rarely found in the source water in significant quantities (Chin, D.,
Karalekas, P.C.J., 1985; USEPA, 1988; USEPA, 1990b); thus, where the
state has decided that source water treatment is not needed, EPA
proposed to allow the state to waive source water monitoring for any
subsequent action level exceedance under the conditions listed above
and to eliminate the regular monitoring currently required for source
water lead and copper.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Several commenters expressed support for waiving source water
monitoring as outlined in the proposed LCRR. One commenter specifically
expressed support for source water monitoring waivers to be issued by
the state in the case of subsequent action level exceedances as
outlined in the proposed LCRR. Other commenters opposed the waiver,
citing lack of public access to data that lead can occur naturally in
source water in some geologic settings, and that they have ``more than
a dozen public water systems that treat for naturally occurring,
elemental lead found in their source water and even more systems with
low levels of lead that do not require treatment.'' The Agency does not
dispute that lead may be found in source water in certain geologic
settings; however, the final LCRR requires that any system which adds a
new source shall collect an additional source water sample from each
entry point to the distribution system during two consecutive six-month
monitoring periods until the system demonstrates that drinking water
entering the distribution system has been maintained below the maximum
permissible lead and copper concentrations specified by the state. EPA
disagrees that source water monitoring results should be made publicly
available because source water sampling results are not representative
of water quality at the tap.
3. Final Rule Revisions
    The final LCRR eliminates source water lead and copper monitoring
that is not necessary to protect public health. Lead and copper are
rarely found in the source water in significant quantities (Chin, D.,
Karalekas, P.C.J., 1985; USEPA, 1988; USEPA, 1990b); thus, where the
state has decided that source water treatment is not needed, the state
may waive source water monitoring for any subsequent action level
exceedance under certain conditions. The final LCRR includes the
provision for discontinued additional source water monitoring
requirements if (a) a water system has conducted source water
monitoring for a prior lead and/or copper action level exceedance, (b)
the state has determined that source water treatment is not required,
and (c) a water system has not added any new water source(s).

J. Public Education and Sampling at Schools and Child Care Facilities

1. Proposed Requirements
    EPA proposed a new requirement for all CWSs to sample for lead at
schools and child care facilities they serve and to provide public
education for those facilities. The intent of the requirement is to
inform and educate targeted CWS customers and users about risks for
lead in premise plumbing at schools and child care facilities since
large buildings, such as schools, can have higher potential for
elevated lead levels due to complex premise plumbing and inconsistent
water use patterns. While schools are not likely to be served by LSLs,
they may have lead in premise plumbing; therefore, EPA proposed these
requirements because public education and water system sampling would
provide schools and child care facilities with assurance in the process
and benefits of managing a drinking water testing program and the
information necessary for them to take actions to reduce lead risk.
While, prior to this rule, EPA did not require public water systems to
conduct sampling in schools and child care facilities, the Agency had
established a voluntary program: 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking
Water in Schools and Child Care Facilities--A Training, Testing and
Taking Action Approach (3Ts) (EPA-815-B-18-007). The purpose of this
program is to assist states, schools, and child care facilities with
conducting their own testing programs, conducting outreach, and taking
action to address elevated levels of lead. Some states and localities
have established mandatory and voluntary programs to test for lead in
schools and child care facilities. However, many schools and child care
facilities have not been tested for lead. A 2018 survey by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that 41 percent of school
districts had not tested for lead and an additional 16 percent did not
know if they had been tested (GAO, 2018).
    EPA proposed these requirements because students and young children
are especially vulnerable to lead exposure and spend a large portion of
their day in schools and child care facilities. Lead in drinking water
can be a significant contributor to overall exposure to lead,
particularly for infants whose diets often include foods or formula
made with water from public water systems (i.e., baby food, juice, or
formula). Young children and infants are particularly vulnerable to
lead because the physical and behavioral effects of lead occur at lower
exposure levels in children than in adults. In children, low levels of
exposure have been linked to damage to the central and peripheral
nervous system, learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired
hearing, and impaired formation and function of blood cells.
    Children spend on average over six hours per day at school ((U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Center for Education
Statistics), with many spending more time at on-site before- or after-
school care or activities. Children consume water in these facilities
through drinking and as part of food preparation. Across the country,
about 100,000 schools participate in the national school lunch program,
serving daily lunch to approximately 30 million students (USDA,
National School Lunch

Program, 2019). Ninety thousand schools serve breakfast to 14.8 million
students every day (USDA). The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
(HHFKA), which authorizes funding and sets policy for USDA's child
nutrition programs, requires schools participating in federally funded
meal programs to make water available during meal periods at no cost to
students (section 202 of HHFKA (42 U.S.C. 1758(a)(2)(A))). The Act also
mandates that child care facilities provide free drinking water
throughout the day (section 221 of HHFKA (42 U.S.C. 1766 (u)(2))). The
combination of potential higher lead levels in large buildings,
vulnerability of children to lead, and the length of time spent at
schools and child care facilities presents lead risks to children that
can be mitigated through public education, sampling, and voluntary
remediation actions.
    Furthermore, the requirement for water systems to conduct sampling
at schools and child care facilities provides an added measure of
protection, above the other elements of the treatment technique rule,
in light of the vulnerabilities of the population served and the
potential variability of lead levels within the system and within a
school or child care facility over time. Large buildings such as
schools can have a higher potential for elevated lead levels because,
even when served by a water system with well operated OCCT, there may
be longer periods of stagnation due to complex premise plumbing systems
and inconsistent water use patterns. In such situations, there may not
be technical improvements that can be made to the OCCT. However, risk
can be mitigated through public education and voluntary remediation
actions such as replacement of premise plumbing. Water systems have
developed the technical capacity to conduct sampling for lead in
operating their system and complying with current drinking water
standards.
    EPA proposed that the CWS be required to provide information about
the health risks and sources of lead in drinking water and collect
samples from five drinking water outlets at each school and two
drinking water outlets at each child care facility within its
distribution system once every five years. It would share results with
the facility, local and state health departments, and the state primacy
agency. Samples would be first draw after at least 8-hours but not more
than 18-hours stagnation in the building and be 250 ml in volume. EPA
proposed this sampling protocol to be consistent with the recommended
sampling protocols under the Agency's 3Ts Toolkit. The smaller sample
size is more representative of the amount of water consumed per serving
and the stagnation time is representative of daily water use within
these facilities. These samples would serve as a preliminary screen for
lead risks within the facility and are not necessarily representative
of lead levels in other outlets.
    EPA proposed that the CWS compile a list of schools and child care
facilities served by the water system to conduct outreach and sampling,
including distributing the 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water
Toolkit (EPA-815-B-18-007), or subsequent guidance issued by EPA that
provides information on identifying lead risks, follow-up sampling
procedures, stakeholder communication, and remediation options. A CWS's
distribution of the 3Ts would initiate or contribute to active
communication with schools and child care facilities, who are critical
customers that serve a vulnerable population. EPA also proposed that
the CWS provide results to schools and child care facilities, the
drinking water primacy agency, and the local and state health
department where the facility is located no more than 30 days after
receipt of results. The results of the samples would not be used as
part of the CWS's calculation of the 90th percentile value because
these samples are being collected in a manner to inform whether action
is needed at a specific school or child care facility and not whether
corrosion control is effective system-wide. EPA did not propose
requirements for CWSs to take remediation actions at facilities
following the sampling and notification requirements. The managers of
these facilities have established lines of communication with the
occupants of these buildings (and their parents or guardians) and have
control over routine maintenance and plumbing materials that may need
to be addressed. The managers of the schools and child care centers can
use the sampling results and the 3Ts to make decisions about additional
voluntary actions to reduce lead risks in their facilities, including
implementing their own 3Ts program.
    EPA proposed a process for a water system to opt out of the
sampling requirements. In the preamble, EPA described a process for a
state or primacy agency to waive these requirements for individual CWSs
to avoid duplication of effort with existing drinking water testing
requirements in schools and child care facilities. EPA proposed that if
a state has a program that requires schools and child care facilities
to be sampled in a manner consistent with the proposed requirements,
the state may use that program in lieu of the proposed requirements.
2. Public Comments and EPA's Response
    EPA requested comment on an alternative to the proposed
requirements for public education and sampling at schools and child
care facilities described in this section. Under the proposed
alternative, a CWS would be required to conduct annual outreach to
school and child care facilities about the health risks and source of
lead and drinking water, and would test at school and child care
facilities as described in the proposal only when requested by a
facility in their service area. Under this alternative, EPA assumed
that 5 percent of schools and child care facilities in a water system
service area would request testing per year (see Economic Analysis
Chapter 5, section <IP_ADDRESS> for additional detail).
    EPA received many comments on the proposed school and child care
sampling requirements spanning a variety of topics. These included
comments on the proposed and alternative options, requests for
clarification on aspects of the requirements that relate to CWS
compliance, the required number of samples, requests for exemptions,
and comments on waivers for existing sampling programs.
    EPA specifically asked for public comment on the proposed option
that CWSs be required to sample for lead in school and child care
facilities once every five years or if CWSs should be required to
sample in facilities on request only. Some commenters supported the
proposed requirements citing the importance of testing in these
facilities, while others supported the alternative option citing the
benefits of providing public education materials to interested schools
and child care facilities and reduced burden to CWSs. Conversely, some
commenters objected to the alternative proposal citing concerns that
facilities may not request testing due to lack of knowledge about lead
risks, the importance for testing for lead, or fear of testing results.
Some commenters also argued that the requirements should be removed
from the final rule stating that CWSs should not be the entity
responsible for testing in schools and child care facilities and citing
concerns about costs and resources, while others argued that the
proposed requirements would not provide benefits to schools or child
care

facilities. A few commenters also stated that sampling of school or
child care facilities would be more effective if led by the Department
of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services.
    Based upon comments, EPA has decided to combine the proposed and
alternative options by incorporating both mandatory and on request
sampling into the final rule. CWSs must conduct sampling in elementary
schools and child care facilities as described in the proposed
requirements for one sampling cycle (5 years) and will offer sampling
to secondary schools on request. After the first cycle is complete,
CWSs must continue to conduct outreach to schools and child care
facilities and must sample at the request of a facility. These
requirements are intended to educate schools and child care facilities
about the risks of lead in drinking water and inform them of ways to
mitigate lead risks. The initial sampling accompanied by continued lead
in drinking water outreach will provide elementary schools and child
care facilities with an understanding of how to create and manage a
drinking water testing program that is customizable to their needs and
an appreciation of the benefits of such a program. The cycle of
sampling is intended to reinforce the importance and benefits of lead
testing in elementary schools and child care facilities. Children under
the age of 7 are at the greatest risk of drinking water lead exposure,
and prioritizing sampling in those facilities with the greatest risks
will reduce burden on CWSs and will enable them to focus upon those
schools and child care facilities with the most susceptible
populations. This construct will also allow CWSs, following the initial
cycle of sampling, to focus resources on sampling in schools and child
care facilities that request assistance. EPA anticipates that after the
first sampling cycle, elementary schools and child care facilities will
better understand the process and benefits of lead testing and be more
likely to implement their own 3Ts programs. However, facilities
interested in further assistance will have the opportunity to be tested
for lead by the CWS on request prompted through annual outreach. CWSs
will not be required to sample more than 20 percent of the schools and
child care facilities they serve in a given year.
    EPA disagrees that the requirements for testing in schools and
child care facilities should be removed from the final rule or that the
requirements provide no benefits. Individual outlets, such as water
fountains, can leach lead even when a water system has OCCT. The
requirements are part of a targeted public education effort to educate
schools and child care facilities and their users of the risks from
lead in premise plumbing, the importance of testing for lead in
drinking water, and to help them make decisions to mitigate lead risks.
The requirement for CWSs to conduct sampling and public education for
this vulnerable subset of consumers is within EPA's authority to
promulgate a treatment technique rule to ``prevent known or anticipated
adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent feasible'' (SDWA
1412(b)(7)(A)). School and child care facility sampling contributes to
increased public awareness of the potential for elevated levels of lead
in premise plumbing independent of a water system's 90th percentile
value. EPA also anticipates that increased familiarity with the 3Ts
will assist facilities in taking steps to reduce lead risks to
vulnerable populations.
    EPA also disagrees that the requirements would be more effective if
led by another Federal agency. Few existing mandatory and voluntary
programs are administered by state or local departments of education
(Cradock et al., 2019). EPA notes that the Department of Education and
the Department Health and Human Services are signatories to the 2019
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Reducing Lead Levels in Schools
and Child Care Facilities along with other Federal partners and
organizations. The signatories to the MOU agree to work together to
encourage schools and child care facilities to take actions to address
lead in their facilities. This includes testing for lead in drinking
water, disseminating results, and taking corrective actions. EPA
intends for the requirements to complement these efforts and not
replace ongoing initiatives to address lead risks in schools and child
care facilities. EPA concluded that CWSs have the technical expertise
to assist in schools and child care facilities in drinking water
testing.
    EPA also received many comments requesting clarification on
achieving CWS compliance. Some commenters suggested that a CWS would be
in violation of the proposed requirements if a school or child care
facility did not respond to outreach for testing. Similarly, commenters
suggested that meeting the requirement to sample in 20 percent of
schools and 20 percent of child care facilities per year depended on
facilities responding to CWS outreach. Some commenters cited these
concerns as a rationale for supporting the alternative on request
option. EPA notes that some schools and child care facilities may not
respond to CWS outreach, meaning a CWS would not be able to obtain a
refusal. EPA agrees that further clarification was needed and revised
Sec.  141.92(a)(3) to document a non-response after a CWS has made two
separate good faith attempts to reach the facility. EPA also clarified
in Sec.  141.92(c) that non-responses and refusals may be accounted for
in the annual 20 percent testing requirement for elementary schools and
child care facilities during the mandatory sampling.
    Some commenters suggested that the sampling requirements be
expanded to include more samples per facility and more frequent
sampling. Commenters argued that limited sampling may fail to detect
elevated lead levels and some schools and child care facilities may
infer from results that there is no lead risk. Other commenters noted
that some schools and child care facilities do not follow the 3Ts and
may not conduct follow-up sampling or take remediation actions. Some
commenters further suggested that the 3Ts Toolkit is not sufficient for
addressing lead issues. EPA disagrees that sampling requirements be
expanded, as the intent is to provide a preliminary screen for lead in
schools and child care facilities and an improved understanding of the
importance of lead testing, and is not a replacement for comprehensive
testing as detailed in the 3Ts. EPA further disagrees with comments
regarding the effectiveness of the 3Ts. The GAO indicated in a 2018
report that 60 percent of school districts were not familiar with the
3Ts guidance, but for those that were, 68 percent reported finding the
guidance helpful in reducing lead risks in their facilities (GAO,
2018). Requiring distribution of the 3Ts along with testing results is
intended to both increase awareness of the need for lead testing and
provide schools and child care facilities with information and tools
they can use to reduce lead risks in their drinking water.
    Conversely, some commenters suggested that facilities be exempted
from testing based on construction dates (e.g., 1986 ban on lead
solder) or that repeat testing is not necessary if a facility is tested
once, or all outlets are tested once, and results show no or low lead
levels. The proposed requirements exempt CWSs from sampling in schools
and child care facilities constructed after 2014 (consistent with
Section 1417 of the SDWA), as these facilities will have been
constructed with lead free plumbing components. Prior to the amendment
of Section 1417 of the SDWA by the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water
Act, fixtures could

contain up to 8 percent of lead by weighted average and be classified
as lead free. Changing the exemption date to 1986 would therefore be
less protective of public health. EPA also disagrees with allowing
exemptions based on previous low and non-detected lead levels. Lead
levels at an outlet or within a building have been shown to vary over
time, with lead levels at one outlet not necessarily characterizing
lead levels at other others in the building. Therefore, exempting water
systems from testing in facilities based on the previous results of
samples taken at a limited number of outlets is not appropriate.
    EPA received many comments on the alternative school and child care
sampling programs in Sec.  141.92(d). Commenters noted an inconsistency
between the preamble in the November 2019 notice, which described the
state providing waivers to CWSs where existing school and child care
sampling requirements are at least as stringent as Sec.  141.92, and
the proposed requirement which stated ``the water system may execute
that program [existing state or local regulations] to comply with the
requirements of this section,'' implying a different mechanism. As
noted above, EPA recognizes this inconsistency and has updated Sec.
141.92(d) to describe the conditions by which a state may issue a full
or partial waiver to CWSs. In addition, commenters encouraged EPA to
accommodate sampling protocols of existing state and local programs,
stating that programs using different stagnation times or sample
volumes should not be excluded if they require more sampling more
outlets more frequently and include remediation activities. EPA agrees
that there are a variety of programs that may differ from the proposed
requirements but may otherwise be sufficient or more comprehensive. In
response, the final rule provides additional flexibility for existing
programs to reduce duplicative testing by CWSs.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    EPA is requiring CWSs to sample for lead in the elementary schools
and child care facilities they serve once during the first five years
after the compliance date for the final rule, and to sample for lead in
the secondary schools they serve on request. After all elementary
schools and child care facilities are tested once, the CWS will be
required to conduct sampling at all the schools and child care
facilities they serve when requested by a facility. EPA is retaining
the exemption for schools and child care facilities constructed after
January 1, 2014. However, in response to public comment, EPA has
revised this exemption to include facilities built after the date of
state adopted standards that meet the definition of lead free in
accordance with Section 1417 of the SDWA, as amended by the Reduction
of Lead in Drinking Water Act, to account for localities that adopted
lead free standards earlier than 2014. These requirements apply to all
CWSs regardless if they receive water from a wholesale system.
    EPA is retaining the proposed requirement that all CWSs compile a
list of schools and licensed child care facilities served by the system
to conduct public education outreach and sampling. EPA notes that
pursuant to Sec.  141 90(i)(1)(i), the CWS shall use a good faith
effort to identify facilities in their service area, such as reviewing
water system billing and other records to identify service connections
for schools and child care facilities and by requesting information
from appropriate state agencies. During the first five years after the
rule compliance date, the CWS is required to contact the elementary
schools and child care facilities identified and provide them
information about health risks of lead in drinking water at least
annually, schedule sampling, and provide the 3Ts Toolkit (or subsequent
EPA guidance). The CWS must also contact the secondary schools
identified in the list at least annually and provide them with health
information, and information on how to request sampling. As the list is
updated, new schools and child care facilities will be identified and
included in the annual outreach. In the first cycle of sampling, an
elementary school or child care facility may decline or not respond to
sampling. In response to comments, EPA has revised the requirement to
allow the CWS to document non-responses in addition to refusals.
    The CWS is required to contact 20 percent of elementary schools and
20 percent of child care facilities per year such that all facilities
are sampled once (over the 5 years). In response to comments on
flexibility, the final rule will allow an alternative schedule to be
approved by the state, as long as all elementary schools and child care
facilities are sampled once within a 5-year period. EPA has also
clarified that non-responses and refusals may be accounted for in the
20 percent testing rate. CWSs are also required to sample secondary
schools at the request of the facility during the 5-year period of
mandatory sampling for elementary schools and child care facilities. If
a CWS receives requests from more than 20 percent of the secondary
schools it serves during a year, it may defer additional requests to
the following year. A CWS is not required to conduct sampling in more
than 20 percent of the secondary schools it serves in any year during
the cycle of mandatory sampling for elementary schools and child care
facilities.
    Once the CWS has completed the requirements for all elementary
schools and child care facilities once, EPA is requiring the CWS to
sample both elementary and secondary schools and child care facilities
on request. When offering sampling on request, the CWS shall continue
to distribute annual information on the health risks of lead in
drinking water and is required to provide annual information to schools
and child care facilities about the opportunity to request sampling. At
least 30 days prior to sampling, the CWS must provide instructions to
facilities on how to identify outlets for sampling. If the CWS receives
requests from more than 20 percent of the schools and 20 percent of the
child care facilities it serves in a given year, the CWS may defer
additional requests to the following year. The CWS is not required to
complete sampling in more than 20 percent of the schools and 20 percent
of the child care facilities it serves in a given year, and may sample
the other facilities in the following year. The CWS is also not
required to sample any individual school or child care facility more
than once every five years. While not required, EPA recommends that
CWSs consider factors such as age of students, building construction
date, socioeconomic indicators, presence of LSLs, and Federal funding
through Title 1 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.) and Head Start (42 U.S.C. 9801
et seq.) to prioritize sampling in facilities that serve vulnerable or
disadvantaged populations.
    EPA is retaining the sampling protocol and the provisions to
provide sample results to schools and child care facilities along with
remediation information within 30 days of receipt of results. EPA has
clarified that the remediation information is detailed in the 3Ts.
Schools and child care facilities are encouraged to use the testing
results and 3Ts Toolkit to inform follow-up activities and remediation
actions. For consistency across other reporting requirements, the final
rule includes provisions for CWSs to report all results to the primacy
agency and local and state health departments as part of annual
reporting.
    EPA is retaining the proposed process for a state to waive school
and child care facility sampling requirements for individual CWSs to
avoid duplication of effort and has clarified this in the final

rule. During the cycle of mandatory sampling in elementary schools and
child care facilities, a state may issue a CWS a written waiver if
there is a state or local program to sample for lead in drinking water
at schools or child care facilities that meets the requirements of this
rule. This also may include schools or child care facilities that are
sampling for lead through facility or district policy. If the sampling
meets the final rule requirements, with the exception of stagnation
time and sample volume, a waiver may be granted if remediation actions
are required as part of the program. Likewise, programs with less
frequent sampling (e.g., every six years) that sample more outlets and
require remediation, will meet the requirements for a waiver. A state
may also issue waivers for voluntary sampling programs that meet the
requirements for CWSs to offer sampling on request to secondary schools
during the cycle of mandatory sampling in elementary schools and child
care facilities, and to all schools and child care facilities
thereafter. Some mandatory and voluntary programs are or have
previously been funded, wholly or in part, under grant programs for
school and child care testing established by the WIIN Act. Therefore,
waivers may also be granted if sampling is conducted in accordance with
a grant awarded under Section 1464(d) of the SDWA. A state may not
issue a waiver to extend past the time period covered by the mandatory
or voluntary program.
    If a program is limited to a subset of schools and child care
facilities defined in Sec.  141.92(a)(1) of this final rule, a state
may issue a partial waiver. For example, if a state has a required
program for testing lead in drinking water in both elementary and
secondary public schools but not in other types of schools or child
care facilities, then a CWS serving only public schools can receive a
full waiver. If a CWS serves both public and non-public schools and
child care facilities, then the CWS would be required to notify and
sample at the non-public schools and child care facilities and could
receive a partial waiver to acknowledge that the CWS is not responsible
for sampling in public schools. A state may issue full or partial
waivers for existing voluntary programs. For example, if a state agency
offers testing to all public schools when requested, the state could
grant a partial waiver such that a CWS would not be required to offer
sampling to public secondary schools in its service area during the
time the CWS is conducting mandatory sampling in elementary schools and
child care facilities. When the CWS is offering sampling on request to
all schools and child care facilities, a state could then grant a
waiver such that the CWS would not be required to offer sampling to the
elementary and secondary public schools in its service area for the
duration of the voluntary program.

K. Find-and-Fix

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed a ``find-and-fix'' approach that would require water
systems to perform additional actions when an individual tap sample
exceeds 15 [mu]g/L. Water systems would be required to collect a
follow-up sample for each tap sample site that exceeded 15 [mu]g/L
within 30 days of receiving the tap sample result. The results of these
``find-and-fix'' follow-up samples would be submitted to the state but
would not be included in the system's 90th percentile calculation
because multiple investigatory samples at locations with high lead
levels would bias results. If the water system is unable to collect a
follow-up sample at a site, the water system would have to provide
documentation to the state for why it was unable to collect a follow-up
sample. The water system would be required to provide the follow-up tap
sample results to consumers within 30 days of receiving the result
(consistent with the current rule), unless that follow-up sample also
exceeds 15 [mu]g/L, in which case, EPA proposed the water system must
notify the consumer within 24 hours of learning of the result. EPA
proposed that water systems with CCT that have an individual tap sample
that exceeds the lead action level, would be required to collect an
additional WQP sample within five days of obtaining the lead tap sample
result. For a CWS, this WQP sample must be collected from a site in the
same water pressure zone, on the same size or smaller water main within
0.5 miles of the residence with the tap sample exceeding the lead
action level. Water systems with an existing WQP site that meets these
criteria would be able to sample at that location.
    Any water system that is unable to regain access to the same site
to collect a follow-up tap sample may decide to sample at another site
within close proximity of the original site and with similar structural
characteristics.
    EPA proposed that WQP samples be collected within 5 days, since WQP
sites are more accessible sites and do not require coordination with
customers. The proposal included requirements to sample WQPs as close
to the lead tap sample site as possible so that the water quality will
more closely match the conditions at the site that exceeded 15
[micro]g/L. The intent of the proposed requirements for a follow-up tap
sample collected for lead was to help the water system determine the
potential source of lead contamination (e.g., premise plumbing, LSL)
and the intent of the required WQP sample for water systems with CCT
was to help determine if CCT is optimized, if additional WQP sites are
needed, and/or if WQPs set by the state are being met. Such steps would
help identify the source of the elevated lead to initiate appropriate
mitigation. EPA proposed that when a water system is unable to identify
and/or mitigate the risk, it must submit a justification to the state.
    Under the proposal, the water system would be required to determine
if problems with the CCT are leading to elevated levels of lead in the
tap samples and then implement a mitigation strategy if necessary. In
addition to the follow-up tap sample and the WQP sampling, the water
system could review distribution system operations or other factors to
determine the cause of the elevated lead level. CCT adjustment may not
be necessary to address every exceedance. Water systems would note the
cause of the elevated lead level if known in their recommendation to
the state. Mitigation strategies could include a water system-wide
adjustment to CCT, flushing portions of the distribution system, or
other strategies to improve water quality management to reduce lead
levels. Under this proposal, water systems would be required to confirm
the find-and-fix steps were completed and recommend water system
actions, such as spot flushing, to the state for approval within six
months of the end of the monitoring period in which the site(s) first
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L and the state would have six months to approve the
recommendation. EPA proposed implementation requirements for water
systems that do not have CCT and recommends installation of it and for
water systems with CCT that recommends re-optimization of CCT.
    A water system may identify a fix that is out of its control. For
example, if the source of lead in drinking water was an old faucet
owned by the customer, and the customer did not wish to replace the
faucet, the water system would provide documentation to the state under
this proposal. All other fixes recommended by a water system would be
implemented on a schedule specified by the state.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA received a number of comments that expressed concerns that a
single

elevated tap lead sample could trigger a system-wide corrosion control
installation or re-optimization. One commenter stated that requiring
the installation of corrosion control equipment for the entire utility
if the cause of a sample exceedance is listed as corrosive water in one
home, is excessive. Others commented that this provision is
unwarranted, inappropriate, or a disproportionate response which could
result in expensive and time-consuming distribution system evaluations.
EPA disagrees that the find-and-fix provisions are unwarranted. These
requirements initiate sampling and other activities that will assess
the potential cause of the elevated levels of lead and will prompt
additional feasible actions that will reduce the risks to persons at
the locations where there may be elevated levels of lead. Many
commented that corrosion control adjustments should only be made in
response to data demonstrating that current corrosion control is
deficient throughout the distribution system, and not in response to a
small number of individual tap samples. Many commenters also
interpreted the rule to require corrosion control treatment
modifications to be the typical response to address a site that
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L. In response to these comments, the final rule
emphasizes localized distribution system management as the likely fix.
Mitigation strategies could include, flushing or other strategies to
improve water quality management. However, in some instances where the
find and fix corrosion control assessment monitoring finds that optimal
water quality parameters are not being maintained in a portion of the
distribution system, systems may need to implement localized or
centralized adjustment of corrosion control treatment. A system that
does not have existing corrosion control treatment is not required to
conduct a corrosion control study or to install treatment as a result
of find-and-fix unless the state determines it is necessary.
    Some commenters noted that small water systems without corrosion
control treatment may not be able to collect water quality parameter
samples within five days as these systems may not have ready access to
instruments and laboratories that can perform these analyses. EPA
agrees and is allowing small water systems without corrosion control
treatment up to 14 days to perform this monitoring. Many commenters
also requested clarity on the purpose and location of the samples, with
several interpreting the proposed rule as requiring the water quality
parameter monitoring to be conducted at the site with the lead result
above 15 [mu]g/L. Many commenters also questioned the recommendation in
the proposed rule to take a lead sample at a nearby site of similar
plumbing characteristics, if the system was unable to take a follow-up
sample at the site that was above 15 [mu]g/L. EPA agrees that sampling
at a different site in the vicinity will not help assess the lead
source at the site that was above15 [mu]g/L, so the final rule does not
require systems to do this. If the water system is unable to collect a
follow-up sample at a site, the water system must provide documentation
to the State, explaining why it was unable to collect a follow-up
sample. EPA also agrees that clarification is needed and has provide
more details in the final rule of where and when follow up samples must
be collected.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    For the final rule, EPA is clarifying that the water quality
parameter monitoring (Step 1) is intended to assess the corrosion
control treatment at a nearby location in the distribution system and
the follow-up sample at the tap sampling site above 15 [mu]g/L (Step 2)
is intended to identify the lead source at the site.
    Step 1 of the process is the corrosion control assessment step in
which water quality parameter sampling must be done within five days of
the system receiving the tap sample results exceeding 15 [mu]g/L,
except for small water systems (serving 10,000 people or fewer persons)
without corrosion control treatment that may perform the sampling
within 14 days. The sampling is to replicate as closely as possible the
water quality conditions at the time when the tap exceeded 15 [mu]g/L.
The water quality parameter sampling location is not at the tap that
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L but must be within the same pressure zone, on the
same size main and within a half-mile from the tap sample site. Section
141.82(j)(1)(v) of this final rule allows systems with an existing WQP
site that meets these criteria to sample at that site. Section
141.82.(j)(1)(vi) requires that a system that does not have an existing
WQP site that meets the criteria to add the additional WQP site to its
routine monitoring. Since the monthly total coliform sampling for large
systems vastly exceeds the water quality parameter monitoring in the
distribution system for the lead and copper rule, EPA expects coliform
sampling locations should be available that are in the same pressure
zone, on the same size main, and within a half mile of the site that
exceeded 15 [mu]g/L in many large systems. Medium-size systems may also
find that total coliform sampling sites are available and can meet the
criteria for sampling location when the existing water quality
parameter sites are not located in that area of the distribution
system. The maximum WQP sites that a system would have to sample are
two times the standard number sites required. When a system exceeds
this upper threshold for the number of sites, the state has discretion
to determine if the newer sites can better assess the effectiveness of
the corrosion control treatment and may remove existing WQP sites
during sanitary survey evaluation of OCCT.
    Step 2 is designated as site assessment in the final rule. In Step
2, water systems are required to conduct follow-up sampling at the tap
sampling site above 15 [mu]g/L. This is intended to help the system
identify the source of the lead, such as the service line, brass
faucet, lead solder, and/or gooseneck/pigtails, if possible. The final
rule allows tap sample collection of a different volume or using a
different protocol (if needed to better identify the source of lead)
than samples collected under the tap monitoring and therefore the
sample is not included in the 90th percentile calculation. If the water
system is unable to carry out follow-up tap sampling (i.e., the
customer refuses a follow-up tap sample or there is a lack of
response), the water system is responsible for documenting the reason
for not carrying out the sampling. Water systems must note the cause of
the elevated lead level, if known from the site assessment.
    In Step 3, water systems evaluate the results of the monitoring
from Steps 1 and 2 to determine if the cause of the lead tap sample
above 15 [mu]g/L is due to a source of lead at the sampling location,
to corrosive water quality parameters or is unknown. If the water
system determines the cause of the elevated level of lead is solely due
to a source of lead at the sampling location, or is unknown, the system
is not required to recommend an action to fix the cause of the elevated
lead. If the water system finds that corrosive water quality parameters
are the cause, the system must determine if distribution system
management changes such as flushing to reduce water age or adjustment
of the corrosion control treatment are necessary to restore optimal
water quality parameters in that portion of the system. Adjustment of
corrosion control treatment could include changing the feed rates for
the corrosion inhibitor for a portion of the distribution system or for
the entire

system to ensure that optimal water quality parameters are maintained
for optimal corrosion control. The system must submit the
recommendation to the state within six months after the end of the tap
sampling period in which the site(s) exceeded 15 [mu]g/L. Systems in
the process of optimizing or re-optimizing optimal corrosion control
treatment (Sec.  141.82(a)-(f)) do not need to submit a recommendation
for find and fix as they are currently adjusting corrosion control
treatment.

L. Water System Reporting Requirements

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed changes to water system reporting requirements in
conjunction with corresponding proposed changes to the regulatory
requirements. These changes in reporting requirements were proposed to
inform state decision-making and improve implementation and oversight.
    In addition to the proposed tap sampling protocol revisions, EPA
proposed that a water system would also be required to submit for state
approval its tap sampling protocol that are provided to residents or
individuals who are conducting tap sampling. The sampling protocol
would be required to be written in accordance with new rule
requirements. EPA proposed that the state would review the protocol to
ensure that it does not include prohibited instructions for pre-
stagnation flushing, and cleaning and/or removing the faucet aerator
prior to sample collection and ensures the use of wide-mouth collection
bottles. Under the proposal, water systems would also need to provide
certification to the state that the approved sampling protocol has not
been modified within 10 days of the end of the tap sampling monitoring
period, and to submit an updated version if any modifications are made.
    EPA also proposed to include new reporting requirements in
conjunction with the revisions to the LSLR requirements in the final
rule. By the rule's compliance date, the water system would be required
to submit to the state an inventory of service lines. The water system
would have to submit an updated inventory annually thereafter that
reflects LSLs replaced and lead status unknown service lines that have
been identified in the distribution system.
    EPA also proposed that any water system with LSLs and 90th
percentile tap sampling data that exceeds the lead trigger level would
be required to annually certify to the state that it conducted
notification in accordance with proposed LSL customer notification
provisions. The notification would ensure customers were properly
alerted about the trigger level exceedance, potential risks of lead in
drinking water, and informed about the water system's goal based LSLR
program.
    In addition, under the proposal, a CWS must certify that it has
completed the notification and sampling requirements at a minimum of 20
percent of schools and child care facilities served by the water system
annually. The certification would include the number of schools and
child care facilities served by the water system, the number of schools
and child care facilities sampled in the calendar year, and the number
of schools and child care facilities that have refused tap sampling. In
addition, the proposal required that a CWS must certify that individual
sampling results were shared with the respective school and child care
facility, and with local or state health departments. If a CWS does not
serve any school or licensed child care facilities, the water system
would have to annually certify to the state that it made a good faith
effort to identify schools and child care facilities and confirm that
no schools or child care facilities are served by the water system. The
good faith effort could include reviewing customer records and
requesting lists of schools and child care facilities from the state or
other licensing agency. Certification was to be sent to the state by
July 1 of each year for the previous calendar year's activity.
    EPA also proposed reporting requirements for small CWSs using the
point-of-use compliance flexibility option. These systems would need to
report their sampling results and corrective actions taken if a POU
sample exceeded 10 [mu]g occurred. In addition, they would certify the
maintenance of the POUs if requested by the state.
    Additionally, calcium results were no longer subject to reporting
requirements under the proposed rule, because calcium was eliminated as
a CCT option and thus not a regulated OWQP.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA received many comments on the various reporting requirements.
Many of the commenters expressed concern about the increased burden the
proposed reporting requirements could impose and several offered
suggestions such as an online tool, using existing opportunities such
as sanitary surveys for reporting, or allowing the water system to
self-certify instead of certifying that certain requirements are
complete to the state. Commenters expressed that these burdens range
from administrative to financial, and that small systems are likely to
be impacted most. Some commenters argue against some of the reporting
requirements to certify or re-submit material annually, stating that
systems could track this on their own but provide to the state upon
request. Many commenters were worried there would not be an adequate
tracking tool or data system such as EPA's Safe Drinking Water
Information System (SDWIS) to manage the reporting requirements of the
proposal. Some commenters state that they would need to create tracking
systems of their own and would need additional staff and data
management systems. EPA agrees that new reporting requirements create a
burden for water systems and states and has made changes to streamline
reporting in the final rule as described below. EPA intends to support
the data management needs of primacy agencies for the LCRR through the
SDWIS Modernization development project, and to have a product
available for state use by the compliance date of the LCRR. EPA will
work closely with state program and information technology staff on
LCRR database needs and on overall SDWIS modernization.
    Regarding LSL reporting requirements, some commenters asked that
reporting of updates to the service line inventory cease after all LSLs
have been identified in the inventory as none would be installed in the
future. EPA does not agree since updated inventories also reflect LSLR
which include customer initiated and required LSLR following a trigger
level and action level exceedance. The state needs to have this
information to track compliance of LSLR requirements. Several
commenters stated it is redundant to require water systems to submit a
service line inventory and replacement plans after an action level
exceedance because water systems are already submitting these. However,
other commenters stated that LSLR plans should be submitted to the
state regardless of the 90th percentile results. Based on commenter
input, EPA has modified the requirement in the final rule; water
systems will not be required to submit the inventory and replacement
plans after an action level exceedance since they are submitted at the
rule compliance date and updated inventories are submitted according to
their tap sampling monitoring frequency (i.e., annually or triennially)
thereafter, thereby reducing the frequency of reporting inventory
updates. In addition, there are off-ramps for

submitting inventory updates for those systems that can verify they no
longer have LSLs, galvanized lines requiring replacement, or lead
status unknown service lines in their distribution.
    Some commenters requested that the final rule retain the reporting
deadlines in the current rule. For instance, reporting lead and copper
results within 10 days of the end of the tap sampling monitoring period
instead of before the tap sampling period ends (for systems where the
state calculates the 90th percentile) which was proposed. Many
commenters had concern about the school and child care sampling and
public education reporting requirements. Several commenters asked why
after sampling results are reported, they also must be certified that
they completed this requirement to the state. Several commenters offer
suggestions on how to reduce the burden of these requirements or
streamline them, such as submitting an annual report, or maintaining
the records on hand and submitting upon request from the state. Many
commenters had concerns about the number of attempts and documenting
refusals when a facility simply does not respond. EPA has made changes
to Sec.  141.92(a)(3) regarding schools and child care facility
refusals and nonresponse and the reporting Sec.  141.90(i) so that CWSs
certify once per year that they have met the schools and child care
facility requirements for the previous calendar year. In addition, the
annual certification is due July 1 of each year consistent with the
timing for annual CCR certification.
    Regarding the proposed reporting requirements for the ``find-and-
fix'' provision, several commenters state it is impractical to maintain
lists and tracking of all the ``fixes'' done by the water system and
that this gives rise to privacy concerns for homeowners. Some
commenters suggested a requirement for water systems to include ``find-
and-fix'' activities in an annual or monthly report. Several commenters
asked for guidance such as a template or checklist for the find-and-fix
provisions states review. EPA evaluated public comments and agrees that
clear steps, be included in the find-and-fix requirements and has made
modifications to the final rule accordingly. This should also
streamline find-and-fix reporting.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    Many of the reporting requirements from the proposal have been
retained in the final rule. However, EPA has taken into consideration
all of the comments and has modified several sections to reduce burden,
enhance efficiency of reporting and/or to include new necessary
provisions. Many changes were made for clarification and organizational
purposes in Sec.  141.90, while others were made to reflect changes
made to corresponding sections of the rule proposal.
    The lead service line reporting requirements have been updated to
allow systems to discontinue inventory updates when they no longer have
service lines that need to be replaced or materials verified (i.e., no
remaining lead status unknown). In addition, the inventory requirements
are now linked to the tap sampling monitoring schedules in Sec.
141.86(d) to streamline dates for reporting. Also, systems must report
annually that they completed any customer-initiated LSLR, in addition
to requesting an extension to complete a customer-initiated LSLR.
    The final rule clarifies that all water systems must report to the
state an addition of a new source or long-term treatment change prior
to adding the source or modifying treatment. In addition, this final
rule includes a requirement for water systems to submit a tap site
sample plan prior to the compliance date of the rule with tap sampling
sites that meet the new site selection tiering criteria based on their
LSL inventory to ensure states can verify the tap sampling sites comply
with the requirements in the final rule and can track changes in the
tap sampling pool.
    Regarding reporting for small system compliance flexibility
options, an additional reporting requirement was added for systems who
have opted to remove lead-bearing plumbing from their distribution
system; they must certify within one year that the material has been
eliminated. Under reporting for schools and childcare facilities, EPA
has made several changes, including reporting requirements for
elementary and childcare facilities in the first five years of
monitoring and reporting requirements for school and childcare sampling
that is performed on-request.

IV. Other Revisions to 40 CFR Part 141

A. Consumer Confidence Report

    In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Among
other things, this amendment added a provision requiring that all CWSs
deliver to their customers a water quality report annually called a
Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). CCRs summarize information water
systems collect to comply with regulations. The CCR includes
information on source water, the levels of any detected contaminants,
compliance with drinking water rules (including monitoring
requirements), and some educational language, including a mandatory
health effects statement regarding lead.
1. Proposed Revisions
    As recommended by the NDWAC (see section VII.L.2 of this preamble),
EPA consulted with risk communication experts to propose revised
mandatory health effects language for the CCR. In addition, EPA
proposed to use consistent mandatory lead health effects language in
PE, CCR, and Public Notification materials. To improve clarity, EPA
proposed to require CWSs to include a revised mandatory health effects
statement that would inform consumers that lead is harmful for all age
groups and to include a mandatory statement about LSLs (e.g., their
presence and how to replace them) for water systems with LSLs. The
proposed statement is below.
    Exposure to lead can cause serious health effects in all age
groups. Infants and children who drink water containing lead could have
decreases in IQ and attention span and increases in learning and
behavior problems. Lead exposure among women who are pregnant increases
prenatal risks. Lead exposure among women who later become pregnant has
similar risks if lead stored in the mother's bones is released during
pregnancy. Recent science suggests that adults who drink water
containing lead have increased risks of heart disease, high blood
pressure, kidney or nervous system problems. To increase transparency
and improve public access to information, EPA also proposed to require
CWSs to report the range of lead tap sample results in addition to the
currently required 90th percentile and the number of samples that are
greater than the lead action level for each monitoring period.
Reporting the range of tap sample lead levels would allow consumers to
understand how high tap sample levels were at individual sites.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Several commenters suggested revisions to the informational health
effects statement on lead in drinking water that would be required in
the CCR to make the language more readable and useful to consumers.
Some commenters recommended requiring the CCR to include information on
LSLs and the LSL inventory, including the number of LSLs, the number of
lead status unknown service lines, the total number of service lines in
the water system, and a statement that a service line inventory has
been prepared and is available for

review. They also recommended requiring the CCR to notify consumers
that complete lead tap sampling data are available for review and how
to access the data. EPA agrees this is important information to
consumers and has incorporated these recommendations in the final rule
requirements for the CCR.
    A few commenters expressed concern that the CCR is no longer an
effective method to communicate drinking water contaminant related
issues and suggested use of other platforms such as social media. EPA
supports using diverse methods of communication to reach consumers and
provided recent guidance on electronic delivery of CCRs. In the final
rule, EPA has increased the number and forms of public education
materials. EPA has also worked to improve risk communication by
consulting with risk communication experts, adopting clearer and more
concise health effects language, and keeping the health effects
language consistent across the CCR, 24 hour public notice for a lead
action level exceedance, and all public education materials. In
addition, the Agency has recommended that systems use social media to
provide public education and outreach, for example to convey
information about their LSLR program.
3. Final Revisions
    EPA is finalizing the requirement for reporting tap sampling
results in the CCR as proposed, while clarifying the meaning of ``round
of sampling'' for systems on six-month monitoring given the new
sampling requirements in the LCRR. The final rule requires water
systems to include in the CCR the 90th percentile concentration of the
most recent round(s) of sampling, the number of sampling sites
exceeding the action level, and the range of tap sampling results for
lead and copper. These results should be provided for each sampling
event completed in the reporting period. This means that water systems
on six-month monitoring will be required to include both rounds of lead
and copper results. In response to comments, EPA added a new provision
requiring water systems to include information in the CCR on how to
access the service line inventory. EPA also added a new provision
requiring water systems to include information in the CCR on how to
access the results of all tap sampling. EPA incorporated some of the
commenters' suggested revisions to increase the clarity and accuracy of
both the lead informational statement and mandatory health effects
statement required in the CCR. The mandatory health effects statement
for the final rule reads as follows and is also required in the public
notice of an action level exceedance and in public education materials:
    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.

B. Public Notification

    The current Public Notification Rule (PN) is part of the Safe
Drinking Water Act 1996 Right To Know provisions. The rule is designed
to ensure that consumers will know if there is a problem with their
drinking water. These notices alert consumers if there is risk to
public health. They also notify customers: If the water does not meet
drinking water standards; if the water system fails to test its water;
if the system has been granted a variance (use of less costly
technology); or if the system has been granted an exemption (more time
to comply with a new regulation). In 2000, EPA revised the existing
Public Notification Rule. (40 CFR part 141, subpart Q) The revisions
matched the form, manner, and timing of the notices to the relative
risk to human health. The revised rule makes notification easier and
more effective for both water systems and their customers.
    In 2016, section 2106 of the WIIN Act amended section 1414(c)(1) of
the SDWA to require water systems to provide to persons served by the
system ``[n]otice that the public water system exceeded the lead action
level under section 141.80(c) of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations
(or a prescribed level of lead that the Administrator establishes for
public education or notification in a successor regulation promulgated
pursuant to section 1412).'' The WIIN Act also amended section
1414(c)(2) of the SDWA to require EPA's public notification regulations
to require systems to notify the public no later than 24 hours after a
system learns of an exceedance of the lead action level if it '' ``has
the potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a
result of short-term exposure'' just as section 1414(c)(2) has applied
to violations of drinking water standards that have the potential to
have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term
exposure. These situations are currently categorized as ``Tier 1''
under the current public notification rules (see Table 2 to Sec.
141.201). Tier 1 notices must ``be distributed as soon as practicable,
but not later than 24 hours, after the public water system learns of
the violation or exceedance'' pursuant to section 1414(c)(2)(C)(i) of
the SDWA. The WIIN Act also amended section 1414(c)(2)(iii) to require
that such notifications be provided to the Administrator in addition to
the head of the state agency that has primary enforcement
responsibility under section 1413 of the SDWA, as applicable, as soon
as practicable, but not later than 24 hours after the public water
system learns of the violation or exceedance.'' In a State with
primacy, EPA interprets the notice to the Administrator ``as
applicable'' only when there is an action level exceedance; it would
not apply to other Tier 1 situations where a State has primacy. This
notice allows EPA to identify whether it must provide notice as
required in section 1414(c)(2)(D), which was added to Section
1414(c)(2) as part of the WIIN Act. It provides that if a State with
primary enforcement responsibility or the water system has not issued a
notice for an exceedance of a lead action level that has the potential
to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-
term exposure, the Administrator is required to issue the required
notice. Because EPA does not have any obligation to issue a Tier 1
notice for violations of drinking water standards in states with
primacy, there is no need for EPA to be notified of those Tier 1
situations.
1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed to incorporate these requirements for CWSs and NTNCWSs
with a lead ALE as part of proposed revisions to the Lead and Copper
Rule (LCR). Specifically, the proposed rule incorporated the amendments
to section 1414 of the SDWA in 40 CFR part 141, subpart Q-Public
Notification of Drinking Water Violations (and as necessary into any
provisions cross-referenced therein), and added exceedances of the lead
AL under Sec.  141.80(c) to the list of Tier 1 violations subject to
the new 24-hour notice requirements discussed above. EPA proposed to
categorize a lead AL exceedance as Tier 1 based on the conclusion that
such exceedances ``have the potential to have serious adverse health
effects on human health as a result of short-term exposure.'' Since
exposure to lead can result in serious health effects as a result of
short-term exposure in some circumstances, EPA proposed that any lead
AL exceedance result in Tier 1 public notification. In

addition, EPA proposed to update the mandatory health effects statement
for PN to be consistent with the proposed CCR revisions.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    EPA received many comments expressing concerns about the ability of
water systems to meet the proposed 24-hour distribution requirement for
notification of an AL exceedance. Many commenters requested that water
systems be allowed at least two business days to deliver the public
notice. EPA acknowledges commenters' concerns; however, the Agency
disagrees that systems would not be able to provide the notice within
24 hours. For several years, water systems have been required to
provide Tier 1 notification for certain violations of drinking water
standards within 24 hours of learning of the violation. Systems can
prepare to provide the notice by creating a notification template in
advance and may choose from several options for distribution of a
public notification that make it feasible to provide the notice to all
persons served by the system within 24 hours of learning of the
exceedance. These options are specified in Sec.  141.202(c) of the rule
and include broadcast media such as radio and television, posting the
notice in conspicuous locations throughout the area served by the water
system, hand delivery of the notice to persons served by the water
system, or another delivery method approved by the primacy agency.
    Many commenters questioned the categorization of a lead AL
exceedance as a Tier 1 violation, particularly given it is not a
health-based value. Some suggested that it be categorized as a Tier 2
violation. However, as described above, Section 2106 of the 2016 WIIN
Act amended section 1414(c)(2) of the SDWA to require EPA's public
notification regulations to require systems to notify the public no
later than 24 hours after a system learns of an exceedance of the lead
AL if it ``has the potential to have serious adverse effects on human
health as a result of the customer did not wish to replace the faucet
exposure.'' The scientific evidence demonstrates that exposure to lead
is associated with increased risk of serious adverse health effects.
The strongest evidence is for cognitive effects from prenatal and
childhood exposure. Also of concern are studies showing increases in
risk of cancer and cardiovascular, renal, reproductive, immunological,
and neurological effects in adults (USEPA, 2013; National Toxicology
Program, 2012; USEPA, 2004a). Given there is no safe level of lead, and
there are life stages (e.g., early childhood) where any lead exposure
is especially problematic, lead AL exceedances could have serious
adverse health consequences. Accordingly, to avoid these impacts,
consumers must be notified as soon as possible as required under the
SDWA.
3. Final Revisions
    The final rule adds exceedances of the lead AL of 15 [micro]g/L to
the list of Tier 1 violations subject to the new 24-hour distribution
requirement for notification of an AL exceedance. This is based on the
conclusion that such exceedances have the potential to have serious
adverse health effects on human health as a result of short-term
exposure. Therefore, the final rule requires CWSs and NTNCWSs with a
lead ALE to provide public notice to persons served by the system
within 24 hours of learning of the ALE; that is, within 24 hours of the
system receiving and calculating the 90th percentile value. A copy of
the notice must also be sent to both the primacy agency and the
Administrator in accordance with the requirements of Sec. Sec.
141.4(c)(2)(iii) and 141.31(d). EPA has also updated the mandatory
health effects language required in the public notice of a lead ALE as
well as the CCR and public education materials to enhance clarity and
accuracy. The mandatory health effects language in the final rule reads
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.

C. Definitions

1. Proposed Revisions
    Under the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, EPA proposed new
and revised definitions under Sec.  141.2. Definitions for ``aerator,''
``pre-stagnation flushing,'' ``wide-mouth bottle,'' and ``tap sampling
protocol,'' were added to correspond with proposed rule changes
regarding tap sampling methods. In addition, EPA proposed changes to
population size criteria for small and medium-size water systems to
reflect the 1996 changes to SDWA for small-system flexibility, where
small water systems serve 10,000 or fewer customers.
    Definitions were added in the proposal to ensure readers understood
the criteria for identifying a ``child care facility,'' and a
``school,'' in relation to new sampling requirements for these
facilities. In addition, definitions for ``trigger level,'' ``find-and-
fix,'' ``customer,'' and ``consumer'' were included in the proposal
because ``trigger level'' and ``find-and-fix'' were new requirements
under the proposal, while ``customer'' and ``consumer'' referred to
defined groups impacted by aspects of the proposal such as public
education under Sec.  141.85. Further, in the proposal, terms related
to LSLs, such as ``galvanized service line,'' ``trenching,''
``potholing,'' ``hydrovacing,'' and ``gooseneck, pigtail, or
connector,'' were defined because these are processes or materials
associated with the LSLR requirements of the proposal. EPA also
modified the definition of a ``lead service line'' to better fit the
rule requirements in the proposal. These changes included removing lead
goosenecks, pigtails, and connectors from the definition and specifying
when galvanized lines are considered an LSL for purposes of conducting
LSLR. EPA made these modifications to align with rule requirements
which prioritize the identification, replacement, and tap sampling at
sites with LSLs, as they are the primary source of lead in drinking
water when present. The definition of a lead service line does not
include lead goosenecks, pigtails or connectors to avoid water systems
replacing only lead connectors to meet goal rate and mandatory LSLR
requirements.
    ``Sampling period'' was also added in reference to the months of
the year that sampling is permitted under Sec.  141.86, while
``monitoring period'' was added and defined, to refer to the tap
sampling frequency the water system is required to conduct. To ensure
appropriate implementation of rule requirements, definitions for
``pitcher filter'' and ``point-of-use'' (POU) device were also included
in the proposal. Definitions for a ``method detection limit'' (MDL) and
a ``practical quantitation level'' (PQL) were provided in the proposed
rule to better explain analytical methods in the current and proposed
rules.
2. Public Comment and EPA Response
    Many commenters were concerned about the new definitions of
``consumer'' and ``customer'' and explained that they were misused or
used interchangeably throughout the rule. For instance, in the
proposal, ``customer'' was defined as paying users

of the water system, whereas ``consumer'' included all users, including
those paying the water bill. Commenters noted there was confusion about
their use for LSL notification and public education purposes and
interpreted a requirement to notify ``consumers'' to mean any person
who may have used the water and questioned how a water system can
notify transient populations. Commenters also noted that owners of the
service line were not explicitly included in either definition and that
they are an important group that should be contacted under certain
circumstances. EPA agrees that the proposed definitions may be
confusing and has not included them in Sec.  141.2 of the final rule.
EPA instead modified the regulatory text to specify the group of people
affected in each section of the rule in lieu of using ``consumer'' and
``customer'' (e.g., ``persons served water by a lead service line'')
throughout this final rule.
    Many comments suggested modifications to the proposed definitions
for ``pitcher filter'' such as specifying if EPA intends only the
filter or the pitcher and the filter. Other suggestions included
requiring pitcher filters to meet a standard by a certifying body that
the device reduces lead. EPA agreed with some of the commenters'
concerns and has included in the definition that a pitcher filter must
be certified by an American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
certifying body to reduce lead.
    Many commenters requested clarification on definitions for ``child
care facility'' and ``school''. Several were opposed to including
``licensed'' with respect to child care facilities while others stated
they should be limited to state-licensed child care sites. Some
commenters asked EPA to remove ``or other location'' from the
definition of ``school''. Some commenters asked if higher education
centers like universities and technical schools are included in the
school definition and therefore in school sampling requirements. EPA
modified the proposed school testing requirements to distinguish
testing required at child care facilities and elementary schools versus
those for secondary schools. In response to this, EPA has added new
definitions for ``elementary school'' and ``secondary school'', so that
it is clear which facilities are referred to in the requirements under
Sec.  141.92. These definitions are consistent with the National Center
for Education Statistics Glossary (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/glossary.asp).
    After evaluations of public comments, EPA agrees and has modified
the definitions of ``school'' and ``child care facility'' in the final
rule to reduce any ambiguity as it was not EPA's intent to include
locations such as museums or athletic facilities in the definition of
``school'' while EPA has maintained that licensed facilities are
included in the ``child care facility'' definition. Commenters asked
for more detail on ``wide-mouth bottle'' and EPA has included a
specific diameter to define a wide mouth bottle in the final rule.
    Many commenters disagreed with how EPA defined ``sampling period''
and ``monitoring period'' stating that EPA did not use these terms
consistently throughout the rule. They also note these definitions may
conflict with other NPDWRs. In the final LCRR, EPA has uniquely defined
these in regard to tap sampling for purposes of the LCRR. The LCRR
includes definitions for ``tap sampling monitoring period'' to describe
frequency and ``tap sampling period'' to describe the time period in
which samples must be collected.
    Some of the comments requested clarification on ``unknown'' service
lines, which prompted EPA to create new definitions such as ``lead
status unknown service line'' to clearly delineate a category for
unknown service lines. EPA agrees that clarification is needed and has
included descriptions both in the LSL inventory requirements and as a
new definition in Sec.  141.2. EPA received significant comment on the
definition of an LSL, specifically, whether it is appropriate for a
galvanized service line to be considered an LSL if it ever was or is
currently downstream of an LSL. Many of these commenters expressed that
water systems will not have records to demonstrate if a galvanized
service line ``ever was or is currently downstream of any lead service
line or service line of unknown material,'' some stating that
galvanized service lines should be included regardless of what is
upstream. Other commenters stated that galvanized service lines should
not be included to reduce burden to the water system. As proposed, most
galvanized service lines would be deemed an LSL because of lack of
information about upstream LSLs. In addition, commenters questioned why
the proposal requires replacement of galvanized lines, but they cannot
be used for tap sampling sites. EPA determined that a galvanized
service line that is or ever was downstream from an LSL requires
replacement but is not included in the LSL definition to reduce
confusion and because it has its own definition. In addition, EPA
included sites served by a galvanized requiring replacement in the tap
sample site selection criteria (tier 3) in the final rule. This also
helps clarify that while galvanized service lines that were or are
upstream of an LSL require replacement, they are not appropriate sites
for tap sampling.
    Many commenters were opposed to the exclusion of lead connectors
(goosenecks, pigtails, etc.) from the proposed definition of an LSL,
some stating this was violating SDWA's anti-backsliding provision under
Section 1412(b)(9). Some commenters reference the SDWA definition of an
LSL as well as an LSL as defined by the California and Michigan
regulations. Commenters provided input about what should and should not
be included in the LSL definition and noted where there were
contradictions in the rule between tap sampling, LSL inventory and
replacement requirements regarding an LSL. EPA agreed that clarity was
needed in the definition of an LSL due to its importance related to LSL
inventory, LSLR outreach, and selection of tap sample sites and has
clarified this in section III.C of this preamble. EPA has modified the
definition to simplify it and to specify that it is for the purposes of
the LCRR only, to prioritize tap sampling sites and replacement of full
LSLs. EPA excluded the lead connector portion of the LSL definition and
has clarified the lead connector definition itself. For purposes of
this rule, lead connectors are not a part of the service line and are
required to be replaced only when identified while conducting other
maintenance and replacement activities. EPA has kept these connectors
out of the LSL definition to ensure water systems are conducting LSLR
on service lines and not counting replacement of connectors as a
replaced LSL. A commenter noted that the definition for ``service line
sample'' should be removed since the LCRR no longer allows test out of
LSLs.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    As stated above, EPA has made many changes to the definitions in
the Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, including modifying the
proposed definitions, removing some additional terms and defining other
additional terms. Definitions that were modified in the final rule
include: ``action level,'' ``find-and-fix,'' ``first draw sample,''
``galvanized service line,'' ``gooseneck, pigtail or connector,''
``lead service line,'' ``pitcher filter,'' ``point-of-use device,''
``pre-stagnation flushing,'' ``school,'' ``child care facility,'' ``tap
sampling protocol,'' ``wide-mouth bottle,'' and changing

``trigger level'' to ``lead trigger level.'' EPA revised definitions
for ``monitoring period'' and ``sampling period'' to ``tap sampling
monitoring period'' and ``tap sampling period.''
    In addition, EPA has added the following definitions to improve the
final rule: ``Full lead service line replacement,'' ``lead status
unknown service line,'' ``partial lead service line replacement,''
``elementary school,'' ``secondary school'' and ``system without
corrosion control treatment.'' These were added to ensure consistent
implementation for LCRR requirements for preparing a service line
inventory, LSLR, carrying out school sampling and conducting CCT
studies. In addition, ``hydrovacing,'' ``trenching,'' and ``potholing''
have been removed because of their minimal use in the rule.
    EPA has also no longer included the terms ``consumer'' and
``customer'' in the definitions and has instead been more specific in
each part of the rule about the impacted person or group. EPA removed
the definition for ``service line sample'' because test outs of LSLs
are not allowed in the LCRR. EPA has maintained the current definitions
of ``small water system'' and ``medium-size water system'' in Sec.
141.2 consistent with the proposal.

V. Rule Implementation and Enforcement

A. What are the state recordkeeping and reporting requirements?

1. Proposed Revisions
    EPA proposed requirements that would improve oversight and
enforcement of the LCRR by the state. The proposal was consistent with
a recommendation from GAO which recommended in its report ``Drinking
Water: Additional Data and Statistical Analysis May Enhance EPA's
Oversight of the Lead and Copper Rule,'' that EPA require states to
report available information about lead pipes to EPA's SDWIS (or a
future redesign) database and should require states to report all 90th
percentile sample results for small water systems (GAO-17-424, 2017).
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Commenters noted the burdensome reporting and recordkeeping
requirements of the proposed rule. The many proposed transactions
between water systems and states, and between states and the EPA, would
cause significant costs for primacy agencies. Many commenters noted
that data management is critical for the final LCRR and inquired about
the development of SDWIS Prime.
    EPA has accounted for the costs to states to implement and enforce
the rule requirements in the proposed and final rules. While the costs
to states have increased in the final rule relative to the previous
rule, public health is better protected under the revised LCRR. The
increased costs result from several improvements in the final rule that
will benefit public health, such as additional LSLR and better
implementation of CCT. These benefits are monetized and presented in
the final rule's economic analysis.
    EPA is intending to provide states with LCRR data management
capabilities through the SDWIS Modernization system development
project. EPA worked with states to form the SDWIS Modernization Board
in January 2020. The Board is not an advisory group reaching consensus,
the Board provided input into the third party-led SDWIS Modernization
Alternatives Analysis through the end of June 2020. State members of
the Board are expected to convey option recommendations to EPA by the
end of July 2020, with EPA expected to select an option in August 2020.
    Following option selection, EPA is intending to engage with states
in the development and testing of the SDWIS Modernization data system
through Spring 2022. EPA will then provide assistance to states in
their adoption of the new system. The system will include functions for
ensuring data quality as well as for primacy agencies to be able to
connect the system to locally run applications, such as the Drinking
Water Application running on a state server.
    EPA is intending to provide LCRR Data Entry Instructions (DEIs) by
Fall 2021. The LCRR DEIs will provide detailed guidance to Primacy
Agencies regarding the LCRR monitoring, record keeping, and reporting
requirements.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    EPA is requiring that the state retain all record keeping
requirements from the current LCR. In addition, EPA is requiring the
state to maintain a record of all public water system's LSL inventories
and annual updates. This information is necessary for the state to
calculate goal and mandatory LSLR rates, as well as verify correct tap
sample site selection tiering. EPA is also requiring the state to
maintain a record of the state's decision and approval related to water
system changes to source water or treatment. The state is required to
maintain records regarding the required steps water systems must
complete as required under the final ``find-and-fix'' requirements.
    Finally, the state is also required to maintain records of the
small system flexibility compliance alternative the state approved for
non-transient non-CWS s and small CWSs. This information allows the
state to track water systems' progress with corrosion control
treatment, complete LSLR, use of POU devices, and replacement of leaded
premise plumbing, as appropriate.
    EPA is requiring states to report additional data elements to EPA.
The state is required to report the OCCT status of all water systems,
including the parameters that define the optimization (for example,
orthophosphate residual or target pH and alkalinity values). EPA is
requiring that all 90th percentile value be reported for all size
systems. EPA has found that many states already voluntarily report 90th
percentile lead values for all systems to the SDWIS.
    EPA also requires that states report the current number of LSLs at
every water system. National information about the numbers of LSLs in
public water systems will support EPA oversight of the LCR as well as
EPA and other Federal agencies in targeting programs to reduce lead
exposure, such programs established by the WIIN Act (WIINA, 2016) and
America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA, 2018).

B. What are the special primacy requirements?

1. Proposed Revisions
    The proposed revision added new primacy requirements to match new
requirements in other rule sections, such as state designation of a
goal LSLR rate. The proposed rule also included a provision that would
give EPA the authority to set an alternative goal rate where it
determines an alternative rate is feasible. The new school sampling
requirement for water systems resulted in a proposed state requirement
to define a school or child care facility and determine if any existing
testing program is at least as stringent as the Federal requirements.
States must also verify compliance with find-and-fix requirements.
2. Public Comment and EPA's Response
    Many commenters noted the increased data management demands of the
proposed rule. Some commenters noted that the state flexibilities could
create additional work for the states. For example, some commenters
preferred EPA to set a national goal-based LSLR rates instead of the
state. Some commenters disagreed that EPA should have authority to
supersede a state-

approved LSLR goal rate. See section III.D.2. of this document for
EPA's response to these comments. States had many other comments about
the level of burden on the states required by the rule. EPA
acknowledges the increased burden for states but notes that the
additional requirements are feasible and will improve implementation
and enforcement of the LCRR. EPA received several comments requesting
Agency guidance on implementation of the revised rule. EPA understands
this is a critical component to ensure the rule's effectiveness in
protecting public health. The Agency intends to develop implementation
guidance targeting the areas of the rule that are most likely to
support compliance. In addition to guidance, EPA will also provide
training and other supporting materials that will help states and water
systems implement the revised rule, reduce state transaction costs, and
promote greater national consistency.
3. Final Rule Requirements
    For the final rule EPA clarified that because water systems that
serve 10,000 or fewer people do not need to recommend a goal LSLR rate
to the state, states do not need to approve a goal LSLR rate for these
systems. Water systems below this threshold will follow the small
system flexibility and will not engage in a goal-based LSLR program
after exceeding the lead trigger level. In response to comments, the
final rule does not include provisions for the Regional Administrator
to establish an LSLR goal rate that would supersede a state decision.
EPA also included a special primacy requirement that states must
establish a higher mandatory LSLR rate where feasible for all water
systems.

VI. Economic Analysis

    This section summarizes the final rule Economic Analysis (EA)
supporting document (USEPA, 2020a) for the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)
revisions, which is prepared in compliance with section
1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of SDWA and under Executive Order 12866. Section
1412(b)(3)(C)(ii) of SDWA states that when proposing a national primary
drinking water regulation (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 required under section
1412(b)(3)(C)(i). EPA is also using the health risk reduction cost
analysis (HRRCA) in the development of this final rule for purposes of
Section 1412(b)(4), (5), and (7) of the SDWA (i.e., to determine the
feasibility of the treatment techniques). Clause (i) lists the
following analytical elements: (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.
    Costs discussed in this section are presented as annualized present
values in 2016 dollars, which is consistent with the timeframe for
EPA's water system characteristic data used in the analysis. EPA
estimated the year or years in which all costs occur over a 35-year
time period. Thirty-five years was selected to capture costs associated
with rule implementation as well as water systems installing and
operating corrosion control treatment and implementing LSLR programs.
EPA then determined the present value of these costs using discount
rates of 3 and 7 percent. Benefits, in terms of health risk reduction
from the LCR revisions, 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 exposure accruing to children from 0 to
7 years of age from the installation and re-optimization of corrosion
control treatment (CCT), LSLRs, and the implementation of point-of-use
(POU) filter devices and by quantifying and monetizing the resulting
change in intelligence quotient (IQ) in children.

A. Public Comments on the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule and
EPA Response

    EPA published an economic analysis for the proposed rule in
accordance with SDWA section 1412(b)(3)(C) (USEPA, 2019f and 2019g).
The proposed rule EA and the appendices to the proposed rule EA can be
found in the rule docket, under the docket ID numbers EPA-HQ-OW-2017-
0300-0003 and EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-0002 respectively). EPA solicited
comment on all aspects of the economic analysis for the proposed LCRR.
In particular, the Agency requested comment on the five drivers of
costs identified in its economic analysis: (1) The existing number of
LSLs in PWSs; (2) the number of PWS above the AL or TL under the
previous rule and proposed rule monitoring requirements; (3) the cost
of installing and optimizing corrosion control treatment; (4) the
effectiveness of CCT in mitigating lead concentrations; and (5) the
cost of LSLR. EPA received a number of comments and data submissions
associated with these five topics that the Agency has considered to
reevaluate and refine the cost estimates. As a result of the new
information submitted by commenters and additional data obtained by EPA
in response to comments, the Agency has improved the estimates of costs
and benefits for the final rule.
    EPA received a number of comments regarding the estimates of the
existing number of LSLs in PWSs. Commenters provided state level
summary data on the specific systems with LSLs from Indiana, Wisconsin,
and Nevada. EPA has evaluated these comments and is using this data in
combination with new data collected from states that have LSL inventory
requirements (e.g., Michigan, Maryland, Ohio), to update the dataset of
systems with LSLs. With this updated data, EPA has significantly
expanded, from proposal, the number of systems with known LSL status to
determine the baseline proportion of systems below or equal to the TL,
above the TL and below or equal to the AL, and above the AL for both
the low and high cost scenarios evaluated in the economic analysis. The
impact of the expanded dataset of systems with known LSL status was
found to have a small impact on the low and high scenario baseline
proportion of systems that exceeded the TL or AL between the proposed
and final rule analyses.
    EPA also received comments on the estimates of the number of water
systems that would exceed the TL and AL in the economic analysis for
the proposal. EPA received information from the states of Wisconsin,
Indiana, Ohio, Connecticut, North Dakota and Nevada about the expected
number of water systems that would exceed the TL and AL in those states
given a first liter sampling protocol. EPA revised the estimates of
systems without LSLs that would exceed the TL and AL based upon first
liter sample results and used data provided by these states to assess

the representativeness of the revised estimates for the final economic
analysis. After considering the comments on the alternative fifth liter
sampling technique for systems with LSLs described in section III.G of
this document, EPA prepared revised estimates of the number of systems
with LSLs that would exceed the AL and TL as a result of the fifth
liter sample requirements in the final rule. EPA used the revised data
set of systems with known LSLs to estimate the number of systems that
will be required to collect fifth liter samples. In addition, EPA
obtained more detailed data from the State of Michigan. The Michigan
data represents 2019 lead tap sample compliance data that includes both
first and fifth liter lead tap samples from homes with LSLs. EPA
estimated the number of systems that would exceed the TL and the AL
using the ratio between the first liter and fifth liter 90th percentile
values from 133 Michigan systems. This new data from Michigan, along
with the expansion of the number of systems with known LSL status,
resulted in a larger proportion of systems with ALEs under the low cost
scenario and a smaller proportion of systems with ALEs in the high cost
scenario in the final rule analysis than was estimated in the proposed
rule. This would tend to increase the estimated cost of the final rule
low cost scenario compared to the proposal analysis and lower the cost
for the final rule high cost scenario compared to the proposal. See
Chapter 4, section 4.3.5 of the final rule EA for additional detail
(USEPA, 2020a).
    EPA received comments on the proposed rule's cost estimates for the
installation and operation and maintenance of CCT. The Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection provided cost estimates representing four
of the state's water systems. Based on the reported information EPA was
able to compare the capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs
of one of the small groundwater systems that had installed a zinc
orthophosphate feed system with the EPA Work Breakdown Structure Zinc
Orthophosphate Model and the cost curves used in the LCR analysis.
Capital cost of the Nevada system fell close to the mid-point of the
range between the low and high estimated cost curves used in the
proposed regulatory analysis, and the system's O&M costs fell well
below the costs estimated by the EPA cost curves. After considering the
comments, the Agency has determined that cost estimates for installing
and operating CCT in the proposal are accurate for purposes of a
national cost estimate and is retaining the methodology for the final
rule.
    In response to EPA's request for comment about the effectiveness of
CCT, the Agency received general comments that CCT is very effective
with caveats such as: The water in the distribution system must be used
on a regular basis, and sampling should be required to check on proper
operation of CCT. The Agency agrees with commenters that CCT can be
effective in reducing drinking water lead levels if carefully operated
and monitored. The Agency did not receive any comments on how to
improve the estimates of the effectiveness of CCT from the proposed
economic analysis and is therefore maintaining the same assumptions
used in the proposed rule analysis.
    EPA received comments on the cost of LSLR, primarily dealing with
the need for more current data. EPA agrees with the commenters that new
information has become available since the time of proposal that would
provide better estimates of LSLR unit costs for the final rule
analysis. In the analysis of the proposed rule EPA had developed a
dataset of 24 utility reported estimates of LSLR costs. EPA evaluated
this dataset along the other replacement cost survey information and
selected the American Water Works Association (AWWA) 2011 survey
(Cornwell et al., 2016) as the primary source of data for LSLR unit
cost estimates for the proposed rule. Since proposal, EPA has
identified cost data in news reports, press releases, and utility
websites that has allowed the Agency to expand the utility data
collected during the proposed rule analysis. The Agency's search found
additional cost estimates from 63 utilities. EPA then selected only the
subset of data values that represent reported actual replacement costs
from pilot studies and/or recent or on-going LSLR projects. This
resultant dataset provides costs estimates across full, customer-side,
and system-side replacements from 38 systems, which represent costs and
practices from 2016 to 2020 (only two cost values from the proposal
dataset remain in the revised dataset). The cost information in the
updated dataset are variable in the reported replacement costs covered
by the various programs, but a number of the data sources specifically
indicate they include surface restoration cost. Therefore, the cost
analysis for the final rule includes surface restoration. The estimated
mean costs for utility-side, customer-side, and full LSLR have
increased by 122, 26, and 13 percent, respectively, using the newly
developed data as compared with the AWWA 2011 values used for proposal.
For the final rule, EPA used the 25th and 75th percentile values from
the new dataset in the low and high cost scenarios, respectively. All
utility-side, customer-side, and full LSLR unit costs under both the
low and high cost scenarios are larger than those used in the proposed
rule analysis except for full replacement in the high cost scenario.
    In addition to the more specific comments received on the cost of
LSLR, public commenters raised concerns about the proposed rule
requirement that systems would have to replace, within 45 days, the
utility-owned portion of an LSL if they become aware that a customer
has replaced their portion of the line. Commenters indicated concern
that the number of ``customer initiated'' LSLR might at times become
too numerous for systems to complete the replacement within the 45 days
allowed. In response to these comments, EPA conducted a search for new
data on the number of customer initiated LSLR occurring at water
systems. EPA found data from DC Water (2016) that could be used to
determine a rate of customer initiated replacements. This new data
allowed the Agency to provide quantified costs for customer initiated
LSLR in the final rule analysis which were not available at the time of
proposal. See Chapter 5, section 5.3.4 of the final rule EA for
additional detail (USEPA, 2020a). The inclusion of these new quantified
cost categories increases final rule estimated total cost compared to
the proposed rule's total cost.
    EPA asked for comment on the assumptions regarding labor required
to comply with the proposed rule. The Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators (ASDWA) provided EPA with a version of their Costs
of States Transactions Study (CoSTS) model which estimated the first
five years of total and incremental burden to states for implementing
the proposed LCRR (a number of individual States and some PWSs also
indicated in comments that EPA review the ASDWA CoSTS model). Burden
totals from this model were significantly higher for some state
oversight activities than those estimated by EPA for the proposed LCRR.
EPA carefully evaluated the information and assumptions in the CoSTS
model and used them to develop revised state burden estimates for the
cost analysis of the final rule. EPA revised cost estimates for a
number of state activities including: Administrative activities,
technical assistance, review of LSLR plans and LSL inventories,
approval of systems' LSLR goals, review and approval of tap sampling
site plans,

review of school and child care testing programs, review of annual
reports on school and child care testing programs, and review and
approval of small system flexibility recommendations. EPA also added a
new one-time cost element for both states and PWSs to initially confer
on the system's 90th percentile status and new requirements under the
LCRR based on the system's first two 6-month monitoring periods under
the revised tap sampling requirements of the LCRR. These increases in
burden to states will result in higher estimated total costs for the
final rule when compared to the burden estimates used in the analysis
of the proposed rule.
    EPA solicited peer reviewed information on the evidence relevant to
quantifying the incremental contribution of blood lead concentrations
(especially at blood lead level (BLL) less than 5 [mu]g/dL) to
cardiovascular disease (and associated mortality) relative to other
predictors such as diet, exercise, and genetics that may be useful in a
future benefits analysis. EPA received a number of comments that cited
studies which EPA had identified in the proposed rule analysis, as well
as one additional study by Chowdhury et al. (2018). Chowdhury et al. is
a systematic review on cardiovascular morbidity endpoints that
concludes that lead is associated with an increased risk of
cardiovascular disease. EPA has added this reference to its qualitative
discussions on the health impacts of lead in Appendix J of the final
rule EA.
    Although the EPA did not quantify or monetize changes in adult
health benefits for the proposed LCRR, the Agency estimated the
potential changes in adult drinking water exposures and thus blood lead
levels to illustrate the extent of lead reduction to the adult
population as a result of the proposed LCRR. Commenters indicated that
the Agency should include quantification and monetization of the adult
cardiovascular disease (CVD) benefits associated with reductions in
water lead concentrations in the health risk reduction and cost
analysis (HRRCA referred to in this notice as the final rule economic
analysis or final rule EA) for the LCRR. Some of the commenters have
indicated that EPA has a legal obligation to include this benefit in
the HRRCA under section 1412(b)(3) of SDWA. EPA does not agree with
these commenters that a quantified assessment of CVD benefits is
necessary in this HRRCA. EPA conducts a HRRCA when proposing any NPDWR,
as required in section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i) and (ii) of the SDWA. SDWA
Section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(I) requires the inclusion of quantifiable and
nonquantifiable health risk reduction benefits for which there is a
factual basis in the rulemaking record to conclude such benefits are
likely to occur as a result of the rule. SDWA section
1412(b)(3)(C)(iii) provides that ``[t]he Administrator may identify
valid approaches for the measurement and valuation of benefits'' for
the HRRCA. EPA exercised its discretion to identify the validity of the
approaches used to measure and value CVD benefits and determined not to
quantify CVD benefits for this rulemaking because the methodology which
links changes in adult blood lead levels to CVD health endpoints,
including mortality, has not yet undergone the necessary panel peer
review. There remains uncertainty about the best quantitative
relationship to describe the impacts of changes in current adult blood
lead levels on the risk of CVD mortality. The studies currently
available to the Agency which quantitatively describe the risk
relationship attempt to control for a variety of potential confounders
that may affect CVD risk as well as exposure to lead. EPA needs
additional scientific guidance on which studies sufficiently control
for potential confounding factors that might introduce bias into the
estimated lead CVD risk relationship. The Agency will also seek input
from an expert peer review panel on the modeling of the lead cessation
lag (i.e., the time between the lead exposure reduction and the
reduction in CVD risk). For additional information on the uncertainties
associated with the assessment of the CVD mortality health endpoint
which need to be clarified through the panel peer review process see
Appendix J of the final rule EA. However, EPA has considered the
substantial unquantified benefits to the rule, including those
associated with reductions in adverse cardiovascular effects that are
described in the HRRCA.
    Some commenters asserted that if the Agency monetized the benefits
of CVD, the Agency would have proposed more stringent requirements
because greater quantified benefits would justify more burdensome
regulation. EPA disagrees. The Agency considered information from the
HRRCA at proposal to determine, as required by SDWA section
1412(b)(4)(C) ``whether the benefits . . . justify, or do not justify,
the costs.'' The Agency found that the quantified and non-quantified
benefits justified the cost of the proposed rule requirements. EPA
considered costs and benefits in its rulemaking process, as required by
SDWA. The Agency established the treatment technique requirements in
the rule to ``prevent known or anticipated adverse effects on the
health of persons to the extent feasible'' consistent with section
1412(b)(7)(A) of the SDWA, while also ensuring that ``[a]ny revision of
a national primary drinking water regulation shall . . . maintain, or
provide for greater, protection of the health of persons'' as required
in section 1412(b)(9) of the SDWA. EPA is not employing the
discretionary provision of SDWA section 1412(b)(6) that allows the
Agency to promulgate an NPDWR that ``maximizes health risk reduction
benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits.'' Therefore, the
Agency's decision to not monetize CVD benefits did not affect the
stringency of the final rule. EPA conducted an analysis of quantifiable
and non-quantifiable benefits that meets the statutory requirements and
EPA considered both quantified and non-quantified benefits in the
rulemaking.
    EPA received a number of comments that encouraged the Agency to
obtain more data to better estimate the costs and benefits of the
proposed rule. EPA engaged in additional data collection in response to
comments improving upon the analysis conducted for the proposed rule.
The Agency collected information post proposal from state and Federal
websites, new reports, independent and drinking water system developed
reports, and vendor information resulting in updates to: The number of
systems with known LSL status; the unit cost of LSLR; the rate of
customer initiated LSLR; the cost of scavenged pipe-loop and coupon CCT
studies; the number of schools and child cares; and the current amount
of state required school and child care testing.
    EPA reexamined the profile data set that was used by the Agency to
estimate the reductions of lead levels as a result of CCT and LSLR. EPA
reviewed the CCT designations made in the profile dataset and changed
the designations based on new information. Re-running the model that
simulates the water lead concentrations for various combinations of CCT
and LSL presence for the final rule analysis resulted in increased lead
concentrations for the no-LSL present scenarios and lower lead
concentrations for the cases where full and partial LSLs are present
and there is no or partial CCT present as compared to the estimated
values used in the proposed rule analysis (see Exhibit 6-15 for the
complete list of estimated concentrations used in the final rule
analysis). The new estimates for lead concentration result in smaller
changes in exposure as compared with the proposed rule. So, relative to
the

proposed rule a unit improvement in CCT or LSLR will result in smaller
changes in lead concentration reductions, BLL reductions, and monetized
IQ benefits.
    Exhibit 6-1 summarizes the data improvements made in response to
comments received on the proposed rule analysis that have an impact of
the estimated costs and benefits for the final rule. These impacts are
separate from and irrespective of changes to the regulatory
requirements. The exhibit indicates the impact the data change had on
estimated costs.

 Exhibit 6-1--Data Improvements Made in Response to Comments Received on
                       the Proposed LCRR Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Impact on cost/benefit estimate
                  Data                            from proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expanded dataset of systems with known    Small impact on
 LSL status.                              estimated cost for previous
                                          rule (baseline).
2019 State of Michigan lead compliance    Increase low cost
 data used in conjunction with expanded   scenario estimated cost.
 dataset of systems with known LSL        Decrease high cost
 status.                                  scenario estimated cost.
Lead Service Line Replacement unit        Increase estimated
 costs.                                   costs.
Estimate for customer initiated LSLR...   Increase estimated
                                          cost (only qualitatively
                                          considered in the proposal).
Updated state burden estimates based on   Increase estimated
 ASDWA CoSTS model.                       costs.
Revised tap water lead concentration      Decrease estimated
 values.                                  benefit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The entities potentially affected by the LCR revisions are public
water systems (PWSs) that are classified as either CWSs or NTNCWSs.
These water systems can be publicly or privately owned. In the economic
analysis modeling performed in support of this rulemaking, EPA began
with the 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWSs in the Safe Drinking Water
Information System Fed Data Warehouse (SDWIS/Fed) as its foundational
data set.
    EPA used a variety of data sources to develop the drinking water
industry characterization for the regulatory analysis. Exhibit 6-2
lists the major data sources, describes the data used from each source,
and explains how it was used in the final rule EA. Additional detailed
descriptions of these data sources and how they were used in the
characterization of baseline industry conditions can be found in
Chapter 4 of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a).

  Exhibit 6-2--Major Data Sources Used To Develop the Baseline Industry
                            Characterization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Baseline data derived from the
              Data source                             source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDWIS/Fed third quarter 2016 ``frozen''   Public water system
 dataset \1\.                             inventory, including
                                          population served, number of
                                          service connections, source
                                          water type, and water system
                                          type. Also used to identify
                                          NTNCWSs that are schools and
                                          child care facilities.
                                          Status of CCT,
                                          including identification of
                                          water systems with CCT and the
                                          proportion of water systems
                                          serving <= 50,000 people that
                                          installed CCT in response to
                                          the previous LCR.
                                          Analysis of lead 90th
                                          percentile concentrations to
                                          identify water systems at or
                                          below the TL of 10 [micro]g/L,
                                          above the TL, and above the AL
                                          of 15 [micro]g/L at the start
                                          of rule implementation by LSL
                                          status, i.e., presence or
                                          absence of LSLs for the
                                          previous rule and LCRR. Used
                                          in concert with data from
                                          Michigan described below for
                                          the LCRR.2 3
                                          The proportion of
                                          water systems that are on
                                          various reduced monitoring
                                          schedules for lead and copper
                                          tap and WQP monitoring.
                                          The frequency of
                                          source and treatment changes
                                          and those source changes that
                                          can result in additional
                                          source water monitoring.
                                          Length of time that
                                          water systems replace LSLs if
                                          required under the previous
                                          LCR.
2006 CWSS (USEPA, 2009)................   Number of distribution
                                          system entry points per
                                          system.
                                          PWS labor rates.
Geometries and Characteristics of         Design and average
 Public Water Systems (USEPA, 2000a).     daily flow per water system.
1988 AWWA Lead Information Survey......   LSL inventory,
                                          including the number of water
                                          systems with LSLs, and the
                                          average number of LSLs per
                                          water system, as reported in
                                          the 1991 LCR RIA (Weston and
                                          EES, 1990).
2011 and 2013 AWWA Surveys of Lead        LSL inventory,
 Service Line Occurrence (as summarized   including the number of water
 in Cornwell et al., 2016).               systems with LSLs and the
                                          average number of LSLs per
                                          water system.
Six-Year Review 3 of Drinking Water       Baseline distribution
 Standards (2006-2011).                   of pH for various CCT
                                          conditions.
                                          Baseline
                                          orthophosphate dose for CCT.

2019 State of Michigan Lead and Copper    Analysis of the ratio
 Compliance Monitoring Data (Michigan     of fifth to first liter lead
 EGLE, 2019).                             tap samples to estimate the
                                          increase in lead 90th
                                          percentile levels based on the
                                          use of fifth liter samples.
                                          Ratios are applied to SDWIS/
                                          Fed lead 90th percentile data
                                          to identify systems at or
                                          below the TL of 10 [micro]g/L,
                                          above the TL, and above the AL
                                          of 15 [micro]g/L under the
                                          final LCRR by LSL status.
                                          Percent of individual
                                          samples exceeding 15 [micro]g/
                                          L for the final LCRR.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronyms: AL = action level; AWWA = American Water Works Association;
  CCT = corrosion control treatment; CWSS = Community Water System
  Survey; LCR = Lead and Copper Rule; LCRR = Lead and Copper Rule
  revisions; LSL = lead service line; Michigan EGLE = Michigan
  Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy; NTNCWS = non-
  transient non-community water system; public water system; RIA =
  regulatory impact assessment; SDWIS/Fed: Safe Drinking Water
  Information System/Federal Version; TL = trigger level; WQP = water
  quality parameter; USEPA = United States Environmental Protection
  Agency.
Note:
\1\ Contains information reported through June 30, 2016.
\2\ As detailed in Chapter 3 of the Economic Analysis for the Lead and
  Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a), a system's lead 90th percentile
  level is a key factor in determining a system's requirements under the
  previous rule and final LCRR.
\3\ In the analysis of lead 90th percentile concentrations at PWSs EPA
  used SDWIS/Fed data for systems with known LSL status. This sub-set of
  systems with known LSL status was identified using data from 12 states
  (including data received in public comments from Indiana, Wisconsin,
  and Nevada), Region 9 tribal systems, and web searches identifying
  individual systems including the systems serving greater than
  1,000,000 persons. See Chapter 4, section 4.3.5 of the Economic
  Analysis for the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (USEPA, 2020a) for
  additional detail.

C. Overview of the Cost-Benefit Model

    Under the regulatory provisions of the final rule, PWSs will face
different compliance scenarios depending on the size and type of water
system, the presence of LSLs, and existing corrosion controls. In
addition, PWSs will also face different unit costs based on water
system size, type, and number of entry points (e.g., labor rates and
CCT capital, and O&M unit costs). PWSs have a great deal of inherent
variability across the water system characteristics that dictate both
compliance activities and cost.
    Because of this variability, to accurately estimate the national
level compliance costs (and benefits) of the final LCR revisions, as
well as describe how compliance costs are expected to vary across types
of PWSs, the cost-benefit model creates a sample of representative
``model PWSs'' by combining the PWS-specific data available in SDWIS/
Fed with data on baseline and compliance characteristics available at
the PWS category level. In some cases, the categorical data are simple
point estimates. In this case, every model PWS in a category is
assigned the same value. In other cases, where more robust data
representing system variability are available the category-level data
includes a distribution of potential values. In the case of
distributional information, the model assigns each model PWS a value
sampled from the distribution, in order to characterize the variability
in this input across PWSs. The model follows each model PWS in the
sample through each year of analysis--determining how the PWS will
comply with each requirement of the final rule, estimating the yearly
compliance cost, and tracking the impact of the compliance actions on
drinking water lead concentrations. It also tracks how other events,
such as changing a water source or treatment affect the water system's
compliance requirements for the next year.
    The model's detailed output provides results for 36 PWS categories,
or strata. Each PWS reporting category is defined by the water system
type (CWS and NTNCWS), primary source water (ground and surface), and
size category (there are nine). The following sub-sections present
summarized national cost and benefit totals by regulatory categories.
The detailed output across the 36 PWS categories can be found in
Appendix C of the final rule EA (USEPA, 2020a).
    In constructing the initial model PWS sample for the cost-benefit
analysis, EPA began with the 50,067 CWSs and 17,589 NTNCWS in SDWIS/
Fed. Also, from SDWIS/Fed, EPA knows each water system's type (CWS or
NTNCWS); primary water source (surface water or groundwater);
population served; CCT status (yes/no); ownership (public or private);
and number of connections.
    The available LCR data limited EPA's ability to quantify
uncertainty in the cost-benefit model. During the development of the
model, it became clear that not only were many of the inputs uncertain,
but for many LCR specific inputs, EPA only has limited midpoint, high,
and low estimates available and does not have information on the
relative likelihood of the available estimates. This includes major
drivers of the cost of compliance including: The baseline number of
systems with LSLs and the percent of connections in those system that
are LSLs; the number of PWSs that will exceed the AL and/or TL under
the revised tap sampling requirements; the cost of LSL replacement; the
cost of CCT; and the effectiveness of CCT in PWSs with LSLs. Therefore,
EPA estimated final LCRR compliance costs under low and high bracketing
scenarios. These low and high cost scenarios are defined by the
assignment of low and high values for the set of uncertain cost drivers
listed above. Detailed descriptions of these five uncertain variables
and the derivation of their values under the low and high cost
scenarios can be found in Chapter 5, Section <IP_ADDRESS> of the final rule
EA (USEPA, 2020a). With the exception of the five uncertain variables
which define the difference between the low and high cost scenarios the
remaining baseline water system and compliance characteristics are
assigned to model PWSs, as described above, and remain constant across
the scenarios. This allows EPA to define the uncertainty characterized
in the cost range provided by the low and high scenarios and maintains
consistency between the estimation of costs for the previous and final
rules (e.g., percentage of lead tap water samples that will be
invalidated). Chapters 4 and 5 of the final rule EA describe in greater
detail the baseline and major cost driving data elements, their
derivation, and the inherent sources of uncertainty in the developed