system has access to conduct full service line replacement (USEPA, 
2019a; USEPA, 2023g). These include laws governing the water system's 
physical access to private property to conduct the replacement and the 
water system's ability to conduct full service line replacement without 
the expressed consent of the customer and, in some places, without the 
customer's agreement to pay for all or a portion of the replacement 
costs.
    These proposed service line replacement plan requirements would 
support and encourage water systems to comply with the proposed rule to 
conduct full service line replacement when the service line is under 
control of the system. This is especially important where the water 
system's self-identified elements of ``control'' of the service line 
determine whether the water system must conduct the replacement. In 
some cases, identification of applicable laws and tariffs may help 
systems to realize they already have access to the full service line 
for replacement. The requirement to make these potential access 
barriers

[[Page 84921]]

publicly available in the service line replacement plan would also 
facilitate public engagement on the effect existing State or local laws 
or water tariff agreements have on a system's access for full service 
line replacement. Examples of systems and States that have changed 
existing State or local laws or water tariff agreements to overcome 
barriers to full service line replacement are described in section 
V.B.8.
Public Education and Engagement
    As described in Section V.H., the proposed LCRI includes additional 
requirements, along with public education requirements maintained from 
LCRR, for water systems to better inform customers of the risks of lead 
in drinking water and the benefits of full lead and GRR service line 
replacement, which could increase the number of customers willing to 
provide any necessary physical access where customer consent is 
required. For example, customers must be notified annually if they have 
an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line, including 
information about service line replacement, and must also be given 
notice whenever these lines are disturbed by the water system. EPA is 
proposing in the LCRI that systems would make a ``reasonable attempt'' 
to engage the property owner about service line replacement, which 
entails at least four outreach attempts using at least two different 
communication methods. Systems must attempt to gain access for full 
replacement again upon any change in property ownership, even after the 
systems' replacement deadline has passed. Systems that fail to meet 
their service line replacement rate are subject to proposed 
requirements to conduct at least one of a prescribed list of public 
education activities to discuss their mandatory service line 
replacement program and opportunities for replacement. With the 
proposed requirements for systems to provide customer-requested 
sampling and as well as the requirement to provide prompt notice of 
consumers' lead sample results, EPA expects some customers might be 
more willing to provide access based on sampling results. Where 
compliance sampling tests above the lead action level and is subject to 
the proposed distribution system and site assessment requirements, a 
system could identify the presence of a lead or GRR service line as the 
probable cause for the higher lead levels, which could increase the 
likelihood that customers provide access for service line replacement. 
The community as a whole will be better informed of the service line 
replacement program through their system's publicly accessible 
inventory that includes proposed requirements for increased 
transparency and publicly accessible service line replacement plan, in 
addition to proposed requirements for information about them to be 
included in the annual Consumer Confidence Report. Systems that exceed 
the lead action level, in accordance with the LCRR, are required to 
provide public notice within 24 hours as well as public education 
within 60 days, the latter of which must include information about 
service line replacement. Additional public education requirements are 
proposed after a system has multiple lead action level exceedances, 
which could further educate customers about lead in drinking water and 
the benefits of service line replacement. The increased notification 
and public education, especially after water systems report higher lead 
levels could increase customer willingness to provide access for 
service line replacement. For water systems serving a large proportion 
of consumers with limited English proficiency, the proposal requires 
public education materials to include information about where consumers 
can obtain a translated copy of the materials or translation 
assistance.
    EPA is aware of anecdotes supporting the notion that robust public 
education can increase customer participation in systems' replacement 
programs. Many of these customer engagement best practices have been 
incorporated into this proposed rule to facilitate systems reaching the 
goal of replacing 100 percent of LSLs and GRR service lines in the 
nation (see above and section V.H.). These anecdotes are summarized 
below.
    Frequent customer communication and engagement using multiple 
outreach methods was cited as important to obtaining customer consent 
for full service line replacement. For example, the Lansing Board of 
Water and Light in Michigan replaced 100 percent of their LSLs over a 
12-year period and noted that the system had not sought easements to 
conduct replacements, relying instead on ``good customer interaction 
and follow-through'' (AWWA, 2016). Lansing emphasized their engagement 
strategies, such as brochures and bill stuffers, open houses at local 
schools and community centers, customer education in their water 
quality report, letters sent to homes with LSLs, and in-person follow 
up with the customer prior to the date of the service line replacement 
to explain the replacement process. A ``comprehensive community 
outreach effort'' in Detroit, Michigan, is credited as one of the main 
factors allowing the City to achieve 100 percent homeowner 
participation to conduct private side replacements in accordance with 
main replacements (City of Detroit, 2023). The engagement process, 
which started approximately 40 days in advance of construction, 
included ``extensive outreach'' that included community meetings in 
nearby parks or public areas, information packets hand-delivered to 
each residence, and provision of pitcher filters (City of Detroit, 
2023). Officials from Stoughton, Wisconsin, a small system that 
replaced all of the city's nearly 700 LSLs in 2021, cited phone calls, 
social media, local newspapers, and an LSLR program website as key to 
keeping citizens engaged and informed (City of Stoughton Utilities 
Committee, 2022). Quincy, Massachusetts, another small system, cited 
use of multiple communication mediums to inform customers about their 
LSLR program, such as community meetings, a public-facing website, 
public displays, letters to targeted homes, translated informational 
letters, and certified mail (MWRA, 2023). The Halifax, Canada water 
system recognized the importance of customer engagement and recommended 
the use of communications consultants prior to launching a replacement 
program. Halifax also recommended sending customers multiple 
notifications, including targeted communications for those who are 
scheduled for imminent replacement (AWWA, 2022). Green Bay, who 
replaced all their LSLs in 2021 (AWWA, 2020) hired consultants to 
evaluate their communication needs and ultimately decided to hire a 
full-time staff to lead that effort. They also noted that many 
customers did not respond on the first notification attempt and 
recommended diversifying by using all available channels and 
communication types (AWWA, 2022). Denver Water similarly emphasized the 
importance of using multiple communication methods and making multiple 
attempts to reach customers, requiring a customer be contacted twice by 
mail and once in-person before being added to the ``non-responsive'' 
list (Denver Water, 2023b). Even upon being added to this list, 
additional contact attempts when city contractors are in the area are 
permitted, and an additional outreach approach was developed for those 
who initially refused contact. Further, if a property on the ``non-
responsive'' or ``refusal'' list changes ownership, the outreach

[[Page 84922]]

process was automatically restarted. This organized outreach approach 
resulted in acceptance of full service line replacement in 
approximately 90 percent of homes, with partial replacements only 
conducted in one to two percent of homes between 2020 and 2022 (Denver 
Water, 2023b). Another strategy employed in both Denver and Chicago was 
conducting a pilot-program in targeted neighborhoods to receive 
feedback and learn best practices prior to beginning their full-scale 
programs (Rockefeller Foundation, n.d.).
    Partnerships with organizations outside the water system were also 
cited as increasing customer participation in several service line 
replacement programs. Denver Water specifically identified and enacted 
paid partnerships with community organizations who had connections with 
marginalized communities to build trust in these areas (Wilking et al., 
2022). Denver also worked with local administrators of the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) 
who provided geographic data to better understand where homes with 
people most sensitive to the adverse health effects of lead (i.e., 
infants and pregnant women) were located. Green Bay's water system 
employed similar partnerships with local organizations, working with 
both the local WIC program and pediatricians in the area to better 
identify high risk populations (AWWA, 2022). Similarly, Toledo's water 
system partnered with Freshwater Future, an environmental organization 
already working in the area, to gather input and host lead educational 
events about the occurrence and risks of lead in drinking water 
(Rockefeller Foundation, n.d.). Some systems have used designated 
ambassadors to ensure their message is reached by specific communities. 
Newark's water system, who has replaced 100 percent of their LSLs, 
coordinated closely with existing community partners that became 
ambassadors for the LSLR program (AWWA, 2022). In Philadelphia, 
following a survey showing that 42 percent of residents drink bottled 
water instead of tap water, ambassadors were recruited from populations 
who reported high bottled water use to educate those communities about 
the activities of the drinking water system and were tasked with 
engaging community members at events sponsored by the ambassador 
organization (Drink Philly Tap, n.d.).
    In addition to individual customer communication, some water 
systems conducted community events to promote their service line 
replacement programs to the public. The previous examples mention 
systems hosting open houses at local schools and community centers and 
community meetings to inform the public about service line replacement. 
Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority also used community events, 
hosting multiple events around the city to hear customer concerns, 
answer questions, and describe plans for their service line replacement 
program (PGH2O, n.d.). These events, along with individual outreach 
efforts prior to starting any construction, helped secure approval for 
full service line replacement from approximately 90 percent of 
residents when an LSL was discovered on their property.
Funding and Non-Regulatory Actions Supporting Service Line Replacement
    Significant funding is available for covering the cost to replace 
the customer's portion of the service line, such as the $15 billion 
from BIL. Section IV.G. of this document summarizes the many funding 
sources available for service line replacement.
    EPA also supports water systems with service line replacement 
through its water technical assistance (WaterTA) and ``Lead Service 
Line Replacement Accelerators'' initiatives (see section IV.G. of this 
document). EPA's assistance may contribute to increased system access 
to full service lines given the Agency's experience working with many 
systems and identifying best practices that can inform other water 
system's replacement programs. In addition. EPA guidance documents 
``Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line Replacement'' (USEPA, 
2019a) and ``Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a Service Line 
Inventory'' (USEPA (2022b) contain information and case study examples 
which may assist water systems in identifying ways to increase their 
access to identify service line materials and fully replace service 
lines.
Additional Incentives To Overcome Customer Access Barriers
    The proposal contains several additional requirements and 
flexibilities for water systems to overcome potential customer access 
barriers and expedite service line replacements. For example, the 
proposal allows systems to defer CCT steps, including costly and 
complex pipe loop optimization/re-optimization studies, if they can 
replace all lead and GRR service lines in their 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 are incentivized to find 
ways to obtain access to each lead and GRR service line to replace 100% 
of lead and GRR service lines within five years.
    Systems are also incentivized to find ways to access each lead and 
GRR service line for replacement because replacement of these 
significant lead sources can reduce the system's 90th percentile lead 
level, decreasing the likelihood of a lead action level exceedance and 
the subsequent need to install (and maintain) or re-optimize OCCT (that 
could involve costly CCT studies), replace lead-bearing plumbing or 
install point-of-use filters (for small systems that choose not to 
install or re-optimize CCT), and make filters available if the system 
meets the definition for multiple lead action level exceedances. In 
addition, for systems without lead and GRR service lines that exceed 
the action level due to other sources of lead (i.e., premise plumbing), 
they would be able to conduct less costly, less complex, and less time-
consuming CCT studies, such as coupon studies, should they be required 
to initiate OCCT steps. Other proposed requirements, such as the more 
rigorous sampling of the first and fifth liter at LSL sites, could also 
be avoided where systems accessed and replaced all lead and GRR service 
lines.
    In addition, 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 meet the proposed notification and risk mitigation 
requirements after a service line disturbance, as well as the annual 
notification of service line material type to these consumers. 
Additionally, systems would not have to meet the proposed requirements 
for system outreach to individual customers to attempt to gain access 
for the full replacement if there is a change in the ownership of the 
property. With the most significant lead sources replaced, systems 
would also have a lower likelihood of measuring higher lead levels, 
which are tied to the 24-hour notification requirements after a lead 
action level exceedance and distribution system and site assessment 
requirements.
Proposed Requirements When a System Is Unable To Obtain Access
    EPA expects that, in cases where customer consent is required by 
State or local laws to complete full service line replacement, some 
customers may not consent to replace the full service line. This 
concern was raised in the proposed LCRI external engagements (USEPA, 
2023m). EPA is proposing that, where

[[Page 84923]]

customer consent is required by State or local law or water tariff 
agreement, the system would be required to make a reasonable effort to 
obtain property owner consent. EPA is proposing that a reasonable 
effort includes a minimum of at least four attempts to engage the 
customer using at least two different methods, which is double the 
outreach as compared to the LCRR and incorporates the best practice of 
using multiple communication methods to reach the customer. EPA is 
proposing to explicitly provide that States may require systems to 
conduct additional attempts and may require specific outreach methods 
to be used. If customer consent is required by State or local laws and 
the water system is unable to obtain consent, the water system would 
not be required to conduct a full service line replacement because, 
under those circumstances, the full service line would not be ``under 
the control'' of the operator of the system. EPA is requesting comment 
as to whether a reasonable effort to obtain property owner consent 
should be more than four times (e.g., five, six, or seven times).
    This proposed requirement is also responsive to some stakeholders 
who, during the proposed LCRI external engagements, sought a clearer 
definition of a ``good faith effort'' to contact the homeowner 
regarding service line replacement and stated that systems should not 
be held responsible when customers refuse access for replacement of 
their portion of the line (USEPA, 2023j). In the proposed LCRI, water 
systems would be required to continue annual outreach at sites where 
customer consent is required by law or water tariff agreement, but the 
customer refused to provide consent for replacement and the LSL or GRR 
service line remains in place. In addition, whenever there is a change 
in ownership, even after the mandatory service line replacement 
deadline has passed, the system would be required to offer to conduct 
the replacement.
    During the LCRR review and proposed LCRI external engagements, EPA 
heard anecdotes of customers refusing replacement, even if it was 
offered for free, for reasons including mistrust of the water system or 
government, not believing the replacement is important, or to avoid the 
disruption to landscaping that may result from a replacement (USEPA, 
2023j). A system's existing authority to access the service line and 
complete the full service line replacement might provide the system 
with the legal authority to conduct the service line replacement over 
the objection of the property owner or resident. However, as some 
stakeholders noted, requiring service line replacement at properties 
where customers object to their replacement could create potential 
safety concerns for utility staff. EPA is seeking comment on whether 
the proposed LCRI should either allow systems to treat those service 
lines as not under the control of the system and forego replacement of 
the lines or require systems to conduct full service line replacement 
in situations where the system has legal access to conduct the full 
replacement but property owners or residents deny physical access.
Assessment of Service Line Replacement Cost-Sharing Prohibition
    Some stakeholders have argued that EPA ``can require full LSLR 
through the authority granted by the SDWA to regulate `distribution 
facilities under the control of the operator' of a public water 
system'' and that ``PWSs exert control over the entire service line, 
including the part located under private property, in various ways, as 
recognized by both EPA and water systems themselves.'' These 
stakeholders argue that full service line replacement is the ``best 
available technology'' based on the records for the 1991 LCR and the 
LCRR, the legislative history on the definition of ``feasibility'' in 
SDWA (See ``NRDC and Earthjustice 2023 Letter.pdf'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801), and the City of Newark's service line replacement program (City 
of Newark, n.d.a).
    These stakeholders assert that ``full LSLR as a treatment technique 
and BAT [best available technologies] necessitates the prohibition of 
cost-sharing'' (i.e., requiring customers to pay for the replacement of 
their portion of the line). They reason that ``[w]hen utilities rely 
upon cost-sharing, low-income communities and communities of color are 
less likely to benefit from full service line replacement. Thus, cost-
sharing fails to carry out the statutory mandate to use the best 
feasible technology or technique available to reduce lead levels across 
the distribution system controlled by the public water system.'' 
Therefore, the stakeholders conclude, ``to reduce lead in drinking 
water and comply with the SDWA and LCR, EPA must prohibit cost-sharing 
by water systems. Without such a prohibition, either no replacement or 
only partial replacement will continue to take place in vulnerable 
communities, with lead levels either remaining the same or increasing, 
respectively'' (see ``2023-04-28 Authority Letter Final'' in EPA-HQ-OW-
2022-0801).
    In developing the proposed rule, EPA considered this perspective, 
but ultimately chose not to ban cost-sharing. EPA is not aware of a 
factual basis to support the stakeholders' assertion that PWSs control 
all portions of all service lines. To the contrary, EPA is aware that 
in some cases, public water systems do not control all portions of all 
service lines (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.a). EPA is also aware that water 
systems have conducted systemwide full service line replacement with 
cost-sharing (e.g., Madison, Wisconsin) (Madison Water Utility, 2014).
    Moreover, EPA is concerned that such a prohibition would result in 
the further delay of full service line replacement. EPA has not used 
its section 1412 authority under SDWA to direct how a water system 
covers the costs of compliance with a national primary drinking water 
rule, 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. EPA expects that any attempt to assert Federal 
authority over how water systems charge for their services would be met 
with a protracted legal challenge that would delay implementation of 
the rule.
    At the same time, EPA recognizes that the LCR and LCRR include 
statements that address the question of who pays to replace the portion 
of the LSL that is not ``owned'' by a water system, asserting that 
``[t]he water system is not required to bear the cost of replacement of 
the portion of the lead service line not owned by the water system'' 
(see 40 CFR 141.84(e) and (g)(7) in the LCRR and 141.84(d)(1) in the 
LCR). Consistent with the lack of authority to determine how water 
systems charge for services, EPA proposes to remove from the LCRI any 
statements from the LCR and LCRR that address how a water system should 
or should not cover the cost of replacing services lines under the 
control of the system as well as statements on whether a water system 
is or is not responsible for the cost of full service line replacement. 
Instead, the proposed LCRI remains neutral on this matter of State and 
local law.
    EPA does, however, strongly encourage customer-side service line 
replacement to be offered at no direct cost to the customer wherever 
possible to achieve higher customer participation rates and reduce 
potential environmental justice impacts that may result where customers 
cannot afford to replace their portion of the line. EPA anticipates the 
proposed requirements and flexibilities to incentivize systems

[[Page 84924]]

obtaining access, as described above in section V.B.5., would also 
incentivize water systems to fund customer-side service line 
replacement. Furthermore, significant Federal funding is available for 
service line replacement (discussed in section IV.G.), some of which is 
directed to disadvantaged communities least likely to afford full 
service line replacement. Additionally, Federal civil rights laws, 
including Title VI as described in sections IV.H. and V.B.9., 
incentivize systems to achieve full replacement outcomes that do not 
discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
6. Risk Mitigation Activities To Reduce Lead Exposures
    The LCRR requires systems to take specific risk mitigation actions 
after various types of disturbances and replacements because of their 
potential to temporarily increase lead levels in drinking water. The 
LCRR requires water systems to provide pitcher filters or point-of-use 
devices certified by an American National Standards Institute 
accredited certifier to reduce lead in drinking water (along with 
public education materials and six months of filter replacement 
cartridges) following partial and full LSLR, replacement of a lead 
connector, and some disturbances before the affected service line is 
returned to service. The LCRR also requires that water systems include 
information for customers to flush service lines and premise plumbing 
of particulate lead in their LSLR plan.
    EPA is maintaining the LCRR requirement that water systems provide 
pitcher filters or point-of-use devices certified by an American 
National Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead in 
drinking water following full and partial replacement of lead and GRR 
service lines and after replacement of a lead connector, inline water 
meter, and water meter setter. Research shows that, while flushing can 
be effective at reducing lead levels, particulate lead spikes are still 
possible in the short term while the service line reaches stabilization 
following service line replacement. A study conducted sequential 
sampling following LSLR at 14 sites across the United States and 
Canada, where each site was flushed for 15 minutes, both immediately 
following LSLR and again the day after replacement (Sandvig et al., 
2008). The authors noted that many sites registered high lead 
concentrations, primarily from particulate lead, and that the flushing 
protocol ``did not adequately reduce these high lead levels.'' While 
most detected particulate releases took place in the first several days 
following LSLR, data from one site suggested the potential for lead 
accumulated in the system to be released for months afterwards (Sandvig 
et al., 2008). In a more recent study, Brown and Cornwell (2015) 
examined three more rigorous high-velocity flushing protocols in three 
communities following LSLR. In all three communities, lead levels above 
0.015 mg/L were still observed in at least one sample after flushing, 
and no flushing protocol tested was able to entirely prevent such lead 
releases from occurring. Additionally, in the only community examined 
with pre-LSLR lead data available, lead levels improved or remained 
below the detection limit in seven homes after LSLR, while there were 
short-term increases in the remaining five homes (Brown and Cornwell, 
2015). Because of the shortcomings of flushing alone, the proposed LCRI 
would maintain and strengthen the LCRR requirements to provide pitcher 
filters or point-of-use devices following full and partial replacement 
of LSLs and GRR service lines and after replacement of a lead 
connector, inline water meter, and water meter setter.
    To further strengthen these risk mitigation requirements, EPA is 
proposing to revise the regulatory language regarding filter 
distribution to clarify that water systems are required to provide 
filters and replacement cartridges to every occupancy, rather than 
residence, as required in the LCRR, to ensure that non-residence 
building occupants, such as businesses, also receive filters following 
replacement or disturbances. While some stakeholders raised concerns 
during the proposed LCRI engagements about the availability of 
sufficient filter quantities in the market to meet new demand created 
by additional rule requirements (USEPA, 2023j), EPA assumes the market 
will respond to meet the needs of the final LCRI requirements (see 
discussion in section V.B.2. of this document).
    EPA is proposing to maintain the requirement that filter 
replacement cartridges be provided for six months. Many stakeholders 
recommended the use of filters for six months following service line 
replacement (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i). The six-month timeframe would 
allow consumers to continue drinking filtered water while waiting for 
the results of their follow up tap sample, which EPA proposes that 
water systems take between three and six months following replacement. 
EPA also notes that some filters are certified to reduce lead in 
drinking water with one cartridge lasting six months, depending on 
water usage. For water systems using these filters, only one filter 
cartridge may be needed when assuming typical water use.
    In addition, EPA is proposing a new mitigation requirement that, 
following partial service line replacement, water systems would be 
required to install a dielectric coupling separating the remaining LSL 
or GRR service line and the replaced service line unless the replaced 
service line (i.e., new service line) is made of plastic. This 
requirement aims to reduce the risks of galvanic corrosion between lead 
and other metallic pipes because resulting lead release has been 
documented in previous lab-scale studies (DeSantis et al., 2018; 
Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2011; Wang et al., 2012). Multiple 
laboratory experiments using harvested pipes have shown 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), lending credence to the value of 
requiring the insertion of such couplings. Additionally, the Science 
Advisory Board noted in 2011 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, but 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, 2011). EPA is requesting comment on the 
requirement to include a dielectric coupling and request comment on 
other risk mitigation steps water systems could take.
    The proposed LCRI clarifies the type of tap sample (e.g., first 
liter, paired first and fifth liter) water systems would be required to 
offer to customers following full and partial service line replacement 
to conform with proposed requirements under tap sampling (see section 
V.C. of this document). Following a full service line replacement, the 
proposed rule would require a first-liter sample to be taken, as higher 
lead levels are not expected in the fifth liter, which has stagnated in 
contact with the new, non-lead service line. Following a partial 
service line replacement, systems would be required to take a first- 
and fifth-liter sample to screen for lead in the service line as well 
as premise plumbing.
    EPA is proposing to retain the requirement that water systems 
conduct risk mitigation steps following disturbance of a lead, GRR, or 
unknown service line. Following operations that cause the water to be 
shut off or

[[Page 84925]]

bypassed, EPA is proposing that systems must provide customers with 
flushing instructions before the affected line is returned to service. 
Following more significant disturbances, such as those that result in 
the pipe being cut, EPA is proposing to also add the requirement that 
the customer be provided with a filter. EPA is proposing to require 
risk mitigation actions following disturbances resulting from physical 
action or vibration (e.g., mechanical or vacuum excavation during 
service line material investigations). For more information, see 
section V.H.2. EPA is proposing that risk mitigation actions after a 
disturbance apply to lead status unknown service lines, given the 
possibility they might be LSLs or GRR service lines. For example, in 
the case of significant disturbances, EPA is proposing that systems 
must provide filters to their customers with unknown service lines, 
just as EPA is proposing for LSLs or GRR service lines.
7. Service Line Replacement Plan
    The LCRR introduced the requirement for systems to develop an LSLR 
plan to allow them (1) to quickly commence a systemwide replacement 
program following a lead trigger level or action level exceedance and 
(2) to be ready to complete customer-initiated LSLR requests regardless 
of their 90th percentile lead level. Additional plan elements were 
included to advance public health protection, efficiencies, and equity 
in the overall replacement program. The required plan elements 
included:
     A strategy for determining the composition of lead status 
unknown service lines in the system's inventory;
     A procedure for conducting full LSLR;
     A strategy for informing customers before a full or 
partial LSLR;
     For systems that serve more than 10,000 persons, an LSLR 
goal rate recommended by the system in the event of a lead trigger 
level exceedance;
     A procedure for customers to flush service lines and 
premise plumbing of particulate lead;
     An LSLR prioritization strategy based on factors including 
but not limited to the targeting of known LSLs, LSLR for disadvantaged 
consumers and populations most sensitive to the effects of lead; and
     A funding strategy for conducting LSLRs that considers 
ways to accommodate customers that are unable to pay to replace the 
portion they own.
    The proposed LCRI updates and expands on the LCRR's LSLR plan 
requirements. The service line replacement plan is important because a 
well-developed plan can facilitate timely compliance with the proposed 
mandatory service line replacement requirements and, therefore, provide 
greater public health protection and replacement program efficiency. 
First, EPA is proposing that systems must identify any State and local 
laws and water tariff agreements relevant to the water system's ability 
to gain access to conduct full lead and GRR service line replacement as 
well as a citation to the source of the requirement (such as any 
specific State or local law or water tariff agreement provision that 
requires property owner consent for replacement or cost-sharing). 
Should these laws or agreements change in the duration of the 
replacement period, the proposed rule would not require systems to 
update the plan to reflect those changes. EPA is seeking comment on 
whether a requirement to update the plan is necessary to fulfill the 
purpose of the plan or whether a recommendation from EPA for systems to 
update this component of the service line replacement plan would be 
adequate. See section IX. of this document.
    Second, EPA is proposing that water systems must create a 
communication strategy to inform customers and consumers (e.g., 
property owners, renters, and 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. This proposed requirement is responsive 
to stakeholder feedback about renters not having the authority to 
approve full service line replacement (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i), 
ensuring that the proposal at least includes a provision to keep 
renters informed about the system's planned activities.
    In addition, the LCRI proposes to remove the requirement that 
systems recommend a goal replacement rate in their plan because the 
proposal eliminates the goal-based LSLR program. The proposed LCRI 
maintains LCRR plan elements that remain relevant to achieving timely 
compliance with the replacement requirements, such as strategies for 
inventory development, procedures for full service line replacement, a 
customer communication strategy to take place before the replacement 
occurs, flushing instructions to reduce particulates following service 
line disturbances or replacements, a replacement prioritization 
strategy (including but not limited to local communities particularly 
or disproportionately impacted by lead, populations most sensitive to 
the effects of lead, and high-risk areas identified through lead data), 
and a funding strategy for conducting replacements. EPA is aware of a 
system that developed and completed an LSLR prioritization program that 
identified and replaced LSLs at daycare facilities and sites where lead 
previously tested high (PGH2O, 2023).
    EPA is proposing that water systems must develop, submit to the 
State, and publish a service line replacement plan by the proposed LCRI 
compliance date, three years following promulgation of the final rule. 
Providing three years allows time for meaningful plan development. For 
example, EPA strongly recommends water systems engage their community 
in the development of the service line replacement plan. EPA expects 
that some plans may continue to be refined until full service line 
replacement requirements begin. EPA is also proposing to require the 
plan to be made publicly available, which would increase transparency 
about the service line replacement process and ensure the community is 
informed about all aspects of the system's replacement program. 
Increasing the transparency of the process provides an opportunity to 
get the community more involved in the replacement process and support 
the success of the program. EPA is proposing that systems serving over 
50,000 people make the plan available online, which is the same 
proposed size threshold for systems that must make their inventory 
available online. EPA is seeking comment on whether this size threshold 
for publishing the inventory and replacement plan online should be 
lowered (See section IX. of this document).
8. Impact of State and Local Laws on Service Line Replacement
    There are several possible approaches water systems could use to 
overcome barriers to full service line replacement, some of which may 
be unique to the CWS. Specific State and local factors (e.g., State 
laws, local ordinances, and available funding) can affect how a water 
system achieves 100 percent replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines 
as quickly as feasible (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.f). For example, in 
many communities, a significant barrier to achieving higher rates of 
customer participation in a service line replacement program is lack of 
adequate financial resources combined with a requirement that the 
customer pays to replace all or a portion of the service

[[Page 84926]]

line (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j; USEPA, 2023m). A system 
might not require customer cost-sharing for a replacement where it has 
external funding that either allows or requires the system to use the 
funds to replace the customer's portion of the service line: such an 
approach would mitigate or eliminate any barrier to full service line 
replacement as a result of customer cost-sharing. Achieving 100 percent 
customer participation through a single strategy, such as securing 
funding for customer-side replacements, may obviate the need for using 
an additional approach. Below EPA has provided examples of a range of 
strategies that systems, municipalities, and States have used to 
overcome both financial and non-financial barriers to full service line 
replacement.
Examples of Systems and Municipalities Overcoming Access Barriers
    EPA's guidance document titled, ``Strategies to Achieve Full Lead 
Service Line Replacement'' (USEPA, 2019a), highlights water systems 
that have amended water service agreements to facilitate service line 
replacement. The document highlights the Milford Water Company 
(Milford, MA), who amended their service agreement to temporarily allow 
the system to replace customer-owned LSLs at the system's expense. EPA 
expects that many water systems could similarly consider, depending on 
the exact language of the agreement and the process to change it, 
temporarily or permanently revising service agreements to overcome 
access barriers to facilitate full service line replacement.
    Several communities have changed local ordinances to facilitate 
full service line replacement. For example, in 1986, the City of 
Woonsocket, Rhode Island, ``adopted a policy that builders must replace 
LSLs when a building is sold, demolished or replaced'' (LSLR 
Collaborative, n.d.a). Other local ordinances require customers to 
replace their portion of the LSL in coordination with other water 
infrastructure work, such as during main replacement or emergency 
repair, or in accordance with a system's proactive service line 
replacement program, such as the ordinances adopted in the Cities of 
Appleton and Madison in Wisconsin (City of Appleton, 2022; Madison 
Water Utility, 2014). With its ordinance, Madison was able to replace 
all LSLs in the distribution system (Madison Water Utility, 2014). In 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin an ordinance requiring full service line 
replacement allows customers to find their own contractor or to 
authorize the city contractor to replace the customer portion of the 
line. The ordinance applies when the system-owned portion is being 
removed on a planned or emergency basis and requires the city to notify 
the customer before the commencement of a planned water system-owned 
LSLR (City of Milwaukee, 2023). The Wisconsin Department of Natural 
Resources includes information on their website to facilitate planning 
for replacement programs, including the decision of whether to mandate 
customer replacement by ordinance (WI DNR, 2022), and includes several 
example ordinances that Wisconsin municipalities have passed to require 
service line replacement to assist communities in drafting their own 
ordinances (WI DNR, 2020). This action provides examples to communities 
that choose to use ordinances to overcome access barriers. Other 
examples of system or local actions to overcome access barriers have 
been highlighted by the Lead Service Line Replacement Collaborative 
(LSLR Collaborative, n.d.a).
Examples of States Overcoming Access Barriers
    Several States have changed laws or ordinances to facilitate full 
service line replacement. A 2019 report from Harvard and the 
Environmental Defense Fund found that six States (Indiana, Michigan, 
Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) have expressly 
authorized the use of ratepayer funds for LSLR on private property. 
Further, customers in those States except Wisconsin are not required to 
contribute funding toward replacement of their side (Wisconsin allows 
the utility to provide up to 50 percent of the cost as a grant and the 
remainder as a loan to alleviate the financial impact) (Goho, Saenz, 
and Neltner, 2019). The States generally justified using ratepayer 
revenue for replacements on private property by citing the benefits of 
full LSLR to public health and the economic efficiency of replacing 
both portions simultaneously. Specific examples of State actions to 
facilitate LSLR are summarized below.
    Michigan is one of the most notable examples, where in 2018 the 
State's Lead and Copper Rule was updated to require water systems to 
replace the entire service line it controls at the expense of the water 
system, and where the system does not own the entire service line, it 
must notify the property owner (or their authorized agent) that the 
system will replace the owner's portion at the system's expense. This 
change makes full service line replacements available to all customers, 
regardless of their income (Michigan Administrative Rules, 2020).
    Wisconsin also changed the State law to facilitate full LSLR, 
allowing a utility or municipality to seek approval from the State 
Public Service Commission to provide customers with financial 
assistance to replace their portion of the service line (Cowles et al., 
2017). Indiana passed a similar law in 2017, where the Indiana Utility 
Regulatory Commission was granted authority to allow water rates at 
investor-owned utilities to fund LSLR, provided the system submits a 
plan and demonstrates it is in the public's interest (Indiana Senate 
Republicans, 2017). Allowing water rates from all customers to 
contribute towards customer-owned service line replacements can reduce 
or eliminate the direct financial impact of replacement on individual 
customers, making full service line replacement more accessible to 
lower-income customers.
    Pennsylvania passed two laws to allow rate funds to be used in 
certain conditions to replace LSLs on private property. For municipally 
owned systems, a 2017 law authorizes municipalities to replace or 
remediate private water and sewer laterals using public funds and 
municipal employees to conduct the work, should the system determine 
the work will benefit public health or the system. The law does not 
change ownership of the lateral 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). For 
investor-owned utilities, a 2018 law creates a pathway for these 
systems to recoup the costs of customer-owned LSLR using rates paid by 
all customers, if approved by the State Public Utility Commission 
(Pennsylvania General Assembly, 2018). This law followed a Commission 
decision allowing an investor-owned water system to use rate revenue to 
fund customer-owned replacements after it was required to conduct LSLR 
following a lead action level exceedance. The Commission found that it 
was in the public interest to prevent risky partial replacements from 
occurring and to avoid relying on property owners to replace their 
portion (EDF, n.d.b).
    New Jersey passed two laws facilitating full service line 
replacement both financially and with respect to private property 
access. In January 2020, a law was passed that grants municipalities 
the authority to adopt an ordinance allowing water systems to enter 
private property to conduct LSLR (Ruiz, 2019). The law allows private 
property access without the property

[[Page 84927]]

owners permission, provided that the owner was given at least 72 hours 
prior notice. This law was cited as especially benefitting communities 
with renters, allowing LSLR to occur ``to protect families and 
individuals living in homes with unresponsive landlords'' (State of New 
Jersey, 2020). Newark, whose population of renters comprises 75 percent 
of city residents, had already passed such an ordinance, which had 
allowed the city to ``[replace] lead service lines faster, more houses 
at a time, and at lower cost'' (State of New Jersey, 2020). This law 
followed 2018 legislation authorizing municipalities 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 Department of Environmental Protection 
(Senate and General Assembly of New Jersey, 2018).
    In 2023, the State of Rhode Island passed a law requiring all LSLs 
and service lines with galvanized steel or iron in the State to be 
replaced within 10 years (contingent upon available funding) (State of 
Rhode Island, 2023). Rhode Island has an estimated 75,749 LSLs in the 
State, ranking 24th in the nation with respect to their projected 
number of LSLs (USEPA, 2023k). This law includes several provisions to 
facilitate equitable full service line replacement, including 
requirements that building owners inform their tenants of the presence 
of lead. Additionally, the law requires the property owner to disclose 
the presence of an LSL upon transfer of ownership. The law mandates the 
Rhode Island Infrastructure Bank to prioritize allocation of funding 
for customer-side service line replacement based on factors including, 
but not limited to, disadvantaged water suppliers and populations most 
sensitive to the effects of lead. Systems may also submit requests to 
the State to reimburse customers for costs incurred during replacement 
of the customer-owned portion at any time after January 1, 2018 (State 
of Rhode Island, 2023).
    Other States have provided funding to cover the cost of replacing 
the customer's portion of the service line and set official goals and 
directives to prioritize identification and replacement of LSLs and GRR 
service lines. As mentioned in section IV.G. of this document, the 
State of Minnesota approved $240 million for these efforts and has 
established a LSLR grant program that must cover 100 percent of the 
cost of replacing the customer's portion. The funding will be available 
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). In the State of Washington, the governor issued a 
directive in 2016 to the State Department of Health and other agencies 
with a goal of identifying all LSLs and lead components in two years 
and replacing them within 15 years (State of Washington, 2016). The 
governor ordered the State Department of Health to prioritize the 
removal of LSLs and other lead components in water distribution systems 
when considering funding proposed through the DWSRF. A Washington State 
Department of Health survey informed the State of ongoing proactive 
system efforts, helped ``align, compile, and accelerate ongoing 
efforts,'' allowed them to follow up about survey responses and provide 
technical assistance, and drew media attention to community efforts to 
address lead in drinking water (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.b).
Perceived Barriers
    EPA has heard that some water systems will not use rate revenue to 
pay for service line replacement on private property because they think 
that they lack legal authority to do so. The Harvard and Environmental 
Defense Fund report mentioned above found no explicit barriers to using 
water rates to fund LSLR on private property in the State laws and 
policies of the 13 States with the most LSLs (representing 4.2 million 
LSLs) (Goho, Saenz, and Neltner, 2019). EPA's ``Strategies to Achieve 
Lead Service Line Replacement'' guidance document contains examples 
from two States where public funds are authorized for repair or 
replacement of water and/or sewer laterals on private property in some 
cases (USEPA, 2019a). EPA expects the proposed LCRI requirements that 
systems and States to identify these kinds of barriers to accessing 
full service line replacement, including the source of the barrier, 
would help to alleviate misunderstandings about perceived barriers 
where they may exist.
9. Environmental Justice Concerns
    The LCRR included requirements to result in increased beneficial 
equity impacts relative to the LCR requirements in several ways. To 
reduce the number of partial replacements and test-outs conducted, only 
full LSLRs are permitted to count towards the goal and mandatory 
replacement rates in the LCRR. The LCRR also requires systems to 
develop a funding strategy to conduct LSLR where the customer may not 
be able to afford to replace their portion of a line and to create a 
replacement prioritization strategy in their LSLR plan based on factors 
``including but not limited to the targeting of known lead service 
lines, lead service line replacement for disadvantaged consumers and 
populations most sensitive to the effects of lead'' (40 CFR 
141.84(b)(6); USEPA, 2021a).
    In the LCRR review, EPA concluded that a new rulemaking informed by 
information and data about the impacts of LSLR requirements on 
communities, should prioritize increased ``public health protection for 
those who cannot afford to replace the customer-owned portions of their 
LSLs'' (86 FR 71574, USEPA, 2021b). Many stakeholders during the 
proposed LCRI external engagements also voiced concern about the 
environmental justice impacts of the LCRI, especially given 
disproportionate exposure to lead from other sources in overburdened 
communities (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023l).
    EPA conducted an environmental justice analysis to inform the 
Agency's understanding of how the proposed LCRI could impact 
communities with environmental justice concerns. As part of the 
analysis, EPA 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 are created or mitigated by the proposed LCRI relative 
to the baseline (USEPA, 2023f). For the environmental justice analysis, 
EPA compiled recent peer-reviewed research on the relationship between 
lead exposure and socioeconomic status and found that Black, 
Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) and/or low-income populations are 
at higher risk of lead exposure and associated health risks. 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. The 
baseline primarily provides for systems-level observations for the 
seven cities studied relative to LCRI, given the present lack of 
nationwide data available on LSL presence. However, as indicated below, 
EPA may be able to draw likely broader observations due to the 
literature review and common findings across multiple case study 
cities. In its case study analysis, 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, however 
there was little evidence that the number of LSLs per

[[Page 84928]]

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 percent of Black residents than the service area as a whole for 
five case studies. Measures included to capture the possibility of 
other sources of lead--traffic density and pre-1960 housing--were also 
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 
study presented by USEPA Office of Research and Development researchers 
shows strong correlations between LSL prevalence and children's 
elevated blood lead level prevalence (%EBLL) for two cities, both 
individually and combined, by Census tract (Tornero-Velez et al., 
2023). Regression analysis revealed that LSL prevalence was a stronger 
predictor of elevated blood lead level prevalence compared with two 
lead indices for paint (U.S.EPA's EJSCREEN 2017 Pb Paint EJ Index or 
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Deteriorated 
Paint Index).
    The small number of case studies included in the analysis do not 
permit generalizing the findings beyond these individual systems. The 
heterogeneity in socioeconomic and housing characteristics within 
service areas and relative to the prevalence of LSLs across systems 
highlights the importance of individual system characteristics on 
potential environmental justice concerns associated with baseline LSL 
presence. Service line inventory information at the State or national 
level is generally limited at this time recognizing the initial LSL 
inventory required under the LCRR is not due until October 16, 2024. As 
more systems continue to develop and publish inventories under the 
LCRI, this LSL location data will become more readily available and may 
allow for broader study of the distributional impacts of LSL presence. 
EPA also notes that while LSLs are the greatest source of lead in 
drinking water where present, several factors can affect lead levels, 
such as the presence of other lead sources in contact with water, 
localized water chemistry, the presence of systemwide corrosion control 
treatment, consumer water use behavior, service line disturbances, and 
sporadic release of lead particulates.
    In summary, EPA found in its literature review that there are 
environmental justice concerns associated with lead exposure in the 
baseline. With respect to EPA's case study analysis, the data indicate 
a range of environmental justice concerns associated with baseline LSL 
presence. It is important to note that results obtained from these case 
studies only represent the environmental justice issues of seven cities 
throughout the U.S. and cannot be extrapolated to determine national 
trends. Nevertheless, considering both the results of the literature 
and the case studies, other cities that contain LSLs likely face these 
or other environmental justice concerns related to LSL presence. In 
addition, systems that do not incorporate equity into their service 
line replacement planning and program design may inadvertently create 
or exacerbate disproportionate impacts in communities with 
environmental justice concerns. The next paragraph summarizes several 
proposed LCRI requirements that could result in benefits for 
communities with environmental justice concerns. EPA expects that these 
provisions included in the proposal, such as service line replacement 
prioritization, would reduce baseline differential impacts associated 
with lead exposure from drinking water.
    EPA's proposed service line replacement plan contains several 
elements that could improve the equitable outcomes of replacement, 
which informed EPA's understanding of the impacts of the proposed LCRI. 
EPA is proposing to retain the LSLR plan elements under the LCRR 
requiring water systems to identify a replacement prioritization 
strategy and a funding strategy for conducting full 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. The 
proposed LCRI also adds several new requirements to the LSLR plan to 
further facilitate proactive planning as well as to improve 
accountability in implementation. One would require systems to create a 
strategy to achieve full LSLR at rental properties to reduce instances 
where LSLs or GRR service lines are left in place at these locations, 
which may create disparities where tenants want the full replacement 
performed but the property owner refuses access. This could also 
potentially increase participation at non-owner-occupied investment 
properties, where EPA is aware of customer participation being lower 
than at owner-occupied properties (MWRA, 2023). EPA is also proposing 
to require systems to make the service line replacement plan publicly 
available. This requirement would allow the community to hold the water 
system accountable for the design and implementation of their plan.
    The plan would also include a new proposed element requiring 
systems to identify potential barriers to access for full replacement 
in local ordinances and water service agreements. States would also be 
required to identify potential barriers to full service line 
replacement in State laws, including statutes and constitutional 
provisions, in their application for primacy for the LCRI. The proposed 
LCRI would not change State or local laws, ordinances, or service 
agreements. However, by identifying these potential barriers and making 
the information publicly accessible in the replacement plan, these 
proposed requirements can better support a community discussion about 
where barriers exist and how best to address them as part of the 
replacement program. For examples of how system, municipal, and State 
actions have facilitated full service line replacement, see section 
V.B.8. of this document.
    Proposed increased flexibility relative to the LCRR with the 
replacement rate construct can also facilitate the system implementing 
its prioritization strategies while maintaining compliance with the 
proposed 10-year replacement deadline. EPA is proposing that systems 
calculate compliance with service line replacement on a three-year 
rolling average. This can provide systems with additional time that may 
be needed to replace service lines at prioritized sites, such as 
schools and child care facilities throughout the service area or areas 
with higher lead exposure, as opposed to focusing only on areas with a 
high LSL density, where replacement may be more efficient.
    As discussed previously, EPA is also proposing to ban partial 
replacements unless conducted in response to emergency repairs or 
planned infrastructure work (excluding service line replacement 
programs). Partial replacements are often associated with elevated 
drinking water lead levels in the short-term, from days to months and 
potentially longer, and have not been shown to reliably reduce lead 
levels in the long-term (USEPA, 2011; St. Clair et al., 2016; 
Triantafyllidou and Edwards, 2011; Brown et al., 2011). Where partial 
replacements will occur, EPA is

[[Page 84929]]

proposing that systems must give customers the chance to participate in 
the full replacement as well as provide notification and risk 
mitigation prior to infrastructure work and during emergency repair (if 
before is not possible). These proposed requirements would prevent 
systems from creating harmful partial replacements, likely 
disproportionately at low-income households, as a result of the rule's 
replacement requirements. For more information about this proposed 
requirement, please see section V.B.4. of this document.
    EPA emphasizes that a significant amount of external funding is 
available for full service line replacement, which may reduce the costs 
of replacement for individual customers as well as impacts on household 
water bills to fund the broader replacement program. For example, the 
$15 billion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directs 49 percent 
of the funding for LSL identification and replacement to disadvantaged 
communities as grants or principal forgiveness. Please see section 
IV.G. of this document for a full discussion of the external resources 
to support service line replacement.
    As recommended by some stakeholders during the LCRI external 
engagements, EPA considered proposing specific prioritization criteria 
for service line replacement, such as homes with elevated blood lead 
levels or other health and environmental stressors (USEPA, 2023h; 
USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j), but given the unique characteristics and 
needs of each community, EPA is concerned that specific criteria 
included in a national rule could be overly broad or miss populations 
of concern. It could also create additional implementation challenges 
for systems to determine relevant and appropriate data required for 
certain prioritization, such as household level data on finances and 
family size, as suggested by stakeholders (USEPA, 2023m). These 
potential detriments of specific prioritization criteria were noted by 
some stakeholders (USEPA, 2023l). The proposed approach--requiring 
systems to develop the prioritization strategy in the service line 
replacement plan and make the plan publicly available--would allow 
systems to plan in accordance with the data available for their 
communities and ensure the strategies are more responsive to specific 
community needs and implemented effectively. EPA encourages water 
systems to consider locally relevant community indicators, where 
relevant data is available to the water system, to support the 
prioritization of lead service line replacement in their service line 
replacement plans. For example, systems could consider information on 
other sources of lead exposure, such as homes likely to contain lead 
paint (e.g., using housing age as a metric) or homes nearby lead 
emitting facilities. Systems could use blood lead level information 
collected over time to inform overexposed communities. Systems could 
also use available tools to support their prioritization process, such 
as the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) (CEQ 2022).
    EPA also emphasizes the obligations that systems that are 
recipients of Federal financial assistance have under Title VI of the 
Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, 
or national origin for any program or activity receiving Federal 
financial assistance. For more information, see section IV.H. of this 
document.
    EPA also highlights proposed improvements to the rule's public 
education requirements that can address stakeholder concerns about 
potential inequities for customers with limited English proficiency to 
be informed about service line replacement as well as general 
information about lead in drinking water. See section V.H. for more 
information about these proposed requirements.

C. Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper

    Tap sampling for lead and copper is required to evaluate CCT 
performance and serves ``to identify the need for additional treatment 
and to ensure that adequate treatment is installed'' (56 FR 26514, 
USEPA, 1991). Tap sampling is not intended to assess exposure to lead 
and copper in drinking water, but to identify situations where the 
water is too corrosive. A system's compliance with the treatment 
technique rule is determined through requirements to optimize CCT. A 
system's compliance with the treatment technique rule is not based 
solely on tap sampling results, but rather if a system complies with 
the required actions, such as evaluating corrosion and installing or 
re-optimizing OCCT. Tap sampling results identify situations where the 
corrosivity of water can be reduced by installing or reoptimizing CCT, 
and where other actions, such as public notification, can reduce lead 
risk.
    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 higher 
risk sites 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 consumption; rather, it is intended to determine the 
effectiveness of CCT and to determine if actions are needed to reduce 
lead levels (USEPA, 2020b).
    In addition to CCT, the LCR and LCRR use tap sampling results to 
determine if water systems are required to conduct LSLR and public 
education. Under the proposed LCRI, EPA is maintaining the use of tap 
sampling for some public education requirements (see section V.H.). EPA 
is proposing to require mandatory service line replacement regardless 
of system's lead tap sampling results (see section V.B.) and proposing 
additional improvements to the tap sampling protocol discussed further 
in this section.
1. Sample Collection Locations and Methods
    The LCRR revised the tap sampling requirements in several ways to 
better detect sites with higher lead levels. The LCRR maintains the 
tiering structure established in the LCR for prioritized, targeted 
monitoring of higher-risk sites, with the highest priority tiers (Tiers 
1 and 2) comprised of sites with LSLs representing the sites with the 
highest risk. Tier 1 sites include single-family structures served by 
LSLs and Tier 2 sites include multi-family residences served by LSLs. 
The LCRR requires water systems with LSLs to create sampling pools 
entirely from sites in Tiers 1 and 2, up from 50 percent in the LCR, 
until there are an insufficient number of LSL sites to meet the minimum 
number required.
    The LCRR also requires water systems to collect a fifth-liter 
sample for lead at LSL sites. Fifth-liter samples increase the 
likelihood that samples capture water that has been sitting in contact 
with LSLs. This can allow systems to measure higher lead levels when 
water is in direct contact with this significant lead source. The 
variability of plumbing configurations does not allow for a single 
prescribed sample volume to capture the highest lead level at every 
site; however, EPA selected the fifth liter as a screen that is likely 
to detect higher lead levels than first-liter sampling alone (Masters 
et al., 2021; Del Toral et al., 2013; Deshommes et al., 2016). In 
addition, the LCRR prohibits pre-stagnation flushing and requires the 
use of wide-mouth bottles to allow samples to be taken at full flow to 
decrease the likelihood that sampling would miss higher lead levels.
    With the addition of the trigger level in the LCRR, EPA revised tap 
sampling

[[Page 84930]]

frequency requirements based on both the lead action level and the 
trigger level. A key priority identified in the LCRR review is to 
improve sampling methods to better identify elevated lead levels in 
drinking water and to compel more systems to take actions to reduce 
lead levels (86 FR 71579, USEPA, 2021b).
    In the LCRI, EPA is proposing that systems must take first- and 
fifth-liter paired samples for lead at LSL sites and use the higher of 
the two values to calculate the 90th percentile lead level to improve 
identification of higher risk sites for lead and better determine when 
OCCT or re-optimized OCCT is necessary. Michigan's revised LCR requires 
the same first- and fifth-sample collection approach that EPA is 
proposing under LCRI. EPA evaluated Michigan's approach in the context 
of this rulemaking process. Implementation data from Michigan's revised 
LCR shows that some samples collected at LSL sites measure higher lead 
levels in the first liter than the fifth. Michigan's requirement to use 
the higher lead level of the two samples for calculation of the 90th 
percentile lead level has resulted in more systems exceeding the lead 
action level of 0.015 mg/L than either the first or fifth liter alone 
(Betanzo at al., 2021). Therefore, these data suggest that Michigan's 
requirements are helping systems better identify situations where the 
water is too corrosive. In addition to data from Michigan, EPA is aware 
of studies that have evaluated lead sampling data collected from 
various liters in cities including Washington, DC, Flint, Michigan, and 
Chicago, Illinois. The data compiled in these studies similarly 
identifies variability in which liter contains the highest lead level. 
This data also suggests that using the higher of the first- and the 
fifth-liter lead values at LSL sites will be more effective than either 
value alone (Masters et al., 2021; Mishrra et al., 2021).
    In addition, EPA is proposing that first and fifth-liter paired 
samples be collected at LSL sites because the lead released from LSLs 
is not reliably captured in either the first- or fifth-liter samples 
alone (Del Toral et al., 2013; Deshommes et al., 2016; Masters et al., 
2021). In the final LCRR preamble, EPA acknowledged that the fifth 
liter 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). Due to the 
types of lead scales that can form in LSLs, as well as the mechanisms 
of scale formation and release, the first liter can capture higher 
levels of lead than the fifth liter 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 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 which have 
often 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. Another situation where scale affects lead levels in 
the first liter is where scale formation slows lead release from the 
LSL, and higher lead release can occur in the first liter due to 
sources in the premise plumbing (Triantafyllidou et al., 2015). EPA's 
proposal to keep the fifth liter sample at LSL sites while adding the 
first liter sample for lead would update EPA's decision in LCRR based 
on evaluating additional studies and available implementation data to 
further increase the likelihood of detecting elevated lead levels.
    EPA is proposing to correct the definition for Tier 1 and Tier 2 
sites to include sites with premise plumbing made of lead due to the 
high risk of lead exposure associated with premise plumbing made of 
lead. By premise plumbing made of lead, EPA means premise plumbing that 
consists of pure lead pipes, like the pipes used for LSLs, rather than 
pipes made from metal alloys which 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 a 
LSL, which would require first and fifth liter sampling. Lead interior 
plumbing was considered a Tier 1 site under the LCR and was 
inadvertently deleted in the LCRR. Although EPA is not aware of the 
full extent of lead premise plumbing, these would be a substantial lead 
source similar to LSLs. Their inclusion is appropriate for Tiers 1 and 
2 because it aligns with the regulatory intent to prioritize sites 
likely to have elevated lead levels. This proposal would also correct 
the inadvertent deletion under the LCRR.
    The LCRR categorizes Tier 3 sites as sites that contain galvanized 
lines that are identified as being downstream of an LSL currently or in 
the past, or downstream from a known lead connector. EPA described in 
the LCRR preamble that sites served by galvanized service lines 
downstream of an LSL or known lead connector are included under Tier 3 
(86 FR 4241, USEPA, 2020a). The LCRR requires first-liter samples to be 
collected at Tier 3 sites.
    EPA is proposing in the LCRI to correct that a galvanized site 
currently downstream of an LSL 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 EPA described in the final LCRR preamble the Agency's intention 
for galvanized service lines to be included in Tier 3, the LCRR Tier 3 
provision includes only sites which ``contain galvanized lines,'' which 
refers to premise plumbing material and not service lines. As such, EPA 
is also proposing to clarify that sites served by galvanized service 
lines that ever were downstream of an LSL or a lead connector are 
included in Tier 3. EPA is also proposing to maintain sites with 
galvanized premise plumbing that are downstream from a lead connector 
in Tier 3. While EPA is not currently aware of the national extent of 
homes containing galvanized premise plumbing that are downstream of a 
lead source, this is consistent with the inclusion of galvanized 
service lines that ever were downstream of an LSL. Like galvanized 
service lines downstream of an LSL, galvanized premise plumbing that is 
downstream of a lead source can adsorb and release lead and is 
potentially a higher risk site than those in Tiers 4 and 5.
    EPA is proposing to expand the sites included in Tier 3 to include 
any sites with galvanized premise plumbing or served by galvanized 
service lines that were ever served by a lead connector. As noted 
above, galvanized material can adsorb lead from an upstream source and 
release lead, even after the original lead source is removed. As such, 
EPA is proposing to include sites that were ever served by lead 
connectors in addition to those that currently have lead connectors. 
EPA is also proposing to include sites of any service line material or 
premise plumbing that are currently served by a lead connector. Along 
with EPA's proposed changes to inventory requirements, some systems 
will have improved knowledge of sites with lead connectors, which like 
LSLs, are pipes made of lead. Despite the additional information 
systems may have about lead connectors through the inventory, it is 
EPA's goal to prioritize sampling sites where the highest 
concentrations of lead enter drinking water. Due to the limited length 
of lead connectors, the

[[Page 84931]]

amount of lead contributed is expected to be less than typically much 
longer LSLs, all else being equal. Therefore, EPA is proposing that 
sites with lead connectors are not Tier 1 or 2, but Tier 3, based on 
EPA's priorities for the proposed LCRI and the similar contributions of 
lead in drinking water compared to galvanized service lines. In the 
proposed LCRI, EPA is including three types of sites in Tier 3: (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. EPA is requesting 
comment on whether all of these sites should be included in Tier 3 or 
if some should be included in a different, lower priority tier, such as 
Tier 4. EPA is also requesting comment on whether sites served by a 
galvanized service line downstream from a lead connector in the past 
(e.g., previously replaced) should be included in the same tier as 
sites currently served by lead connectors.
    EPA is proposing that first-liter samples continue to be collected 
at Tier 3 sites. Galvanized service lines contribute lead from corroded 
coatings containing lead and through the capture and release of 
upstream lead sources. Contributions of lead from galvanized service 
lines are commonly through lead particulate release, which can then be 
introduced as a particulate into consumed water or captured by aerators 
where the particulate contributes dissolved lead (McFadden et al., 
2011). 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. EPA acknowledges 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) and 
presents the highest likelihood of a single sample capturing 
particulate lead. Additionally, first-liter samples would capture the 
effects of any particulates in the system which have become caught in 
the aerator at the tap during stagnation. Further, some galvanized 
service line sites may have undergone prior disturbance, such as from 
the partial replacement of an upstream LSL. In such cases, higher 
particulate lead levels would likely be present in the first draw 
sample as a result of accumulated lead particulates released from the 
disturbance event (Deshommes et al., 2010).
    In addition, EPA believes that the first liter sampling protocol is 
more appropriate for sites with lead connectors. As lead connectors are 
short in length and typically installed closer to the water main, it is 
less likely that a single designated service line sample volume would 
capture water that has stagnated in the connector. Additionally, water 
traveling from the lead connector to the faucet will undergo 
dispersion, resulting in lower concentrations of lead at the tap. 
Detectable contributions of lead from lead connectors, like particulate 
contribution from LSLs, 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).
    EPA is also proposing to clarify 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 L.3.). EPA heard stakeholder feedback that the LCRR definition 
of ``wide-mouth bottle'' is vague and significantly limits the number 
of available bottles that fit the rule criteria if the inner diameter 
is used to determine the diameter for wide-mouth bottles. As such, EPA 
is seeking comment on the proposed updated definition of ``wide-mouth 
bottles,'' specifically on the availability of qualifying bottles.
    EPA also heard stakeholder feedback about including additional 
invalidation criteria for lead and copper compliance samples. The LCRR 
allows the State to invalidate collected samples for a limited number 
of reasons including that samples were collected from sites that did 
not meet the tiering criteria. Invalidated samples are not included in 
the 90th percentile calculation. EPA is proposing specific language for 
States to invalidate samples which were collected in a manner that did 
not meet the sample collection criteria under Sec.  141.86(b)(1). For 
example, the rule specifies collection of samples at a kitchen or 
bathroom sink tap. If a sample was taken at a hose bib, States could 
invalidate that sample because it does not meet the sample collection 
criteria. Some stakeholders supported the inclusion of invalidation 
criteria based on a maximum stagnation period (e.g., 12-hours) to the 
invalidation criteria because of concerns that excessive stagnation 
times may produce high lead or copper sampling results that are 
reflective of improper sampling techniques. Water systems can alleviate 
their concerns about excessive stagnation by using chain of custody 
forms that note the last time the water was used and the time/date of 
sample collection, withholding samples with excessive stagnation from 
being sent to the laboratory. The system could then direct the customer 
to collect another sample to be submitted for analysis, negating the 
need for sample invalidation criteria in the LCRI. Additionally, 
stakeholders did not offer data to support any suggested maximum 
stagnation times provided in their feedback. While EPA is not proposing 
to establish a maximum stagnation time in the LCRI because the Agency 
is concerned about samples being invalidated solely because the sample 
result it high, EPA is seeking comment and data, including modeling and 
sampling data, on potential maximum stagnation times, and specifically 
how stagnation times inform corrosion rates. See section IX. of this 
document.
2. Sample Collection Frequency
    In the LCRI, EPA is proposing to update tap sampling frequency 
requirements to conform with the proposed elimination of the trigger 
level. EPA intends to maintain six-month monitoring as the standard 
monitoring frequency. With the proposed elimination of the trigger 
level, EPA is proposing 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, instead 
of meeting the lead trigger level for three consecutive years. Along 
with EPA's proposal to lower the action level to 0.010 mg/L and improve 
the tap sampling protocol at LSL sites, this pathway for reduced 
monitoring would be at least as stringent as that under the LCRR. In 
addition, EPA intends to maintain a pathway for all systems to qualify 
for annual monitoring if they do not exceed the lead and copper action 
levels for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods. Also, all 
systems can qualify for triennial monitoring if they measure 90th 
percentile levels at or below the practical quantitation limits of 
0.005 mg/L for lead and 0.65 mg/L for copper in two consecutive six-
month monitoring periods. Also, EPA intends to maintain the nine-year 
reduced monitoring waiver.
    EPA's proposed approaches for compliance tap sampling are 
consistent with the goal of identifying sites most at risk of lead in 
drinking water. Stakeholders expressed support for sampling to find the 
locations with the

[[Page 84932]]

highest possible lead levels, with many in favor of first and fifth 
liter sampling specifically (USEPA, 2020b; USEPA, 2023j). Some 
stakeholders raised concerns over the complexity associated with a 
different protocol for LSL sites, and the difficulty of maintaining 
customers willing to sample under a more complicated protocol. For the 
proposed LCRI, EPA is finding that examples from Michigan are 
illustrative to support this proposed change. Based on the 
implementation of the first- and fifth-liter protocol in Michigan, EPA 
believes that customers provided with clear instructions can be willing 
and are able to conduct tap sampling.
    Others raised concerns over the specific volume of water chosen due 
to the wide range of plumbing configurations, recommending that the 
improved rule allow for sampling tailored to individual sites. EPA does 
not support tailoring of the sample volume collected to individual 
sites. EPA expects that this approach could introduce challenges by not 
having a standard sampling protocol, leading to a more complex rule 
with increased implementation and recordkeeping burdens. EPA is seeking 
feedback on other alternative sampling protocols, such as random 
daytime sampling (in which sampling sites are not predetermined and 
there is no minimum stagnation time), that could be used to assess CCT 
performance (See section IX.).
    EPA is also seeking 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. The proposal limited this State authority to where a water 
system has fewer than five drinking water taps meeting sample site 
collection criteria. See section IX. of this document.
3. 90th Percentile Lead Calculation
    Under the LCRR, water systems with LSLs are required to collect 
samples from all LSL sites (Tier 1 and 2) and use all samples collected 
to calculate the 90th percentile lead calculation, even if more than 
the minimum number of samples are collected. If a system does not have 
enough Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet the minimum number of required 
samples, the 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 must 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. EPA 
introduced a limit on which samples could be used in the 90th 
percentile calculation to prohibit systems from collecting additional 
samples from sites less likely to contain lead (i.e., Tiers 3, 4, and 
5) in order to reduce their 90th percentile lead value. LCRR requires 
systems without LSLs to collect samples at Tier 3 sites and lower, and 
use all samples collected in the calculation, even if more than the 
minimum number are collected. EPA introduced these provisions to 
prioritize sampling at sites more likely to contain lead in order to 
determine the effectiveness of CCT and determine if additional actions 
are warranted (86 FR 4225, USEPA, 2021a).
    EPA is proposing to retain this approach in the LCRI. However, a 
few stakeholders recommended that EPA allow systems that do not have a 
sufficient number of Tier 1 and 2 sites to meet the minimum number of 
samples, use the highest sample collected regardless of the tier, and 
allowing small systems to use more than the minimum number of samples 
when sampling at a mix of Tier 1 and 2 and lower tier sites (USEPA, 
2023j; USEPA, 2023m; see docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). For example, 
a system would use any samples collected from Tier 3 through 5 sites 
that were higher than samples from Tiers 1 and 2, instead of using all 
samples from Tiers 1 and 2. EPA is unaware of situations in which large 
numbers of samples from non-LSL sites would have higher lead 
concentrations than LSL sites and is maintaining the LCRR approach to 
ensure that sites most likely to contain lead are prioritized for tap 
sampling. EPA is seeking comment about 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 2 
sites for calculation of the 90th percentile for systems that do not 
have a sufficient number of samples from Tier 1 and 2 sites. 
Additionally, EPA is seeking comment on whether to require systems to 
use samples with the highest lead and copper concentration regardless 
of sampling tiers, such as including samples from lower-priority tiers 
(i.e., Tier 3 through 5) in the 90th percentile calculation for systems 
that are collecting compliance samples from all Tier 1 and 2 sites. EPA 
seeks any relevant data on whether including the highest sample results 
regardless of tier is useful for assessing CCT efficacy at LSL systems. 
See section IX. of this document.
    Under the LCRR, water systems can qualify to reduce monitoring 
frequency or cease specific actions under the rule based on their 90th 
percentile lead and copper levels. For example, a small or medium 
system without CCT may stop the CCT steps once if the system is at or 
below the lead AL for two consecutive monitoring periods. Water systems 
have been advised to calculate a 90th percentile lead or copper level 
even if the system does not collect the minimum required number of 
samples (USEPA, 2004d). EPA is proposing to clarify in the LCRI that 
water systems cannot use sampling based on fewer than the required 
minimum number of samples to reduce monitoring or qualify for other 
reduced actions under the rule including CCT and public education 
related requirements. EPA is proposing this clarification to improve 
implementation and because the Agency is concerned that water systems 
may utilize provisions intended for systems with demonstrated lower 
lead or copper levels by failing to comply with monitoring 
requirements.
    EPA is proposing to modify the types of non-compliance samples that 
may be included in the 90th percentile calculation. The LCRR requires 
water systems to use results of any additional monitoring (e.g., 
customer-requested samples) in the 90th percentile calculation if the 
samples meet the tiering and sample protocol requirements. The LCRR and 
proposed LCRI also require water systems to conduct follow-up sampling 
after full or partial service line replacement. EPA is concerned that 
water systems may include samples in the 90th percentile calculation 
that may not be known to meet the correct sampling tier and may not be 
reflective of corrosion control performance. Service line replacement 
can physically disturb the service line, potentially causing lead 
particulates to dislodge and lead to short-term elevated lead levels. 
EPA expects that samples collected as part of required monitoring 
following full or partial service line replacement may not be 
representative of corrosion control performance, and the Agency is 
therefore proposing to exclude these required samples from the 90th 
percentile calculation.
    EPA is also proposing to maintain that samples not collected 
according to the sample collection criteria must be used to calculate 
the 90th percentile. In the LCRR, customer-requested samples are not 
required to be collected according to the compliance sampling protocol 
in Sec.  141.86. In the LCRI, EPA is proposing to maintain this 
flexibility to allow

[[Page 84933]]

samples collected in response to customer request to utilize 
alternative sample volumes and stagnation times but is proposing these 
samples must include sites representative of both premise plumbing and 
the service line when the customer is served by a lead, GRR, or unknown 
service line (see section V.H.3.). EPA is proposing that customer-
requested samples be included in the 90th percentile calculation only 
if the sample meets the compliance sampling tiering and protocol.

D. Service Line Inventory

    Complete service line inventories protect public health, improve 
transparency, and allow systems to be better positioned to comply with 
the proposed LCRI requirements. Publicly accessible inventories can 
facilitate community engagement and improved transparency because the 
public can more easily track and better understand and systems' 
progress on LSL identification and replacement. Inventories can also 
help water systems and consumers determine the source of high lead 
levels in drinking water at a home or building and the possible 
solutions for reducing exposure. Water systems with accurate and up-to-
date inventory information can also inform proactive consumer risk 
mitigation steps if they are served by an LSL, GRR service line, 
unknown service line, or a lead connector (for example, replacing their 
LSL, using a filter certified to reduce lead, or flushing their service 
line).
    Under the LCRR, water systems must develop an initial inventory, 
make it publicly available, and submit it to the State by October 16, 
2024. Water systems must update their inventory annually or triennially 
based on their tap sampling frequency. The initial and updated 
inventories under the LCRR must categorize each service line connected 
to the public water system as lead, GRR, non-lead, or lead status 
unknown (also referred to as ``unknown''). The LCRR did not establish a 
deadline for requiring water systems to determine the lead status of 
any unknown lines in the inventory. EPA is not proposing to change the 
initial inventory compliance date of October 16, 2024, to ensure that 
systems make continued progress towards inventory development. 
Depending on the inventoried service line material, water systems must 
also notify consumers about the potential lead risks that affect them, 
which can facilitate customer actions to reduce lead in drinking water, 
such as flushing, using filters that are certified to reduce lead, and 
customer-initiated service line replacement.
    While EPA is not proposing changes to the initial inventories 
required under the LCRR, EPA is proposing to improve the requirements 
for systems to update their inventories for the LCRI. EPA is proposing 
that by the final LCRI compliance date, systems must develop a baseline 
inventory, which builds upon the LCRR requirements of the initial 
inventory. The additional requirements in the baseline inventory would 
improve transparency and position systems to begin mandatory service 
line replacement. EPA is also proposing that systems must make the 
number of inventoried lead, galvanized requiring replacement, and 
unknown service lines, and the number of known and replaced lead 
connectors, publicly available, and update those counts on an annual 
basis, to improve transparency and facilitate customer tracking of 
inventory progress. Similarly, EPA is also proposing that systems 
provide counts of the number of LSLs and GRR service lines replaced 
each year so the public can more easily track progress of the mandatory 
service line replacement program. This proposed requirement is 
responsive to a stakeholder comment in the LCRI external engagements 
which recommended continued monitoring of the system's service line 
replacement program over time (USEPA, 2023h). EPA is also requesting 
comment on whether it is feasible for systems serving 50,000 persons or 
fewer to make their inventories, inventory summary, and replacement 
data available online. See section IX. of this document for more 
information.
    Using reliable service line material investigation records, 
methods, and techniques is a key step towards developing accurate 
inventories. EPA is proposing to retain the LCRR approach that requires 
systems to use only certain specified sources of information unless the 
State allows or requires the use of other sources of information. EPA 
maintains its expectation from the LCRR that States can make the best-
informed judgments about the appropriateness of using other sources of 
information (e.g., other records, methods, or techniques for service 
line material categorization) in addition to those required by the 
LCRR. Retaining this provision will also avoid conflict with the 
initial inventories that systems will have created based on additional 
criteria allowed or required by States and potentially avoid any 
duplication of effort. Another benefit of retaining the LCRR approach 
is that it avoids implementation challenges that could be caused by 
changing the sources of information that can be used for the inventory. 
For example, the LCRR does not require systems to track the records, 
methods, and techniques they use to categorize individual service 
lines. Hence, changing the requirements in the proposed LCRI might 
create difficulties for systems in updating the initial inventory. 
Finally, if EPA were to limit the methods that can be used to conduct 
inventories, water systems would not be able to take advantage of 
ongoing and future research to develop new methods and technologies to 
identify service line materials.
1. Timeline To Identify All Unknown Service Lines
    EPA is proposing to require that water systems categorize the 
material of all unknown service lines in the inventory by the system's 
applicable deadline for completing mandatory full service line 
replacement. The proposed deadline for most systems to replace all LSLs 
and GRR service lines is 10 years following the compliance date for the 
proposed LCRI; however, some systems may have deadlines that are 
shorter or longer than 10 years (see section V.B.3. for a discussion of 
the proposed service line replacement deadlines). Establishing a 
deadline for water systems to prepare a complete and accurate inventory 
will improve the information systems must develop to comply with 
requirements for tap sampling sites, public education, and service line 
replacement. A complete and accurate service line inventory is an 
important part of a system's asset management plan, which is recognized 
under SDWA section 1420 as a critical component of a system's 
technical, managerial, and financial capacity. Additionally, a complete 
and accurate service line inventory provides transparency of potential 
sources of lead exposure.
Feasibility of Proposed Inventory Requirements To Support Mandatory 
Service Line Replacement
    EPA has determined that it is feasible (i.e., technically possible 
and reasonably 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. EPA 
anticipated in the 1991 LCR 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). EPA evaluated more

[[Page 84934]]

recent efforts by systems to replace all their LSLs, and thus complete 
their inventory, in 10 years or less, and this more recent data 
confirms this finding from the 1991 LCR (USEPA, 2023g). First, seven 
States have inventory laws (i.e., California, Illinois, Michigan, New 
Jersey, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin), which together comprise 
just below a third of the nation's estimated LSLs (32 percent; 2.9 
million LSLs out of an estimated 9.2 million LSLs) (USEPA, 2023k), 
meaning that these systems will have made progress on their inventories 
beyond the LCRR requirements. These State laws indicate that an 
inventory requirement is feasible, and inventory data from some of 
these States show relatively low incidence of unknowns in some States 
as well as rapid progress towards identification of their unknowns' 
materials (USEPA, 2023g). Low incidence of unknown service lines is 
also indicated by survey data from the Needs Survey (USEPA, 2023g). 
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 in order to comply 
with the mandatory LSLR requirements. For example, the Michigan 
Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) required 
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 
requires systems to submit a complete material inventory by April 2024 
(Illinois General Assembly, 2021), which gives their systems six years 
to identify all unknown lines. Finally, 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, 2023g).
    Other factors may facilitate a system's inventory development and 
contribute to the feasibility of completing the inventory before the 
replacement deadline. Additional opportunities for inventory 
development include material identification during routine 
infrastructure work as well as during emergency repairs, when service 
lines can potentially be visually inspected. EPA estimates that up to 
60 to 80 percent of service lines could potentially be encountered by 
the proposed 10-year replacement deadline through the replacement of 
water mains and meters (USEPA, 2023g). EPA released the LCRR Inventory 
Guidance to support systems as they develop their inventories (USEPA, 
2022b). The LCRR Inventory Guidance describes required and recommended 
elements to add to the inventory as well as an adaptable inventory 
template. EPA's guidance contains best practices and case studies that 
can facilitate systems' inventory development. Research and development 
of emerging technologies regarding identification of service line 
materials is ongoing (USEPA, 2022b), which EPA expects to accelerate 
inventory completion.
Deadline To Identify Unknown Service Lines
    For the LCRI, EPA is proposing to consolidate the deadlines for 
identifying all lead status unknown service lines and replacing all 
LSLs and GRR service lines. This approach has several benefits compared 
to an inventory deadline that precedes the replacement deadline. This 
approach reduces rule complexity as well as reporting and tracking 
burden, a priority identified in EPA's LCRR review notice to assure 
that States and water systems can effectively implement the LCRI (86 FR 
71574, USEPA, 2021b). It also provides systems with flexibility to plan 
a holistic full service line replacement program that meets local 
needs. For example, 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. 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 benefit the community by 
reducing the overall costs and time burden to identify service line 
materials, lowering the per-household impacts where water rates fund 
this work, or stretching the value of external funding for service line 
identification (such as the $15 billion for identifying and replacing 
LSLs from the BIL). Additionally, the proposed inventory development 
deadline can better allow systems to strategize and balance inventory 
development with replacement prioritization goals under the proposed 
LCRI service line replacement plan requirements.
    Finally, aligning the deadlines could improve inventory information 
quality. For example, water systems could take additional time to 
develop the inventory with more emphasis on accuracy. Systems could 
choose to conduct additional potholing over other techniques that can 
be conducted more quickly but may be less accurate, such as tap 
sampling. Systems already using potholing to identify service line 
materials may choose to dig more potholes with additional time (i.e., 
visually inspecting three points instead of two), which could reduce 
the incidence of false negative LSL identification because more length 
of the service line is visually inspected. Systems could also choose to 
use multiple methods to confirm service line material. For example, the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania requires systems to use a combination of 
at least two methods to identify non-lead service lines in their 
inventory, with the exception of ``stand-alone verification options'' 
(Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 2023). Denver 
Water also uses several methods to identify non-lead service lines, 
relying on potholing in two locations, visually inspecting the service 
line inside the home, and taking water samples (Denver Water, 2023b). 
Additionally, as a service line replacement requirement under LCRI 
creates a market for service line material identification technologies, 
EPA expects that new such technologies may be developed in the coming 
years and existing technologies will undergo refinement, leading to 
lower costs and greater accuracy. Aligning the deadline for service 
line replacement and complete inventories, rather than requiring all 
unknown service lines be identified prior to the replacement deadline, 
would give systems the chance to utilize these new or refined 
technologies on a greater proportion of their unknown lines.
    A deadline for inventory completion that precedes the deadline for 
mandatory service line replacement could reduce the possibility of non-
compliance with the replacement deadline, but it would not have the 
advantages of a consolidated deadline as described above. EPA seeks 
comment on its rationale for the consolidated deadline approach as 
compared to an earlier deadline for identifying unknown service lines. 
See section IX. of this document.

[[Page 84935]]

2. Inventory Validation Requirements
    Accurate service line inventories are essential to ensure 
replacement of all LSLs and GRR service lines. To that end, EPA is 
proposing to require water systems to validate a subset of the non-lead 
service lines in their inventory. The validation process would 
facilitate action to remedy any discrepancies that may be discovered as 
a result of the validation, and provide systems, States, and consumers 
with additional confidence in the accuracy of the inventory.
    The proposed validation requirement would test the reliability of 
any alternative sources of information, which may include investigation 
methods, approved by the State (e.g., tap sampling, modeling methods, 
etc.), as well as service lines categorized as non-lead where the water 
system has no record of the identification method or technique used for 
an individual non-lead categorization. The ``validation pool'' would 
consist of service lines identified as non-lead using methods other 
than records review or visual inspection of at least two points on the 
line. This pool would prioritize validation of these alternative 
investigation methods. EPA proposes to treat service lines based on 
visual inspections at two points as sufficient criterion to exclude 
these service lines from the proposed validation pool. As maintained in 
the proposed LCRI, the State retains the authority to determine which 
sources of information are acceptable for purposes of categorizing 
service line materials. While EPA has heard anecdotally that some 
records are not reliable, EPA is proposing that this validation 
requirement prioritize service lines investigated by other sources of 
information approved by the State. EPA notes that in cases where 
systems have good recordkeeping practices, records might be more 
accurate and reduce the need to validate service lines identified by 
alternative methods.
    EPA notes that the proposal requires water systems to submit the 
results of the inventory validation to the State. The proposal also 
includes a pathway for systems' inventories to be reviewed by the State 
to improve their accuracy. The proposed rule would require systems 
validating the non-lead categorizations of the inventory to list the 
locations of any non-lead lines identified to be a LSL or GRR service 
line as well as the method(s) used to categorize the service lines, if 
available, as a result of the assessment. Although not specifically 
stated in the proposed rule, a State could require the system to take 
action to improve inventory accuracy. However, EPA solicits any data or 
information on whether lines identified as non-lead should be subject 
to a validation process in all circumstances or in certain 
circumstances (e.g., records older than a certain number of years).
    The proposed validation process would require systems to confirm 
through visual inspection the service line material of a random sample 
of service lines from their validation pool and validate, at a minimum, 
the number of service lines necessary to achieve a 95 percent 
confidence level. Visual inspection of the pipe exterior could be 
conducted by excavation (such as potholing), viewing the service line 
material in the meter pit or stop box, or viewing the service line 
entering the building. To achieve the 95 percent confidence level, EPA 
is proposing that systems with more than 1,500 non-lead service lines 
in their validation pool check the material at a number of sites 
between 322 and 384 sites, as specified in the rule, that is dependent 
on the size of the validation pool. This range corresponds to the 
number of sites that systems would need to validate in order to achieve 
a 95 percent confidence level USEPA (2023g). EPA is also proposing that 
systems with 1,500 or fewer non-lead service lines in their validation 
pools validate at least 20 percent of lines in the pool to provide 
flexibility for systems with fewer identified non-lead service lines, 
such as smaller water systems.
    EPA is proposing to require that systems complete the validation by 
year seven of the replacement program. This timeline would allow 
systems time to develop the inventory using field investigation 
techniques and alternative sources of information approved by the State 
and would also allow three years for the water system to address 
potential issues identified by the validation process and to complete 
any remaining replacements by their replacement deadline. Where States 
have required systems to replace service lines on a shortened deadline, 
the State would also be required to set an earlier deadline for the 
validation. EPA did not propose a date for a system to begin its 
validation to provide systems with flexibility to use their experience 
to adjust their inventory evaluation techniques over time and to allow 
time for systems to adopt new field investigation techniques, such as 
those identified in the LCRR Inventory Guidance (USEPA, 2022b), or 
other new techniques that could be created. Allowing the water system 
flexibility as to when it begins its validation would allow the system 
to balance the benefits of delaying the validation to include more non-
lead service lines and increasing the validation pool to ensure a more 
accurate inventory (potentially capturing non-leads identified by more 
alternative methods that would benefit from the validation process) 
versus the time the system expects it will need to complete the 
validation and remaining replacements.
    EPA is proposing to require systems notify the State and prepare an 
updated inventory after they identify a LSL or GRR service line that 
was previously inventoried as non-lead. Systems would then comply with 
any additional actions if required by the State to address the 
inventory inaccuracy, which could include the State requiring non-lead 
service lines identified by specific records or investigation methods 
to be recategorized as unknown lines if the State determines those 
records or methods are not sufficiently accurate. The State could also 
determine that the categorization error is not reflective of a broader 
accuracy issue and not require any remedial action. This proposed 
requirement to notify the State and update the inventory would continue 
to apply even after a system completes its replacement program because 
of the potential for inventory discrepancies to be discovered at any 
time.
    EPA is also proposing that systems must offer to inspect a 
customer's service lines when the customer notifies the system that 
they suspect the inventory incorrectly categorized their service line 
material. Systems would be required to offer to inspect the customer 
service line within 60 days of receiving the notice. This proposed 
requirement provides yet another opportunity for the water system to 
assess the accuracy of its inventory to inform potential actions to 
remedy discrepancies at the individual site as well as throughout the 
distribution system more broadly.
    While EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed 
inventory validation approach, EPA is especially interested in the 
following feedback: the scope of the validation pool (i.e., which lines 
should be subject to validation); the proposed seven-year deadline to 
complete the validation; the proposed 95 percent confidence level 
approach used to develop the size of the validation pool; whether non-
lead service lines categorized based on records should be subject to 
the validation process; and the role of the State in reviewing the 
inventory including the results of the validation process. See section 
IX. of this document.

[[Page 84936]]

3. Service Line Addresses
    The LCRR requires water systems to create and maintain an inventory 
that includes the exact address associated with each service line 
connected to the public water system, but the LCRR does not require the 
publicly accessible inventory to include the specific address of LSL 
and GRR service line. Instead, systems must use a location identifier 
(e.g., street address, block, intersection, or landmark) for any LSLs 
and GRR service lines. For the LCRI, EPA is proposing to require water 
systems to include the street addresses of service lines and connectors 
in the publicly accessible inventory. By providing an address for each 
service line in the inventory, systems can increase transparency with 
their consumers about the locations and materials of service lines 
connected to their residences or other buildings they may occupy. EPA 
emphasizes that including addresses in the publicly accessible 
inventory is critical to make more people aware of their risk to lead 
in drinking water. Although the LCRR requires water systems to notify 
persons served by an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line, 
compliance with the requirements for the notice may not be sufficient 
to reach all persons at or who use that site (e.g., where the persons 
served are short-term residents in non-owner occupied buildings, 
parents and guardians of children at in-home day care facilities, 
residents of long-term care facilities). Also, this requirement would 
allow the public to better understand how the water system is 
prioritizing service line replacement in accordance with the water 
system's service line replacement plan.
    EPA heard feedback during the LCRR review that the publicly 
accessible inventory should require service line materials to be 
attributed to specific addresses to increase transparency (see docket 
no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). There are many examples of public-facing 
service line inventories that contain addresses, including: Washington, 
DC (DC Water, n.d.); Cincinnati, Ohio (Greater Cincinnati Water Works, 
n.d.); Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Milwaukee Water Works, 2023); Elgin, 
Illinois (City of Elgin, 2022); Grand Forks, North Dakota (Grand Forks, 
North Dakota, n.d.); and Memphis, Tennessee (Memphis Light, Gas, and 
Water, n.d.). Based on the many examples of public-facing service line 
inventories that include the address for each service line, EPA has 
determined for purposes of this proposal that it is feasible for water 
systems to share the location of lead, GRR, non-lead, and unknown 
service lines with the public.
4. Lead Connectors
    EPA is proposing to require water systems to include connector 
materials in the service line inventory. These proposed requirements 
would provide customers with information about an additional potential 
lead source in their drinking water, which could prompt members of the 
public to take actions to reduce the lead exposure from lead 
connectors. Inventorying connectors would also provide systems with 
additional information to consider when conducting the proposed 
distribution system and site assessments.
    EPA is proposing to require water systems to review similar records 
used to develop the LCRR initial inventories for connector materials 
and include the locations of connector materials in the proposed LCRI 
baseline inventory if they have not voluntarily done so based on 
recommendations in EPA's LCRR Inventory Guidance (USEPA, 2022b). The 
proposed LCRI would require water systems to conduct a records review 
and include connectors in their inventory by the LCRI compliance date. 
In addition to conducting this records review to identify the location 
of existing lead connectors, the proposal would also require systems to 
identify the locations of previously replaced lead connectors, if those 
records exist, and to track where lead connectors are replaced in the 
future. Tracking the locations of replaced lead connectors can provide 
additional information relevant to assess potential health risks as 
these lead connectors are a source of lead which may contribute lead to 
drinking water and downstream galvanized pipes.
    EPA considered a requirement for water systems to investigate 
connector materials not identified by the records review but determined 
not to include such a requirement in this proposed rule. EPA does not 
have data or analyses at this time that would support finding that it 
is feasible for systems to categorize connectors for which records are 
not available. To do so would require systems to excavate the connector 
to visually inspect the material. EPA is also concerned about the 
effect such a requirement would have on a water system's capacity to 
comply with the proposed requirement to remove LSLs and GRR service 
lines. Excavation efforts to search for lead connectors would draw 
funding and staffing resources from the identification and replacement 
of LSLs and GRR service lines, likely delaying elimination of these 
service lines in the system as quickly as feasible. In addition, EPA is 
also concerned that investigations of connector materials while LSLs 
and GRR service lines are still in place could be disruptive to these 
downstream service lines if they are not immediately replaced post-
investigation, which might not be possible in all cases. This 
disturbance could cause particulate lead to be introduced into drinking 
water, potentially exposing consumers. EPA solicits any supporting or 
contrary data or analysis on the feasibility of a requirement to 
affirmatively identify the material of connectors throughout the 
distribution system.

E. Corrosion Control Treatment

Purpose and Need for CCT
    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 EPA promulgated in the LCR. In the 
LCRR, Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment (OCCT) is defined as the CCT 
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 standards (Sec.  141.2). Common CCT 
methods include alkalinity and pH adjustment and the addition of 
phosphate-based corrosion inhibitors. In the LCR, 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). EPA evaluated CCT in terms of 
its ability to effectively reduce lead and copper levels in drinking 
water and its technical and economic feasibility. EPA determined that 
CCT was effective at reducing lead and copper levels at the tap (56 FR 
26483, USEPA, 1991). In addition, EPA determined that CCT has been used 
in water distribution systems for many years demonstrating its efficacy 
under field conditions and that the treatments were generally available 
for use by water systems (56 FR 26485-26486, USEPA, 1991). Further, EPA 
determined that CCT was affordable because the costs of alkalinity 
adjustment, pH adjustment, and the addition of corrosion inhibitors 
were reasonable for large water systems (56 FR 26485-26486, USEPA, 
1991). Given

[[Page 84937]]

these findings, EPA determined that CCT was feasible within the meaning 
of the current SDWA sections 1412(b)(4)(D) and 1412(b)(7) (56 FR 26485-
26486, USEPA, 1991).
Feasibility
    Based on many years of implementation of the LCR with thousands of 
water systems using corrosion control strategies, EPA has determined 
for the proposed LCRI that these treatments are still technically and 
economically feasible under the current SDWA sections 1412(b)(4)(D) and 
1412(b)(7). EPA has identified research studies that show effective CCT 
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). Also, CCT continues to be generally 
available for use by water systems. For example, an estimated 98 
percent of water systems serving more than 50,000 people currently have 
CCT (Chapter 3, Exhibit 36, USEPA, 2023b). Further, the costs of 
alkalinity adjustment, pH adjustment, and corrosion inhibitors continue 
to remain reasonable for large water systems with an estimated cost of 
$9.43 per household. Nevertheless, in section IX. of this document, EPA 
is requesting comment on CCT, and is especially interested in any data, 
analyses, and comments on proposed changes to the CCT requirements in 
the LCRI.
LCRR CCT Requirements
    Under the LCRR, medium and large systems are required to install or 
re-optimize OCCT in response to a lead or copper action level 
exceedance. Medium and large system with LSLs that exceed the lead 
action level are required to harvest lead pipes from the distribution 
system and conduct flow-through pipe rigs to evaluate options for OCCT 
or re-optimized OCCT. Large systems with CCT that exceed the lead 
practical quantification level of 0.005 mg/L may be required to re-
optimize their OCCT. Large systems without CCT that exceed the lead 
practical quantification level are required to complete steps to 
install CCT.
    Under the LCRR, in the case of a trigger level exceedance for 
systems with or without CCT, small and medium systems must recommend 
CCT (except for small systems that select other compliance 
alternatives). However, if after two six-month monitoring periods, 
there is no subsequent action level exceedance, any small and medium 
water systems without CCT are not required to conduct a subsequent 
corrosion control study. In LCRR, EPA also clarified that the continued 
operation and maintenance of OCCT and re-optimized OCCT requirements 
apply to consecutive systems, including those distributing water that 
has been treated for corrosion control by another system.
1. LCRI Proposed CCT Changes
    During the LCRI external engagements, EPA heard concerns about the 
complexity of the CCT requirements in LCRR, and the requirement for 
pipe rig/loop studies, noting that pipe loop studies are resource 
intensive and that many water systems and States do not have experience 
implementing them (USEPA, 2023j). Also, EPA heard about the uniqueness 
of each water system with respect to CCT and that CCT for each water 
system is different due to the water system's specific mix of plumbing 
materials and operations.
    Under the LCRI, EPA is proposing to eliminate the lead trigger 
level and to require systems to install or re-optimize OCCT after an 
exceedance of the new lead action level of 0.010 mg/L. Streamlining the 
rule to only use an action level reduces the complexity of the proposed 
LCRI.
    Further, the proposed LCRI would have a more rigorous tap sampling 
protocol for LSL systems. As a result of the elimination of the trigger 
level, the lower action level, and a more rigorous tap sampling 
protocol, EPA anticipates more systems could exceed the lead action 
level even when re-optimized than under the LCRR, especially in the 
early years of implementing the mandatory service line replacement 
requirements under the proposed LCRI. Thus, EPA is proposing in Sec.  
141.81(a) that systems that have re-optimized once and continuously 
meet optimal water quality parameters would not be required to re-
optimize again if there are subsequent action level exceedances, unless 
required by the State. While the lead action level is intended to be 
generally representative of effective OCCT, 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. In section V.A. of this 
document, EPA noted that single site lead level variability can occur 
due to water use patterns and physical disturbances of pipes causing 
particulate release. 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 corrosion 
control treatment options under the re-optimization process, resources 
would be better devoted to other mitigation activities rather than 
repeating the same steps.
    States will 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. EPA is also proposing that States can 
require the system to conduct additional CCT studies. EPA anticipates 
that removing sources of lead in drinking water, such as with mandatory 
service line replacement, 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 optimal water 
quality parameters, and comply with other proposed mitigation measures 
(e.g., make filters available for systems with multiple lead action 
level exceedances) to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water. EPA is 
seeking comment on if it would be more appropriate to retain the LCRR 
requirement for these systems to re-optimize again following an action 
level exceedance regardless of whether they are meeting their optimal 
water quality parameters and if so, whether the rule should allow the 
State with the authority to waive this requirement (see section IX. of 
this document).
    EPA is also proposing 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 
loop CCT study and installing the corresponding OCCT when the 
identified treatment would not be tailored for the system's long-term 
distribution system conditions without LSLs. It generally takes 
approximately five years to complete the CCT evaluation and 
installation process: 30 months to construct a pipe rig 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. If a 
system is on track to replace all its lead and GRR service lines within 
five years, the optimal treatment identified by a costly and time-
consuming pipe loop study may no longer be the optimal treatment after 
all

[[Page 84938]]

LSLs and GRR service lines are replaced. This is because the pipe loop 
studies are based on lead pipes in the water system and if all of those 
are replaced, the results of the pipe loop study would likely be no 
longer relevant. Following 100 percent service line replacement, a 
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 
the following two requirements: 1) annually replaces at least 20 
percent of their remaining service lines that require replacement (in 
accordance with the proposed Sec.  141.84(d)(6)); and 2) has no LSL, 
GRR, or unknown service lines remaining at the end of the five-year 
period. Systems would need to ensure they have access to replace all 
lead and GRR service lines in their inventories, and have identified 
all unknown service lines in their inventory. During this five-year 
period, eligible systems would still be required to meet all other rule 
requirements including public notification, public education, and if 
applicable, public education following multiple action level 
exceedances, including making filters available. Systems with CCT that 
elect this option would be required to continue operating their 
existing CCT throughout those five years.
    EPA anticipates that greater public health benefits could result 
from replacing all lead and GRR service lines within five years 
compared to implementing the requirement to install or 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 replacing lead and GRR service lines within five years rather than 
focusing on a pipe loop study with results that may no longer be 
applicable following 100 percent replacement of lead and GRR service 
lines.
    Large and medium systems unable to replace 20 percent of their LSLs 
or GRRs annually and 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 20 percent of their LSL or GRR 
service lines annually and replace 100 percent within five years would 
be required recommend OCCT, re-optimized OCCT, or for all NTNCWSs and 
the subset of CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people to recommend a small 
system compliance option and implement the State-approved approach. As 
proposed, water systems that replace 100 percent of their LSLs and GRR 
service lines in this five-year period but subsequently exceed the 
action level (or the practical quantification level for large systems 
without CCT) would be required to proceed with meeting the proposed CCT 
requirements for systems with only non-lead service lines.
    In addition, EPA is proposing changes to expedite when States can 
approve CCT re-optimization treatment changes for systems. Under the 
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. As described in section V.E.2. of this document, 
EPA is proposing to eliminate the trigger level and to lower the lead 
action level to 0.010 mg/L. Concurrently, EPA is also proposing 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 must evaluate a water system's past CCT study 
results. EPA is proposing this update because it would expedite 
treatment changes, allowing the benefits of treatment modification 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. 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. EPA is requesting comment on whether there are situations and/
or conditions where existing treatment modifications may achieve 
similar lead reductions rather than delaying the new treatment for two-
and-a-half years while a study is underway. For more information, see 
section IX. of this document.
    EPA is proposing 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 LCRR, small systems that chose CCT and 
exceed the action level are required to recommend a CCT treatment to 
the State. The State may require small systems to conduct corrosion 
studies using a pipe rig. For the LCRR, EPA recommended that small 
systems serving 10,000 people 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 studies would be 
approximately the cost of replacing 55 LSLs (USEPA, 2020b). However, as 
discussed in section V.G. of this document, EPA is proposing to remove 
the LSLR option from the small system flexibility options because LSLR 
would be mandatory under the proposed LCRI. Therefore, EPA is proposing 
under the LCRI to exclude small systems with LSLs serving 10,000 or 
fewer people from having to conduct a pipe rig study because these 
systems often lack the technical expertise required to design and 
construct and operate the pipe rig and they could better focus limited 
resources that would be dedicated to a pipe rig on replacing their 
LSLs. Under the proposed LCRI, the State may require a pipe rig study 
for a small system if the State determines that the small system has 
the technical capabilities to conduct such a study.
    In addition, EPA is proposing to require that States designate 
optimal water quality parameters for medium systems that must install 
or re-optimize OCCT after exceeding the lead action level. EPA is also 
proposing that States designate optimal water quality parameters for 
medium systems with CCT that have not exceeded the action level. While 
LCRR requires the continued operation and monitoring of OCCT and re-
optimized OCCT that can include maintaining optimal water quality 
parameters, EPA is proposing that States must establish optimal water 
quality parameters for medium systems with CCT and that these systems 
must meet their optimal water quality parameters. 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 process control since source water quality can vary 
both daily and seasonally. EPA is also proposing additional changes to 
Sec. Sec.  141.81 and 141.82 to clarify requirements that EPA is not 
intending to change. EPA anticipates that these clarifications would 
help States and water systems more easily interpret and implement the 
corrosion control treatment requirements.
    EPA is proposing to streamline some requirements in Sec.  141.80 
which resulted in EPA proposing to move an LCRR provision from Sec.  
141.81. The provision

[[Page 84939]]

remains unchanged from the LCRR, requiring 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 
implemented by the system, and allows the State to take additional 
actions to control corrosion.
2. Lead Action Level and Trigger Level
    In the LCR, water systems calculate the 90th percentile of their 
lead and copper tap samples and compare these values to the lead and 
copper action level, respectively. EPA introduced lead and copper 
action levels in the LCR ``as a method to limit the number of public 
water systems 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). EPA stated that its 
selection of the 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 the LCR, EPA set the action levels for lead and 
copper at 0.015 mg/L and 1.3 mg/L, respectively.
    Under the LCR, large systems were required to optimize CCT with a 
detailed demonstration unless they measured 90th percentile lead levels 
below the practical quantitation limit of 0.005 mg/L. Small and medium 
systems demonstrated optimized CCT by measuring 90th percentile lead 
levels at or below the action level, which is a level generally 
representative of effective corrosion control treatment. EPA found that 
using the action level as a tool to limit the need for detailed 
optimization demonstrations reduced the technical complexity of LCR for 
small and medium systems that may lack the expertise required to 
conduct such studies and made ``implementation of the rule 
administratively workable'' with regard to small and medium systems (56 
FR 26492, USEPA, 1991). Consistent with this rationale, EPA found that 
large systems should and were able to conduct a more detailed 
demonstration to identify OCCT for their system because they have ``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).
    In the LCR, EPA also determined that the action level is not 
subject to the same standard as an MCL under SDWA section 
1412(b)(4)(B). First, EPA found that the action level and an MCL have 
different purposes. Specifically, in the LCR, EPA provided that 
``exceedance of the action level(s) is merely a trigger for medium and 
small systems to implement optimal corrosion control (unless they can 
demonstrate to the State that they have already optimized corrosion 
control) and systems of all sizes to implement source water monitoring 
and possible treatment, public education, and possible lead service 
line replacement'' (56 FR 26488, USEPA, 1991). Second, EPA found that 
action levels do not function the same way as MCLs because action level 
exceedances are not violations under SDWA compared to MCLs (56 FR 
26488, USEPA, 1991). In the LCR, EPA further distinguished an MCL from 
an action level by elaborating that: ``Under the SDWA, if a water 
system exceeds an MCL, it is in violation of the NPDWR (unless it has 
obtained a variance or exemption under section 1415 or 1416). . . . 
Water systems that exceed the action levels, however, are not in 
violation of the treatment technique. . . . Since the compliance status 
of a water system depends upon whether it performs the treatment steps 
established in the rule, and not upon whether it meets the action 
levels, the action levels are not equivalent to MCLs'' (56 FR 26488, 
USEPA, 1991).
    Under LCRR, the lead and copper action levels continue to determine 
``in some cases, whether a water system must install CCT, monitor 
source water, replace LSLs, and undertake a [public education] 
program'' (86 FR 4207, USEPA, 2021a). The LCRR maintains the LCR's lead 
action level of 0.015 mg/L and introduces a lead trigger level. Under 
the LCRR, the trigger level is set at 0.010 mg/L, a ``reasonable 
level'' below the lead action level and above the practical 
quantification limit (86 FR 4208, USEPA, 2021a). If systems exceed the 
lead and/or copper action level, they must take certain actions 
including optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT, replacing LSLs, and 
educating or notifying the public. If systems exceed the lead trigger 
level, they must take proactive actions including conducting CCT 
studies, re-optimizing OCCT, conducting goal-based LSLR and related 
public education activities, and preparing for a more rapid response 
should they later exceed the lead action level.
    For the LCRI, EPA is proposing to eliminate the lead trigger level 
and lower the lead action level to 0.010 mg/L. These changes address 
priorities identified in the LCRR review and feedback EPA heard in the 
proposed LCRI external engagements. The Agency evaluated the trigger 
level with regards to the complexity, implementation issues, and public 
communication challenges associated with two lead levels, as well as in 
the context of other proposed changes in the LCRI, including proposed 
mandatory full service line replacement and proposed improvements to 
the tap sampling protocol at LSL sites, that ``address lead 
contamination at lower levels and improve sampling methods to provide 
better health protection'' (86 FR 71579, USEPA, 2021b).
    EPA anticipates that eliminating the trigger level and establishing 
a single, lowered action level would help simplify the rule and improve 
implementation. Many stakeholders recommended eliminating the trigger 
level because it would simplify both implementation and understanding 
of the rule (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j). In 2020, the 
Science Advisory Board noted that the trigger level added ``unnecessary 
complexity'' (USEPA, 2020f). However, a few stakeholders recommended 
EPA maintain the trigger level and not lower the action level by noting 
the benefit of the trigger level to prompt actions that would help a 
system avoid an action level exceedance, and the requirements 
associated with an exceedance, such as public notification (USEPA, 
2023j; USEPA, 2023m).
Evaluation of a Revised Action Level as a Screen for OCCT Demonstration 
Based on Recent, Higher-Quality Data
    EPA considered several factors when selecting its proposed lower 
lead action level of 0.010 mg/L. EPA's primary consideration was the 
finding that an action level at 0.010 mg/L is supported by past CCT 
performance data as being generally representative of OCCT. As 
generally representative of OCCT, the action level is a 90th percentile 
lead level that most systems that have installed OCCT can meet. The 
action level would still serve as a screen for small and medium systems 
such that they would not need to conduct a detailed demonstration of 
OCCT because they would be deemed to have optimized CCT based on the 
sampling results. More recent and higher quality lead data are 
available from years of LCR implementation. This allowed EPA to re-
assess which action level is generally representative of a level that 
systems with CCT can achieve. EPA conducted this analysis and found 
that the ability of systems to limit the corrosivity of water in the 
distribution system has greatly improved over the

[[Page 84940]]

past 30 years and that many systems are able to achieve lower levels of 
lead (USEPA, 2023g); therefore, a lower lead action level would be a 
more appropriate screen for determining which small and medium systems 
are required to conduct a detailed OCCT demonstration. EPA's analysis 
is summarized below.
    EPA examined 90th percentile lead levels reported to EPA's Safe 
Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) over the years 2012-2020 for 
6,529 community water systems of all sizes with known LSL and CCT 
status (i.e., whether a system contains LSL sites and whether a system 
has installed CCT) (USEPA, 2023b, Chapter 3, sections 3.3.3-3.3.4).
    Because EPA is identifying a level generally representative of 
OCCT, EPA is primarily considering data from systems that have CCT 
installed. Available lead 90th percentile data were collected using the 
tap sampling protocol and tiering criteria in the LCR. However, changes 
to the tap sampling protocol and sample site tiering criteria in the 
LCRR and the proposed LCRI are expected to impact 90th percentile lead 
levels (see section V.C. of this document). To account for differences 
in the sampling protocol under the LCR and proposed LCRI, EPA developed 
adjustment ratios using data from the State of Michigan collected with 
a similar protocol and site selection criteria to the proposed LCRI 
(USEPA, 2023b, Chapter 3, section 3.2.5). Reported 90th percentile lead 
values were multiplied with the adjustment ratios to estimate what the 
90th percentile values would be if they were collected according to the 
proposed LCRI sampling protocol. This multiplier approach, and the 
associated uncertainties, are further described in the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
    The resulting data are relevant to EPA's evaluation of what level 
is generally representative of OCCT under the proposed LCRI. Based on 
this information, EPA categorized the systems with known LSL and CCT 
status using the highest 90th percentile lead level (adjusted for the 
proposed sampling protocol) reported over the 2012 to 2020 analysis 
period to estimate the percent of the systems that would have lead 
levels at or below the potential lower action level thresholds under 
the proposed LCRI ``Analysis of reported 90th percentile values from 
2012-2020.xlsx'' in EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801). These estimates are presented 
in Exhibit 4 below by LSL and CCT status.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.016

    As shown in Exhibit 4, EPA estimates that, when accounting for the 
proposed LCRI sampling protocol, 95 percent of the evaluated non-LSL 
systems with CCT and 73 percent of LSL systems with CCT are estimated 
to be at or below the current lead action level of 0.015 mg/L. At 0.010 
mg/L, the percentage of systems at or below that threshold is 92 
percent and 59 percent, respectively. These results indicate that 
almost all non-LSL systems with CCT evaluated can meet the 0.010 mg/L 
threshold, in addition to a majority of LSL systems with CCT. EPA also 
estimates that 82 percent of the non-LSL systems would meet an action 
level of 0.005 mg/L, and only 37 percent of systems with LSLs would 
meet this level. These results suggest that 0.005 mg/L would not be 
considered generally representative of optimized conditions for systems 
with LSLs.
    In the LCR, EPA identified only a small percentage of LSL systems 
with CCT that would be able to meet the selected action level of 0.015 
mg/L. However, the data used for that analysis was from a small number 
of systems. At the time, EPA acknowledged the limitations of the 
available data noting the challenges of ``extrapolating generalized 
estimates of treatment performance . . ., which are collected from 
relatively few, like-sized systems operating under relatively favorable 
natural water quality conditions'' (56 FR 26491, USEPA, 1991). Further, 
EPA noted that the systems were not yet attempting to minimize lead 
levels (56 FR 26491, USEPA, 1991). The updated data EPA is using to re-
evaluate the selection of the lead action level for the proposed LCRI 
comprises both a larger dataset with systems of various sizes and 
contains 90th percentile lead values collected under the requirements 
of LCR, including OCCT. Therefore, this recent larger dataset is of 
higher quality for selection of the action level.
    Based on the analysis of this dataset, 0.010 mg/L is generally 
representative of OCCT and is therefore useful as a screen for the 
detailed demonstration that a system would otherwise be required to 
undertake. In addition to evaluating the CCT performance of systems to 
identify an action level that is generally representative of OCCT to 
ensure the rule is implementable for small and

[[Page 84941]]

medium systems, EPA considered additional factors in selecting 0.010 
mg/L as the proposed action level for the LCRI.
Administrative Burden
    For the proposed LCRI, EPA considered administrative burden with 
respect to a lower lead action level. EPA also considered this factor 
in the LCR, describing the action level as a tool to limit the number 
of public water systems required to complete a detailed OCCT 
demonstration. EPA further found that requiring small and medium water 
systems to install OCCT regardless of their tap levels would impose 
``an unworkable administrative burden upon States.'' (56 FR 26492, 
USEPA, 1991). This is because small and medium systems place the 
highest burden on States with respect to CCT as 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).
    For the proposed LCRI, EPA again considered the administrative 
burden on States and water systems required to install or re-optimize 
OCCT after a lead action level exceedance, as well as the 
administrative burden associated with meeting the other requirements in 
the proposed LCRI. For example, EPA is concerned about the resources 
States would need to review the detailed demonstrations for CCT, 
particularly for small and medium systems.
    Small and medium systems comprise the vast majority of CWSs: out of 
49,529 total CWSs, 48,513 serve populations equal to or less than 
50,000 people. Further, the smallest CWSs (i.e., those serving 3,300 or 
fewer people) account for 40,113 systems (USEPA, 2023b, Chapter 3, 
Exhibit 3-2). EPA identified 6,529 water systems of all sizes with 
known CCT and LSL status and reported 90th percentile values in SDWIS 
from 2012-2020. To estimate how many CWSs are likely to exceed various 
potential action levels nationally, EPA used the exceedance percentages 
among the 6,529 identified systems adjusted for the proposed LCRI 
sampling protocol, to estimate exceedances among all CWSs (USEPA, 
2023b, section 4.3.5). Exhibit 5 below shows the percent of systems 
projected to have 90th percentile lead levels exceeding 0.015 mg/L, 
0.010 mg/L, and 0.005 mg/L under the proposed LCRI.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.017

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    Systems that exceed the action level are required to take actions 
that would likely necessitate increased State oversight. Exhibit 5 
shows both the percentage of each system size category and percentage 
of total CWSs expected to exceed various potential action levels. For 
example, EPA estimates that at an action level of 0.015 mg/L, 10 
percent of all CWSs and eight percent of all systems serving 3,300 
people or fewer are expected to have exceedances. EPA estimates that at 
the potential lower action level of 0.010 mg/L, 16.5 percent of all 
CWSs are expected have exceedances, which represents approximately 
8,200 water systems. At

[[Page 84942]]

0.005 mg/L, the number of systems expected to exceed increases to 31.4 
percent or approximately 15,500 systems. Therefore, twice as many 
systems are expected to exceed 0.005 mg/L than 0.010 mg/L. At 0.005 mg/
L, between 25 percent and 45 percent of community water systems in each 
system size category are estimated to have exceedances. For example, 
24.5 percent of all community water systems serving fewer than 3,300 
people, 36.4 percent of systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 
people, and 44.2 percent of systems serving between 10,000 and 50,000 
people are expected to exceed 0.005 mg/L. Additionally, approximately 
98 percent of all CWSs are systems that serve 50,000 people or fewer; 
therefore, a majority of the systems expected to exceed the action 
level are small and medium systems.
    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 optimal water quality parameters, and reviewing optimal water 
quality parameter data (USEPA, 2023b, Chapter 4, section 4.4.1). 
Particularly for LSL systems, CCT studies can require additional time 
and technical expertise (e.g., conducting pipe rig studies) which in 
turn can require additional State oversight. As shown in Exhibit 5, EPA 
estimates a higher percentage of systems with LSLs and CCT in each size 
category to exceed any given potential action level. Thus, lowering the 
action level could affect the State's ability to provide meaningful 
input to individual systems and adequately oversee OCCT implementation 
statewide.
    Additionally, the significant State resources required to oversee 
OCCT studies and implementation could affect the State's ability to 
oversee other proposed requirements of the LCRI, including replacing 
LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible. EPA is particularly 
concerned about the potential burden on systems and States if small and 
medium systems are required to take steps to determine and implement 
OCCT when they exceed a lead action level of 0.005 mg/L. Competing 
resources among rule components could impact the ability of these small 
and medium systems to reduce lead levels through service line 
replacement, which could result in less public health protection 
overall. Specifically, if a significant number of small and medium 
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 oversee requirements for 
full lead and galvanized service line replacements, which are the most 
significant source of lead in drinking water, where present.
    Additionally, States will have an increased level of administrative 
burden due to the proposed requirements for water systems to conduct 
mandatory service line replacement (USEPA, 2023b, Chapter 4, section 
4.4.4). EPA is concerned that the combination of systems taking these 
actions and a large percentage of systems required to evaluate CCT at 
0.005 mg/L would be administratively unworkable for States. EPA is also 
concerned that setting the action level lower than 0.010 mg/L could 
impact State rule implementation and enforcement activities, 
particularly for mandatory service line replacement. Therefore, to 
inform the proposed LCRI, EPA has reasoned that the results in Exhibit 
5 support a lower action level of 0.010 mg/L. While a higher percentage 
of community water systems (16.5 percent) are expected to exceed the 
proposed lead action level of 0.010 mg/L than the current lead action 
level of 0.015 mg/L (10 percent) and would increase administrative 
burden for States, EPA believes this is a reasonable increase because 
it would require more systems to take actions that would reduce lead 
levels.
National Availability of Technical Experts
    EPA is also concerned about the number of CCT experts available 
nationally to assist water systems in designing an OCCT study and 
implementing treatment. In particular, small and medium systems are 
unlikely to have in-house experts who could design corrosion control 
studies for optimization. Further, many small and medium water systems 
currently without CCT or OCCT may not have staff with the relevant 
experience to install or optimize OCCT. Instead, these systems will 
likely have to work with State personnel to identify a treatment 
recommendation and seek support for installing and operating corrosion 
control treatment.
    Water systems can hire technical experts to provide the needed 
direction and historical experience about CCT; however, systems may 
face challenges in trying to hire from the limited pool of CCT experts 
nationally. EPA expects CCT expertise to be highly technical given that 
corrosion chemistry is complex and theoretical predictions are rarely 
sufficient to fully understand a system. For example, in a study of 
lead scales (i.e., minerals formed by CCT and accumulated on the inside 
of lead pipes to reduce lead release) formed in excavated pipes from 22 
water systems, only 9 followed model predictions, and all but two had 
at least one type of scale formed that was not predicted based on 
classical modeling approaches (Tully et al., 2019). Thus, knowledge of 
relevant chemistry alone is usually not sufficient to perform 
comprehensive CCT studies. Instead, experts typically rely on 
significant practical and learned experience to evaluate each system 
individually. This knowledge is generally gained through practical, on-
the-job experience that cannot otherwise be replicated. EPA anticipates 
systems and States may encounter challenges acquiring this technical 
expertise.
Practical Quantitation Limit
    Further, EPA notes that the lead action level could not be set 
below the lead practical quantitation limit of 0.005 mg/L, which 
represents the technological limitations of reliably measuring lead 
levels. As defined in LCRR at 40 CFR 141.2, the practical 
quantification limit is ``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.'' For the 
proposed LCRI, 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. EPA also obtained data from a company that conducts 
proficiency testing and did not find data to support lowering the 
practical quantitation limit (``Lead Drinking Water Proficiency Testing 
Data (2016-2022)'' available in the docket)). EPA also notes that while 
the minimum detection limit of lead can be as low as 0.0006 mg/L under 
certain EPA-approved methods (Diebler, 2013), the practical 
quantitation limit is set higher than the method detection limit to 
account for analytical variability, with EPA's practice being to add an 
uncertainty factor of 5-10 (53 FR 31550, USEPA, 1988). Thus, EPA finds 
the current practical quantification limit of 0.005 mg/L is consistent 
with published detection limits. Further, EPA is not aware of national-
scale data evaluating lead detection limits, or on the number or 
percentage of labs nationwide measuring lower levels. EPA is not aware 
of any additional evidence to support lowering the current lead

[[Page 84943]]

practical quantification level below 0.005 mg/L in the proposed LCRI.
Stakeholder Feedback
    During the LCRR review and LCRI engagements, EPA heard stakeholder 
support for lowering the lead action level (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; 
see docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). EPA heard stakeholder support for 
removing the lead trigger level and lowering the action level to 0.010 
mg/L (USEPA, 2023j; USEPA, 2023m). EPA heard from some States 
experienced in implementing the LCR that support lowering the action 
level to 0.010 mg/L (USEPA, 2023j). These stakeholders noted the 
consistency with the current lead trigger level and indicated that an 
action level of 0.010 mg/L would simplify the rule while aligning with 
LCRR CCT requirements associated with the trigger level. In contrast, 
other States did not support reducing the lead action level below 0.015 
mg/L without more consideration of technical and economic feasibility 
(USEPA, 2023j). Similarly, a few stakeholders indicated support for a 
lower action level if supported by data, particularly from small 
systems (USEPA, 2023m). As described above, EPA has determined that a 
lower action level is supported by data (USEPA, 2023g).
    Others recommended EPA maintain the lead action level at 0.015 mg/
L, stating that the proposed changes to the tap sampling protocol would 
make it more difficult for systems to achieve the current action level. 
They added that simultaneously changing the sampling protocol and 
lowering the action level would require an even larger number of water 
systems to take actions, and expressed concern about rule 
implementation (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j; USEPA, 
2023m).
    Some stakeholders recommended that EPA propose a revised lead 
action level of 0.005 mg/L or a level closer to the lead MCLG of 0 mg/
L, with a few indicating the level would be more protective of human 
health (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i; see docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-
0255). Further, these stakeholders believe that a lower action level 
would lead to increased public health benefits by requiring more 
systems to act. A consideration for using 0.005 mg/L as representative 
of effective CCT for small and medium systems is that it would be 
consistent with the screening level used in the LCR and LCRR and 
maintained under the proposed LCRI for large systems to be deemed to 
have OCCT based on tap sampling. A level of 0.005 mg/L is used in the 
LCR and the LCRR for this purpose because it represents the practical 
quantitation limit for lead. In section IX. of this document, EPA is 
seeking comment, data, and additional information on the anticipated 
benefits and tradeoffs, including for public health and administrative 
burden on systems and States, of requiring more small and medium 
systems to conduct a detailed OCCT demonstration and take other actions 
if they exceed the proposed action level of 0.010 mg/L or other lower 
values.
    EPA also heard stakeholder support for replacing the lead action 
level with an MCL. For the proposed LCRI, EPA re-evaluated the 
determination made in LCR and LCRR to establish a treatment technique 
rule in lieu of MCLs for lead and copper. As explained above and in the 
LCR and LCRR, the lead action level was not developed to be an MCL and 
it is not an MCL. As described in the LCR, because ``the compliance 
status of a water system depends upon whether it performs the treatment 
steps established in the rule, and not upon whether it meets the action 
levels, the action levels are not equivalent to MCLs'' (56 FR 26488, 
USEPA, 1991). For the LCRI, EPA is not proposing to revise the purpose 
of the action levels for lead and copper or make them MCLs. Therefore, 
consistent with EPA's determinations in LCR and LCRR, the action levels 
proposed for LCRI cannot be evaluated against the legal standard for an 
MCL in SDWA section 1412.
    Further, it is important to be clear that there is a difference 
between collecting individual samples for lead and copper at the tap 
for purposes of evaluating the action level to assess the effectiveness 
of corrosion control and why it is not feasible to ascertain the levels 
of lead and copper consistent within the meaning of the SDWA to 
establish MCLs in the proposed LCRI. Again, the action level is not an 
MCL. While the levels of lead and copper can be ascertained in 
individual samples, measurement of customer samples collected at taps 
to evaluate the 90th percentile lead and copper levels is not an 
accurate reflection of the levels of lead and copper within a water 
system, or the effectiveness of the treatment applied by the water 
system necessary for an MCL. For EPA's explanation of why it is not 
feasible to establish MCLs for lead and copper within the meaning of 
the SDWA, see section V.A. of this document.
    Given the foregoing factors and considerations, EPA believes that 
an action level of 0.010 mg/L would ensure the treatment technique of 
CCT is feasible for small and medium systems and would prevent known or 
anticipated adverse health effects to the extent feasible. In section 
IX. of this document, EPA is requesting comment on its proposed lead 
action level of 0.010 mg/L, as well as comment and supporting data for 
alternate lead action levels (e.g., 0.005 mg/L).
    Even though the action level was primarily developed to support the 
treatment technique for CCT, EPA is proposing to continue using the 
action level for certain provisions in treatment techniques other than 
CCT (i.e., public education and source water monitoring) for 
administrative ease and to avoid confusion by establishing multiple 
action levels. This would also reduce the complexity of the rule and is 
consistent with the rationale for a single action level described in 
the LCR (56 FR 26507-09, USEPA, 1991). EPA notes that, as proposed, the 
service line replacement treatment technique is not impacted by the 
action level because EPA is proposing mandatory service line 
replacement irrespective of lead levels. In addition, EPA is proposing 
to require certain public education actions irrespective of the action 
level. Accordingly, it is still reasonable to establish the action 
level based on an assessment of the level that is generally 
representative of effective corrosion control treatment. See section 
V.H. for information on the use of the action level for public 
education and public notification requirements.

F. Water Quality Parameter Monitoring

1. Systems Required To Monitor for Water Quality Parameters
    Water quality parameters are one component of the treatment 
technique for CCT because they are monitored to gauge CCT performance 
to ensure its effectiveness. Water quality parameters can include pH, 
alkalinity, orthophosphate, and silicate. Optimal water quality 
parameters refer to the values of the water quality parameters that are 
associated with optimized or re-optimized OCCT.
    The LCRR requires all large systems to conduct water quality 
parameter monitoring and requires all small and medium water systems 
that exceed the lead or copper action level to monitor for water 
quality parameters until they no longer exceed the lead or copper 
action level. The LCRR also requires small and medium water systems 
with CCT that exceed the lead trigger level to monitor for water 
quality parameters. Under the LCRR, small and medium water systems can 
stop water quality parameter monitoring if they meet the action level 
for two consecutive six-month monitoring periods and the State

[[Page 84944]]

has not required the system to meet optimal water quality parameters. 
The LCRR also eliminated the triennial reduced monitoring for water 
quality parameters because EPA determined that a three-year monitoring 
frequency is too infrequent to provide sufficient information to 
evaluate continued performance of OCCT (86 FR 4230, USEPA, 2021a).
    For LCRI, EPA is proposing to require all medium systems with CCT 
to monitor for water quality parameters regardless of the lead and 
copper levels, except those medium systems whose 90th percentile lead 
level is at or below 0.005 mg/L, in accordance with Sec.  141.81(b)(3). 
This proposed change would cover another size category of water systems 
and increase the number of water systems conducting water quality 
parameter monitoring. By extending this requirement to all medium water 
systems with CCT, any changes in water quality parameters could be 
evaluated more quickly to determine if re-optimizing OCCT is needed, 
therefore reducing the time it will take for medium water systems to 
evaluate and optimize CCT under the LCRI. During the LCRR and the LCRI 
external engagements, EPA heard comments addressing water quality 
parameter monitoring including a request to increase the number of 
systems and number of samples required for water quality parameter 
monitoring as this would help establish a better baseline for water 
chemistry (USEPA, 2023j, see docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). EPA is 
also proposing to clarify that any system may be required to monitor 
water quality parameters as determined by the State.
    For the LCRI, EPA is proposing that water quality parameters in 
addition to those specified in the rule can be used by water systems 
and designated by States to determine the effectiveness of CCT. This 
pathway has been in the rule prior to LCRR, but the proposed LCRI 
changes are intended to clarify the implementation of this already 
available option. Under the LCR, the State could designate values for 
additional water quality parameters determined by the State to reflect 
OCCT for a water system in the concluding paragraph to Sec.  141.82(f). 
Under the LCRR, this concluding paragraph was renumbered as Sec.  
141.82(f)(6). This flexibility was highlighted by creating its own 
distinct section (f)(6). However, matching text was not added in Sec.  
141.87. Under the proposed LCRI, the provision to require any 
additional parameters determined by the State to reflect OCCT have been 
added to the entry point and distribution system sampling in Sec.  
141.87(d). This change would enable the water system to use localized 
parameters, in addition to those required, that may aid in a more 
refined evaluation of the water chemistry specific to the water system. 
Additional parameters include free chlorine residual and/or oxidation/
reduction potential as surrogates for lead (IV) formation or other 
parameters that the systems may consider helpful in determining if a 
CCT option is effective.
    EPA is also proposing changes to the organization of Sec.  141.87 
to clarify existing requirements EPA does not intend to revise in LCRI. 
EPA anticipates that these clarifications would help State and water 
systems more easily interpret and implement the water quality parameter 
requirements.
2. Distribution System and Site Assessment
    In the LCRR, ``find-and-fix'' was introduced as a provision to 
potentially identify the cause of localized elevated lead levels in 
drinking water, which could facilitate actions to address the cause. 
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 LCRR requires water systems to collect 
follow-up samples no more than 30 days after they receive the results 
of the sample that exceeds 0.015 mg/L. Water systems must also attempt 
to determine the cause of the exceedance and propose an action or a 
``fix'' and the State has six months to approve the recommended action 
or require an alternative action.
    For the LCRI, EPA is proposing to maintain the requirement for 
systems to collect follow-up tap samples at sites with elevated lead 
levels. Recognizing that the ``fix'' to address the exceedance may be 
outside of the control of the water system, EPA is proposing in the 
LCRI to rename this section to ``distribution system and site 
assessment'' to reflect the requirements of this section more 
precisely. Consistent with the proposed change to the lead action 
level, under the proposed LCRI, systems would conduct the distribution 
system and site assessment requirements for any sampling site that 
exceeds 0.010 mg/L. EPA has heard concerns that the term ``find-and-
fix'' is an inaccurate title for this section and should be changed as 
it implies the water system will implement the ``fix'' in all cases 
(USEPA, 2023j). For example, one stakeholder indicated that identified 
cause of the lead level could be a premise plumbing issue that the 
water system may not be authorized to ``fix''.
    In addition, EPA is proposing a clarification in the CCT assessment 
under Step 1 that the distribution system water quality parameter 
sample location be within a half-mile radius of each site with a result 
above 0.010 mg/L.

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

LCRR Small System Flexibility Options
    The LCRR introduced provisions for small CWSs serving 10,000 people 
or fewer and all NTNCWSs to provide greater flexibility to comply with 
the rule requirements. Under the LCRR, systems that exceed the lead 
trigger level, but not the lead action level, must select one of four 
options for approval by the State and implement that option if it 
subsequently exceeds the lead action level. The four options are:
     Install and maintain OCCT,
     Replace all LSLs within 15 years,
     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 for the LCRR are not required to adopt the 
small system compliance flexibility provision in the LCRR. Instead, 
they could adopt State regulations that require small systems to 
continue to comply with the CCT and LSLR requirements of the rule. This 
is because section 1414(e) of SDWA specifies that nothing in the Act 
``shall diminish any authority of a State or political subdivision to 
adopt or enforce any law or regulation respecting drinking water 
regulations or public water systems'' as long as such law or regulation 
does not ``relieve any person of any requirement otherwise applicable'' 
under SDWA. See also 40 CFR 142.4.
Stakeholder Feedback
    Some stakeholders indicated support for the small system 
flexibility provisions during the LCRR engagements and LCRI external 
consultations because they offered possible cost-effective options for 
managing lead (USEPA, 2023j; USEPA, 2023m). Some stakeholders expressed 
concern that the provisions may result in lower health protection for 
small systems because they may choose either LSLR or one of the other 
three options (e.g., CCT), while medium and large systems must 
implement both LSLR and CCT. Other stakeholders asserted that

[[Page 84945]]

the small system flexibility provision violated the anti-backsliding 
provision of SDWA by allowing water systems to opt out of LSLR and/or 
OCCT requirements that were applicable to those systems under the LCR 
(see docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). Some States indicated they did 
not support a standalone LSLR option for small systems, and some stated 
that States should be allowed to not offer specific options (e.g., 
point-of-use devices) or to limit their use, and some raised concerns 
over providing point-of-use devices indefinitely (USEPA, 2023j).
Purpose of Flexibility
    The Agency recognizes that it is often difficult for small systems 
to find operators that have the advanced skills to implement and 
maintain CCT. Additionally, small systems may face challenges retaining 
those operators once they have acquired those advanced skills. Because 
CCT is an ongoing process and finding and retaining skilled operators 
can be especially challenging for very small systems, point-of-use 
filtration and plumbing replacement options may be better options for 
some systems. EPA also notes that operator turnover or poor oversight 
of CCT can reduce the effectiveness of the system's ability to prevent 
lead corrosion, even resulting in increases of lead in the water 
(USEPA, 2016c). EPA also notes that, while CCT is an affordable 
compliance technology, there are several reasons (e.g., practicality, 
cost, complexity, and availability of trained staff) why an individual 
system may face challenges in implementing CCT. EPA believes that 
point-of-use devices and plumbing replacements for small systems are 
effective compliance technologies in addition to CCT and systems should 
therefore be able to select the most appropriate compliance technology 
to reduce the lead risks to their consumers.
LCRI Proposed Small System Flexibility
    Remove LSLR as a standalone compliance option as an alternative for 
OCCT. In the LCRI, EPA is proposing mandatory service line replacement 
for all systems including small systems (see section V.B.). Thus, EPA 
is proposing to remove LSLR as a standalone compliance option for small 
systems that exceed the action level and retain two compliance options 
as an alternative for OCCT, point-of-use installation and maintenance 
and lead-bearing plumbing replacement. These alternatives to the OCCT 
requirements are as effective at preventing known or anticipated 
adverse health effects as OCCT. Section 1412(B)(E)(iii) of SDWA 
requires that EPA identify affordable compliance technologies for all 
categories of small systems and, if none are available, identify 
variance technologies for compliance in accordance with SDWA section 
1412(b)(15). EPA has determined that CCT is an affordable compliance 
technology for all categories of small systems in accordance with SDWA 
section 1412(b)(E)(iii) (USEPA, 1998a). Therefore, small system 
variance technologies remain unavailable for this rule (see section 
IV.D.). However, EPA added the small system flexibility provision in 
LCRR because the Agency recognized that ``small systems tend to have 
more limited technical, financial, and managerial capacity to implement 
complex treatment techniques'' (86 FR 4219, USEPA, 2021a).
    Proposed change in flexibility eligibility. Under the LCRI, EPA is 
also proposing to change the small system flexibility eligibility 
threshold to CWSs serving 3,300 people or fewer and all NTNCWSs. The 
proposal's economic analysis estimates 5,188 active CWSs that serve 
populations between 3,301 and 10,000 people (USEPA, 2023b). For 
purposes of this proposal, EPA has determined that the CCT requirements 
are feasible for all size systems. However, for the smallest systems--
CWSs serving 3,300 persons or fewer--and all NTNCWSs, EPA proposes to 
determine that allowing these systems to install point-of-use devices 
or conduct lead-bearing plumbing replacements is consistent with 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 1412(b)(7)(A)) because these treatment techniques are 
as effective at lead risk reduction for this category of systems as 
OCCT. In contrast, because the point-of-use or plumbing replacement 
compliance options are not as readily or easily implemented by systems 
that serve more than 3,300 persons due to the numbers of households 
that they serve, a systemwide point-of-use filtration or plumbing 
replacement program that meets the requirements of the proposed 
compliance options is unlikely to be as effective as OCCT. EPA is 
proposing to maintain the LCRR requirements for the point-of-use option 
flexibility, which would require water systems to install and maintain 
a point-of-use device in every household and at every tap used for 
cooking and/or drinking. This includes monitoring one-third of all the 
installed devices per year. For example, a system serving 3,301 people 
that installs faucet-mount carbon point-of-use units, would have to 
change filter cartridges in more than 1,000 homes three to four times 
per year per household. The system would also be required to sample 
over 300 point-of-use units per year and perform corrective actions for 
any samples exceeding 0.010 mg/L. For each filter maintenance and 
sampling event, the system would have to coordinate with the consumer 
to schedule an appointment to enter the household. For those systems 
which serve greater than 3,300 persons, the significant number of 
household visits presents additional logistical challenges that could 
impede the system's ability to comply with the proposed requirements. 
EPA is proposing to maintain the LCRR requirements for the replacement 
of lead bearing plumbing materials flexibility, which would require 
water systems that have control over all plumbing in its buildings to 
replace all lead bearing plumbing. It is highly unlikely that systems 
serving more than 3,300 have access to every residence and building it 
serves or that the water system has the authority to inspect and 
require replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing materials in these 
locations.
    EPA views the proposed small system compliance options as 
impractical for systems serving more than 3,300 persons and is 
concerned that the option will not be effectively implemented as an 
alternative to OCCT as system size increases. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to remove the point-of-use device and premise plumbing 
compliance options for CWSs serving greater than 3,300 persons. EPA has 
determined that, although small systems serving between 3,301 and 
10,000 persons have greater technical, managerial, and financial 
capacity compared to even smaller systems, they may still face 
challenges in simultaneously implementing multiple treatment technique 
actions including CCT and the proposed mandatory service line 
replacement provisions in the LCRI. As described in section V.E.1., EPA 
is also proposing a provision to allow systems of any size with LSLs to 
defer action on CCT after a lead action level exceedance or other 
triggering event if the system conducts full service line replacement 
within five years. EPA anticipates that this flexibility would be used 
by smaller systems with technical, managerial, and financial challenges 
that are triggered into OCCT requirements while conducting service line 
replacement, thereby reducing the number of systems serving between 
3,301 and 10,000 people that would

[[Page 84946]]

have to simultaneously install OCCT and conduct service line 
replacement.
    During the LCRR engagements and LCRI external engagements, some 
stakeholders requested that EPA reduce the eligibility threshold. For 
example, some States indicated that systems with more than 1,000 
connections are unlikely to be able to implement the point-of-use 
flexibility (USEPA, 2023j). Systems with more than 1,000 connections 
will have a service population towards the upper end of the 501 to 
3,300 size category, which is the proposed threshold for the point-of-
use flexibility. Other States indicated that only an even smaller 
system size, those with 50 to 100 connections, would be likely to 
implement the point-of-use flexibility (USEPA, 2023j). EPA agrees that 
smaller water systems are more likely to find that the point-of-use 
device and plumbing replacement options are more practicable techniques 
for reducing lead exposure. However, EPA believes that some systems 
serving between 250 people (approximately 100 connections) and 3,300 
people may find these approaches feasible and believes it is 
appropriate to provide these options for systems to consider and 
implement with State approval.
    While some stakeholders have asked the Agency to retain point-of-
use device installation or replacement of all lead-bearing plumbing 
flexibilities for larger small systems, EPA expects that these systems 
may not be able to effectively implement these flexibilities. EPA is 
requesting comment, however, on whether the Agency should maintain the 
small system flexibility for CWSs serving 10,000 persons or fewer (see 
section IX. of this document). EPA notes that the Agency is proposing 
to retain eligibility for all NTNCWSs given that these systems are more 
likely to have control over premise plumbing and are more likely to be 
able to implement the point-of-use filtration and plumbing replacement 
options regardless of population served.
    Point-of-use devices, such as reverse osmosis treatment systems, 
could provide flexibilities to control other contaminants in addition 
to lead as these technologies are often certified to remove multiple 
drinking water contaminants. Selecting these technologies could provide 
small water systems with the flexibility to achieve compliance with 
other drinking water standards. EPA is requesting comment on the 
ability and practicality of point-of-use devices to address multiple 
contaminants.
    Consolidate flexibility provisions. EPA is proposing to consolidate 
the small system flexibility provisions in Sec.  141.93 and remove 
cross-references to Sec.  141.93 in other rule sections. This approach 
comports with EPA's goal in the LCRR review notice of simplifying the 
rule and streamlining rule requirements. It also recognizes that States 
may choose to adopt standards that are more stringent than Federal 
standards. If a State elects to not adopt the small system 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. For States that elect not to 
adopt the small system flexibility provision, small systems would be 
subject to the CCT requirements in Sec. Sec.  141.81 and 141.82. The 
provisions in Sec.  141.93 are distinct and unnecessary for States to 
adopt in order to maintain primacy.

H. Public Education

LCRR Requirements
    Public education has been, and remains, a cornerstone treatment 
technique to reduce risks from exposure to lead in drinking water. The 
LCRR includes several public education requirements for water systems 
to inform consumers about lead in drinking water and steps to reduce 
their risk of exposure. These requirements 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 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 take 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'' 
(referred to as distribution system and site assessment in the proposed 
activities). 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.
Proposed LCRI Requirements
    For the proposed LCRI, EPA is retaining the overall framework of 
the public education provision in the LCRR, which requires water 
systems to educate consumers about the risks of lead in drinking water 
and ways to reduce their risk. EPA is proposing changes to strengthen 
the public education requirements 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. EPA is also proposing new public 
education requirements for copper. These changes are described below.
1. Feasibility of Public Education Requirements
    Public education is one of the treatment technique requirements EPA 
promulgated in the LCR, in addition to LSLR, CCT, and source water 
treatment. Section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA authorizes EPA to promulgate a 
regulation that requires the use of a treatment technique in lieu of an 
MCL if it is not economically or technologically feasible to ascertain 
the level of the contaminant. In such a rule, the statute requires the 
Administrator 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). Public education provides the community with 
information on ways to reduce their exposure to lead in their drinking 
water and thereby can prevent adverse health effects associated with 
exposure to lead in drinking water.
    EPA is proposing revisions in the LCRI to strengthen the public 
education requirements to increase public health protection. EPA has 
determined that the public education treatment technique is feasible 
and prevents known or anticipated adverse health effects ``to the 
extent feasible'' (USEPA, 2023b). Public education, among other things, 
empowers people to make informed decisions about taking actions to 
reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water and thereby reduce 
their risk of adverse health effects. In the final LCR preamble, EPA 
found that public education is an effective means of

[[Page 84947]]

preventing adverse health effects and determined that public education 
is feasible under sections 1412(b)(7)(A) and 1412(b)(5) of SDWA (56 FR 
26500, USEPA, 1991). Since the LCR in 1991, water systems have 
demonstrated their ability to provide public education materials and 
public notification to consumers. Specifically, since the LCR, EPA has 
required water systems to conduct various lead public education 
activities, including delivering public education materials to 
customers and organizations that serve pregnant people, infants, and 
young children (e.g., public schools, pediatricians, and Women, 
Infants, and Children programs), within 60 days after the end of the 
tap sampling period in which a systemwide lead action level exceedance 
occurs (56 FR 26555, USEPA, 1991). In 2007, EPA updated the LCR to 
require systems to conduct additional outreach activities after a 
system-wide lead action level exceedance (72 FR 57792, USEPA, 2007a), 
as well as to require delivery of lead tap sampling results to 
consumers whose taps were sampled as part of the system's monitoring 
program (72 FR 57789, USEPA, 2007a).
    In section IX. of this document, EPA is requesting comment on this 
proposed feasibility determination, and is especially interested in any 
data, analyses, and comments on proposed changes to the public 
education requirements in the LCRI. In particular, EPA is requesting 
data, analyses, and comments on the feasibility of requiring systems to 
deliver all consumer notices of lead or copper tap sampling results 
within three days, regardless of whether the results exceed the lead or 
copper action level (see section V.H.3.). EPA is also seeking data, 
analyses, and comment on whether the proposed supplemental monitoring 
and notification requirement for water systems to offer lead sampling 
to customers with LSLs, GRR service lines, or unknown service lines is 
effective at reducing adverse health effects and whether it is feasible 
for water systems to provide the sampling results three days after the 
system learns of the results (see section V.H.4.). In addition, EPA is 
seeking any data, analyses, and comments on whether it is feasible for 
water systems to conduct the public education activities under Sec.  
141.85(b)(2) in a shorter time frame than 60 days after the end of the 
tap sampling period in which a system-wide lead action level exceedance 
occurs. EPA is proposing several changes that would streamline public 
education requirements and make it easier for States to track systems' 
compliance with these requirements, including requiring all consumer 
notices of lead or copper tap sampling results to be delivered in the 
same time frame, allowing systems to combine lead and copper notices of 
tap sampling results, requiring public education to be repeated with 
the same frequency after every lead action level exceedance, and 
allowing systems to combine required outreach activities to meet some 
of the proposed public education requirements. EPA is also requesting 
comment on additional ways to streamline public education and 
associated certification requirements (e.g., combine deadlines for 
systems to conduct public education or submit information to the State) 
(see section IX. of this document).
2. Service Line Related Outreach
Required Public Education if Not Achieving Mandatory Service Line 
Replacement Rate
    The LCRR requires water systems that have LSLs and exceed the lead 
trigger level to conduct public education activities including outreach 
to consumers about goal-based LSLR and when a system fails to meet the 
LSLR goal rate. Because EPA is proposing to eliminate goal-based LSLR 
requirements and require all water systems to replace their LSLs and 
GRR service lines (see section V.B. of this document), EPA is proposing 
to remove the current public education requirements related to goal-
based LSLR outreach, including public education about the system's 
goal-based LSLR program when systems exceed the lead trigger level 
(Sec.  141.85(g) of the LCRR) and public outreach activities if a 
system exceeding the trigger level fails to meet the LSLR goal rate 
(Sec.  141.85(h) of the LCRR) and replace them with new public 
education requirements.
    EPA is proposing in the LCRI to require outreach activities for 
systems that fail to meet the mandatory service line replacement rate. 
Systems that fail to meet the proposed LCRI's average annual 
replacement rate would be required to conduct the same kinds of 
outreach activities as the LCRR requires for systems that fail to meet 
their goal LSLR rate. EPA is proposing that under the LCRI, systems 
would be required to conduct the 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 LSLs, GRR service lines, or 
unknown service lines remaining in the inventory, whichever occurs 
first. Systems serving more than 3,300 persons would be required to 
conduct at least one of the following activities, at least once in the 
following year and annually thereafter until the system meets the 
replacement rate or until there are no LSLs, GRR service lines, or 
unknown service lines, to discuss their service line replacement 
program and opportunities for replacement and to distribute public 
education materials:
     Conduct a townhall meeting;
     Participate in a community event to provide information 
about the service line replacement program;
     Contact customers by phone, 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, systems serving more than 3,300 persons would be 
required to conduct at least two of the following activities:
     Send certified mail to customers and persons served by 
LSLs or GRR service lines;
     Conduct a social media campaign;
     Conduct outreach via the media including newspaper, 
television or radio;
     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.
    Systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer would be required to conduct 
at least one activity from either set of options.
    Under the proposed LCRI, water systems with LSLs, GRR service 
lines, or unknown service lines would 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 Consumer 
Confidence Report. EPA is proposing this requirement for additional 
outreach by systems that fail to meet the mandatory service line 
replacement rate to further help systems increase customer 
participation rates. AWWA's 2022 Lead Communications Guide and Toolkit 
notes the importance of regular outreach and providing multiple 
notifications to encourage customer participation in LSLR, including 
using postcards, letters, phone calls, text messages, and door hangers 
to provide public education materials to consumers (AWWA, 2022). Many 
of the activities EPA is proposing in the LCRI are consistent with 
recommendations from

[[Page 84948]]

AWWA (AWWA, 2022) and the LSLR Collaborative, a group of national 
organizations representing various sectors including public health, 
water utility, environmental, labor, consumer, and housing, which 
provides recommendations and examples of LSLR outreach as part of its 
efforts to accelerate voluntary LSLR in communities across the United 
States (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.c). For example, some of the options 
EPA is proposing include contacting customers by phone, text message, 
email, or door hanger. In addition, some of EPA's proposed options for 
outreach include participating in a community event and visiting 
customers; both AWWA and the LSLR Collaborative have previously 
recommended direct customer and/or consumer contact and partnering with 
community-based organizations as particularly effective methods of 
communicating about LSLR (AWWA, 2022; LSLR Collaborative, n.d.d). 
During the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) 
consultation for the proposed LCRI, stakeholders also described the 
importance of engaging with community members and community groups to 
provide public education (USEPA, 2023l). Clean Water Fund's work with 
the Department of Public Works in Chelsea, MA provides an example of 
how community partnerships have been an effective way to increase 
public awareness and trust to support LSLR efforts (LSLR Collaborative, 
n.d.e). Clean Water Fund partnered with a community-based organization 
called Chelsea GreenRoots to organize LSLR public information sessions 
and train community members to conduct door-to-door outreach, including 
providing translated materials for consumers with limited English 
proficiency (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.e). Community outreach in Detroit, 
Michigan has also shown how effective public education and community 
engagement can be to achieve high levels of customer participation in 
LSLR. Detroit Water and Sewerage Department achieved 100 percent 
compliance with homeowners to replace full LSLs which the City of 
Detroit attributed primarily to a comprehensive community outreach 
effort, including hand delivery of informational materials about the 
LSLR program to homes and holding community meetings ahead of LSLR 
(City of Detroit, 2023).
    While some forms of outreach such as written letters and 
communicating through news media or social media are also important 
elements of effective public education about drinking water (Bradford 
et al., 2017), they may not be effective modes of communication on 
their own (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.d); therefore, EPA is proposing to 
require water systems serving more than 3,300 persons to conduct at 
least two of those kinds of activities for more effective public 
education. During the Small Business Advocacy Review for the proposed 
LCRI, EPA received feedback that face-to-face contact is particularly 
effective for engaging smaller communities, especially those with a 
higher percentage of older adults (USEPA, 2023m). EPA is proposing a 
variety of activities for systems to choose from so that they can 
tailor the outreach to the community they serve. EPA is requesting 
comment on whether the types of activities proposed are feasible and 
appropriate and whether other activities should be considered (see 
section IX. of this document).
Notification of Service Line Material
    The LCRR requires water systems with LSLs, GRR service lines, or 
unknown service lines in in their inventory to notify consumers if they 
are served by one of these service lines. EPA is proposing to clarify 
these requirements in several ways. First, EPA is proposing requiring 
the same notification content requirements for both LSLs and GRR 
service lines since both increase the risk of exposure to lead. In 
addition, all notices (LSLs, GRR service lines, and unknown service 
lines) would be required to include steps consumers can take to reduce 
exposure to lead in drinking water. These notices would be required to 
meet the requirements of Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(iv) which contains proposed 
content updates, including information about using a filter certified 
to reduce lead. During development of the proposed LCRI, EPA heard 
concerns that it is possible for service line material to be 
incorrectly identified by the water system as non-lead. Therefore, EPA 
is proposing to require that the public education materials 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 non-lead in the inventory but is actually lead). EPA is 
proposing that water systems 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 (see section 
V.D. of this document). In addition, to help ensure that customers are 
aware of EPA's proposed requirement in Sec.  141.85(c) that water 
systems must offer to sample the tap of any customer served by an LSL, 
GRR service line, or unknown service line who requests it (see section 
V.H.4. of this document), EPA is proposing that the notice include a 
statement about this requirement. EPA is requesting comment in section 
IX. of this document on whether the Agency should also require systems 
to notify consumers if they are served by a lead connector (see section 
V.D.4. of this document for information on proposed inventory 
requirements on lead connectors).
Notification of a Service Line Disturbance
    The LCRR requires water systems that cause a disturbance to an LSL, 
GRR service line, or unknown service line to notify persons at the 
service connection and provide them with information to reduce their 
exposure to potentially elevated lead levels that could result from the 
disturbance. This can include disturbances resulting in the water to an 
individual service line being shut off or bypassed, such as operating a 
valve on a service line or meter setter. In this situation, water 
systems are also required to provide persons at the service connection 
with instructions for a flushing procedure to remove particulate lead. 
EPA is proposing revising this requirement to also include significant 
disturbances due to inventorying efforts, such as potholing, to conform 
with the recommendations in the LCRR inventory guidance (USEPA, 2022b). 
Disturbances requiring notification under the LCRR can also result from 
the replacement of an inline water meter, a water meter setter, or 
gooseneck, pigtail, or connector. In this case, water systems are also 
required to provide persons at the service connection with pitcher 
filters or point-of-use devices certified by an ANSI accredited 
certifier to reduce lead, along with instructions and filter 
replacement cartridges. EPA is proposing to maintain the requirement 
for water systems to provide pitcher filters or point-of-use devices 
and filter replacement cartridges to last six months as a result of 
these disturbances (see section V.B.6. of this document). During the 
Federalism consultation, EPA received feedback to reconsider the 
requirement for water systems to provide pitcher filters and 
replacement cartridges during some disturbances, such as those caused 
by water meter replacement, and for disturbances affecting unknown 
service lines (USEPA, 2023j). While water systems are required to 
notify consumers of disturbances resulting from water main replacement 
under these proposed requirements, EPA is also requesting comment on 
whether to require distribution of filters for this

[[Page 84949]]

type of disturbance (see section IX. of this document).
    Disturbances caused by partial or full service line replacement 
would require notification and mitigation; however, these requirements 
are under the service line inventory and replacement section of the 
rule (see section V.B.6. of this document).
    EPA anticipates the various proposed requirements for service line 
related outreach and public education will encourage water systems to 
replace all their LSLs and GRR service lines and identify unknown 
service lines in ten years or less. Water systems with LSLs, GRR 
service lines, and unknown service lines are proposed to conduct annual 
notification of LSL, GRR service line, or Unknown service line; 
notification of disturbances to LSL, GRR service line, or Unknown 
service line (including provision of pitcher filters or point-of-use 
devices for certain disturbances); outreach activities when systems 
fail to meet the mandatory replacement rate; sampling the tap of any 
customer served by an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line 
who requests it and notification of results within three days; and 
including information about LSLs, GRR service lines, and unknown 
service lines in public education after a lead action level exceedance 
(see section V.H.4. of this document) and in the annual Consumer 
Confidence Report (see section V.L.1. of this document). Water systems 
serving a large proportion of consumers with limited English 
proficiency would also be required to provide translations of these 
notices or translation support (see section V.H.5. of this document). 
Engaging with and informing consumers, property owners, and the 
community about the risks of LSLs and GRR service lines and 
opportunities for their replacement is expected to encourage 
participation in service line replacement programs. In addition, the 
proposed public education requirements would also serve as an incentive 
for water systems to remove LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as 
possible. This is because systems that remove all their LSLs and GRR 
service lines and identify unknown service lines would have a reduced 
implementation burden by not having to conduct these proposed public 
education and outreach requirements. EPA is requesting comment on to 
require additional public education requirements to further encourage 
swift service line replacement faster than the 10-year replacement 
deadline. For example, should water systems that have LSLs, GRR service 
lines, or unknown service lines five years after the compliance date 
for the LCRI be required to increase the frequency of the notification 
of service line materials from annual to once every six months? (See 
section IX. of this document).
3. Individual Notification of Tap Sample Results
Lead
    Under Sec.  141.85(d) of the LCRR, water systems are required to 
provide consumer notice of an individual's lead tap sampling results 
from monitoring under Sec.  141.86. For samples that do not exceed 
0.015 mg/L (the LCRR lead action level), water systems must provide the 
notice to persons served at the tap as soon as practicable but no later 
than 30 days after the water system learns of the results. The notice 
must be provided by mail or by another method approved by the State. 
For samples that exceed 0.015 mg/L, water systems are required to 
provide consumer notice no later than three days after learning of the 
results; the notice must be provided electronically or by phone, hand 
delivery, by mail, or another method approved by the State.
    LCRI proposal. EPA is proposing to require all consumer notices of 
lead tap sampling results to be delivered within the same time frame of 
three calendar days after the system learns of the results, regardless 
of whether the results exceed the lead action level. Based on public 
comments the Agency received on the proposed LCRR and on the fact that 
water systems have a long history of demonstrated ability to provide 
consumer notices within an even shorter time frame of 24 hours in other 
contexts, water systems should be capable of providing these consumer 
notices no later than three days after the water system learns of the 
results. This three-day time frame allows water systems time to review 
results and accommodates circumstances such as staffing shortages or 
holidays (USEPA, 2020b). EPA heard many stakeholders request more 
proactive and accessible communication about lead in drinking water 
during the proposed LCRI external engagements. Stakeholders also 
expressed concern that the lead action level is inappropriately 
interpreted to be a health-based level. The proposed action level is 
not a health-based level, and EPA agrees that households that 
participate in tap sampling programs should be made aware of any levels 
of lead found in the samples collected from their taps. EPA's proposed 
delivery within three days allows all consumers whose taps were sampled 
for lead to quickly be 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. EPA is proposing 
a variety of delivery options 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-day time frame. These are the same delivery options that 
the LCRR requires for water systems to deliver results that exceed the 
action level within three days; however, EPA is proposing that 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. Written follow-up 
would allow greater information accessibility and would allow consumers 
to keep a copy of their results, 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. EPA acknowledges that the proposed 
requirements for water systems to deliver all notices of individual tap 
sampling results for lead regardless of concentration within three days 
would increase the number of notices that water systems would be 
required to provide in a short time frame. EPA is requesting comment on 
its proposed determination that water systems are capable of providing 
all consumer notices of individual tap sampling results within three 
calendar days, or if a longer time frame is appropriate (e.g., three 
business days, seven calendar days, etc.) (see section IX. of this 
document).
Copper
    Under the LCRR, water systems are not required to provide customers 
with their copper tap sampling results from monitoring under Sec.  
141.86, only lead. EPA is proposing to require water systems to provide 
consumer notice of an individual's copper tap sampling results. EPA is 
proposing this new requirement in response to comments during the LCRI 
consultation and LCRR review engagements where stakeholders requested 
public education in response to higher copper levels (USEPA, 2023h; 
USEPA, 2023i; see written comments and summaries of LCRR engagements, 
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255).

[[Page 84950]]

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 
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 utility. The notice must 
also provide the MCLG and the action level for copper, both of which 
are 1.3 mg/L, and the definitions for these two terms from Sec.  
141.153(c). In cases where copper samples are collected at the same 
time as lead, EPA is proposing to allow systems to combine the lead and 
copper results and required information into a single notice. EPA 
expects that this will simplify implementation by allowing systems to 
deliver both the lead and copper results and associated required 
information at the same time. EPA acknowledges that the proposed 
requirements for water systems to deliver all notices of individual tap 
sampling results for lead and copper regardless of concentration within 
three days would increase the number of notices that water systems 
would be required to provide in a short time frame. EPA is requesting 
comment on its proposed determination that water systems are capable of 
providing all consumer notices of individual tap sampling results 
within three calendar days, or if a longer time frame is appropriate 
(e.g., three business days, seven calendar days, etc.) (see section IX. 
of this document).
4. Other Public Education Materials
Supplemental Monitoring and Notification Requirements
    Under the LCRR, systems are required to offer to sample the tap 
water for lead for any customer who requests it when there is a 
systemwide lead action level exceedance. EPA is proposing to also 
require systems to offer to sample the tap water for lead for any 
customer served by an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line 
regardless of lead levels calculated based on compliance monitoring. 
The LCRR does not specify a sampling protocol for customer-requested 
sampling. EPA is proposing to maintain flexibility for water systems to 
determine the sampling protocol for this supplemental monitoring. For 
sites with an LSL or GRR service line, the sampling would be required 
to 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). Since LSLs and GRR service lines can increase 
the risk of exposure to lead in drinking water, 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. EPA is also proposing to require the system to 
notify consumers of the results of this tap sampling so they are 
informed and can decide to take any needed steps to reduce their 
exposure to lead in their drinking water.
    EPA is also proposing to require systems to provide consumers 
supplemental monitoring results within three days of the system 
learning of the results. Under the LCRR (Sec.  141.85(c)), systems were 
only required to notify customers of their results from samples 
collected under Sec.  141.86 in three days if the sample exceeded the 
lead action level, while samples below the lead action level could be 
sent within 30 days. This proposed requirement is consistent with 
feedback EPA heard throughout the LCRR review and LCRI engagements. EPA 
heard requests for more proactive public education requirements, given 
there is no known safe level of lead in drinking water and because the 
lead action level is not health-based. EPA acknowledges that the 
proposed requirements for water systems to deliver all notices of 
individual lead tap sampling results from monitoring under Sec.  141.86 
and from supplemental monitoring under Sec.  141.85(c) within three 
days would increase the number of notices that water systems would be 
required to provide in a short time frame. EPA is requesting comment on 
the proposed requirement and the feasibility of providing these results 
in three calendar days, or if a longer time frame is appropriate (e.g., 
three business days, seven calendar days, etc.) (see section IX. of 
this document).
Public Education After a Lead Action Level Exceedance
    Under the LCRR, systems that exceed the lead action level must 
deliver public education materials to their customers, public health 
agencies, and organizations that serve pregnant people and children. 
The information about the lead action level exceedance must be included 
in customers' water bills. Public education materials about the action 
level exceedance must also be posted online. Systems must submit press 
releases to media outlets and conduct activities such as public service 
announcements, host a public meeting, or conduct targeted customer 
contact. Under the LCRR, water systems that exceed the lead action 
level must conduct the public education activities under Sec.  
141.85(b)(2) no later than 60 days after the tap sampling period in 
which the exceedance occurred. If the water system exceeds the action 
level again in the next tap sampling period (i.e., the water system has 
consecutive lead action level exceedances), then the rule allows 
systems up to 12 months to conduct the public education requirements.
    Time frames for delivering public education. EPA is proposing that 
systems must always conduct the public education activities under Sec.  
141.85(b)(2) within 60 days of the end of the tap sampling period in 
which the exceedance occurred (e.g., 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), regardless of whether the lead action level 
exceedance was consecutive. 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, which assures consumers receive information in a timely 
manner so that they can take actions to reduce their lead exposure 
risks. Under the LCRR, water systems may discontinue this public 
education when they no longer exceed the lead action level. EPA has 
heard concerns that water systems may discontinue public education 
after calculating a 90th percentile level at or below the lead action 
level based on fewer than the minimum number of samples required under 
Sec.  141.86. Therefore, EPA is proposing a revision to clarify that 
the calculated 90th percentile level at or below the lead action level 
must be based on the minimum number of required samples under Sec.  
141.86 in order for the system to be able to discontinue public 
education (see section V.C.3. of this document). EPA is proposing that 
public education following a lead action level exceedance be sent 
within 60 days of the end of the tap sampling period for every lead 
action level exceedance. During the LCRI consultations, many 
stakeholders expressed concerns that a lower lead action level would 
result in more action level exceedances and increase public education 
in response to these lead action level exceedances as a result. 
Providing public education within 60 days of the end of the tap 
sampling period should be feasible for most water

[[Page 84951]]

systems (72 FR 57794, USEPA, 2007a). In the LCRR review engagements, 
some commenters requested that EPA shorten this period so that public 
education is required either 30 or 60 days after the system receives 
the results, rather than 60 days after the end of the tap sampling 
period. EPA believes that systems need the 60 days after the end of the 
tap sampling period to develop public education materials, consult with 
the State and to identify the organizations that they need to share 
these materials with. However, EPA is requesting comment on whether 
systems are capable of conducting the public education activities under 
Sec.  141.85(b)(2) in a shorter time frame (e.g., 30 days after the 
system receives the results or 30 days after the end of the tap 
sampling period in which the exceedance occurs) (see section IX. of 
this document).
    If water systems are unable to meet the public education 
requirements following a lead action level exceedance, systems can 
apply to the State for an extension under the LCRR. The LCRR does not 
specify the length of the extension. When EPA introduced this extension 
provision, the Agency previously explained that ``systems must start 
these activities and States must approve in writing any deadline 
extension within 60 days of the end of the monitoring period in which 
the exceedance occurred'' and that ``States should still make every 
effort to get public water systems to complete their public education 
activities within 60 days after the end of the monitoring period'' (72 
FR 57787, USEPA, 2007a). EPA is proposing 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. In addition, EPA is proposing to restrict the extension such 
that it only applies to the activities in Sec.  141.85(b)(2)(ii) 
through (vi), and would not apply to delivery of public education 
materials to consumers under Sec.  141.85(b)(2)(i) because it is 
feasible for systems to distribute public education materials to 
consumers within 60 days. This proposed revision ensures that systems 
must deliver the public education materials no later than 60 days after 
the end of the tap sampling period in which the action level exceedance 
occurs, so that consumers have the information to decide to take steps 
to reduce their exposure to lead sooner, thereby providing greater 
public health protection.
    Who receives public education materials. Under the LCRR, water 
systems must deliver these public education materials to bill paying 
customers. For the LCRI, EPA is proposing to require the public 
education materials also be delivered to every service connection 
address served. This proposed requirement is responsive to feedback 
heard during the public meetings on environmental justice 
considerations for the proposed LCRI and LCRR review engagements, where 
stakeholders expressed concerns about public education not reaching 
renters because they may not be the bill paying customer (USEPA, 2023h; 
USEPA, 2023d; see written comments and summaries of LCRR engagements, 
Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). EPA is proposing 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.
    Contents of public education materials. Under the LCRR, the public 
education materials must include mandatory language on the health 
effects of lead, information about sources of lead, steps consumers can 
take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, an explanation of 
why there are elevated levels of lead in the system's drinking water 
and what the system is doing about it, as well as other information. 
The LCRR allows water systems to change some of the mandatory language 
with State approval. EPA is proposing to revise this provision in the 
LCRI to allow States to approve changes to the content requirements of 
the public education materials only if the State determines the changes 
are more protective of human health. EPA is proposing 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 LSLs, GRRs, or lead status unknown service lines). If the system 
has LSLs, the LCRR requires the materials to also include information 
about LSLs. EPA is proposing to revise this to require that systems 
with LSLs, GRR service lines, or unknown service lines, rather than 
just systems with LSLs, include information about LSLs, GRR service 
lines, or unknown service lines in the public education materials. In 
addition to the LSL-related information required in the LCRR, EPA is 
proposing that systems must include information about replacing GRR 
service lines and identifying the material of unknowns as well as 
information on how to access the service line replacement plan. In 
addition, EPA is proposing to require systems with known lead 
connectors and unknown connectors to include information about 
accessing the service line inventory. EPA is also proposing to require 
that the public education materials include instructions for consumers 
to notify the water system if they think the material classification is 
incorrect (e.g., if the service line is classified as non-lead in the 
inventory but is actually lead). EPA is proposing these revisions to 
make the public education materials more informative for persons served 
by LSLs, GRR service lines, unknown service lines, known lead 
connectors, or unknown connectors and thereby provide greater public 
health protection.
    EPA is also proposing requiring public education materials to 
explain that using a filter certified by an American National Standards 
Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead is effective in reducing 
lead levels in drinking water. Water systems would need to include this 
information among the other steps the consumer can take to reduce their 
exposure to lead in drinking water. EPA is proposing this change to 
ensure that consumers are made aware that filters are an effective 
option for reducing lead in drinking water. This proposed addition to 
the public education materials is also responsive to requests from many 
stakeholders during the LCRI environmental justice meetings (USEPA, 
2023h; USEPA, 2023i) and LCRR review (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255), 
asking that EPA provide recommendations on the use of filters. Some 
participants in the LCRI environmental justice meetings asked that EPA 
recommend that consumers served by LSLs use filters until LSLs are 
replaced (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i), while some commenters during the 
LCRR review stated that public education materials should encourage 
consumers more broadly to use filters certified to reduce lead in 
drinking water (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). EPA is not proposing to 
require public education materials to recommend that all consumers, or 
consumers served by LSLs, use a filter certified to reduce lead. Such a 
recommendation would be made regardless of system-wide lead levels or 
lead levels at an individual site. EPA notes that many factors can 
influence lead levels in drinking water, such as CCT performance, water 
use habits, and sources of lead in drinking water.

[[Page 84952]]

Because of the various factors that influence lead tap water levels, 
EPA expects that a recommendation that all or a subset of consumers use 
a filter would lead to inconsistencies, confusion, and possibly a 
reduction in confidence in tap water even where lead is not present or 
remains very low. See section V.B.6. of this document for further 
discussion of language concerning use of filters certified to reduce 
lead in drinking water. EPA is proposing that water systems include 
this information about filters among the list of steps to reduce 
exposure to lead in drinking water in all the public education 
materials under Sec.  141.85. EPA is also proposing that systems with 
multiple lead action level exceedances make filters available (see 
section V.I. of this document) and include information about how 
consumers can obtain filters.
    In addition to proposing to require information about filters in 
public education, EPA is proposing to require water systems to include 
other options in the list of steps to reduce exposure to lead in 
drinking water. Water systems would be required to encourage regular 
cleaning of faucet aerators as an additional option in this list. EPA 
is also proposing to require water systems to 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. EPA is also proposing to 
require that water systems 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. EPA is also 
proposing to require systems to include contact information for the 
State and/or local health department so that consumers can contact them 
for more information about lead. EPA is proposing these additions to 
the public education materials to make consumers aware of more actions 
they can take to reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water. For 
information on how EPA is proposing to revise the mandatory lead health 
effects language, see section V.H.5. below.
    Under the LCRR, CWSs are required to include information about how 
consumers can get their water tested for lead in public education 
materials, but NTNCWSs are not. Similarly, the LCRR also only requires 
CWSs, and not NTNCWSs, to include information about lead in plumbing 
components in public education materials. EPA is proposing to require 
all water systems to include information in the public education 
materials about lead in plumbing components and about how consumers can 
get their water tested, including information about the proposed 
provision of supplemental monitoring and notification in Sec.  
141.85(c) that is described earlier in this section. EPA is proposing 
these changes to ensure that consumers, including those served by 
NTNCWSs, are more informed and thereby provide greater public health 
protection.
    Many stakeholders also questioned why the public education 
requirements are triggered by the lead action level if it is not a 
health-based level. EPA requires water systems to provide public 
education materials to consumers after a lead action level exceedance 
so that people are informed about the ways to reduce their exposure to 
lead in their drinking water and thereby can prevent adverse health 
effects. EPA introduced the public education requirements in 1991 
stating that while water system actions including CCT and LSLR 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). EPA further 
noted that the public education requirements supplement the other 
actions water systems take to reduce lead levels after a lead action 
level exceedance. While EPA has since added additional public education 
requirements that are not based on a system's 90th percentile lead 
level, public education after a lead action level exceedance is still 
warranted. A system-wide lead action level exceedance may be indicative 
of higher lead levels system-wide and prompts water systems to take 
actions such as installing or re-optimizing OCCT to reduce lead 
drinking water levels. In such cases, system-wide public education 
which includes a statement about the lead action level exceedance, the 
health risks of lead, and steps individuals can take to reduce their 
exposure is appropriate.
    However, the Agency agrees that consumers should also be aware of 
the risks from lead exposure regardless of lead levels in the system. 
The LCRR requires many actions to educate consumers about lead in 
drinking water irrespective of whether or not a system has an action 
level exceedance for lead, such as the following: public education 
provided with consumers' individual lead tap sampling results; public 
education notifying consumers if they are served by an LSL, GRR service 
line, or unknown service line; and public education to persons affected 
by a disturbance to an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line. 
These include a statement of the health effects of lead, steps 
consumers can take to reduce their exposure to lead, among other 
information. The Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), which is distributed 
to all consumers of a community water system, must also include an 
informational statement about lead regardless of whether there is a 
lead action level exceedance (see section V.L.1. of this document). For 
the LCRI, EPA is proposing additional improvements for more proactive 
public education that make it clear that there is no safe level of lead 
in drinking water. For example, EPA is proposing requiring that the 
consumer notice of lead tap sampling results be delivered within three 
days regardless of whether the results exceed the lead action level or 
not (see section V.H.3. of this document). EPA is also proposing that 
the lead health effects language required in public education, public 
notification, and the Consumer Confidence Report explicitly state that 
there is no safe level of lead in drinking water (see section V.H.5. of 
this document). EPA is also proposing that water systems that fail to 
meet the mandatory service line replacement rate conduct public 
outreach activities (see section V.H.2. of this document).
Public Education for Small System Compliance Flexibility Point-of-Use 
Devices
    EPA is proposing moving the public education requirements for small 
water system compliance flexibility point-of-use devices from Sec.  
141.85 to Sec.  141.93. EPA is proposing this change so that the small 
system compliance flexibility provisions are all in the same rule 
section (see section V.G. of this document).
5. Requirements for Language Updates and Accessibility
Lead Health Effects Language
    Under the LCRR, the following lead health effects language is 
required to be included in public education, public notification, and 
the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR).
    Exposure to lead in drinking water can cause serious health effects 
in all age groups. Infants and children can have decreases in IQ and 
attention span. Lead exposure can lead to new learning and behavior 
problems or exacerbate existing learning and behavior problems. The 
children of women who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy 
can have increased risk of these adverse health effects. Adults can 
have increased risks of heart

[[Page 84953]]

disease, high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system problems.
    EPA is proposing to require the language to begin with a statement 
that there is no safe level of lead in drinking water. During the LCRI 
external engagements and LCRR review, stakeholders expressed concerns 
about water systems with detectable lead levels communicating that 
drinking water is ``safe'' because lead levels are below the action 
level. Some stakeholders have also stated that water systems downplay 
the urgency of lead action level exceedances by providing statements to 
consumers that the system meets all EPA requirements. EPA's proposed 
additional language would help address these concerns by communicating 
clearly that there is no level of lead without health risks. EPA is 
also proposing revisions to clarify that the language provides 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). EPA is proposing these changes in response to concerns 
stakeholders shared during the proposed LCRI external engagements and 
LCRR review that the language does not disclose all the known health 
risks of lead exposure. In addition, the current language notes the 
risk to all age groups and EPA is proposing adding language to 
highlight the risks to pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and 
breastfed), and young children. This revision is being proposed in 
response to stakeholder recommendations that the language emphasize 
health risks to all age groups, especially fetuses, formula-fed 
infants, and young children. EPA included pregnant people to ensure 
that those through which the exposure is occurring to the developing 
fetus are highlighted so they can easily identify themselves as an at-
risk group. EPA is also proposing revisions to simplify the language so 
that it is easier for consumers to understand. EPA is also proposing to 
make the language gender neutral for greater inclusivity. EPA is 
proposing the following revised mandatory lead health effects language 
and has underlined the additions to illustrate changes from the LCRR 
text:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.081

    The same wording would be used in the health effects portion of the 
public notification of a lead action level exceedance and of treatment 
technique violations as well as the CCR.
Translation Requirements
    Under the LCRR, water systems serving a large proportion of non-
English speaking consumers must include in public education materials a 
translated statement about the importance of the materials, or they 
must include contact information for consumers to obtain a translated 
copy or translation assistance from the water system. The State 
determines what is considered a large proportion (Sec.  141.85(b)(1)).
    EPA is proposing to update the current requirement in the LCRR for 
translation of public education materials under 40 CFR 141.85 to ensure 
greater protection of consumers with limited English proficiency. 
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. EPA is proposing to 
require water systems to include in all the public education materials 
under 40 CFR 141.85 information in the appropriate language regarding 
the importance of the materials. Systems would also be required to 
include 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 system must provide materials translated 
into the appropriate language. Since 1991, EPA has required public 
education materials under the LCR to be communicated in other languages 
in communities where a significant proportion of the population speaks 
a language other than English (56 FR 26555, USEPA, 1991). Some systems 
provide a translated statement of the importance of the CCR in multiple 
languages (e.g., Boston, Massachusetts; Dearborn, Michigan) (MWRA, 
2020; City of Dearborn, 2019). There are also organizations, such as 
Clean Water Fund in Chelsea, Massachusetts, that have translated 
materials and offered

[[Page 84954]]

translation services related to lead in drinking water for their 
community (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.e). EPA is also aware of States 
providing resources and templates to assist water systems with 
translation of public education and notification: California, Illinois, 
and Washington (California Water Boards, 2023; IEPA, n.d.; Washington 
State Department of Health, n.d.). In addition, EPA intends to provide 
templates of public education materials that provide greater 
accessibility to consumers, including in multiple languages to assist 
water systems. EPA is also seeking further information about how water 
systems provide translated materials to consumers with limited English 
proficiency. Specifically, EPA is seeking information and data about 
when a system provides translated materials, 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 (see section IX. of this document). During the 
public meetings on environmental justice considerations for the 
proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i), NDWAC consultation for the 
proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023l), Small Business Advocacy Review for the 
proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023m), and LCRR review (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-
2021-0255), many stakeholders expressed concerns about the 
accessibility of public education about lead in drinking water to 
consumers with limited proficiency in English. Stakeholders have urged 
EPA to ensure that public education is provided in multiple languages 
to mitigate potential environmental justice concerns by ensuring that 
those consumers are informed about the potential health risks of lead 
in drinking water as well as actions they can take to reduce their 
exposure. EPA's proposed revisions would help address these concerns by 
increasing accessibility of public education materials for consumers 
with limited English proficiency.
    EPA recognizes that some water systems may lack the capacity or 
resources to develop translated public education materials. The 
proposed CCR Rule Revisions include a provision for primacy agencies to 
provide translation support for the CCR, as a condition of primacy, 
when systems are unable to do so (88 FR 20009, USEPA, 2023n) for 
reasons described in the preamble to that rulemaking (see 88 FR 20099-
100 and 20102, USEPA, 2023n).
    Similar to this CCR provision, EPA is also requesting comment on 
whether to require that States, as a condition of primacy for the LCRI, 
provide translation support if water systems, not independently subject 
to Title VI, are unable to do so. All recipients of Federal financial 
assistance are subject to the requirements of Title VI to take 
reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to limited English 
proficient (LEP) consumers. To support implementation of Title VI 
regulations (40 CFR part 7) EPA has specified that ``recipients of 
Federal financial assistance have an obligation to reduce language 
barriers that can preclude meaningful access by LEP persons to 
important government services'' (69 FR 35604, USEPA, 2004b). Currently, 
all States and territories (except Wyoming and the District of 
Columbia) have primacy. In Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) and 2022 (FY22), 
each of those Primacy Agencies received Public Water System Supervision 
(PWSS) grant funds (USEPA, 2021g; USEPA, 2022c), and therefore they 
would be subject to requirements of Title VI. Water systems that are 
subrecipients of Federal financial assistance to the State primacy 
agencies are similarly subject to the requirements of Title VI. See 
Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency Financial Assistance 
Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin 
Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons for more 
information (69 FR 35602, USEPA, 2004b).

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

    Some water systems may exceed the lead action level multiple times 
across several tap monitoring periods. The LCRR requires water systems 
that exceed the lead action level to take actions to reduce lead in 
drinking water, such as CCT, LSLR, and public education. However, the 
LCRR does not address the situation where a system is taking those 
required actions but continues to experience higher lead levels during 
the period that the system completes the longer-term actions that are 
expected to resolve the underlying problem.
    In the LCRI, EPA is proposing new requirements for water systems 
that have multiple lead action level exceedances. EPA is proposing that 
a system with ``multiple lead action level exceedances'' would be a 
system with three lead action level exceedances in a rolling five-year 
period. Those systems would be required to take additional actions 
after three lead action level exceedances because those exceedances are 
indicative of recurring high lead levels that warrant additional 
measures while OCCT and mandatory service line replacement are being 
implemented, or if longer-term measures are not effective at reducing 
lead levels to below the action level (e.g., a system that has re-
optimized once and is meeting optimal water quality parameters). EPA is 
proposing the first five-year rolling period to determine if a system 
has ``multiple lead action level exceedances'' would start on the LCRI 
compliance date and end five years after. Then, the start of any 
potential future five-year rolling periods would be assessed beginning 
every six months thereafter. EPA is proposing for systems to conduct 
these actions upon the third action level exceedance even if the first 
rolling five-year period has not yet elapsed. EPA selected a five-year 
period because it generally takes five years to study, select, install, 
and operate OCCT effectively in a system. After this five-year period, 
OCCT would drive the lead reduction in systems that had been addressed 
by the shorter-term measures during that five-year period as proposed 
under the requirements for systems with multiple lead action level 
exceedances.
    EPA is proposing that systems with multiple lead action level 
exceedances conduct at least one additional system-wide public 
education outreach activity to raise additional awareness of the health 
effects of lead in drinking water, identify steps consumers can take to 
reduce their exposure, and provide information about how the water 
system is addressing the issue. The water system would be required to 
repeat the selected activity every six months until the system no 
longer meets the proposed criteria for multiple lead action level 
exceedances (i.e., three or more action level exceedances within the 
last five years), even if the system does not exceed the lead action 
level in the most recent tap sampling period. For the required public 
education outreach activity, EPA is proposing that systems be required 
to perform at least one of the following activities to share public 
education materials with the public:
     Convening a town hall meeting,
     Participating in a community event (e.g., farmers market, 
town fair, sporting event),
     Contacting customers by phone, text, email, or door 
hanger,
     Conducting a social media campaign, or
     Use another method approved by the State.
    The proposed rule notes that a State may approve additional 
activities not listed because there may be other present or future 
effective methods of meaningful outreach systems could consider using. 
The selected activity is in addition to the public education

[[Page 84955]]

required after a lead action level exceedance under Sec.  141.85(b)(2) 
(see section V.H.4.). However, EPA is proposing to allow water systems 
that also fail to meet the mandatory service line replacement rate (see 
section V.H.2.) to conduct the same outreach activity to fulfill both 
requirements under Sec.  141.85(h) and (j).
    EPA is proposing additional public education activities to ensure 
that the public is aware of recurring lead action level exceedances, 
the actions the water system is taking in response to the lead action 
level exceedances, and information about the health effects of lead and 
steps they can take to reduce their exposure. During the LCRR review, 
EPA heard concerns from stakeholders about how the distribution of 
public education materials by systems that frequently exceed the lead 
action level required under LCRR may not adequately raise awareness of 
the issue or inform consumers of the actions that they can take. To 
help address these concerns, EPA anticipates these proposed activities 
would better protect public health by providing additional information 
to consumers about lead risks and to prompt consumers to take voluntary 
actions. Additionally, EPA anticipates these activities would increase 
water system transparency and accountability, which is essential for 
building and maintaining trust between water systems and their 
consumers.
    In addition to the proposed public education activities, EPA is 
proposing to require water systems with multiple action level 
exceedances to make filters certified to reduce lead and replacement 
cartridges, along with instructions for their use, available to all 
consumers. A system would be required to make them available to all 
consumers within 60 days of when it meets the criteria of having 
``multiple action level exceedances''. Within 30 days of meeting the 
criteria of multiple action level exceedances for the first time, water 
systems would be required to submit a plan to the State describing how 
the system intends to make filters available. The plan would include 
considerations for making filters and replacement cartridges accessible 
to all consumers. For example, some water systems have used 
distribution centers, neighborhood canvassing, and request forms for 
mail or delivery of filters to ensure that consumers have multiple ways 
to obtain filters. In the plan, water systems would describe their 
planned method(s) of distribution and describe how the system plans to 
overcome any barrier(s) to access. For example, a system may decide to 
use more than one way to make filters available, such as operating a 
distribution center or providing at-home delivery as requested, to 
accommodate consumers with different accessibility needs based on the 
availability of transportation and other considerations. EPA 
anticipates that systems would also plan for providing filters and 
cartridges at no direct cost to low-income consumers, at a minimum. 
States would be required to review and approve the plan within 15 days 
of submission and water systems would be required to implement the 
plan.
    As provided in section V.E.1. of the preamble, systems that select 
the proposed option to remove all their LSLs and GRR service lines in 
five years can defer OCCT during that five-year period. However, EPA 
notes that under the proposed LCRI, those systems would remain subject 
to the public education requirements for multiple lead action level 
exceedances, including the requirement to make filters available to all 
consumers.
    This proposed requirement is responsive to stakeholder suggestions 
to require water systems to provide filters to some or all consumers to 
reduce lead exposure while the system is taking other actions as 
required by the rule (e.g., LSLR, CCT, public education) (USEPA, 
2023l). EPA is aware of systems that have provided filters during 
periods of elevated lead levels 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.b); 
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). Recent filter 
effectiveness studies conducted by EPA have shown that when properly 
installed and operated, filters certified under NSF/ANSI Standard 53 
for total lead removal and NSF/ANSI Standard 42 for fine particulates 
(Class I) are effective at reducing lead in drinking water (Bosscher et 
al., 2019; Tang et al., 2023; Tully et al., 2023).
    EPA is proposing to require systems to make filters available to 
all consumers instead of a subset of consumers, such as those served by 
an LSL or GRR service line. While LSLs are a significant contributor to 
lead in drinking water, other sources of lead may cause elevated 
drinking water lead levels, and both systems with and without LSLs 
experience lead action level exceedances (see section V.A.). Therefore, 
EPA is proposing to require water systems to make filters available to 
all consumers instead of a subset of consumers.
    EPA is requesting comment in section IX. of this document on its 
proposed criteria for ``multiple lead action level exceedances'' of 
three action level exceedances in a five-year period, or if EPA should 
choose a different frequency or approach (e.g., more exceedances in a 
shorter time-period, consecutive exceedances). EPA is also requesting 
comment on whether such systems should be required to take additional 
actions, whether systems should be required to conduct more than one 
(e.g., two or three) of the public education activities proposed, the 
appropriateness of the public education activities proposed, and 
whether other activities should be considered.
    EPA is requesting comment on the proposed requirement for systems 
to make filters certified to reduce lead and replacement cartridges, 
along with instructions for use, available to all consumers within 60 
days of the system meeting the criteria of at least three action level 
exceedances in a five-year period. EPA is also requesting comment on 
the proposed requirement for water systems to develop a filter 
distribution plan and submit it to the State, and if systems should be 
required to take any additional actions to facilitate consumer access 
to filters.
    EPA is also requesting comment on alternative approaches following 
multiple lead action level exceedances including requiring water 
systems to deliver a filter and replacement cartridges to every 
household served by the system. EPA heard concerns that because not all 
consumers would elect to use a provided filter, delivering filters and 
replacement cartridges to every household may result in wasted staff 
and financial resources, which a water system could direct towards 
other lead reduction activities, such as LSLR and CCT (USEPA, 2023j). 
While the proposed provision would mean that a consumer would have to 
take action to obtain a filter, EPA intends for water systems to make 
every effort to assure that filters are available to any consumer that 
wants one and to include such efforts in the plan to make filters 
available.
    EPA also is requesting comment on an alternative requirement for 
systems to consult with the State upon meeting the criteria for 
multiple action level exceedances, and for States to determine the 
appropriate action. In the LCRI external engagements, some

[[Page 84956]]

stakeholders stated that the LCRI should not require specific 
additional actions, such as providing filters for multiple action level 
exceedances, noting States are currently able to work with individual 
systems to address these situations (USEPA, 2023j; USEPA, 2023m). While 
this alternative would provide States with the flexibility to determine 
which mitigation actions are best suited for a system's situation, EPA 
notes that this would place additional burden on States to develop a 
response and could result in inconsistent responses for similar 
situations across water systems statewide and nationally. EPA is 
requesting comment if in addition to the proposed requirements, EPA 
should provide States discretion to determine appropriate action 
following a multiple action level exceedance that is tailored to meet 
specific system needs.
    EPA is also requesting comment on whether EPA should include a 
provision for States to allow water systems to discontinue some or all 
of the proposed public education and filter requirements early if a 
water system implements actions, such as installing optimized or re-
optimized CCT or completes the proposed mandatory service line 
replacement and is at or below the action level for two consecutive 
monitoring periods. This provision would provide discretion to States 
to allow a water system to discontinue some or all of the required 
actions prior to no longer having three action level exceedances within 
a five- year period if the system has taken tangible actions to reduce 
lead levels.

J. Lead Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities

    The LCRR requires CWSs to conduct public education and sample for 
lead in the schools and licensed child care facilities they serve. EPA 
promulgated these requirements in the LCRR as part of the public 
education treatment technique in order to educate schools and child 
care facilities about the risk from lead in premise plumbing, the 
importance of sampling for lead in drinking water, provide them with 
experience with lead testing, and help them make decisions to mitigate 
lead risks, including establishing their own testing programs (86 FR 
4232, USEPA, 2021a; USEPA, 2020b). This sampling effort is not a 
replacement for comprehensive testing as detailed in the 3Ts. In the 
final LCRR preamble, EPA noted that 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 and inconsistent water use patterns (e.g., summer, 
holiday, or other breaks) that can result in longer stagnation times 
(86 FR 4232, USEPA, 2021a). However, exposure can be mitigated through 
public education and voluntary remediation actions to address lead from 
premise plumbing within those facilities, and accordingly, EPA 
promulgated requirements for CWSs to conduct public education and 
sampling for lead in schools and licensed child care facilities. EPA is 
authorized under SDWA to establish NPDWRs that are legally enforceable 
standards that apply to public water systems as defined in SDWA section 
1401(4) and 40 CFR 141.2. EPA does not have the authority under SDWA 
section 1412 to require schools and child care facilities that are not 
regulated as public water systems to act under an NPDWR.
    The LCRR requires CWSs to compile a list of all the schools and 
licensed child care facilities they serve and to update the list at 
least once every five years. Annually, CWSs must provide materials on 
the health effects of lead to all the schools and child care facilities 
on the list. During each year of the first five-year cycle, CWSs must 
conduct outreach to at least 20 percent of the total elementary schools 
and child care facilities served by that system to schedule sampling 
and provide a copy of EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water 
Toolkit (USEPA, 2018). If an elementary school or child care facility 
declines the offer for sampling or does not respond to at least two 
separate outreach attempts, the CWS may count the elementary school or 
child care facility as part of the minimum 20 percent of facilities 
sampled per year for compliance purposes. The CWSs must include the 
number of facilities that decline or do not respond to the offer to 
sample in the annual report to the State under Sec.  141.90(i). During 
the first five-year cycle, CWSs must annually notify all secondary 
schools that they may request sampling and must sample at any secondary 
school that requests it. After the first five-year cycle, the CWS must 
sample any school or child care facility that requests sampling. The 
CWS is not required to sample an individual school or child care 
facility more than once in any five-year period.
    CWSs are required to collect a minimum of five samples per school 
and two samples per child care facility. Results must be delivered to 
the sampled schools and child care facilities as soon as practicable 
but no later than 30 days after receipt of the results, along with 
information about remediation options. CWSs must also submit results to 
the State and to State and local health departments annually. The LCRR 
also includes a waiver provision for States to waive the requirements 
of Sec.  141.92 for CWSs to sample in schools and child care facilities 
if they are sampled under an alternative State or local law or program. 
EPA did not include any provisions in the LCRR to allow CWSs to count 
sampling conducted prior to the LCRR compliance date towards the 
required sampling.
1. Proposed LCRI Requirements
    EPA is proposing to maintain most of the LCRR requirements for CWSs 
to conduct public education and sample in schools and child care 
facilities. In addition, EPA is proposing significant changes to the 
organization of Sec.  141.92 to help clarify the requirements. EPA 
intends for these proposed changes to ease interpretation and 
implementation of the requirements for both States and water systems. 
EPA is proposing a new section in Sec.  141.92(a)(2) to clarify that 
the requirements in Sec.  141.92 do not apply to schools and child care 
facilities that are regulated as NTNCWSs. The LCRR requires CWSs to 
fulfill the requirements of Sec.  141.92 in schools and child care 
facilities that were constructed prior to 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. EPA is 
clarifying in Sec.  141.92(a)(1) that CWSs are not required to sample 
in schools and child care facilities that underwent full plumbing 
replacement after the applicable date. Section 141.92(b) outlines the 
proposed revisions to requirements for developing a list of the schools 
and child care facilities served by CWSs. While the LCRR requires CWSs 
to develop a list of the schools and child care facilities they serve 
and either send an updated list to the State or certify that the list 
has not changed, there is no requirement in the LCRR for the initial 
list to be submitted to the State. Therefore, EPA is proposing to 
require that the initial list must also be sent to the State in Sec.  
141.92(b)(1). EPA encourages CWSs to work with local school districts, 
State departments of education, and child care licensing agencies to 
identify schools and child care facilities in their service areas.
    EPA is proposing to maintain different requirements for CWS 
outreach to elementary schools and child care facilities compared to 
secondary schools because children under the age of six are at the 
greatest risk of adverse health effects due to lead exposure (CDC,

[[Page 84957]]

2022a). Prioritizing sampling in facilities serving children with the 
greatest risks associated with lead exposure will reduce the burden on 
CWSs and enable them to focus on facilities with the most susceptible 
populations while still maintaining an opportunity for other schools to 
be sampled if they request it. However, to simplify rule requirements, 
EPA has separated out the requirements for public education to all 
schools and child care facilities (Sec.  141.92(c)), sampling frequency 
for elementary schools and child care facilities (Sec.  141.92(d)), and 
sampling frequency for secondary schools (Sec.  141.92(e)) to clarify 
the different requirements, reduce cross-references, and ease 
implementation. EPA is also proposing in Sec.  141.92(d)(3) for water 
systems to conduct the outreach required in the first five years after 
the rule compliance date (e.g., scheduling sampling) in any elementary 
school or child care facility that is identified and added to the 
updated list of schools or child care facilities in a subsequent 
sampling cycle. This would ensure water systems would consistently be 
held to the same outreach requirements and contact every elementary 
school or child care facility at least once, regardless of when the 
facility is identified, rather than only sampling these schools or 
child care facilities at the request of the school or child care 
facility. EPA is also proposing to remove the term ``mandatory'' to 
describe the first five-year sampling cycle that would begin on the 
compliance date if LCRI is finalized because Sec.  141.92 does not 
impose any requirements on schools and child care facilities, and EPA 
has heard this term may add confusion. EPA intends for the proposed 
revisions to clearly describe the requirements for CWSs in plain 
language. EPA has also made minor changes to the sampling protocol 
(Sec.  141.92(f)) to improve readability.
    EPA is maintaining the LCRR requirements for frequency and number 
of samples. Some stakeholders requested that EPA increase the number of 
required samples noting that EPA's 3Ts recommends sampling all outlets 
used for cooking and drinking (USEPA, 2018). Sampling under Sec.  
141.92 provides a preliminary screen for lead risks within schools and 
child care facilities, and as described above, when coupled with public 
education materials (e.g., EPA's 3Ts), these provisions are intended to 
encourage schools and child care facilities to take additional actions 
including sampling. In response to stakeholder feedback, EPA is seeking 
comment on whether CWSs should be required to collect more samples and/
or sample more frequently in schools and child care facilities.
    Additionally, EPA is not proposing requirements for schools and 
child care facilities or CWSs to remediate lead in this rule. As stated 
previously, EPA is authorized under SDWA to establish NPDWRs that are 
legally enforceable standards that apply to public water systems as 
defined in SDWA section 1401(4) and 40 CFR 141.2. Therefore, EPA does 
not have the authority under SDWA section 1412 to require schools and 
child care facilities that are not regulated as public water systems to 
act under an NPDWR including to remediate lead.
    Alternatively, some stakeholders stated during the LCRR review that 
the LCRI should include a school-specific action level and/or 
remediation requirements for CWSs (see docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). 
EPA does not anticipate requiring CWSs to take remediation actions 
because larger buildings, such as schools and child care facilities, 
can have a higher potential for elevated lead levels due to complex 
plumbing arrangements, the presence of lead in premise plumbing, and 
inconsistent water use patterns that can result in long stagnation 
times (Barn et al., 2014; Deshommes et al., 2016). Even when a school 
or child care facility is served by a water system with well operated 
OCCT, there may not be technical improvements that the system can make 
to OCCT (USEPA, 2020b) to further reduce lead in those settings (e.g., 
Dore et al., 2018). Additionally, for the aforementioned reasons, water 
system 90th percentile levels are not necessarily reflective of lead 
levels in schools (e.g., Triantafyllidou et al., 2014). Therefore, 
setting additional treatment requirements for corrosion control in 
these situations is not technically feasible. Further, EPA has 
determined sampling at schools and child care facilities is a component 
of this treatment technique rule for public education and not CCT. 
Accordingly, EPA determined that it is feasible for CWSs to conduct 
public education and sampling at these facilities to contribute to 
increased awareness of the potential for elevated levels of lead in 
premise plumbing, independent of a water system's 90th percentile 
value.
    For these same reasons, EPA is not proposing to include a school-
specific remediation action level for CWSs. However, EPA notes that 
CWSs are required under the LCRR to provide schools and child care 
facilities with the 3Ts guidance, which EPA is proposing to maintain 
under the proposed LCRI. The 3Ts provides information and best 
practices, including recurring sampling at all outlets used for cooking 
and drinking and remediation steps for schools and child care 
facilities to reduce lead in drinking water to the lowest levels 
possible, noting there is no known safe level of lead in drinking water 
(USEPA, 2018). Further, schools and child care facilities are 
encouraged to conduct additional sampling and take remediation actions.
    EPA is aware that schools and child care facilities may be 
concerned about available resources to fund additional lead testing and 
remediation (USEPA, 2020b; USEPA, 2023i; USEPA, 2023j). The BIL 
authorized an additional $200 million (FY22-FY26) in grant funding for 
lead testing and remediation in schools and child care facilities under 
SDWA section 1464(d). EPA awards funding under this program as non-
competitive grants to States, territories, and Tribes. In fiscal years 
2022 and 2023, Congress appropriated $58 million in additional funding 
under SDWA section 1464(d). EPA has also issued an implementation 
document for States and territories which includes information on the 
use of funds for remediation activities (USEPA, 2023o). As noted in the 
LCRR review, EPA is committed to working with other Federal agencies to 
make progress on reducing lead in drinking water in schools and child 
care facilities, including through non-regulatory efforts. On March 24, 
2023, EPA and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (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. Additionally, 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 EPA's 3Ts guidance (USEPA and USHHS, 2023).
    EPA is also aware that some States have requirements for lead 
sampling in schools and child care facilities, including several States 
that have passed new laws since LCRR was promulgated. EPA notes that 
many of these laws require recurring sampling of all outlets used for 
cooking and drinking and may require remediation actions. EPA finalized 
waiver provisions for existing sampling programs in the LCRR to 
encourage such efforts. However, the Agency is also aware that some 
schools or child care facilities may not be tested under existing State 
or local requirements or other voluntary programs (USGAO, 2018; USEPA,

[[Page 84958]]

2023b, Chapter 3, section 3.3.10). Nationally, EPA's goal with the 
proposed requirements in the LCRI is to provide schools and child care 
facilities with the opportunity to be sampled for lead, to learn about 
the importance of lead testing in schools and child care facilities, 
and take additional actions if they choose. The requirements would also 
provide CWSs, States, and State and local health agencies with 
information to further support public education for lead in drinking 
water. In this way, the LCRI would allow for a baseline level of 
sampling information to be collected nationally, that can be 
supplemented by State efforts. 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 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.
2. Proposed Waiver Requirements
    The LCRR allows States to offer waivers to CWSs for sampling in the 
schools and child care facilities if those facilities are sampled under 
an alternative program, such as a State or local law. However, the LCRR 
only allows waivers for sampling conducted after the LCRR compliance 
date. EPA is proposing to allow States to waive the requirements in 
Sec.  141.92 for the first five-year cycle of sampling in schools and 
child care facilities beginning with the compliance date of the final 
LCRI if they have already been tested under an existing program between 
January 1, 2021 and the LCRI rule compliance date. EPA is proposing to 
limit the cut-off date to January 1, 2021, recognizing that many 
facilities were closed in 2020 due to the COVID-19-related shutdowns. 
The Agency estimates that any data collected during COVID-19-related 
closures would be unrepresentative due to low water usage and longer 
than normal stagnation times. EPA is proposing this provision in 
response to stakeholder feedback. States have requested that EPA allow 
testing that would be conducted prior to a final LCRI compliance date 
to ``count'' towards the rule requirements, stating 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 (docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255, USEPA, 2023j).
    This proposed provision would maintain LCRR requirements for CWSs 
to follow the requirements of Sec.  141.92 for the schools and child 
care facilities that have not been sampled by the alternative program. 
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. EPA encourages 
States to use available Federal funding, including WIIN grants, to 
conduct sampling in school and child care facilities. Federally funded 
efforts could reduce the burden on CWSs, particularly during the first 
five-year cycle after the LCRI compliance date. EPA is proposing to 
maintain the other waiver provisions but has made edits to clarify and 
streamline the requirements in Sec.  141.92(h). EPA is requesting 
comment on this proposed provision and whether the Agency should 
consider a different cut-off date (e.g., earlier or later than January 
1, 2021) (see section IX. of this document).
    EPA is also proposing to allow States to waive the requirements of 
Sec.  141.92 for CWSs if a school or child care facility they serve 
installs and maintains point-of-use devices certified to reduce lead in 
drinking water on all outlets used to provide water for human 
consumption. EPA is aware that some State and local governments require 
schools to ``filter-first,'' meaning that filters certified to reduce 
lead are required to be installed and maintained on outlets in schools 
and child care facilities used for drinking and cooking. Specific 
requirements of these programs vary, and in some cases, filters are 
only required when sampling results at a tap are above a defined 
threshold (e.g., 0.005 mg/L). EPA considered feedback on filter-first 
approaches and is proposing to add a waiver eligibility for CWSs to 
sample in schools and child care facilities that install and maintain 
POU devices on all outlets used for cooking and drinking. EPA is 
seeking comment on whether or not to allow States to waive the 
requirements of Sec.  141.92 for CWSs in schools and child care 
facilities that use and maintain filters certified to reduce lead, and 
if so, whether the waiver should only be allowed where schools and 
child care facilities are required by State or local law to install POU 
devices and maintain them. EPA is seeking comment on the minimum 
requirements for States to provide a waiver (e.g., should the waiver be 
limited to locations where the filter use is required by State or local 
law; should the waiver be limited to locations where State or local law 
requires periodic sampling or testing to ensure proper filter use).
    Some stakeholders advocated for the LCRI to include a filter-first 
requirement while others disagree with such approaches for reasons 
including because filters may not be properly maintained over the long-
term resulting in reduced efficacy, and the cost and burdens on water 
systems (docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0255, USEPA, 2023j). EPA is not 
proposing to require water systems to provide filters to schools and 
child care facilities for the same reasons EPA is not proposing CWSs to 
take other types of lead remediation requirements (see section V.J.1. 
of this document).
3. Public Information About Lead Sampling in Schools and Child Care 
Facilities
    The LCRR requires CWSs to report the results of sampling to the 
school or child care facility within 30 days of receiving results, and 
annually to the State and both State and local health agencies. The 
LCRR does not include requirements for the water system to provide 
public notice of the results. EPA is proposing to require CWSs to 
include a statement in the CCR that states that schools and child care 
facilities are eligible to be sampled for lead and direct interested 
members of the public to contact their local school or child care 
facility for more information (see section V.L.1. for more information 
about the CCR).
    EPA is proposing this requirement due to feedback from 
stakeholders. Some stakeholders raised concerns that schools and child 
care facilities may not share sampling results with the facility staff, 
parents, and the public (docket no. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255). EPA agrees 
that it is important for lead sampling results to be shared with the 
affected population so that parents and guardians of children that 
attend these facilities can be aware of lead risks in those facilities. 
However, EPA does not have the authority in an NPDWR under SDWA section 
1412 to require schools and child care facilities that are not public 
water systems to take this action, but strongly encourages them to 
share results and other relevant information, as outlined in the 3Ts 
guidance (USEPA, 2018). EPA expects that many school and child care 
facilities have

[[Page 84959]]

experience with sharing such information. For example, as a condition 
of receiving a WIIN grant for lead sampling SDWA section 1464(d)(6), 
requires the recipient to ensure that the entity to which funds are 
disbursed (e.g., school, child care facility, local education agency) 
make the results available to the public and notify teachers, parents, 
and employee organizations about the results.
    Nonetheless, the Agency recognizes that the public may not be aware 
of the opportunity for schools and child care facilities to be sampled 
by CWSs under the rule. Therefore, EPA anticipates that including 
additional information about lead sampling in schools and child care 
facilities in the CCR could increase public transparency while 
directing interested members of the public to the facilities that are 
sampled. Also, EPA anticipates that this change would further 
strengthen and support the public education purpose of sampling in 
schools and child care facilities. EPA is seeking comment on whether 
the Agency should require CWSs to make school and child care facility 
sampling results publicly available, and if so, how frequently and in 
what manner (see section IX. of this document). In LCRI, EPA is not 
proposing for CWSs to make the sampling results publicly available 
because it would be an additional requirement on CWSs that would 
necessitate additional time and resources. However, EPA recognizes that 
such a requirement would increase public transparency.
    EPA is proposing to retain the requirement for CWSs to submit 
sampling results to the State and both State and local health agencies 
but is proposing to increase the frequency from annually to 30 days 
after CWSs receive the results. States may voluntarily choose to 
disseminate sampling results to the public. EPA has reasoned that an 
annual reporting frequency may not be timely enough given concerns from 
stakeholders that a CWS, school, or child care facility may receive 
results within 30 days of sampling but not share those results. Under 
the LCRR requirement, the State and the State and local health agencies 
may not know about the sampling results until up to a year later. EPA 
is requesting comment on the proposed requirements for an additional 
statement in the CCR (see section V.L.1. of this document), and the 
increased frequency of reporting to States and State and local health 
agencies (see section IX. of this document).

K. Reporting and Recordkeeping

1. System Reporting Requirements
    EPA is proposing to require revised system reporting requirements 
in accordance with other proposed changes to the LCRI. Changes proposed 
in other parts of the rule would affect reporting of tap sampling 
results for LSL sites, documentation requirements for customer 
refusals, reporting requirements for systems with multiple lead action 
level exceedances, and reporting requirements for systems with schools 
and child care facilities.
    EPA is proposing in the LCRI to modify the compliance tap sampling 
reporting requirements for systems sampling at LSL sites to report both 
first liter and fifth liter sample results in accordance with the 
proposed updated tap sampling protocol. In the LCRR, systems are 
required to report summary numbers of lead, GRR, and unknown service 
lines alongside submission of its service line material inventory. EPA 
proposes in the LCRI to expand the inventory reporting requirements to 
include lead connectors (known, replaced, and unknown) and non-lead 
service lines, beginning with the inventory due by the LCRI compliance 
date. EPA is requesting comment on expanding inventory reporting to 
include lead connectors and non-lead service lines (see section IX. of 
this document).
    Under LCRR, systems with lead service lines were required to begin 
conducting standard tap monitoring within one year of the rule 
compliance date, and therefore, must submit a site sample plan to the 
State for approval prior to the start of the first tap monitoring 
period. In LCRI, EPA is proposing that this requirement apply to all 
systems with LSLs, GRR service lines, and/or unknown service lines. EPA 
has heard concern over the ability of States to review all required 
site sample plans and provide approvals in time for the first tap 
monitoring period and is requesting comment on whether EPA should 
consider a phased approach or alternate approach to reduce the burden 
on States following the rule compliance date.
    EPA is proposing that all systems conducting service line 
replacement must report information on their compliance with the 
proposed 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 from their 
replacement program, including the total number and street addresses of 
full service line replacements, partial service line replacement, 
replaced GRR service lines, and replaced lead connectors. EPA is also 
proposing that systems report the number of unknown service lines 
determined to be non-lead, and the street address of any service line 
inventoried as non-lead that was later discovered to be an LSL or GRR 
service line. Systems would also be required to certify to the State 
the number of service lines not replaced due to customer refusals for 
access to conduct service line replacement. EPA is also proposing that 
summary information about the inventory and service line replacement 
program be made available to the public to facilitate community 
tracking of system progress. For more information, see section V.D. of 
this document.
    EPA proposes that systems conducting public education and filter 
requirements following multiple lead action level exceedances, as 
defined in this proposal, would be required to certify to the State 
that they conducted at least one required outreach activity in the 
previous year and certify that they complied with filter distribution 
requirements in the previous year by providing a copy of the filter 
distribution plan and the number of filters provided each tap sampling 
period.
    EPA proposes improvements to the reporting requirements for water 
systems with schools or child care facilities. The LCRR requires 
systems to submit an updated list of school and child care facilities 
they serve or certify that there are no changes to the initial list at 
least once every five years. EPA is proposing to require that systems 
must also submit the initial list of schools and child care facilities 
they serve by the rule compliance date. EPA is also proposing that 
systems provide analytical results to the State within 30 days of 
receiving them (see section V.J. of this document). The LCRR also 
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. 
EPA is proposing in the LCRI that the report also include the names of 
the schools and child care facilities. EPA anticipates that this would 
help States identify which schools and child care facilities have not 
been sampled and why.

[[Page 84960]]

2. State Recordkeeping Requirements
    EPA is proposing several changes to State recordkeeping 
requirements to conform with changes proposed elsewhere in the LCRI. 
Because EPA is proposing to eliminate the trigger level and require 
mandatory full service line replacement, EPA is also proposing to 
remove recordkeeping requirements for any State determinations of lead 
service line replacement goal rates. EPA is also proposing to change 
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. EPA is 
also proposing to clarify that the requirement for States to maintain 
records of system-specific determinations for some NTNCWSs and CWSs to 
collect non-first draw samples refer to samples that do not meet the 
minimum six-hour stagnation time.
    EPA is also proposing changes to clarify existing requirements 
regarding the length of the records retention period. EPA requires each 
State with primacy enforcement responsibility to retain records listed 
under Sec.  142.14(d) for not less than 12 years. States must maintain 
records of all currently applicable or most recent State 
determinations, including all supporting information and technical 
basis for each decision, under Sec.  142.14(d)(8). Revisions to the LCR 
in 2000 added a requirement that if no change is made to the State 
determinations under Sec.  142.14(d)(8) during the 12-year retention 
period, that the State must retain the record until a new decision, 
determination, or designation has been issued. EPA is proposing edits 
to Sec.  142.14(d)(8) in the LCRI to clarify the existing record 
retention requirement and improve implementation. EPA is also proposing 
to change the order of provisions in Sec.  141.14(d)(8) to improve 
readability.
    EPA is also proposing to move requirements for States to maintain 
records of service line replacement plans, service line inventories, 
and compliance sampling pools to Sec.  142.14(d)(9) with other reports 
and information submitted under Sec.  141.90. EPA is proposing this 
change to improve organization and clarity because these records are 
not State determinations. Because EPA is proposing to require systems 
to complete a baseline service line material inventory by the rule 
compliance date, EPA is also proposing to that States maintain records 
on these baseline inventories in addition to the initial service line 
inventory and any required updates to the inventory.
    EPA is also seeking comment on whether States should be required to 
maintain documentation related to the distribution and site assessments 
conducted by water system. EPA is also seeking comment if 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. See section 
IX. of this document.
3. State Reporting Requirements
    EPA is proposing two changes to quarterly State reporting to 
conform with the changes proposed elsewhere in the LCRI. In the LCRR, 
States are required to report summary numbers of LSLs, GRR service 
lines, and unknown service lines, as reported by systems in their 
mandatory service line inventories. EPA proposes in the LCRI to expand 
the inventories to include lead connectors and non-lead service lines 
and proposes that States report totals for these additional categories 
per system. In the LCRR, goal-based LSLR was introduced in addition to 
mandatory LSLR upon an action level exceedance and required States to 
report the date that systems must begin LSLR for all systems required 
to do so. As the LCRI proposes mandatory service line replacement 
irrespective of measured lead levels, EPA is proposing 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, EPA proposes to require States to report the number and type 
of service lines replaced each year, as reported by systems.
    EPA is also proposing to consolidate reporting requirements in 
Sec.  142.15(c)(4)(i) and (iii). Under LCRR, EPA removed dates 
differentiating reports submitted by States to EPA prior to January 1, 
2000, and those submitted after January 1, 2002, resulting in some 
duplicative requirements. Specifically, EPA is proposing to maintain 
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 LCRR to 
report the 90th percentile values of all water systems in addition to 
the first and last days of the tap monitoring period. EPA views these 
reporting elements as necessary for EPA enforcement and oversight.
    EPA is also proposing a change to State reporting to implement 
section 1414(c)(2)(D) of SDWA, as amended by the WIIN Act. This 
provision requires EPA to issue a Tier 1 public notification of a 
system's lead action level exceedance if a system fails to do so; 
however, EPA would need to know of the action level exceedance in order 
to conduct the notice. Therefore, EPA proposes 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.
    EPA acknowledges that a broader reporting requirement for 
compliance monitoring data in 40 CFR part 141 was proposed as part of 
the CCR Rule Revisions and was subject to public notice and comment (88 
FR 20092, USEPA, 2023n). EPA is proposing specific State reporting 
requirements in the LCRI as described above because final action has 
not yet been taken on the proposed CCR Rule Revisions. EPA intends to 
consider if any of the proposed LCRI State reporting requirements are 
necessary pending final action on the proposed CCR Rule Revisions.

L. Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141

1. Consumer Confidence Report (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart O)
    All CWSs are required by SDWA to provide their customers with an 
annual Consumer Confidence Report (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 April 5, 2023, EPA published a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking to strengthen the CCR Rule (88 FR 20092, USEPA, 2023n). The 
CCR is currently an annual report; however, the Proposed CCR Rule 
Revisions include a proposed requirement for water systems serving more 
than 10,000 people to provide the report biannually. The Proposed CCR 
Rule Revisions include updates to make the CCR more

[[Page 84961]]

accessible to consumers, among other improvements to the report. With 
the LCRI, EPA is proposing 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.
Lead Informational Statement
    All CWSs are required to include in their CCRs a short 
informational statement about lead in drinking water. This statement is 
intended to help ensure that all 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. The LCRR requires 
CWSs to include the following informational statement about lead in 
their CCR:
    Lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant 
women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from 
materials and components associated with service lines and home 
plumbing. [NAME OF UTILITY] is responsible for providing high quality 
drinking water and removing lead pipes, but cannot control the variety 
of materials used in plumbing components in your home. You share the 
responsibility for protecting yourself and your family from the lead in 
your home plumbing. You can take responsibility by identifying and 
removing lead materials within your home plumbing and taking steps to 
reduce your family's risk. Before drinking tap water, flush your pipes 
for several minutes by running your tap, taking a shower, doing laundry 
or a load of dishes. You can also use a filter certified by an American 
National Standards Institute accredited certifier to reduce lead in 
drinking water. If you are concerned about lead in your water and wish 
to have your water tested, contact [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.
    EPA is proposing to revise the statement to provide information 
about the risks of lead to all age groups, include additional measures 
consumers can take to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water, 
include new language recommending flushing for water used in cooking 
and formula feeding, emphasize proper use of filters, and simplify 
language. EPA is proposing the following revised informational 
statement about lead and has underlined the additions to illustrate 
changes from the LCRR text:

[[Page 84962]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.082

    During the public meetings on environmental justice considerations 
for the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023h; USEPA, 2023i) and in written 
public comments submitted to the LCRI docket (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801), EPA heard support for including information about the risks of 
lead to all age groups, instructions for flushing the tap prior to 
drinking or cooking to reduce lead levels as a result of stagnation in 
contact with lead sources, recommendations on the use of filters, and 
additional measures consumers can take to prevent lead exposure. 
Additionally, stakeholders have expressed concern that some consumers 
may lack the financial resources to replace leaded materials. EPA is 
reframing the language to provide steps that consumers can take to 
reduce the risk of lead exposure and help protect themselves and their 
family, rather than implying that they can take responsibility for 
controlling lead in their drinking water. EPA is also proposing to 
revise the statement to include additional steps consumers can take to 
reduce their exposure to lead in drinking water, such as using only 
cold water for drinking, cooking, and preparing baby formula. In 
addition, EPA is proposing to recommend that consumers refer to the 
instructions provided with their filter to ensure it is used properly. 
EPA has also heard concerns, in written comments submitted on the 
proposed CCR Rule Revisions (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0260), that homes 
with lead service lines may need to run the water for a longer period 
of time. In response, EPA is proposing to add new language noting that 
consumers served by lead or galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines may need to flush their pipes for longer periods.
Mandatory Lead Health Effects Language
    Under the current CCR Rule, CWSs are required to include in the CCR 
the mandatory lead or copper health effects language listed in Appendix 
A to

[[Page 84963]]

Subpart O of Part 141 when they fail to take one or more actions 
prescribed by Sec. Sec.  141.80(d), 141.81, 141.82, 141.83 or 141.84. 
EPA is proposing to require CWSs to include the mandatory lead or 
copper health effects language when they fail to take one or more 
actions prescribed by Sec. Sec.  141.80 through 141.93. This would 
expand the requirement to apply to more situations, such as failing to 
meet the public education requirements in Sec.  141.85 or requirements 
for sampling in schools and child care facilities under Sec.  141.93, 
so that consumers are more informed of the health effects of lead and 
copper.
    Under the LCRR, the mandatory lead health effects language required 
in the CCR is also required to be included in lead public education and 
public notification (see section V.H.). The current mandatory lead 
health effects language is as follows:
    Exposure to lead in drinking water can cause serious health effects 
in all age groups. Infants and children can have decreases in IQ and 
attention span. Lead exposure can lead to new learning and behavior 
problems or exacerbate existing learning and behavior problems. The 
children of women who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy 
can have increased risk of these adverse health effects. Adults can 
have increased risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or 
nervous system problems.
    EPA is proposing to revise the mandatory lead health effects 
language that is required in public education, public notification, and 
the CCR, as described in section V.H.5. and as follows. Additions are 
underlined to illustrate changes from the current text:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.083

    See section V.H.5. of this document for more information about the 
proposed revised mandatory lead health effects language.
Other Requirements
    Under the LCRR, water systems are not required to include 
information about sampling for lead in schools and child care 
facilities in the CCR. EPA is proposing to require that water systems 
include in the CCR a statement that the water system is required to 
sample for lead in schools and licensed child care facilities as 
requested by the facility, in accordance with Sec.  141.92 of the 
proposed LCRI, to encourage relevant members of the public to contact 
their school or child care facility for further information about 
potential sampling results. During the LCRR review, EPA heard concerns 
about the lack of a reporting requirement to publicly share results 
from sampling in schools and child care facilities (86 FR 71574, USEPA, 
2021b). EPA does not have the authority under SDWA to require schools 
and child care facilities to share the results as part of an NPDWR, 
including the proposed LCRI. To address this feedback, the Agency is 
proposing to require an informational statement in the CCR that would 
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. EPA is 
requesting comment from the public on this proposed requirement (see 
section IX. of this document). See section V.J. of this document for 
more information about lead sampling at schools and child care 
facilities.
    Under the LCRR, water systems are required to include information 
about their service line inventory in the CCR; however, they are not 
required to include information about service line replacement. As 
stated in section V.B.7. of this document, EPA is proposing for the 
LCRI to require water systems to make the service line replacement plan 
publicly available. Furthermore, EPA is proposing to require that water 
systems with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service lines in their inventory 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 people, 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.
2. Public Notification Rule (40 CFR Part 141, Subpart Q)
    EPA promulgated a Public Notification Rule in 40 CFR part 141, 
subpart Q in 2000 (65 FR 26035, USEPA, 2000b). This Public Notification 
Rule implements section 1414(c)(1) and

[[Page 84964]]

(2) of SDWA. That 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; if 
the system has been granted a variance or exemption, if the system has 
failed to comply with the requirements of any schedule set under a 
variance or exemption; and certain specified situations such as the 
occurrence of waterborne disease outbreak or emergency and the 
availability of unregulated monitoring data (see Sec.  141.201, Table 
1).
    In 2016, Congress amended sections 1414(c)(1) and (2) of SDWA, in 
the WIIN Act to require EPA's implementing regulations to ``specify 
notification procedures for'' public notice no later than 24 hours 
after the water system learns of each exceedance of the action level 
for lead prescribed under Sec.  141.80(c) of 40 CFR part 141, ``or a 
prescribed level of lead that the Administrator establishes for public 
education or notification in a successor regulation promulgated 
pursuant to section 1412'' if the exceedance ``has the potential to 
have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short term 
exposure'' (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)((1)((D) and (c)(2)((C)). In the LCRR 
rulemaking, 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 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 Public Notification Rule (Sec.  
141.202(c)). A copy of the notice must also be sent to both the State 
and the EPA Administrator in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  
141.31(d). This notice to the Administrator for a lead action level 
exceedance is needed because section 1414(c)(2)(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 EPA to identify 
whether the Agency must provide notice where required in section 
1414(c)(2)(D), which was also added to SDWA by the WIIN Act. It 
provides that if a State with primacy enforcement responsibility or the 
water system has not issued a notice for an 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 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 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 of the CFR). 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. This includes violations to Sec.  141.80 through Sec.  
141.84 which describe compliance dates of the rule, the action level, 
CCT, source water treatment, and service line inventory and replacement 
requirements; however, Sec.  141.80(c) which describes exceedances of 
the lead action level is excluded from the Tier 2 public notification 
requirements since lead action level exceedances require Tier 1 public 
notification. Tier 2 public notification is also required for 
violations to Sec.  141.85(a) through (c) and (h) which concern the 
content of public education materials and inclusion of information for 
non-English speaking consumers, delivery of public education after a 
lead action level 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. 
In addition, Tier 2 public notification is required for violations to 
Sec.  141.93 which describes flexibilities for small water systems to 
comply with the rule.
    As described in section V.H.3. of this document, EPA is proposing 
to require notification of supplemental monitoring for lead under Sec.  
141.85(c)(3); EPA is proposing to exclude this from the Tier 2 public 
notification requirements as this pertains to notification of 
supplemental sampling conducted at individual tap sampling sites, 
rather than systemwide. In addition, as discussed in section V.H.2. of 
this document, EPA is proposing to revise Sec.  141.85(h) to require 
outreach activities for systems that fail to meet the average annual 
replacement rate, instead of the goal LSLR rate as required under the 
LCRR. Violations to this proposed requirement would require Tier 2 
public notification under the proposed LCRI. EPA is also proposing to 
require Tier 2 public notification for violations to the proposed 
additional public education and filter requirements for water systems 
with multiple lead action level exceedances under Sec.  141.85(j). See 
section V.H. of this document for more information about the proposed 
public education requirements. Tier 3 public notification is required 
for monitoring and testing procedure violations for both lead and 
copper no later than one year after the system learns of the violation 
or begins operating under a variance or exemption. These include 
violations to Sec.  141.86 through Sec.  141.90 of the LCRR and 
proposed LCRI. EPA is also proposing to require Tier 3 public 
notification for violations to Sec.  141.92; as with violations to 
other monitoring and testing requirements, EPA believes that the public 
should be notified when water systems fail to conduct required sampling 
in schools and child care facilities.
    In the LCRI, EPA is not proposing to prescribe a level of lead for 
public education or public notification that is different from the lead 
action level in Sec.  141.80(c). Nor is EPA proposing to change the 
conclusion made during the LCRR rulemaking that a lead action level 
exceedance has the potential to have a serious adverse effect on human 
health as a result of short-term exposure. Therefore, as required in 
section 1414(c)(2)(C) of SDWA, a lead action level exceedance will 
continue to trigger the requirement for Tier 1 public notification of a 
lead action level exceedance. During the LCRR review (see written 
comments and summaries of LCRR engagements, Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-
0255) and Federalism consultation for the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023j), 
EPA received feedback on the requirement for 24-hour Tier 1 public 
notification of a lead action level exceedance expressing both support 
and opposition for this requirement. Many stakeholders expressed 
concern about the ability of water systems to distribute public notices 
within 24 hours of the system learning of the action level exceedance 
(USEPA, 2023j; Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255; Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-2017-
0300). Many stakeholders questioned whether lead could have serious 
adverse health effects from short-term exposure (Docket ID EPA-HQ-OW-
2021-0255). As stated in the final LCRR notice, EPA has concluded that 
lead action level exceedances have the potential to have

[[Page 84965]]

serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term 
exposure (86 FR 4239-40, USEPA, 2021a). SDWA mandates that notice in 
such a situation be distributed ``as soon as practicable, but not later 
than 24 hours after the public water system learns of the violation or 
exceedance''. The feasibility analysis EPA conducts in establishing a 
NPDWR is not a prerequisite to implementation of this statutory 
mandate. Moreover, EPA notes that 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 Public Notification Rule, and therefore should also be able to 
do so for lead action level exceedances.
    Because EPA is not proposing to prescribe a level of lead for 
public education or public notification that is different from the lead 
action level in Sec.  141.80(c), EPA is updating the action level for 
lead listed in appendix A to subpart Q of part 141 to conform with the 
Agency's proposed lead action level of 0.010 mg/L (see section V.E.2. 
of this document for more information about the proposed action level). 
EPA is retaining the October 16, 2024, compliance date for this 
provision. 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, they would comply with the revised lead 
action level of 0.010 mg/L (see section VII.A. of this document).
    EPA is also proposing to make conforming changes to the Public 
Notification Rule as a result of changes EPA is proposing to make 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 proposed revised lead health effects language required in public 
education and the CCR. See section V.H.5. of this document for more 
information about the proposed revised mandatory lead health effects 
language.
3. Definitions
    In accordance with EPA's goal identified in the LCRR review notice 
to simplify the LCRI, EPA is proposing new definitions to conform with 
new proposed requirements under LCRI, as well as updating the 
definitions for some existing terms in LCRR to clarify them. EPA's 
proposed new and updated definitions for LCRI are as follows:
    Action level. EPA is proposing to revise this definition so that 
the lead action level conforms with the proposed new lead action level 
of 0.010 mg/L.
    Child care facility. EPA is proposing to make minor clarifications 
that specify the definition applies to Subpart I only and that the 
licenses for child care facilities must come from a State, local, or 
Tribal licensing agency.
    Connector. EPA is proposing to revise this definition in several 
ways. EPA is proposing to streamline the definition to only include the 
word ``connector'' and not ``goosenecks, pigtails, and connectors'' 
because throughout the regulatory text, EPA refers to these pipes as 
``connectors.'' The definition notes that connectors are also referred 
to as ``goosenecks'' and ``pigtails.'' EPA is also clarifying that 
connectors typically connect the service line to the main. EPA is also 
proposing that the definition for a connector states the short segment 
of piping does not exceed two feet.
    During the LCRI engagements, some stakeholders recommended that 
lead connectors be added to the LSL definition, noting that separating 
the definitions for lead connectors and LSLs could prevent connectors 
from being replaced under the service line replacement program, and 
that consumers would not receive the same notification that they are 
served by a lead connector as if they were served by an LSL. EPA is 
proposing to keep the lead connector and LSL definitions separate 
because EPA views the connector and service line as distinct 
components. Adding connectors to the definition for LSL, such that a 
connector would be considered a service line under LCRI, could create 
confusion, which is counter to EPA's goal of simplifying the rule. 
Instead, EPA is proposing to keep the definitions separate and be clear 
about which proposed requirements apply to service lines, and which 
apply to connectors. For what EPA is specifically proposing with 
respect to connectors, please see section V.D.4. of this document.
    Some stakeholders requested additional guidance on the LCRR 
definition of ``gooseneck, pigtail, or connector,'' which included the 
phrase ``typically not exceeding two feet'' (USEPA, 2023j). These 
stakeholders said that that they are aware of lead connectors that are 
10 feet in length or longer and recommended that EPA define a maximum 
connector length and remove the word ``typically'' when referring to 
their length in the definition (USEPA, 2023j). EPA is proposing to 
change the definition of ``gooseneck, pigtail, or connector'' to 
exclude any connector that exceeds two feet because EPA is not aware of 
anything longer than two-feet that meets the other aspects of the 
definition--``short section of piping which can be bent and used for 
connections between rigid service piping.'' 40 CFR 141.2 (Emphasis 
added.) Moreover, the primary function of piping longer than two feet 
is more akin to a service line than ``short'' piping that ``can be bent 
and used for connections between rigid service piping.'' In addition, 
the contributions of lead into drinking water from something longer 
than two feet is expected to be closer to that of an LSL. Additionally, 
the materials that make up piping longer than two feet could 
potentially be identified for purposes of the inventory through similar 
techniques as service lines, such as potholing, given that longer 
connectors may extend beyond the street pavement. Therefore, EPA is 
proposing to regulate connectors greater than two feet in length the 
same way as service lines by narrowing the definition of connector. EPA 
is requesting comment on EPA's rationale for these changes and whether 
two feet is the appropriate maximum length for a lead connector (see 
section IX. of this document).
    Distribution system and site assessment. EPA is proposing to rename 
the LCRR's ``find-and-fix'' requirement to better align with the 
underlying requirements of the provision. The proposed requirements 
apply in a narrow set of circumstances, and they do not require water 
systems to either ``find'' the cause of a lead action level exceedance 
or ``fix'' all causes found. Since promulgating the LCRR, EPA has 
noticed that the phrase ``find-and-fix'' has caused significant 
confusion among States, water systems, other stakeholders, and the 
public. The new, proposed name, distribution system and site 
assessment, more clearly explains what the proposed requirement for 
systems entails: assessing potential reasons at the system- and site-
level why a lead sample tested above the lead action level. EPA is also 
proposing to update the definition to include the proposed revised lead 
action level of 0.010 mg/L.
    Find-and-fix. EPA is proposing to remove the definition of ``find-
and-fix'' given the proposed revised name of the requirement. See the 
proposed definition of ``distribution system and site assessment.''
    Full service line replacement. EPA is proposing to remove the 
definition of ``full lead service line replacement'' from 141.2 and 
instead, specify what constitutes a full service line replacement under 
the mandatory replacement program within the regulatory requirements in 
141.84(d)(6)(iii). By moving the substantive requirements for service 
line replacement out of the definition

[[Page 84966]]

section in subpart A of part 141 and including them with the other 
substantive requirements of the LCRI in Subpart I of Part 141, the LCRI 
would be easier to understand and implement.
    Galvanized requiring replacement. The LCRR includes a definition of 
``galvanized service line'' in Sec.  141.2 and the LCRR definition of 
lead service line in Sec.  141.2 provides that ``a galvanized service 
line is considered a lead service line if it ever was or is currently 
downstream of any lead service line or service line of unknown 
material'' The definition of LSL also provided that ``if the only lead 
piping serving the home is a lead gooseneck, pigtail, or connector, and 
it is not a galvanized service line that is considered a lead service 
line, the service line is not a lead service line.'' Thus, within the 
definition of ``lead service line'' EPA essentially defined a GRR 
service line. In contrast, a GRR service line is defined without 
reference to connectors in the inventory requirements in Sec.  
141.84(a). This discrepancy has caused confusion. Accordingly, EPA is 
proposing to add a definition of GRR service lines in Sec.  141.2, and 
to reference this same definition within the inventory section. This 
would streamline the LSL definition by removing information about GRR 
service lines from the LSL definition. During the proposed LCRI 
external engagements, EPA heard requests from a range of stakeholders 
for more clarity regarding the definition of GRR service lines. EPA 
expects the new revised proposed definition would be clearer, 
especially in tandem with the proposed definition of connectors that 
provides that connectors are not part of the service line to make the 
definition for service line clearer as well.
    Gooseneck, pigtail, or connector. EPA is proposing to remove the 
definition of ``gooseneck, pigtail, or connector'' and replace it with 
a definition for ``connector,'' which is described above.
    Lead service line. EPA is proposing to simplify the definition of a 
LSL, moving portions of the text to the regulatory requirements under 
Sec.  141.84 and to the proposed definition of ``service line.'' During 
the LCRI engagements, EPA heard the definition was confusing and 
cumbersome. EPA expects this new definition would be clearer.
    Lead status unknown service line. EPA is proposing to revise the 
definition of ``lead status unknown service line'' to specify that the 
definition applies ``for the purpose of subpart I of this part only'' 
and to simplify the definition by stating that it is any line not 
demonstrated to be an LSL, GRR service line, or non-lead pursuant to 
Sec.  141.84.
    Newly regulated public water system. EPA is proposing to add a 
definition of ``newly regulated public water system'' because of the 
new proposed revision under Sec.  141.84 which applies to the 
requirements of these systems to develop baseline inventories.
    Partial lead service line replacement. EPA is proposing to 
eliminate the definition of ``partial lead service line replacement'' 
and replace it with the proposed definition of ``partial service line 
replacement.''
    Partial service line replacement. EPA is proposing to add a 
definition of ``partial service line replacement'' which specifies that 
the definition applies ``for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only.'' The definition also expands the LCRR definition of ``partial 
lead service line replacement'' to include partial replacement of GRR 
service lines, in addition to LSLs. The definition also removes the 
text describing where partials are permitted and that they don't count 
towards the LCRR replacement rates, as the proposed LCRI includes these 
provisions in Sec.  141.84.
    Trigger level. EPA is proposing to remove the definition of 
``trigger level'' because of the proposed elimination of the trigger 
level.
    Service line. EPA is proposing to create a definition for ``service 
line'' to clarify proposed requirements under LCRI, especially the 
proposed requirement that systems create an inventory ``that identifies 
the materials and location of each service line connected to the public 
water distribution system.''
    Small water system. EPA is proposing to correct an error from LCRR 
to define small water systems as those serving 10,000 persons or fewer. 
EPA is specifying that this definition applies to Subpart I, only.
    Tap monitoring period. EPA is proposing to add a definition of 
``tap monitoring period'' to specify the period of time during which 
each water system must conduct lead or copper tap sampling, which can 
range from six months to nine years.
    Tap sample monitoring period. EPA is proposing to remove the 
definition of ``tap sampling monitoring period'' and replace it with 
the term ``tap monitoring period.'' The revision removes the regulatory 
provisions contained within the definition of ``tap sample monitoring 
period,'' as the proposed provisions are now included in Sec.  141.86.
    Tap sampling period. EPA is proposing to revise the definition of 
``tap sampling period'' to remove the regulatory provisions that were 
included in the definition. This revision simplifies the definition, as 
the proposed provisions are now included in Sec.  141.86.
    Wide-mouth bottle. In LCRR, EPA added a definition for wide-mouth 
bottle that requires bottles to be configured with a mouth that is at 
least 55 millimeters (mm) wide and one liter in size. EPA is proposing 
to modify the definition of wide-mouth bottle to explicitly state that 
55 mm is the outer diameter measurement of the bottle. Since the 
promulgation of the LCRR, EPA has received several questions about this 
requirement and whether the width is based on the interior or exterior/
cap size of a bottle, as there are few types of bottles that have a 55 
mm inner diameter (USEPA, 2023m). EPA anticipates this revised 
definition would be clearer and provide systems with more options to 
accurately implement the relevant LCRI requirements.
    EPA is also proposing minor revisions to select definitions. EPA is 
proposing to a minor revision to the definition of ``elementary 
school'' for clarity by changing the word ``purposes'' to ``purpose.'' 
EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``galvanized service 
line'' to clarify that the definition is intended to apply ``for the 
purpose of subpart I of this part'' only. EPA is proposing a 
grammatical correction to the definition of ``pitcher filter'' to 
remove an unnecessary comma. EPA is proposing a clarification to the 
definition of ``secondary school'' to include the grades which 
typically encompass secondary schools. EPA is proposing to eliminate 
the definition of ``medium-sized water system'' and replace it with an 
identical definition under ``medium water system'' for consistency in 
how the different system size categories are referred to. EPA is 
proposing a grammatical correction to the definition of ``optimal 
corrosion control treatment'' to change the word ``insuring'' to 
``ensuring.'' EPA is proposing to revise the definition of ``tap 
sampling protocol'' to refer to the protocol required by the rule 
itself rather than the instructions provided to residents to conduct 
sampling, as residents may not conduct sampling. EPA is proposing to 
revise the definition of a ``system without corrosion control 
treatment'' to specify that the definition applies ``for the purpose of 
subpart I of this part.'' EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the 
proposed definitions.

[[Page 84967]]

VI. Rule Areas for Which EPA Is Not Proposing Revisions

    EPA is not proposing revisions to the following sections: 40 CFR 
141.83 Source water treatment requirements, Sec.  141.88 Monitoring 
requirements for lead and copper in source water, and Sec.  141.89 
Analytical methods. The provisions in these sections are not affected 
by any of the changes EPA is proposing to other sections as part of 
this rule.

VII. Rule Implementation and Enforcement

    EPA is proposing requirements that would improve oversight and 
enforcement of the NPDWR for lead and copper, including eliminating the 
trigger level, enhanced sampling for detecting corrosion control issues 
in LSL systems, simplifying small system flexibility, streamlining 
public education following elevated lead measurements, and increased 
reporting by both systems and States. EPA also provides applicable 
guidance and tools on CCT, PE, and other aspects of the rule on the 
Agency's website at https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/water-system-implementation-resources to support implementation of the LCR and the 
LCRR and will continue to use this website to aid implementation of 
revisions finalized as a result of this proposed rule.

A. What are the rule compliance dates?

    Section 1412(b)(10) of SDWA provides that promulgated NPDWRs shall 
take effect three years after the NPDWR is promulgated ``unless the 
Administrator determines that an earlier date is practicable.'' EPA is 
proposing compliance dates for a final LCRI and seeking comment on 
whether it would be practicable for water systems to implement any of 
the proposed LCRI requirements earlier than three years from the date 
of final action on the proposed LCRI (see section IX. of this 
document). Additionally, the Agency is proposing to replace LCRR 
requirements with the LCRI and is describing in this section which 
requirements water systems will be required to follow between the 
current October 16, 2024 LCRR compliance date and the LCRI compliance 
dates.
    On June 16, 2021, EPA issued a final rule delaying the LCRR 
compliance date from January 1, 2024 to October 16, 2024 during which 
time water systems must continue to comply with the provisions of the 
LCR (40 CFR 141.80 through 141.91, as codified on July 1, 2020) (86 FR 
31939, USEPA, 2021e) and work towards compliance with the October 16, 
2024 deadline for the service line inventory. While EPA expects to 
promulgate the final LCRI prior to October 16, 2024, the Agency also 
acknowledged that the announcement of the proposed LCRI ``creates some 
uncertainty for water systems and States regarding the deadline and 
completion'' of required actions under LCRR, including the LSLR and tap 
sampling plans (86 FR 71580, USEPA, 2021b). In the LCRR review notice 
published on December 17, 2021, the Agency stated its intention to 
propose revisions to the LCRR compliance deadlines ``only for 
components of the rule that the Agency will propose to significantly 
revise'' (86 FR 71580, USEPA, 2021b). Some stakeholders have requested 
that EPA further delay the LCRR compliance date for items the Agency is 
proposing to revise in LCRI. For example, some States believe it will 
be difficult for them to review all the required plans at the same time 
and asked that EPA consider staggering various rule deadlines. Another 
stakeholder indicated that EPA should require compliance with the LCRI 
requirements beginning no earlier than January 2026. However, other 
stakeholders have previously cited concerns that delaying 
implementation of LCRR may delay public health protection (86 FR 31943, 
USEPA, 2021e; State of Arizona et al., v. EPA, 77 4th 1126 (D.C. Cir. 
2023) (dismissing petition for review of EPA's rule to delay the LCRR 
compliance date)). For a discussion on how the proposed compliance 
dates in this section address public health protection see section 
IV.E.
Proposed LCRI Compliance Dates
    For the LCRI, EPA is proposing a compliance date of three years 
after promulgation of a final rule and is proposing that systems 
continue to comply with the LCR until that date, with the exception of 
the LCRR initial LSL inventory, notification of service line material, 
associated reporting requirements, and the requirement for Tier 1 
public notification for a lead action level exceedance under subpart Q. 
This would provide the amount of time necessary for States to work with 
water systems to prepare to comply with the final LCRI requirements, 
which include revisions to most of the provisions of LCRR. EPA is 
proposing a direct transition from the LCR to the LCRI for all rule 
provisions with the above exceptions, so that States and water systems 
could focus their resources on preparing and updating service line 
inventories and conducting Tier 1 public notifications following lead 
action level exceedances, in addition to preparing for LCRI 
requirements, such as preparing their service line replacement plan. 
Water systems would not be required to comply with the other 
requirements of the LCRR between October 16, 2024 and the LCRI 
compliance date.
    EPA is proposing for water systems to continue to comply with the 
LCR until the LCRI compliance dates, with the above exceptions, because 
of the significant level of effort required of water systems to plan 
for compliance with the LCRI, coupled with the complexity of the LCRR. 
Additionally, EPA is proposing significant changes in the LCRI relative 
to the LCRR, many of which would render various LCRR requirements 
obsolete in a few years. Specifically, EPA is proposing to eliminate 
the trigger level and the many associated rule requirements that are 
required after a trigger level exceedance, including reporting 
requirements to the States that could require significant resources. 
Many of the rule requirements in LCRR are so interrelated that changes 
in one rule area impacts other areas. For example, the various actions 
water systems are required to take are based on a system's 90th 
percentile lead level. In LCRR, provisions for CCT are based on system 
size; CCT and LSL status; and if the system is above, below, or between 
different thresholds (e.g., lead PQL, lead trigger level, lead action 
level). In the proposed LCRI, these compliance pathways would be 
simplified by the proposed elimination of the lead trigger level, but 
also required additional proposed changes to the CCT provisions. 
Likewise, the LCR requires first-liter sampling at all sites while the 
LCRR requires fifth-liter sampling at LSL sites. The proposed LCRI 
would require the highest of the first and fifth liter at LSL sites. 
Changing from 90th percentile values based on a sampling approach with 
which systems have years of experience (the LCR), to a few years of a 
different approach (the LCRR), before changing again to the approach 
proposed in the LCRI, would likely cause confusion for systems and the 
public, and lead to wasted resources (e.g., developing sampling 
instructions, sampling plans, outreach materials).
    Another challenge is that the LCRR small system flexibility 
provision in Sec.  141.93 allows systems serving 10,000 people or fewer 
to choose between the LSLR provisions or CCT provisions, which 
otherwise are specific to systems serving more than 10,000 people. 
Without the small system flexibility provision, there would be no 
requirements for small systems to

[[Page 84968]]

conduct LSLR or CCT. Therefore, any changes to those sections must be 
considered together. Compliance with one component of the rule without 
compliance with other related components would cause confusion and 
could produce inconsistencies across different requirements.
    Additionally, in one of the key features of the rule, EPA is 
proposing in the LCRI for all water systems to identify and replace all 
LSLs and GRR service lines as quickly as feasible, regardless of lead 
levels. In response to the historic funding provided under the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, some systems are voluntarily initiating 
service line replacement programs. However, despite this progress by 
some systems, many other systems have not or are not conducting service 
line replacement. Many systems have not been required to replace LSLs 
due to an action level exceedance under the LCR and may not have 
experience developing replacement programs. EPA has received feedback 
from water systems about the potential challenges of implementing 
replacement programs including availability of equipment and supplies, 
difficulties in securing funding, and hiring crews to complete 
replacements. EPA is working with States and water systems to 
demonstrate best practices for overcoming or mitigating these 
challenges through the Lead Service Line Replacement Accelerator 
initiative (USEPA, 2023e) and other technical assistance programs. By 
focusing States' and systems' efforts on standing up these service line 
replacement programs rather than implementing LCRR provisions that will 
be changed or eliminated, the rule will result in systems removing more 
LSLs and GRR service lines, which, where present, are the most 
significant source of drinking water lead exposure. While the LCRI 
would not wholly eliminate the challenges of large scale, nation-wide 
service line replacement, EPA anticipates that systems would better use 
the three-year period after promulgation of a final LCRI for program 
planning, 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. Because of the significant level of effort required of water 
systems to plan for compliance with the LCRI, coupled with the 
complexity of the LCRR, EPA is proposing to require water systems to 
continue to comply with the LCR prior to the LCRI compliance deadline, 
with the few exceptions noted above and further discussed below. EPA 
also anticipates that requiring systems to simultaneously comply with 
LCRR while preparing for LCRI could result in delays in achieving the 
public health protections that will result from the proposed LCRI 
requirements (see section IV.E.).
LCRR Requirements and Compliance Dates That Will Be Retained
    EPA is retaining the compliance date of October 16, 2024, for 
systems to complete their initial service line inventories and to 
notify customers about their service line material within 30 days of 
completion of the inventory. Water systems and States are aware of and 
should be prepared to meet this deadline in light of EPA's August 2022 
issuance of Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a Service Line 
Inventory guidance and EPA's December 17, 2021 Federal Register 
document on the conclusion of EPA's review of the LCRR (86 FR 71574, 
71579, USEPA, 2021b).
    Inventories help systems identify the location of LSLs and GRR 
service lines. Inventories are critical to support lead reduction 
efforts because they will allow customers to know if they are served by 
a LSL or GRR service line, as well as evaluate the extent of these lead 
sources in their drinking water system as a whole. With the inventory, 
water systems will be able to notify all persons served by lead, GRR, 
and unknown service lines and provide them with information on 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 LSLs and GRR service lines within their 
systems, and begin planning for service line replacement, including 
applying for grants and loans.
    EPA is also retaining the October 16, 2024, compliance date for 
Tier 1 PN following a lead action level exceedance. This requirement, 
which is a revision of EPA's Public Notification Rule in 40 CFR part 
141, subpart Q was established in the same rulemaking as the revisions 
to the LCR in 40 CFR part 141, subpart I (i.e., the LCRR), consistent 
with SDWA section 1414(c) as amended by the WIIN Act, based on EPA's 
determination that a lead action level exceedance has the potential to 
have serious human health effects as a result of short-term exposures 
(86 FR 4240, USEPA, 2021a). EPA is not proposing any changes to this 
requirement in the Public Notification Rule and the Agency does not 
anticipate that additional time would be needed for water systems to 
comply with this requirement given that systems must already conduct 
Tier 1 PN for other contaminants. EPA notes that, between October 16, 
2024, and the LCRI compliance date, systems will be required to conduct 
this Tier 1 PN following an exceedance of the lead action level of 
0.015 mg/L established under the LCR.
Alternative Proposed Compliance Dates
    EPA is seeking comment from the public about its proposed 
compliance dates for various rule requirements, including whether it is 
practicable for water systems to implement any of the proposed LCRI 
requirements sooner than three years from the date LCRI would be 
finalized. In particular, EPA is seeking comment on whether it is 
practicable for water systems to implement notification and risk 
mitigation provisions after full and partial service line replacement 
(Sec.  141.84(h)), notification of a service line disturbance (Sec.  
141.85(g)), and associated reporting requirements (Sec.  141.90(e)(6) 
and (f)(6)) upon the effective date of the LCRI. These provisions were 
introduced in the LCRR and have been revised in the LCRI to improve 
clarity (see sections V.B.6. and V.H.2. of this document). EPA 
introduced risk mitigation requirements to reduce consumer lead 
exposure because lead levels can temporarily increase after service 
line replacement and some disturbances. Although the Agency is 
concerned about systems implementing most provisions of LCRR while 
preparing to implement LCRI, EPA also anticipates that systems will 
continue to improve inventories, including identifying unknowns, and 
may conduct service line replacement either voluntarily or per 
regulation prior to the LCRI compliance date. EPA expects that earlier 
implementation of these provisions would reduce lead exposure for the 
subset of consumers affected by these activities. Therefore, EPA is 
seeking information, analyses, and comments on whether systems are 
capable of implementing these risk mitigation provisions sooner than 
the other LCRI requirements (see section IX. of this document). EPA is 
also seeking comment on whether earlier alternative compliance dates 
for LCRI requirements are practicable such that water systems 
transition directly from LCR to LCRI in less than three years (i.e., 
one or two years) based on the assumption that water systems would 
comply with the LCR until the LCRI compliance date (see

[[Page 84969]]

section IX. of this document). Exhibit 6 below illustrate these 
alternative compliance dates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.018

    EPA is also requesting comment on whether there are other LCRR 
provisions for which the October 16, 2024, compliance date should be 
retained. Under either of these scenarios, water systems would need to 
comply with some mix of the LCR and the LCRR while preparing to comply 
with the LCRI requirements three years (or earlier) after promulgation. 
EPA expects that piecemeal implementation of the treatment technique 
requirements for service line replacement, CCT, and public education 
would create a significant implementation challenge for most, if not 
all water systems, especially because of the interrelationship between 
the treatment techniques, and the role of the action and trigger levels 
in requiring systems to take corrective actions and provide additional 
public education. As a result, in assessing the impact of this 
approach, EPA would need to account for the strong possibility that 
there would be widespread non-compliance as a result of that 
implementation challenge. EPA seeks comments on these concerns and any 
ways EPA could address them if the Agency were to finalize one of these 
alternative approaches for compliance with the LCRR and the LCRI (see 
section IX. of this document).

B. What are the requirements for primacy?

    SDWA authorizes EPA to regulate PWSs and promulgate NPDWRs that 
limit contaminants that may harm public health (SDWA section 1412). 
States may also regulate PWSs under SDWA by assuming primacy 
enforcement (or primacy) for PWSs in their jurisdictions (SDWA section 
1413). PWSs in these Primacy States must then comply with both sets of 
State and Federal regulations. Generally, Primacy States monitor 
compliance with regulations; however, EPA can also take enforcement 
actions against water systems for failure to comply with NPDWRs. EPA 
conducts annual reviews of State programs and can also withdraw primacy 
(see 40 CFR 142.17).
    This section also describes the regulations, procedures and, 
policies that primacy entities must adopt, or have in place, to 
implement the LCRI, when it is final. States, Territories, and Tribes 
must continue to meet all other conditions of primacy in 40 CFR part 
142. Section 1413 of SDWA establishes requirements that primacy 
entities (States or Indian Tribes) must meet to maintain primary 
enforcement responsibility (primacy) for its PWSs. These include: (1) 
adopting drinking water regulations that are no less stringent than 
Federal NPDWRs in effect under sections 1412(a) and 1412(b) of SDWA; 
(2) adopting and implementing adequate procedures for enforcement; (3) 
keeping records and making reports available on activities that 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. 40 CFR part 142 sets out the specific 
program implementation requirements for States to obtain primacy for 
the Public Water Supply Supervision Program (PWSS), as authorized under 
SDWA section 1413.
    Under 40 CFR 142.12(b), all States/territories/Tribes would be 
required to submit a revised program to EPA for approval within two 
years of promulgation of any final LCRI or request an extension of up 
to two years in certain circumstances. To retain primary enforcement 
authority for the final LCRI, States must adopt revisions at least as 
stringent as the proposed provisions in 40 CFR Subpart I--Control of 
Lead and Copper; Sec. Sec.  141.153 and 141.154; Sec. Sec.  141.201 and 
202; Appendix A to Subpart O ([Consumer Confidence Report] Regulated 
contaminants); Appendix A to Subpart Q (NPDWR Violations and Other 
Situations Requiring Public Notice; and Appendix B to Subpart Q 
(Standard Health Effects Language for Public Notification).

C. What are the special primacy requirements?

    EPA is proposing to revise the existing special primacy 
requirements for the LCRR by modifying some, and establishing new, 
special primacy requirements for States as a condition of primacy. 
First, EPA is proposing to eliminate the special primacy requirement 
related to systems' goal-based service line replacement programs, given 
the proposed requirement for mandatory service line replacement in the 
LCRI. EPA is also proposing that States must identify any 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 any such laws 
exist or not. Systems must provide this notification by the compliance 
date and within six months of the enactment of any new or revised State 
law that pertains to access.
    Under the LCRR, States must determine if a greater mandatory lead 
service line replacement rate is feasible and to notify the system of 
its

[[Page 84970]]

determination in writing. EPA is proposing to modify this requirement 
for States to determine whether a shortened service line deadline is 
feasible. The proposed LCRI also includes a new requirement for States 
to update their feasibility determination to require a shortened 
deadline anytime throughout the system's replacement program, such as 
where factors related to feasibility change and make a shortened 
deadline feasible. Given the proposed new inventory validation 
requirement, EPA is also proposing for States to establish a deadline 
to complete inventory validation where shortened deadlines are 
feasible, as these systems would be replacing LSLs in less than ten 
years.
    EPA is also proposing modifications to special primacy requirements 
under the LCRR 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 LCRR only required States to set 
this deadline where water systems identify an LSL that was categorized 
as non-lead in the inventory. In the LCRI, EPA is proposing to include 
GRRs because these are included in the proposed service line 
replacement requirements and may also be improperly identified. In 
addition, because EPA is proposing to include lead connectors in the 
inventory, and would require systems that have inventories with no lead 
connectors and no unknown connectors to update their inventory if a 
lead connector is found. Therefore, EPA is proposing to include a 
requirement for States to set a deadline for systems to prepare an 
updated inventory in these cases.
    EPA is also proposing for States to describe how the State will 
determine if an alternative lead sampling program is as ``stringent as 
the Federal requirements'' including how the State will use the 
definitions of elementary schools, secondary schools, and child care 
facilities as defined in Sec.  141.2 to issue waivers. EPA is proposing 
that States must describe how the State will review the lists of 
schools and child care facilities submitted by CWSs to ensure the list 
includes schools and child care facilities that meet the definitions of 
elementary school, secondary school, and child care facility in Sec.  
141.2, and that States must certify that this list of schools and child 
care facilities is complete. EPA received questions about the LCRR 
requirement for States to define schools and child care facilities. EPA 
is aware that which facilities meet the definition of child care 
facility under Sec.  141.2 may differ among States (e.g., which 
facilities are licensed by the State). However, it is not the Agency's 
intention for States to develop new definitions for schools and child 
care facilities for purposes of complying with the new rule. In LCRI, 
EPA is proposing to clarify the ``child care facility'' (see section 
V.L.3. of this document). EPA is proposing to modify the LCRR 
requirement that States verify that systems have complied with follow-
up requirements following a single site sampled above the action level. 
Under the LCRR, this requirement was part of find-and-fix. In the 
proposed LCRI, this requirement is relabeled as distribution system and 
site assessment (see section F.2. of this document).

VIII. Economic Analysis

    This section summarizes the Economic Analysis (EA) supporting 
document (USEPA, 2023b) for the proposed LCRI, which is written in 
compliance with SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C). Section 1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) 
of SDWA states that, when proposing an NPDWR that includes a treatment 
technique, the Administrator ``shall publish and seek comment on an 
analysis of the health risk reduction benefits and costs likely to be 
experienced as the result of compliance with the treatment technique 
and the alternative treatment techniques that are being considered, 
taking into account, as appropriate, the factors described [under 
section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)].'' This analysis is commonly called the 
Health Risk Reduction Cost Analysis (HRRCA). SDWA section 
1412(b)(3)(C)(i) lists the analytical elements of the required HRRCA as 
follows: (1) quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risk reduction 
benefits; (2) quantifiable and non-quantifiable health risk reduction 
benefits from reductions in co-occurring contaminants; (3) quantifiable 
and non-quantifiable costs that are likely to occur solely as a result 
of compliance; (4) incremental costs and benefits of rule options; (5) 
effects of the contaminant on the general population and sensitive 
subpopulations including infants, children, pregnant women, the 
elderly, and individuals with a history of serious illness; (6) any 
increased health risks that may occur as a result of compliance, 
including risks associated with co-occurring contaminants; and (7) 
other relevant factors such as uncertainties in the analysis and 
factors with respect to the degree and nature of the risk.
    Based on this HRRCA analysis and pursuant to SDWA section 
1412(b)(4)(C), the Administrator has determined that the estimated 
quantified and nonquantifiable benefits of the proposed regulation 
justify the quantified and nonquantifiable costs.
    In this analysis, EPA assumes that the LCRI NPDWR will be 
promulgated in 2024. The Agency estimated the year or years in which 
all costs and benefit 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 corrosion control treatment. 
Note that 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 proposed LCRI cost 
will not double count the service line replacement costs already 
required by States.
    EPA annualized the estimated future streams of costs and benefits 
that accrue from compliance activities occurring over this same period 
of analysis symmetrically. EPA does not capture the effects of 
compliance with the proposed LCRI after the end of the period of 
analysis, although it 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. EPA determined the present value of these costs and benefits 
using social discount rates of three and seven percent as prescribed by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 (OMB, 2003).
    Estimated benefits, in terms of health risk reduction from the 
proposed 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. EPA quantifies and monetizes 
some of this health risk reduction from lead exposure by estimating the 
decrease in lead exposures accruing to both children and adults from 
the installation and re-optimization of CCT, service line replacement, 
the implementation of point-of-use filter devices, and the provision of 
pitcher filters in systems with multiple 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.

[[Page 84971]]

A. Affected Entities and Major Data Sources Used To Characterize the 
Sample Universe

    The entities potentially affected by the proposed LCRI are PWSs, 
that are classified as either CWSs or NTNCWSs, and Primacy Agencies 
(States). In the economic modeling performed, EPA uses the Safe 
Drinking Water Information System Fed Data Warehouse (SDWIS/Fed) to 
derive the number of CWSs and NTNCWSs, 49,529 and 17,418, respectively. 
The Agency also assumed, for modeling purposes, 56 Primacy Agencies.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The 56 Primacy Agencies include 49 States (excluding 
Wyoming), Puerto Rico, Guam, United States Virgin Islands, American 
Samoa, North Mariana Islands, and Navajo Nation. For cost modeling 
purposes, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA used a variety of data sources to develop the drinking water 
industry characterization for the regulatory analysis. Exhibit 7 
(Exhibit 3-1 in Chapter 3 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2023b)) 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 LCRR.\10\ 
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 proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2023b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Note that 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 EA (USEPA, 2023b). 
Because PWSs and Primacy Agencies will likely not have implemented 
the parts of the LCRR associated with compliance dates post 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 84972]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.019

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

B. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model

    EPA updated its SafeWater LCR model that was used to analyze the 
costs and benefits of the LCRR. For a detailed description of the 
model, see Chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and 
Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020c). EPA originally

[[Page 84973]]

developed SafeWater LCR because of the need to model costs and benefits 
where significant variability existed in both regulated entity 
characteristics (i.e., baseline) and regulatory compliance scenarios, a 
fact that remains true of the analysis for the proposed LCRI. PWSs will 
face different compliance scenarios depending on the size and type of 
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 proposed 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 service lines 
(LSLs) and galvanized requiring replacement service lines (GRRs) in 
their distribution system, and existing corrosion controls in place. 
The SafeWater LCR model also includes variability in compliance 
characteristics like different labor rates and number of tap and water 
quality parameter (WQP) samples required by system size.
    One limitation of the cost-benefit analysis is that 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, 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 ownership (2).
    The SafeWater LCR model creates model PWSs representing systems in 
each category by combining the PWS-specific data available in SDWIS/Fed 
with data on baseline and compliance characteristics available at the 
PWS category level. When categorical data are point estimates, every 
model PWS in a category is assigned the same value. When EPA has 
probabilistic data representing system variability, 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 PWS 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 EPA had full 
information on each PWS. For additional detail on the development of 
model-PWSs in the SafeWater LCR model, see Appendix B, section B.2.1 of 
the Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020c). Because of this model PWS 
approach, SafeWater LCR 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 Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020c).
    Chapter 3 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b) 
describes in greater detail the baseline data elements, their 
derivation, and the inherent sources of uncertainty in the developed 
data elements. Chapter 4, sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis discuss how each data element is used in the 
estimation of costs and provides examples and references to how these 
data were developed. Chapter 5 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2023b) provides detail on the water lead concentrations under 
baseline conditions (e.g., presence of an LSL and CCT) and the 
functions used to quantify benefit categories, their derivation, and 
the inherent sources of uncertainty associated with the use of those 
functions. All significant uncertainties of this economic analysis are 
described in the following sections of the proposed LCRI EA (USEPA, 
2023c). Section 3.4 and Exhibit 3-81 outline uncertainties associated 
with the analytical baseline and water system compliance 
characteristics. SafeWater LCR model and cost uncertainty is discussed 
in section 4.2.2 and Exhibit 4-3. Also, for a discussion of the 
uncertainties in the benefits analysis, see section 5.7 and Exhibit 5-
43.
    SafeWater LCR 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 and determines how the PWS will comply with 
each requirement of the proposed 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.), and then summary statistics are calculated, 
including total quantified costs of the proposed regulatory 
requirement, total quantified benefits of the proposed regulatory 
requirement, the variability in PWS-level costs (e.g., 5th and 95th 
percentile system costs), and the variability in household-level 
costs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The exception to the use of model PWSs and the assignment 
of system characteristic data in the SafeWater LCR model are the 24 
very large water systems serving more than one million people. 
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, EPA attempted to collect 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, EPA used it to 
estimate compliance costs and benefits for the very large water 
systems. If data were not available, EPA assigned baseline 
characteristics using the same process as previously described. See 
Chapter 4, section 4.2.3 of the proposed LCRI EA for a summary of 
the data EPA collected on these very large systems (USEPA, 2023b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This treatment technique rulemaking, and therefore the SafeWater 
LCR model, is complex, incorporating multiple compliance triggers 
(e.g., action level exceedance, single sample exceedance, multiple 
action level exceedances) that require multiple and varying compliance 
actions (e.g., CCT installation or re-optimization, distribution system 
and site assessment, public education, temporary filter distribution) 
requiring 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 proposed LCRI, are 
uncertain.
    EPA determined it 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, 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

[[Page 84974]]

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) and 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. 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 Chapter 4 and Chapter 5 of the proposed LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2023b). Due to the data limitations mentioned above, 
with the exception of the uncertain variables which 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 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 LCRR and proposed LCRI (e.g., number of systems with 
LSLs and percent of connections that are LSLs).
    When evaluating the economic impacts on PWSs and households, 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. EPA used data from the 2006 Community Water 
System Survey (CWSS) to estimate the PWS cost of capital. 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 type is shown in 
Appendix B of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b). Since 
similar cost of capital information is not available for NTNCWSs, EPA 
used the CWS cost of capital when calculating the annualized cost per 
NTNCWS. Total capital investment may be greater than costs water 
systems bear when complying with future regulatory requirements because 
financing support for lead reduction efforts is available from State 
and local governments, EPA programs, and other Federal agencies. The 
availability of funds from government sources, while potentially 
reducing the cost to individual PWSs, does not reduce the social cost 
of capital to society.
    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 its 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 
materials inventory requirements, service line materials notification 
requirement, and requirement for public notification following an 
action level of 0.015 mg/L (LCRR action level) in years one through 
three of the 35-year period of analysis. 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 proposed LCRI must be implemented by water 
systems regardless of their water quality and tap sampling results 
(e.g., service line material inventory updates, service line 
replacement, and CWS school and child care facilities sampling 
programs). However, most of the major 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 
regulatory requirements and costs and benefits under the proposed 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 CCT, the installation 
of point-of-use devices or pitcher filters at water systems selecting 
this treatment option as part of the small water system flexibilities 
under the proposed LCRI, and public education requirements.\12\ Under 
the proposed 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 reoptimize CCT; \13\ (2) install point-of-use 
devices or (3) remove all service lines with lead content. When the PWS 
no longer has a 90th percentile tap sample value above the action 
level, it incurs lower sampling and public education costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Distribution system and site assessment adjustments to CCT 
are required for a single lead tap sample exceedances of the action 
level of 0.010 mg/L. The provision of temporary pitcher filters is 
triggered by multiple action level exceedance violations. Both these 
compliance requirements are also positively associated with system 
level 90th percentile tap sample values.
    \13\ The SafeWater LCR model implements a required systemwide 
distribution system and site assessment activity as a change in pH 
which is equivalent to pH adjustments associated with CCT 
installation or preoptimization in the model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SafeWater LCR model allows for future increases in 90th 
percentile lead values as a result of changes in source water and 
treatment. The likelihood of these events occurring has been derived 
from SDWIS/Fed data (see Chapter 3, section 3.3.9 of the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b)). When a change in source 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 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 will not change.

C. Cost Analysis

    This section summarizes the cost elements and estimates the total 
cost of compliance for the baseline (LCRR), the proposed LCRI, and the 
incremental cost of the proposed LCRI, under both the low and high cost 
scenarios, discounted at three and seven percent. EPA presents the 
estimated PWS proposed rule implementation costs; the calculated 
distributions of incremental annualized costs for CWS households by 
primary water source and size category; and the estimated costs to 
States for implementation and administration of the rule.\14\ This 
section also quantifies the potential increase in phosphates that would 
result from the increased use of corrosion inhibitors under the rule, 
the resulting cost for treating to remove the additional phosphates at 
downstream wastewater treatment plants that may be

[[Page 84975]]

constrained by nutrient discharge limits, and discusses the ecological 
impacts that may result from increased phosphorus loads to surface 
waters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Note that reporting costs are represented in the cost 
totals provided in the estimates below, but a separate summary of 
the reporting costs, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, can 
be found in section X.C. of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Drinking Water System Costs
    EPA provides estimates of the proposed LCRI regulatory requirement 
costs that accrue to PWSs for the following cost components: rule 
implementation and administration, sampling, service line inventory and 
replacement, CCT, point-of-use program (if a small system selects this 
compliance option), and public education and outreach. For the purpose 
of developing the PWS costs for each of these rule components EPA 
further subdivided these groupings into sub-components and activities, 
to be completed by systems implementing the requirements of the 
proposed LCRI. 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 8 (Exhibit 4-6 in the 
proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b)) provides an overview of 
the rule components, subcomponents, and activities for which EPA 
estimates water system unit costs for the proposed LCRI. Detailed 
information on the derivation of unit costs associated with each 
activity can be found in the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis sections 
identified in Exhibit 8.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 84976]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.020

[[Page 84977]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.021

[[Page 84978]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.022

[[Page 84979]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.023

[[Page 84980]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.024

[[Page 84981]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.025

    EPA uses the derived unit costs associated with each regulatory 
activity from Exhibit 8 as inputs to the SafeWater LCR model which 
estimates low and high scenario PWS total costs for the baseline (LCRR) 
and the proposed LCRI.\15\ Baseline total costs are then subtracted 
from the LCRI total costs to determine the incremental costs of the new 
regulatory requirements under the proposed LCRI for both the low and 
high cost scenarios. These incremental costs are presented as 
annualized values, discounted at both three and seven percent in 
Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10, respectively. The estimated total PWS 
incremental annualized costs of the proposed LCRI range from $2.1 to 
$2.93 billion at a three percent discount rate, and $2.5 to $3.58 
billion at a seven percent discount rate in 2022 dollars. 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 proposed LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For additional information on how the SafeWater LCR model 
uses unit cost date to estimate PWS costs see Chapter 4, section 4.3 
of the proposed LCRI rule EA (USEPA, 2023b).

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

[[Page 84982]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.026

[[Page 84983]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.027

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 84984]]

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 
implementation cost for the system which includes the rule 
implementation and administration, including, but not limited to, 
sampling, service line inventory and replacement, CCT, point-of-use 
program (if a small system selects this compliance option), and public 
education and outreach component costs. Because of uncertainty in three 
important LCRI cost input variables, discussed in section VIII.B. of 
this document, the Agency developed low and high cost scenarios. These 
scenarios produce a range in the estimated cost per gallon and two 
estimates for annualized per household costs.
    The SafeWater LCR model multiplies this 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 11 and 12 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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Note that although EPA assumed in the cost analysis that 
systems would pay for customer-side service line replacement. It is 
possible that in some systems individual homeowners may bear a much 
greater annual household burden which includes the customer-side 
service line replacement. EPA estimates the cost of removing the 
customer-owned side of a service line range from $1,920 to $5,400, 
with a central tendency 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 LSLs and GRR service 
lines in the water system, the rate of replacement, and the details 
of the water systems service line replacement program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 84985]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.028

[[Page 84986]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.029

[[Page 84987]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.030

[[Page 84988]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.031

3. State Costs
    For each of the PWS cost components and subcomponents, previously 
described in section VIII.C.1., States (i.e., Primacy Agencies) have 
associated costs. Exhibit 13 (Exhibit 4-142 in the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b)) provides a list of the State 
activities, organized by LCRI cost component and subcomponent groups, 
for which EPA developed unit costs. Detailed information on the 
derivation of the unit costs associated with each State activity can be 
found in the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis sections identified in 
Exhibit 13.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.032

[[Page 84989]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.033

[[Page 84990]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.034

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    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 required actions 
that are triggered for the individual water systems. The exception to 
this rule is the implementation and administrative costs which 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 proposed 
LCRI economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
    The SafeWater LCR cost model estimates that States will incur 
monetized incremental estimated annualized costs, under the low cost 
scenario, totaling $16.1 million at a three percent discount rate and 
$12.6 million at a seven percent discount rate. For the high cost 
scenario total estimated monetized incremental cost is $15.3 million at 
a three percent discount rate and $11.3 million at a seven percent 
discount 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 PWS, 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, EPA is evaluating the costs 
of additional phosphate usage for informational purposes. These costs 
are not ``likely to occur solely as a result of compliance'' with the 
proposed 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, 
EPA developed a conceptual mass balance model. EPA applied this 
conceptual model to estimate the increase in loading at WWTPs, given an 
initial loading from corrosion control at water treatment plants. 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 
2016, in annual percentage rate terms, the growth rate in the 
percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus limits is 3.3 percent (see Chapter 
4, section 4.5.1 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis, USEPA, 2023b).
    EPA applied the growth rate observed from 2007 to 2016 to estimate 
the anticipated percentage of WWTPs with phosphorus limits in future 
years. This growth rate results in an estimated 41 percent of WWTPs 
with phosphorus discharge limits after 35 years. Applied 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.
    EPA derived a unit cost of $5.44 per pound for removing incremental 
phosphorus (see Chapter 4, section 4.5.1 of the proposed LCRI Economic 
Analysis for additional information). 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. WWTPs, whose current discharge concentrations 
are closer to

[[Page 84991]]

their limit, are more likely to have to act. WWTPs whose current 
treated water concentrations are well below their limit are less likely 
to incur costs but might, under certain conditions, incur costs (for 
example, 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, EPA conservatively assumed that any WWTP with a 
discharge limit for phosphorus parameters could incur costs. 
Accordingly, in calculating costs, 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. 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 WWTPs would incur to 
remove additional phosphorous associated with the LCRI, under the low 
cost scenario, ranges from $4.2 million to $4.3 million at a three and 
seven percent discount rate, respectively. The high cost scenario 
produced an incremental estimated impact of $5.8 million using a three 
percent discount rate, and $5.9 million at a seven percent discount 
rate.
    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 grow over the period of analysis from the low/high 
scenario range of 343,000 to 491,000 pounds fifteen years after 
promulgation to the low/high scenario range of 511,000 to 693,000 
pounds at year 35. See Chapter 4, section 4.5.2 of the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b) 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, 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, 
2019b). The total phosphorus loadings from the LCRI high cost scenario 
would contribute about 0.5 percent (3.9 million/750 million) of total 
phosphorus entering receiving waterbodies in a given year, and the 
incremental amount of total phosphorus associated with the proposed 
LCRI relative to the LCRR grows only 0.1 percent (693,000/750 million). 
At the national level, EPA expects total phosphorus entering 
waterbodies as a result of the proposed 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, consuming oxygen and 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 (Chislock et al., 2013). Certain types of phosphorous-
fueled cyanobacterial blooms, may produce toxins to both humans and 
aquatic life. These toxins include microcystins (liver toxins) and 
neurotoxins. This issue is particularly prevalent in lakes or other 
slow-flowing water bodies. HAB events have 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).
Total Monetized Costs
    The estimated annualized low and high scenario costs, discounted at 
three percent and seven percent, that PWSs, households,\17\ and States 
will incur in complying with the baseline LCRR, the proposed LCRI, and 
incrementally are summarized in Exhibits 14 and 15. The estimated total 
monetized incremental annualized cost of the proposed LCRI range from 
$2.06 to $2.92 billion at a three percent discount rate, and $2.51 to 
$3.56 billion at a seven percent discount rate in 2022 dollars. The 
exhibits also detail the proportion of the annualized costs 
attributable to each rule component.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Note that as part of the baseline (LCRR) analysis of 
service line replacement costs 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 proposed LCRI service line replacement costs 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 proposed 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-side 
of service lines is now included, by assumption, in the LCRI 
incremental costs for PWS service line replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 84992]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.035

[[Page 84993]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.036

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

D. Benefits Analysis

    The proposed 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,

[[Page 84994]]

immunological, developmental, and other major body systems. There is no 
known safe level of exposure to lead (USEPA, 2013). 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 
(2009) demonstrated this trend, is most pronounced in children under 
one year of age who drink more than double older children and adults 
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). EPA's health risk reduction and 
benefits assessment of the LCRI revisions concentrates on 
quantification and monetization of the estimated impact of reductions 
in lead exposure on 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. As explained in 
appendix D of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b), there 
are additional non-quantified lead health impacts to both children and 
adults that will be realized as a result of this rulemaking. Therefore, 
the quantified benefits of this rule are likely underestimated.
    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 children with 
genetic disorders or predispositions to accumulate copper, chronic 
exposure to excess copper can result in liver toxicity. Because 
household level data on the change 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 proposed LCRI Economic Analysis 
for additional copper health impact information.
1. Modeled Drinking Water Lead Concentrations
    In updating EPA's drinking water lead concentrations for the 
proposed LCRI, the Agency built upon the data and models used in the 
analysis of the final LCRR. Detailed information on the residential 
lead concentration data and modeling from the final LCRR can be found 
in Chapter 6 of the final LCRR Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020c). In the 
2021 LCRR analysis, EPA collected and used data on lead concentrations 
and information regarding LSL and CCT status, location, and date of 
sample collection, representing 14 water systems across the United 
States and Canada. EPA updated this data for the LCRI analysis by 
initially identifying eight additional sampling datasets.\18\ After 
close assessment, it was determined that seven of the datasets had data 
availability and study design issues and could not be included.\19\ 
Only the 324 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 18,363 samples collected from 1,657 homes in 16 
cities representing 15 city water systems. EPA grouped the samples into 
LSL status categories (``LSL,'' ``Partial LSL,'' ``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 in the model are considered 
optimized. For additional detail see Chapter 5, section 5.2.1 of the 
proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ EPA identified 8 data sets from Clarksburg WV, Cleveland 
OH, Chicago IL, Kalamazoo MI, Parchment MI, Flint MI, Galesburg IL 
and Sebring OH with drinking water lead sampled collected from 2016 
to 2021.
    \19\ For additional detail on the assessment of the lead 
concentration data see Chapter 5, section 5.2.1 of the proposed LCRI 
(USEPA, 2023b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA fit several regression models, following the same methodology 
from the LCRR final benefits analysis (see Economic Analysis Chapter 6, 
section 6.2.2 of the final LCRR Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2020c)), of 
tap water lead concentration 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 to 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. 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 (Exhibit 5-8, in Chapter 5 of the proposed 
LCRI EA). The selected model suggests that besides water system, 
residence, 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 the Economic Analysis document for the proposed LCRI, Chapter 
5, section 5.2.2, Exhibit 5-9 (USEPA, 2023b) for additional detail 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. The regression model results for the LCRI 
analysis are consistent with those conducted for the LCRR, which is not 
unexpected given the fact that the Agency added approximately two 
percent of new data to the drinking water lead concentration dataset.
    To statistically control for some sources of variability in the 
input data, EPA, following the LCRR analysis, did not use summary 
statistics from the original data directly in estimating the effects of 
LSL and CCT status. Instead, EPA produced simulated mean lead 
concentrations for 500,000 samples, based on the selected regression 
model. The simulations were performed on the log-scale to conform to 
the fitted model (which used a log-transformed water lead concentration 
variable) and converted to the original scale to produce geometric 
means and geometric standard deviations. Geometric means are more 
representative of the central tendency of a right-skewed distribution 
than are arithmetic means and prevent

[[Page 84995]]

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 given information on LSL and CCT status. For more detail regarding 
this regression, see Chapter 5, section 5.2.2 of the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b). 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, on average, the lead concentrations taken after a 
short flushing period of roughly 30 seconds for all combinations of LSL 
and CCT status. This represents a point near the average peak lead 
concentration for homes with full or partial LSLs, and a point slightly 
below the peak lead concentration for homes with no LSLs, regardless of 
CCT status.
    EPA estimates that improving CCT will produce significant 
reductions in lead tap water concentration overall. However, in the 
case of ``no LSL'', the final model produced predictions of drinking 
water concentrations that overlapped almost completely for all CCT 
conditions.\20\ 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 LSLs the remaining sources of lead 
in residential plumbing (old solder and brass) are small, compared to 
the LSL, and contribute far less lead to a multi-liter sequential 
sampling profile. Therefore, EPA used the pooled estimate of predicted 
drinking water concentrations for all residences with no LSL regardless 
of CCT condition for the main analysis in Chapter 5 of the proposed 
LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ EPA does not believe that there are lead water mains in the 
country. Water mains are typically six 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). Lead service lines are two inches or 
less in diameter (LSLR Collaborative, n.d.g.).
    \21\ Note that EPA in the economic analysis does not make 
restrictive assumptions in pairing specific CCT and LSL statuses. It 
is not improbable to have systems with CCT in place when no LSLs are 
present. The pre-2021 LCR requires all systems serving 50,000 or 
more people 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 AL requiring CCT even when 
LSLs are not present due to initial corrosivity of the water and 
secondary sources of lead like old brass and solder. Systems that 
have LSLs but no CCT are possible 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 AL. EPA 
combine data from two source to estimate the percent of CCT systems 
with LSLs, SDWIS and DWINSA data. See sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 for 
the Economic Analysis of the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2023b) for 
additional detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because small CWSs that serve 3,300 or fewer persons have 
flexibility in the compliance option they select in response to a lead 
action level exceedance, some CWSs are modeled as installing point-of-
use devices at all residences. See section V.G. of this document for 
additional information on the compliance alternatives available to 
small CWSs. For individuals in these systems, EPA assumed in the 
analysis, that consumers in households with point-of-use devices are 
exposed to the same lead concentration as residents with ``No LSL'' and 
``Representative'' CCT in place. The proposed LCRI also requires the 
water systems to make available to all customers pitcher filters or 
point-of-use devices certified to reduce lead in cases where multiple 
ALEs have occurred. See section V.I. of this document for additional 
information on the regulatory requirements associated with multiple 
action level exceedances. EPA assumed that households receiving pitcher 
filters or point-of-use devices would be exposed to the same lead 
concentration as residents with ``No LSL'' and ``Representative'' CCT 
in place. Uncertainties in the water modeling are discussed in section 
5.2.5 and in Exhibit 5-43 of the proposed LCRI EA (USEPA, 2023c).

[[Page 84996]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.037

    In the estimation of the benefits of the proposed LCRI, each 
modeled person within a water system is assigned to one of the 
estimated drinking water lead concentrations in Exhibit 16, depending 
on CCT, point-of-use, pitcher filter, and LSL/GRR service line status. 
Note that EPA assumes GRR service lines are equivalent to LSLs in terms 
of modeled water lead concentrations. EPA estimated benefits under both 
the low and high scenarios used in the proposed LCRI analysis to 
characterize uncertainty in the estimates. With regard to benefit, the 
low and high scenarios differ by the number of PWSs that will exceed 
the action level under the revised tap sampling requirements and the 
concentration-response functions that characterize how reductions in 
blood lead levels (caused by changes in lead exposure) translate into 
avoided IQ reductions, reductions in lower birth weight, cases of ADHD, 
and cardiovascular disease premature mortality (see Chapter 4, section 
4.2 and Chapter 5, section 5.1 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2023b). EPA predicted the status of each system under the low 
and high scenarios at baseline (prior to rule implementation) and in 
each year of rule implementation for both the LCRR and proposed LCRI. 
Depending on the timing of required actions that can change CCT, point-
of-use, pitcher filter, and LSL/GRR service line status under both the 
LCRR and proposed LCRI low and high scenario model runs, changes in 
lead concentration and resultant blood lead 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 proposed rule, 
improvements to CCT and the use of installed point-of-use devices are 
only predicted for individuals in households with LSLs prior to 
implementation of the LCRR and proposed LCRI requirements (consistent 
with discussion above about the limits of the data for predicting the 
impact of CCT when LSLs/GRR service lines are not present). In the 
model, LSL/GRR service line removals are predicted by water system, by 
year, for both the LCRR and 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 exposure that result from an 
improvement in CCT, EPA predicts the entire LSL/GRR service line 
population of a water system will move to the new CCT status at the 
same time. EPA also assumes that the entire water system moves to the 
drinking water lead concentration assigned to point-of-use devices when 
this option is implemented, which implies that everyone in households 
in a distribution system with LSLs/GRR service lines is properly using 
the point-of-use devices. As part of the multiple action level 
exceedances requirements under the proposed LCRI, EPA assumes that only 
20 percent of a water system's population with LSL, GRR service line, 
and service lines of unknown material will request and receive pitcher 
filters or point-of-use devices and hence will move to the assigned 
drinking water lead concentration for pitcher filter or point-of-use 
device use, which implies that everyone who receives a pitcher filter 
or point-of-use device is using it properly. See Chapter 5, section 5.3 
of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b) for more detailed 
information on the number of people switching lead concentration 
categories under the low and high scenarios.
2. Blood Lead Modeling
    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 proposed LCRI. The four health endpoints 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

[[Page 84997]]

disease premature mortality in adults. As a prerequisite to estimating 
the impact to these health endpoints, EPA must first use the drinking 
water lead concentration data it developed to determine the potential 
impact to blood lead levels from the regulatory requirements of both 
the LCRR (baseline) and the proposed 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 eight years olds through adulthood with the All Ages 
Lead Model (AALM).
3. Estimating Blood Lead Levels in Children (0-7 Year Olds)
    Consistent with the LCRR benefits analysis, EPA estimated the 
distribution of blood lead levels in children, age zero to seven, using 
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, 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 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 CDC's NHANES and 
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/GRR service line and CCT scenarios, above, 
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 proposed 
LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
    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, 
ingestion) absorption fractions to obtain a distribution of lead 
uptakes (see Exhibit 5-21 in Chapter 5, section 5.4 of the proposed 
LCRI EA, USEPA, 2023b). 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, EPA used age-based relationships derived 
from IEUBK, through the use of a polynomial regression analysis, to 
relate these total lead uptakes to blood lead levels. Exhibit 17 
presents modeled SHEDS-Pb blood lead levels in children by year of life 
and LSL or GRR service line, CCT status, pitcher filter and point-of-
use device. The blood lead levels in this exhibit represent what 
children's blood lead level would be if they lived under the 
corresponding LSL or GRR service line, point-of-use, pitcher filter and 
CCT status combination for their entire lives. Note that when ``No 
LSL'' is the beginning or post-rule state, 0.81 [micro]g/L (the 
simulated geometric mean) is the assumed concentration across all 
levels of CCT status (none, partial, representative). As previously 
noted, the extent to which changes in CCT status make meaningful 
differences in lead concentrations for those without LSLs or GRR 
service lines cannot be determined from the data available to EPA.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 84998]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.038

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
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 proposed LCRI, EPA selected the AALM. 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, c). 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 are 
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 EPA's regression modelling, Exhibit 16 above, was used 
to estimate the distribution of blood lead levels in males and females 
aged eight to 79 years using EPA's AALM. Each distinct LSL/GRR and CCT 
scenario was modeled and represented by water lead concentrations, and 
each scenario was run for females and males as the AALM 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 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 the AALM TSD, Appendix C; 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) 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 EPA's 
SHEDS Soil and Dust model; and an air lead concentration of

[[Page 84999]]

0.01 [micro]g/m\3\ was used for all age groups and sexes based on 
national air monitoring results reporting in Cavender (2013).
    The AALM modeling output provides the yearly estimated blood lead 
level ([micro]g/dL) by age from eight to 79 years for each combination 
of sex, LSL/GRR service line, CCT, point-of-use and pitcher filter 
combination. For additional detailed information on the AALM inputs and 
modeling results see Chapter 5, section 5.4 of the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b). A summary of the AALM results by sex 
are presented in Exhibit 18.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.039

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 85000]]

5. Quantifying and Monetizing Health Endpoints
    EPA quantified and monetized the change in four health endpoints in 
the economic analysis of the proposed LCRI. 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 subsections 
below outline the methods EPA used in analysis of each of these 
endpoints.
6. Estimating IQ Benefits
    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 17, as inputs in the modeling of IQ benefits for the proposed 
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, 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 LCRR (baseline) or 
LCRI are implemented. 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 LCRR (baseline) 
and proposed LCRI, tracks PWS implementation over the 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, 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, pitcher filter exposure 
scenarios (the set of scenarios includes not only the change in LSL/GRR 
service line, CCT, point-of-use and pitcher filter status but also the 
years, zero to seven, in which the status changes occur) and applies 
these 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 (BLLs)) 
for that analysis year under both the LCRR (baseline) and LCRI 
requirements. The change in average lifetime BLLs for the seven year 
old cohort is then used to determine the incremental benefit of avoided 
IQ losses for both the LCRR and proposed LCRI.
    In order to relate the child's estimated average lifetime BLL to an 
estimate of avoided IQ loss, EPA selected concentration-response 
functions based on lifetime blood lead from two studies. For the high 
estimate function, the Agency used a study by Lanphear et al. (2019), 
and for the low estimate 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, EPA selected lifetime blood lead as the most 
appropriate measure with which to evaluate benefits. No threshold has 
been identified for the neurological effects of lead (Budtz-
J[oslash]rgensen et al., 2013; Crump et al., 2013; Schwartz et al., 
1991; USEPA, 2013). Therefore, 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 
USEPA's (2019d) reanalysis of Salkever (1995), which estimates that a 
one-point increase in IQ results in a 1.871 percent increase in 
lifetime earnings for males and a 3.409 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. USEPA's (2019d) reanalysis of 
Salkever (1995) estimates a change of 0.0812 years of schooling per 
change in IQ point resulting from a reduction in lead exposure for 
males and a change of 0.0917 years of schooling for females.
    To estimate the uncertainty underlying the model parameters of the 
Salkever (1995) reanalysis, USEPA (2019d) 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. EPA uses an IQ point value discounted to age seven. Based on 
EPA's reanalysis of Salkever (1995), the mean value of an IQ point in 
2022 dollars, discounted to age seven, is $6,887 using a seven percent 
discount rate and $27,336 using a three percent discount rate.\22\ See 
Appendix F, of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b) for a 
sensitivity analysis of the value of avoided IQ loss benefits based on 
Lin et al. (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ It should be noted that these values are slightly different 
than those used in other recent rulemaking (e.g., the Lead Dust 
Standard). This is simply due to the differences in the age of the 
child when the benefits are accrued in the analysis. Benefits for 
the LCRI are accrued at age seven and therefore the value of an IQ 
point is discounted back to age 7 in the LCRI analysis. This results 
in a slightly higher estimate than the values used for the Lead Dust 
Standard, which are discounted to age zero and age three, 
respectively. It should also be noted, and is described in Chapter 
5, Section 5.4.5 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2023b), that the benefits in the LCRI are further discounted back to 
year one of the analysis and annualized within the EPA LCRI cost-
benefit model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 use, 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 annual avoided IQ decrements per 
change in LSL, CCT, point-of-use, and/or pitcher filter status change 
are then summed and multiplied by the EPA reanalyzed Salkever (1995) 
value per IQ point, which represents a weighted average for males and 
females (three or seven percent depending on the discount rate being 
used to annualize the stream of benefits across the period of 
analysis). This annual stream of benefits was annualized at three and 
seven percent, and further discounted to year one of the period of 
analysis. Note that this analysis quantifies the benefits from water 
quality changes that occur during the 35-year period of analysis but 
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 19 (discounted at 
three percent) and Exhibit 20 (discounted at seven percent), in section 
VIII.D.10., for the estimated benefit from avoided IQ losses from lead 
and GRR service line replacement, CCT installation and re-optimization, 
point-of-use program operation, and pitcher filter distribution as a 
result of the LCRR, the proposed 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 proposed LCRI see 
Chapter 5, section 5.5 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2023b).

[[Page 85001]]

7. Estimated ADHD Benefits
    This is the first regulation in which 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. 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, such as areas of the brain that control attention being 
less active in children with ADHD (Tripp et al., 2009; Pliszka et al., 
2007). The EPA lead ISA states 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.'' Therefore, additional research is 
needed to understand the critical exposure window (thus exposure 
metric), the mode of action of lead in the development of ADHD and/or 
related symptoms, and potential interplay with genetic factors and 
exposures to other substances. Symptoms of ADHD alone, while important 
for the child and their families, can be difficult to link to 
monetizable outcomes considered in benefits analysis such as reduced 
productivity and increased medical and educational expenditures. 
Therefore, 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. EPA chose a high and low dose-response 
function for the estimates of avoided cases to partially address the 
uncertainty in the most appropriate dose-response function to use in 
estimating avoided cases due to the proposed rule.
    The approach used to quantify ADHD here is based on review and 
analysis that Abt Associates (Abt Associates, 2023) conducted under 
contract to EPA. Specifically, 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/GRR, point-of-use, pitcher filter, and CCT status. E
    PA used the concentration response functions from two studies to 
bracket the estimated number of ADHD cases avoided. 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). 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 18, 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 BLLs in their study, EPA used the 
estimated set of potential geometric mean blood lead levels estimated 
by the SHEDS-Pb model, shown in Exhibit 17, as the input values for the 
Ji et al. (2018) concentration response associated with the low ADHD 
benefits scenario.
    As described above in section VIII.D.6. of this document, the 
SafeWater LCR model, with the strengths and limitations characterized 
in section VIII.B. and sections 4.2.2 and 5.7 of the Economic Analysis 
document for the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 2020c), is able to track the 
population in water systems that are affected by changes in LSL/GRR 
service line, point-of-use, 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 BLLs 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 scenarios and the Ji et al. (2018) 
function for the low benefit scenario.
    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 only 65 
percent of ADHD cases persist into adulthood. In order to apply these 
avoided cost values in the benefits analysis EPA produced two net 
present value estimates for all avoided ADHD costs incurred through age 
64, the first discounted back to age seven for use with Ji et al. in 
the estimation of the low benefit scenario (Ji et al. (2018) used BLLs 
measured in young children) and back to age 11 for use with Froelich et 
al. (2009) function in estimating the high benefits scenario (Froelich 
et al. (2009) used BLLs measured in children 8-15 years of age). The 
net present values of avoided costs were computed using both the three 
and seven percent discount rates. The costs were also adjusted to 2022 
dollars. The estimated per case ADHD avoided costs under the high 
benefits scenario and discounted to age 11 range from $228,231 to 
$203,823 discounted at three and seven percent, respectively. The per 
case values used in the low benefits scenario and discounted to age 7 
range from $202,780, at a three percent discount rate, to $155,496, at 
a seven percent discount rate.
    The estimated number of ADHD cases avoided under the low and high 
benefits scenarios in each year of the 35-year period of analysis in 
then multiplied by the corresponding net present value to compute the 
avoided cost per year. This annual stream of benefits was annualized at 
three and seven percent over the 35-year period of analysis, and 
further discounted to year one of the period of analysis. See Exhibit 
19 (discounted at three percent) and Exhibit 20 (discounted at seven 
percent), in section VIII.D.10., for the estimated benefit from avoided 
ADHD cases from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT installation 
and re-optimization, point-of-use program operation, and pitcher filter 
distribution as a result of the LCRR, the proposed 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 proposed LCRI see Chapter 5, section 5.5.4 of the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
8. Estimated Low Birth Weight Benefits
    This is the first regulation in which EPA has estimated benefits of 
avoided cases of low birth weight 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. Blood leads from the AALM for women of 
childbearing age (17-45 years of age) were used in order to estimate 
reduced lower birth weight in infants. The concentration response 
function characterizing the relationship between changes in female BLL 
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)

[[Page 85002]]

function for both the low and high benefits scenarios because 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 which support the relationship between 
lead exposures and reduced 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 (Abt Associates, 2022) conducted under 
contract to 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 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 $1,839 (2010$), 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, 
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 19 (discounted at three percent) and Exhibit 20 
(discounted at seven percent), in section VIII.D.10., for the estimated 
benefit from avoided low birth weight impacts from lead and GRR service 
line replacement, CCT installation and re-optimization, point-of-use 
use program operation, and pitcher filter distribution as a result of 
the LCRR, the proposed 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 
proposed LCRI see Chapter 5, section 5.5.6 of the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
9. Estimated Cardiovascular Disease Premature Mortality Benefits
    EPA's estimation of benefits from avoided cardiovascular disease 
(CVD) associated premature mortality follows a new methodology outlined 
in Brown et al. (2020) and Abt Associates (2023). The latter document 
benefited from an independent peer review (MDB Incorporated, 2019) that 
articulated the strengths and limitations of our understanding of the 
relationship between lead exposure and cardiovascular disease premature 
mortality, and thus the strengths and limitations of the method 
presented. These strengths and limitations are discussed in more detail 
in the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis, Chapter 5 (USEPA, 2023b). In 
order to bracket the reduction in CVD premature mortality risk avoided, 
and the calculated monetized benefits, associated with reductions in 
BLLs resulting from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT 
installation and re-optimization, point-of-use program operation, and 
pitcher filter distribution accruing under the proposed LCRI, EPA 
selected two concentration response functions. The high scenario 
function is based on the BLL <5 [micro]g/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 BLL available in peer-reviewed studies 
estimating continuous functions using high quality, nationally 
representative datasets.
    In order to value the reduced CVD premature mortality risk, EPA 
uses the same approach it uses in estimating the benefits associated in 
reductions of particulate matter and ozone in the air pollution 
regulations. Specifically, 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. 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.\23\ Avoided cases of cardiovascular disease 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 18, for both the low and high scenarios (as defined by 
the estimated range PWSs that will exceed the action level under the 
proposed LCRI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ EPA uses a value of a statistical life (VSL) of $12.98 
million, which is estimated using 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 GDP per capita and an income elasticity of 0.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under both scenarios, the SafeWater LCR model is able to track the 
population in water systems that are affected by changes in LSL, point-
of-use, 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 BLLs for each 
population group are then used to estimate the number of avoided cases 
of CVD premature mortality using the Lanphear et al. (2018) function in 
the high scenario and the Aoki et al. (2016) function for the low 
scenario, assuming baseline cases of cardiovascular disease premature 
mortality due to lead follow the same distribution of all 
cardiovascular mortality cases in the U.S. population.
    See Exhibit 19 (discounted at three percent) and Exhibit 20 
(discounted at seven percent), in section VIII.D.10., for the estimated 
benefit from avoided cardiovascular disease premature mortality risk 
from lead and GRR service line replacement, CCT installation and re-
optimization, point-of-use use program operation, and pitcher filter 
distribution as a result of the LCRR, the proposed 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 proposed LCRI see

[[Page 85003]]

Chapter 5, section 5.5.9 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2023b).
10. Total Monetized Benefits
    Exhibits 19 and 20 show the estimated, monetized national 
annualized total benefits, under the low and high scenarios,\24\ 
associated with the baseline (LCRR), the proposed LCRI, and the 
increment of change between the two, discounted at three and seven 
percent, respectively. The benefits from the proposed 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. 
EPA quantifies and monetizes some of this health risk reduction from 
lead exposure by estimating the decrease in lead exposures accruing to 
both children and adults from the installation and re-optimization of 
CCT, service line replacement, the implementation of point-of-use 
filter devices, and the provision of pitcher filters in systems with 
multiple ALEs.\25\ 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 delays in 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 exposures, and the fact 
that there are several other avoided health impacts (See Appendix D of 
the EA for the proposed LCRI (USEPA. 2023b)) that were not quantified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The low and high benefits scenarios are defined by 
differences in the estimated number of systems experiencing lead 
ALEs based on calculated lead tap sampling 90th percentile values 
and the concentration-response functions that characterize how 
reductions in blood lead levels (caused be changes in lead exposure) 
translate into avoided IQ reductions, cases of ADHD, and 
cardiovascular disease premature mortality.
    \25\ Noted 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 document), 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exhibit 19 and 20 provide the total estimated incremental 
annualized monetized benefits of the proposed LCRI discounted at three 
and seven percent, respectively. The total annualized monetized 
benefits range from $17.3 to $34.8 billion at a three percent discount 
rate, and $9.8 to $20.9 billion at a seven percent discount rate in 
2022 dollars. The exhibits also detail the proportion of the annualized 
benefits attributable to each health endpoint category of monetizable 
benefit. For additional information on estimated health endpoint 
benefits subdivided by proposed LCRI regulatory activity see Chapter 5 
of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b). See section 
VIII.E.2. of this document 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 Economic Analysis of the proposed rule (USEPA, 
2023b), the estimated benefits are contingent on the assumptions in the 
baseline--principally, whether or not the provisions of the prior LCRR 
to remove lead service lines have been successfully met. Therefore, EPA 
provides in Appendix C, of the Economic Analysis for the proposed rule 
(USEPA, 2023b) estimated national costs and benefits of the LCRI 
utilizing the pre-2021 LCR as a baseline.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.040

[[Page 85004]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.041

E. Cost-Benefit Comparison

    This section summarizes and describes the numeric relationship 
between the monetized incremental costs and benefits of the proposed 
LCRI regulatory requirements. The section also discusses both the non-
monetized costs and benefits of the rulemaking. Exhibits 21 and 22 
compare the annualized monetized incremental costs and benefits of the 
proposed LCRI for the low and high scenarios. Under a three percent 
discount rate, the net annualized incremental monetized benefits, under 
the low and high scenarios, range from $15.3 to $31.9 billion. Under 
the low and high scenarios and a seven percent discount rate, the net 
annualized incremental monetized benefits range from $7.3 to $17.3 
billion.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.043

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 85005]]

1. Non-Monetized Costs
    The proposed LCRI is expected to result in additional phosphate 
being added to drinking water to reduce the amount of lead leaching 
into water in the distribution system. EPA's cost model estimated that, 
nationwide, the proposed 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 343,000 to 
491,000 pounds fifteen years after promulgation, and increasing under 
the low and high scenarios by a range of 511,000 to 693,000 pounds at 
year 35. At the national level, under the high cost scenario, this 
additional phosphorous loading to waterbodies is relatively small, less 
than 0.1 percent of the total phosphorous load deposited annually from 
all other anthropogenic sources. However, national average receiving 
waterbody 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 
proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b) for additional 
information.
2. Non-Quantified Non-Monetized Benefits
    In addition to the benefits monetized in the proposed 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 that 
are expected to decrease as a result of the proposed LCRI are 
summarized in Appendix D of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2023b) and are expected to affect both children and adults. 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 EPA's Integrated 
Science Assessment for Lead (ISA) (USEPA, 2013); and the Human 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. 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), immunological 
effects, neurological effects (apart from children's IQ), and cancer.
    There are a number of proposed LCRI requirements that reduce lead 
exposure to both children and adults that EPA could not quantify. The 
proposed 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 LSLs 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 also will require the 
development of service line inventories that include additional 
information on lead connectors and making 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, possibly resulting in additional 
service line and service line connector removals initiated by 
homeowners before, during, or following home sale transactions. The 
benefits of these additional removals are not quantified in the 
analysis of the proposed LCRI. Because of the lack of granularity in 
the lead tap water concentration data available to 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 distribution system and site assessment are not 
quantified.
    EPA also did not quantify the benefits of reduced lead exposure 
from lead-containing plumbing components (not including from LSL/GRRs) 
to individuals who reside in both: (1) homes that have LSL/GRRs but 
also have other lead-containing plumbing components, and (2) those that 
do not have LSL/GRRs but do have lead-containing plumbing components. 
EPA has determined that the proposed 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 LSL/GRR and non-
LSL/GRR homes potentially affected by water systems increasing their 
corrosion control during the 35-year period of analysis is 16.2 million 
in the low scenario and 23.3 million in the high scenario. Some of 
these households may have leaded plumbing materials apart from LSL/
GRRs, including 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 owned by 
both water systems and homeowners (Levin, 2023). The corrosion 
inhibitors used by systems that are required to install or re-optimize 
CCT as a result of the proposed LCRI would result in additional 
benefits associated with the increased useful life of the plumbing 
components and appliances (e.g., water heaters), reduced maintenance 
costs, reduced treated water loss from the distribution system due to 
leaks, and reduced potential liability and damages from broken pipes in 
buildings that receive treated water from the system. The replacement 
of GRR service lines may also lead to reduced treated water loss from 
the distribution system due to leaks (AwwaRF and DVGW-
Technologiezentrum Wasser, 1996). EPA did not have sufficient 
information to estimate these impacts nationally for the proposed rule 
analysis.
    Additionally, the risk of adverse health effects associated with 
copper that are expected to be reduced by the proposed LCRI are 
summarized in Appendix E of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 
2023b). 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).

F. Alternative Regulatory Options Considered

    The Office of Management and Budget recommends careful 
consideration ``of all appropriate alternatives for the key attributes 
or provisions of a rule'' (OMB, 2003). Pursuant to this guidance, EPA 
considered alternative regulatory options when developing the proposed 
LCRI related to:
     Alternative lead action levels of 0.015 mg/L and 0.005 mg/
L rather than the proposed LCRI lead action level of 0.010 mg/L.

[[Page 85006]]

     An annual service line replacement rate of 7 percent 
rather than the 10 percent rate under the LCRI.
     The inclusion of lead connectors and galvanized service 
lines previously downstream of lead connectors in the proposed rule's 
definition of lead content requiring replacement.
     Setting the criterion for deferred service line 
replacement to 8,000 lines per year instead of the 10,000 lines per 
year in the proposed LCRI.
     Alternative temporary filter provision requirements for 
systems with multiple lead action level exceedances.
     Providing the small system compliance flexibility to CWSs 
that serve a population of 10,000 or fewer people rather than just to 
CWSs that serve 3,300 or fewer people (Note: Under both scenarios 
NTNCWSs of all sizes are covered by the compliance flexibility).
    Exhibit 23 provides a summary of the proposed LCRI requirements and 
other options considered.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.044

1. Alternative Lead Action Levels
    Exhibit 24 through Exhibit 27 compare the quantified costs and 
benefits of the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits at 
an action level of 0.015 mg/L holding all other proposed LCRI rule 
requirements constant. Results in these tables are provided for the 
high scenario at both a three percent and seven percent discount rates.
    Note the following for all cost results in this section VIII.F. 
Alternative Regulatory Options Considered:
    EPA in the 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 3 percent mandatory replacement requirement. 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

[[Page 85007]]

a potential violation for not meeting the replacement target under the 
goal-based replacement requirement, the possibility of a violation 
under the 3 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 LCRR modeling assumptions, under 
the proposed LCRI, 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. 
EPA has insufficient information to estimate the actual service line 
replacement cost sharing relationship between customers and systems at 
the national level of analysis.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.045

[[Page 85008]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.046

[[Page 85009]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.047

    Exhibit 28 through Exhibit 31 compare the quantified costs and 
benefits of the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits at 
an action level of 0.005 mg/L holding all other proposed LCRI rule 
requirements constant. Results in these tables are provided for the 
high scenario at both a three percent and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.048

[[Page 85010]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.049

[[Page 85011]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.050

[[Page 85012]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.051

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.052

2. Alternative Service Line Replacement Rate
    Exhibit 32 through Exhibit 35 compare the quantified costs and 
benefits of the proposed 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 both the three percent and seven 
percent discount rates.

[[Page 85013]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.053

[[Page 85014]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.054

[[Page 85015]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.055

3. Alternative Definition of Lead Content Service Lines To Be Replaced
    Exhibits 36 through 39 compare the quantified costs and benefits of 
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of requiring all 
lead connectors and all galvanized lines downstream from lead 
connectors be replaced along with lead service lines and galvanized 
downstream of lead lines at the 10 percents annual replacement rate. 
Results are provided for the high scenario at both the three percent 
and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.056

[[Page 85016]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.057

[[Page 85017]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.058

[[Page 85018]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.059

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.060

4. Alternative Service Line Replacement Deferral Threshold
    Exhibits 40 through 43 compare the quantified costs and benefits of 
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits under an 
alternative service line replacement deferral threshold of 8,000 
service lines requiring replacement per year, as compared to the 
proposed LCRI threshold of 10,000 service lines requiring replacement 
per year, holding all other rule requirements

[[Page 85019]]

constant. Results are provided for the high scenario at both the three 
percent and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.061

[[Page 85020]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.062

[[Page 85021]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.063

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.064

5. Alternative Temporary Filter Programs for Systems With Multiple Lead 
Action Level Exceedances
    The proposed LCRI includes a requirement that systems with three 
lead action level exceedances in five years make filters available at a 
central location to all consumers that have services lines with known 
or potential lead content. EPA assessed three alternative temporary 
filter programs, including:
    1. Systems with multiple lead action level exceedances must 
directly deliver filters to all customers.
    2. Systems with multiple lead action level exceedances must 
directly deliver filters to all customers that have services

[[Page 85022]]

lines with known or potential lead content.
    3. Systems with multiple lead action level exceedances confer with 
the State but are not required by the rule to make temporary filters 
available.
    Exhibits 44 through 47 compare the quantified costs and benefits of 
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of requiring 
systems with multiple lead action level exceedances to deliver filters 
to all customers. Results are provided for the high scenario at both 
the three percent and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.065

[[Page 85023]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.066

[[Page 85024]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.067

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.068

    Exhibits 48 through 51 compare the quantified costs and benefits of 
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits of requiring 
systems with multiple ALEs to deliver filters to customers with LSL, 
GRR service lines, and service lines of unknown material. Results are 
provided for the high scenario at both the three percent and seven 
percent discount rates.

[[Page 85025]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.069

[[Page 85026]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.070

[[Page 85027]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.071

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.072

    Exhibits 52 through 55 compare the quantified costs and benefits of 
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits when systems 
with multiple action level exceedances confer with the State but are 
not required by the rule to make temporary filters available. Results 
are provided for the high scenario at both the three percent and seven 
percent discount rates.

[[Page 85028]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.073

[[Page 85029]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.074

[[Page 85030]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.075

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.076

6. Alternative Size Threshold for Small System Compliance Flexibility
    Exhibits 56 through 59 compare the quantified costs and benefits of 
the proposed LCRI to the quantified costs and benefits for an 
alternative option where the small system compliance flexibility size 
threshold is equal to systems serving 10,000 or fewer people. The 
proposed LCRI sets the small system compliance flexibility threshold at 
systems serving 3,300 or fewer

[[Page 85031]]

people. Results are provided for the high scenario at both the three 
percent and seven percent discount rates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.077

[[Page 85032]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.078

[[Page 85033]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.079

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP06DE23.080

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
    EPA's analysis of the alternative regulatory options found that the 
following options had estimated annual positive net benefits greater 
than the proposed 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 deliver temporary filters to all customers; and (4) 
requiring systems with multiple action level exceedances to deliver 
temporary filters to all customers that have service lines with known 
or potential lead content. From a purely economic efficiency

[[Page 85034]]

standpoint that would mean these four options are preferable to the 
proposed LCRI. However, none of these options were selected in place of 
the proposed 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. EPA has discussed the Agency's feasibility concerns with 
regard to each of the options in preceding sections of this preamble. 
Regarding setting the action level at a level below 0.010 mg/L EPA has 
expressed concern associated with feasibility. See section V.E.2. 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. 
EPA was concerned about how these activities might pull resources away 
from the removal of LSLs and GRR service lines that pose a greater 
exposure risk. See section V.B.4. for a detailed discussion. In the 
case of both options that required the system to deliver temporary 
filters to customers' homes in system with multiple ALEs, EPA was again 
concerned about the potential use of system resources that could 
otherwise be used to achieve greater reductions in lead exposure system 
wide. The concern is founded on information received by the Agency from 
systems that have implemented temporary filter programs and found 
significant rates on nonuse among customers provided with filters. 
Giving EPA reason to believe that estimated benefits for large scale 
temporary filter programs should be discounted. For additional 
information on temporary filter adoption see section V.I.
    Two alternative options were found to be more cost effective than 
the proposed LCRI: (1) setting the action level to 0.015 mg/L; (2) 
allowing small system compliance flexibility for CWSs serving up to 
10,000 people (although the estimated cost efficiency of this option is 
not significantly different from the proposed LCRI). EPA chose to 
continue with the proposed option given the fact that the marginal 
benefit of the proposed rule was greater than the marginal cost thereby 
increasing total societal welfare above the levels provided by the more 
cost-efficient options considered.

G. Cost-Benefit Determination

    When proposing an NPDWR, SDWA section 1412(b)(4)(C) requires 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). With this proposed 
rule, the Administrator has determined that the quantified and 
nonquantifiable benefits of the proposed LCRI NPDWR justify the 
quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs.
    Under section 1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of SDWA, when EPA proposes a NPDWR 
that includes a treatment technique, the Administrator shall publish 
and seek public comment on an analysis of the health risk reduction 
benefits and costs likely to be experienced as the result of compliance 
with the treatment technique and alternative treatment techniques that 
are being considered. Sections VIII.A. through F. of this document 
summarize the results of this proposed rule analysis.
    As indicated in section VIII.C. and D. of this document, EPA 
discounted the estimated monetized cost and benefit values using both 
three and seven percent discount rates. In Federal regulatory analyses, 
EPA follows OMB Circular A-4 (OMB, 2003) guidance which recommends 
using both three percent and seven percent to account for the different 
streams of monetized benefits and costs affected by regulation. The 
seven percent discount rate represents the estimated rate of return on 
capital in the U.S. economy, to reflect the opportunity cost of capital 
when ``the main effect of a regulation is to displace or alter the use 
of capital in the private sector.'' Regulatory effects, however, can 
fall on both capital and private consumption.\26\ In 2003, Circular A-4 
estimated the rate appropriate for discounting consumption effects at 
three percent. There are also a variety of considerations with respect 
to the capital displacement in this particular proposal. For example, a 
meaningful number of PWSs may not be managed as profit-maximizing 
private sector investments, which could impact the degree to which the 
rate of return on the use of capital in the private sector applies to 
PWS costs. Federal funding is expected to defray a significant portion 
of such PWS costs; \27\ where that occurs, such costs are transferred 
to the government. Additionally, to the extent that the benefits extend 
over a long time period into the future, including to future 
generations, Circular A-4 advises agencies to consider conducting 
sensitivity analyses using lower discount rates. Regardless, the 
impacts of this rulemaking are such that costs are expected to occur in 
the nearer term, and in particular that larger one-time capital 
investments are expected to occur in the near term associated with the 
service line removal and installation and re-optimization of CCT at 
water systems; and public health benefits are expected to occur over a 
longer term. Discounting across an appropriate range of rates can help 
explore how sensitive net benefits are to assumptions about whether 
effects fall more to capital or more to consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Private consumption is the consumption of goods and 
services by households for the direct satisfaction of individual 
needs (rather than for investment).
    \27\ The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, invests $15 
billion in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) 
specifically for lead content service line identification and 
removal along with additional sources of Federal and State funds 
that can be used to comply with the requirements of the proposed 
LCRI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has followed Circular A-4's default recommendations to use 
three and seven percent rates to represent the range of potential 
impacts accounting for diversity in stakeholders' time preferences. The 
Agency views the three to seven percent range of costs and benefits as 
characterizing a significant portion of the uncertainty in the discount 
rate and views the quantified endpoint values as demonstrating a range 
of monetized costs and benefits, which encompass a significant portion 
of the uncertainty associated with discount rates.
    As indicated in section VIII.E. of this document, the monetized 
costs and benefits result in net annualized incremental benefits that 
range from $15.3 to $31.9 billion under the low and high scenarios at a 
three percent discount rate. Under the low and high scenarios at a 
seven percent discount rate, the net annualized incremental benefits 
range from $7.3 to $17.3 billion. EPA estimated the monetized net 
benefits of the proposed 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 LSL and 
GRR service line replacement, and the cost of CCT. The difference

[[Page 85035]]

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 and 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.
    There are also a number of potentially significant nonquantifiable 
and non-monetized benefits that further strengthen the determination of 
benefits justifying costs. The nonquantifiable harmful impacts of lead 
exposure include: cardiovascular morbidity effects, renal effects, 
reproductive and developmental effects (apart from ADHD), immunological 
effects, neurological effects (apart from children's IQ), and cancer. 
The EPA analysis has not quantified the positive impacts from increases 
in consumer averting behavior, such as flushing lines before drinking 
water is drawn, filter use, or customer-initiated service line 
replacement due to the proposed 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 LSLs 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: households without 
lead content service lines but with leaded plumbing inside the home in 
water systems where the proposed LCRI requires installation or re-
optimization of CCT; and all households in systems implementing small 
improvements in CCT because of the distribution system and site 
assessment proposed rule requirements. Corrosion inhibitors used by 
systems that are required to install or re-optimize CCT as a result of 
the proposed 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.

IX. Request for Comment

    EPA is requesting comment on all aspects of this notice of this 
proposed rulemaking. EPA solicits comments on the proposed revisions of 
40 CFR part 141, subparts A, D, I, O, Q and Part 142, including EPA's 
rationale as described in this preamble. EPA seeks comments on issues 
specifically identified elsewhere in this document as well as any other 
issues that are not specifically addressed in this document. In 
particular, EPA solicits comments, information, and data on the 
following topics. Comments are most helpful when accompanied by 
specific examples and supporting data.

General Matters

    EPA requests comment on the following items pertaining to the rule 
as a whole.
    1. Whether the proposed revisions to the LCRR treatment technique 
are effective to prevent known or anticipated adverse health effects to 
the extent feasible in accordance with the SDWA.
    2. Whether there are additional ways EPA could reduce the 
complexity of the regulatory approach used to address lead in drinking 
water consistent with the statutory standard for a treatment technique 
rule in section 1412(b)(7)(A) of SDWA. Specifically, EPA requests 
comment on ways that the proposed LCRI could be simplified and ways 
that burden, including paperwork burden, could be reduced without 
affecting the ability of the rule to prevent known or anticipated 
adverse health effects.
    3. Whether the proposed requirements of the rule are enforceable 
and promote compliance without the need for State or Federal 
enforcement action. EPA also solicits comment on ways the rule could be 
modified to better promote compliance.
    4. The revised definition of ``connector,'' including that 
connectors are defined as ``not exceeding two feet.''
Service Line Replacement
    EPA is seeking comment on several aspects of the proposed service 
line replacement requirements.
    1. All aspects of the proposed scope of the replacement 
requirements, including the criteria used to define a full service line 
replacement (e.g., cutting the pipe at abandoned properties, replacing 
the entire service line) and which lead sources are subject to 
replacement under the mandatory program. EPA is seeking comment on 
whether to prohibit reconnection of any disconnected LSL or GRR service 
line. EPA is requesting comment on whether the Agency should include 
lead connectors or galvanized service lines that are or were downstream 
of a lead connector as part of mandatory replacement.
    2. Whether a reasonable effort to obtain property owner consent 
should be more than four times (e.g., five, six, or seven times).
    3. Whether the proposed LCRI appropriately interprets ``control'' 
for the purposes of the mandatory replacement provision (i.e., require 
systems to conduct full service line replacement in situations where 
the system has access to conduct the full replacement).
    4. The proposed minimum replacement rate and replacement deadlines. 
EPA is seeking comment on whether it is feasible for systems across the 
nation to complete service line replacement in a shorter timeframe than 
ten years, such as in six, seven, or eight years. EPA is seeking 
comment on the rate construct approach, including how to calculate 
compliance with a given service line replacement deadline and average 
annual rate calculated across a rolling three-year period. EPA also 
seeks comment on whether systems should be required to meet a minimum 
replacement rate in the first three years after the compliance date to 
give States an opportunity to enforce replacement rate progress sooner 
than three years after the compliance date. EPA also seeks comment on 
the complexity of the rate construct.
    5. EPA is taking comment on whether States, as a condition of 
primacy, or EPA when it is directly implementing the program, should be 
required to set initial shortened deadlines by a certain timeframe, 
such as no later than 60 days after the compliance date.
    6. The overall approach and basis to offer deferred service line 
replacement to systems with a high proportion of LSLs and GRR service 
lines in their distribution system relative to their total number of 
households served. EPA is requesting comment on its proposed threshold 
of 0.039 average annual number of replacements per household served, 
which is used to calculate the number of years that systems can defer.
    7. 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, as a 
condition of primacy, 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.
    8. Whether there are additional data on service line replacement 
rates achieved by systems in proactive programs (i.e., excluding 
programs that only replace service lines in

[[Page 85036]]

coordination with main replacement or emergency repair).
    9. The proposed use of a maximum threshold of 10,000 annual service 
line replacements for systems with atypically high numbers of LSLs and 
GRR service lines as well as seeking comment on the alternate threshold 
of 8,000 annual service line replacements. EPA is also seeking feedback 
on other thresholds and supporting data. EPA is also seeking feedback 
on if there's data available that would inform if the maximum threshold 
for annual service line replacement could increase after ten years, 
such as if replacement rates could double.
    10. Whether systems conducting deferred service line replacement 
should be subject to any additional requirements beyond those for 
systems that are not replacing service lines in accordance with a 
deferred deadline.
    11. The requirement for systems to install a dielectric coupling 
when conducting a partial replacement of an LSL or GRR to separate the 
remaining LSL or GRR service line and the replaced service line unless 
the replaced service line is made of plastic and other recommended risk 
mitigation activities.
    12. The proposed requirement to ban partial lead and GRR service 
line replacement unless it is conducted in accordance with emergency or 
planned infrastructure work (excluding planned infrastructure work 
solely for the purposes of replacing lead and GRR service lines as part 
of a service line replacement program). Additionally, EPA is seeking 
comment on whether partial service line replacement should be 
prohibited during ``planned infrastructure work'' or with certain types 
of planned infrastructure work.
    13. The ability of the market to correct for potential shortages in 
workers and materials to conduct service line replacement, as well to 
provide sufficient quantities of filters to comply with the service 
line replacement and other relevant provisions in the proposal.
    14. The extent to which property owner consent, if required by 
State or local law or water tariff agreement, might complicate full 
service line replacement and whether there are additional measures EPA 
can take to facilitate access through the LCRI.
Tap Sampling for Lead and Copper
    EPA is seeking comment on several proposed revisions to compliance 
tap sampling for lead and copper.
    1. 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).
    2. Comment and available data, such as modeling or sampling data, 
that inform lead corrosion rates over time.
    3. Comment on the applicability of alternate sampling protocols to 
assess CCT performance, increase customer participation, and other 
relevant factors.
    4. Comment on the proposed updated definition of wide-mouth bottles 
that is ``bottles that are one liter in volume with a mouth, whose 
outer diameter measures at least 55 mm wide,'' and specifically on the 
availability of qualifying bottles.
    5. 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 CCT efficacy. 
Specifically, whether samples from non-LSL 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.
    6. 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.
Service Line Inventory and Service Line Replacement Plan
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed service line 
inventory approach, and specifically the following:
    1. In the LCRI, EPA is proposing a threshold of systems serving 
greater than 50,000 persons to host the inventory and plan online, 
which is the required threshold under the LCRR. EPA is seeking comment 
on the size threshold at which systems must host their publicly 
accessible inventory, inventory summary data, replacement summary data, 
and service line replacement plan online, and whether it should be 
lowered relative to the LCRR requirements.
    2. In the LCRI, EPA is proposing a requirement for systems to 
validate the accuracy of non-lead service lines in their inventory that 
were categorized using methods other than records review or visual 
inspection of at least two points along the line. EPA is requesting 
comment on the number of validations required, the proposed 95 percent 
confidence level approach used to develop the number of validations 
required, the criteria for which methods used to categorize non-lead 
service lines should be included in the validation pool (including 
whether non-lead lines categorized based on records should be subject 
to validation), and the seven-year timeline for systems on a 10-year 
replacement deadline to complete the validation requirements.
    3. Comment on establishing a deadline for systems to identify all 
unknown service lines prior to their service line replacement 
deadlines.
    4. 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.
Lead Action and Trigger Levels
    1. EPA is seeking comment on the proposed lead action level of 
0.010 mg/L, as well as comment and supporting data on alternative 
action levels, such as 0.005 mg/L, with regards to generally effective 
corrosion control treatment and identifying systems most at risk of 
elevated levels of lead in drinking water.
    2. EPA is also seeking comment on the use of the action level to 
determine when additional public education is required, and the use of 
the same action level for public education as for the CCT provisions.
    3. EPA is seeking public comment, data, and information on the 
anticipated benefits and tradeoffs, including for public health and 
administrative burden on systems and States, if more small and medium 
systems are required to conduct a detailed OCCT demonstration and take 
other actions if they exceed the proposed action level of 0.010 mg/L or 
other lower values, while water systems are simultaneously required to 
mandatory conduct full service line replacement.
Corrosion Control Treatment
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed CCT approach, 
and specifically the following:
    1. The proposed determination that the CTT treatment technique is 
feasible and prevents known or anticipated adverse health effects to 
the extent feasible.
    2. Comment on whether it would be more appropriate to require water 
systems to re-optimize again following an action level exceedance 
regardless of

[[Page 85037]]

meeting their optimal water quality parameters and to provide the State 
with the authority to waive this requirement.
    3. The proposed option for a water system to delay OCCT until after 
the system has replaced all of its LSLs and GRR service lines, while 
the system achieves at least 20 percent removal per year and must have 
no LSLs, GRR service lines, or lead status unknown service lines 
remaining at the end of the five-year period.
    4. The treatment recommendation and CCT study process can take 
multiple years to complete. For systems with existing corrosion 
control, the 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 
recommend that same change. EPA is requesting comment on whether there 
are situations and/or conditions where existing treatment modifications 
may achieve similar lead reductions rather than delaying new treatment 
for two-and-a-half years while a study is underway.
Compliance Alternatives for a Lead Action Level Exceedance for Small 
Community Water Systems and Non-Transient, Non-Community Water Systems
    1. EPA is proposing that small system flexibilities be limited to 
CWSs serving 3,300 persons and fewer and all NTNCWSs for the remaining 
compliance alternatives of point-of-use devices and plumbing 
replacement. EPA is seeking comment on whether the Agency should allow 
systems serving up to 10,000 persons (or another threshold) to be 
eligible to use the small system compliance flexibility provision. EPA 
is also seeking information, data, and analysis on whether point-of-use 
devices and plumbing replacement are as effective as OCCT at systems 
serving up to 10,000 persons (or another threshold).
    2. EPA is requesting comment on the ability and practicality of 
point-of-use devices to address multiple contaminants.
Public Education
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed public 
education, and specifically the following:
    1. The proposed determination that the public education treatment 
technique is feasible and prevents known or anticipated adverse health 
effects to the extent feasible.
    2. 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 30 or 60 days, after 
the end of the tap sampling period in which a systemwide lead action 
level exceedance occurs.
    3. 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 obtaining 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).
    4. Whether the proposed requirement for water systems to offer lead 
sampling to consumers with LSLs, GRR service lines, or unknown service 
lines in the notice of service line material is effective at reducing 
adverse health effects. EPA is also requesting comment on the 
requirement for water systems to deliver consumer-initiated test 
results within three days of obtaining those results.
    5. 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.
    6. Whether EPA should require systems to annually notify consumers 
if they are served by a lead connector, in addition to notifications 
for sites with lead, GRR, or lead status unknown service lines.
    7. Whether EPA should require water systems to provide filters to 
consumers when there is a disturbance resulting from replacement of a 
water main.
    8. Whether EPA should require additional public education 
requirements to further encourage swift service line replacement faster 
than the 10-year replacement deadline. For example, should water 
systems that have LSLs, GRR service lines, or unknown service lines 
five years after the compliance date for the LCRI be required to 
increase the frequency of the notification of service line materials 
from annual to once every six months?
    9. EPA is seeking 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.
    10. 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.
    11. EPA is also requesting comment on additional ways to streamline 
public education and associated certification requirements (e.g., 
combine deadlines for systems to conduct public education or submit 
information to the State).
Additional Requirements for Systems With Multiple Lead Action Level 
Exceedances
    EPA is proposing new actions to be required of systems that exceed 
the lead action level multiple times, based on the proposed criteria of 
three action level exceedances in a five-year period. EPA is requesting 
comments on all aspects of this proposed requirement, and specifically 
the following:
    1. Whether water systems should be required to take additional 
actions when the system exceeds the lead action level multiple times 
and if so, what actions are appropriate and feasible, and when these 
additional actions should be required under the LCRI.
    2. Whether EPA should use three action level exceedances in a five-
year period for identifying systems with multiple action level 
exceedances where additional action is warranted and, whether 
additional actions should be required sooner, or later, than the five-
year period, or whether EPA should use a modified metric (number of 
consecutive action level exceedances in a set time period) or a 
different metric entirely (i.e., based on one or more factors other 
than the number of action level exceedances in a set time period).
    3. The proposed public education activities after a system exceeds 
the lead action level multiple times. EPA is specifically seeking any 
information, data, or analysis on whether the proposed public education 
activities support preventing adverse health effects in this situation. 
EPA is also requesting comment on whether systems should be required to 
conduct more than one (e.g., two or three) of the public education 
activities proposed.
    4. Whether EPA should require water systems to make filters 
certified to reduce lead and replacement cartridges, along with 
instructions for use, available to all consumers within 60 days of a 
system having multiple action level exceedances and whether there are 
any supporting or contrary data on whether the proposed filter 
requirement would be protective of public health.
    5. The proposed requirements for systems to develop a filter plan 
and submit to the State after the system has

[[Page 85038]]

multiple action level exceedances for the first time, and whether EPA 
should require systems to take additional actions to facilitate filter 
distribution.
    6. Alternative requirements for systems with multiple action level 
exceedances to provide filters to their consumers, such as requiring 
water systems to provide filters and replacement cartridges to 
consumers served by an LSL, GRR service line, or unknown service line 
or to all consumers, or to require systems to consult with the State 
upon meeting the criteria for multiple action level exceedances, after 
which the State determines the appropriate action to reduce lead 
exposure.
    7. An additional provision providing discretion to States to allow 
systems with multiple action level exceedances to discontinue the 
proposed required actions sooner if the system takes actions (e.g., 
installs optimized or re-optimized CCT, completes mandatory service 
line replacement) and is at or below the lead action level for two 
consecutive monitoring periods.
    8. Whether, in addition to the proposed requirements, EPA should 
provide States discretion to determine appropriate action following a 
multiple action level exceedance that is tailored to meet specific 
system needs.
Lead Sampling in Schools and Child Care Facilities
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed lead sampling 
in schools and child care facilities requirements, and specifically:
    1. Whether CWSs should be required to collect more samples and/or 
to sample more frequently in schools and child care facilities.
    2. The proposed provision to allow States to issue waivers to 
community water systems from the requirement for lead sampling in 
schools and child care facilities during the five-year period after the 
LCRI compliance date if the facility was sampled for lead after January 
1, 2021 but prior to the LCRI compliance date and the sampling 
otherwise meets the waiver requirements of Sec.  141.92(h).
    3. Whether or not to allow States to waive the requirements of 
Sec.  141.92 for CWSs in schools and child care facilities that use and 
maintain filters certified to reduce lead, and if so, whether the 
waiver should only be allowed where schools and child care facilities 
are required by State or local law to install POU devices and maintain 
them.
    4. The minimum requirements for States to provide a waiver (e.g., 
should the waiver be limited to locations where the filter use is 
required by State or local law; should the waiver be limited to 
locations where State or local law requires periodic sampling or 
testing to ensure proper filter use).
    5. Whether EPA should require CWSs to make school and child care 
facility sampling results publicly available, and if so, how frequently 
and in what manner.
Reporting and Recordkeeping
    EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping, and specifically the following:
    1. EPA is requesting comment on the expansion of the inventory 
reporting to include lead connectors and non-lead service lines.
    2. EPA has heard concern over the ability of States to review all 
required site sample plans and provide approvals in time for the first 
tap monitoring period, and is requesting comment on whether EPA should 
consider a phased approach or alternate approach to reduce the burden 
on States following the rule compliance date.
    3. EPA is requesting comment on whether States should be required 
to maintain records related to distribution system and site assessments 
conducted by water systems.
    4. EPA is requesting 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.
Compliance Dates
    The proposed LCRI includes a three year implementation period 
following the publication of the final rule until the compliance date 
to allow States time to obtain primacy and work with systems to prepare 
to comply. It also allows systems time to plan and obtain funding for 
LSLR as appropriate. EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the 
proposed LCRI compliance dates and whether it would be practicable for 
water systems to implement any of the proposed LCRI requirements 
earlier than three years from the date of final action on the proposed 
LCRI. Specifically:
    1. Whether it is practicable for water systems to implement 
notification and risk mitigation provisions after full and partial 
service line replacement (Sec.  141.84(h)), notification of a service 
line disturbance (Sec.  141.85(g)), and associated reporting 
requirements (Sec.  141.90(e)(6) and (f)(6)) upon the effective date of 
the LCRI.
    2. Whether earlier alternative compliance dates for LCRI are 
practicable such that water systems transition directly from LCR to 
LCRI in less than three years (i.e., one or two years) based on the 
assumption that water systems would comply with the LCR until the LCRI 
compliance date.
    3. Whether there are other LCRR provisions besides the initial 
inventory and notifications of service line material for which the 
October 16, 2024 compliance date should be retained.
Other Proposed Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141
1. Consumer Confidence Report
    a. EPA is requesting comment on the proposed requirement for 
systems to provide an informational statement in the CCR about the 
school sampling requirements with the information that consumers can 
contact the school or child care facility about any potential sampling 
results.
2. Definitions
    a. EPA is seeking comment on all aspects of the proposed 
definitions, and specifically the following:
    b. EPA is proposing to define a two-foot maximum length of 
connectors. EPA proposes that ``connectors'' that exceed two feet in 
length be treated as a service line. EPA is requesting comment on the 
defined length of a connector.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

    This action is a ``significant regulatory action'', as defined 
under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive 
Order 14094. Accordingly, 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. EPA prepared an analysis of 
the potential costs and benefits associated with this action. This 
analysis, the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule 
Improvements (USEPA, 2023b), is also available in the docket and is 
summarized in section VIII. of this document.

[[Page 85039]]

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
that EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2788.01 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 burden includes the time needed to conduct State and water system 
activities during the first three years after promulgation, as 
described in Chapter 7, section 7.3 of the proposed LCRI Economic 
Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
    Burden (as defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b)) means the total time, 
effort, and financial resources required to generate, maintain, retain, 
disclose, or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, 
install, and utilize technology, and systems for the purposes of 
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    The paperwork burden associated with this proposal 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 will have to assign 
personnel and devote resources in order 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, public water systems will have to develop a 
baseline inventory with lead connector information to the State. For 
the public water systems that have lead, GRR, or unknown service lines, 
a service replacement plan will need to be developed.
    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 demonstrations and written statements of only non-lead 
service lines from systems in lieu of a publicly accessible inventory 
as well as reviewing service line replacement 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 public water systems. 
Public water systems 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 EPA. 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: Data associated with this proposed 
ICR would be collected and maintained at the public water system, and 
by State and Federal governments. Respondents would include owners and 
operators of public water systems, who must report to their State(s).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: If the proposed LCRI is 
finalized, then the respondent's obligation to respond would be 
mandatory. Section 1401(1)(D) of SDWA requires that ``criteria and 
procedures to assure a supply of drinking water which dependably 
complies with such maximum contaminant levels [or treatment techniques 
promulgated in lieu of a maximum contaminant level]; including accepted 
methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance 
with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the 
system . . .'' Furthermore, section 1445(a)(1)(A) of SDWA requires that 
``[e]very person who is subject to any requirement of this subchapter 
or who is a grantee, shall establish and maintain such records, make 
such reports, conduct such monitoring, and provide such information as 
the Administrator may reasonably require by regulation to assist the 
Administrator in establishing regulations under this subchapter, in 
determining whether such person has acted or is acting in compliance 
with this subchapter . . .'' In addition, section 1413(a)(3) of SDWA 
requires States to ``keep such records and make such reports . . . as 
the Administrator may require by regulation.''
    Estimated number of respondents: If the proposed rule is finalized, 
the total number of respondents for the ICR would be 67,003. The total 
includes 56 Primacy Agencies and 66,947 public water systems.
    Frequency of response: For the first three years after the final 
rule is published, public water systems are expected to implement 
several proposed rule requirements that have associated ICR burden. The 
public water system activities include reading and understanding the 
revised rule, personnel time for attending trainings, clarifying 
regulatory requirements with the State during rule implementation, 
updating and submitting initial service line inventories, develop 
educational materials for customers with lead, GRR, and unknown 
material service lines, and developing a service line replacement plan 
are all one time tasks during the period covered by the ICR. Systems 
also conduct field investigations to annually update and submit changes 
to their service line inventory. PWS will distribute public education 
materials to customers with lead, GRR and unknown material service 
lines annually. Like the water systems, States are expected to engage 
in the following one time proposed LCRI required activities during the 
period covered by this ICR: reading and understanding the rule; 
adopting the rule and developing an implementation program; modifying 
data recording systems; training staff; providing water system staff 
with initial technical assistance and training; reviewing public water 
system initial inventory data; provide education templates and review 
education materials for LSL, GRR, and unknown material service line 
customers; and conferring with water systems with lead, GRR, or unknown 
service lines on initial planning for service line replacement program 
activities. States will annually review

[[Page 85040]]

systems' updated service line inventories.
    Total estimated burden: For the first three years after the final 
rule is published, water systems and primacy agencies will implement 
several proposed rule requirements. The public water systems burden 
will include the following activities: Reading and understanding the 
revised rule, personnel time for attending trainings, clarifying 
regulatory requirements with the State during rule implementation. 
Public water systems would also be required to update service line 
inventories and develop a service line replacement plan. The total 
burden hours for public water systems is estimated at 7,579,376 hours. 
The total estimated cost for public water systems is $1,064,246,704 in 
2022 dollars. For additional information on the public water systems 
activity burden see section VIII. of this document.
    The State burden for the first three years of proposed rule 
implementation would include the following: Reading and understanding 
the rule; adopting the rule and developing an implementation program; 
modifying data recording systems; training staff; providing water 
system staff with initial and on-going technical assistance and 
training; coordinating annual administration tasks with EPA; reporting 
data to SDWIS/Fed; reviewing public water system inventory data; and 
conferring with water systems with lead, GRR, or unknown service lines 
on initial planning for service line replacement program activities. 
The total burden hours for States is 850,097 hours. The total cost for 
primacy agencies is $50,994,078 in 2022 dollars. See section VIII. of 
this document for additional discussion on burden and cost to the 
State.
    The net change in burden associated with moving from the 
information requirements of the LCRR to those in the proposed LCRI over 
the three years covered by the ICR is -4.5 million hours, for an 
average of -1.5 million hours per year. The numbers reflect the 
estimates of the number of systems that need to develop service line 
inventories. The total net change in costs from the most recent ICR 
approved for the LCRR over the three-year compliance period covered by 
this ICR are $201.4 million for an average of $67.1 million per year 
(simple average over three years). Note that the proposed LCRI ICR 
analysis assumes that systems will not implement the new requirements 
of the LCRR during the implementation period for the LCRI. Therefore, 
the burden for the proposed LCRI are substantially lower than the 
anticipated burden of the LCRR over the same period, resulting in a 
negative net burden for the proposed LCRI. The costs for the activities 
occurring under the LCRI, however, are greater than those that would 
occur for the same three year period under the LCRR.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations 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.
    Submit your comments on EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing respondent burden to EPA using the Docket ID (EPA-HQ-OW-
2022-0801). EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in the final 
rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments to OMB's Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs using the interface at 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information 
collected by selected ``Currently under Review--Open for Public 
Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive comments 
no later than January 5, 2024.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    Pursuant to section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 
EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that 
examines the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with 
regulatory alternatives that could minimize the impact. The complete 
IRFA is available in Chapter 7, section 7.4 of the proposed LCRI 
Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b).
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on 
small entities, EPA considered small entities to be water systems 
serving 10,000 people or fewer. This is the threshold specified by 
Congress in the 1996 Amendments to SDWA for small water system 
flexibility provisions. As required by the RFA, EPA proposed using this 
alternative definition in the Federal Register (FR) (63 FR 7620, USEPA, 
1998b), sought public comment, consulted with the Small Business 
Administration (SBA), and finalized the small water system threshold in 
the Agency's Consumer Confidence Report regulation (63 FR 44524, USEPA, 
1998c). As stated in the final Consumer Confidence Report rule (USEPA, 
1998c), the alternative definition would apply to this proposed 
regulation.
    EPA used Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)/Federal 
data from the fourth quarter 2020 to identify about 63,000 small public 
water systems that may be impacted by the proposed LCRI. A small public 
water system serves between 25 and 10,000 people. These water systems 
include over 45,000 CWSs that serve year-round residents and more than 
17,000 NTNCWSs that serve the same persons at least six months per year 
(e.g., a water system that is an office park or church). Of the total 
number of small systems serving 10,000 or fewer people, 22,529 CWSs and 
435 NTNCWSs are estimated to have service lines with lead content or 
unknown/potential lead content service lines. The percent of small 
systems that are estimated to exceed the proposed lead action level 
(0.010 mg/L) ranges from 4.3 to 39.1 percent depending on the variation 
between projected low and high scenario lead tap sample 90th percentile 
values and the presence of LSL in systems.
    In the LCRI, EPA is proposing regulatory revisions to strengthen 
public health protection and improve implementation in the following 
areas: service line replacement, tap sampling, service line 
inventories, corrosion control treatment, water quality parameter 
monitoring, public education, and consumer awareness.
    The proposed LCRI includes requirements that can be categorized as 
follows: conducting a service line inventory that is updated annually; 
mandatory full service line replacement; enhanced lead tap and water 
quality parameter monitoring; installing or re-optimizing corrosion 
control treatment and redefining and updating the ``find-and-fix'' 
provision as ``distribution system and site assessment'' to evaluate 
and remediate elevated lead at a site where the tap sample exceeds the 
lead action level; utilizing pitcher filters and POU devices; improved 
customer outreach; and revisions to 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.

[[Page 85041]]

    Under the proposed rule requirements, small CWSs, serving 3,300 or 
fewer people, and all NTNCWSs with a 90th percentile lead value above 
the lead action level of 0.010 mg/L may choose alternative compliance 
options to CCT including point-of-use device installation and 
maintenance or removal of all lead bearing plumbing material from the 
system, but lead-bearing plumbing was not analyzed in EPA's cost-
benefit model. 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 people 
that choose to install and maintain point-of-use devices under the 
proposed LCRI range from 3,757 to 6,639, serving between 420,715 and 
845,023 people. The total monetized annualized cost for small systems 
under the low scenario ranges from $490 to $554 million discounted at 
three and seven percent, respectively. The low scenario also produces 
between $3.1 and $1.8 billion in small system total monetized benefits 
discounted at three and seven percent, respectively. Under the high 
scenario small system total monetized annualized costs are $666 million 
using a three percent discount rate and $757 million with a seven 
percent discount rate. High scenario small system total monetized 
annualized benefits discounted at three and seven percent range from 
$6.2 to $3.7 billion. See Chapter 7, section 7.4.5 for a breakdown of 
cost and benefit estimates by small system size sub-categories. Under 
the proposed LCRI, the number of small CWSs that will experience 
incremental annual costs of more than one percent of revenues ranges 
from 36,720 to 37,350 (81.4 percent to 82.8 percent of all small CWSs) 
and the number of small CWSs that will have annual incremental costs 
exceeding 3 percent of revenues ranges from 28,416 to 28,598 (63.0 
percent to 63.4 percent of small CWSs). See Chapter 7, section 7.4 of 
the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis for more information on the 
characterization of the impacts under the proposed rule.
    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 people 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 POU devices at all locations being served; 
or (3) removal of all lead bearing plumbing material from the system. 
Note that EPA's cost-benefit model does not include an analysis of the 
removal of lead-bearing plumbing. The total monetized annualized cost 
savings under the alternative small system compliance option when 
compared to the proposed LCRI ranges from $500,000 at a three percent 
discount rate to $400,000 using a seven percent discount rate. The 
alternative small system compliance option also results in a decrease 
in monetized annualized benefits ranging from $2.4 million at a three 
percent discount rate to $2 million at a seven percent discount rate. 
Note that SafeWater LCR model cost minimization calculations producing 
these results likely do not capture the impact of the feasibility 
concerns associated with implementing POU at systems serving over 3,300 
people. See Exhibits 56 through 59 in section VIII.F.6. of this Federal 
Register document for a more detailed comparison of the costs and 
benefits of the proposed LCRI and this alternative small system 
flexibility compliance requirement. Also see Chapter 7, section 7.4 and 
Chapter 8, section 8.7 of the proposed LCRI economic analysis for 
additional information on the analysis of the alternative option.
    As required by section 609(b) of the RFA, EPA also convened a Small 
Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel to obtain advice and 
recommendations from small entity representatives (SERs) that 
potentially would be subject to the rule's requirements. On November 
15, 2022, EPA's Small Business Advocacy Chairperson convened this 
Panel, which consisted of the Chairperson, the Director of the 
Standards and Risk Management Division within EPA's Office of Ground 
Water and Drinking Water, the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and 
Budget, and the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration. Prior to convening the Panel, EPA conducted outreach 
with SERs that will potentially be affected by this regulation and 
solicited comments from them. Additionally, after the Panel was 
convened, the Panel provided information to the SERs and requested 
their input.
    In light of the SERs' comments, the Panel considered the regulatory 
flexibility issues and elements of the IRFA specified by RFA/Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) and developed the 
findings and discussion summarized in the SBAR report. For example, 
SERs provided comment on barriers to the goal of achieving 100 percent 
replacement of LSLs and GRR service lines in the nation. Many comments 
centered around the need for Federal funding and national-level 
technical assistance for small systems. SERs noted the cost of LSLR as 
well as the challenges small systems may face with limited staff, small 
budgets with competing priorities, and limited resources and capacity. 
The Panel recognized the steps EPA has taken, and will continue to 
take, to ensure Federal funds are available to drinking water systems. 
However, the Panel also recognized that funding streams are not 
guaranteed to be available to all small systems, that some small 
systems may not pursue available funding opportunities, and that, in 
the absence of funding, these systems may have difficultly financing 
LSLR. The Panel recommended that, when developing the service line 
replacement requirements, EPA consider the barriers to achieving 100 
percent LSL and GRR service line replacement that SERs identified that 
make this goal challenging. In addition, the Panel recommended that EPA 
clarify provisions around customer engagement and refusal for mandatory 
service line replacement, consider removing the lead trigger level, and 
evaluate available recent data and LSLR cost information to inform the 
economic analysis. The report includes a number of other observations 
and recommendations to meet the statutory obligations for achieving 
small-system compliance through flexible regulatory compliance options. 
The report was finalized on May 31, 2023, and transmitted to the EPA 
Administrator for consideration. A copy of the full SBAR Panel report 
is available in the rulemaking docket (USEPA, 2023m).

D. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action contains a Federal mandate under the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, that may result in expenditures 
of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA 
prepared a written statement required under section 202 of UMRA that is 
included in the docket for this action (see Chapter 7. section 7.5 of 
the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b))

[[Page 85042]]

and is briefly summarized here. 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 proposed 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, EPA consulted with governmental entities affected by 
this rule. EPA describes the government-to-government dialogue and 
comments from State, local, and Tribal governments in section X.E. 
Executive Order 13132: Federalism and section X.F. Executive Order 
13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments of 
this document.
    Consistent with UMRA section 205, EPA identified and analyzed a 
reasonable number of regulatory alternatives to determine the treatment 
technique requirements in the proposed LCRI. Sections III. and V. of 
this document describe the proposed options. See section VIII.F. of 
this document and Chapter 8 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis 
(USEPA, 2023b)) for alternative options that were considered.
    This action may significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 
EPA consulted with small governments concerning regulatory requirements 
that might significantly or uniquely affect them. EPA describes this 
consultation in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), section X.C. of 
this document.

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    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, 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. EPA estimates that the net change in Primacy Agency related costs 
for State, local, and Tribal governments in the aggregate is between 
$16.1 and $15.3 million (three percent discount rate) or $12.6 and 
$11.3 million (seven percent discount rate) (USEPA, 2023b).
    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. In the process of developing the 
proposed LCRI, EPA consulted with State and local governments early to 
provide opportunities for meaningful and timely input. On October 13, 
2022, EPA held a federalism consultation through a virtual meeting. 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. 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.
    EPA also provided the members of the various associations an 
opportunity to provide input during follow-up meetings. EPA did not 
receive any requests for additional meetings.
    In addition to input received during the meeting on October 13, 
2022, 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, 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, 2023b). The Economic Analysis for the 
proposed LCRI estimated that the total annualized incremental costs 
placed on all systems serving Tribal communities ranges from $9.4 to 
$18.8 million (USEPA, 2023b). EPA notes that these estimated impacts 
will not fall evenly across all Tribal systems. The proposed LCRI small 
system flexibility provisions does offer regulatory relief by providing 
flexibilities for CWSs serving 3,300 or fewer people and all NTNCWSs 
that choose CCT, installation and maintenance of point-of-use devices, 
and replacement of lead-bearing materials to address lead in drinking 
water. This flexibility may result in LCRI implementation cost savings 
for many Tribal systems since 98 percent of Tribal CWSs serve 10,000 or 
fewer people and 17 percent of all Tribal systems are NTNCWSs (USEPA, 
2023b). Lastly, 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 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, 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 EPA provided an overview of proposed rulemaking information and 
requested input. A total of 11 Tribal representatives participated in 
the two webinars. A summary report of the views expressed during Tribal 
consultations is available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0801).

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, and the EPA believes that the environmental 
health or safety risk addressed by this action has a disproportionate 
effect on children. Accordingly, EPA evaluated the environmental health 
or safety effects of

[[Page 85043]]

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 
7, section 7.8 of the proposed LCRI Economic Analysis (USEPA, 2023b) 
and described in section VIII. of this document. Copies of the Economic 
Analysis of the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Improvements and 
supporting information are available in the Docket (EPA-HQ-OW-2022-
0801).

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 proposed LCRI already use 
electrical service providers. Finally, 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 proposed 
regulatory requirements is minimal. As such, EPA does not anticipate 
that this proposed 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 proposed revisions 
under the LCRI may involve existing voluntary consensus standards 
because the proposed LCRI would require additional monitoring for lead 
and copper. 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 EPA deems these methodologies appropriate 
for compliance monitoring. The proposal includes requirements to use 
filters that are certified by an ANSI-accredited certifier. Additional 
information is available in section V.B.6 and V.I. of this preamble. 
The proposed LCRI does not, however, change any methodological 
requirements for monitoring or sample analysis. Additional information 
is available in section VI. of this preamble. EPA notes that in some 
cases, the proposed LCRI would revise the required frequency and number 
of lead tap samples.

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)

    EPA anticipates the proposed 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 documentation for this finding, including 
additional details on the methodology, results, and conclusions, are 
included in 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. The main provision of Executive Order 12898 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make achieving environmental justice part of their 
mission. Executive Order 12898 states ``each Federal agency shall make 
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 
addressing as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human 
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
United States and its territories and possessions''.
    Executive Order 14096 directs the Federal Government to build upon 
and strengthen its 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, 2016d), EPA 
conducted an environmental justice analysis for the proposed LCRI to 
assess impacts anticipated to result from the proposed LCRI (USEPA, 
2023f). The analysis builds on and advances the analysis conducted 
under the LCRR, which evaluated baseline exposure to lead in drinking 
water. The proposed 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 are 
created or mitigated by the proposed LCRI relative to the baseline. 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. 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. Because updated 
service line inventories were not available for the environmental 
justice analysis for LCRR, EPA used housing age as a proxy indicator 
for LSL presence in the environmental justice analysis for the proposed 
LCRI. In the environmental justice analysis, EPA identified some trends 
indicating disproportionate and adverse human health risk for exposure 
to lead in drinking water based on LSL presence in minority populations 
and low-income populations, and also that populations of children in 
minority households 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.
    For the proposed LCRI, updated inventories are similarly not widely 
available yet; however, some systems have published updated inventories 
online. In the environmental justice analysis for the proposed LCRI, 
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, 2023k). 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 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

[[Page 85044]]

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 five case studies. Measures included to capture the 
possibility of other sources of lead--traffic density and pre-1960 
housing--were also 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. One of the analyses revealed that LSL prevalence was a 
stronger predictor of the prevalence of elevated blood lead levels 
compared with 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.
    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, either no LSLs or 
relatively few LSLs have been removed in these cities, which affects 
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, similarly obscuring the relationship between 
removals and the socioeconomic and housing unit variables. 
Nevertheless, 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 LSLs and GRR service lines 
are replaced by a system's service line replacement program can 
potentially create a concern. Section V. of the preamble highlights the 
proposed LCRI provisions intended to facilitate water system planning 
to prevent or minimize 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. EPA expects that the equity provisions included in the 
proposal, such as service line replacement prioritization, would reduce 
baseline differential impacts associated with lead exposure from 
drinking water. In sections IV.G. and IV.H. of this document, EPA also 
highlights external funding available to support full service line 
replacement, as well as water systems' obligations under Federal Civil 
Rights law.
    Additionally, on October 25, 2022, and November 1, 2022, EPA held 
public meetings related to environmental justice and the development of 
the proposed LCRI. The meetings provided an opportunity for 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, EPA 
received public comment on topics including disproportionate exposure 
to lead and its health effects among BIPOC and low-income communities; 
LSLR funding; methods to prioritize LSLR; access to LSLR for renters; 
filter distribution and use during LSLR; lowering the lead action 
level; establishing an MCL for lead; updating the lead health effects 
language required for public education, public notification, and the 
Consumer Confidence Report; 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.

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

    In accordance With SDWA sections 1412(d) and 1412(e), 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 EPA request comments from the SAB 
prior to the proposal of any NPDWR. As required by SDWA section 
1412(e), in 2022, EPA initiated consultation with the SAB to seek 
comments in advance of the publication of this document for the 
proposed LCRI. During this consultation, EPA sought from the SAB, an 
evaluation of service line inventory data at select case study 
locations to inform the most appropriate tools, indicators and 
measures, EPA could consider to best evaluate environmental justice 
with respect to the presence and replacement of LSLs. 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'' (Exec. Order No. 12898, 1994).
    On November 3, 2022, 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 lead service line replacement case studies to support 
the development of the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements environmental 
justice analysis.
    (1.b.) Given the identified tools and indices (i.e., EJScreen, SVI, 
ADI) 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 environmental justice assessment.
    (2) Please comment on the indicator/measure that is most suitable 
for

[[Page 85045]]

studying the environmental justice 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 environmental justice impacts can help 
to better assess lead impacts from other co-located exposure pathways 
(e.g., lead paint, soil, and dust) to inform 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, EPA received a range of recommendations from SAB 
members. The recommendations primarily focused on the tools and 
indicators EPA should use in its EJ study to support LCRI. SAB members 
recommended using indicators from multiple tools (e.g., EJScreen, CDC's 
Environmental Justice Index (EJI), CDC/ATSDR Social Vulnerability 
Index, 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 Environmental Justice Index, CDC/ATSDR Social 
Vulnerability Index, 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 (SVI), and the University of South Carolina's Social 
Vulnerability Index (SoVI). One member recommended relying more heavily 
on tools that have finer resolution and use geographic units at the 
Census block group level, such as EJScreen and ADI. In addition, SAB 
members recommended indicators for studying LSL and LSLR environmental 
justice impacts including minority populations, low-income population, 
population under age five, pre-1960 housing, pre-1980 housing, people 
with disabilities, single-parent households, occupied housing units 
without complete plumbing, proximity to lead mines, hazardous waste 
proximity, superfund proximity, and particulate matter (PM) 2.5. A few 
members recommended including indicators that address drinking water or 
infrastructure vulnerabilities.
    Some members suggested that EPA focus on indicators most relevant 
to children, such as children under age five, maternal education, birth 
weight, and quality of home environment, because children are most 
sensitive to the effects of lead. One member suggested including a 
subset of indicators that are children-specific and comprise relevant 
subgroups of persons under five years and/or 18 years, such as children 
belonging to non-white racial/ethnic groups, children not born in the 
U.S., children with disabilities, and children at or below the poverty 
level. Some members pointed out that race/ethnicity indicators should 
be disaggregated to focus on only one race/ethnicity instead of an 
aggregate ``people of color'' indicator.
    Some members suggested giving higher weights to indicators that 
address populations disproportionately vulnerable to lead exposure and 
its adverse health effects, such as population under 5 years old and 
low-income communities, because they are more likely to consume tap 
water. Additional indicators suggested for weighting were location 
based, including residential areas near legacy pollution sites.
    Some SAB members suggested individual indicators from the following 
tools be used to consider lead from other pathways: EJScreen, SVI, ADI, 
and EJI. Some SAB members recommended using proximity to traffic and 
pre-1960s housing, as these could indicate compound lead exposure from 
pathways other than drinking water. For example, proximity to traffic 
could correspond to elevated lead in soil due to past emissions of 
leaded gasoline, while pre-1960s housing is more likely to have lead 
paint, contributing to lead in dust and soil).
    As a result of the consultation, EPA incorporated the suggestions 
from the SAB in a study of the Environmental Justice implications of 
the LCRI (USEPA, 2023f). EPA evaluated correlations between per capita 
LSLs (in 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. 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 EPA to consult with NDWAC in 
proposing and promulgating any NPDWR. EPA met this requirement for the 
proposed LCRI. On November 30, 2022, EPA consulted with the NDWAC. At 
the November 30 consultation meeting, 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 EPA's review of the LCRR 
published in the December 2021 Federal Register. 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 proposed rule. EPA carefully considered NDWAC recommendations 
during the development of the proposed LCRI.

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

    On August 18, 2023, EPA consulted with the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS). EPA provided information to HHS officials on the 
draft proposed LCRI and considered HHS input as part of the interagency 
review process. (See section X.A. of this document for a discussion of 
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review).

XI. References

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. USEPA.
Abt Associates. (2022). Development of Medical Cost Estimates for 
Adverse Birth Outcomes. Prepared for: National Center for 
Environmental Economics. Office of Policy. USEPA.
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.

[[Page 85046]]

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 (AWWA). (2016, May 18). Lead 
Service Line Replacement: Vital Tips from Leading Utility Managers 
[Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwq4_yPjHMs.
Aoki, Y., Brody, D.J., Flegal, K.M., Fakhouri, T.H., Axelrad, D.A., 
& Parker, J.D. (2016). Blood Lead and Other Metal Biomarkers as Risk 
Factors for Cardiovascular Disease Mortality. Medicine (Baltimore), 
95(1), e2223. doi:10.1097/md.0000000000002223.
AWWA. (2020, November 18). Green Bay celebrates last lead service 
line removal. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/green-bay-celebrates-last-lead-service-line-removal.
AWWA. (2022). Lead Communications Guide and Toolkit. https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/Communications/2022LeadPageAssets/2022AWWA-LeadCommunicationsGuideAndToolkit.pdf.
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.
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.
Barn, P., Nicol, A., Struck, S., Dosanjh, S., Li, R., and Kosatsky, 
T. (2014). Investigating elevated copper and lead levels in school 
drinking water. Environmental Health Review, 56(04): 96-102. https://doi.org/10.5864/d2014-006.
Berrien County Health Department (2023). Water Lead Response in 
Benton Harbor. Retrieved July 18, 2023, from https://www.berriencounty.org/1599/City-of-Benton-Harbor.
Betanzo, E., Rhyan, C., and Hanna-Attisha, M. (2021). Lessons from 
the first year of compliance sampling under Michigan's revised Lead 
and Copper Rule and national Lead and Copper Rule Implications. AWWA 
Water Science, 3(6): e1261. htps://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1261t.
BlueConduit. (2020). Principles of Data Science for Lead Service 
Line Inventories and Replacement Programs. https://www.asdwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ASDWA-BlueConduit-White-Paper-on-Data-and-LSL.pdf.
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/.
Bradford, L.E.A., Idowu, B., Zagozewski, R., and Bharadwaj, L.A. 
(2017). There is no publicity like word of mouth . . . Lessons for 
communicating drinking water risks in the urban setting. Sustainable 
Cities and Society, 29: 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2016.11.008.
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.
Brown, M., J., Raymond, J., Homa, D., Kennedy, C., and Sinks, T. 
(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, R.A., and Cornwell, D.A. (2015). High-Velocity Household and 
Service Line Flushing Following LSL Replacement. Journal AWWA, 
107(3): E140-E151. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2015.107.0012.
Budtz-J[oslash]rgensen, 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.
California Water Boards. (2023). Templates for Public Notification. 
Page last updated February 13, 2023. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/Notices.html.
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 
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/EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0619-0002.
CDM Smith. (2022). Rolling Out a Successful Lead Service Line 
Replacement Program: Lessons Learned and Future Regulations. On-
demand webinar. Recorded May 2022. Retrieved from https://www.cdmsmith.com/en/Webinar/Rolling-Out-a-Successful-LSLR-Program-Lessons-Learned-and-Future-Regulations.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (2022a). Health Effects of Lead 
Exposure. Retrieved July 19, 2023 from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health-effects.htm.
CDC. (2022b). Breastfeeding and Special Circumstances: Environmental 
and Chemical Exposures: Lead. Last reviewed May 18, 2022. Retrieved 
from https://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/breastfeeding-special-circumstances/environmental-exposures/lead.html.
CDC. (2022c). CDC updates blood lead reference value to 3.5 
[micro]g/dL. Last reviewed December 16, 2022. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/news/cdc-updates-blood-lead-reference-value.html.
CDC. (2023). Lead in Drinking Water. Last reviewed February 28, 
2023. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/sources/water.htm.
Chislock, M.F., E. Doster, R.A. Zitomer, and A.E. Wilson. 2013. 
Eutrophication: Causes, consequences, and controls in aquatic 
ecosystems. Nature Education Knowledge 4(4):10.
City of Appleton. (2022). An Ordinance Creating section 20-44 of 
Chapter 20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Appleton, Relating 
to Lead and Galvanized Water Service Line Replacement, Municipal 
Code section 20-44 of Chapter 20 CFR Wisconsin. Retrieved from 
https://www.appleton.org/home/showpublisheddocument/24584/637873462362500000.
City of Dearborn. (2019). Consumer Annual Report on Water Quality. 
https://cityofdearborn.org/documents/city-departments/public-works/water-and-sewerage/118-consumer-confidence-report/file.
City of Denver. (2023). Using Filters. Retrieved July 18, 2023 from 
https://www.denverwater.org/your-water/water-quality/lead/filter-program.
City of Detroit (2023, May 12). Detroit to replace 5,000 lead 
service lines this year, ramping up to 10,000 per year starting in 
2024. Water and Sewerage Department. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from 
https://detroitmi.gov/news/detroit-replace-5000-lead-service-lines-year-ramping-10000-year-starting-2024.
City of Elgin. (2022). Lead Service Line Inventory Map. Retrieved 
July 31, 2023, from https://www.cityofelgin.org/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=2482.
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 Kalamazoo. (2023). Request Free Water Filters. Retrieved 
July 18, 2023 from https://www.kalamazoocity.org/Residents/Water-Sewer-Service/Request-Free-Water-Filters.
City of Milwaukee. (2023). Chapter 225-Plumbing and Drainage. 
Milwaukee Code of Ordinances. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/ccClerk/Ordinances/Volume-2/CH225.pdf.

[[Page 85047]]

City of Newark. (n.d.a). Lead Service Line Replacement Program. New 
Jersey. NewarkLeadServiceLine.com Retrieved July 25, 2023, from 
https://www.newarkleadserviceline.com/replacement.
City of Newark. (n.d.b) Water Filter and Replacement Cartridge 
Distribution Program. New Jersey. Retrieved July 18, 2023 from 
https://www.newarkleadserviceline.com/filters.
City of Newark. (2019). Mandatory Replacement of Lead Service Line. 
Title XVI Health, Sanitation and Air Pollution. Chapter 16:23. 
Ordinance 6PSF-M, 9-18-2019. New Jersey. Retrieved from https://ecode360.com/36709572.
City of Pittsburgh. (n.d.) The Pittsburgh Safe Water Program. 
Retrieved July 18, 2023 from https://pittsburghpa.gov/safepgh2o/.
City of Spokane. (2018, July 27). City Eliminates Remaining Lead 
Service Lines. News Release. Retrieved July 25, 2023 from: https://my.spokanecity.org/news/releases/2018/07/27/city-eliminates-remaining-lead-service-lines/.
    City of Stoughton Utilities Committee. (2022, Aug. 15). Official 
Notice and Agenda. Meeting Agendas. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from 
https://www.stoughtonutilities.com/documents/ucpackets/2022-08-15-uc-packet_r.pdf.
    City of Tucson. (2022, Aug. 9). Lead and Copper. Water 
Department. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://www.tucsonaz.gov/Departments/Water/About-Your-Water-Quality/Water-Quality-Monitoring/Lead-and-Copper.
    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.
    Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). (2022). Climate and 
Economic Justice Screening Tool. Available online https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/.
    Cowles et al. (2017). 2017 Senate Bill 48. Wisconsin State 
Legislature. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2017/proposals/sb48.
    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.
    DC Water (n.d.). DC Water Service Information. Retrieved July 
31, 2023, from https://geo.dcwater.com/Lead/.
    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.
    Denver Water (2023a). Using Filters. Lead Reduction Program. 
Retrieved July 18, 2023, from https://www.denverwater.org/your-water/water-quality/lead/filter-program.
    Denver Water (2023b). Annual Report-2022. Denver Water Lead 
Reduction Program. Version 1.0: February 10, 2023. Retrieved July 
25, 2023, from: https://www.denverwater.org/sites/default/files/lead-reduction-program-annual-report-2022.pdf.
    Department of the Treasury (n.d.). American Rescue Plan: State 
and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Project Highlights. https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/American-Rescue-Plan-Anniversary-SLFRF-Examples.pdf.
    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). 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., 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.
    Dor[eacute], E., Deshommes, E., Andrews, R.C. Nour, S., and 
Pr[eacute]vost, M. (2018) Sampling in schools and large 
institutional buildings: Implications for regulations, exposure and 
management of lead and copper, Water Research, 140: 110-122. DOI: 
10.1016/j.watres.2018.04.045.
    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. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/7006/cdc_7006_DS1.pdf.
    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.
    Drink Philly Tap (n.d.) Ambassador Program Guidebook. Retrieved 
July 25, 2023, from https://drinkphillytap.org/wp-content/uploads/DrinkPhillyTap-Guidebook.pdf.
    Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). (n.d.a). State efforts to 
support LSL replacement. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.edf.org/health/state-efforts-support-lsl-replacement.
    EDF. (n.d.b). Recognizing efforts to replace lead service lines. 
Retrieved July 24, 2023, from https://www.edf.org/health/recognizing-efforts-replace-lead-service-lines.
    Elfland, C., Scardina, P., and Edwards, M. (2010). 
Lead[hyphen]contaminated water from brass plumbing devices in new 
buildings. Journal AWWA, 102(11): 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2010.tb11340.x.
    Executive Order 12866. 1993. Regulatory Planning and Review. 
Federal Register 58(190):51735, October 4, 1993. Available at 
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf.
    Executive Order 12898. 1994. Federal Actions To Address 
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 
Populations. Federal Register 59(32): 7629, February 16, 1994. 
Available at https://www.archives.gov/files/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12898.pdf.
    Executive Order 13045. 1997. Protection of Children From 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. Federal Register 
62(78):19885, April 23, 1997. Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1997-04-23/pdf/97-10695.pdf.
    Executive Order 13132. 1999. Federalism. Federal Register 
64(153):43255, August 10, 1999. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1999-08-10/pdf/99-20729.pdf.
    Executive Order 13175. 2000. Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments. Federal Register 65(218):67249, November 
9, 2000. Available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-11-09/pdf/00-29003.pdf.
    Executive Order 13211. 2001. Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. Federal 
Register 66(99):28355, May 22, 2001. Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2001-05-22/pdf/01-13116.pdf.
    Executive Order 13563. 2011. Improving Regulation and Regulatory 
Review. Federal Register 76(14):3821, January 21, 2011. Available at 
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-21/pdf/2011-1385.pdf.
    Executive Order 13990. Executive Order on Protecting Public 
Health and the

[[Page 85048]]

Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. 
January 20, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/.
    Executive Order 14096. 2023. Revitalizing Our Nation's 
Commitment to Environmental Justice for All. Federal Register 
88(80): 25251, April 26, 2023. Available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/04/26/2023-08955/revitalizing-our-nations-commitment-to-environmental-justice-for-all.
    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.
    Folkman, S. (2018). Water Main Break Rates in the USA and 
Canada: A Comprehensive Study. Utah State University-Buried 
Structures Laboratory. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=mae_facpub&source=post_page.
    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.
    Goho, S.A., Saenz, M., and Neltner, T. (2019). Rates could fund 
lead pipe replacement in critical states: Laws in states with the 
most lead service lines support the practice. Retrieved from http://clinics.law.harvard.edu/environment/files/2019/04/Rates-Fund-LSL-Replacement-States_Harvard_EDF_2019.pdf.
    Grand Forks, North Dakota (n.d.). Lead Service Line Public 
Viewer. Retrieved July 31, 2023 from https://gfgis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=d4ba2372dd6340c099c2898380bcbb45.
    Greater Cincinnati Water Works (n.d.). Service Line Information. 
Retrieved July 31, 2023 from https://gcww.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0a170c268c694e46a8a4e394630df0bd.
    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, P.M., 
Born[eacute], Y., Engstr[ouml]m, G., and Barregard, L. (2018). Blood 
Lead Levels and Decreased Kidney Function in a Population-Based 
Cohort. Am J Kidney Dis, 72: 381-389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2018.02.358.
    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.
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA). (n.d.). Lead 
Informational Notice. Accessed July 17, 2023, from https://epa.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/epa/topics/drinking-water/public-water-users/documents/lead-service-line-replacement-advisory-board/lead-informational-notice.pdf.
IEPA. Illinois EPA Announces Nearly $4 Million in Loan Forgiveness 
to the City of Batavia to Replace Lead Service Lines. Illinois.gov 
Press Releases. https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-release.26057.html.
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 Senate Republicans (2017, July 12). Charbonneau: Gov Holcomb 
Signs Water Infrastructure Legislation. News Releases. Retrieved 
July 28, 2023, from https://www.indianasenaterepublicans.com/charbonneau-gov-holcomb-signs-water-infrastructure-legislation.
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.
Jersey Water Works. (2020). Wells of Opportunity: Training Residents 
and Prioritizing Local Hiring for Water Infrastructure Projects in 
Newark. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://www.jerseywaterworks.org/resources/wells-of-opportunity-training-residents-and-prioritizing-local-hiring-for-water-infrastructure-projects-in-newark/.
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.
Kahn, H.D. and K. Stralka. 2009. Estimated daily average per capita 
water ingestion by child and adult age categories based on USDA's 
1994-1996 and 1998 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals. 
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 19(4):396-
404.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lin, D., R. Lutter, and C.J. Ruhm. 2018. Cognitive performance and 
labour market outcomes. Labour Economics 51:121-135.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.a). Requiring LSL Replacement When 
Opportunities Arise. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/requiring-lsl-replacement.html.
LSLR Collaborative (n.d.b). Case Example from Washington State 
Department of Health's Office of Drinking Water. How State Agencies 
Can Support LSL Replacement. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://
www.lslr-collaborative.org/uploads/9/2/0/2/92028126/
how_state_agencies_can_support_lsl_replacement_case_example_washingto
n_state_approved_formatted.pdf.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.c). About the Lead Service Line Replacement 
Collaborative. Retrieved July 26, 2023 from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/about-us.html.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.d). Roadmap. Effectiveness of Anticipated 
Communication Options. Retrieved July 17, 2023 from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/effectiveness-of-anticipated-communications-options.html.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.e). Roles for Community Groups in LSL 
Replacement Efforts: Case Example from Clean Water

[[Page 85049]]

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.f). Legal Factors. Retrieved July 24, 2023, 
from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/legal-factors.html.
LSLR Collaborative. (n.d.g.) Getting Started on an LSL Inventory. 
Retrieved November 11, 2023, from https://www.lslr-collaborative.org/preparing-an-inventory.html.
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.
Madison Water Utility. (2014, November 7). EPA seeks details of 
Madison's Lead Service Replacement Program. https://www.cityofmadison.com/water/blog/2014-11-07/epa-seeks-details-of-madisons-lead-service-replacement-program.
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). (2020). Drinking 
Water Test Results. https://www.bwsc.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/Water%20Quality%20Report%202020.pdf.
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/llp/llpprogram.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.
McFadden, M., Giani, R., Kwan, P., and Reiber, S.H. (2011). 
Contributions to drinking water lead from galvanized iron corrosion 
scales. Journal AWWA, 103(4): 76-89. https://doi.org/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.
Memphis Light, Gas, and Water (n.d.). MLGW Water Services. Retrieved 
July 31, 2023 from https://www.mlgw.com/leadservicedatabase.
Michigan Administrative Rules. (2020). R 325.10101 Supplying Water 
to the Public. Michigan Administrative Code for Environment, Great 
Lakes and Energy-Drinking Water and Environmental Health Division. 
Retrieved July 25, 2023 from: https://ars.apps.lara.state.mi.us/AdminCode/DeptBureauAdminCode?Department=Environment%2C%20Great%20Lakes%20and%20Energy&Bureau=Drinking%20Water%20and%20Environmental%20Health%20Division.
Michigan Administrative Rules. (2023). R 325.11604--Contents of 
general plans for all applicable systems. Michigan Administrative 
Code for Environment, Great Lakes and Energy-Drinking Water and 
Environmental Health Division. Retrieved July 31, 2023 from https://casetext.com/regulation/michigan-administrative-code/department-environmental-quality/drinking-water-and-municipal-assistance-division/supplying-water-to-the-public/part-16-general-plans/section-r-32511604-contents-of-general-plans-for-all-applicable-systems.
Milwaukee Water Works (2023). Lead Service Line Records. Retrieved 
July 31, 2023 from https://city.milwaukee.gov/water/WaterQuality/LeadandWater/Lead-Service-Line-Records.
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.
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) Lead and Copper 
Working Group. (2015). Report of the Lead and Copper Working Group 
to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council--Final. Retrieved 
from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-01/documents/ndwaclcrwgfinalreportaug2015.pdf.
NDWAC. (2022). National Drinking Water Advisory Council Meeting 
Summary, November 30, 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/ndwac/national-drinking-water-advisory-council-meeting-summary-november-30-2022-0.
The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference 
(NELAC) Institute. (2021, October 1). Fields of Proficiency Testing. 
Retrieved July 25, 2023, from https://www.nelac-institute.org/content/NEPTP/fopt.php.
National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Copper in Drinking Water. 
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Sanitation Foundation (2023, August 21). NSF/ANSI/CAN 61 
Drinking Water System Components--Health Effects. NSF Product and 
Service Listings. Retrieved August 21, 2023, from https://info.nsf.org/Certified/PwsComponents/Listings.asp?TradeName=&StandardExt=&MaterialType=GALV&ProductType=&PlantState=&PlantCountry=&PlantRegion=&Standard=061.
National Toxicology Program (NTP). (2012). NTP Monograph on Health 
Effects of Low-Level Lead. U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services. Office of Health Assessment and Translation. Division of 
the National Toxicology Program. Durham, NC. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/ohat/lead/final/monographhealtheffectslowlevellead_newissn_508.pdf.
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/.
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 Department of Environmental Protection (2023). 
Sufficient Evidence for Non-Lead Designation Training Job Aid. 
Retrieved July 31, 2023, from https://files.dep.state.pa.us/Water/BSDW/DrinkingWaterManagement/Regulations/Sufficient-Evidence-Job.pdf.
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.
Pennsylvania General Assembly (2018, Oct. 24). 2018 Act 120-Public 
Utilities-Valuation and Return on the Property of Public Utility. 
Unconsolidated Statutes. Retrieved July 28, 2023, from https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2018&sessInd=0&act=120.
Pieper, K.J., Tang, M., Edwards, M.A. (2017). Flint Water Crisis 
Caused by Interrupted Corrosion Control: Investigating ``Ground 
Zero'' Home. Environmental Science and Technology. 51, 4, 2007-2014. 
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04034.
Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority (PGH2O). (n.d.). Understanding 
Lead

[[Page 85050]]

and Water. Community Lead Response. Retrieved July 26, 2023, from 
https://lead.pgh2o.com/understanding-lead-and-water/#1531755857859-59f8664c-b91f.
PGH2O, (2023). Priority Lead Line Replacement. Retrieved July 26, 
2023, from https://www.pgh2o.com/projects-maintenance/search-all-projects/priority-lead-line-replacement.
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.
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.
The Rockefeller Foundation. (n.d.). Lead-free water for all: Making 
the case for rapid lead pipe removal across the U.S. Six steps to 
scaling up equitable lead pipe replacement. Retrieved July 25, 2023, 
from https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Lead-Free-Water-for-All-Making-the-Case-for-Rapid-Lead-Pipe-Removal-Across-the-U.S..pdf.
Roy, S., and Edwards, M.A. (2019). Preventing another lead (Pb) in 
drinking water crisis: Lessons from the Washington, DC and Flint MI 
contamination events. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & 
Health, 7: 34-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.10.002.
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 Bill 4110--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. Environmental 
Research 70:1-6. doi:0013-9351/95.
Sandvig, A., Kwan, P., Kirmeyer, G., Maynard, B., Mast, D., 
Trussell, R.R., Trussel, S., Cantor, A., and Prescott, A. (2008). 
Contribution of service line and plumbing fixtures to lead and 
copper rule compliance issue. AWWA Research Foundation, 523.
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.R., Cantor, A.F., Triantafyllidou, S., Desantis, M.K., and 
Scheckel, K.G. (2014). Importance of pipe deposits to Lead and 
Copper Rule compliance. Journal AWWA, 106(7): E336-E349. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2014.106.0064.
Sedimentary Ores. (n.d.). Lead-lined Galvanized Pipe--A Lurking 
Danger for Homeowners and Utilities. Retrieved July 24, 2023, from 
http://sedimentaryores.net/Pipe%20Scales/Fe%20scales/Galvanized_lead-lined.html.
Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey (2018, Aug. 
24). Chapter 14--An Act concerning the replacement of lead-
contaminated water service line connections and amending various 
parts of the statutory law. Retrieved July 28, 2023, from https://pub.njleg.gov/bills/2018/PL18/114_.HTM.
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.
Stanek, L.W., Xue, J., Lay, C.R., Helm, E.C., Schock, M., Lytle, 
D.A., Speth, T.F., Zartarian, V.G. (2020). Modeled Impacts of 
Drinking Water Pb Reduction Scenarios on Children's Exposures and 
Blood Lead Levels. Environmental Science and Technology, 54, 9474-
9482. doi:10.1021/acs.est.0c00479.
St. Clair, J., Cartier, C., Triantafyllidou, T., Clark, B., and 
Edwards, M. (2016). Long-Term Behavior of Simulated Partial Lead 
Service Line Replacements. Environmental Engineering Science, 33(1): 
53-64. https://doi.org/10.1089/ees.2015.0337.
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/Session+Law/Chapter/39/.
State of New Jersey. (2020, January 9). 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. (2021). 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 Rhode Island. (2023). Lead Poisoning Prevention Act. 
General Assembly. H5007. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://legiscan.com/RI/bill/H5007/2023.
State of Washington. (2016, May 2). Directive of the Governor 16-06. 
Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/Documents/4200/GovernorsDirectiveLead.pdf?uid=64b688df5c0cf.
Schwartz, J. and D. Otto. 1991. Lead and minor hearing impairment. 
Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health 46(5):300-305. 
doi:10.1080/00039896.1991.9934391.
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.
Tornero-Velez, R., Christian, M., Zartarian, V., and Simoneau, K.R. 
(2023). Blood Lead 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., and Edwards, M. (2011). Galvanic corrosion 
after simulated small-scale partial lead service line replacements. 
Journal AWWA, 103(9): 85-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1551-8833.2011.tb11535.x.
Triantafyllidou, S., and Edwards, M. (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(13): 
1297-1352. DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2011.556556.
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., Le, T., Gallagher, D., and Edwards, M. (2014). 
Reduced risk estimations after remediation of lead (Pb) in drinking 
water at two U.S. school districts. Science of the Total 
Environment, 466-467: 1011-1021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.111.
Triantafyllidou, S., Schock, M., DeSantis, M., and White, C. (2015). 
Low Contribution of PbO2-Coated Lead Service Lines to Water Lead 
Contamination at the Tap. Environmental Science & Technology, 49(6): 
3746-3754). https://doi.org/10.1021/es505886h.
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.

[[Page 85051]]

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 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.
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). 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. (1998a). Small System Compliance Technology List for the Non-
Microbial Contaminants Regulated Before 1996. EPA 815-R-98-002. 
September 1998. Retrieved from https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20002173.PDF?Dockey=20002173.PDF.
USEPA. (1998b). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Report. Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 63 FR 
7606. February 13, 1998.
USEPA. (1998c). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Report. Final Rule. Federal Register. 63 FR 
44512. August 19, 1998.
USEPA. (2000a). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead 
and Copper; Final Rule. 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. EPA 815-R-00-024. December 2000. National Service for 
Environmental Publications. Retrieved from https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=200137NM.txt.
USEPA. (2004a). Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Chemical 
Assessment Summary for Lead and compounds (inorganic); CASRN 7439-
92-1. Retrieved from https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris/iris_documents/documents/subst/0277_summary.pdf.
USEPA. (2004b). Guidance to Environmental Protection Agency 
Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition 
Against National Origin Discrimination Affecting Limited English 
Proficient Persons. Federal Register. 69 FR 35602. June 25, 2004.
USEPA. (2004c). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Minor 
Corrections and Clarification to Drinking Water Regulations; 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper. 
Federal Register. 69 FR 38850. June 29, 2004.
USEPA. (2004d). WSG 174. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 
Memorandum to Water Division Directors, Regions I-X, from Benjamin 
H. Grumbles, Acting Assistant Administrator. Lead and Copper Rule--
Clarification of Requirements for Collecting Samples and Calculating 
Compliance (November 23, 2004).
USEPA. (2005). Drinking Water Lead Reduction Plan. EPA 810-F-05-001. 
Washington, DC March 2005. 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). Elevated Lead in DC Drinking Water--A Study of 
Potential Causative Events, Final Summary Report. EPA-815-R-07-021. 
Washington, DC August 2007.
USEPA. (2009). 2006 Community Water System Survey--Volume 1: 
Overview. National Service Center for Environmental Publications. 
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P1009JJI.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2006%20Thru%202010&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C06THRU10%5CTXT%5C00000023%5CP1009JJI.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=3.
USEPA. (2011). Science Advisory Board Drinking Water Committee 
Augmented for the Review of the Effectiveness of Partial Lead 
Service Line Replacements. EPA-SAB-11-015. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/sab_evaluation_partial_lead_service_lines_epa-sab-11-015.pdf.
USEPA. (2013). Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. EPA/600/R-10/
075F. Office of Research and Development. Research Triangle Park, 
NC.
USEPA. (2016a). Lead and Copper Rule Revisions White Paper. October 
2016. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-10/documents/508_lcr_revisions_white_paper_final_10.26.16.pdf.
USEPA. (2016b). The Analysis of Regulated Contaminant Occurrence 
Data from Public Water Systems in Support of the Third Six-Year 
Review of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Chemical 
Phase and Radionuclides Rules. EPA-810-R-16-014. Retrieved from 
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/810r16014.pdf.
USEPA. (2016c). 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/dwreginfo/optimal-corrosion-control-treatment-evaluation-technical-recommendations.
USEPA. (2016d). Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental 
Justice in Regulatory Analysis. June 2016. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/ejtg_5_6_16_v5.1.pdf.
USEPA. (2018). 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water in Schools 
and Child Care Facilities: A Training, Testing, and Taking Action 
Approach (Revised Manual). October 2018. Office of Water. EPA 815-B-
18-007. https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/3ts-reducing-lead-drinking-water-toolkit.
USEPA. (2019a). Strategies to Achieve Full Lead Service Line 
Replacement. EPA 810-R-19-003. October 2019. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-10/documents/strategies_to_achieve_full_lead_service_line_replacement_10_09_19.pdf
.
USEPA. (2019b). Estimated Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus Loads 
and Yields Generated within States. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/nutrient-policy-data/estimated-total-nitrogen-and-total-phosphorus-loads-and-yields-generated-within.
USEPA. (2019c). All-Ages Model (AALM), Version 2.0 (External Review 
Draft, 2019). https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=343670.
USEPA. (2019d) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic 
Analysis of the Final Rule to Revise the TSCA Dust-Lead Hazard 
Standards. June 2019.
USEPA. (2020a). 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. (2020b). 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. (2020c). Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and Copper Rule 
Revisions.

[[Page 85052]]

EPA 816-R-20-008. December 2020. Retrieved from https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-1769.
USEPA. (2020d). Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder, 
and Flux for Drinking Water; Final Rule. Federal Register. 85 FR 
54235. September 1, 2020.
USEPA. (2020e). Economic Analysis Appendices for the Final Lead and 
Copper Rule Revisions. EPA 816-R-20-008a. December 2020. Retrieved 
from https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-1768.
USEPA. (2020f). Science Advisory Board (SAB) Consideration of the 
Scientific and Technical Basis of EPA's Proposed Rule Titled 
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and 
Copper Rule Revisions. EPA-SAB-20-007. June 12, 2020.
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; Final Rule. 
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; 
Proposed Rule. 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. Wed. 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. (2021g). Final Allotments for the FY2021 Public Water System 
Supervision (PWSS) State and Tribal Support Program Grants, from 
Catherine Davis, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. March 2, 
2021.
USEPA. (2022a). Strategy to Reduce Lead Exposures and Disparities in 
U.S. Communities. EPA 540-R-22-006. October 2022. Retrieved from 
https://www.epa.gov/lead/final-strategy-reduce-lead-exposures-and-disparities-us-communities.
USEPA. (2022b). Guidance for Developing and Maintaining a Service 
Line Inventory. EPA 816-B-22-001. August 2022. Retrieved from 
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-08/Inventory%20Guidance_August%202022_508%20compliant.pdf.
USEPA. (2022c). Final Allotments for the FY2022 Public Water System 
Supervision (PWSS) State and Tribal Support Program Grants, from 
Anita Thompkins, Office of Ground Water & Drinking Water. April 21, 
2022.
USEPA. (2023a). Integrated Science Assessment (ISA) for Lead (Pb) 
(External Review Draft). EPA/600/R 23/061, 2023. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/isa/recordisplay.cfm?deid=357282.
USEPA. (2023b). Economic Analysis for the Proposed Lead and Copper 
Rule Improvements.
USEPA. (2023c). WIIN Grant: Reducing Lead in Drinking Water. Press 
Release. EPA Headquarters. Office of Water. Washington, DC. 
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/wiin-grant-reducing-lead-drinking-water.
USEPA. (2023d). Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act 
(WIFIA)--2022 Annual Report. Publication number 830R23001. Retrieved 
from https://www.epa.gov/wifia/wifia-annual-report.
USEPA. (2023e). 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/epa-launches-new-initiative-accelerate-lead-pipe-replacement-protect-underserved.
USEPA. (2023f). Environmental Justice Analysis for the Proposed Lead 
and Copper Rule Improvements.
USEPA. (2023g). Technical Support Document for the Proposed Lead and 
Copper Rule Improvements.
USEPA. (2023h). 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. (2023i). 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. (2023j). Summary Report on Federalism and Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA) Consultation for the Development of the Proposed 
LCRI National Primary Drinking Water Regulation.
USEPA. (2023k). 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. (2023l). Lead and Copper Rule Improvements NDWAC Consultation 
Meeting.
USEPA. (2023m). 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. (2023n). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: 
Consumer Confidence Report Rule Revisions; Proposed Rule. Federal 
Register. 88 FR 20092. April. 5, 2023.
USEPA. (2023o). Voluntary School and Child Care Lead Testing & 
Reduction Grant Program Implementation Document for States and 
Territories. EPA 815-B-23-009. July 2023. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-07/Final_FY23_ImplementationDoc_VoluntarySchoolandChildCareLeadTestingReductionGrantProgram_508.pdf.
USEPA. (2023p). LSLR Financing Case Study: North Providence, RI. 
Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lslr-financing-case-study-north-providence-ri.
USEPA and USHHS. (2023). EPA and HHS Joint Statement to Governors on 
Federal Resources for Lead Testing and Remediation in Early Child 
Care and Education Settings. March 23, 2023. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-03/EPA%20ADM%20Regan%2BHHS%20Sec.%20Becerra%20-%20Lead.pdf.
United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO). (2018). K-12 
Education: Lead Testing of School Drinking Water Would Benefit from 
Improved Federal Guidance. Document No GAO-18-328. Released July 17, 
2018. Retrieved from https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-382.
United States Housing and Urban Development (USHUD) Office of Policy 
Development and Research. (2014). Vacant and Abandoned Properties: 
Turning Liabilities Into Assets. Evidence Matters. Retrieved July 
24, 2023, from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/winter14/highlight1.html.
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.
Wang, Y., Jing, H., Mehta, V., Welter, G.J., and Giammar, D.E. 
(2012). Impact of

[[Page 85053]]

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.
Washington State Department of Health. (n.d.). Translations for 
Public Notification. Accessed July 17, 2023. https://doh.wa.gov/community-and-environment/drinking-water/drinking-water-emergencies/public-notification/translations-public-notification.
Wasserstrom, L.W., Miller, S.A., Triantafyllidou, S., Desantis, M.K. 
(2017). Scale Formation Under Blended Phosphate Treatment for a 
Utility With Lead Pipes. Journal AWWA. 109(11), E464-E478. https://doi.org/10.5942/jawwa.2017.109.0121.
Wei, Y.D. and Zhu, J. M. (2020). Blood levels of endocrine-
disrupting metals and prevalent breast cancer among US women. Med 
Oncol, 37: 1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12032-019-1328-3.
The White House. (2021). Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Lead Pipe and 
Paint Action Plan. December 16, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/16/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-lead-pipe-and-paint-action-plan/.
The White House. (2023). Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration 
Announces New Actions and Progress to Protect Communities From Lead 
Pipes and Paint. January 27, 2023. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/01/27/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-actions-and-progress-to-protect-communities-from-lead-pipes-and-paint/.
WHO. (2011). Lead in Drinking Water: Background Document for 
Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. World 
Health Organization Press.
Wilking, C., Nink, E., and Cradock, A.L. (2022). Case Study Brief: 
Denver Water Filter Program. Boston, MA: Prevention Research Center 
on Nutrition and Physical Activity at the Harvard T.H. Chan School 
of Public Health. Retrieved July 25, 2023, from: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/prc/wp-content/uploads/sites/84/2022/06/SHW_Denver_Brief_June2022.pdf.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR). (2020, September 
10). Sample Mandatory Lead Service Line Replacement Ordinances. 
Retrieved July 18, 2023, from WI DNR. Sample Mandatory Lead Service 
Line Replacement Ordinances. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/Aid/loans/lead/LSLmandatoryOrdinances.pdf.
WI DNR. (2022). Considerations for Setting Up a Private Lead Service 
Line Replacement Program. Retrieved July 17, 2023, from https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/Aid/loans/pubs/CF0054.pdf.
Xie, Y., Giammar, D.E. (2011). Effects of flow and water chemistry 
on lead release rates from pipe scales. Water Research. 45(19), 
6525-6534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.09.050.
Xue, J., Zartarian, V., Tornero-Velez, R., Stanek, L.W., Poulakos, 
A., Walts, A., Triantafillou, K., Suero, M., Grokhowsky, N. (2022). 
A Generalizable Evaluated Approach, Applying Advanced Geospatial 
Statistical Methods, To Identify High Lead Exposure Locations at 
Census Tract Scale: Michigan Case Study. Environmental Health 
Perspectives. 130(7). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9705.
Zartarian, V., J. Xue, R. Tornero-Velez, 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: https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1605.
Zhu, M., Fitzgerald, E.F., Gelberg, K.H., Lin, S., & 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.
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.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Copper, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental 
relations, Lead, Lead service line, National primary drinking water 
regulation, 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, National primary drinking water regulation, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental 
Protection Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR parts 141 and 142 as 
follows:

PART 141--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  141.2 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Action level'' and ``Child care 
facility'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Connector'' and 
``Distribution system and site assessment'';
0
c. Revising the definition of ``Elementary school'';
0
d. Removing the definitions of ``Find-and-fix'' and ``Full lead service 
line replacement'';
0
e. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Galvanized requiring 
replacement service line'';
0
f. Revising the definition ``Galvanized service line'';
0
g. Removing the definition of ``Gooseneck, pigtail, or connector'';
0
h. Revising the definitions of ``Lead service line'' and ``Lead status 
unknown service line'';
0
i. Removing the definitions of ``Lead trigger level'' and ``Medium-size 
water system'';
0
j. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Medium water 
system'', ``Newly regulated public water system'', ``Optimal corrosion 
control treatment (OCCT)'', and ``Partial service line replacement'';
0
k. Removing the definitions of ``Optimal corrosion control treatment'' 
and ``Partial lead service line replacement'';
0
l. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Optimal corrosion 
control treatment (OCCT)'', and ``Partial service line replacement'';
0
m. Revising the definitions of ``Pitcher filter'' and ``Secondary 
school'';
0
n. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Service line'';
0
o. Revising the definitions of ``Small water system'' and ``System 
without corrosion control treatment'';
0
p. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Tap monitoring 
period'';
0
q. Removing the definition of ``Tap sampling monitoring period''; and
0
r. Revising the definitions of ``Tap sampling period'', ``Tap sampling 
protocol'', and ``Wide-mouth bottles''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  141.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Action level for the purpose of subpart I of this part only means 
the concentrations of lead or copper in water as specified in Sec.  
141.80(c) which determines requirements under subpart I of this part. 
The lead action level is 0.010 mg/L and the copper action level is 1.3 
mg/L.
* * * * *

[[Page 85054]]

    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 two feet that can be bent and is 
used for connections between rigid service piping, typically connecting 
the service line to the main. For purposes of subpart I, lead 
connectors are not considered to be part of the service line.
* * * * *
    Distribution system and site assessment means the requirements 
under subpart I, pursuant to Sec.  141.82(j), that water systems must 
perform at every tap sampling site that yields a lead result above the 
lead action level of 0.010 mg/L.
* * * * *
    Elementary school, for the purpose of subpart I of this part only, 
means a school classified as elementary by State and local practice and 
composed of any span of grades (including pre-school) not above grade 
8.
* * * * *
    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 in the direction of flow of a lead status unknown 
service line. If the water system is unable to demonstrate that the 
galvanized service line was never downstream of a lead service line, it 
is a galvanized requiring replacement service line for purposes of the 
service line inventory and replacement requirements pursuant to Sec.  
141.84.
    Galvanized service line, for the purpose of subpart I of this part 
only, means iron or steel piping 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.
* * * * *
    Lead status unknown service line, for the purpose of subpart I of 
this part only, means a service line whose pipe material has not been 
demonstrated to be a lead service line, galvanized requiring 
replacement service line, or a non-lead service line pursuant to Sec.  
141.84(a).
* * * * *
    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 on October 16, 
2024, because the system met the requirements of section 1411 of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act and 40 CFR 141.3 or (2) an existing water 
system that did not meet the definition of a public water system in 
Sec.  141.2 on October 16, 2024. This term does not include existing 
water systems under new or restructured ownership or management.
* * * * *
    Optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT), for the purpose of 
subpart I of this part only, means the corrosion control treatment that 
minimizes the lead and copper concentrations at users' taps while 
ensuring that the treatment does not cause the water system to violate 
any national primary drinking water regulations.
    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.
* * * * *
    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 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.
* * * * *
    Small water system, for the purpose of subpart I of this part, 
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, 
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, 
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 
under subpart I of this part.
* * * * *
    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 outer 
diameter that measures at least 55 mm wide.
0
3. Amend Sec.  141.80 by revising the section heading and paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (3), (a)(4)(i), (b), and (c) and removing paragraphs (d) 
through (l).
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  141.80  General requirements and action level.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The requirements of this subpart are effective as of [DATE 60 
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL 
REGISTER].
    (3) Community water systems and non-transient non-community water 
systems must comply with the requirements of this subpart no later than 
[DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER], except where otherwise specified in Sec. Sec.  
141.81, 141.84, 141.85, 141.86, and 141.90, or where an exemption in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 142, subpart C or F, has been issued by the 
Administrator.

[[Page 85055]]

    (4)(i) Between [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
FEDERAL REGISTER], and [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], community water systems and non-
transient non-community water systems must comply with 40 CFR 141.80 
through 141.91, as codified on July 1, 2020, except systems must also 
comply with 40 CFR 141.84(a)(1) through 141.84(a)(10) (excluding 
Sec. Sec.  141.84(a)(7)); 141.85(e); 141.90(e)(1) and 141.90(e)(13); 
141.201(c)(3); 141.202(a)(10); and 141.31(d), as codified on July 1, 
2023.
* * * * *
    (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 include requirements to support those 
treatment techniques 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 collected in accordance with 
the tap sampling monitoring requirements of Sec.  141.86 for the 
purpose of calculating the 90th percentile and tested using the 
analytical methods specified in Sec.  141.89. The action levels 
described in this paragraph (c) are applicable to all sections of 
subpart I of this part. Action levels for lead and copper are as 
follows:
    (1) The lead action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile 
concentration of lead as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section 
is greater than 0.010 mg/L.
    (2) The copper action level is exceeded if the 90th percentile 
concentration of copper as specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section is greater than 1.3 mg/L.
    (3) For purposes of this subpart, the 90th percentile concentration 
must be derived as follows:
    (i) For water systems that do not have lead service line sites and 
only have sites identified as Tier 3, 4, or 5 under Sec.  141.86(a):
    (A) The results of all lead or copper samples taken during a tap 
sampling period 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 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 level must be 
equal to the total number of samples taken.
    (B) The number of samples taken during the tap sampling period must 
be multiplied by 0.9.
    (C) The 90th percentile concentration is the concentration of lead 
or copper in the numbered sample yielded after multiplying the number 
of samples by 0.9 in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B) of this section.
    (D) For water systems that collect five samples per tap sampling 
period, the 90th percentile concentration is the average of the highest 
and second highest concentration from the results in paragraph 
(c)(3)(i)(A) of this section.
    (E) For a water system that is allowed by the State to collect 
fewer than five samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(a)(2) or has 
failed or is unable to collect 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 lead service lines with sites 
identified as Tier 1 or 2 under Sec.  141.86(a) with enough Tier 1 or 2 
sites to meet the minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c) or 
(d) as applicable:
    (A) For lead, the system must use the higher value of the first 
liter and fifth liter lead sample results for each Tier 1 or 2 site 
during a tap sampling period in the 90th percentile concentration 
calculation in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) through (c)(3)(ii)(D) of this 
section. For copper, the system must use all first liter copper samples 
collected at Tier 1 and 2 sites in the 90th percentile calculation. 
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 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 level. The number assigned to the sample 
with the highest concentration level must be equal to the total number 
of samples.
    (C) The number of samples identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(B) 
shall be multiplied by 0.9.
    (D) The contaminant concentration in the numbered sample yielded by 
the calculation in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(C) of this section is the 90th 
percentile concentration.
    (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 paired first liter and fifth 
liter lead samples in accordance with Sec.  141.86(a)(2), or has failed 
to collect five copper samples or five paired first liter and fifth 
liter 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 lead service lines with sites 
identified as Tier 1 or 2 under Sec.  141.86(a) with an insufficient 
number of Tier 1 or 2 sites to meet the minimum number of sites listed 
in Sec.  141.86(c) or (d) as applicable:
    (A) For lead, the system must use the higher value of the first 
liter and fifth liter lead sample for each Tier 1 or 2 site and the 
highest lead concentration results from the next Tier (e.g., Tier 3, 4, 
or 5) sufficient to meet the minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  
141.86(c) or (d) sampled during a tap sampling period in the 90th 
percentile concentration calculation paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(B) through 
(D) of this section. For copper, the system must use all first liter 
copper samples from Tier 1 and 2 sites and the highest first liter 
copper concentration results from Tier 3, 4, or 5 sites sufficient to 
meet the minimum number of sites in this calculation. Lead or copper 
sample results from any remaining Tier 3, 4, and 5 sites cannot be 
included in this calculation.
    (B) The results of 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. Each sampling result 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 level must be equal to the total 
minimum number of sites listed in Sec.  141.86(c) or (d) as applicable.

[[Page 85056]]

    (C) The number of samples identified in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) 
must be multiplied by 0.9.
    (D) The 90th percentile calculation is the concentration of lead or 
copper in the numbered sample yielded by the calculation in paragraph 
(c)(3)(iii)(C).
    (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 of lead or copper 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 lead or copper samples (paired first liter and fifth 
liter lead samples at Tier 1 and Tier 2 sites) in accordance with Sec.  
141.86(a)(2), or has failed to collect five lead or copper samples 
(paired first liter and fifth liter lead samples at Tier 1 and Tier 2 
sites), the sample result with the highest concentration from the 
results in paragraph (c)(3)(iii)(B) is considered the 90th percentile 
value.
0
4. Revise Sec.  141.81 to read as follows:

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

    (a) Corrosion control treatment. All water systems are required to 
install, optimize, or re-optimize corrosion control treatment 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 action level 
and/or the copper action level.
    (1) Large water system (serving 50,000 people). (i) 
Large water systems with corrosion control treatment that exceed either 
the lead action level or copper action level must complete the re-
optimized OCCT steps specified in paragraph (d) of this section unless 
the system:
    (A) Has re-optimized OCCT once under paragraph (d) of this section 
after the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3);
    (B) Is meeting optimal water quality parameters designated by the 
State; and
    (C) Is continuing to operate and maintain corrosion control 
treatment as required in Sec.  141.82(g).
    (ii) Large water systems with corrosion control treatment with 90th 
percentile results as calculated in accordance with Sec.  141.80(c)(3) 
that exceed the lead practical quantitation limit of 0.005 mg/L but do 
not exceed the lead action level or the copper action level may be 
required by the State to complete the re-optimized OCCT steps in 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (iii) Large water systems without corrosion control treatment with 
90th percentile results as calculated in accordance with Sec.  
141.80(c)(3) that exceed either the lead practical quantitation limit 
of 0.005 mg/L or the copper action level must complete steps to study 
and install OCCT, as specified in paragraph (e) of this section.
    (2) Medium water systems (serving 10,000 and <=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 Sec.  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 Sec.  141.82(g).
    (ii) Medium water systems with corrosion control treatment that do 
not exceed either the lead or 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.
    (iii) 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 
non-community 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  141.82(g).
    (ii) Small and non-transient non-community 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 Sec.  141.2 if the system meets the requirement of either (b)(1) or 
(3). A system with corrosion control treatment is deemed to have OCCT 
as defined in Sec.  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 in accordance with Sec.  141.90(c)(1) by the 
applicable deadline for submitting tap sample results under Sec.  
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 Sec.  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 water sampling results in 
accordance with Sec.  141.86 demonstrating that the 90th percentile tap 
water lead level is less than or equal to the lead practical 
quantitation limit of 0.005 mg/L and does not exceed the copper action 
level for two consecutive six-month tap monitoring periods, and does 
not have OWQPs set by the State under paragraph (d) or (e) of this 
section.
    (i) A system with 90th percentile tap sampling results that later 
exceed 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

[[Page 85057]]

copper at the tap no less frequently than once every three calendar 
years using the reduced number of sites specified in Sec.  141.86(d) 
and collecting samples at times and locations specified in Sec.  
141.86(d)(2)(iii).
    (4) A system with corrosion control treatment deemed to have OCCT 
under this paragraph (b) must continue to operate and maintain the 
corrosion control treatment and also meet any additional requirements 
that the State determines are appropriate to ensure OCCT is maintained.
    (c) [Reserved]
    (d) Treatment steps and deadlines for water systems re-optimizing 
optimal corrosion control treatment. Water systems with corrosion 
control treatment that are required to re-optimize corrosion control 
treatment under paragraph (a) of this section must complete the 
following steps (described in the referenced portions of Sec. Sec.  
141.82, 141.86, and 141.87) by the indicated time periods. Water 
systems must conduct tap sampling for lead and copper in accordance 
with the requirements of Sec.  141.86 while the system completes the 
corrosion control steps in this section.
    (1) Step 1. Initiation of mandatory pipe rig or CCT study or 
treatment recommendation. (i) A large or medium 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 
and operate the rigs with finished water within one year after the end 
of the tap sampling period during which it 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.
    (ii) Large water systems without lead service lines that exceed the 
lead action level or copper action level must conduct the corrosion 
control studies for re-optimization under paragraph (d)(3)(ii) of this 
section (Step 3).
    (iii) A water system other than those covered in paragraph 
(d)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section must recommend re-optimized optimal 
corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(a)) within six months after 
the end of the tap sampling period during which it exceeds 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 it exceeds the lead action 
level. The State must evaluate a system's past corrosion control 
treatment study results prior to approving an existing treatment 
modification. When a State approves existing treatment modifications, 
the State must specify re-optimized OCCT within 12 months after the end 
of the tap sampling period during which it 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) 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 during which a medium water system without lead service lines or 
a small system exceeds the lead action level or copper action level, 
the State may require the water system to perform corrosion control 
studies for re-optimization (Sec.  141.82(c)(2)). If the State does not 
require the system to perform such studies, the State must specify re-
optimized corrosion control treatment (Sec.  141.82(d)) within the 
timeframes specified in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. 
The State must provide its determination to the system in writing:
    (i) For medium water systems, within one year after the end of the 
tap sampling period during which such water system exceeds the lead 
action level or copper action level.
    (ii) For small water systems, within 18 months after the end of the 
tap sampling period during which such water system exceeds 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 (d)(1) of 
this section, must complete the pipe rig corrosion control treatment 
studies and recommend re-optimized OCCT within 30 months after the end 
of the tap sampling period during which it exceeds the lead action 
level.
    (ii) If the water system is required to perform corrosion control 
studies under paragraph (d)(1)(ii) or (d)(2) of this section, the water 
system must complete the studies (Sec.  141.82(c)) and recommend re-
optimized OCCT within 18 months after the end of the tap sampling 
period during which it exceeds the lead or copper action level or after 
the State requires that such studies be conducted.
    (4) Step 4. State designation of re-optimized OCCT based on CCT 
study results. The State must designate re-optimized OCCT (Sec.  
141.82(d)) within six months after completion of paragraph (d)(3)(i) or 
(ii) of this section (Step 3).
    (5) Step 5. Re-optimized OCCT deadlines. Water systems must install 
re-optimized OCCT (Sec.  141.82(e)) within one year after completion of 
paragraph (d)(4) of this section (Step 4) or paragraph (d)(2)(i) or 
(ii) of this section (Step 2).
    (6) Step 6. Follow-up monitoring. Water systems must complete 
follow-up sampling (Sec. Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(D) and 141.87(b)(3)) 
within one year after completion of paragraph (d)(5) of this section 
(Step 5).
    (7) Step 7. State sets Optimal Water Quality Parameters (OWQPs). 
The State must review the water system's re-optimized OCCT and 
designate OWQPs (Sec.  141.82(f)) within six months after completion of 
paragraph (d)(6) of this section (Step 6).
    (8) Step 8. Systems meet OWQPs to demonstrate compliance. The water 
system must comply with the State designated OWQP (Sec.  141.82(g)) and 
conduct tap sampling (Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E)) and water quality 
parameter monitoring under Sec.  141.87(b)(4).
    (e) Treatment steps and deadlines for systems without corrosion 
control treatment. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, 
water systems without corrosion control treatment must complete the 
following corrosion control treatment steps (described in the 
referenced portions of Sec. Sec.  141.82, 141.86, and 141.87) by the 
indicated time periods. Water systems must conduct tap sampling for 
lead and copper in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  141.86 
while the system completes the corrosion control steps in this section.
    (1) Step 1. Initiation of mandatory pipe rig 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 
and operate the rigs with finished water within one year after the end 
of the tap sampling period during which it exceeds 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.
    (ii) Large water systems under paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this 
section must 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

[[Page 85058]]

paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section must recommend optimal corrosion 
control treatment (OCCT) (Sec.  141.82(a)) within six months after the 
end of the tap sampling period during which it exceeds either the lead 
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 during which a 
water system exceeds the lead or copper action level, the State may 
require the water system to perform corrosion control studies (Sec.  
141.82(b)(1)) if those studies are not otherwise required by this rule. 
The State must notify the system in writing of this requirement. If the 
State does not require the system to perform such studies, the State 
must specify OCCT (Sec.  141.82(d)) within the timeframes established 
in paragraphs (e)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The State must 
provide its determination to the system in writing:
    (i) For medium water systems, within 18 months after the end of the 
tap sampling period during which such water system exceeds the lead 
action level or copper action level.
    (ii) For small water systems, within 24 months after the end of the 
tap sampling period during which such water system exceeds the lead 
action level or copper action level.
    (3) Step 3. Study duration. (i) Large and medium 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 during which it exceeds the 
lead action level.
    (ii) If the water system is required to perform corrosion control 
studies under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) or (e)(2) of this section, the water 
system must complete the studies (Sec.  141.82(c)) and recommend OCCT 
within 18 months after the end of the tap sampling period during which 
it exceeds the lead or copper action level or the State notifies the 
system in writing that such studies must be conducted.
    (4) Step 4. State designation of OCCT based on CCT study results. 
The State must designate OCCT (Sec.  141.82(d)) within six months after 
completion of paragraph (e)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section (Step 3).
    (5) Step 5. OCCT installation deadlines. The water system must 
install OCCT (Sec.  141.82(e)) within 24 months after the State 
designates OCCT under paragraph (e)(2) or (4) of this section (Step 2 
or Step 4).
    (6) Step 6. Follow-up monitoring. The water system must complete 
follow-up sampling (Sec. Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(D) and 141.87(b)(3)) 
within 12 months after completion of paragraph (e)(5) of this section 
(Step 5).
    (7) Step 7. State sets Optimal Water Quality Parameters (OWQPs). 
The State must review the water system's installation of treatment and 
designate OWQPs (Sec.  141.82(f)) within six months after completion of 
paragraph (e)(6) of this section (Step 6).
    (8) Step 8. Systems meet OWQPs to demonstrate compliance. The water 
system must comply with the State designated OWQP (Sec.  141.82(g)) and 
conduct tap sampling (Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E)) and water quality 
parameter monitoring under Sec.  141.87(b)(4).
    (f) Systems with lead or galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines that can complete the service line replacement program within 
five years. (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 
the following requirements:
    (i)(A) A water system completes the service line replacement 
requirements under Sec.  141.84(d) within five years of the end of the 
tap sampling period in which the system first exceeds the lead action 
level and the applicable deadline for service line replacement is at 
least five years after 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 
completes the service line replacement requirements under Sec.  
141.84(d) within five years of the end of the tap sampling period in 
which the system's 90th percentile results first exceeds the PQL for 
lead and the applicable deadline for service line replacement is at 
least five years after the end of the tap sampling period in which the 
system first exceeds the lead PQL; and
    (ii) A system replaces a minimum of 20 percent of lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines each year, removing all 
lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines and identifying 
the material of all service lines of unknown material by the end of the 
five-year period in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section.
    (2) 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 
Sec.  141.84(d).
    (3) A water system that does not replace a minimum of 20 percent of 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service lines calculated in 
accordance with Sec.  141.84(d)(5) each year in any one year of the 
five-year period in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section or complete the 
service line replacement requirements under Sec.  141.84(d) within five 
years of the end of the tap sampling period that either the system 
first exceeds the lead action level or the 90th percentile results 
first exceed the lead PQL for large systems without corrosion control 
treatment must meet the requirements under paragraph (d) or (e) of this 
section, as applicable.
    (4) Water systems whose inventory contains only non-lead service 
lines after the five-year replacement period established in (f)(1)(i) 
of this section must meet the requirements under paragraph (d) or (e) 
of this section, as applicable, if at the end of a subsequent tap 
sampling period, either the system exceeds the lead action level or the 
90th percentile results first exceed the lead PQL for large systems 
without corrosion control treatment.
    (g) Completing corrosion control steps for small and medium water 
systems without corrosion control treatment. (1) Any small or medium 
system without corrosion control treatment required to complete the 
steps in paragraph (e) of this section that does not exceed the lead 
and copper action levels during two consecutive six-month tap 
monitoring periods pursuant to Sec.  141.86 prior to the start of Step 
3 in paragraph (e)(3) of this section or Step 5 in paragraph (e)(5) of 
this section may stop completing the steps and is not required to 
complete Step 3 or Step 5, respectively, except that medium systems 
with lead service lines must complete a corrosion control treatment 
study under paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section. A calculated 90th 
percentile level at or below the lead or copper action level based on 
fewer than the minimum number of required samples under Sec.  141.86 
cannot be used to meet the requirements of this provision.
    (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 system under paragraph (g)(1) of this 
section that stopped the steps in paragraph (e) of this section and 
subsequently exceeds either the lead or copper action level must 
complete the corrosion control treatment steps in paragraph (e) 
beginning with the first treatment step that was not completed. 
Eligible systems can only use the exception in paragraph (g)(1) once.

[[Page 85059]]

    (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. Any water system shall notify the State in writing 
pursuant to Sec.  141.90(a)(4) of any upcoming long-term change in 
treatment or addition of a new source as described in Sec.  
141.90(a)(4). The State must review and approve the addition of a new 
source or long-term change in water treatment before it is implemented 
by the water system. The State may require any such water system to 
conduct additional monitoring or to take other action the State deems 
appropriate to ensure that such water system maintains minimal levels 
of corrosion control in its distribution system.
0
5. Revise Sec.  141.82 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.82  Description of corrosion control treatment requirements.

    This section provides the requirements for systems and States 
designating optimal corrosion control treatment (OCCT) for a system 
that is optimizing or re-optimizing corrosion control treatment. All 
systems must complete the corrosion control treatment requirements in 
this section as applicable under Sec.  141.81.
    (a) System recommendation regarding corrosion control treatment for 
systems that do not have lead service lines and small systems with lead 
service lines that are not required by the State to conduct a harvested 
pipe rig study. (1) Any system without corrosion control treatment that 
is required to recommend a treatment option in accordance with Sec.  
141.81(e) 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. 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 in 
accordance with Sec.  141.81(d)(1)(iii) must recommend designating one 
or more of the corrosion control treatments listed in paragraph (c)(2) 
of this section as the optimal corrosion control treatment for that 
system.
    (3) States may waive the requirement for a system to recommend OCCT 
if the State requires the system, in writing, to complete a corrosion 
control study within three months after the end of the tap sampling 
period during which the lead or copper action level exceedance 
occurred. These systems must proceed directly to paragraph (c) of this 
section and complete a corrosion control study.
    (b) State decision to require studies to identify initial OCCT 
under Sec.  141.81(e)(2) and re-optimized OCCT under Sec.  
141.81(d)(2). (1) The State may require any small or medium system 
without corrosion control treatment that exceeds either the lead action 
level or copper action level to perform corrosion control treatment 
studies under paragraph (c)(1) of this section to identify OCCT for the 
system.
    (2) The State may require any small or medium water system with 
corrosion control treatment exceeding either the lead action level or 
copper action level to perform corrosion control treatment studies 
under paragraph (c)(2) of this section to identify re-optimized OCCT 
for the system (i.e., OCCT after a re-optimization evaluation).
    (c) Performance of corrosion control studies. (1) Systems without 
corrosion control treatment required to conduct corrosion control 
studies under Sec.  141.81(e) must evaluate the effectiveness of each 
of the following treatments, and if appropriate, combinations of the 
following treatments, to identify OCCT for the system:
    (i) Alkalinity and pH adjustment;
    (ii) The addition of an orthophosphate- or a silicate-based 
corrosion inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to maintain an 
effective corrosion inhibitor residual concentration in all test 
samples;
    (iii) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor 
at a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 1 mg/L (as PO4) in all test samples; and
    (iv) The addition of an orthophosphate-based corrosion inhibitor at 
a concentration sufficient to maintain an orthophosphate residual 
concentration of 3 mg/L (as PO4) in all test samples.
    (2) Systems with corrosion control treatment required to conduct 
corrosion control studies under Sec.  141.81(d) must evaluate the 
effectiveness of the following treatments, and if appropriate, 
combinations of the following treatments, to identify re-optimized OCCT 
for the system:
    (i) Alkalinity and/or pH adjustment or re-adjustment;
    (ii) The addition of an orthophosphate- or a silicate-based 
corrosion inhibitor at a concentration sufficient to maintain an 
effective corrosion inhibitor residual concentration in all test 
samples if no such inhibitor is 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 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 studies to the current water quality and at least two 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 needed 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

[[Page 85060]]

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 coupon studies 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.
    (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 coupon 
studies 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, 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 coupon studies 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 paragraph (c) of this section, systems must recommend 
to the State, in writing, the treatment option that the corrosion 
control studies indicate constitutes OCCT for that system as defined in 
Sec.  141.2. Systems must provide the State with a rationale for the 
OCCT recommendation and all supporting documentation specified in 
paragraphs (c)(1) or (2) and (c)(3) through (7) of this section.
    (d) State designation of OCCT and re-optimized OCCT--(1) 
Designation of OCCT or re-optimized OCCT. Based on available 
information including, where applicable, studies conducted under 
paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section and/or a system's recommended 
corrosion control treatment option, the State must either approve the 
corrosion control treatment option recommended by the system or 
designate alternative corrosion control treatment(s) from among those 
listed in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of this section. The State must 
notify the water system, in writing, of its designation of OCCT or re-
optimized OCCT and explain the basis for this determination.
    (i) When designating OCCT, the State must consider the effects that 
additional corrosion control treatment will have on water quality 
parameters and other drinking water quality treatment processes.
    (ii) If the State requests additional information to aid its 
review, the water system must provide that information.
    (2) [Reserved]
    (e) Installation of OCCT and re-optimized OCCT. Each system must 
install and operate throughout its distribution system the OCCT or re-
optimized OCCT designated by the State under paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (f) State review of treatment and specification 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 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 tap 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 the system to optimize corrosion control.
    (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 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 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 control 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 
control 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 optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT must continue to 
operate and maintain OCCT, including maintaining water quality 
parameters at or above the minimum values or within the ranges 
designated by the State under paragraph (f) of this section, in 
accordance with this paragraph (g) for all water quality parameter 
samples collected under Sec.  141.87(b)(4) through (d). The 
requirements of this paragraph (g) apply to all systems, including 
consecutive systems that distribute water that has been treated to 
control corrosion by another system, and any water system with 
corrosion control treatment, OCCT, or re-optimized OCCT that is not 
required to monitor water quality parameters under Sec.  141.87.
    (1) Compliance with the requirements of this paragraph (g) must be 
determined every six months, as specified under Sec.  141.87(b)(4). A 
water system is out of compliance with the requirements of this 
paragraph (g) for a six-month period if it has excursions for any 
State-specified parameter on more than nine days, cumulatively, during 
the period. An excursion occurs whenever the daily value for one or 
more of the water quality parameters measured at a sampling location is 
below the minimum value or outside the range designated by the State. 
Daily values are calculated as set out in paragraph (g)(2) of this 
section. States have discretion to not include results of obvious 
sampling errors from this calculation. Sampling errors must still be 
recorded even when not included in calculations.
    (2)(i) On days when more than one measurement for the water quality 
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value must 
be the average of all results collected during the day regardless of 
whether they are

[[Page 85061]]

collected through continuous monitoring, grab sampling, or a 
combination of both. If EPA has approved an alternative formula under 
Sec.  142.16(d)(1)(ii) of this chapter in the State's application for a 
program revision submitted pursuant to Sec.  142.12 of this chapter, 
the State's formula must be used to aggregate multiple measurements 
taken at a sampling point for the water quality parameters in lieu of 
the formula in this paragraph (g)(2).
    (ii) On days when only one measurement for the water quality 
parameter is collected at the sampling location, the daily value must 
be the result of that measurement.
    (iii) On days when no measurement is collected for the water 
quality parameter at the sampling location, the daily value must be the 
daily value calculated on the most recent day on which the water 
quality parameter was measured at the sampling location.
    (h) Modification of State treatment decisions for OCCT and re-
optimized OCCT. Upon its own initiative or in response to a request by 
a water system or other interested party, a State may modify its 
determination of the 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 
determination must be made in writing, set forth the new treatment 
requirements and/or optimal water quality parameters, explain the basis 
for the State's decision, and provide an implementation schedule for 
completing the treatment modifications for re-optimized corrosion 
control treatment.
    (i) Treatment decisions by EPA in lieu of the State on OCCT and re-
optimized OCCT. Pursuant to the procedures in Sec.  142.19 of this 
chapter, the EPA Regional Administrator may review OCCT determinations 
made by a State under paragraph (d), (f), or (h) of this section and 
issue Federal corrosion control treatment determinations consistent 
with the requirements of paragraph (d), (f), or (h) of this section 
where the EPA Regional Administrator finds that:
    (1) A State failed to issue a treatment determination by the 
applicable deadlines contained in Sec.  141.81;
    (2) A State abused its discretion; or
    (3) The technical aspects of a State's determination would be 
indefensible in a Federal enforcement action taken against a water 
system.
    (j) Distribution system and site assessment for tap sample sites 
with lead results that exceed 0.010 mg/L. The water system must conduct 
the following steps when the lead results from an individual tap sample 
site sampled under Sec.  141.86 and the site is included in the site 
sample plan under Sec.  141.86(a)(1) exceed 0.010 mg/L:
    (1) Step 1. Corrosion control treatment assessment. Within five 
days of receiving the sampling results, the water system must sample at 
a water quality parameter site 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. Small water systems 
without corrosion control treatment may have up to 14 days to collect 
the new samples.
    (i) The water system must measure the following parameters:
    (A) pH;
    (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 is on the same size water main in the same pressure zone and 
located within a half mile radius of the site with lead results 
exceeding 0.010 mg/L 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 paragraph (j)(1) of this section must 
add new sites to the minimum number of sites as described in Sec.  
141.87(b)(1)(i). Sites must be added until a system has twice the 
minimum number of sites listed in Table 1 to Sec.  141.87(b)(1)(i). 
When a system exceeds twice the number of sites, the State has 
discretion to determine if these additional newer sites can better 
assess the effectiveness of the corrosion control treatment and whether 
to remove existing sites during sanitary survey evaluation of OCCT.
    (2) Step 2. Site assessment. Within 30 days of receiving the 
sampling results, water systems must collect and analyze a follow-up 
sample for lead at any tap sample site that exceeds 0.010 mg/L. These 
follow-up samples may use different sample volumes or different sample 
collection procedures to assess the source of elevated lead levels. 
Samples collected under this section must be submitted to the State but 
cannot be included in the 90th percentile calculation for compliance 
monitoring under Sec.  141.86. If the water system is unable to collect 
a follow-up sample at a site, the water system must provide 
documentation to the State, as specified in Sec.  141.90(g)(2), 
explaining why it was unable to collect a follow-up sample.
    (3) Step 3. Evaluate results and system treatment recommendation. 
Water systems must evaluate the results of the sampling conducted under 
paragraphs (j)(1) and (2) of this section to determine if either 
localized or centralized adjustment of the OCCT or other distribution 
system actions are necessary and submit the recommendation to the State 
within six months after the end of the tap sampling period in which the 
site(s) exceeded 0.010 mg/L. Corrosion control treatment modification 
may not be necessary to address every exceedance of the lead action 
level. Other distribution system actions may include flushing to reduce 
water age. Water systems must note the cause of the elevated lead 
level, if known from the site assessment, in their recommendation to 
the State as site-specific issues can be an important factor in why the 
system is not recommending any adjustment of corrosion control 
treatment or other distribution system actions. Systems in the process 
of optimizing or re-optimizing OCCT under paragraphs (a) through (f) of 
this section do not need to submit a treatment recommendation for 
distribution system and site assessment.
    (4) Step 4. State approval of treatment recommendation. The State 
must approve the treatment recommendation or specify a different 
approach within six months of completion of Step 3 as described in 
paragraph (j)(3) of this section and notify the water system in 
writing.
    (5) Step 5. Modifications to OCCT. If the State-approved treatment 
recommendation requires the water system to adjust the OCCT process, 
the water system must complete modifications to its corrosion control 
treatment within 12 months of receiving notification from the State as 
described in paragraph (j)(4) of this section. Systems without 
corrosion control treatment required to install OCCT must follow the 
schedule in Sec.  141.81(e).

[[Page 85062]]

    (6) Step 6. Follow up sampling. Water systems adjusting OCCT must 
complete follow-up sampling in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
141.86(c)(2)(iii)(D) and 141.87(c)(2)(iii)(D) within 12 months after 
completion of Step 5 as described in paragraph (j)(5) of this section 
and submit sampling results to the State in accordance with Sec. Sec.  
141.86 and 141.87.
    (7) Step 7. State OWQP designation. For water systems adjusting 
OCCT, the State must review the water system's modification of 
corrosion control treatment and designate optimal water quality 
parameters in accordance with Sec.  141.82(f) 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 Sec.  
141.82(g) and continue to conduct tap sampling in accordance with 
Sec. Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(iii)(E) and 141.87(c)(2).
0
6. Revise Sec.  141.84 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.84  Service line inventory and replacement requirements.

    (a) Service line and connector inventory development. All water 
systems must develop a service line inventory that identifies the 
material and location of each service line connected to the public 
water distribution system. The inventory must include all service lines 
connected to the public water distribution system regardless of 
ownership status (e.g., where service line ownership is shared, the 
inventory includes both the portion of the service line owned by the 
water system and the portion of the service line owned by the 
customer). The inventory must meet the following requirements:
    (1) All water systems are required to develop an initial inventory 
and submit it to the State by October 16, 2024, in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(e)(1).
    (2) All water systems must develop an updated initial inventory, 
known as the ``baseline inventory''. Systems must submit the baseline 
inventory to the State by the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). 
Newly regulated public water systems, as defined in Sec.  141.2, must 
develop a baseline inventory on a schedule established by the State 
that does not exceed three years from the date the system becomes 
subject to national primary drinking water regulations. The baseline 
inventory must include each service line and 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 that they have identified pursuant to Sec.  141.42(d) to 
identify connector materials and locations. The water system may use 
other sources of information not listed in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through 
(iii) of this section if approved or required by the State.
    (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) ``Replaced lead'' where the connector was previously made of 
lead but has been removed or replaced.
    (C) ``Never lead'' where the connector is determined through an 
evidence-based record, method, or technique not to be made of lead, and 
there was never a lead connector present.
    (D) ``Unknown'' where connector material is not known.
    (E) ``No connector present'' where there is no connector in use.
    (iii) All water systems must include any new information on service 
line materials from all applicable sources described in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section in the baseline inventory.
    (3) Each service line, or portion of the service line where 
ownership is shared, must be categorized in the following manner:
    (i) ``Lead'' where the service line is a lead service line as 
defined in Sec.  141.2.
    (ii) ``Galvanized Requiring Replacement'' where the service line is 
a galvanized requiring replacement service line as defined in Sec.  
141.2.
    (iii) ``Non-Lead'' where the service line is determined through an 
evidence-based record, method, or technique not to be a lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service line. Water systems are not 
required to identify the specific material of a non-lead service line; 
however, they may use the material (e.g., plastic or copper) as an 
alternative to categorizing it as ``Non-Lead''.
    (iv) ``Lead Status Unknown'' or ``Unknown'' where the service line 
material is not known to be lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or 
non-lead, such as where there is no documented evidence or evidence 
reliably supporting material categorization. Water systems may elect to 
provide more information regarding their unknown service lines as long 
as the inventory clearly distinguishes unknown service lines from those 
where the categorization of the material is based on the categorization 
methods approved under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
    (4) The inventory must include a street address associated with 
each service line and connector. Where a street address is not 
available for an individual service line or connector, a unique 
locational identifier (e.g., a block, 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 or unknown connectors, 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 or no unknown 
connectors. The statement must include a general description of all 
applicable sources used in the inventory as described in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) and (b)(2) of this section to make this determination.
    (7) Instructions to access the publicly accessible inventory 
(including inventories consisting only of a statement in accordance 
with paragraph (a)(6) of this section) must be included in the Consumer 
Confidence Report in accordance with Sec.  141.153(d)(4)(xi).
    (b) Additional requirements for service line and connector 
inventory maintenance. (1) All water systems must update the baseline 
inventory of service lines and connectors developed in paragraph (a)(2) 
of this section and submit the updates to the State on an annual basis 
in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e). These updates begin one year after 
the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). The publicly accessible 
inventory must reflect any updates no later than the deadline to submit 
the updated inventory to the State.

[[Page 85063]]

    (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 never lead connectors, replaced 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 and prepare an updated inventory in accordance with this 
section on a schedule established by the State.
    (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 or previously has been 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 
may have been conducted. Each updated inventory and subsequent update 
to the publicly accessible inventory must include the following 
information regarding service line replacements:
    (A) The number of full lead service line replacements and full 
galvanized requiring replacement service line replacements that have 
been conducted in each preceding program year; and
    (B) The total number of lead, galvanized requiring replacement, and 
unknown service lines and the number of lead connectors in the 
inventory.
    (v) Water systems must identify service line and connector 
materials and addresses 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 and 
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 complete the following requirements:
    (i) If the service line is discovered during the mandatory service 
line replacement program as described in paragraph (d) of this section, 
the system must update the total number of service line replacements 
calculated under paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
    (ii) If the service line is discovered when the system's inventory 
is comprised of only non-lead service lines, such as after the 
completion of the system's mandatory service line replacement program, 
the system must conduct a full service line replacement of the line 
within six months in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.
    (iii) Water systems must notify the State in accordance with Sec.  
141.90(e) and comply with any additional actions required by the State 
to address the inventory inaccuracy.
    (4) If a consumer notifies the water system of a suspected 
incorrect categorization of their service line material in the 
inventory, the system must respond to the consumer with an offer to 
inspect the service line within 60 days of receiving the notification.
    (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'' excluding non-lead 
service lines identified by records described in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) 
through (iii) of this section, 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 from the validation pool. If a water system has no existing 
record or documentation of a two-point visual inspection that indicates 
how an individual non-lead service line was categorized, that service 
line must be included in the validation pool.
    (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 visually inspect both 
portions of the service line. Water systems must validate at least as 
many service lines as are required in the table in this paragraph. The 
table is as follows:

                     Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(5)(ii)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Number of validations
          Size of validation pool                     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) Deadline for inventory validation. The deadlines for inventory 
validation are:
    (A) No later than seven years after the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3) for water systems subject to the mandatory service line 
replacement deadline in paragraph (d)(4) of this section or who have 
reported only non-lead service lines in their baseline inventory,
    (B) A deadline established by the State for water systems 
completing mandatory service line replacement on a shortened deadline 
for service line replacement as established by the State in accordance 
with paragraph (d)(5)(iv) 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 subject to a deferred deadline under 
paragraph (d)(5)(v) of

[[Page 85064]]

this section, an exemption, or a variance.
    (v) Water systems that conduct inventory validation pursuant to 
this paragraph (b)(5) must submit the results of the validation by the 
applicable deadline described in paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section 
in accordance with Sec.  141.90(e)(9).
    (c) Service line replacement plan. All water systems with one or 
more lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown 
service line in their distribution system must create a service line 
replacement plan by the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) and 
submit a service line replacement plan to the State in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(e). The service line replacement plan must be sufficiently 
detailed to ensure a system is able to comply with the service line 
inventory and replacement requirements in this section.
    (1) The service line replacement plan must include a description 
of:
    (i) A strategy for determining the material composition of lead 
status unknown service lines in the service line inventory under 
paragraph (a) of this section;
    (ii) 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);
    (iii) A communication strategy to inform consumers and customers 
before a full or partial lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line replacement consistent with the requirements for 
notification and mitigation in paragraph (h) of this section;
    (iv) A procedure for consumers and customers to flush service lines 
and premise plumbing of particulate lead following disturbance of a 
lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service 
line in accordance with Sec.  141.85(g) 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 as well as service line 
replacements for local communities, such as those 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.
    (2) The service line replacement plan must be made available to the 
public. Water systems serving greater than 50,000 persons must make the 
plan available to the public online.
    (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 rule 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 lead and galvanized requiring 
replacement service line replacement identified pursuant to paragraph 
(c)(1)(viii) of this section. The water system must provide this 
documentation to the State pursuant to Sec.  141.90(e)(10).
    (i) This rule does not establish the criteria for determining 
whether a system has access to conduct full service line replacement. 
Any 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 and in the notification provided to persons served by lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, and unknown service lines as 
described in Sec.  141.85(e).
    (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 after making a 
``reasonable effort'' to obtain it from any property owner, then the 
water system is not required by this rule to replace any portion of the 
service line at that address.
    (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 and make a ``reasonable effort'' to obtain the property 
owner's consent as described in paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section 
within one year of any change in property ownership. 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 rule to replace the line. This paragraph 
continues to apply after a system completes its mandatory service line 
replacement program.
    (4) Deadline for completing mandatory service line replacement. 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 ten years after the compliance date specified in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3) unless the system is subject to a different deadline under 
paragraphs (d)(5)(iv) and (v) of this section.
    (5) Water systems must meet a minimum average annual replacement 
rate for completing mandatory service

[[Page 85065]]

line replacement in accordance with this paragraph (d)(5):
    (i) 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 rolling three-year period unless the system is 
eligible for a shortened replacement rate or deferred replacement rate 
in accordance with paragraphs (d)(5)(iv) and (v) of this section.
    (ii) To calculate the annual percent of service lines replaced, at 
the end of each mandatory service line replacement program year, water 
systems must divide the number of service lines replaced during that 
program year 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) Three-year rolling average. Compliance with the average 
annual replacement rate in paragraph (d)(5)(i) of this section is 
assessed annually in accordance with a three-year rolling average. The 
average annual replacement rate of the first rolling three-year period 
is assessed at the end of the third year of the mandatory service line 
replacement program (i.e., three years after the compliance date 
specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3)) and is calculated by taking the sum of 
the annual percentages of service lines replaced from year one, year 
two, and year three, then dividing that sum by three. Annually 
thereafter, at the end of each replacement program year, systems must 
assess the average annual replacement rate across a rolling three-year 
period by averaging the three most recent years of the replacement 
program, which is calculated by taking the sum of the three most recent 
annual percentages of service lines replaced and dividing that sum by 
three. The average annual replacement rate of every rolling three-year 
period must be 10 percent or greater. The water system must make up any 
deficient percentages of the replacement rate for any rolling three-
year period by the applicable deadline for completing mandatory service 
line replacement in accordance with paragraph (d)(4) of this section.
    (iv) 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 State 
must require the system to replace service lines by an earlier deadline 
than required in paragraph (d)(4) of this section and establish a 
different minimum replacement rate in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(5)(iv)(A). 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 also 
applies to systems eligible for a deferred deadline as specified in 
paragraph (d)(5)(v) 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 in paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section, expressed as a 
percentage. Systems must comply with the three-year rolling average in 
accordance with paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section unless the 
shortened replacement deadline is less than three years.
    (B) [Reserved]
    (v) Deferred deadlines and associated replacement rates. Subject to 
the State determination in paragraph (d)(5)(iv) of this section, a 
water system may defer service line replacement past the deadline in 
paragraph (d)(4) of this section if the system meets one or both of the 
following conditions:
    (A) If 10 percent of the total number of known lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines in a water system's replacement 
pool as described in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section is greater 
than 10,000 service lines, the system may complete replacement of all 
lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines by a deadline 
that corresponds to the system replacing 10,000 lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service lines annually.
    (B) If a water system replacing 10 percent of the total number of 
known lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines in a 
water system's replacement pool, on an annual basis, results in an 
annual number of replacements per household served by the water system 
that exceeds 0.039, the system may complete replacement of all lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines by a deadline that 
corresponds to the system replacing 0.039 average annual replacements 
per household served calculated over a rolling three-year period in 
accordance with paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section. To calculate the 
minimum average annual replacement rate, the system must divide 100 by 
the number of years needed to achieve replacing 0.039 average annual 
replacements per household, expressed as a percentage.
    (6) Calculation of the replacement pool, the annual number of 
replacements needed, and the number of service lines replaced to 
calculate a system's average annual replacement rate and achieve the 
replacement deadline are as follows:
    (i) Replacement pool. To calculate the baseline replacement pool, 
systems must add the total number of lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, and lead status unknown service lines in the baseline 
inventory submitted by the compliance date specified in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3). 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 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 added to the replacement pool.
    (C) Each entire service line shall count only once for purposes of 
calculating the replacement pool.
    (ii) Annual number of replacements needed. To calculate the number 
of lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines a system 
needs to replace in a given program year, divide the most up-to-date 
replacement pool by the total number of years allowed 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 
average annual 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 galvanized 
requiring replacement service line (either a portion of a service line 
or the entire service line), the replacement counts as a full service 
line replacement only if, after the replacement, the entire service 
line can be categorized in the inventory as non-

[[Page 85066]]

lead under paragraph (a)(3)(iii) of this section.
    (A) For purposes of mandatory service line replacement, systems 
must count each entire service line once, including where ownership of 
the service line is shared, with a single material categorization in 
accordance with table 2 to this paragraph (d)(6)(iii)(A).

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

    (B) A full service line replacement is counted where a non-lead 
service line is installed for use and the lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line is disconnected from the water main or other 
service line. If the lead or galvanized requiring replacement service 
line is disconnected from the water main or system-owned portion of the 
service line but not removed, the water system must be subject to a 
State or local law or have a written policy to preclude the water 
system from reconnecting the lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line to the water main or other service line.
    (C) A full service line replacement may be counted where a system 
physically disconnects a service line that is not in use and the water 
system does not install a new non-lead service line because there is no 
service line in use (e.g., at an abandoned property). If the 
disconnected lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line is 
not removed, the water system must be subject to a State or local law 
or have a written policy to preclude the water system from reconnecting 
the disconnected service line (i.e., a new non-lead service line must 
be installed if active use is to resume).
    (D) Water systems must not count the following as a full service 
line replacement for purposes of this rule:
    (1) Where the service line is partially replaced as defined in 
Sec.  141.2.
    (2) Where a lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or unknown 
service line is determined to be a non-lead service line.
    (3) Where only a lead connector is replaced.
    (4) Where pipe lining or coating technologies are used while the 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line remains in use.
    (7) Where a water system conducts a full lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line replacement, the system must comply 
with the notification and mitigation requirements specified in 
paragraph (h)(3) 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 or 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 procedures for disturbances as specified in 
Sec.  141.85(g)(2).
    (ii) Following replacement of a lead connector, the water system 
must include the replaced lead connector in its inventory in accordance 
with paragraph (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. (1) 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:
    (i) 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:
    (A) 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 of the customer-conducted a partial 
replacement;
    (B) 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
    (C) Notify the State within 30 days if it fails to meet the 
deadline in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(A) of this section and complete the 
replacement no later than 180 days of the date of the customer-
initiated replacement.
    (ii) If the water system is notified or otherwise learns that a 
customer-initiated replacement occurred within the previous six months 
and left in place the system-owned portion of a lead or galvanized 
requirement replacement service line, the water system must:
    (A) Replace any remaining portion of the affected service line 
within 45 days from the day of becoming aware of the customer-initiated 
replacement; and
    (B) Provide notification and risk mitigation measures in accordance 
with paragraph (h) of this section within 24 hours of becoming aware of 
the customer replacement.

[[Page 85067]]

    (iii) 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 rule does not require the water system to complete the lead 
or galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement of the 
system-owned portion under this paragraph (f). However, the remaining 
portion of the lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line 
must be identified in the inventory in accordance with paragraph (b) of 
this section and replaced in accordance with paragraph (d) of this 
section.
    (g) Requirements for conducting partial service line replacements--
(1) Partial service line replacement. This rule prohibits water systems 
from conducting a partial lead service line replacement or a partial 
galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement as defined 
under Sec.  141.2 unless it is conducted as part of an emergency repair 
or in coordination with planned infrastructure work, excluding planned 
infrastructure work solely for the purposes of lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line replacement. 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.
    (i) 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.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (h) Protocols for notification and mitigation for partial and full 
service line replacements. (1) Notification and mitigation requirements 
for 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, the water system 
must provide written notice to the owner of the affected service line, 
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. The notice must explain that the system is planning to 
replace only a portion of the line (the portion of the line under 
control of the system) and offer to replace the remaining portion of 
the service line.
    (i) Before the affected service line is returned to service, the 
water system must provide written notification that explains that 
consumers may experience a temporary increase of lead levels in their 
drinking water due to the replacement and that meets the content 
requirements of Sec.  141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) and contact 
information for the water system. In instances where multi-family 
dwellings or multiple non-residential occupants are served by the 
affected service line to be partially replaced, the water system may 
elect to post the information at a conspicuous location instead of 
providing individual written notification to all residents or non-
residential occupants.
    (ii) 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 before the affected service line is 
returned to service.
    (iii) 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 before the affected 
service line is returned to service. If the affected service line 
serves more than one residence or non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-
unit building), the water system must provide a pitcher filter or 
point-of-use device, six months of replacement cartridges and use 
instructions to every residential and non-residential unit in the 
building.
    (iv) The water system must offer to 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 sample protocol under Sec.  141.86(b). The water system 
must provide the results of the sample to the persons served by the 
service line in accordance with Sec.  141.85(d).
    (2) Notification and mitigation requirements for emergency partial 
service line replacement. Any water system that creates a partial 
replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line 
due to an emergency repair must provide notice and risk mitigation 
measures to the persons served by the affected service line in 
accordance with paragraphs (h)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section 
before the affected service line is returned to service. The water 
system must offer to 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 owner of the affected service line, or the owner's 
authorized agent, as well as non-owner resident(s) or non-residential 
occupant(s) served by the affected service line as soon as possible but 
no longer than 24 hours following completion of the replacement.
    (i) The written notification must explain that consumers may 
experience a temporary increase of lead levels in their drinking water 
due to the replacement and must meet the content requirements of Sec.  
141.85(a)(1)(ii) through (iv) as well as contact information for the 
water system. In instances where multi-family dwellings or multiple 
non-residential occupants are served by the lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line to be replaced, the water system may 
elect to post the information at a conspicuous location instead of 
providing individual written notification to all persons served in 
residential and non-residential units.
    (ii) The water system must provide written information about a 
procedure for customers to flush service lines and premise plumbing of 
particulate lead following full replacement of a lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line before the replaced service line is 
returned to service.
    (iii) 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 before the replaced 
service line is returned to service. If the lead service line serves 
more than one residence or non-residential unit (e.g., a multi-unit 
building), the water system must provide a pitcher filter or point-of-
use device, six months of replacement cartridges and instructions for 
use to every residential and non-residential unit in the building.
    (iv) The water system must offer to the consumer to take 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 sample protocol under 
Sec.  141.86(b). The water system must provide the results of the 
sample to the

[[Page 85068]]

consumer in accordance with Sec.  141.85(d).
    (i) Reporting to demonstrate compliance to the State. To 
demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (a) through (h) of this section, 
a water system must report to the State the information specified in 
Sec.  141.90(e).
0
7. Amend Sec.  141.85 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text, paragraph (a)(1) introductory text, 
and paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii), (a)(1)(iii)(B), and (a)(1)(iv)(A) 
through (E);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (a)(1)(iv)(F) through (H);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(1)(vi) through (vii);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (a)(2);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (b) through (e);
0
f. Removing and reserving paragraph (f); and
0
g. Revising paragraphs (g) through (j).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

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

    A water system that exceeds the lead action level based on tap 
water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86 must distribute 
the public education materials contained in paragraph (a) of this 
section in accordance with the delivery requirements in paragraph (b) 
of this section. Water systems that exceed the lead action level must 
offer to sample the tap water of any customer 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) through (g) of this section. All community water 
systems that fail to meet the minimum replacement rate for mandatory 
service line replacement as required under Sec.  141.84(d) must conduct 
outreach activities as specified in paragraph (h) of this section. All 
community water systems must conduct annual outreach to local and State 
health agencies as outlined in paragraph (i) of this section. Water 
systems with multiple lead action level exceedances, as specified in 
paragraph (j)(1) of this section, must conduct annual 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 Sec.  141.85 must comply with the language requirements 
in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (a) Content of written public education materials--(1) Community 
water systems and non-transient non-community water systems. Water 
systems must include the following elements in written materials (e.g., 
brochures and pamphlets) in the same order as listed in paragraphs 
(a)(1)(i) through (vii) of this section. In addition, language in 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (ii), and (vii) of this section must be included 
in the materials, exactly as written, except for the text in brackets 
for which the water system must include system-specific information. 
States may approve changes to the content requirements if the State 
determines the changes are more protective of human health. Any 
additional information presented by a water system must be consistent 
with the information in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (vii) of this 
section and be in plain language that can be understood by the general 
public. Water systems must submit a copy of all written public 
education materials to the State prior to delivery. The State may 
require the system to obtain approval of the content of written public 
education materials prior to delivery.
    (i) Important information about lead in your drinking water.
Figure 1 to Paragraph (a)(1)(i)
    IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT LEAD IN YOUR DRINKING WATER [INSERT 
NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] found elevated levels of lead in drinking water 
in some homes/buildings. Lead can cause serious health problems, 
especially for pregnant people and young children. Please read this 
information closely to see what you can do to reduce lead in your 
drinking water.
    (ii) Health effects of lead.
Figure 2 to Paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
    There is no safe level of lead in drinking water. Exposure to lead 
in drinking water can cause serious health effects in all age groups, 
especially pregnant people, infants (both formula-fed and breastfed), 
and young children. Some of the health effects to infants and children 
include decreases in IQ and attention span. Lead exposure can also 
result in new or worsened learning and behavior problems. The children 
of persons who are exposed to lead before or during pregnancy may be at 
increased risk of these harmful health effects. Adults have increased 
risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, kidney or nervous system 
problems. Contact your health care provider for more information about 
your risks.
    (iii) * * *
    (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 
information about the definition of lead free as provided in Safe 
Drinking Water Act section 1417 of 1986 and as subsequently revised in 
2011.
* * * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (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 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.
* * * * *

[[Page 85069]]

    (vi) Information on lead, galvanized requiring replacement, and 
unknown service lines. For systems with lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service lines in the system's 
inventory pursuant to Sec.  141.84(a) and (b), public education 
materials must meet the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1)(vi)(A) 
through (G) of this section. For systems with known lead connectors or 
unknown connectors in the system's inventory pursuant to Sec.  
141.84(a) and (b), public education materials must meet the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(vi)(C) of this section:
    (A) Discuss opportunities to replace lead and galvanized requiring 
replacement service lines;
    (B) Discuss opportunities to have the material of a lead status 
unknown service line identified;
    (C) Include information on how to obtain a copy of the service line 
inventory or view the inventory on the internet if the system is 
required to make the inventory available online so the consumer can 
find out if they are served by a lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service line, or known lead 
connector or unknown connector;
    (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 programs that provide financing 
solutions to assist property owners with replacement of their portion 
of a lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line; and
    (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.
    (G) Include 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.
    (vii) More information about lead.
Figure 3 to Paragraph (a)(1)(vii)
    For more information, call us at [INSERT WATER SYSTEM PHONE NUMBER] 
[(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.
* * * * *
    (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 contain a telephone number, address, or contact 
information where such consumers may obtain a translated copy of the 
public education materials or assistance in the appropriate language, 
or the materials must be in the appropriate language.
    (2) Each time a community water system exceeds the lead action 
level based on tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  
141.86, the system must conduct the public education tasks under this 
section within 60 days after the end of the tap sampling period in 
which the exceedance occurred. 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 four-month tap sampling period, the last day 
of that period.
    (i) Deliver written materials meeting the content requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section to each customer receiving a bill and to 
other service connections to which water is delivered by the water 
system. In the case of multi-family dwellings, the water system must 
deliver the written materials to each unit or post the information at a 
conspicuous location.
    (ii)(A) Contact customers who are most at risk by delivering 
education materials that meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) 
of this section to local public health agencies even if they are not 
located within the water system's service area, along with an 
informational notice that encourages distribution to all of the 
agencies' potentially affected customers or community water system's 
users. The water system must contact the local public health agencies 
directly by phone, email, or in person. If local public health agencies 
provide a specific list of additional community-based organizations 
serving populations at greatest risk from lead exposure (e.g., pregnant 
people, children), including organizations outside the service area of 
the water system, then the system must deliver education materials that 
meet the content requirements of paragraph (a) of this section to all 
organizations on the provided lists.
    (B) Contact customers 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 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. Lead can cause serious health problems. 
For more information please call [INSERT NAME OF WATER SYSTEM] [or 
visit (INSERT YOUR 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.

[[Page 85070]]

    (vi) Implement at least three additional activities from one or 
more categories listed below. The educational content and selection of 
these activities must be determined in consultation with the State.
    (A) Public Service Announcements.
    (B) Paid advertisements.
    (C) Public Area Information Displays.
    (D) Emails to customers.
    (E) Public Meetings.
    (F) Household Deliveries.
    (G) Targeted Individual Customer Contact.
    (H) Direct material distribution to all multi-family homes and 
institutions.
    (I) Contact organizations representing plumbers and contractors to 
provide information about lead in drinking water, sources of lead, and 
the importance of using lead free plumbing materials.
    (J) Other methods approved by the State.
    (vii) [Reserved]
    (3) A community water system must repeat the activities in 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section until the system is at or below the 
lead action level based on tap water samples collected in accordance 
with Sec.  141.86. These repeated activities must be completed within 
60 days of the end of each tap sampling period. A calculated 90th 
percentile level at or below the lead action level based on fewer than 
the minimum number of required samples under Sec.  141.86 cannot be 
used to meet the requirements of this provision.
    (4) Within 60 days after the end of each tap sampling period in 
which a lead action level exceedance occurs, a non-transient non-
community water system must deliver the public education materials 
specified by paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
    (i) Post informational posters on lead in drinking water in a 
public place or common area in each of the buildings served by the 
system until the system is at or below the lead action level based on 
tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86; and
    (ii) Distribute informational pamphlets and/or brochures on lead in 
drinking water to each person served by the non-transient non-community 
water system. The State may allow the system to utilize electronic 
transmission in lieu of or combined with printed materials as long as 
it achieves at least the same coverage.
    (iii) For systems that are on standard monitoring, the end of the 
tap sampling period is June 30 or December 31. For systems that are 
required to conduct monitoring annually or less frequently, the end of 
the tap sampling period is September 30 of the calendar year in which 
the sampling occurs, or, if the State has established an alternate tap 
sampling period, the last day of that period.
    (5) A non-transient non-community water system must repeat the 
tasks contained in paragraph (b)(4) of this section until the system is 
at or below the lead action level based on tap water samples collected 
in accordance with Sec.  141.86. These repeated activities must be 
completed within 60 days of the end of each tap sampling period. A 
calculated 90th percentile level at or below the lead action level 
based on fewer than the minimum number of required samples under Sec.  
141.86 cannot be used to meet the requirements of this provision.
    (6) A water system may discontinue delivery of public education 
materials if the system is at or below the lead action level during the 
most recent six-month tap sampling period conducted pursuant to Sec.  
141.86. Such a system must recommence public education in accordance 
with this section if it subsequently exceeds the lead action level 
during any tap sampling period.
    (7) A water system may request an extension from the State, in 
writing, to complete the activities in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) through 
(vi) of this section 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 (b)(2)(ii) through (vi) of this section;
    (iii) The activities in paragraph (b)(2) 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 people 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 people may limit the 
distribution of the public education materials required under that 
paragraph 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 must implement at least 
one of the activities listed in that paragraph.
    (c) Supplemental monitoring and notification of results. (1) A 
water system that exceeds the lead action level based on tap samples 
collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86 must offer to sample for lead 
in the tap water of any customer who requests it. At sites served by a 
lead, galvanized requirement replacement, or lead status unknown 
service line, the water system must offer to collect samples that 
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. The water system must 
offer to collect samples that 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 notice of the individual tap 
results from supplemental tap water monitoring carried out under the 
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section 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 notice of the individual tap results from any 
lead and copper tap water monitoring carried out under the requirements 
of Sec.  141.86 to the persons served by the water system at the

[[Page 85071]]

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 calendar 
days after the water system learns of the tap monitoring results. 
Notification by mail must be postmarked within three 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, 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 utility. The notice must also provide the 
maximum contaminant level goal and the action level for lead and the 
definitions for these two terms from Sec.  141.153(c).
    (ii) The consumer notice for copper must include the results of 
copper tap water monitoring for the tap that was tested, an explanation 
of the health effects of copper as provided in appendix B to subpart Q 
of this part, a list of steps consumers can take to reduce exposure to 
copper in drinking water, and contact information for the water 
utility. The notice must also provide the maximum contaminant level 
goal and the action level for copper and the definitions for these two 
terms from Sec.  141.153(c).
    (4) Delivery. Water systems must provide consumer notice to persons 
served at the tap that was sampled. The notice must be provided 
electronically (e.g., email or text message), by phone, hand delivery, 
by mail, or another method approved by the State. For example, upon 
approval by the State, a non-transient non-community water system could 
post the results in a conspicuous area, such as on a bulletin board, in 
the facility to allow users to review the information. Water systems 
that choose to deliver the notice to consumers electronically or by 
phone must follow up with a written notice to consumers hand delivered 
or postmarked within three days of the water system learning of the tap 
monitoring results. The notices of lead and copper tap sampling results 
may be combined in one notice.
    (e) Notification of service line that is known to or may 
potentially contain lead--(1) Notification requirements. All water 
systems with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service lines in their inventory pursuant to Sec.  141.84(a) 
and (b) must provide notification of a service line that is known to or 
may potentially contain lead to customers and all persons served by the 
water system at the service connection with a lead, galvanized 
requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line.
    (2) Timing of notification. A water system must provide 
notification no later than 30 days of completion of the baseline 
inventory required under Sec.  141.84(a)(2) and repeat the notification 
no later than 30 days after the deadline for each annual update to the 
service line inventory under Sec.  141.90(e)(4) until the entire 
service connection is no longer a lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service line. For notifications to 
new customers, water systems must provide the notice at the time of 
service initiation.
    (3) Content--(i) Persons served by a confirmed lead service line or 
galvanized requiring replacement service line. The notice must include:
    (A) A statement that the person's service line is lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement as applicable.
    (B) An explanation of the health effects of lead that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (C) Steps persons at the service connection can take to reduce 
exposure to lead in drinking water that meet the requirements of 
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) of this section.
    (D) A statement that the customer 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 customer payment for a 
portion of the replacement is required 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 mail or by another method approved by the State.
* * * * *
    (g) 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) 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, the water 
system must provide the person served by the water system at the 
service connection with the information in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this 
section and a pitcher filter or point-

[[Page 85072]]

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) The water system must comply with the requirements in this 
paragraph (g) 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 (g) as soon as possible, but not to 
exceed 24 hours following the disturbance.
    (4) A water system that conducts a partial or full replacement of a 
lead or galvanized requiring replacement service line must follow 
procedures in accordance with the requirements in Sec.  141.84(h). 
Partial or full replacement of a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line is not considered a ``disturbance'' for 
purposes of this paragraph (g).
    (h) Outreach activities for failure to meet the lead service line 
replacement rate. (1) Water systems that do not meet the service line 
replacement rate calculated across a rolling three-year period as 
required under Sec.  141.84(d) must conduct at least one outreach 
activity listed below 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 deadline for calculating the rolling average and annually 
thereafter until the water system meets the replacement rate or until 
there are no lead, galvanized requirement replacement, or lead status 
unknown service lines remaining in the inventory, whichever occurs 
first.
    (2) For 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 unless the water system conducts 
two activities listed in paragraphs (h)(2)(v) through (viii) of this 
section. If the water system serves 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 townhall meeting.
    (ii) Participate in a community event to provide information about 
its service line replacement program.
    (iii) Contact customers by phone, text message, email, or door 
hanger.
    (iv) Use another method approved by the State to discuss the 
service line replacement program and opportunities for lead and 
galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement.
    (v) Send certified mail to customers and all persons served by the 
water system at the service connection with a lead or galvanized 
requiring replacement service line to inform them about the water 
system's service line replacement program and opportunities for 
replacement of the service line.
    (vi) Conduct a social media campaign.
    (vii) Conduct outreach via the media including newspaper, 
television, or radio.
    (viii) Visit targeted customers (e.g., customers in areas with 
lower service line replacement participation rates) to discuss the 
service line replacement program and opportunities for replacement.
    (i) Public education to local and State health agencies--(1) 
Distribution System and Site Assessment results. All community water 
systems must provide information to local and State health agencies 
about distribution system and site assessment activities conducted in 
accordance with Sec.  141.82(j) including the location of the tap 
sample site that exceeded 0.010 mg/L, the result of the initial tap 
sample, the result of the follow up tap sample, the result of water 
quality parameter monitoring, and any distribution system management 
actions or corrosion control treatment adjustments made.
    (2) Timing and content. Community water systems must annually send 
copies of any public education materials the system was required to 
provide under paragraphs (b) and (h) of this section 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 or by another method approved 
by the State.
    (j) Additional requirements for water systems with multiple lead 
action level exceedances. (1) A water system that exceeds the lead 
action level at least three times in a rolling five-year period, based 
on tap water samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86, must 
conduct the activities in this section. The first rolling five-year 
period ends five years after the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) 
and is assessed every six months thereafter. If a water system exceeds 
the lead action level at least three times within the first five-year 
period, the system must conduct these actions upon the third action 
level exceedance even if the first rolling five-year period has not 
elapsed.
    (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 30 days after a water system meets the criteria 
of paragraph (j)(1) of this section for the first time, the water 
system must submit a filter plan to the State, and the State must 
review and approve the plan within 15 days. If the water system 
subsequently meets the criteria of paragraph (j)(1) again, the water 
system is not required to submit the filter plan again unless requested 
by the State or if the system has made updates to the plan. The plan 
must include:
    (i) A description of which methods the system will use to make 
filters and replacement cartridges available in accordance with 
paragraph (j)(2) of this section (e.g., operating distribution 
facilities, delivering filters when requested by the consumer); and
    (ii) A description of how the system will address any barriers to 
consumers obtaining filters.
    (4) A water system that meets the criteria of paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section must conduct a community outreach activity to discuss the 
multiple lead action level exceedances, steps the system is taking to 
reduce lead in drinking water, measures consumers can take to reduce 
their risk consistent with the content requirements of paragraph 
(a)(1)(iv) of this section, and how to obtain a filter certified to 
reduce lead as required in paragraph (j)(2) of this section. This 
activity is in addition to the public education activities required 
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section for community water systems, and 
under paragraph (b)(4) of this section for non-transient non-community 
water systems, that exceed the lead action level. The water system must 
conduct at least one activity from the following list beginning in the 
monitoring period after the most recent lead action level exceedance. 
The water system must conduct at least one activity every six months 
until the system no longer meets the criteria of paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section.
    (i) Conduct a townhall meeting.
    (ii) Participate in a community event where the system can make 
information

[[Page 85073]]

about ongoing lead exceedances available to the public.
    (iii) Contact customers by phone, 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 both paragraphs, unless otherwise 
directed by the State.
    (6) A water system may discontinue the requirements of this 
paragraph (j) when the system no longer has at least three lead action 
level exceedances in a rolling five-year period, based on tap water 
samples collected in accordance with Sec.  141.86. A calculated 90th 
percentile level at or below the lead action level based on fewer than 
the minimum number of required samples under Sec.  141.86 cannot be 
used to meet the requirements of this provision.
0
8. Revise Sec.  141.86 to read as follows:

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

    All water systems must sample for lead and copper at taps used to 
provide water for human consumption in accordance with the requirements 
of this section.
    (a) Sample site location. (1) By the start of the first tap 
monitoring period in which sampling for lead and copper is required 
under paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, each water system must 
identify potential tap sampling sites and submit a site sample plan to 
the State as required in Sec.  141.90(a)(1)(i). Each water system must 
identify a pool of tap sampling sites that allows the water system to 
collect the number of lead and copper tap samples required in 
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (i) To select sampling sites, a water system must use information 
on lead, copper, and galvanized iron or steel that is required to be 
identified under Sec.  141.42(d) for a materials evaluation and the 
information on service line and connector material that is required to 
be collected under Sec.  141.84.
    (ii) Water systems must select sampling sites from the highest tier 
available, in accordance with paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (iii) Sampling sites cannot include sites with installed point-of-
entry (POE) treatment devices or taps with point-of-use (POU) 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.
    (2) A water system that has fewer than five 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) and (d) 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 less than the number of sites specified 
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, 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. 
States may specify sampling locations when a system is conducting 
reduced monitoring.
    (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 are served by a lead service line. A water system that 
cannot identify enough sampling sites with premise plumbing made of 
lead and/or are served by lead service lines must still collect samples 
from every site containing lead pipes and/or served by a lead service 
line and collect the remaining samples in accordance with tiering 
requirements under paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
    (4) Sampling sites must be selected from the highest tier available 
(Tier 1 is the highest tier and Tier 5 is the lowest tier). A system 
without a large enough number of sites from a higher tier to meet the 
number of sites required in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section may 
include 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, then Tier 2 sites may be included 
along with Tier 1 sites.
    (i) Tier 1 sampling sites are single-family structures with premise 
plumbing made of lead and/or are 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 that are identified as 
ever being downstream of a lead service line or lead connector in the 
past. Tier 3 for community water systems only includes single-family 
structures.
    (iv) Tier 4 sampling sites are sites that contain copper pipes 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 the 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 methods. (1) With the exception of follow-up 
samples collected under distribution system and site assessment, all 
tap samples collected for analysis of lead and copper must be one liter 
in volume and have stood motionless in the plumbing system and/or 
service line of each sampling site for at least six hours. Bottles used 
to collect samples for analysis must be wide-mouth one-liter sample 
bottles. Samples from residential housing must be collected from the 
cold-water kitchen or bathroom sink tap. Samples from a nonresidential 
building must be one liter in volume and collected at a tap from which 
water is typically drawn for human consumption. Samples may be 
collected by the system, or the system may allow residents to collect 
samples after instructing the residents of the sampling procedures 
specified in this paragraph (b)(1). Sample collection instructions 
provided to customers cannot direct the customer to remove or clean the 
aerator or flush taps prior to the start of the minimum six-hour 
stagnation period. To protect residents 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 the time specified by the 
approved EPA method before analysis. If a system allows residents to 
perform sampling, the system cannot challenge the accuracy of 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 lead only.

[[Page 85074]]

    (ii) For sites served by a lead service line (Tier 1 and Tier 2 
sites), an additional fifth liter sample must be collected at the same 
time as the first liter sample and must be analyzed for lead. To 
collect a first liter and fifth liter paired sample, systems must 
collect tap water in five consecutively numbered, wide-mouth, one-liter 
sample bottles after the water has stood motionless in the plumbing of 
each sampling site, including the 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 with each 
subsequently numbered bottle being filled until the final bottle is 
filled, with the water running constantly during sample collection. The 
first liter sample is the first sample collected in this sequence and 
the fifth liter sample is the final sample collected in this sequence.
    (iii) State-approved samples collected pursuant to paragraph (b)(3) 
of this section must be one liter in volume and must be collected at an 
interior tap from which water is typically drawn for consumption.
    (iv) Follow-up samples for distribution system and site assessment 
under Sec.  141.82(j) and samples collected following customer requests 
under Sec.  141.85(c) may use different sample volumes or different 
sample collection procedures to assess the source of elevated lead. 
Systems must submit these sample results to the State.
    (2) In consecutive monitoring periods, a water system must collect 
tap samples from the same sampling sites. If 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 entry to a sampling site in 
order to collect a tap sample, the system must collect the tap sample 
from another sampling site in its sampling pool that meets the same 
tiering criteria, and is within reasonable proximity of the original 
site, where such a site exists. Systems must report any site which was 
not sampled during previous monitoring periods, and include an 
explanation of why sampling sites have changed, as required in Sec.  
141.90(a)(2)(v).
    (3) A non-transient non-community water system, or a community 
water system that meets the criteria of Sec.  141.85(b)(8), that does 
not have enough taps that can supply first liter samples or first liter 
and fifth liter paired samples meeting the six-hour minimum stagnation 
time, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, may apply to the 
State in writing to substitute first liter or first liter and fifth 
liter paired samples that do not meet the six-hour minimum stagnation 
time. Such systems must collect as many first liter or first liter and 
fifth liter paired samples from interior taps used for human 
consumption as possible and must identify sampling times and locations 
that would likely result in the longest standing time for the remaining 
sites. The State has the discretion to waive the requirement for prior 
State approval of sites not meeting the six-hour stagnation time either 
through State regulation or written notification to the system.
    (c) Standard monitoring. Standard monitoring is a six-month tap 
monitoring period that begins on January 1 or July 1.
    (1) Standard monitoring sites. During a standard tap monitoring 
period, a water system must collect at least one sample from the number 
of sites in the following table 1 to this paragraph (c)(1). Standard 
monitoring sites must be selected in accordance with the sampling tiers 
identified in paragraph (a) of this section.

                       Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Standard number
                                                       of sites for lead
        System size (number of people served)              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. Systems may then reduce monitoring in accordance with 
paragraph (d) of this section.
    (i) All water systems with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, 
and/or lead status unknown service lines, including those deemed 
optimized under Sec.  141.81(b)(3), and systems that did not conduct 
monitoring that meets all requirements of this section between [DATE OF 
PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and [DATE 3 
YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], 
must begin its first standard tap monitoring period on January 1 or 
July 1 following [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], whichever is sooner.
    (ii) Systems without lead, galvanized requiring replacement, and/or 
lead status unknown service lines that conducted monitoring meeting all 
requirements of this section between [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], and [DATE 3 YEARS AFTER PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] must continue monitoring as 
follows:
    (A) Systems that do not meet the reduced monitoring criteria under 
paragraph (d) of this section must conduct standard monitoring.
    (B) Systems that meet the reduced monitoring criteria under 
paragraph (d) of this section must continue to monitor in accordance 
with the criteria in paragraph (d).
    (iii) Systems meeting the following criteria must resume or 
continue standard monitoring in the six-month tap monitoring period 
beginning January 1 or July 1, whichever is sooner, following the 
monitoring period in which the criteria occur.
    (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 
specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(f) for more than nine days in 
any monitoring period specified in Sec.  141.87.
    (C) Any water system that becomes a large water system without 
corrosion control treatment or any large water system without corrosion 
control treatment whose lead 90th percentile exceeds the lead practical 
quantitation limit of 0.005 mg/L.
    (D) Any water system that installs 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. The 
system must continue standard monitoring until the State specifies new 
optimal water quality parameters.
    (E) Any water system for which the State has specified new values 
for optimal water quality parameters under Sec.  141.82.
    (F) Any water system that installs source water treatment pursuant 
to Sec.  141.83(a)(3).
    (G) Any water system that has notified the State in writing in 
accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(4) of an upcoming addition of a new 
source or long-term change in treatment, unless the State determines 
that the addition of the new source or long-term change in treatment is 
not significant and, therefore, does not warrant more frequent 
monitoring.
    (d) Reduced monitoring based on 90th percentile levels. Reduced 
monitoring refers to an annual or triennial tap monitoring period. The 
reduced monitoring frequency is based on the

[[Page 85075]]

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 under Sec.  141.93(c)(1) 
cannot be used to meet the criteria for reduced monitoring under this 
section.

                       Table 2 to Paragraph (d)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Reduced minimum
                                                        number of sites
        System size (number of people served)            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 following two consecutive tap monitoring periods 
that meet all requirements of this section, including collecting at 
least the minimum number of required samples. The State may require 
that a system conduct more frequent monitoring.
    (i) Any system that does not exceed the lead and copper action 
levels for two consecutive six-month tap monitoring periods may reduce 
the monitoring frequency to annual monitoring. Systems with an annual 
tap monitoring period must sample at the standard number of sampling 
sites for lead in paragraph (c) and the reduced number of sites for 
copper as specified in this paragraph (d). Systems operating OCCT must 
also have maintained the range of optimal water quality parameters set 
by the State in accordance with Sec.  141.82(f) for the same period and 
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 Sec.  
141.90. For systems that reduce to annual monitoring, the first annual 
tap monitoring period must begin no later than the calendar year 
immediately following the last calendar year in which the system 
sampled.
    (ii) Any small or medium water system that does not exceed the lead 
and copper action levels during three consecutive years of monitoring 
(standard monitoring completed during both six-month periods of a 
calendar year will be considered one year of monitoring) may sample at 
the reduced number of sites for lead and copper in accordance with this 
paragraph (d) and reduce the monitoring frequency to triennial 
monitoring. Any such systems operating OCCT must also have maintained 
the range of optimal water quality parameters set by the State in 
accordance with Sec.  141.82(f) for the same three-year period and 
receive a written determination from the State approving triennial 
monitoring based on the State's review of monitoring, treatment, and 
other relevant information submitted by the system as required by Sec.  
141.90. For systems that reduce to triennial monitoring, the first 
triennial tap sampling period must begin no later than three calendar 
years after the last calendar year in which the system sampled.
    (iii) Any water system that demonstrates for two consecutive six-
month tap monitoring periods that its 90th percentile lead level, 
calculated under Sec.  141.80(c)(3), is less than or equal to 0.005 mg/
L and the 90th percentile copper level, calculated under Sec.  
141.80(c)(3), is less than or equal to 0.65 mg/L may sample at the 
reduced number of sites for lead and copper in accordance with 
paragraph (c) of this section and reduce the frequency of monitoring to 
triennial monitoring. Any such water systems operating OCCT must also 
have maintained the range of optimal water quality parameters set by 
the State in accordance with Sec.  141.82(f) for the same period and 
receive a written determination from the State approving triennial 
monitoring based on the State's review of monitoring, treatment, and 
other relevant information submitted by the system as required by Sec.  
141.90. For systems that reduce to triennial monitoring, the first 
triennial tap 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. Systems 
monitoring annually or less frequently must use a tap sampling period 
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. Water systems on triennial 
monitoring must conduct sampling under a tap sampling period no less 
frequently than once every three years.
    (i) The State may approve a different tap sampling period for 
conducting the lead and copper tap sampling for systems collecting 
samples at a reduced frequency. Such a period must be no longer than 
four consecutive months, within one calendar year, and must represent a 
time of normal operation where the highest levels of lead are most 
likely to occur. For a non-transient non-community water system that 
does not operate during the months of June through September and for 
which the period of normal operation where the highest levels of lead 
are most likely to occur is not known, the State must designate a 
period that represents normal operation for the system. The tap 
sampling period must begin during the period approved or designated by 
the State in the calendar year immediately following the end of the 
second six-month tap monitoring period for systems initiating annual 
monitoring and during the three-year period following the end of the 
third consecutive year of annual monitoring for systems initiating 
triennial monitoring.
    (ii) Systems monitoring annually that have been collecting samples 
during the months of June through September and that receive State 
approval to alter their sampling period under paragraph (d)(3)(i) of 
this section must collect their next round of samples during a time 
period that ends no later than 21 months after the previous round of 
sampling. Systems monitoring triennially that have been collecting 
samples during the month 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 during a time 
period that ends no later than 45 months after the previous tap 
sampling period. Subsequent monitoring must be conducted annually or 
triennially, as required by this section.
    (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 9-year period.
    (e) Inclusion of lead and copper tap samples for calculation of the 
90th percentile. (1) Water systems and the State must consider the 
results of any sampling conducted in addition to the minimum number 
required of this section (e.g., customer-requested sampling conducted 
in accordance with Sec.  141.85(c)) in making any determinations (i.e., 
calculating the 90th percentile lead or copper level) under

[[Page 85076]]

this subpart if the samples meet the requirements of this section.
    (2) Water systems with lead service lines that are unable to 
collect the minimum number of samples from Tier 1 or 2 sites must 
calculate the 90th percentile using data from all the lead service 
lines sites and the highest lead and copper values from lower tier 
sites to meet the specified minimum number of samples. If the minimum 
number of samples is met by Tier 1 and 2 sites, systems must submit 
data from additional Tier 3, 4, or 5 sites to the State, but cannot use 
these results in the 90th percentile calculation. Water systems must 
include customer-requested samples from known lead service line sites 
in the 90th percentile calculation if the samples meet the requirements 
of this section.
    (3) Systems cannot include samples collected as part of 
distribution system and site assessment under Sec.  141.82(j) in the 
90th percentile calculation.
    (4) Systems cannot include follow-up samples collected as a result 
of monitoring after service line replacement under Sec.  141.84(h) in 
the 90th percentile calculation.
    (f) Invalidation of lead and copper tap samples used in the 
calculation of the 90th percentile. A sample invalidated under this 
paragraph (f) does not count towards determining lead or copper 90th 
percentile levels under Sec.  141.80(c)(3) or towards meeting the 
minimum monitoring requirements of paragraph (c) or (d) of this 
section.
    (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.
    (ii) The State determines that the sample was taken from a site 
that did not meet the site selection criteria for use in the 
calculation of the 90th percentile under paragraph (a)(4) of this 
section or was collected in a manner that did not meet the sample 
collection criteria under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
    (iii) The sample container was damaged in transit.
    (iv) There is a substantial reason to believe that the sample was 
subject to tampering. The system must report the results of all samples 
to the State and all supporting documentation for samples the system 
believes should be invalidated.
    (2) To invalidate a sample under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, 
the decision and the rationale for the decision must be documented in 
writing. States may not invalidate a sample solely on the grounds that 
a follow-up sample result is higher or lower than that of the original 
sample.
    (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) or (d) of this section. Any such 
replacement samples must be taken as soon as possible, but no later 
than 20 days after the date the State invalidates the sample or by the 
end of the tap sampling period, whichever occurs later. Replacement 
samples taken after the end of the applicable tap sampling period must 
not also be used to meet the monitoring requirements of 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, or 
it is not possible to sample at the same location. 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 
if it meets 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, as follows:
    (i) Lead. To qualify for a lead waiver, the water system must 
provide certification and provide supporting documentation to the State 
that the system, including the distribution system, is free of all 
lead-containing materials, as follows:
    (A) It contains no plastic pipes which contain lead plasticizers, 
or plastic service lines which contain lead plasticizers; and
    (B) It is free of lead service lines, lead 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 premise plumbing or copper service lines.
    (2) Monitoring criteria for waiver issuance. The system must have 
completed at least one six-month round of standard tap water monitoring 
for lead and copper at sites approved by the State and from the number 
of sites required by paragraph (c) of this section and demonstrate that 
the 90th percentile levels for any and all rounds of monitoring 
conducted since the system became free of all lead-containing and/or 
copper-containing materials, as appropriate, meet the following 
criteria.
    (i) Lead levels. To qualify for a lead waiver, the system must 
demonstrate that the 90th percentile lead level does not exceed 0.005 
mg/L.
    (ii) Copper levels. To qualify for a copper waiver, the system must 
demonstrate that the 90th percentile copper level does not exceed 0.65 
mg/L.
    (3) State approval of waiver application. The State must notify the 
system of its waiver determination, in writing, setting forth the basis 
of its decision and any condition of a waiver that is approved. 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 sample results to 
the State. Samples collected every nine years must be

[[Page 85077]]

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 sample results to the 
State. Also, a system must continue to monitor for the non-waived 
contaminant in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (c) and 
(d) of this section, as appropriate.
    (iii) Any water system with a waiver must notify the State in 
writing in accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(3) about any upcoming long-
term change in treatment or addition of a new source water, as 
described in that section. The State may add or modify waiver 
conditions (e.g., require recertification that the system is free of 
lead-containing and/or copper-containing materials, require additional 
round(s) of monitoring), if the State deems any modifications are 
necessary to address treatment or source water changes at the system.
    (iv) If a system with a waiver becomes aware that the system is no 
longer free of lead-containing or copper-containing materials, as 
appropriate (e.g., as a result of new construction or repairs), the 
system must notify the State in writing no later than 60 days after 
becoming aware of such a change.
    (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 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 corrosion control treatment in 
accordance with the deadlines specified in Sec.  141.81, and any other 
applicable requirements of this subpart.
    (ii) If the system meets 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) of this section.
    (7) Pre-existing waivers. Waivers approved by the State in writing 
prior to April 11, 2000, are still in effect in the following 
instances:
    (i) If the system has demonstrated that it is both free of lead-
containing and copper-containing materials, as required by paragraph 
(g)(1) of this section and that its 90th percentile lead levels and 
90th percentile copper levels meet the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of 
this section, the waiver remains in effect if the system does not meet 
the waiver ineligibility criteria of paragraph (g)(5) of this section. 
The first round of tap water monitoring conducted pursuant to paragraph 
(g)(4) of this section must be completed no later than nine years after 
the last time the system monitored for lead and copper at the tap.
    (ii) If the system has met the materials criteria of paragraph 
(g)(1) of this section but has not met the monitoring criteria of 
paragraph (g)(2) of this section, the system must conduct a round of 
monitoring for lead and copper at the tap demonstrating that it meets 
the criteria of paragraph (g)(2) of this section no later than 
September 30, 2000. Thereafter, the waiver may remain in effect unless 
the system meets the discontinuation of eligibility criteria of 
paragraph (g)(5) of this section. The first round of monitoring 
conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(4) of this section must be 
completed no later than nine years after the round of monitoring 
conducted pursuant to paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
    (h) Public availability of tap monitoring results used in the 90th 
percentile calculation. Unless done so by the State, all water systems 
must make the tap monitoring results, including data used in the 90th 
percentile calculation under Sec.  141.80(c)(3), publicly available 
within 60 days of the end of the tap sampling period. Under this rule, 
water systems are not required to make the addresses of tap sampling 
sites publicly available.
    (1) Large water systems must make the tap monitoring results and 
associated data publicly available in a digital format.
    (2) Small and medium water systems must make the tap monitoring 
results and associated data publicly available in either a written or 
digital format.
    (3) Water systems must certify to the State, in writing, compliance 
with this paragraph (h) in accordance with Sec.  141.90(a)(2)(iii) and 
must retain monitoring data in accordance with the recordkeeping 
requirements under Sec.  141.91.
0
9. Revise Sec.  141.87 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.87  Monitoring requirements for water quality parameters.

    All large water systems and all medium water systems with corrosion 
control treatment (unless deemed optimized under Sec.  141.81(b)(3)), 
and all small and medium water systems that exceed the lead 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. Tap sampling sites under this 
section can be the same as or different from tap sampling sites 
targeted for lead and copper sampling under Sec.  141.86(a). Systems 
may consider selecting sites also used for total coliform sampling 
under Sec.  141.21(a)(1). Sites selected for tap samples under this 
section must be included in the site sample plan specified under Sec.  
141.90(a)(1). The site sample plan must be updated prior to changes to 
the sampling locations.
    (ii) Samples collected at taps must be analyzed for the following 
parameters when applicable as specified:
    (A) pH;
    (B) Alkalinity;
    (C) Orthophosphate (as PO4), when an inhibitor 
containing an orthophosphate compound is used;
    (D) Silica, when an inhibitor containing a silicate compound is 
used; and
    (E) Any parameters specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(a)(1) 
or (f)(6).
    (2) Entry point samples for water quality parameters. (i) Samples

[[Page 85078]]

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 
groundwater systems, the following parameters must be measured at each 
entry point to the distribution system, when applicable as specified:
    (A) pH;
    (B) When alkalinity is adjusted as part of corrosion control, a 
reading of the dosage rate of the chemical used to adjust alkalinity, 
and the alkalinity concentration;
    (C) When a corrosion inhibitor is used as part of corrosion 
control, a reading of the dosage rate of the inhibitor used, and the 
concentration of orthophosphate (as PO4) or silica 
(whichever is applicable); and
    (D) Any parameters specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(a)(1) 
or (f)(6).
    (b) Standard monitoring for water quality parameters--(1) Number of 
samples--(i) Distribution system samples. Systems must collect two 
distribution system samples for applicable water quality parameters 
during each monitoring period specified under paragraphs (b)(2) through 
(4) of this section from each of the minimum number of sites listed in 
Table 5 of this paragraph (b)(1)(i). Systems that collect distribution 
system samples for water quality parameters from additional sites as a 
result of the distribution system and site assessment requirements in 
Sec.  141.82(j) must add those sites to the minimum number of sites 
listed in Table 5 to this paragraph (b)(1)(i) up to a maximum of not 
more than twice the minimum number of sites.

                     Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(1)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Minimum number of
        System size (number of people served)           sites for water
                                                      quality parameters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>100,000............................................                  25
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) Except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(3)(iii) of this section for small systems without corrosion control 
treatment that do not exceed the lead or copper action level, systems 
without installed or re-optimized OCCT and/or without State-designated 
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 State-
designated optimal water quality parameters required to collect entry 
point samples 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 PQL for lead. Any 
medium system without corrosion control treatment 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) of this section for two 
consecutive six-month 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) of this section for two consecutive six-
month periods beginning the month immediately following the end of the 
tap monitoring period in which the action level exceedance occurred.
    (i) At taps, 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)(i) of this 
section.
    (3) Monitoring after installation of OCCT or re-optimized OCCT. (i) 
A system that installs or modifies OCCT pursuant to Sec.  141.81(d)(5) 
or (e)(5) and is required to conduct follow-up monitoring for lead or 
copper pursuant to Sec.  141.81(d)(6) or (e)(6) must monitor for 
applicable tap and distribution system water quality parameters as 
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section every six months 
until the State specifies new water quality parameter values for OCCT 
pursuant to paragraph (b)(4) of this section. Water systems must 
collect these samples at a regular frequency throughout the six-month 
monitoring period to reflect seasonal variability.
    (ii) Any groundwater 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 groundwater sources 
mixes with water from treated groundwater sources, the system must 
monitor for water quality parameters both at representative entry 
points receiving treatment and representative entry points receiving no 
treatment. Prior to the start of any monitoring under this paragraph, 
the 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 systems with corrosion control 
treatment for which the State has not designated optimal water quality 
parameters that do not exceed the lead and copper action levels to 
conduct water quality parameter monitoring as described in paragraph 
(b) of this section or the State can develop its own water quality 
control parameter monitoring structure for these systems.
    (4) Monitoring by systems with State-designated optimal water 
quality parameter values for OCCT. Monitoring must occur at a regular 
frequency throughout the monitoring period to reflect seasonal 
variability and be consistent with the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (i) Medium water systems with corrosion control treatment and all 
large water systems must sample for the applicable water quality 
parameters specified by the State and determine compliance with the 
requirements of Sec.  141.82(g) every six months with the first six-
month period to begin on either January 1 or July 1, whichever comes 
first, after the State specifies the optimal values under Sec.  
141.82(f).
    (ii) A small water system with corrosion control treatment that 
exceeds

[[Page 85079]]

the lead and/or copper action level(s) must begin monitoring during the 
six-month 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 and/or copper action 
level(s) and meets the optimal water quality parameters in two 
consecutive six-month tap monitoring periods under Sec.  141.86(c). For 
any small water system that is subject to a reduced monitoring 
frequency pursuant to Sec.  141.86(d) at the time of the action level 
exceedance, the start of the six-month monitoring period under this 
paragraph must coincide with the start of the tap monitoring period 
under Sec.  141.86(c).
    (iii) Compliance with State-designated optimal water quality 
parameter values must be determined as specified under Sec.  141.82(g).
    (iv) States have the discretion to require systems described in 
this paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to continue to monitor optimal water quality 
parameters.
    (c) Reduced monitoring. (1) A medium or large water system that 
maintains the range of values for the water quality parameters 
reflecting OCCT specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(f) and does 
not exceed the lead and copper action levels 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 from the following reduced number of sites 
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 variability. A system meeting 
these requirements must continue to monitor at the entry point(s) to 
the distribution system as specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section.

                       Table 2 to Paragraph (c)(1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Reduced minimum
                                                     number of sites for
       System size (number of people served)            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 
Sec.  141.82(f) and does not exceed the lead 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 (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 
PQL 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 Sec.  141.80(c)(3), and that it also has maintained the 
range of values for the water quality parameters reflecting OCCT 
specified by the State under Sec.  141.82(f).
    (3) A water system that conducts tap sampling 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 specified by the State in Sec.  141.82(f) for more than nine 
days in any six-month period under paragraph (b)(4) of this section 
must resume distribution system sampling in accordance with the number 
and frequency requirements in paragraph (b)(4) of this section. 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 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 
and/or copper action level(s) and meets the optimal water quality 
parameters in two consecutive six-month tap monitoring periods, the 
system may then reduce monitoring in accordance with paragraphs (c)(1) 
and (2) of this section.
    (d) Additional monitoring by systems. The results of any monitoring 
conducted in addition to the minimum requirements of this section must 
be considered by the water system and the State in determining 
concentrations of water quality parameters under this section or Sec.  
141.82.
0
10. Amend Sec.  141.90 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), and (c)(1) and (4);
0
b. Adding paragraph (c)(5);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (e), (f)(1) introductory text, (f)(1)(i), and 
(f)(3) and (4);
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (f)(5);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (f)(6) and (7);
0
f. Adding (f)(8) through (10); and
0
g. Revising paragraphs (g) through (i) and (j)(1) and (2).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  141.90  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) Reporting requirements for tap monitoring for lead and copper 
and for distribution system and entry point monitoring for water 
quality parameters. (1) By the start of a system's first lead and 
copper tap monitoring period in Sec.  141.86, water systems must submit 
the following to the State:
    (i) A site sample plan, including a list of tap sample site 
locations for lead and copper sampling identified from the inventory in 
Sec.  141.84(a), and a list of tap sampling sites for water quality 
parameter monitoring selected under Sec.  141.87(a)(1) and (2). Changes 
to the site sample plan require submission of an updated site sample 
plan prior to the next tap sampling period conducted by the system. The 
State may require modifications to the site sample plan as necessary.
    (A) Water systems with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, and/
or lead status unknown service lines in the service line inventory 
conducted under Sec.  141.84(a) and (b) must evaluate the tap sampling 
locations for lead and copper used in their sampling pool prior to each 
round of tap sampling, or annually, whichever is more frequent, 
beginning with the compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). 
Evaluations that lead to changes in the site sample plan require 
submission of an updated

[[Page 85080]]

site sample plan prior to the next tap sampling period conducted by the 
system.
    (B) Water systems with lead or lead status unknown service lines in 
their inventory with insufficient lead service line sites to meet the 
minimum number required in Sec.  141.86, must submit documentation in 
support of the conclusion that there are an insufficient number of lead 
service line sites meeting the criteria under Sec.  141.86(a)(4)(i) or 
(ii), as applicable, prior to the next round of tap sampling;
    (ii) A copy of the tap sampling protocol that is provided to 
individuals who are sampling. The State shall verify that wide-mouth 
collection bottles are used, as defined at Sec.  141.2, and that 
recommendations for pre-stagnation flushing and aerator cleaning or 
removal prior to sample collection are not included pursuant to Sec.  
141.86(b). The tap sampling protocol shall contain instructions for 
correctly collecting a first liter sample for sites without lead 
service lines and a first liter and fifth liter paired sample for sites 
with lead service lines. If the water system seeks to modify its tap 
sampling protocol specified in this paragraph (a)(1)(ii), it must 
submit the updated version of the protocol to the State for review and 
approval no later than 60 days prior to use.
    (2) Notwithstanding the requirements of Sec.  141.31(a), a water 
system must report the information specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 
through (vii) of this section, for all lead and copper tap samples 
specified in Sec.  141.86 and for all water quality parameter 
distribution system and entry point samples specified in Sec.  141.87, 
within the first 10 days following the end of each applicable sampling 
period specified in Sec. Sec.  141.86 and 141.87, unless the State has 
specified an earlier reporting requirement. For tap sampling periods 
with a duration less than six months, the end of the sampling period is 
the last date samples can be collected as specified in Sec.  141.86.
    (i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper, including 
results for both first liter and fifth liter samples collected at lead 
service line sites, the location of each site, and the site selection 
criteria under Sec.  141.86(a)(3) and (4) used as the basis for which 
the site was selected for the water system's sampling pool;
    (ii) Documentation for each tap water lead or copper sample for 
which the water system requests invalidation pursuant to Sec.  
141.86(f)(2);
    (iii) Documentation that the results of monitoring will be made 
publicly available, as specified in Sec.  141.86(h);
    (iv) The 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations measured 
from among all lead and copper tap water samples collected during each 
tap monitoring period (calculated in accordance with Sec.  
141.80(c)(3)), unless the State calculates the water system's 90th 
percentile lead and copper levels under paragraph (h) of this section;
    (v) With the exception of initial tap sampling conducted pursuant 
to Sec.  141.86(c)(2)(i), the water system must identify any site which 
was not sampled during previous monitoring periods, and include an 
explanation of why sampling sites have changed;
    (vi) The results of all tap samples for water quality parameters 
that are required to be collected under Sec.  141.87(b) through (d);
    (vii) The results of all samples collected at the entry point(s) to 
the distribution system for applicable water quality parameters under 
Sec.  141.87(b) through(d);
    (3) For a non-transient non-community water system, or a community 
water system meeting the criteria of Sec.  141.85(b)(8), that does not 
have enough taps that can provide first liter or first liter 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 enough samples that do not meet the six-hour minimum 
stagnation time to make up its sampling pool under Sec.  141.86(b)(3) 
by the start of the system's first applicable tap monitoring period 
under Sec.  141.86(c) unless the State has waived prior approval of 
sample sites not meeting the six-hour stagnation time selected by the 
water system pursuant to Sec.  141.86(b)(3); or
    (ii) If the State has waived prior approval of sample sites not 
meeting the six-hour stagnation time selected by the system, identify, 
in writing, each site that did not meet the six-hour minimum standing 
time and the length of standing time for that particular substitute 
sample collected pursuant to Sec.  141.86(b)(3) and include this 
information with the lead and copper tap sample results required to be 
submitted pursuant to paragraph (a)(1)(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 may require any 
such water system to conduct additional monitoring or to take other 
action the State deems appropriate to ensure that such water system 
maintains minimal levels of corrosion control in its distribution 
system. 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. Long-term changes can also include dose 
changes to existing inhibitor concentration. They do not, however, 
include chemical dose fluctuations associated with daily raw water 
quality changes where a new source has not been added. 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).
    (5) Any system serving 3,300 or fewer persons applying for a 
monitoring waiver under Sec.  141.86(g), or subject to a waiver granted 
pursuant to Sec.  141.86(g)(3), shall provide the following information 
to the State in writing by the specified deadline:
    (i) By the start of the system's first applicable tap monitoring 
period in Sec.  141.86(c), any water system applying for a monitoring 
waiver shall provide the documentation required to demonstrate that it 
meets the waiver criteria of Sec.  141.86(g)(1) and (2).
    (ii) No later than nine years after the monitoring previously 
conducted pursuant to Sec.  141.86(g)(2) or (4), each system desiring 
to maintain its monitoring waiver shall provide the information 
required by Sec.  141.86(g)(4)(i) and (ii).
    (iii) No later than 60 days after it becomes aware that it is no 
longer free of lead-containing and/or copper-containing material, as 
appropriate, each system with a monitoring waiver shall provide written 
notification setting forth the circumstances resulting in the lead-
containing and/or copper-containing materials being introduced into the 
system and what corrective action, if any, the system plans to take to 
remove these materials.
    (6) Each ground water system that limits water quality parameter 
monitoring to a subset of entry points under Sec.  141.87(b)(3)(ii) 
shall provide, by the commencement of such monitoring, written 
correspondence to the State that identifies the selected entry points 
and includes information sufficient to demonstrate that the sites are 
representative of water quality and

[[Page 85081]]

treatment conditions throughout the system.
    (b) Source water monitoring reporting requirements. A water system 
shall report the following within the first 10 days following the end 
of each source water monitoring period (i.e., annually, per compliance 
period, per compliance cycle) specified in Sec.  141.88.
    (1) The sampling results for all source water samples collected in 
accordance with Sec.  141.88
    (2) With the exception of the first round of source water sampling 
conducted pursuant to Sec.  141.88(b), the system shall 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 corrosion control without optimized water quality parameters 
set by the State, information required in Sec.  141.81(b)(1) through 
(3).
* * * * *
    (4) For systems required to install OCCT or re-optimized OCCT 
designated by the State under Sec.  141.82(d), a letter certifying that 
the system has completed installing that treatment.
    (5) For systems not required to complete the corrosion control 
treatment steps under Sec.  141.81(f), a letter certifying that the 
system has completed the lead service line replacement program.
* * * * *
    (e) Service line inventory and replacement reporting requirements. 
Water systems must report the following information to the State to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Sec. Sec.  141.84 and 
141.85:
    (1) No later than October 16, 2024, the water system must submit an 
initial inventory of service lines as required in Sec.  141.84(a)(1), 
including the following:
    (i) The number of lead service lines in the initial inventory;
    (ii) The number of galvanized requiring replacement service lines 
in the initial inventory;
    (iii) The number of lead status unknown service lines in the 
initial inventory;
    (iv) Where ownership of the service line is shared, the system must 
report the information in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) through (iii) of this 
section counting each full service line only once.
    (2) No later than the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), the 
water system must submit to the State a baseline inventory of service 
lines and connectors as required in Sec.  141.84(a)(2).
    (3) No later than the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), any 
water system that has inventoried a lead, galvanized requiring 
replacement, or lead status unknown service line in its distribution 
system must submit a service line replacement plan as specified in 
Sec.  141.84(c).
    (4) The water system must provide the State with an updated 
inventory annually, beginning no later than one year after the 
compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3). The updated inventory must 
conform with inventory requirements under Sec.  141.84(a) and (b).
    (i) When the water system has demonstrated that its inventory 
contains no lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status 
unknown service lines, or known lead connectors or unknown connectors, 
it is no longer required to submit inventory updates to the State, 
except as required in paragraph (e)(4)(ii) of this section.
    (ii) In the case that a water system meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (e)(4)(i) of this section subsequently discovers any lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines or lead connectors in 
its distribution system, it must notify the State within 60 days of 
discovering the service line(s) and connector(s) and prepare an updated 
inventory in accordance with Sec.  141.84(b) on a schedule established 
by the State.
    (5) No later than 30 days of the end of each calendar year, the 
water system must certify to the State that it replaced any encountered 
lead connectors in accordance with Sec.  141.84(e) or that it 
encountered no lead connectors during the calendar year.
    (6) No later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year, the 
water system must certify to the State that it conducted the 
notification and mitigation requirements for any partial and full 
service line replacements in accordance with Sec.  141.84(h) or that it 
conducted no replacements of lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines during the calendar year.
    (7) If the water system fails to meet the 45-day deadline to 
complete a customer-initiated lead or galvanized requiring replacement 
service line replacement pursuant to Sec.  141.84(f), it must notify 
the State within 30 days of the replacement deadline to request an 
extension of the deadline up to 180 days of the customer-initiated 
service line replacement.
    (i) No later than 30 days after the end of the calendar year, the 
water system must certify annually that it completed all customer-
initiated lead and galvanized requiring replacement service line 
replacements in accordance with Sec.  141.84(f).
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (8) No later than 30 days after the end of each program year for 
mandatory service line replacement pursuant to Sec.  141.84(d), the 
water system must submit the following information to the State:
    (i) The following information from the baseline inventory submitted 
in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, in accordance with the table in 
Sec.  141.84(d)(6)(iii)(A):
    (A) The number of lead service lines in the inventory,
    (B) The number of galvanized requiring replacement service lines in 
the inventory,
    (C) The number of lead status unknown service lines in the 
inventory,
    (D) The number of non-lead service lines in the inventory,
    (E) The number of lead connectors in the inventory,
    (F) Where ownership of the service line is shared, the system must 
report the information in paragraphs (e)(8)(i)(A) through (D) of this 
section counting each full service line only once;
    (ii) The number of full lead service line replacements that have 
been conducted in the preceding program year and the address associated 
with each replaced lead service line;
    (iii) The number of partial lead service line replacements that 
have been conducted in the preceding program year and the address 
associated with each replaced partial lead service line;
    (iv) The number of 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;
    (v) The number of lead connectors that have been replaced in the 
preceding program year and the address associated with each replaced 
lead connector;
    (vi) The number of service lines in the replacement pool updated at 
the beginning of the proceeding program year in accordance with Sec.  
141.84(d)(6)(i);
    (vii) The number of lead status unknown service lines remaining in 
the inventory;
    (viii) The total number of lead status unknown service lines 
determined to be non-lead; and
    (ix) 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, if available, the method or methods originally used 
to categorize the material of the service line.

[[Page 85082]]

    (x) The applicable deadline for completion of service line 
replacement and the expected date of completion of service line 
replacement.
    (9) Systems validating service line inventories pursuant to Sec.  
141.84(b)(5) must submit a list of the locations of any non-lead 
service lines identified to be a lead or galvanized requiring 
replacement service line as well as the method(s) used to categorize 
the service lines, if available, as a result of the assessment. The 
information must be submitted no later than seven years after the 
compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), unless otherwise specified by 
the State, in accordance with Sec.  141.84(b)(5)(iv).
    (10) No later than 30 days after the end of each program year for 
mandatory service line replacement pursuant to Sec.  141.84(d), any 
water system that was not able to obtain property owner consent after 
making a reasonable effort in accordance with Sec.  141.84(d)(3) 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.
    (11) [Reserved]
    (12) Any system that collects samples following a partial lead or 
galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement required by 
Sec.  141.84(h)(1)(iv) must report the results to the State within the 
first ten days following the month in which the system receives the 
laboratory 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) No later than the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), any 
water system eligible for either of the following deferred deadline 
conditions in accordance with Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(v) must submit the 
following information to the State:
    (i) The number of years needed to reach the deferred deadline when 
the system replaces 10,000 lead and galvanized requiring replacement 
service lines annually in accordance with Sec.  141.84(d)(5)(v)(A); or
    (ii) Documentation that shows that ten percent of the known lead 
and galvanized requiring replacement service lines in the inventory 
results in the annual number of replacements per household served by 
the system to exceed 0.039 as well as the number of years needed to 
reach the deferred deadline in accordance with Sec.  
141.84(d)(5)(v)(B).
    (14) No later than 30 days after the end of each calendar year, the 
water system must certify to the State that it offered to inspect 
service lines that customers who suspected the inventory incorrectly 
categorized their service line material within 60 days of receiving the 
customer notification in accordance with Sec.  141.84(b)(4).
    (f) Public education program reporting requirements. (1) Any water 
system that is subject to the public education requirements in Sec.  
141.85 must, within ten days after the end of each period in which the 
system is required to perform public education in accordance with Sec.  
141.85(b), send written documentation to the State that contains:
    (i) The public education materials that were delivered, and a 
statement certifying that the water system has delivered the public 
education materials that meet the content requirements in Sec.  
141.85(a) and the delivery requirements in Sec.  141.85(b); and
* * * * *
    (3) No later than three months following the end of the tap 
sampling period, each water system must send a sample copy of the 
consumer notification of tap results to the State along with a 
certification that the notification has been distributed in a manner 
consistent with the requirements of Sec.  141.85(d).
    (4) Annually by July 1, the water system must demonstrate to the 
State that it delivered consumer notification and delivered service 
line information materials to affected consumers with a lead, 
galvanized requiring replacement, or lead status unknown service line 
in accordance with Sec.  141.85(e) for the previous calendar year. The 
water system must also provide a sample copy of the notification and 
information materials to the State.
* * * * *
    (6) Annually, by July 1, 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 in Sec.  141.85(g) after any disturbance of a 
service line known to contain or potentially containing lead in 
accordance with Sec.  141.85(g) 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 a copy of the notification to the State. 
Water systems that are required to provide filters under Sec.  
141.85(g) must also report the number of sites with disturbances that 
require filters as specified under Sec.  141.85(g) and number of 
filters provided.
    (7) Annually by July 1, the water system must demonstrate to the 
State that it conducted an outreach activity in accordance with Sec.  
141.85(h) when failing to meet the service line replacement rate as 
specified in Sec.  141.84(d) for the previous calendar year. The water 
system must also submit a copy to the State of the outreach materials 
provided.
    (8) Annually, by July 1, the water system must certify to the State 
that it delivered the required distribution system and site assessment 
information to the State and local health departments for the previous 
calendar year in accordance with Sec.  141.85(i).
    (9) No later than 30 days after a system first meets the criteria 
of multiple lead action level exceedances in Sec.  141.85(j)(1), the 
system must submit a filter plan to the State as specified in Sec.  
141.85(j)(3). Thereafter, a system is not required to resubmit a filter 
plan unless requested by the State or if the system has made updates to 
their plan.
    (10) Every six months (i.e., by January 1 or July 1), any water 
system that meets the criteria of multiple lead action level 
exceedances in Sec.  141.85(j)(1) must:
    (i) Certify compliance with the filter requirements in the previous 
six months in accordance with Sec.  141.85(j)(2) and report the number 
of filters provided; and
    (ii) Certify that the water system completed a public outreach 
activity in the previous six months in accordance with Sec.  
141.85(j)(4) and submit a copy of the public education materials 
provided to consumers.
    (g) Reporting of additional monitoring data. (1) Any water system 
which collects more samples than the minimum required, must report the 
results to the State within the first 10 days following the end of the 
applicable monitoring period under Sec. Sec.  141.86, 141.87, and 
141.88 during which the samples are collected. This includes the 
monitoring data pertaining to distribution system and site assessment 
pursuant to Sec. Sec.  141.82(j) and 141.86(b)(1)(iv).
    (2) The system must certify to the State the number of customer 
refusals or non-responses for follow-up sampling under Sec.  141.82(j) 
it received and information pertaining to the accuracy of the refusals 
or non-responses, within the first 10 days following the end of the 
applicable tap sampling period in which an individual sample exceeded 
the action level.
    (h) Reporting of 90th percentile lead and copper concentrations 
where the

[[Page 85083]]

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 among all lead and copper tap water 
samples collected during each tap sampling period, as required by 
paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section if:
    (1) The State has previously notified the water system that it will 
calculate the water system's 90th percentile lead and copper 
concentrations, based on the lead and copper tap results submitted 
pursuant to paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section, and the water system 
provides the results of lead and copper tap water samples no later than 
10 days after the end of the applicable tap sampling period; and
    (2) The system has provided the following information to the State 
by the date specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
    (i) The results of all tap samples for lead and copper including 
the location of each site and the site selection criteria under Sec.  
141.86(a)(4) used as the basis for which the site was selected for the 
water system's sampling pool; and
    (ii) An identification of sampling sites utilized during the 
current monitoring period that were not sampled during previous 
monitoring periods, and an explanation of why sampling sites have 
changed; and
    (3) The State has provided the results of the 90th percentile lead 
and copper calculations, in writing, to the water system within 15 days 
of the end of the tap sampling period.
    (i) Reporting requirements for a community water system's public 
education and sampling in schools and child care facilities. (1) A 
community water system must provide a list of the schools and child 
care facilities they serve to the State by the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3) in accordance with Sec.  141.92(b)(1). A water system that 
certifies that no schools or child care facilities are served by the 
water system is not required to report the information in paragraphs 
(i)(2) through (3) of this section.
    (2) A community water system must report the lead analytical 
sampling results for schools and child care facilities within 30 days 
of receipt of the results in accordance with Sec.  141.92(g)(1)(iii).
    (3) A community water system must send a report to the State by 
July 1 of each year for the previous calendar year's activity. The 
report must include the following:
    (i) Certification that the water system made a good faith effort to 
identify schools and child care facilities in accordance with Sec.  
141.92(b). The good faith effort may include reviewing customer records 
and requesting lists of schools and child care facilities from the 
State or other licensing agency. If there are changes to the list of 
schools and child care facilities that a water system serves, an 
updated list must be submitted at least once every five years in 
accordance with Sec.  141.92(b)(2). If there are no changes to the list 
of schools or child care facilities the water system serves, the water 
system must certify there are no changes to the list.
    (ii) Certification that the water system has delivered information 
about health risks from lead in drinking water to the school and child 
care facilities that they serve in accordance with Sec.  141.92(c)(1).
    (iii) During the first five years after the compliance date in 
Sec.  141.80(a)(3), certification that the water system has completed 
the notification and sampling requirements in Sec.  141.92(c)(2)(i) and 
(d)(1) for elementary schools and child care facilities and the 
information in paragraphs (i)(3)(iii)(A) through (D) of this section 
and certification that the water system has completed the notification 
and sampling requirements of Sec.  141.92(c)(2)(ii) and (e) for 
secondary schools and the information in paragraphs (i)(3)(iii)(A) and 
(B) of this section. Starting with the sixth year after the compliance 
date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), the water system shall certify completion 
of the notification requirements of Sec.  141.92(c)(3) and sampling 
requirements of Sec.  141.92(d)(2) in elementary schools and child care 
facilities and Sec.  141.92(e) for secondary schools and the 
information in paragraphs (i)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section, 
thereafter.
    (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 calendar year;
    (C) The number and names of elementary schools and child care 
facilities that have declined sampling;
    (D) The number and names of elementary schools and child care 
facilities that have not responded to outreach attempts for sampling;
    (E) Information pertaining to outreach attempts for sampling that 
were declined or not responded to by the elementary school or child 
care facility; and
    (iv) Certification that sampling results were provided to schools, 
child care facilities, and local and State health departments.
    (j) * * *
    (1) Small water systems serving 3,300 or fewer and non-transient 
non-community water systems implementing the point-of-use device option 
under Sec.  141.93(c)(1), shall report the results from the tap 
sampling required under Sec.  141.93 no later than 10 days after the 
end of the monitoring period. If the action level is exceeded, the 
water system must reach out to the homeowner and/or building management 
within 24 hours of receiving the tap sample results. Corrective action 
must be completed within 30 days. If 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. Upon 
request by the State, the water system must provide documentation to 
certify maintenance of the point-of-use devices.
    (2) Small water systems serving 3,300 or fewer and non-transient 
non-community water systems implementing the small system compliance 
flexibility option to replace all lead-bearing plumbing under Sec.  
141.93(c)(2) must provide certification to the State that all lead-
bearing material has been replaced on the schedule established by the 
State, within one year of designation of the option under Sec.  
141.93(c)(2).
0
11. Revise Sec.  141.92 to read as follows:

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

    (a) General requirements. (1) All community water systems must 
conduct public education and lead monitoring at the schools and child 
care facilities they serve unless those schools or child care 
facilities 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.
    (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 and submit the list to the State in accordance with Sec.  
141.90(i)(1) by the compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a)(3).
    (2) Within five years following the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3) and at least once every five-year period after, all 
community water systems must either confirm in writing to the State 
there have been no changes to the list of schools and child care 
facilities or

[[Page 85084]]

submit a revised list to the State in accordance with Sec.  
141.90(i)(3)(i).
    (c) Public education to schools and child care facilities. (1) At 
least once a year beginning with the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), community water systems must contact all schools and 
child care facilities identified by the system in paragraph (b) of this 
section to provide information about the health risks from lead in 
drinking water consistent with the content requirements of Sec.  
141.85(a)(1). Community water systems may provide this information to 
schools and child care facilities more frequently than once a year.
    (2) Within the first five years following the compliance date in 
Sec.  141.80(a)(3), community water systems must:
    (i) Notify elementary schools and child care facilities, in 
accordance with the frequency requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this 
section, that they are eligible to be sampled for lead by the water 
system. This notice must include:
    (A) A proposed schedule for sampling at the facility; and
    (B) Information about sampling for lead in schools and child care 
facilities (EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA-
815-B-18-007 or subsequent EPA guidance).
    (ii) Notify all secondary schools identified in paragraph (b) of 
this section at least once a year that they are eligible to sampled for 
lead by the community water system on request. The notice must provide:
    (A) Information on how to request sampling for lead at the 
facility; and
    (B) Information about sampling for lead in schools and child care 
facilities (EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit, EPA-
815-B-18-007, or subsequent EPA guidance).
    (3) Starting with the sixth year after the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), a community water system must contact all elementary 
schools, secondary schools, and child care facilities identified in 
paragraph (b) of this section to notify them that they are eligible to 
be sampled for lead by the community water system on request and 
provide the information in paragraphs (c)(2)(ii)(A) and (B) of this 
section.
    (4) Thirty days prior to any sampling event, community water 
systems must provide schools and child care facilities with 
instructions to identify outlets for lead sampling and prepare for a 
sampling event.
    (d) Frequency of sampling at elementary schools and child care 
facilities. (1) Within the first five years following the compliance 
date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), community water systems must collect 
samples from at least 20 percent of the total of elementary schools 
served by the system per year and at least 20 percent of the total of 
child care facilities served by the system per year, or according to an 
alternative schedule approved by the State, until all elementary 
schools and child care facilities identified under paragraph (b) of 
this section have been sampled once or have declined to participate or 
are non-responsive.
    (i) Community water systems must provide documentation to the State 
in accordance with Sec.  141.90(i)(3) if an elementary school or child 
care facility is non-responsive or otherwise declines to participate in 
the monitoring or education requirements of this section. For the 
purposes of this section:
    (A) A community water system may consider an elementary school or 
child care facility non-responsive after the community water system 
makes at least two separate outreach attempts to contact the facility 
to schedule sampling and does not receive any response on either 
attempt; and
    (B) A community water system may count a refusal or non-response 
from an elementary school or child care facility as part of the minimum 
20 percent of elementary schools and child care facilities sampled per 
year.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (2) Starting with the sixth year after the compliance date in Sec.  
141.80(a)(3), community water systems must conduct sampling as 
specified in paragraph (f) of this section when requested by an 
elementary school or child care facility.
    (i) A community water system is not required under this rule 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 rule to 
sample an individual elementary school or child care facility more than 
once in any five-year period.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) The first time a water system includes an elementary school or 
child care facility in an update to the list of schools and child care 
facilities required to be submitted to the State in paragraph (b)(2) of 
this section, the water system must conduct outreach at those 
elementary schools and child care facilities as specified in paragraph 
(c)(2) once prior to conducting sampling in accordance with paragraph 
(d)(2) of this section.
    (i) A community water system may consider an elementary school or 
child care facility non-responsive after the community water system 
makes at least two separate outreach attempts to contact the facility 
to schedule sampling and does not receive any response on either 
attempt.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (e) Frequency of sampling at secondary schools. (1) Starting with 
the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3), community water systems must 
conduct sampling as specified in paragraph (f) of this section when 
requested by a secondary school.
    (2) A community water system is not required under this rule 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 rule 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 (POU) 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 POU 
devices if the facility has POU devices installed on all outlets 
typically used to provide water for human consumption.
    (v) If any school or child care facility does not contain the type 
of outlet listed above, 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:

[[Page 85085]]

    (i) Each sample for lead must be a first draw sample;
    (ii) The sample must be 250 ml in volume;
    (iii) The water must have remained stationary in the plumbing 
system of the sampling site (building) for at least 8 but no more than 
18 hours; and
    (iv) Samples must be analyzed using acidification and the 
corresponding analytical methods in Sec.  141.89.
    (3) Community water system, school, or child care facility staff, 
or other appropriately trained individuals must collect samples in 
accordance with paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (g) Notification of results. (1) Community water systems must 
provide sampling results, regardless of lead sample concentration, as 
soon as practicable but no later than 30 days after receipt of the 
results to:
    (i) The sampled school or child care facility, along with 
information about potential options to remediate lead in drinking water 
(consistent with EPA's 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water Toolkit, 
EPA-815-B-18-007, or subsequent EPA guidance);
    (ii) The local and State health department; and
    (iii) The State in accordance with Sec.  141.90(i).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (h) Alternative school and child care lead sampling programs. (1) 
If schools and child care facilities served by a community water system 
are sampled for lead in drinking water under a State or local law or 
program, the State may exempt one or more community water system(s) 
from the 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 POU 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 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 POU devices as 
defined in Sec.  141.2 on all outlets used to provide water for human 
consumption; or
    (v) If the sampling is conducted under a grant awarded under 
section 1464(d) of the SDWA, consistent with the requirements of the 
grant and at least the minimum number of samples required in paragraph 
(f) of this section are collected.
    (2) The duration of the waiver cannot exceed the time period 
covered by the sampling and will automatically expire at the end of any 
12-month period during which sampling is not conducted at the required 
number of schools or child care facilities.
    (3) The State must only issue a waiver to the community water 
system for the subset of the schools or child care facilities served by 
the system as designated under paragraph (b) of this section that are 
sampled under an alternative program as described in paragraph (h)(1) 
of this section.
    (4) The State may issue a written waiver applicable to more than 
one community water system (e.g., one waiver for all community water 
systems subject to a statewide sampling program that meets the 
requirements of this paragraph (h)).
    (5) The State may issue a waiver for community water systems to 
conduct the requirements of Sec.  141.92 for the first five years 
following the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) in the schools and 
child care facilities that were sampled for lead between January 1, 
2021 and the compliance date in Sec.  141.80(a)(3) that otherwise meets 
the requirements of paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
0
12. Revise Sec.  141.93 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.93  Small water system compliance flexibility.

    Small community water systems serving 3,300 or fewer persons and 
all non-transient non-community water systems that exceed the lead 
action level, but do not exceed the copper action level, may elect to 
use this provision in lieu of the corrosion control treatment 
requirements otherwise applicable to small systems in Sec.  
141.81(a)(3), if approved by the State. This compliance flexibility is 
not available to water systems where the State has obtained primacy for 
this rule 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 provision must:
    (1) For water systems with corrosion control: Collect water quality 
parameters in accordance with Sec.  141.87 and, if the system has not 
re-optimized OCCT in accordance with Sec.  141.81(d), evaluate 
compliance options in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section and 
corrosion control treatment under Sec.  141.81(d)(1). Water systems 
with corrosion control treatment in place must continue to operate and 
maintain optimal corrosion control treatment until the State 
determines, in writing, that it is no longer necessary, and meet any 
requirements that the State determines to be appropriate before 
implementing a State approved alternative compliance option described 
in this section.
    (2) For systems without corrosion control: Collect water quality 
parameters in accordance with Sec.  141.87 and, if the system has not 
installed OCCT in accordance with Sec.  141.81(e), evaluate compliance 
options in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section and corrosion 
control treatment under Sec.  141.81(e)(1).
    (b) The system must make a compliance option recommendation to the 
State within six months of the end of the tap sampling period in which 
the lead action level exceedance occurred. Within six months of the 
recommendation by the water system, the State must approve or 
disapprove the recommendation. If the State disapproves the 
recommendation, the State may designate the other compliance 
alternative as an option for the system. If the State does not 
designate the other compliance alternative as an option for the system, 
the system must comply with the otherwise applicable corrosion control 
treatment requirements under Sec.  141.81(d) for systems with corrosion 
control or Sec.  141.81(e) for systems without corrosion control 
treatment. Water systems must follow the schedules in Sec.  141.81(d) 
or (e), beginning with Step 3 in Sec.  141.81(d)(3) or (e)(3) unless 
the State specifies optimal corrosion control treatment pursuant to 
either Sec.  141.81(d)(2) or (e)(2), as applicable. If the system fails 
to implement the approved alternative compliance option, or the State 
revokes approval for the alternative compliance option, then the system 
must follow the

[[Page 85086]]

requirements for small and non-transient non-community water systems as 
described under Sec.  141.81(a)(3).
    (c) Alternative compliance options--(1) Point-of-use devices. A 
water system that elects this compliance option, 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.
    (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 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 customers are 
automatically notified of operational problems. The water system must 
provide documentation to the State to certify maintenance of the POU 
devices, unless the State waives this requirement, in accordance with 
Sec.  141.90(j)(1).
    (iv) The water system must monitor, in accordance with this 
paragraph, one-third of the POU devices each year and all POU devices 
must be monitored within a three-year cycle. First liter tap samples 
collected under this section must be taken after water passes through 
the POU device to assess its performance. Samples must be one-liter in 
volume and have had a minimum 6-hour stagnation time. All samples must 
be at or below 0.010 mg/L. Water systems must report the results from 
the tap sampling no later than 10 days after the end of the tap 
sampling period in accordance with Sec.  141.90(j)(1). If a sample 
exceeds 0.010 mg/L, the water system must notify the homeowner and/or 
building management no later than 24 hours 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 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 to maximize the units' lead 
level reduction effectiveness.
    (A) Content. All small community water systems and non-transient 
non-community water systems that elect to implement POU devices under 
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.
    (B) Timing. Water systems must provide the public education 
materials at the time of POU device delivery.
    (C) Delivery. Water systems must provide the public education 
materials in person, by mail, or by another method approved by the 
State, to persons at locations where the system has delivered POU 
devices.
    (vi) The water system must operate and maintain the POU devices 
even if the system is at or below the action level in future tap 
monitoring periods until the system receives State approval to select 
the other compliance flexibility option or follow Sec.  141.81(d) or 
(e) and the system has fully implemented it.
    (2) Replacement of lead-bearing plumbing. A water system that has 
control over all plumbing in its buildings, and is not served by 
unknown, galvanized requiring replacement, or lead service lines, must 
replace all plumbing that does not meet the definition of ``lead free'' 
in section 1417 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended by the 
Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act and any future amendments 
applicable at the time of replacement. The replacement of all lead-
bearing plumbing must occur on a schedule established by the State but 
not to exceed one year. Water systems must provide certification to the 
State that all lead-bearing material has been replaced in accordance 
with Sec.  141.90(j)(2).
0
13. Amend Sec.  141.153 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (d)(4)(xi);
0
b. Adding paragraphs (d)(4)(xiii) and (xiv); and
0
c. Revising paragraph (f)(3).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  141.153  Content of the reports.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (xi) The report shall 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 unknown connectors) has been prepared and 
include instructions to access the service line inventory; and
* * * * *
    (xiii) For systems with lead, galvanized requiring replacement, or 
lead status unknown service lines in the system's inventory pursuant to 
Sec.  141.84(a) and (b), the report must include information on how to 
obtain a copy of the service line replacement plan or view the plan on 
the internet if the system is required to make the service line 
replacement plan available online.
    (xiv) 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 may direct the public to 
contact their school or child care facility for further information 
about potential sampling results.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (3) Lead and copper control requirements prescribed by subpart I of 
this part. For systems that fail to take one or more actions prescribed 
by Sec. Sec.  141.80 through 141.93, the report must include the 
applicable language of appendix A to this subpart for lead, copper, or 
both.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec.  141.154 by revising paragraph (d)(1) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  141.154  Required additional health information.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) A short informational statement about lead in drinking water 
and its effects on children. The statement must include the information 
in figure 1 to this paragraph:
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 
UTILITY] is responsible for providing high quality drinking water and 
removing lead pipes, but cannot control the variety of materials used 
in

[[Page 85087]]

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.
* * * * *
0
16. Amend appendix A to subpart O of part 141 under the heading 
``Inorganic contaminants'' by revising the entry for ``Lead'' to read 
as follows:

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

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

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

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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Provide a public notice as soon as practical but no later than 
24 hours after the system learns of the violation or other situation 
requiring Tier 1 public notice;
* * * * *
0
17. Amend appendix A to subpart Q of part 141 in section I by revising 
the entries for ``C. Lead and Copper Rule (Action Level for lead is 
0.015 mg/L, for copper is 1.3 mg/L)'' and ``1. Lead and Copper Rule 
(TT)'' to read as follows:

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           MCL/MRDL/TT violations \2\          Monitoring & testing  procedure
                                     --------------------------------------              violations
                                                                           -------------------------------------
             Contaminant                Tier of                               Tier of
                                         public            Citation            public
                                         notice                                notice            Citation
                                        required                              required
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
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  Sec.   141.80 (except              3  Sec.  Sec.   141.86-
                                                    Sec.  Sec.                            141.90, 141.92.
                                                    141.80(c))-141.84,
                                                    141.85(a)-(c) (except
                                                    (c)(3)), (h), and (j),
                                                    and Sec.   141.93.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A--Endnotes

* * * * *
    \1\ Violations and other situations not listed in this table 
(e.g., failure to prepare Consumer Confidence Reports), do not 
require notice, unless otherwise determined by the primacy agency. 
Primacy agencies may, at their option, also require a more stringent 
public notice tier (e.g., Tier 1 instead of Tier 2 or Tier 2 instead 
of Tier 3) for specific violations and situations listed in

[[Page 85088]]

this Appendix, as authorized under Sec.  141.202(a) and Sec.  
141.203(a).
    \2\ MCL--Maximum contaminant level, MRDL--Maximum residual 
disinfectant level, TT--Treatment technique.
* * * * *
0
18. Amend appendix B to subpart Q of part 141 by revising the entry for 
``23. Lead'' and endnote 13 to read as follows:

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

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

Appendix B--Endnotes

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

PART 142--NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 
IMPLEMENTATION

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

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

0
20. In Sec.  142.14, republish paragraph (d) introductory text and 
revise paragraphs (d)(8) and (9) and (d)(10)(ii) to read as follows:

Sec.  142.14  Records kept by States.

* * * * *
    (d) Each State which has primary enforcement responsibility shall 
retain, for not less than 12 years, files which shall include for each 
such public water system in the State:
* * * * *
    (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 following 
provisions of 40 CFR part 141, subpart I for the control of lead and 
copper. If, for the records identified in paragraphs (d)(8)(i) through 
(d)(8)(xvii) of this section, no change is made to State determinations 
during a 12-year retention period, the State shall retain the record 
until a new decision, determination, or designation has been issued.
    (i) Section 141.81(b)--for any water system deemed to be optimized 
under Sec.  141.81(b) of this chapter, any conditions imposed by the 
State on specific water systems to ensure the continued operation and 
maintenance of corrosion control treatment in place;
    (ii) Sections 141.81(b)(4), 141.86(c)(2)(iii)(G), and 
141.86(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 141.83(b)(2)--determinations of source water treatment;
    (vi) Section 141.83(b)(4)--designations of maximum permissible 
concentrations of lead and copper in source water;
    (vii) Section 141.84(d)--determinations as to whether a shortened 
replacement deadline is feasible for mandatory full lead and galvanized 
requiring replacement service line replacement;
    (viii) Section 141.85--system-specific decisions regarding the 
content of written public education materials and/or the distribution 
of these materials;
    (ix) Section 141.86(b)(3)--system-specific determinations regarding 
use of samples that do not meet the six hour minimum stagnation time at 
non-transient non-community water systems, and community water systems 
meeting the criteria of Sec.  141.85(b)(8) of this chapter, that 
operate 24 hours a day;
    (x) Section 141.86(d)--system-specific designations of sampling 
locations for systems subject to reduced monitoring;
    (xi) Section 141.86(d)(3)--system-specific determinations 
pertaining to alternative sample collection periods for systems subject 
to reduced monitoring;
    (xii) Section 141.86(g)--determinations of small system monitoring 
waivers, waiver recertifications, and waiver revocations;
    (xiii) Section 141.87(b)(3)(ii)--determinations regarding 
representative entry point locations at ground water systems;
    (xiv) Section 141.88--evaluation and approval of water system 
source water or treatment changes;
    (xv) Section 141.90(e)(4)--system-specific determinations regarding 
the submission of information to demonstrate compliance with partial 
lead and galvanized requiring replacement service line replacement 
requirements;
    (xvi) Section 141.90(f)--system-specific decisions regarding the 
resubmission of detailed documentation demonstrating completion of 
public education requirements, including resubmission of filter 
distribution plans under 141.90(f)(9); and
    (xvii) Section 141.93--identification of community water systems 
and non-

[[Page 85089]]

transient non-community water systems utilizing the compliance 
alternatives, and the compliance alternative selected by the water 
system and the compliance option approved by the State.
    (9) Records of reports and any other information submitted by PWSs 
under Sec.  141.90 of this chapter, including:
    (i) Records of any 90th percentile values calculated by the State 
under Sec.  141.90(h) of this chapter;
    (ii) Completed initial service line inventories, baseline 
inventories, and required updates to inventories and information under 
Sec.  141.90(e) of this chapter;
    (iii) Service line replacement plans under Sec.  141.90(e)(3) of 
this chapter; and
    (iv) Compliance sampling pools in site sample plan and any changes 
to sampling pools under Sec.  141.90(a)(1) of this chapter.
    (10) * * *
    (ii) Verify compliance with the requirements related to partial or 
customer-initiated lead and galvanized requiring replacement service 
line replacement under Sec.  141.84(f), (g) and (h)(1) and (2) of this 
chapter and compliance with full service line replacement under Sec.  
141.84(h)(3) of this chapter, and compliance with lead connector 
replacement when encountered under Sec.  141.84(e); and
* * * * *
0
21. Amend Sec.  142.15 by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(4)(i);
0
b. Revising paragraph (c)(4)(iii) introductory text;
0
c. Revising paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(B) through (F); and
0
d. Adding paragraph (c)(4)(iii)(G).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:

Sec.  142.15  Reports by States.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iii) States shall report the PWS identification number of each 
water system identified in paragraphs (c)(4)(iii)(A) through (G) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (B) For each water system (regardless of size), the 90th percentile 
copper level calculated during each tap sampling period specified in 
Sec.  141.86 of this chapter, in which the system exceeds the copper 
action level, and the first and last days of each tap sampling period 
in which an exceedance occurred;
    (C) For each water system for which the State has designated 
optimal water quality parameters under Sec.  141.82(f) of this chapter, 
the specific corrosion control treatment designated, the date of the 
determination and the paragraph(s) under which the State made its 
determination, the water system's optimal water quality parameters;
    (D) For each water system the number of lead service lines, 
galvanized requiring replacement service lines, lead status unknown 
service lines, lead connectors, unknown connectors, and non-lead 
service lines in its inventory, reported separately;
    (E) For each water system required to conduct mandatory replacement 
of lead and galvanized requiring replacement service lines, as 
specified in Sec.  141.84(d) of this chapter, the number and type of 
service lines replaced, the deadline for the system to complete 
replacement of all lead and galvanized requiring replacement service 
lines, and the expected date of completion of service line replacement;
    (F) For each water system that has implemented optimal corrosion 
control, completed applicable source water treatment requirements 
pursuant to Sec.  141.83 of this chapter and/or completed service line 
replacement requirements pursuant to Sec.  141.84 of this chapter, and 
the date of the State's determination that these requirements have been 
met. The date reported shall be the latest of the following events:
    (1) The date the State received the results of corrosion control 
evaluations under Sec.  141.82(d) or (e) or optimal corrosion control 
treatment recommendation by the system.
    (2) For systems for which the State has designated optimal 
corrosion control treatment under Sec.  141.82(d), the date of the 
determination, and the date the system completed installation of 
treatment as certified under Sec.  141.90(c)(4);
    (3) The date the State designates optimal water quality parameters 
under Sec.  141.82(f) of this chapter or deems the system to have 
optimized corrosion control pursuant to Sec.  141.81(b)(1) or (3) of 
this chapter;
    (4) For systems which the State has required to install source 
water treatment under Sec.  141.83(b)(2), the date of the 
determination, the date the State designates maximum permissible source 
water levels under Sec.  141.83(b)(4) of this chapter or determines 
pursuant to Sec.  141.83(b)(2) of this chapter that source water 
treatment is not required; or
    (5) For systems required to conduct service line replacement, the 
date the system completes service line replacement pursuant to Sec.  
141.84(d) of this chapter.
    (6) For systems not required to complete the corrosion control 
treatment steps under Sec.  141.81(f), the date the system is required 
to complete service line replacement.
    (G) Each State which has primary enforcement responsibility shall 
submit to the Administrator the 90th percentile lead concentration 
calculated during each tap sampling period in which the system exceeds 
the lead action level in Sec.  141.80(c)(2) of this chapter within the 
first 15 days following the end of each tap sampling period specified 
in Sec.  141.86 of this chapter or 24 hours of receiving notification 
of an action level exceedance from a water system, whichever is 
earlier.
* * * * *
0
22. Amend Sec.  142.16 by revising paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(3) 
through (10) and adding paragraph (d)(11) to read as follows:

Sec.  142.16  Special primacy requirements.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) Section 141.82(g)--Designating an alternative approach for 
aggregating multiple measurements collected during the same day for a 
water quality parameter at a sampling location, if the State elects to 
adopt a formula other than the one specified in Sec.  141.82(g)(2)(A) 
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--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 unknown connectors 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.
    (6) Section 141.84(d)(5)(iv)--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

[[Page 85090]]

writing at any time throughout a system's replacement program and 
notifying the system of the determination. For systems required to 
replace service lines in accordance with a shortened deadline, or for 
systems eligible for a deferred deadline, determining the deadline to 
complete inventory validation in accordance with Sec.  141.84(b)(5) of 
this chapter.
    (7) Section 141.82--Verifying compliance with distribution system 
and site assessment requirements.
    (8) Section 141.84(d)--Identifying any 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 any such laws exist or not, by the 
compliance date specified in Sec.  141.80(a) of this chapter and within 
six months of the enactment of any new or revised State law that 
pertains to a water system's access to conduct full service line 
replacement.
    (9) Section 141.88--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.
    (10) Section 141.92--Reviewing lists of schools and child care 
facilities to ensure entries conform to the definitions of school and 
child care facility as defined in Sec.  141.2 of this chapter and is 
complete.
    (11) Section 141.92--Determining whether any existing State or 
local testing program is at least as stringent as the Federal 
requirements, including how the State will use the definitions of 
elementary school, secondary school, and childcare facility as defined 
in Sec.  141.2 of this chapter to issue waivers.
* * * * *
0
23. In Sec.  142.19, revise paragraph (a) introductory text and 
paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

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

    (a) Pursuant to the procedures in this section, the Regional 
Administrator may review State determinations establishing corrosion 
control or source water treatment requirements for lead or copper and 
may issue an order establishing Federal treatment requirements for a 
public water system pursuant to Sec. Sec.  141.82(d) and (f) 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. 2023-26148 Filed 12-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P